The Rules

Rule #1 - Yes, THAT Rule #1.

Rule #2 - I want to get a layout up and running quickly, and by running I mean trains orbiting the room.  Some might get enjoyment from "completing" a section.  Me? I get enjoyment from having trains running.

• Corollary 2A - Single deck only.
• Corollary 2B - Phased building is expected but modular construction is not seen as an option.  (Main line should be laid first with all needed turnouts off of it.  Then towns & yards can be added later.)

Rule #3 - I'm cheap.  More correctly, my funds are limited and I want to spend those funds on what is needed to get the trains running sooner.

• Corollary 3A - Powered switches are a waste of money (and time) when finger throw Peco switches work just as well.
• Corollary 3B - There is no need for train or car detection.
• Corollary 3C - But A&B not withstanding, there is no reason not to make advanced provision during construction for adding powered turnouts and track detection so it doesn't cost more in money and time with available resources change.  (Drill actuator holes, make sure there is plenty of wire that is easily disconnected to add track sensors, etc.)
• Corollary 3D - Wide benchwork requires more funds to finish, thus shelves should be no wider than necessary, about 14" or so.  There is no need to fill every sqare inch of space with track.  Less is more.  
• Corollary 3E - Avoid peninsulas as they take more lumber for legs, facia, and valance.

Rule #4 - I'm an N scaler, and that isn't going to change for the foreseeable future.  

Rule #5 - I am not a prototype modeler.  I am not a contest modeler.  I don't care about rivet counting.  I just want my layout to look "right" in my eyes.  Molded on grab irons are fine.  A slightly out of time car is OK.  Perhaps as the layout progresses I will add details.  But initially things will need to be "good enough".

• Corollary 5A - Atlas switch machines look like crap, but if they can't be seen, why not use them when you absolutely need a remote controlled turnout?
• Corollary 5B - I do not need to model a prototype railroad, nor do I want to spend the time searching for and research of a prototype.  Research is an enemy of Rule #2.
• Corollary 5C - The general aspects of prototype railroading should be followed to the extent that they don't interfere with Rules #2 & #3.  If I don't know how something was done back in the day, I will do basic research to make it plausible.  Note that "basic research" is the use of Google, Facebook, and MRH Forums.

Rule #6 - Frank Ellison is a God.  The Way Freight is King.  Railroads have been in decline since 1929.  So follow Frank and model the industry when it was at its height!

• Corollary 6A - No matter how cool, SD40-2's are banned.
• Corollary 6B - Switching is a must.
• Corollary 6C - Point to point operation is a must.
• Corollary 6D - The layout must connect to the rest of the world (even if it isn't in the world).
• Corollary 6E - The layout must support operating sessions.

Rule #7 - Design must be adequate to support NMRA AP certificates for Scenery, Civil Engineer, and Electrical Engineer.  (Chief Dispatcher is not necessary as I'm already close from operating on a friend's layout.)

Rule #8 - The Enabler must be happy at all times.

• Corollary 8A - My railroad room is what it is.  The walls are fixed and may not be altered or pierced.  Doesn't mater how easy you say it is to modify the walls and later restore them, The Enabler doesn't care what you say,  and that isn't a hill I'm willing to die on.  The room is about 10'x12'. I can use the closet on the one end for extra space, and I can spill a little bit out of the room on the other.  But not too much as that is my office area and I don't want to be cramped between my desk and my layout.  I do need to maintain access to the windows.  A removeable section across the entry way is acceptable.

The Layout Room

Are you looking for a Design?

Hi Richard,

Are you looking for a design to fit the room?  I would suggest  you could look at making an expanded version of the Heart of Georgia railway as an "around the room" but make it freestanding on frames rather than attached to the walls.  In N scale, you could really build something that does grow on the boards

My own layout is a 4 x 8 (did have an extension but we moved) and I can identify with all the parameters you have set me being an operations guy (like you) rather than a builder strictly speaking although I dabble in everything, my main aim is to make my railway RUN like a railway and duplicate a lot of the operations I have seen over the years to act out the drama of railroading.

Your parameters are very good but might I suggest that you build your railroad to "grow" so that you get for example a mainline running, then a passing siding, then a yard, then a second passing siding, then a second yard and the industrial spurs etc. 

My site is https://sites.google.com/view/stagnesrailway and feel free to contact whan, as and if you feel the need... 

Cheers from Australia

Trevor

These rules can be simplified to,....

Do whatever works for you. That’s the beauty of the hobby.
Do what you want.

When you want.

How you want. 

Build to Grow and the Rules

Trevor, I am fairly close on the final design.  It will be built to grow in the sense the around the room oval will be built first with necessary switches in place to build the rest as time and funds allow.  I need the feedback of the running trains.  I've already proven that a switching layout by itself isn't enough to hold my attention.  And I'm in complete agreement about modeling the drama.

Rich, while I generally agree with your sense, there are a couple of issues for me.  First, Rule #8 trumps Rule #1.  Always.  Second, while yes I CAN do what I want, I don't always find that fulfilling.  I love the looks of SD40-2's but to me they ruin the image I WANT to achieve of a time when railroading was king.  I love the idea of powered turnouts.  But when the cost of a switch motor is a significant increase over the cost of the turnout itself, it slows down my implementation and thus my total enjoyment.  So I wanted to be clear about what was important to me during my design.  Almost everything on that list is because I did otherwise in the past and was disappointed.  That's my reasoning and I'm sticking to it!

Rule #1

probably is responsible for more bad layouts than any other rule.. To me it says I'm not willing to make the effort to improve my hobby knowledge or skills.  ....DaveB

Difference between cheap and cost conscious.

I also say I am cheap, but I never skimp on materials or quality. I do not buy things because they a cheap or a good deal, it means I figure out what I want, save and buy only what I need. I have seen people go cheap with supports, benchwork, subroadbed, track, turnouts, etc. the results are always layout that do not run and are often thrown k the trash. So instead of speeding good money once I see people going cheap and costing themselves two, three, four times the cost of doing it right the first time. 

Agreed...

You do what you want within the guidelines you set for yourself.

BTW...I found a good compromise between remote turnout control (like Tortoise) and manual control is the Bluepoint. All but one of my turnouts are less than 1 foot from the facia, these work very well. Minimal wiring for reversing frog polarity. It can be done on the work bench (other than soldering to rails). Control rod thru the facia, points controlled without reaching into the scene. I do have 6 tortoise machines in a staging yard in an adjacent room.

Cheap Rules?

Dave B, you are correct, all too often Rule #1 is a cop out. "I like shays, I like autoracks, therefore that will happen on my layout"...  My use will, I truly hope, be more used to end pointless debates about prototype trivia:  I don't care about the number of rivets on a PRR GS1 class gondola before the safety appliance act, and I can't see them in N scale in any case.   I do encourage you to keep me honest.  Challenge me to justify my decisions.  But I do reserve the right to hide a TARDIS, a dinosaur, a wearwolf with a Chinese menu in his hand, and a headless Thompson gunner on the layout.    Because, you know, Rule #1!

Greg, point taken.  My cheapness is simple limited funds, not a desire to penny pinch.  My current "layout" uses 1/4" plywood for the top, and while it works, I really do think that 3/8" or 1/2" might be better.  And no, 3/4" is absolute overkill and a waste of precious resources.  Probably go with 1/2" and make my subroadbed, my risers, joists and my L girders all out of that.  Not sure yet though...

Rich, Bluepoint?  Really?  I had the impression that was just as expensive as a Tortoise.  I'll go look at them again.  That would certainly make the staging yard easier to line.  Though those may be the first ones I change from finger throw to servos.  (Which is why I WILL drill the necessary linkage holes before I put down the turnout.)  I've found servos with Arduinos to be very cost effective with a lot of additional capabilities.  But thanks, I'll check the Bluepoints out in more detail.

What has worked for me

None of the above. 
 

1. Model after a prototype. He do that consciously or not. Same with era. 
2. My journey is the destination. Getting trains running is important but getting there is part of the fun for me. 
3. Buy what fits the end goal. It might cost $20 or $1,000 but only what is needed. Scale and gage has little to do with it. 
4. Lance Mindheim, Jim Six, and other modelers have found that satisfaction is a slice of the railroad and not the whole enchilada. Frank Ellison got me excited about operations but he had money and a whole crew. 
4a. Agreed that point to point is a worthwhile goal. Skip the roundy-round except to break in engines. Staging to staging better reflects today’s ideas of layout design. A yard simply takes too much time, space, money, and manpower to be worth it. 
5. Do as you please and respect those that do it differently. 
 

You asked. 

When you drill those linkage holes,

just put a short length of masking tape over them.  Painted dark brown or dirty gray, you'll never notice it.  Later, when you want to put in a throw rod, just cut a slit with a hobby knife along each side of the throwbar, pick out the piece of tape, and you'll still never know the hole is there.

YMMV

Blair

Two rules

The approach I’ve found works for me...

1. Get the priorities sorted out.  What is the most important goal?  Second most?  Third most?  Should be a short list - a long list means that it hasn’t been pondered and pruned enough yet.

2. Focus on the top priority, add in a bit of the second if it can fit, then a bit of the third.  Be ruthless in rejecting anything that gets in the way of the top few priorities.

My adventures in O scale really helped me figure out what I really wanted out of a layout, because space was tight.  If you’re up for a frustrating but potentially enlightening exercise, try to design a layout you can be happy with that fits in a quarter of your available space (1/2 the width by 1/2 the length).  Helps you sort out what your priorities really are.  If you manage that, consider just stretching it out to the full space without adding anything more, just make everything less compressed - more open space, make that warehouse have 6 or 8 spots instead of 2 or 3, etc.

Yes, I Did Ask!

Neil I fully embrace your fourth point about modeling only a part.  My disagreement comes from who you mentioned.  Both are serial layout builders and I question if they have found satisfaction in any given slice.  I'm looking to match mental images of railroading, and to date, none of the prototypes I've seen match up well on more than one or two points.  And I'm tired of waiting   So I'll ditch the prototype railroad and move towards prototype practice.  I do envy folks like Jack Burgess who found "their" railroad.  I haven't.  But then again, he is a model builder more than an operator.  If just building a model of a line was all I needed then I would have had that years ago with the Milwaukee through Montana.  But operationally it is pretty boring.  (There's Frank again, coaxing me on!)

And to amplify what you said, I think roundy-roundy layouts are stupid.  But since I will spend more time by myself in the train room doing projects than I will with friends operating, I need the roundy-roundy option.  So there is going to be one staging yard in the closet serving both directions of a around the room point-to-point, or, one train will orbit the room while I'm at my workbench.

Finally, yes I did ask.  Your response is greatly welcomed as it challenges me to be certain of my choices.  Thank you!

Nice Idea Blair

I had actually wondered about that.  I'd heard of putting shim styrene, across the whole to keep the ballast from falling through, but that was if you actually were putting in the linkage then.  I will definitely do the masking tape trick!  Thank you!

Priorities are Rules Too

Ken, your point is a good one.  Too often we start with twice as much room as we have, fill that, and then attempt to toss stuff.

You made me realize I do have additional priorities of what must be on the layout, they just never percolated up to full consciousness to write down as "rules".  So after some thought, here is what I came up with:

It must have a dinky port.  Ian Rice (any relation?) had a 4x8 HO pacific port design some years back that absolutely grabbed me.  Now his designs aren't always easily built, but the concept must be there.

It must be a bridge route, either as a sperate entity, or a division of a larger railroad.  Stuff will pass through, stuff will be dropped off, stuff will be picked up.

• Corollary:  it needs a yard, but that doesn't have to be full classification yard.  Neil was right, they take up a lot of space. But I like yard work, so a small yard.  Think Three Forks in Montana, a small yard to sort material headed east, west, or south, but most stuff just passing through.
• Corollary:  Since dinky ports don't fit on a bridge route, it will have to be on a branch line, so another reason for that yard

It must must support way freights, thus it must have on-line shippers and receivers and that generally means another town or two on the layout.

I really want it to have a college town on the layout so I can run passenger extras to it on fall Saturday afternoons.

I really want it to have space between towns.

And that's about it.  Thank you Ken for making me write those down!

Dinky Port

You got me thinking about a layout I was building while living in Los Angeles. It was based on the Port Townsend Southern (you might remember “An Officer & a Gentleman”). The line was built when sailing ships found it easier to stop and trans load to the railroad to Seattle and beyond. That never happened as steam railroads also lead to steam ships. The railroad ultimately became part of the Milwaukee Road and cars were barged up from Seattle to the pier and made into trains out to Port Angles. There were a lot of logging outfits and mills along the route as well as a large paper plant. 

The layout modeled the barge traffic and a portion of the town because of the street trackage and many piers serviced by the railroad, the paper mill, and down to Discovery Bay where the line split to the logging or toward the coast. A large mill was there so gave reason for a turn. Through freight and passenger service could be accommodated just as the Milwaukee predecessor Seattle & North Coast. 

If you are a Milwaukee fan then this might have a good mix for you. 

Design

I try to stay in my era and appropriate to the area.  I try to be as prototypical as space will allow.  That means that many places are physically flipped and some places are combined.

If you are worried about cost, pick a prototype and stick with it.  If I am modeling the W&N in 1903 then that eliminates 10,000 models I might want to impulse buy.  Impulse buying one engine would pay for 10-20 Bluepoint switch controls.

When presented with a list of "rules", especially when somebody starts with "rule number one", it pretty much tamps down any incentive to help or follow.  Why bother sharing information if its very clear the person isn't interested in any information that could be provided.   Branch lines that were independent railroads that don't have major yards on them and serve a port are actually not that uncommon.

Port Townsend Southern

Neil, I have heard of the Milwaukee rail up in that area, but that is about my limit of my knowledge.  You wouldn't happen to have a reference book that you would recommend for me to read as a start?    Yeah, I know Google is my friend, and I can dig through the hagiography but thought I'd ask for a personal recommendation... Thanks for the suggestion.

Maine Central

Your interests mesh very well with my chosen prototype the Maine Central! My primary focus is Brunswick, Maine. Nice passenger station in a college town (Bowdoin) with special college trains--check. Branch line to dinky ports: Bath, Wiscasset and Rockland on the Rockland Branch--check. Smallish yard feeding online industries--check. Freight trains passing through connecting points North and South--check. My building approach has been similar to yours. I've got the main line, passing sidings and branchline up and running, and I'm fine tuning switching areas as I decide on structures. I enjoy letting a train orbit the room while I tinker with projects. I'm keeping my layout very simple and sparse--really a vastly simplified version of Brunswick and only a tiny bit of the Rockland branch. Using finger-flicked Peco turnouts as well.

Good luck!

David

I assume

Warren Zevon will be appearing in one of your towns. 

Maine central

Dave, the MEC sounds interesting! Was it around in the late 20’s or only predecessor roads?  Is the a go to intro book you’d recommend?  Thanks

Bkivey, Mr Zevon wound be

Bkivey, Mr Zevon wound be anachronistic in the late 20’s, that would be silly.  (Tongue firmly planted in cheek...)

MEC

The Maine Central began operating in 1862 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Central_Railroad_Company).  In the 1920’s it was going strong.

Maine Central in Color

There are 3 volumes of Maine Central in Color from Morningstar Books that are really great (but quite expensive!). If you do the Facebook thing, there are two moderately active Maine Central groups: Maine Central Railroad and PT and Maine Central Railroad Modelers Group.

David