Thanks for this planning video. I had to re-watch the previous video to refresh my memory, enjoyed it lots. I would like to see more on this topic when possible. Thanks!
Great points, and definitely a great improvement. Track planning requires experience, imagination, and the ability to envision the finished product. Thanks for this perspective.
Thanks for following up on your previous layout video - a topic not extensively covered on RUclips. Important observation about not running track parallel to the fascia to allow for scenery elements. Good job.
Thanks for the insight. I'm working on a track plan in HO for the eastern end of the KD Line of the Chicago & Northwestern circa 1975. Part of the plan allows for commuter trains departing for Chicago. On the prototype the station is still in use serving Metra. It's the terminus of the Metra UP North Line. I've had the tracks aligned way to much to the walls and fascia. An angle, even a slight one I see now is much better. I've been thinking more from the operations viewpoint
Big Fan of not running parallel track with fascia, but some times can't be helped, then use scenic breaks, buildings on angles etc.. Cheers Ron. Kettle Valley Railway, N scale, 1956 . . .
Good improvements. Agree, the 'pro' should know better. You can import pictures into 3rd plan It. Ive done this with overhead photos of existing track work. If you put a ruler or two in the photo, you can use the 3pi grid to scale the photo to match. If you import the photos into their own layer, it's then pretty easy to set the picture layer to frozen and draw track over the top of them to match what is actually in place on the layout. I expect you could do this with the bmp file. If not there are plenty of free image conversion tools on the net where you could convert your bit map into a jpg file. Cheers! Coxy
Before importing, convert the bmp file to a jpg. There are many free tools out there to convert images from one format to another e.g. convertio.co/bmp-jpg/ Then just use the standard place image tool in 3rd plan it. Hope that helps. - Coxy
I'm tempted to simply reply "in N scale", but seriously though, there's an HO-scale "passenger layout" coming to this channel soon. That plan started out in a space 13x19 before the layout got reconfigured.
I am curious if the owner bought, used or built your design? The reason I ask is that while from an operating perspective I think your design is an improvement. You; however, stated this was to be a "Display" layout, presumably to just watch trains run through scenery. In that respect I think the original layout serves "railfanning" much nicer than your changes as the bridge crossovers, s-curves and elevation changes add some interest to a very thin shelf layout. I also think the steeper grades for what appears to be a mountain railroad with what you call rugged scenery would allow for more interesting scenery with steeper rocky cliffs. Also (maybe it is just the drawing) but it seems there is not enough space for the buildings he had on the original; plan (I assume a station and basic engine servicing water tower, sanding and a small town, etc.).......I am curious as you could not resist throwing the owner and designer under the bus again, where you hired by the owner to change the design or did you just take it upon yourself to use this design as an example for the video? I work as an independent contractor in the service industry, non railroad related, and I learned one thing very early in my career "what the owner wants is what you are paid to do, you do it their way and leave you personal opinions to yourself unless asked." As a model railroader I find it to be art and art is interpreted by the observer so what might be wrong to you may be beautiful to the owners eye.......toy train layouts are a perfect example of that.
I don't know if the general contractor even presented my design to the customer. The redesign is not something I was asked for. I was first shown the original resign as an introduction to a layout on which I will probably get to build the scenery sometime next year. Seeing the problems, I asked for the opportunity to redesign it. I have not received a dime for my efforts on this project, and I didn't ask for payment. A professionally-built model railroad is a large chunk of money to spend on a hobby and I feel it is important for both the customer and the future reputation of the builder that the appearance and functionality of the finished layout is as good as it can be within the space, time and financial constraints given. I know I can make the scenery look much better on the redesigned plan than I can on the original, and that the customer's trains will run better as well. Your comment that the original plan is much better from a railfanning pov leaves me speechless. Most experienced model railroaders know that running track parallel to the fascia is generally very bad for the overall appearance, and that the narrower the benchwork, the more prevalent the problem. Advanced model railroaders also generally agree in the importance of easements, and know that increasing the curve radius wherever possible, varying the curve radii, and inserting a few very large radius "cosmetic curves" greatly improves the overall appearance. Have you ever watched full-length HO-scale passenger cars enter 27" radius non-easemented curves? The appearance is hideous! Most full-length passenger cars won't even negotiate such curves reliably. As for the multiple cross-over points you favor, these are not particularly common on the prototype, so three in such a small space is excessive. Furthermore, the two at the left side of the layout involve impossible curved bridges, so it would be necessary to lengthen the tunnel to about 8-feet and eliminate them anyway. Since you mention it, yes there is still plenty of space for the station and water tower indicated on the original plan, and the space I have created behind the track near the station is perfect for putting in a town if the customer decides he wants one (there was no space for one before). I may have "thrown the designer under the bus" as you put it, but it was never my intention to do so with the customer. Indeed, I heard the customer originally ask for curves at of least 32" radius for his passenger trains, but he was talked into needlessly accepting a much tighter radius. The redesign gives the customer what he originally wanted but was told he couldn't have in the space available. Having defended my case. I will concede that perhaps there is room for improvement in my presentation since this video has by far the highest proportion of dislikes to likes of any that I have done.
I can see some of your points; however, as I said model railroading is an art and while the multiple crossovers may not be "prototypical" it looks cool and sometimes that is more important to some modelers than always being precisely prototypical...lets be honest even at 36" curves that is way too sharp to be prototypical but we do it for space and budget concerns. As far as the dislikes you got, I think you may be a bit like President Trump, you do great work, but you seem to spend a lot of time criticizing others rather than just letting your work speak for itself. Maybe your giant steps of progress fixing the model railroad world is getting lost in the insults.
I think your point about the track radiuses is very significan't. Carriages are of course going to have their connecting corridors(?) exposed on a radius coming in towards the user, surely not their best aspect. Anything that sets them at a slight angle to the viewer improves verisimilitude. It is rare that one sees a railway/road from directly face on in real life. Usually one is observing a full size train from anything apart from the perpendicular, it is usually approaching or receding from the viewer's point of view. By breaking away from the parallel/ perpendicular, you are breaking the sense of scale, the whole point of scenic modelling, I should have thought. The breaking of the relationship between the backdrop and direction of the tracks is vital. This is why so many good buildings look far better viewed off-axis. Imagine if the great buildings in Washington DC were set off-axis, how even more exciting they would look? The exemplar of this is the Acropolis in Athens which is rarely if ever seen axially. It was designed - all those millennia ago - to be seen from below in the city, rarely front or fully side on. It was only at the very last moments of the processional approach that you saw it frontally, by which time the scale means that your eye would have a hard time taking it all in. On a purely practical point the variation in width of the space between the tracks and the fascia automatically opens up the possibilities of creating different modeling possibilities, as shown in 'Brian's layout'. Where you have been given a freer hand to create the landscape and vary the direction of the tracks the results instantly become more exciting. I will be interested to see how the client reacts.
How the client reacted... He rejected everything totally. It seems the guy who drew the original plan has quite a name for himself and in the client's eyes he can do no wrong. I unintentionally stepped on a few toes when I challenged him. Hopefully one day I will have the same kind of following, but just like any business, it takes a while to build up.
@@mpeterll More fool them. It seems, to me, that your plan has far more potential interest. I fully agree about the boredom of running track parallel to the back board, you are creating opportunities to focus on the track and landscape, not the walls of the room. I also like the way you give a plausibility to the bridge and tunnel situation by giving topographical logic to it. Of course a water way would have to be created by such topography. I have really learnt a lot from this, for which many thanks.
@@chazzyb8660 I have to agree, to me, models trains seem to look better when they snake along gentle curves. It also adds a visual motion to the trains that makes them appear more lifelike . straight along the walls is rather sterile. Peter great videos. I've watched most of them. I have designed a number of layouts for myself and others over the years, then fell away from the hobby. I'm back and itching to build a new layout or three. LOL I'll explain on my RUclips channel later as I go LOL sammi's workshops
Wonderful by watching you i get better at my own layout currently under construction. Thank you for sharing with us.
You did a great job correcting the old plan. It looks much better.
Thanks for this planning video. I had to re-watch the previous video to refresh my memory, enjoyed it lots. I would like to see more on this topic when possible. Thanks!
Great points, and definitely a great improvement. Track planning requires experience, imagination, and the ability to envision the finished product. Thanks for this perspective.
Thanks for following up on your previous layout video - a topic not extensively covered on RUclips. Important observation about not running track parallel to the fascia to allow for scenery elements. Good job.
Thanks for the insight. I'm working on a track plan in HO for the eastern end of the KD Line of the Chicago & Northwestern circa 1975. Part of the plan allows for commuter trains departing for Chicago. On the prototype the station is still in use serving Metra. It's the terminus of the Metra UP North Line. I've had the tracks aligned way to much to the walls and fascia. An angle, even a slight one I see now is much better. I've been thinking more from the operations viewpoint
Very informative!
thanks for the video, Great Job
THANK FOR VIDEO AS SEE BETTER IN YOUR LAYOUT PLAN
Big Fan of not running parallel track with fascia, but some times can't be helped, then use scenic breaks, buildings on angles etc.. Cheers Ron. Kettle Valley Railway, N scale, 1956 . . .
I agree i like your redrawn plan looks a lot better doesn't look like spaghetti
Good improvements. Agree, the 'pro' should know better.
You can import pictures into 3rd plan It. Ive done this with overhead photos of existing track work. If you put a ruler or two in the photo, you can use the 3pi grid to scale the photo to match. If you import the photos into their own layer, it's then pretty easy to set the picture layer to frozen and draw track over the top of them to match what is actually in place on the layout. I expect you could do this with the bmp file. If not there are plenty of free image conversion tools on the net where you could convert your bit map into a jpg file.
Cheers! Coxy
I couldn't find the tool to import a bitmap. Where is it?
Before importing, convert the bmp file to a jpg. There are many free tools out there to convert images from one format to another e.g. convertio.co/bmp-jpg/
Then just use the standard place image tool in 3rd plan it.
Hope that helps.
- Coxy
Good videos
Where can I find the track plan for the passenger train layout that you mention in this video
The "passenger train layout" I mentioned is the one I showed in this video and described as "the original design".
How would you do a passenger layout in 12 ft x 16 ft
I'm tempted to simply reply "in N scale", but seriously though, there's an HO-scale "passenger layout" coming to this channel soon. That plan started out in a space 13x19 before the layout got reconfigured.
🤠🚂👍
I am curious if the owner bought, used or built your design? The reason I ask is that while from an operating perspective I think your design is an improvement. You; however, stated this was to be a "Display" layout, presumably to just watch trains run through scenery. In that respect I think the original layout serves "railfanning" much nicer than your changes as the bridge crossovers, s-curves and elevation changes add some interest to a very thin shelf layout. I also think the steeper grades for what appears to be a mountain railroad with what you call rugged scenery would allow for more interesting scenery with steeper rocky cliffs. Also (maybe it is just the drawing) but it seems there is not enough space for the buildings he had on the original; plan (I assume a station and basic engine servicing water tower, sanding and a small town, etc.).......I am curious as you could not resist throwing the owner and designer under the bus again, where you hired by the owner to change the design or did you just take it upon yourself to use this design as an example for the video?
I work as an independent contractor in the service industry, non railroad related, and I learned one thing very early in my career "what the owner wants is what you are paid to do, you do it their way and leave you personal opinions to yourself unless asked." As a model railroader I find it to be art and art is interpreted by the observer so what might be wrong to you may be beautiful to the owners eye.......toy train layouts are a perfect example of that.
I don't know if the general contractor even presented my design to the customer. The redesign is not something I was asked for. I was first shown the original resign as an introduction to a layout on which I will probably get to build the scenery sometime next year. Seeing the problems, I asked for the opportunity to redesign it. I have not received a dime for my efforts on this project, and I didn't ask for payment. A professionally-built model railroad is a large chunk of money to spend on a hobby and I feel it is important for both the customer and the future reputation of the builder that the appearance and functionality of the finished layout is as good as it can be within the space, time and financial constraints given. I know I can make the scenery look much better on the redesigned plan than I can on the original, and that the customer's trains will run better as well.
Your comment that the original plan is much better from a railfanning pov leaves me speechless. Most experienced model railroaders know that running track parallel to the fascia is generally very bad for the overall appearance, and that the narrower the benchwork, the more prevalent the problem. Advanced model railroaders also generally agree in the importance of easements, and know that increasing the curve radius wherever possible, varying the curve radii, and inserting a few very large radius "cosmetic curves" greatly improves the overall appearance. Have you ever watched full-length HO-scale passenger cars enter 27" radius non-easemented curves? The appearance is hideous! Most full-length passenger cars won't even negotiate such curves reliably. As for the multiple cross-over points you favor, these are not particularly common on the prototype, so three in such a small space is excessive. Furthermore, the two at the left side of the layout involve impossible curved bridges, so it would be necessary to lengthen the tunnel to about 8-feet and eliminate them anyway.
Since you mention it, yes there is still plenty of space for the station and water tower indicated on the original plan, and the space I have created behind the track near the station is perfect for putting in a town if the customer decides he wants one (there was no space for one before).
I may have "thrown the designer under the bus" as you put it, but it was never my intention to do so with the customer. Indeed, I heard the customer originally ask for curves at of least 32" radius for his passenger trains, but he was talked into needlessly accepting a much tighter radius. The redesign gives the customer what he originally wanted but was told he couldn't have in the space available.
Having defended my case. I will concede that perhaps there is room for improvement in my presentation since this video has by far the highest proportion of dislikes to likes of any that I have done.
I can see some of your points; however, as I said model railroading is an art and while the multiple crossovers may not be "prototypical" it looks cool and sometimes that is more important to some modelers than always being precisely prototypical...lets be honest even at 36" curves that is way too sharp to be prototypical but we do it for space and budget concerns.
As far as the dislikes you got, I think you may be a bit like President Trump, you do great work, but you seem to spend a lot of time criticizing others rather than just letting your work speak for itself. Maybe your giant steps of progress fixing the model railroad world is getting lost in the insults.
I think your point about the track radiuses is very significan't. Carriages are of course going to have their connecting corridors(?) exposed on a radius coming in towards the user, surely not their best aspect. Anything that sets them at a slight angle to the viewer improves verisimilitude. It is rare that one sees a railway/road from directly face on in real life. Usually one is observing a full size train from anything apart from the perpendicular, it is usually approaching or receding from the viewer's point of view. By breaking away from the parallel/ perpendicular, you are breaking the sense of scale, the whole point of scenic modelling, I should have thought.
The breaking of the relationship between the backdrop and direction of the tracks is vital. This is why so many good buildings look far better viewed off-axis. Imagine if the great buildings in Washington DC were set off-axis, how even more exciting they would look? The exemplar of this is the Acropolis in Athens which is rarely if ever seen axially. It was designed - all those millennia ago - to be seen from below in the city, rarely front or fully side on. It was only at the very last moments of the processional approach that you saw it frontally, by which time the scale means that your eye would have a hard time taking it all in.
On a purely practical point the variation in width of the space between the tracks and the fascia automatically opens up the possibilities of creating different modeling possibilities, as shown in 'Brian's layout'. Where you have been given a freer hand to create the landscape and vary the direction of the tracks the results instantly become more exciting.
I will be interested to see how the client reacts.
How the client reacted... He rejected everything totally. It seems the guy who drew the original plan has quite a name for himself and in the client's eyes he can do no wrong. I unintentionally stepped on a few toes when I challenged him. Hopefully one day I will have the same kind of following, but just like any business, it takes a while to build up.
@@mpeterll More fool them. It seems, to me, that your plan has far more potential interest. I fully agree about the boredom of running track parallel to the back board, you are creating opportunities to focus on the track and landscape, not the walls of the room.
I also like the way you give a plausibility to the bridge and tunnel situation by giving topographical logic to it. Of course a water way would have to be created by such topography.
I have really learnt a lot from this, for which many thanks.
@@chazzyb8660 I have to agree, to me, models trains seem to look better when they snake along gentle curves. It also adds a visual motion to the trains that makes them appear more lifelike . straight along the walls is rather sterile. Peter great videos. I've watched most of them. I have designed a number of layouts for myself and others over the years, then fell away from the hobby. I'm back and itching to build a new layout or three. LOL I'll explain on my RUclips channel later as I go LOL sammi's workshops