Superior & Seattle Railroad Build

[S&S RR]

The final step for today was to start adding the clay.

[CVSNE]

John,

I've done and redone my layout so many times I'm the last person who should be offering any kind of "design" advice. I can't really offer a lot of specifics - but will offer some general suggestions. Heck, my advice is worth every penny you're paying for it so here goes.

1. Rather than offer a laundry list of FSM kits (I'd be unable to name more than a few of them anyway...) I'd suggest you think in terms of shapes, heights, and (to a certain extent) colors and not get too focused on trying to pick the quintessential FSM kits for the scene.  The mountain is a huge strong vertical element - you said the town would be on some sort of slope. That sounds good to me. Very dynamic and dramatic scene. So if there's a building with a tower, for example, put that tall vertical element on the other side of the scene, creating in essence, two "mountaintops." make sense?
2. While there's no denying you're inspired by George's layout, I think you need to keep in mind that much of the townsites on the F&SM are (relatively) flat - certainly compared to what you seem to be doing here. There are three articles you might look over - they may provide some inspiration. One is the piece Malcolm Furlow did in MR on Sheridan, Colorado scene on his otherwise defunct Rio Chama. He faced many of the same challenges you have here - especially note the way he zig-zagged the roads up and down the mountainside.
Second article is the one Bob Hayden did on planning the expanded C&DR - especially note how he arranged the town buildings in the main harbor scene in logical groupings, and then used color and tone to blend them together into a cohesive whole. The third is Sam Posey's article on using the same composition elements artist use in creating a painting or photo to develop a scene.
I think those three articles are some of the best scene planning articles ever to appear in the model railroad press. They don't get mentioned anywhere near enough because they don't focus on the squibbly bits (track) that tends to dominant "planning" discussions in the press.
3. Finally, while there are some buildings that require rail service not every building needs to be on a track, or have a dedicated siding (you've already noted the latter). On my layout most of the industries are located on long, double-ended house tracks - I think have only have 4 or 5 industries with their own dedicated tracks. Trying to include a bunch of buildings, each with their own siding, is going to be a difficult track planning challenge and create a visually jumbled mess that will detract from the look I think you're going for.

Hope this helps,

Marty

[S&S RR]

John,

I've done and redone my layout so many times I'm the last person who should be offering any kind of "design" advice. I can't really offer a lot of specifics - but will offer some general suggestions. Heck, my advice is worth every penny you're paying for it so here goes.

1. Rather than offer a laundry list of FSM kits (I'd be unable to name more than a few of them anyway...) I'd suggest you think in terms of shapes, heights, and (to a certain extent) colors and not get too focused on trying to pick the quintessential FSM kits for the scene.  The mountain is a huge strong vertical element - you said the town would be on some sort of slope. That sounds good to me. Very dynamic and dramatic scene. So if there's a building with a tower, for example, put that tall vertical element on the other side of the scene, creating in essence, two "mountaintops." make sense?
2. While there's no denying you're inspired by George's layout, I think you need to keep in mind that much of the townsites on the F&SM are (relatively) flat - certainly compared to what you seem to be doing here. There are three articles you might look over - they may provide some inspiration. One is the piece Malcolm Furlow did in MR on Sheridan, Colorado scene on his otherwise defunct Rio Chama. He faced many of the same challenges you have here - especially note the way he zig-zagged the roads up and down the mountainside.
Second article is the one Bob Hayden did on planning the expanded C&DR - especially note how he arranged the town buildings in the main harbor scene in logical groupings, and then used color and tone to blend them together into a cohesive whole. The third is Sam Posey's article on using the same composition elements artist use in creating a painting or photo to develop a scene.
I think those three articles are some of the best scene planning articles ever to appear in the model railroad press. They don't get mentioned anywhere near enough because they don't focus on the squibbly bits (track) that tends to dominant "planning" discussions in the press.
3. Finally, while there are some buildings that require rail service not every building needs to be on a track, or have a dedicated siding (you've already noted the latter). On my layout most of the industries are located on long, double-ended house tracks - I think have only have 4 or 5 industries with their own dedicated tracks. Trying to include a bunch of buildings, each with their own siding, is going to be a difficult track planning challenge and create a visually jumbled mess that will detract from the look I think you're going for.

Hope this helps,

Marty

Marty


This is exactly the kind of discussion I wanted this build thread to generate.  I will definitely find and read or reread the three articles you mentioned.  Any chance you remember where they were published?


One of the things I did different on this layout (it's not my first) is building the mountains first, and then I'm making the rest of the scenery and structures fit the land.  Many model railroads are built backwards with the land forms and scenery built around the structures. If you spend time studying the F&SM George has taken bits and pieces of his kits, and others,  and built structures that fit an area - I think the town of Franklin is the best example of this. My plan is to develop these towns using bits and pieces from lots of kits, not just FSM but combinations of design elements from many different kit makers.  When I buy a kit it's for a particular design element that I like.  Your point about a tower and the mountains was very timely. If you look at Doug's latest waterfront kit there is a large structure with a tower. I bought it with this current town in mind for the corner opposite the tall mountain.  Bob VanGelder has a couple designs that are competing for that spot on the layout. So the bottom line is that I'm building this scale mockup so I can test the look of different structures in each of these spots.  My design process is probably five years ahead of my building process but both are going on simultaneously.  I like to switch back and forth allowing time to pass looking at the possibilities for a particular area before the structures actually start getting planted. Thanks again Mary for the great discussion.

[S&S RR]

I should also mention - that the clay model idea comes from all my years in the auto industry.  Every new car design starts with a full size clay model.  Even now, when the designs are done in the computer a clay model is then machined using CNC technology for assessment and changes. One of my jobs was to interact with the designers and assess the manufacturability of the body panels on the car.  One of the keys to that process was to picture what the inner supporting parts also needed to look like. This process of changing the designs to make them more manufacturable was like being a diplomat.  So I'm used to clay models and surfaces and making changes using this process. I will post pictures of the process from time to time and you can see how I use it for my layout.  Who knows, you might find it helpful with your layout.

[deemery]

Dave Frary talks about building 'models of models' as a key part of his layout planning.  But then not everyone has Frary's artistic/visualization skills....


dave

[CVSNE]

John,

Here are the articles -
1. Designing the "new" Carrabasset & Dead River" - Hayden - Model Railroader, November 1981
2. "Sheridan Colorado, 1927" - Malcolm Furlow - Model Railroader, July 1981
3. "Magic of Illusion" Sam Posey - Model Railroader, Dec 2001 (Didn't have to look this one up as it was the last article I proofed before leaving MR on my last day at Kalmbach!)\

Marty

[S&S RR]

John,

Here are the articles -
1. Designing the "new" Carrabasset & Dead River" - Hayden - Model Railroader, November 1981
2. "Sheridan Colorado, 1927" - Malcolm Furlow - Model Railroader, July 1981
3. "Magic of Illusion" Sam Posey - Model Railroader, Dec 2001 (Didn't have to look this one up as it was the last article I proofed before leaving MR on my last day at Kalmbach!)\

Marty

Thanks Marty

[rpdylan]

Its also cool to modify kits to fit a space or scratchbuild a kit for a custom fit! I agree about not having a lot of sidings, so many of the kit dioramas always have a railroad siding on them but its just not practical to do this on my layout.  I wanted a city scene on one end of my layout and a seaport on rhe other,,,,,BUT, I also wanted the train to be able to run continous.....well, just couldn't get it to look right so I did some tear out and am now just doing a point to point layout- cuz I enjoy the modeling/ diorama building much more than just having a train run around in a loop.  Keep posting because I love learning from others and getting new ideas!

[S&S RR]

Its also cool to modify kits to fit a space or scratchbuild a kit for a custom fit! I agree about not having a lot of sidings, so many of the kit dioramas always have a railroad siding on them but its just not practical to do this on my layout.  I wanted a city scene on one end of my layout and a seaport on rhe other,,,,,BUT, I also wanted the train to be able to run continous.....well, just couldn't get it to look right so I did some tear out and am now just doing a point to point layout- cuz I enjoy the modeling/ diorama building much more than just having a train run around in a loop.  Keep posting because I love learning from others and getting new ideas!

Hi Bob


It has been awhile since I explained my track plan and it may help here.  My layout has 3 levels of HO and one level (the highest level) of HOn3.
The levels are basically different elevations in the same scene.  So a train makes three HO loops through the layout with different scenery, industries, and towns to visit on each pass.  The change in elevation and reversing to the next level happens mostly inside the mountains or under a city in the area I'm designing now.  The train goes into a tunnel like it's going around the mountain and comes out at the next elevation.  I didn't like the look of visible reversing loops. Each pass through the layout is about 140 linear feet - so we have approximately 420 feet of trackside space. It's actually more than that because the track makes lots of moves from the front to the back of the layout along the way at each level.  The narrowest area on the layout is 4 feet deep and there are areas that are 8 foot deep.  When I designed the original floor plan of the layout I wanted depth of scene, lots of elevation, and mountains to the ceiling.  I hope these words help explain what I'm trying to accomplish.


The Narrow Gauge runs along the highest elevations once across 60 % of the layout and then goes down a helix under the layout and comes out at the other end of the layout after going up a helix at the same level.

[rpdylan]

Sounds great! I'm envious of the space that you have! Please keep posting photos- they are much appreciated!

[S&S RR]

Trestle build update:  The bents are up on the first trestle - time for the cross bracing.  The bent production for the second trestle continues with wood in the gluing jig.

[S&S RR]

I spent most of the day under the layout working on the benchwork for the helix.  That work is hard on the knees.    

[ACL1504]

Trestle build update:  The bents are up on the first trestle - time for the cross bracing.  The bent production for the second trestle continues with wood in the gluing jig.

John,

I really like the look of the trestle bents. Great job my friend.

Also, in response to the "under the layout work" I find that I can't stay in a contorted position for very long. I'm sure it has nothing to do with my age!


Tom

[jbvb]

You're probably already aware of this, but the bigger the kit, the harder it is to make it look right on sloping ground (unless it was designed for a slope, like some SRMW kits).  I've committed to a number of sloping, urban or town streets.  So far I've built one using kits and kitbashed structures.  The foundations and entrances took significant effort to get right.  At the moment, I find myself doing structures on the flat parts of my layout first, because it's easier.

[S&S RR]

Trestle build update:  The bents are up on the first trestle - time for the cross bracing.  The bent production for the second trestle continues with wood in the gluing jig.

John,

I really like the look of the trestle bents. Great job my friend.

Also, in response to the "under the layout work" I find that I can't stay in a contorted position for very long. I'm sure it has nothing to do with my age!


Tom

Tom


Thanks for stopping by the thread and for the kind words. I'm sure it has nothing to do with age - I think the layout is getting lower because of all that plaster.  I think it's best that I get all this under the layout work done while I'm still in my 50's. I need to work fast!