Flimsey3 | modelrailroad

Tips for Building Your Layout Pt. 3: What to Put Atop of Your Benchwork

The Most Important Step: Planning

What do I Model, and How?

Some would theorize I have these articles out-of-sync, and, depending upon your point-of-view, I might have; much of what will be discussed within these next two segments dove-tail together and over-lap in many areas. There will be quite a few references back-and-forth as I go along between Planning, Track-laying and Benchwork. Obviously, this step could (and possibly should) come before building your layout’s Benchwork; as I made mention of in the Benchwork session, many of the points to be touched on in this segment have also been mentioned in the previous section. I’ll warn you now that there will be continual references ahead and back as we go along. However, I can not stress the importance of a good base to build your layout upon. However, this step is as vital as good Benchwork. In more than one way, these two points go together, and also dove-tail with the up-coming two segments; my apologies now if this becomes confusing. That is not my purpose here.

This part of building a layout will have ramifications far into the future. It can cause frustration, because a lack of planning can---and will! ---create problems in the future.

Brief mention of the 4X8 layout—and remembering on keeping the “reach” within reach

I will touch here upon the 4X8 layout, because this first layout is often the cause of innumerable troubles. In my experience, you don’t want to have to have a “reach” to other portions of your area of more than 3 feet, a normal reach for us humanoids. This can be adjusted wider, which is provided you build your layout low enough. Even at that, 3 feet is plenty wide and a person will be at arm’s length at three feet (no pun intended) which is average for the outer perimeter of most people’s reach. If you plan to provide a 3 foot aisle around your 4X8 layout, it’s not so bad. However, you’ll get sick of having to run to the opposite side to correct a derailment or wreck, and nine times out of ten this is what always happens.

One way around this was to put the Operator’s controls inside the layout, in an open area and have the trains running around the person playing Engineer. However, you’ll get sick of crawling into and out of that space unless you plan on having some sort of lift-out or hinged bridge-type section. With the operator’s controls located in the center, you no longer have a 4X8 layout. By doing this, 4X8 becomes 9 X 9 or larger.

My personal take on this has been to keep the layout no wider than 3 feet, if possible. I’ve always been a big believer in having access to all parts of the layout, from the area right in front of you to the farthest corner. This method becomes even more understandable when you get far enough along to start putting buildings, roads, and scenery on your layout, and, of course, having to correct problems with your trains.

Now, on to “What do I model?”

From here on, I deal with “What to Model”. For those of you that “plan” on simply adding to the layout, you may want to read farther, or you may not. Some of what is contained does pertain to those with the 4X8 layout. Just keep in mind what I have already written about aisle ways and accessibility as you go.

For many years I have lived by the mantra, “Model What You Know”. Ironically, many modelers eschew this but eventually come back to it in some form, or may already be doing so but grumpily insist they are not modeling “something local”; the resemblance is “purely coincidental.” Very few modelers will admit to the resemblance of something on their layout to something existent in real life as being done on purpose unless they are modeling something specific. Modeling what you know ends up being the pinnacle of modeling satisfaction. Ironically, “Modeling What You Know” is akin to “Familiarity Breeds Contempt”----and it is. When something becomes so familiar to you, you tend to write it off. The prospect of modeling it in scale pales, because by some point in time you’ve found an allure to other scenic features or railroads readily observable in our world, or, some other railroad may appeal to you because of the nature of its operations, locale, etc.

“Modeling What You Know” does not, necessarily mean, following a prototype to the last rivet. We have two members in our club that hail from Medford, Wis. Invariably, recognizable snippets of their home town creep into their modeling.

I’m cause at this point to recall the third or fourth meeting together as the Hub City Central and we got to the question about what to build on the layout: “We do we build?” I piped up with, “Stevens Point to Spencer!” and got several distasteful, dirty looks and the Late John Ruple made the gruff comment, “Who the Hell would want to model that!?” which was echoed by Ron Currie, Francis Kruse and Jim Hasz! Ron Currie got a similar reaction to his suggestion of “Tehachapi Loop”; several other suggestions were treated with equal contempt. So, we ended up with what we ended up with for our Club layout: A mixture of nothingness. However, this is not a bad thing. But, it shows what results you get when we you try to keep everyone “Happy”.

What you choose to do for yourself is your own business. While Prototype Modeling is quite popular, it is fraught with frustrations due to an individual’s personal tastes. One reason I never attempted to model Marshfield on our Club layout is because of the individual uniqueness of each and every building along the tracks. For near-accuracy, one is almost required to build each and every structure from scratch. While I can do it, this kind of thing takes a lot of time. John Allen’s Gorre & Daphetid was 75% scratch-built structures (including most---if not all ----of the bridges on the line) and that is what took John a long time to build his layout----Allen started the third and final version of the G&D in 1953; Allen himself died in early 1973 and the main line was never completed before John Allen died. Worst, because the G&D was completely fictional, John literally designed every building and bridge to fit the layout and space required. That takes even more time, even though John did have some help building the structures on his layout from his friends, Jim Findley and Cliff Grandt. I use the G&D example, even though this model pike was completely fictional, to give you an idea of what you’d be faced with trying to model Marshfield with a fair amount of accuracy; the problems are about the same. Think, then, what it is like trying to model any other Prototype example with fair accuracy and how much time is involved with doing everything (or most everything) yourself.

And, there is the “stigma” attached to being narrowly “hemmed in” by modeling something specific, a “rigidity” that requires supreme self-control to maintain the setting of what you’re doing. Some modelers like that challenge.

Making a list of what kinds of buildings and industries you want---initially

That said, I believe very strongly in making a list of the Industry you want to have on your layout, along with the kinds of railroad-related buildings (i.e., Depots, Freight Houses, Roundhouses, Section Houses, etc.) and non-railroad-related buildings (i.e., homes, businesses, etc.) and beginning planning from there. This list can be edited (and most likely will be---several times!!) to add or subtract what you feel you won’t need/don’t need/can’t accommodate within the space you’ve allotted yourself. This will narrow your choices and your focus, and, believe-it-or-not, make to actually simplify your planning and the work you have ahead.

In other words, if you want to get the trains running, don’t plan on something that is going to take 20-plus years to build. As it is, even a modest-sized layout will never really be “done”, but you have a chance of getting trains running within a year or so. I’ve always advocated building a layout that one person can enjoy alone, that could accommodate other operators if you wanted to have an operating session.

Now, I’m going to disappoint you

I’m sorry if you thought that this is where I was going to “tell” you what you should model, but that is neither my job, nor my purpose. I’ve had people ask me that question many times over the years and no matter what answer I gave it was never “good enough”---even if I’ve given a “non-answer”. Being fatalistically individualistic as we modelers are, the only one that can satisfy their own unique modeling urges is you. I will warn you, however, that you may never “satisfy” your own unique modeling wants and desires. There are many modelers that eventually build up to five (in some cases, even more than five) layouts in their lifetime because they never quite find the “balance” or “satisfaction” they are looking for. I’ve always figured one layout is too many.

If I have any suggestion, it is to use the “Freelanced” design---in other words, base the model railroad on something specific, but in reality, it really isn’t so. My own never-to-be-built model pike is directly based on the Greenwood Line---I’ve never tried to make it anything else. Everything remains the same as in real life---Mohle, Veefkind, Spokeville, Loyal and Greenwood are all there, as are the track arrangements, but, technically, it isn’t the Soo Line and Marshfield magically became “Half Moon Lake”. Other modelers have avoided using real town names and used their own, although the attempt at concealing the origin doesn’t fool anyone.

This is, in effect, “Modeling What You Know” but you give yourself some latitude by avoiding exact place names where possible, if possible.

On his first home Layout at his home in Loyal, our own Larry Markow simply put track down in the space he allotted himself. He modeled nothing in particular specifically, and he had a good layout! His town names were actual Soo Line place names, but Larry didn’t try to model anything exactly. The use of actual place names gave his layout a “Soo Line Feel”. If Larry’s layout in Loyal had a drawback, it was that Larry didn’t have a Yard on that Layout at all.

Inevitably, one will find that he/she will be adding little tid-bits in your modeling that are buried within your sub-conscious. The 7-Up sign that appeared atop the West Bend Mutual building on the layout got its root from a very similar sign that stood for years above Buzz & Rita’s bar---today’s Nutz Deep II. If I could find the period advertising, I’d put up a Schlitz beer sign atop Knetter’s Inn like that which stood atop the Downtowner night club not far from Buzz & Rita’s. Its little things like this that creeps their way in no matter what you plan to build.

Getting back to Larry Markow and his layout in Loyal: This is a good example of why you need planning. Larry’s basic track plan was simple enough, but certain points he did, and re-did, two, three and four times. Before Larry was forced to move elsewhere, he had notions of still another re-building of an area, and, of course, he never provided any sort of yard. This is where planning comes in.

Planning for scenery

“Scenery” such as I use the term means your railroad right-of-way ditches, roadways and roadway right-of-way ditches, streets, rivers, creeks, dry washes and anything that falls below the line of your layout top. You should also be aware of, and mark out where your structures will be placed. It probably doesn’t hurt to label what these items are so if you have a “senior moment” you won’t end up scratching your head. Most Creeks and dry washes can be drawn out on the layout top when the time comes. I recommend drawing these things out on the layout, including how deeply you plan to go with your lake and river bottoms. You need to plan for roads and what type they will be, gravel or paved (asphalt or concrete), whether you plan to use Cinders around railroad-related structures and, perhaps, on certain other tracks, not the Main Line. Believe-it-or-not, these items need to be planned for at this stage, for the addition of scenery later on.

The “Keith Meacham OOPS” method of planning where everything will go

Now, before I go into this even farther, let me mention here that with all the Scenery I have done on the Club Layout---beyond grass and track-laying---my track plans and where the buildings will go, roads, parking areas, where a hill will be, etc, “just sort of happens”---I half-jokingly call this the “Oops Method” of laying out track, buildings and scenery. I can sketch anything I want on a piece of paper, but I’m the type of dummy (correct term) that has to make a rough layout of what I have in mind by laying out loose flex track and turnouts on the surface with the structure or structure base (s) and then spend hours moving it all around until I get something that pleases my eye-----and doesn’t “offend” the basic “laws” (guidelines, actually) of scale and perspective. I admit that unless I go through the persnickety drudgery of laying everything out so I can actually see what it is that I want to do, I can not keep scale in perspective in my mind. That is something that is very hard for me to do. I have to “hands on” to make myself see what it is that I want to do. From there, I can make corrections, additions, modifications or just drop the idea entirely if necessary. I don’t consider this to be the best method of modeling, but its how I have to do it, otherwise I can’t conceive what it is I’m going to do. One of the best modeling guidelines there is are Local Ordinances and Building Codes for your home town. A Layout begins to take on realism when “common” things that Local Ordinances were passed for are adhered to in scale---such as, number of feet allowed between structures, feet a building is away from a rail spur, number of feet allowed between structure and lot-lines and so on. Believe-it-or-not, this goes a long way to make your layout look a little more believable, and these little items should be taken into account when you plan.

Once again, it is not my purpose here to suggest what more you decide to put on your layout. My tastes lean very heavily to “What I know”, i.e., what I saw when I was traveling around with my Dad on his Job. I’m inclined to Feed Mills, light manufacturing plants, even “small” (or “small-ish”----more “ish” than small) Paper Mills, Cheese Factories, Bulk Oil Dealerships, Lumberyards, Fertilizer Plants, Canning Factories and Implement Dealers---a very basic “Wisconsin” type theme, things I saw between Custer and Greenwood. You are, quite obviously, going to have an entirely different inclination. As an example, let me mention how varied the “likes”, “dislikes” and interests are in our own club: Ron McBride favors an “Iowa” theme, because that is what he remembers due to Ron hailing from Iowa. Jim Burt likes to watch his trains travel in a circle (because he’s easily amused), as does Randy Feirer. Larry Markow has this unaccountable fetish for loooongg trains, and both of his layouts seem to always include a “Quarry” (as he calls it), another fetish of his. Matt Jansen is still “finding himself” in what he wants to model, Milwaukee Road, Wisconsin Central or Chicago & North Western---all of which either served his hometown or were very nearby. Ron Currie liked simpler themes, but tended to favor Southwestern Desert-type themes. He modeled the Milwaukee Road. I like what I saw in actual life: “Point-to-Point” railroading.

What ever your modeling tastes are is what you are going to follow. Perhaps your tastes lean towards sprawling steel mills, or, maybe, you lean towards something along the lines of the Maryland & Pennsylvania Railroad---sharp curves, almost unrealistically short industry spurs and so-on. What you do decide to model is completely up to you. In doing such, you have to provide for planning where the track and the buildings will go---that “relationship” between the two, keeping in mind the guidelines I have put forth here about length of reach, wideness of the layout and so-forth.

Suggestions you’ll most likely ignore

I can make some suggestions here, based on what was “common” in Real Life that seems to get over-looked by many, many modelers:

-A Ramp. Not a Trailer-On-Flatcar (or, “Piggy-back”) ramp, but a simple ramp from car-height to the ground. Usually, these were used by both Local Lumberyard and the local Implement Dealer. They could be squeezed in (“shoe-horned” is a better term) between buildings just about anywhere. Milladore’s Ramp was situated between the local Skelly Oil Dealer’s Bulk Tanks and a Crossing. Loyal’s ramp was shoe-horned in, in between the Coal Shed of the O&N Lumber Company and O&N’s “Material Warehouse” (where they unloaded bags of Mortar, Portland cement, Nails, Roofing, and et. al.). Greenwood’s Ramp was situated next to the Stock Pens. The location of a ramp is literally “up in the air” but a necessary part because of the kinds of traffic generated, mostly in-bound, over it.

-Stock Pens. These were common at practically every station throughout the Midwest. Bring this up and most people tend to think of sprawling Stock Yards---like Equity in Stratford, for example---but in reality, Stock Pens were much smaller, good for holding no more than 20 head of cattle-----about what a single stock car could hold. These facilities didn’t have much more than the pens themselves with a loading chute (s) and a track-facing loading chute, since, most often, the cattle wouldn’t be staying there very long, and, most often, the cattle being shipped would be fed and watered already anyway. They were placed near the end of a track, close to the track switch, because loading cattle took very little time and would be done just before the train would leave. Whether or not they are “used” on a regular basis is up to you. Many Stock Pens remained into the late 1970’s, abandoned, rotting and falling down, but they were still there.

-The time-honored “House Track”, also known as “Station Track” and “Team Track”; a Midwest institution, an arrangement that could be found in every small town from Ohio to Wyoming. This is the track that runs behind the Depot. In too many cases to list here, the Depot served also as the Freight House (it required an exceptional amount of locally terminating/generated LCL business to warrant building a Freight House of any size in a community). The Baggage Room was also the Freight Room (not specifically a Soo Line, C&NW or Milwaukee Road practice, it was also followed by other Railroads such as Burlington, Union Pacific, Pennsylvania, New York Central, etc.). Many smaller municipalities that could not support a stand-alone Freight House usually had a Depot with a large Freight/Baggage Room that doubled as both (that is why Loyal’s second Depot was built so large). Railroads liked this arrangement because “Industry”---most likely a Feed Mill or Grain Elevator, but it could be anything else, Creamery, Newspaper, Lumberyard, Coal Yard, whatever----would also locate along this same track. Other industry or businesses that preferred to “dray” or “Truck” their items to where they were located liked this arrangement as well. A “House Track” can be used as a great way to build up model “business” to any station you have on your layout without having to have more trackage or expen$ive buildings. Hence, because many individual industries and businesses used the House Track, it is erroneously referred to as a “Team Track” although its use is the same.

Too many modelers ignore the possibilities presented by a House Track. Conversely, a Ramp and Stock Pens are often located along a House Track! I will cover this more later on in this series.

-A Yard of some sort. In Model Railroading a Yard is a helpful addition to have. Not only does it provide opportunities for switching, but it gives you someplace to put your freight and passenger cars on the track.

-A “continuous run” of some sort. I lean to “Point-to-point” modeling, but most every layout should have a feature that allows you to run in a continuous manner, mostly for having your layout open to visitors or for breaking in new locomotives. This feature is not something one has to worry about if all your layout is going to consist of is a basic loop to begin with. But, if you choose to veer away from a basic loop, it is something you’ll need to consider. John Allen’s Gorre & Daphetid was one long continuous main line that climbed up and over itself, a basic large loop, but since the main line was never finished, Allen operated it in a different manner and built himself a “break-in” loop in his workshop.

These are, of course, mere suggestions. I know that 99% of you will completely ignore them and do your own thing, which, I guess, is the way it should be. Before I close, here are some points I choose to not model:

-Larry Markow is going to think I’m picking on him, but one thing I choose to not model is a “Quarry” or “Gravel Pit” operation in the whole entirety. Larry chooses to because he likes the challenge, but being that I have exposure to the real thing, I’ve found that real railroads characteristically avoid running trackage any nearer to a “pit”-type operation than they have to---at least, here in Wisconsin. To me, this is a waste of space, but that’s my outlook. I’ve always thought the room wasted on a “Quarry” would have been better suited to use for a YARD, but, what do I know?

-The Entirety of a Paper Mill. ‘Nuff Said. My inclination towards such a large industry has been to use it as a backdrop scene; they eat up too much precious space. I’ve always found the Mills at Port Edwards and Nekoosa to be very modelable, because they could be a part of the backdrop and didn’t require modeling them completely.

-Elaborate Shops Facilities. Although we have such on our Club Layout, A roundhouse, Carshop and servicing facilities take up precious space. Unfortunately, you do have some need for a Roundhouse and facilities like a Coaling Tower (Depending on the era you choose to model) and Sand Tower. This is one reason I lean towards Short Line Railroads. Such facilities are/were compact and much simplified. For that matter, the Soo Line’s large Shops and Roundhouses in North Fond du Lac and Shoreham in Minneapolis were really not large by any other railroad’s standards, but in scale they were HUGE!

-Now, here’s one that’ll make you think until you read farther: A Yard. Now, I’m not referring to small, “gravity”-type yards like we had in Marshfield, or Stevens Point or, even, Chippewa Falls, but of larger, modern types like the Hump Yards in Chicago, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, etc. Small three, four and five-track yards are better suited to modeling. This “issue” depends upon what your basic idea is and what your ultimate goal actually will be.

-Reversing Loops. In some cases a reversing loop can not be avoided, but if you can, I recommend doing so---avoiding the reversing loop, that is. They require special wiring in any gauge below Lionel 0-27 that, while not the hardest thing to do, if one can avoid it, even better. I live by the “K.I.S.S.” principle, “Keep It Simple, Stupid” and with my complete dearth of understanding Electrical concepts of the simplest kind, I try to avoid complications. This probably isn’t a problem for anyone but me, but I still advocate trying to avoid what could become problems later on and ultra-complex complexities if I can (this is another reason DCC appeals to me).

The biggest “Don’t Do” on my list is: The “Ultimate” layout: something so un-Godly big that it takes 20 or more years to build. However, even I dream; I’ve done some “Armchair” planning of what my “Dream” layout would be and came up with Stevens Point to Shoreham Yard, the part of the Soo Line I know so well. I even have gone so far as to figure out how to combine the Yard at Stevens Point with that at Shoreham Yard, which in so doing made the plan a big oval with no reversing loop (s). There are “sticking points” in my dream: The Portage Line, The Nekoosa Line, the M&T, the Greenwood Line, the Ashland Line, the Superior Line, the Eau Claire Line and that little steel arch bridge 180 feet in the air at Somerset, Wisconsin over the St. Croix River, and, from CF Yard to Stevens Point, and from Withrow, MN., to Shoreham Yard, the railroad had CTC with Block Signaling.

Well, maybe someday after I rob a Brinks Truck.

“73”

Keith