Planning a layout

[Bob Bufkin]

Layout books are fine for track planning but if you want the feel of PRR you need to get prototype books.  The Morning Sun books on PRR facilities is worth the price and the books on PRR equipment are decent.  You would think that PRR would be easy to model but it sur ain't.  You got steam era, transition era, late (right before PC) era you could model.  PRR equipment has various paint schemes during this time and it can be a headache to find what you want for your period.  I think that Dave has one of the best PRR theme layout here in Railwire and he also throws in early Conrail. 

[MichaelWinicki]

Lee makes a great point.

Anyone remember the Model Railroader layout article from around 1999, where they featured the massive PRR layout out in the guy's barn/building?  It was HO, and it was huge.  I think MR said it may be the largest home layout (at that point in time).

Anyway this guy had just about every PRR line represented east and north of the curve.  From the pictures and the article, it certainly had a "PRR flavor", but it certainly wasn't accurate when it came to track locations and what-not.  There were yards, where there were never yards on the real PRR.  There were industries, where there were never industries on the PRR.   In other words he was using the "Armstrong model" to fulfill his dream.   Right?  Wrong?  To each his own. 

[Ed Kapuscinski]

If you're talking about Ken McCory's Buffalo Line layout, then I think you have some of the details wrong.

Ken may stretch it a little in some regards, for the sake of operational interest, but he's relatively accurate for the line portrayed.

Also, the layout only includes the Buffalo Line, north from Harrisburg PA to Buffalo NY, not everything north and east of the curve. It's big, but it's not that big.

[conrail98]

To further what Ed said, it's primarily a walk-around layout where you can follow your train. Now, it may have 4 or 5 levels in some areas, but you can pretty much see/follow your train for the most part, in a linear fashion. I know when the CRHS visited it, some people followed a few of the operators around the layout, getting about half-way through it in the 1.5 hours we spent there. Others didn't even know there was a whole half of the layout they hadn't seen yet. Like Ed said though, some industries were added/enlarged to add operating interests, especially when he did was in the Conrail themed timeframe,

Phil

[MichaelWinicki]

If you're talking about Ken McCory's Buffalo Line layout, then I think you have some of the details wrong.

Ken may stretch it a little in some regards, for the sake of operational interest, but he's relatively accurate for the line portrayed.

Also, the layout only includes the Buffalo Line, north from Harrisburg PA to Buffalo NY, not everything north and east of the curve. It's big, but it's not that big.

I don't often disagree with you often Ed, and maybe it's changed since the trackplan was originally published but no, it's not accurate.  Turtlepoint, Port Allegany, Olean, Larabee, Portville.  None of that was even remotely accurate.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Hmm... learn something new every day!

[conrail98]

Mike, it has, that plan, if I remember my conversations with others at the time of the visit, the 1999 one was pre-expansion of the layout/building. Don't know if there's an update one in the layout plan database or not. I remember thinking the plan I saw prior to the visit was very different then the layout presented,

Phil

[conrail98]

And 10 more seconds of research shows that there was a new plan/article in December 2004. The places you mentioned still have lots of trackage, so maybe these were industries that weren't there. I'm not a PRR fan, so I can't talk to the prototypical accuracy,

Phil

[wm3798]

To reel this back in, I don't think Allen is looking to build a McCroryesque empire.  But he doesn have a fair amount of space to fill.

Personally, I've always admired Armstrong's approach, because he takes prototypical elements and uses them to add flavor and essence to a model railroad.  To my eye, this creates a more pleasing whole, and an entertaining experience whether watching or running the trains.  The Nouveau Koester approach is certainly more interesting on an operations level, but as a model railroad, to me, it's as dull as dry toast.  Okay, so you have a 30' shelf with a track down the middle of it... Yawn.

Of course, you midwestern guys might be all over that, and I can see where it replicates the vast stretches of "nothing" that railroads often traverse, but to the casual viewer, it's got to get tedious.

The old Allegheny Midland was more in the Armstrong school, and was just a more interesting work of art.

Lee

[MichaelWinicki]

To reel this back in, I don't think Allen is looking to build a McCroryesque empire.  But he doesn have a fair amount of space to fill.

Personally, I've always admired Armstrong's approach, because he takes prototypical elements and uses them to add flavor and essence to a model railroad.  To my eye, this creates a more pleasing whole, and an entertaining experience whether watching or running the trains.  The Nouveau Koester approach is certainly more interesting on an operations level, but as a model railroad, to me, it's as dull as dry toast.  Okay, so you have a 30' shelf with a track down the middle of it... Yawn.

Of course, you midwestern guys might be all over that, and I can see where it replicates the vast stretches of "nothing" that railroads often traverse, but to the casual viewer, it's got to get tedious.

The old Allegheny Midland was more in the Armstrong school, and was just a more interesting work of art.

Lee

When I first saw the plan for Koester's Nickel Plate sub, I was shocked how different it was from the AM.  Pretty much what you describe... A track down the middle of a 30' wall. 

Some of it has to come down to if you like modeling scenery and buildings... or not.  If you don't like like doing that sort of thing, then a track down a narrow bench is about as close to heaven as you're going to get. 

To me it's more than the trains and the track.  I like seeing the reason(s) why the railroad exists (i.e. town) and why it took the path that it did to get there (i.e. topography).

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I actually like Tony's new direction, because I feel that, while trying to capture the "topography" type things that we do, things often end up looking caricature and cartoonish.

I'd rather do less, but have it look (and feel) more realistic.

[MichaelWinicki]

I actually like Tony's new direction, because I feel that, while trying to capture the "topography" type things that we do, things often end up looking caricature and cartoonish.

I'd rather do less, but have it look (and feel) more realistic.

LOL!  Yeah, I agree with that.  The "caricature and cartoonish" thing can rear its ugly head.

But I've been giving what Lee said some thought recently about these being models, and not the real thing.  I mean, and I'm asking rhetorically here because I don't have the answer, but how far should we push the envelope in either direction and still be within the "bell curve" of what's in good model railroading taste?
 
I think my point of view is more like yours Ed, if you're going to take the time to do it, then do it as realistically as realistically possibly... Given the constraints of money, effort and time.  But I'm understanding more & more what Lee is saying.

[71jeep]

Hi Guys I am really getting into what you guys are saying about less is sometimes more it is quite interesting.

Because there is nothing more to me that screams Pennsy than seeing a group of hippos running a coal drag along side a creek with a few scattered houses and barns in the background.I have to model this on my layout not sure what local but it will be on there.

I can also see the caricature and cartoonish side of this as well I guess it really is a fine line and the only person I have to please is myself.All these discussions have gave me allot to think about thanks allot.

I can not wait to get started building but first I have to build the building  ;D ;D

Thanks guys

Allen.....

[John]

TOkay, so you have a 30' shelf with a track down the middle of it... Yawn.

Note to self - Lee don't like my 30' of shelf with track down the middle 

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Hi Guys I am really getting into what you guys are saying about less is sometimes more it is quite interesting.

Because there is nothing more to me that screams Pennsy than seeing a group of hippos running a coal drag along side a creek with a few scattered houses and barns in the background.I have to model this on my layout not sure what local but it will be on there.

Excellent!

Now, build out from that.

Are you going to want to "operate" it, so that those cars all have some purpose? Or will you be more interested in just enjoying the scene?

Once you have an answer for those questions, you can start planning around them.

For example, if you just want the scene, then doing that, with just a few tracks of double ended train-staging (one for the PRR coal train, one for the ore train, etc...) will probably do what you want.

On the other hand, if you want to actually "operate", then you'll need staging, but of a different sort. Probably some locomotive servicing, a couple more locations to interact with, etc...