As much as running operations is a lot of fun for so many model enthusiasts, it's nice to run across people that are like you and me, who are happy with simply watching several trains running through beautiful scenery.
Very nice. I initially tried planning myself with a couple of different s/w packages. I came to realize that I really just didn't have a clue on 'what made sense' or not, even after reading several books/articles. Finally bit the bullet and paid a professional to design it for me. He did what I asked but left me with some 'hmm this still doesn't seem right'. Had a couple of friends review/make comments/suggestions and now have what is being constructed. I have fully come to the realization that some minor changes are in the making including some terrain, some changes to facilities, etc, but have the frame work laid out. Again very good job and for most, I am sure planning down to the XxY coordinate on the layout is where this intersection is, this building starts, etc. I just couldn't wrap my simple brain around it LOL
I learned planning through my engineering education and experience. You’re right, planning is not a talent or skill that comes easily to everyone. If it isn’t for you, I think getting someone else involved is a perfect solution. In fact, I would say it was a brilliant move in your part. Nothing wrong with having a qualified person do some planning for you. 👍🏻👍🏻 Rob
Very nice. I model in O gauge, so things are a little different. My basement is a bit over 1600 square feet, but subdivided into three rooms. Instead of having a 34x24 foot area at the one end of the basement, I had to make an 'L' shaped layout. I settled on a 24x18 L, with the short end at nine feet wide and the long end a seven and half feet wide. I'm pretty good at planning, so I quickly sketched out a basic design and then just went to work. I have the two mains, a trolley line and a commercial/industrial loop, with the industries on sidings and a small yard, along with the engine facilities. It is meant for long runs with decent sized trains, plus, the industrial section is run separately. That way, I can keep the mains running, so I can have people over and have switching operations at the same time. Either way, your video is quite informative and should help out those that are just starting out with a larger layout. An excellent video, for sure.
Hello, John. O scale, 1:48. That is a large scale. Your layout sounds interesting. I did not see any videos on your YT page. I like to take a look at what viewers are doing when I can. Your comment is an interesting and thoughtful one, thank you, cheers, Rob
In all my 65 years plus in this hobby I can say that planning has never worked for me. I always try to fit in more than the space will accommodate. It looks good on paper but it doesn't work. So my layouts are products of evolution. I put a piece of track down and add another to it and see where I end up. I no longer use fixed radius curves but rather transitions in and out of curves. On my current layout I have a short piece of no more than 15 ins. of about 26"radius within a curve of over 5 feet in length. I do like the free flowing running on Farland Howe. David.
Hi David, It is nice to hear from you. Do you think they start building bridges, ships or skyscrapers without massive planning? I admit, I spent years on a drafting board planning dynamic systems. It is a skill but effective planning has its foundation in true to scale representations on paper or 3D models. If the representation is not true to scale and proportional it will not solve the puzzle. Thank you, Rob
I'm 65 also. Studied track plans, operations, details, specs all my life. Started building 3 months ago. Get the hell out of my way, get me a circular saw, 5 sheets of plywood, four boxes of track, and stand back. Deliver a 12-pack daily at 4. You can plan, or you can build.
I am starting to think it really is the greatest hobby. Art, engineering, electrical, electronics, model building, at any depth you want to take it. Thank you, Rob
Dear Rob, loved the ratio comparison of true to scale curves to the model ones. To me it’s once more a confirmation of the fact that the real world is much larger than our human minds can comprehend. Always like to add the context of a cubic yard or meter as a reference point. When folks order let’s say a big bag of soil for their yard, their first thought is that the volume received is that it’s too much, that’s until they spread it out. That same ratio comprehension also applies to necessary ratios to plan a model railroad. Absolutely agree on the point you made on backgrounds and background flats. Humbly think they only work when they are positioned in such a way that they are placed on angle towards the visual most important aspects of the scene. On furthering the illusion of perspective with a backdrop I definitely got a pet peeve. This ‘pet peeve’ design concept being the placement of the backdrop in such a way that the undulations in front of the 2D can be approached in such a way that the 3D scenery allows for a slight downhill aspect. That creates a much better transition from 3D to 2D. For flats in front of the backdrop, I humbly think they only work when placed on an angle. Such placement makes it possible to use a 2 point perspective, which is much more forgiving to relate from the 3D scene to the 2D representation. Great tips on layout design. Definitely will put your vid on the hard drive, very, very helpful and useful. Cheerio
Hi Vincent, I can see you are passionate about model railways. Many folks miss the simplicity of converting from the real world to the scale world. Having spent many years on the drafting board (back in the dark ages of pencil and vellum), I understand scale and conversion very well. Another thing folks seemingly misunderstand is that engineering principles are not suggestions. Thank you for your thoughtful contributive comment. cheers, Rob
@@FarlandHowe dear Rob, definitely like and appreciate that one: “engineering principles are not suggestions.” I have been searching for one with similar depth, will put it on the ‘hard drive’ and put it to fair use! Cheerio
@@vincenthuying98 The problem represented by that statement has been around since engineered systems began. People new to the discipline all too frequently think that the principles that are known by experienced people or are published in books are somehow not concrete and for their convenience and because it is easier to try to cheat on them. It "never" works out well. cheers
Ah Yes Track plans Can Be Very tricky no Matter what scale you Run Slow Down Take Your Time, think It Over this Is A Passion Patience thing No a Race to See Who Can Build Their Layout the fastest. Slow Think It Over and It Will Come to ya To me I Don’t Rush what I do to And Yes I Don’t use a Computer I Have Also Built My Wife’s HO And N Scale as Well and Think this Too Balance every Section as Well. You will Be Happy you Slowed down And Take your time Do what you gotta Do and You’ll Be Happy You took Your Time.think About it and It will Come to ya. Remember measure 2 cut 1. And You will Be Happy in the Long Run.
So true Rob, it can take a long time before you really get a picture of what works on a larger layout like this.The old P^4 = perfect planning prevents poor performance. It pays to list/ identify what excites/ pleases you and must have features as well as min radius, reach distances, viewing height, maximum incline etc. Do some mock ups if not sure. Then list the dislikes or must avoids. Also looking at other folks layouts to review against and get new ideas. It’s taken me eight years to design mine, paper sketches first then to CAD to get honest dimensions and view in 3D (mocked up all my buildings etc as I built a sample of each but in CAD can so easily copy multiple times) to see what it looks like. This certainly has worked well for a larger project , particularly because I do not want to rework mine. The baseboards were 3 months of hard work back in 2020 and my lighting for it evolved over a few years. Sure it’s not everyone’s approach nor might be considered appropriate for a smaller layout. Great to see you got what you wanted, just look at how engrossed you are in it too! all the best Stephen
@@stephenpike3147No matter what size, planning is appropriate. Each railway is very personal to the owner. That individual railway identity is the best part. Thank you, Stephen
I agree that planning can help fit what one wants on the layout. I also like to run trains and my last two layouts started with a track that I could run trains on while I figured out what the rest of the layout was going to look like. I had to figure out how to fake easements in my track planning software to get a better idea of what would fit in the space I had on the table. I built a test loop before my current layout to see what grades my locomotives could actually manage with the cars I expected them to pull. This resulting in another series of plans on the computer before I started laying track. With the grade information i laid a flat loop to run trains on (that was part of the final plan and not a test track) then I continued to revise the final track plan on the computer while I tested various bits and pieces to ensure things would work as planned. I've been impressed with Farland Howe, particularly the trains operating over the system.
Planning can tell you what will not fit in the space as well as what will. Experimentation is good, but simulating a long train and the friction that varies with each wheel set, each irregularity in the rail and track bed is harder. It sounds like you’ve done a careful and honest job of planning your layout. I am sure your layout is a success and does what you expect. I find the planning to be at least as satisfying as building the final result. Thank you for the great and well considered comment. Rob
@@FarlandHowe It's worth noting that the planning for version 4 was similar and only failed when trains were running on the first set of grades laid down. Four Superliner Cars were involved with object lesson and figured in the testing that followed. The current plan took that into account but I still had to dismantle v 4 to correct the issues. Something I have called "success Oriented Planning" at work! I'm still learning after 60 years of 'playing with trains"! I am a firm believer in Harrigan's Corollary to Murphy's Law: "Murphy was an optimist!"
Hi Rob, very interesting video, I kind of find figuring out the whole thing quite enjoyable, trial and error seem to be my preferred methods but I’m learning as I go! There is so much in planning a layout that you can end up doing nothing thinking about everything. Doing for me is a much better way with a basic plan in my head or on a bit of paper and working it out from there. Farland has gone through so many transitions in planning but has turned into your lovely layout which I thoroughly enjoy watching. Thanks for sharing your extensive knowledge Rob, cheers for now mate, John
Hi John, I also enjoy solving things like this, as though you didn't already know that. Trial and error has limits. Some do become paralyzed at the planning stage and only plan, never build. Planning is just a part of building for me. You plan till you are confident you have reached a reasonable conclusion that is defensible and move to the next step. In the beginning, on F1, I was experimenting to find the limits. F2 is the conclusion of that experimentation and resolution. I also read a great deal during those times. cheers, mate, thanks for the lovely comment, Rob
I completely agree with you on this. Adding a lead in to curves is definitely needed for a realistic look. Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment and for watching the video . Rob
I didn't do the math myself, but are you serious that the scaled down recommended curve radius comes out to the prototypical standard gauge between rails? That's some kind of witchcraft coincidence there. :-)
The way around all the hassles is by building it 'Point to Point' with turning facilities on one or both ends of the line, like the real guys do it, using a balloon track/wye/turntable. It's the 'roundy-round' or 'continual' which usually presents unrealistic situations.. Point to point can still go up and over, and down and under, and produce long running time.. But what it really does is bear realism; single mainline with passing sidings, spurs, industries/stations/terminals, yards, engine shops. It just does not need to and shouldn't go in circles except for 'belt lines', or say, light rail or trolley/subway.. P to P, if designed right, will leave no duck unders, to boot. Sorry. It's always the way I've seen it but in no way is meant to criticize anyone else's way of running model trains.. Los Angeles, Ca.
Depends what you want out of your model railroad. If you like switching, then point-to-point is great. But if you want to watch the trains go around -- which a lot of people do -- you need a continuous loop of some sort. Having said that, I do think a lot of people approach their first layout design by starting with a loop, making it "interesting" (i.e., convoluted) and then adding sidings and stuff, not realising that there's any other way.
@@beeble2003 Good comment, agreed, thank you for contributing to the community discussion. There is not a correct notion of correctness to follow after all. Everyone doesn't have to conform to the switching layout concept, and many point-to-point layouts have a path for continuous running in a loop. This hobby is big enough for everyone. cheers, Rob
@@anthonyferrara2222 Federal law limits train crews to 12 hours on duty and they have to have 10 hours undisturbed rest between tours of duty. If they exceed 12 hours then they receive additional undisturbed rest on a minute by minute basis for the time they were over 12 hours. They cannot work more than 276 hours per month.
![Дон ДОН, Алаудинов и СБЕЖАВШИЕ из под Курска ахматовцы 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dEfCf5IK26Q/mqdefault.jpg)
There is a saying used in the British army that goes as follows: Failing to plan is planning to fail.
That is perfect isn’t it. Thank you, cheers, Rob
As much as running operations is a lot of fun for so many model enthusiasts, it's nice to run across people that are like you and me, who are happy with simply watching several trains running through beautiful scenery.
I will say I personally think there's a place for both, personally the layout ive planned works both of those aspects together.
@@Sigil_Firebrand Agreed!
@@Sigil_FirebrandThat would make it the best of both worlds. My Farland 2 does have a number of opportunities for switching and operating. Thanks
Very nice. I initially tried planning myself with a couple of different s/w packages. I came to realize that I really just didn't have a clue on 'what made sense' or not, even after reading several books/articles. Finally bit the bullet and paid a professional to design it for me. He did what I asked but left me with some 'hmm this still doesn't seem right'. Had a couple of friends review/make comments/suggestions and now have what is being constructed. I have fully come to the realization that some minor changes are in the making including some terrain, some changes to facilities, etc, but have the frame work laid out.
Again very good job and for most, I am sure planning down to the XxY coordinate on the layout is where this intersection is, this building starts, etc. I just couldn't wrap my simple brain around it LOL
I learned planning through my engineering education and experience. You’re right, planning is not a talent or skill that comes easily to everyone. If it isn’t for you, I think getting someone else involved is a perfect solution. In fact, I would say it was a brilliant move in your part. Nothing wrong with having a qualified person do some planning for you. 👍🏻👍🏻
Rob
Very nice. I model in O gauge, so things are a little different. My basement is a bit over 1600 square feet, but subdivided into three rooms. Instead of having a 34x24 foot area at the one end of the basement, I had to make an 'L' shaped layout. I settled on a 24x18 L, with the short end at nine feet wide and the long end a seven and half feet wide. I'm pretty good at planning, so I quickly sketched out a basic design and then just went to work. I have the two mains, a trolley line and a commercial/industrial loop, with the industries on sidings and a small yard, along with the engine facilities. It is meant for long runs with decent sized trains, plus, the industrial section is run separately. That way, I can keep the mains running, so I can have people over and have switching operations at the same time. Either way, your video is quite informative and should help out those that are just starting out with a larger layout. An excellent video, for sure.
Hello, John. O scale, 1:48. That is a large scale. Your layout sounds interesting. I did not see any videos on your YT page. I like to take a look at what viewers are doing when I can. Your comment is an interesting and thoughtful one, thank you, cheers, Rob
In all my 65 years plus in this hobby I can say that planning has never worked for me. I always try to fit in more than the space will accommodate. It looks good on paper but it doesn't work. So my layouts are products of evolution. I put a piece of track down and add another to it and see where I end up. I no longer use fixed radius curves but rather transitions in and out of curves. On my current layout I have a short piece of no more than 15 ins. of about 26"radius within a curve of over 5 feet in length.
I do like the free flowing running on Farland Howe. David.
Hi David, It is nice to hear from you. Do you think they start building bridges, ships or skyscrapers without massive planning? I admit, I spent years on a drafting board planning dynamic systems. It is a skill but effective planning has its foundation in true to scale representations on paper or 3D models. If the representation is not true to scale and proportional it will not solve the puzzle. Thank you, Rob
I'm 65 also. Studied track plans, operations, details, specs all my life. Started building 3 months ago. Get the hell out of my way, get me a circular saw, 5 sheets of plywood, four boxes of track, and stand back. Deliver a 12-pack daily at 4. You can plan, or you can build.
@@blainedunlap4242It is a great hobby with room for everyone.
When I Built The Layouts For The Wife and I I Knew I was Gonna Have Plenty to Do I Don’t care cause It Keeps me Busy and Love The Power of trains.
I am starting to think it really is the greatest hobby. Art, engineering, electrical, electronics, model building, at any depth you want to take it. Thank you, Rob
Dear Rob, loved the ratio comparison of true to scale curves to the model ones. To me it’s once more a confirmation of the fact that the real world is much larger than our human minds can comprehend. Always like to add the context of a cubic yard or meter as a reference point. When folks order let’s say a big bag of soil for their yard, their first thought is that the volume received is that it’s too much, that’s until they spread it out. That same ratio comprehension also applies to necessary ratios to plan a model railroad.
Absolutely agree on the point you made on backgrounds and background flats. Humbly think they only work when they are positioned in such a way that they are placed on angle towards the visual most important aspects of the scene. On furthering the illusion of perspective with a backdrop I definitely got a pet peeve. This ‘pet peeve’ design concept being the placement of the backdrop in such a way that the undulations in front of the 2D can be approached in such a way that the 3D scenery allows for a slight downhill aspect. That creates a much better transition from 3D to 2D. For flats in front of the backdrop, I humbly think they only work when placed on an angle. Such placement makes it possible to use a 2 point perspective, which is much more forgiving to relate from the 3D scene to the 2D representation.
Great tips on layout design. Definitely will put your vid on the hard drive, very, very helpful and useful. Cheerio
Hi Vincent, I can see you are passionate about model railways. Many folks miss the simplicity of converting from the real world to the scale world. Having spent many years on the drafting board (back in the dark ages of pencil and vellum), I understand scale and conversion very well. Another thing folks seemingly misunderstand is that engineering principles are not suggestions. Thank you for your thoughtful contributive comment. cheers, Rob
@@FarlandHowe dear Rob, definitely like and appreciate that one: “engineering principles are not suggestions.” I have been searching for one with similar depth, will put it on the ‘hard drive’ and put it to fair use! Cheerio
@@vincenthuying98 The problem represented by that statement has been around since engineered systems began. People new to the discipline all too frequently think that the principles that are known by experienced people or are published in books are somehow not concrete and for their convenience and because it is easier to try to cheat on them. It "never" works out well. cheers
An excellent and well though explanation with much to think about.
That is a nice response. Thank you
Ah Yes Track plans Can Be Very tricky no Matter what scale you Run Slow Down Take Your Time, think It Over this Is A Passion Patience thing No a Race to See Who Can Build Their Layout the fastest. Slow Think It Over and It Will Come to ya To me I Don’t Rush what I do to And Yes I Don’t use a Computer I Have Also Built My Wife’s HO And N Scale as Well and Think this Too Balance every Section as Well. You will Be Happy you Slowed down And Take your time Do what you gotta Do and You’ll Be Happy You took Your Time.think About it and It will Come to ya. Remember measure 2 cut 1. And You will Be Happy in the Long Run.
Thank you, slow and steady. There is no race.
So true Rob, it can take a long time before you really get a picture of what works on a larger layout like this.The old P^4 = perfect planning prevents poor performance. It pays to list/ identify what excites/ pleases you and must have features as well as min radius, reach distances, viewing height, maximum incline etc. Do some mock ups if not sure. Then list the dislikes or must avoids. Also looking at other folks layouts to review against and get new ideas. It’s taken me eight years to design mine, paper sketches first then to CAD to get honest dimensions and view in 3D (mocked up all my buildings etc as I built a sample of each but in CAD can so easily copy multiple times) to see what it looks like. This certainly has worked well for a larger project , particularly because I do not want to rework mine. The baseboards were 3 months of hard work back in 2020 and my lighting for it evolved over a few years. Sure it’s not everyone’s approach nor might be considered appropriate for a smaller layout. Great to see you got what you wanted, just look at how engrossed you are in it too! all the best Stephen
@@stephenpike3147No matter what size, planning is appropriate. Each railway is very personal to the owner. That individual railway identity is the best part. Thank you, Stephen
Thanks for sharing all that! I feel much better about being on v15-2 now!
You’re welcome. I don’t know what you mean by v15-2 ?? Version 15-2?? Haha. Just keep going, you’ll solve it. Thank you, Rob
@@FarlandHowe Ah, yes sorry. V is version 15-2. Sorry about that.
I agree that planning can help fit what one wants on the layout. I also like to run trains and my last two layouts started with a track that I could run trains on while I figured out what the rest of the layout was going to look like. I had to figure out how to fake easements in my track planning software to get a better idea of what would fit in the space I had on the table. I built a test loop before my current layout to see what grades my locomotives could actually manage with the cars I expected them to pull. This resulting in another series of plans on the computer before I started laying track. With the grade information i laid a flat loop to run trains on (that was part of the final plan and not a test track) then I continued to revise the final track plan on the computer while I tested various bits and pieces to ensure things would work as planned. I've been impressed with Farland Howe, particularly the trains operating over the system.
Planning can tell you what will not fit in the space as well as what will. Experimentation is good, but simulating a long train and the friction that varies with each wheel set, each irregularity in the rail and track bed is harder. It sounds like you’ve done a careful and honest job of planning your layout. I am sure your layout is a success and does what you expect. I find the planning to be at least as satisfying as building the final result. Thank you for the great and well considered comment. Rob
@@FarlandHowe It's worth noting that the planning for version 4 was similar and only failed when trains were running on the first set of grades laid down. Four Superliner Cars were involved with object lesson and figured in the testing that followed. The current plan took that into account but I still had to dismantle v 4 to correct the issues. Something I have called "success Oriented Planning" at work! I'm still learning after 60 years of 'playing with trains"! I am a firm believer in Harrigan's Corollary to Murphy's Law: "Murphy was an optimist!"
@@Rayinn-lw3ejThat bit about Murphy is spot on. 😄
Hi Rob, very interesting video, I kind of find figuring out the whole thing quite enjoyable, trial and error seem to be my preferred methods but I’m learning as I go! There is so much in planning a layout that you can end up doing nothing thinking about everything. Doing for me is a much better way with a basic plan in my head or on a bit of paper and working it out from there.
Farland has gone through so many transitions in planning but has turned into your lovely layout which I thoroughly enjoy watching.
Thanks for sharing your extensive knowledge Rob, cheers for now mate, John
Hi John, I also enjoy solving things like this, as though you didn't already know that. Trial and error has limits. Some do become paralyzed at the planning stage and only plan, never build. Planning is just a part of building for me. You plan till you are confident you have reached a reasonable conclusion that is defensible and move to the next step. In the beginning, on F1, I was experimenting to find the limits. F2 is the conclusion of that experimentation and resolution. I also read a great deal during those times. cheers, mate, thanks for the lovely comment, Rob
本物に近づけるなら、最小半径ではなく緩和曲線が大切だと思う。直線と半径一定のカーブだけだと競技場のトラックになってしまって、現実離れしてしまう。直線から段々半径がきつくなるカーブを入れるとよくなる。緩和曲線が取れないのなら、HOなら直線の次に半径2400㎜程度のカーブを入れると実感的なる。日本には2400Rの曲線が販売されている。
I completely agree with you on this. Adding a lead in to curves is definitely needed for a realistic look. Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment and for watching the video . Rob
Thank you for your video 🙏 helps me out a lot 👍
That makes it worth doing, thank you. Rob
I didn't do the math myself, but are you serious that the scaled down recommended curve radius comes out to the prototypical standard gauge between rails? That's some kind of witchcraft coincidence there. :-)
It is an odd coincidence. cheers, Rob
Great insight and ideas related to planning ... thanks
Hi Gene, thank you. I hope someone can benefit from my ramblings. cheers, Rob
The way around all the hassles is by building it 'Point to Point' with turning facilities on one or both ends of the line, like the real guys do it, using a balloon track/wye/turntable. It's the 'roundy-round' or 'continual' which usually presents unrealistic situations..
Point to point can still go up and over, and down and under, and produce long running time.. But what it really does is bear realism; single mainline with passing sidings, spurs, industries/stations/terminals, yards, engine shops. It just does not need to and shouldn't go in circles except for 'belt lines', or say, light rail or trolley/subway.. P to P, if designed right, will leave no duck unders, to boot.
Sorry. It's always the way I've seen it but in no way is meant to criticize anyone else's way of running model trains..
Los Angeles, Ca.
All true. Point to point is prototypical. Roundy round is for folks like me. There is room for everyone in this hobby. Thank you
Depends what you want out of your model railroad. If you like switching, then point-to-point is great. But if you want to watch the trains go around -- which a lot of people do -- you need a continuous loop of some sort. Having said that, I do think a lot of people approach their first layout design by starting with a loop, making it "interesting" (i.e., convoluted) and then adding sidings and stuff, not realising that there's any other way.
@@beeble2003 Good comment, agreed, thank you for contributing to the community discussion. There is not a correct notion of correctness to follow after all. Everyone doesn't have to conform to the switching layout concept, and many point-to-point layouts have a path for continuous running in a loop. This hobby is big enough for everyone. cheers, Rob
So that 288 foot curve is o72 in O Scale
Yes, that is what I get. Thank you
What’s the longest amount of time any one crew would spend per trip?
A train crew?
@@FarlandHowe yes
@@anthonyferrara2222 Federal law limits train crews to 12 hours on duty and they have to have 10 hours undisturbed rest between tours of duty. If they exceed 12 hours then they receive additional undisturbed rest on a minute by minute basis for the time they were over 12 hours. They cannot work more than 276 hours per month.
@@FarlandHowe Thanks