Layout Design Thoughts

I know that I said that this post would not be as wordy as the last post, but it will nearly be as wordy. Hopefully it will be readable and a few people will read through it.

On my last post, I recieved a comment suggesting that I build modules based on my own standards rather than free-mo standards. This, I think, is a very good idea, and I will probably use this idea for the layout that I am planning. I guess that this idea should have been a fairly obvious one as I have been looking at various modular designs, but I somehow got stuck limiting myself only to free-mo, and I was unable to think abput any other options than freemo modules or a shelf layout.

I think that a modular approach with standards set by myself would proabably be the best available option for what I'm generally planning at the moment. While I had previously thought that freemo would be the only modular option, I started having doubts that that approach to model railroading would work for me while writing the post on Sunday. Freemo, somehow, does not match with either the style of railroading that I'm most interested or more practical concerns such as the cost of new turnouts and dcc that would be inccured by building a freemo module. While this isn't at all a criticism of freemo, which I very much admire, modules that precisely followed the freemo standard would not be feasible with my model railroading situation as it is now.

Another reason, I think, to not follow the freemo statndard is that I would not likely have any involvement with a larger freemo group. While it would probably be worth the extra expense of following the freemo standard if I was likely to become involved with a freemo group, that would not happen to me in the foreseeable future. As I'm much more likely to just work on this layout alone and never have it connected to any other layouts, it doesn't make sense for me to follow an outside standard. This is especially true as msot of my turnouts are number fours and I use plain dc for train control.

The main reason, however, that I will go with a modular approach is that a permanent, fixed, layout is not really am option for me. While I could tecnically have a narrow shelf layout in a bedroom, or a roughly two by ten foot layout along a wall, none of those options really work for me. A narrow shelf layout would limit scenery and structure building possiblities in ways that aren't accaptable to me, as scenery and especially scratchbuilding structures are my favorite parts of the hobby. As for building the two by ten foot layout, this would also limit the possibilities for a layout, layout design wise. While I'm not complaining about the size of the space, which is certainly adequate (though I also wouldn't complain if the space suddenly doubled), the shape of the space limits what sort of layout can be built. The space also happens to be in front of the room that it's in's only window, and it would proably be better if the window is not blocked in large part by a fixed layout.

I've now given a lot of reasons not to build a lyout based on any other options, so now I am going to try to find some of the benefits of a modular design. In my opinion, a modular design will give me more flexibility in layout design, and thus more options for locations to model. I also prefer the island component of modular design over a fixed shelf layout, as it would make the layout much easier to work on. A modular layout also gives me more flexiblity to cahnge locations and prototypes. I find this important as I typically have a hard time staying set on one specific prototype, and I think that a modular layout might give me more scope to change locations that I'm modeling without losing all the work that I have put in on a specific layout section. A modular layout should also allow me to model more spread out and lighter density locations than a small layout would, as small shelf layout seem to typically focus more exclusively on railroad operations and less on an area overall. I'm not saying that a greater focus on the railroads themselves is a bad thing at all, but that's not what I'm most interested in for my layout, at least at this time.

This is a very rough plan for a medium sized modular layout that I drew up in a few minutes last night. The plan is a very general impression of CP Rail trackage in Houlton, Maine, as it appeared in the late 1970s, not to long before this line was abandoned. While the drawing isn't to scale, and is only a first sketch, I think that it gives me an idea of what could be done with a modular layout design. This plan, of course, isn't neccesarily the location that I would base my layout on, and even if Houlton is the area I decide to model eventually, this plan is npwhere near an actually usable track plan. The plan also isn't a particularly prototypical plan for Houlton, but I didn't have or spend any time to research for this plan. 

In the end, I'm quite pleased with the idea of modules that follow my own standars, and I'm glad that someone shared the idea with me. I'm hoping to work on some more track plans and layout concepts over the next week or two, and hopefuly I will have a plan by the end of the year, though I'd prefer to have one by the end of this weekend so that I could get some actual modeling and layout construction done over the holiday break, when I'll have a week off from school. 

Over the next few days, I'm going to take a look at planning layouts based on CP Rail at Houlton, Presque Isle, and Caribou, Maine, and also at the CP Rail/Quebec Central line to Lac Frontiere, Quebec. I might also draw up a plan based on the CP Rail and Maine Central joint track in Danforth, Maine, as a possibility for a mpre mainline style layout, but I'm not sure about that.

My next post definitely will have fewer words!