Multi-lap scenery, an open discussion

[Triplex]

Not a question for the "linear walkaround, once through the scene" types. And not a question about a specific layout, but I think this still goes here.

I've drawn many twice-around plans. In some cases, parts of these layouts were forced to have three or even four routes through a scene. I could never figure how to make the more extreme cases look convincing.

Only recently did I realize that my difficulty was forced by requiring space between each lap. Many published and constructed layouts have, for example, two single-track lines running through a scene as a double-track line. Visually, this is actually more convincing. A multi-track line looks more believable than multiple separate routes close by. And, if there are no crossovers between the laps, operational separation is maintained. But I've always avoided it. I require the ability to suspend disbelief and accept that the laps aren't actually in the same place, and putting them right against each other is the final step I can't take.

So, my question is: What are your limits on suspension of disbelief? What produces a "wedding cake" reaction? And what makes tracks "feel" close together or far apart?

[nachoman]

I am building what you may call a "wedding cake" layout. It isn't my preferred way to do things, but all layouts are inevitably compromises. In my case, 4x8 is the maximum space I have. Around-the-walls was not an option because I did not want to block windows or doors. I generally dislike 4x8 layouts because one can easily see the entire "loop" at one time. I would also much prefer an interesting track design rather than a simple loop with a few sidings. In my case, the "wedding cake" was the lesser of many evils.

[Sumpter250]

"I've drawn many twice-around plans. In some cases, parts of these layouts were forced to have three or even four routes through a scene. I could never figure how to make the more extreme cases look convincing."

The quick and simple answer is, don't have three or four routes through a "scene", hide one or two of them.

Hide in plain sight: make the scene look like four tracks are needed ( yard, for example) or have trackage that is used by more than one "route", hiding the points where multiple routes converge.

Use some vertical spacing, as in bridge over, and after briefly going out of sight, cross at grade on a diamond. Four routes can be hidden as two double track routes.

The trick to suspending disbelief, is to make it look "natural", and one of the best ways of doing that would be to have each route "appear, and disappear" alternatively. Scenery, structures, scene dividers, or what ever you can "get away with".

When all else fails.........less can truly be more.

[Russ Bellinis]

I checked out a book from the local library once titled Railroads of the Cour D'Alines (spelling?) that was about the railroads serving mining towns in the Idaho pan handle. The route in and out was so steep that in order to avoid switch backs they had the tracks weaving back and forth on two sides of a canyon and crossing over curved trestles to gain elevation. The was even a picture of one "S" shaped trestle! The tracks were stacked two or three deep in the side of the mountain. They had one picture taken in @1910 of a 2-6-6-2 mallet the looked very similar to the Mantua 2-6-6-2 logger with tender. It had a train of 5 or 6 36 foot cars and a caboose that was described as the maximum load that engine could handle into and out of the area by itself! I often thought that I was looking at an ideal prototype for a model railroad for a steam fan!

[2-8-2]

I think line of sight is extremely important in these matters. It's much easier to lose the feeling of reality while in "bird's eye" view of a layout as we stand next to and look down on the scenery and tracks. Therefore, the most obvious solution is to raise the benchwork as close to eye level as possible. This presents new problems in one's ability to easily build and work on the layout, but it can still be done.

The next thing is to create view blocks in the form of hills and buildings to distract the eye from the obvious. Use scenery to break things up so that it doesn't appear like everything is running together.

[Sumpter250]

"I think line of sight is extremely important in these matters. It's much easier to lose the feeling of reality while in "bird's eye" view of a layout as we stand next to and look down on the scenery and tracks. Therefore, the most obvious solution is to raise the benchwork as close to eye level as possible. This presents new problems in one's ability to easily build and work on the layout, but it can still be done.

The next thing is to create view blocks in the form of hills and buildings to distract the eye from the obvious. Use scenery to break things up so that it doesn't appear like everything is running together."




Exactly!

[Ralph]

Some of the following photos are old and changes have been made in some scenes but they are helpful in illustrating my points. My layout is a big continuous oval twisted into a folded U shaped dogbone in which the return loops are superimposed on top of each other. I use the trick of making the tracks look like double main line as mentioned above. On one side of the layout I tried to separate the levels in a way that suggests main high line in the background and yard trackage in the foreground.


The end of that part of the "U" is actually the middle of the folded dogbone. I've broken up that double track loop by putting a big steel mill complex in the middle of it. The larger structures block the view of the back part of the loop as it gains height.


The center of the "U" is where the tracks are close and most congested. Since the dogbone is folded over itself and has a long siding running a good part of its length there are four tracks visible here and two hidden. All exposed they would create a very unrealistic mess. Breaking this area up with tunnels and a large industry where no track is visible for a couple of feet helps as does the foliage in front of the track on the upper level. Two tracks are hidden behind that removable retaining wall.



On the other side of the "U" scenic work and large industry helps draw attention away from the upper level of track.


Track runs at a higher level behind the light buildings in the foreground and the gray flats on the backdrop, and cannot be seen for the most part. The car float draws the eye away from the background too.


On the superimposed return loop section all of the lower loop is hidden until it emerges from the tunnel while a good part of the upper loop is blocked by the hill and farm scene.


Several famous layouts have been built in the "wedding cake style" such as the John Allen's G&D. I think it is a matter of preference. I have a great regard for the "once only through a scene" concept but the layout i designed works vest for my enjoyment.

Ralph

[Triplex]

Hide in plain sight: make the scene look like four tracks are needed ( yard, for example)

Four routes can be hidden as two double track routes.

Those are exactly what I was talking about. What I was saying is, I have never accepted those methods, even though they look more reasonable.

Also, just saying that on paper makes it sound like each line is only one track all the time. A single-track line has passing tracks. Four routes through a scene would more likely be six tracks, and that's why I find that extreme. I notice that most plans with more than two routes in a scene look short on passing tracks. The G&D is the most famous example.

I suppose that's my problem. I've seen photos of many layouts that manage 3+ routes without looking ridiculous to my eye, but most of those layouts (or parts thereof) are mainly "out in the country" mainline.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.diorama.co.jp/img544.jpg">http://www.diorama.co.jp/img544.jpg</a><!-- m -->

An elevated line and station, even running above houses. This actually looks scenically convincing, because it's not far off reality... for Japan.

As an aside, Japanese layouts frequently push multi-lapping far beyond anything we'd consider reasonable (5 times around double-track mainline, anyone?) They look more like Lionel setups.

or have trackage that is used by more than one "route", hiding the points where multiple routes converge.

And that is what I absolutely never do. I allow visual spaghetti, but not schematic spaghetti.

Maybe I sound antagonistic. I guess I'm just frustrated because I often see plans that fit something in some space, I like them, and it takes me a long time to realize those plans are doing what they can by making compromises I don't want to make. And then I have to up my estimates for how much space it takes to do something. Simplest example, and one I did realize early on: If a plan says it's designed for 20-car trains, there's a good chance it's meaning a mix of 40' and 50' cars, and four 5-unit stack cars, for example, will be too long for it.

[Drew]

...those plans are doing what they can by making compromises...

One of the compromises I made was that close ro 1/3 of my main line is hidden...in 2 staging areas, & under a mountain & a coal mine (won't those miners be surprised? )
This was necessary for my own personal tastes, because my track plan is quite simply a folded fig. 8 I'm using backdrop panels to make the train disappear, & then re-appear elsewhere on the layout...I can also stage trains off the layout in different directions to imply that they are actually going to & from the layout, rather than just chasing their own tail around a figure-8...

[ocalicreek]

Just stumbled onto this thread. To prod it back to life again, has anyone actually operated on an operations-oriented spaghetti bowl layout? By this I mean something like Delta Lines. There's a spaghetti bowl of king-sized proportions (O was the King of scales for a long reign) but designed to get the maximum run between stops.

Most of the operating I've done has been on more recent layouts with the linear focus of trains passing through the scene once (except special scenes like Tehachapi). One layout in Ohio used a tall mountain on a peninsula to gain elevation (to offset a helix between levels in another room) and the train invariably climbed the mountain through a series of circular tunnels. A neat scene, but alot of retaining walls used to stack up the loops.

Here's a question - does the operator's focus remain on the train and disregard the scenery enough to allow the train to pass through the same scene twice? Is that concept only workable for through-freights or long distance passenger runs? What about the peddler freight that stops to work a town, then later circles around through it on the way to somewhere else, only to return and pass over the same town on a high bridge?

I think we used to suspend disbelief in order to get the longest run between point A and point C, even if it means passing through B, then A, then C, then B again, and finally reaching C! Somehow we've been brainwashed to believe in scene-cerity...thanks alot John Armstrong!

Galen