Do you need to know the details or can a layout evolve successfully?

People who have had the stamina to follow my long road towards building the new Yarslow empire will, by now, appreciate that I have planned everything to death almost - it's the way I do things because that's what I did professionally and it's in my bones.

But that has thrown up an interesting conundrum.

In my "mind's eye", I can see every scene, I've operated every train and can picture many of the little cameo scenes I hope to include.  Assuming I actually now need to build the layout (and not just carry on dreaming about it), will I be faced with a major challenge trying to match reality with my dreams?  Will my aspirations be met?  And what happens if my modelling ability falls short of the desired requirement?

Are we better to have a basic idea of what we are looking for, a track plan in a space with a rough sketch of building placement etc and then just "wing it".  There are plenty of good layouts on the forum (and elsewhere) which have just evolved during the building process.

Does planning stifle the creative process or make it easier to build something because you know what comes next?  On the other hand, does the process of evolution allow the creative juices to flow, leave room for newer/better ideas and allow for something we find later to inspire us to make slight changes in direction?

I have many books which encourage newer modellers to "get something running" whilst there are as many tomes extolling the virtues of planning to ensure that time, effort and money are not wasted wandering down cul-de-sacs.

What advice do we give?

There is not a right or wrong answer of course, but I would be interested in people's thoughts.

Barry

I have only ever sketched out on a piece of A4 paper the general track layout I wish to lay, with a few key features positioned for guidance such as "station", "bridge" marked approximately.

 That was good enough for the huge Penhayle Bay layout (a 34-metre circuit drawn on a single sheet of A4!!!), the diminutive Boghouses and now the room-sized Waddlemarsh.  

I have never used planning software.  I have had to adapt and overcome problems as I went along but so do those who spend (and who might enjoy spending) lengthy periods of time poring over the software before tacking that first track pin into position.  

To each their own.  

I did some basic concept planning on paper, run it past a couple of mates, put the track down, wired it up, did some basic scenery then invited the crew & yes, they came up with a few more changes to assist in the running. I think if I waited until every i was dotted & t crossed, I would still be waiting to run trains.

As Rick said " To each their own"

I suspect it depends to a large extent on how much is stored in our "ROM", hard coded in the brain even though we don't know it, uploaded over time from our experiences. In this respect it seems to have a lot in common with playing competitive Bridge (Chess too? but I've no experience in that Dept.).

These experiences magically come to the fore when we need them, so bewildering others who cannot imagine how we could work something out, apparently without effort. I once had a Bridge Partner, extremely bright person, science research PhD who started playing at 70+, read all the books etc, but when confronted with difficulty in one of the billions of playing situations would feeeze. He was trying to work it all out from the bottom up without access to most of the experiential resources he needed.

Others' comments here speak of rich experiences which can be brought into play when designing a layout. Stuff in our ROM becomes so second nature it can feel like there's no issue winging it as we might do, but for the novice that will lead to disaster once complexity levels rise. IMO planning always has a valuable place in helping continue to build the experience component. We're never too old (or experienced) to stop learning!

Barry, I skirt around the edges of the building trade, not the mass, identical little box market, but the individual house extension, renovation or self build ( as YOU have just done !). In almost all cases there are changes to the design as the build progresses as the client sees the physical taking shape and 'tweaks' the design. I'm sure your layout ( as with many others) will progress in the same way.  Don't worry about the skill set, it will come ( or not !) As you progress  :) and you will adapt and improve along the way.  Get some temporary track down so you can run something soon. Now pick a spot and start from there with your plan, Just ignore everything behind you. Things will evolve as you progress
Cheers

Matt

Hi Matt (and everybody else)

I was not really floating this question from the perspective of my project, more from a holistic, "what are the plusses and minusses" of it all.  I totally agree that we all approach things differently but as Colin rightly points out, suggesting that a newcomer just "wings" it could be fraught with danger.

Making a hash of a box-file project first-up is an easier way of learning than building some mega layout only to find its not what you wanted.

Guess how I know that - photo from my 1974 N gauge layout which never got beyond bare baseboards - and yes, that is GWR stock!!  I apologise for the wallpaper - I must have liked it once  :oops: :oops:

It's a bit like the military Barry.

The HQ Command plans every move in fine detail but because, as Wellington said, every battle is fought either on the edge or in the crease of a map, detailed planning simply doesn't work out in practice.

On the other hand, there are the front line Commanders who, whilst having an overall idea of the objective, react to the ever changing situations facing them.  My Dad (a front line commander during WW2) always said that the outcome of many battles might have been very different if the enemy commanders had been allowed the flexibility to react to situations facing them rather than having to follow HQ battle plans so rigidly.

Also, detailed planning is ideal provided the "other side" knows your  plans and responds accordingly …………  How many bits of 2x1 PSE  know exactly where your points will be when they choose their  position on the framework………. :hmm

My point is that planning is fine - for the overall picture - but to me, winging it "on site" saves lots of holes in baseboards and ruined track …………….. :cheers

[user=6]Petermac[/user] wrote:

It's a bit like the military Barry.

The HQ Command plans every move in fine detail but because, as Wellington said, every battle is fought either on the edge or in the crease of a map, detailed planning simply doesn't work out in practice.

On the other hand, there are the front line Commanders who, whilst having an overall idea of the objective, react to the ever changing situations facing them.  My Dad (a front line commander during WW2) always said that the outcome of many battles might have been very different if the enemy commanders had been allowed the flexibility to react to situations facing them rather than having to follow HQ battle plans so rigidly.

Also, detailed planning is ideal provided the "other side" knows your  plans and responds accordingly …………  How many bits of 2x1 PSE  know exactly where your points will be when they choose their  position on the framework………. :hmm

My point is that planning is fine - for the overall picture - but to me, winging it "on site" saves lots of holes in baseboards and ruined track …………….. :cheers

Wot E said. . . Thats what I meant Barry, but didn't word it well. My latter comment was more about the daunting task you face in starting. .  Nothing wrong with some temporary track so you at least get something moving early, then pick one section of your plan and make a start.  Totally agree that suggesting necomers just 'wing it' is fraught with danger but I also think you can OVER plan and then get disheartened when things don't work out ?  My advice is plan, yes, but also be flexible and adapt as you progress. Most of all don't lose sight of the fact it's a hobby ! Relax and enjoy it   :thumbs

As a re-starter in OO after a 35 year break I found the software invaluable for point geometry in station throats etc given I have no stock of old points to call upon and do not want to buy anything I don't need (especially at today's prices) the planning stage was somewhat essential.

In my now defunct N gauge history I often used to wing it as I had something like 60 points in stock so cobbling track together on the spot was very easy.

Pencil and paper wins for me for basic ideas as it is much faster to use than any software I have ever come across.

My take on planning. For me research has always been more important than the plan. I treat a plan as a guide that enables me to measure how far I have moved from the original path and shows me the new path to the destination.

As a "first time novice" and jumping straight into flex track I found that using track planning software (AnyRail in my case) taught me quite a lot. As well as being able to "visualise" what was doable in the space available, it also taught me a lot about track turning radius issues and point geometry. All of which prepared me well for my first track laying work.

But, prior to even AnyRail, studying track plans and photographs of layouts in magazines was great for me. This study helped me understand the aesthetics of back scenes, topography (multi layers), gradients etc., and again I was able to better understand what could be achieved. The period of time was easy for me and I will do my best to stick with it, but who knows, after all, it is my grand kids' layout

My next step was to gain an appreciation of some of the underlying technology, DCC for instance, signalling, automation and what was required as a "foundation" if one wanted to do certain things with the layout as the build progressed, thereby minimising "technical" rework and heading off down blind alleys.

YouTube was an invaluable source of both inspiration and knowledge. There are some really generous people out there who devote a lot of their time to explaining and teaching via the medium of YouTube. I think it is great that YouTube provides a platform whereby those people can, I think, earn some financial recognition as well.

And finally, join up with a club you like, virtual or real, thankfully I found this club!

So, in terms of my "plan", I have been able to, select a base idea that has some flexibility, decide on levels to minimise gradients, decide on the technology to be used and the era to be depicted. I have also decided not to weather rolling stock - the items I have purchased look so lovely that I can't bring my self to "attack" them :chicken I have no idea as to what I will do about scenery etc. This aspect, I think, is the most flexible and will enable me to express myself and, if I change my mind or stuff things up, both of which are very likely, it is easy to fix or redo.

Sorry for the long post with lots of words and cheers everyone, Andrew
 :cheers

I'm of the prior planning using software or accurate pencil and paper or template on a baseboard variety. 
Llandyfriog was designed in Anyrail.




As is the Newcastle Emlyn Station layout. 



I like to know what will fit and how many bits I need to buy. Reduces wastage and curbs flights of fancy by giving some reality to the space and geometry. 

I find the software easier to use than templates on the bare baseboard and I don't have the spare track and points to design on the fly. 

I winged, am winging it. Designed by committee ( the grand kids) 
" We want to run one of your old trains" :- single track roundy roundy.
"We want to RACE some of your old trains" :- Ok, double track roundy roundy
"We want to race MORE trains" :- Ok triple track roundy roundy
"I want to race on that track, not this track" :- Ok cobble together a mixed bag of old points
"We need a bridge"
"We need a tunnel" 
(Edit to add) "We need a Station"
" We need hills and trees and cows and stuff".  :It's a no no



I've also got a report card about my first attempt at ballasting.  " Rubbish "- Needs More Practice".  :hmm

Cheers

Matt

Oh dear!
Are your little ones aiming for a seat on the Board at Great British Railways :hmm

I'd give it a day Barry, the rest of the board would resign citing exhaustion !  Don't know where these kids get their energy but I need some  :thud

I Have bitten the bullet and ordered on of these Ballasty putty downy tidy things though, by Proses ? I think it's called ? I'll see how that goes :thumbs certainly can't be any WORSE than my first effort :hmm

( Can't really complain, I'm enjoying thinking how to do scenic stuff without it costing a small fortune)

Cheers

Matt

[user=2080]Barchester[/user] wrote: 

certainly can't be any WORSE than my first effort

( Can't really complain, I'm enjoying thinking how to do scenic stuff without it costing a small fortune)

Cheers

Matt

Try going for a winter setting. Easier to get good looking trees, hedgerows etc at minimal cost, then Scalescenes kits + good old DIY or were you Joe King? I never know with you, Matt.  :hmm

Confused (in Lockdown Melbourne)

Mwa ?? Joe King ??? Couldn't POSSIBLY say  

My 009 layout was definitely winging it. I built the baseboards to the shape that was available then started playing about with the points and flexible track that I had. The track plan changed from a 2 loop to 3 loop station. On reflection I could have done with a R/H point rather than the Y point, but that was purchased for the original fiddle yard idea.

I have tried WinRail in the past but couldn't get the hang of it and gave it up.

My "big" layout will be largely winging it again. The baseboards will go around the wall; there will be a gradient from a lower fiddle yard to the terminus; this may or may not work; the station will be based on Clacton but will be determined in detail by what I can fit in to the station approach and what points I have available.

2p

I'm a planner. Whether I'm faithfully basing a model on a prototype or letting my imagination run wild, I prefer to put things together from plausible building blocks. It aligns with my preference for realistic fiction (and even rational fantasy) that exhibits internal consistency and plot continuity.

Another tuppence….
Definitely a planner, or I just wouldn't know where to begin. Usually using software, although it all starts on scraps of paper.  Obviously I don't  have lots of experience of building a layout, so i need that planning stage.  But then I have to lay the track out, because what looks fine on my computer screen does not always translate to the baseboards.  After that it is tweaking.

Then, of course, my ideas of what i want change so radically that I pull it all up and start again - although hopefully just the once!!

Michael

[user=1512]Headmaster[/user] wrote:

Then, of course, my ideas of what i want change so radically that I pull it all up and start again - although hopefully just the once!!

Which is where things have moved on *so* much since iteration 00000001 of 9C, back in 1986. Nowadays, software makes changes a lot less emotionally painful and even keeps track of all the versions to allow us to combine station version F14 with loco shed version B11 and scenery Q37.