Note: Because my methods for building benchwork are documented in other posts and already known to those who have built layouts, here I focus on the planning and conceptualization that go into the benchwork. The benchwork has to anticipate the scenery and operations that will be built on it, so a lot of conceptualization and planning has to preceed its construction.
Lower Level Concept: Mainline Through the Canyon
Mainline-focused layouts have a built-in challenge:
SPACE!
It takes a lot of space to have a mainline and run it believably. Long straight runs, wide curves and the open space surrounding them all require a lot of space to build and operate. A mainline is, after all, how a train gets to its destination, so cluttering it with extra track detracts visually and functionally from its main purpose. I will go even further to suggest that having multiple levels of mainline track in the same scene never looked right to me, mainly because it trivializes the main attraction (the mainline) with an overabundance. (Model railroaders, at least in my case, are obsessive collectors of things, where more is always more. It takes real creative courage to see the beauty in less. As Dolly Parton once said, "it takes a lot of money to look cheap." Similarly, it takes a lot of discipline and work to keep things simple.) All this is really to make a fine point that in designing a layout featuring a mainline, it takes a lot of restraint to keep it clean.
When I first got into model railroading seriously about 15 years ago, a mainline layout for big power freights and prototypical passenger trains was only a dream with a lot of 'somedays' in it. Living in Southern California at the time, all the space I had was a corner of my garage. That all changed when I moved to Utah. Here I could have both the space for my layout and close proximity to my prototype. What could be better?
Fortunately, I now have a dream space for a layout that can have mainline running as it is meant to be. But space will always be a problem for modeling. I've heard the expression that "time is the fire in which we burn," but for mainline layouts, the problem really is that "space is the fire in which we burn." There's simply never enough of it to do what we would really want to do. Model railroading is the art of compromise. This is the planning aspect of model railroading. I approached the compromise of mainline running in the mountains in a unique way (not to be confused with superior, just different): inversion of levels to emphasize the city skyline on the top and mountain vistas on the bottom.
Model railroading is also the art of believable illusion. This is the modeling aspect. My layout plan is pretty simple: two levels of mainline run connected by a (mostly hidden) grade, a terminal operation and industrial switching on the main level, working staging yard with mainline running on the lower level. The city level on top is the destination - the terminal city on the mainline where one gets to see what happens to the trains once they arrive. As such, I wanted to emphasize the activity of the destination where it counts - at eye level. With a track height of 55" from the floor (I wanted to go higher, but the constraint of a basement ceiling forced this compromise), I want the eye at track level, rather than the typical birds eye view shown in the magazines.The architect in me is drawn to the composition of the space before wanting to run trains. So, this long dissertation has a purpose: to explain the importance of thinking through the concept in designing and building a layout. A layout to me is an architectural model first, and a place to run trains second.
Going against conventional wisdom, I decided to put the layout's mountain and canyon running and scenery on the lower - rather than the upper - level. Almost without exception, the idea was met with puzzled incredulity every time I explained it to other train enthusiasts I know. 'You should put the canyons and mountains on the top level where they will be most dramatic,' they all said.
But here's the problem with that thinking. Visually, mountains are always out of scale with the trains running alongside them. This problem gets exponentially worse when contemplating a mainline operation. With Weber and Echo Canyons in my back yard and as my inspiration, there is no way on earth that I could model the drama of these spaces on the upper level of my layout with a maximum of 37" of vertical clearance between benchwork and ceiling to model them. To me, mountain tops are the best way to ruin a layout scene because there is no practical way to model them convincingly in 3 dimensions in a confined space. There are lots of techniques for working around this problem - forests, blending background painting into molded scenes, optical illusions ad infinitum - but the problem remains. So, the trick is how to make the scale problem go away.
My solution was simple, if unconventional: flip the city and the mountains for better visual effect. This is what I referred to as "inversion" earlier in this post. I got the idea from those who came before me. As modelers, John Allen, George Sellios and Rod Stewart all use the City as Mountains. Each in his own way built ambitious cities that used buildings of all sizes and shapes, creatively packed together to create vistas like mountains and canyons. Cities solve the problem of scale because buildings are already proportional to the track and trains.
Buildings can be used to create arguably more effective skylines on a layout than mountains because their scale is human, not geological. With the city on the top level, I can create the drama of mountain and canyon vistas with a human scale - adding details to the buildings to draw the eye down into the scene rather than above it. Rooftops create more natural vertical vanishing points for models than scaled-down mountains. This fact becomes evident in the published photographs of urban layouts. As they appear in the magazines, these layouts are photographed closer to track level mainly to show the incredible detail they put there, but doing so keeps the overall scenery in scale with the trains running in them.
The other side of this equation is the natural mountains and canyons of my mainline. By putting these scenes on the lower level, the benchwork decapitates the mountaintops, thereby solving their scale problem. With canyon walls as backdrop to train operations, the benchwork itself actually creates new possibilities for visualizing mountains. Since my canyons are on the lower level, it forces me to put the most modeling effort where it counts the most - at track level. At 36" above the floor, the mainline forces the eye downward right to the track, which is by definition a forced perspective. Forcing the eye to the track level also forces the scene's detail to concentrate around the track. Trackside scenes where the eye is looking down into them builds interest along the track, allowing the mountains to be suggested more than built. With benchwork decapitating the canyon walls and mountains, the canyon floor with track in it gets all the attention.
Also useful is the benchwork supporting the upper level. As a frame, it creates many opportunities to add visual depth between supports with hidden trails and canyons, just as there are throughout Weber and Echo Canyons.
Here are a few illustrations from the prototype:
Lower Level Concept: Mainline Through the Canyon
Mainline-focused layouts have a built-in challenge:
SPACE!
It takes a lot of space to have a mainline and run it believably. Long straight runs, wide curves and the open space surrounding them all require a lot of space to build and operate. A mainline is, after all, how a train gets to its destination, so cluttering it with extra track detracts visually and functionally from its main purpose. I will go even further to suggest that having multiple levels of mainline track in the same scene never looked right to me, mainly because it trivializes the main attraction (the mainline) with an overabundance. (Model railroaders, at least in my case, are obsessive collectors of things, where more is always more. It takes real creative courage to see the beauty in less. As Dolly Parton once said, "it takes a lot of money to look cheap." Similarly, it takes a lot of discipline and work to keep things simple.) All this is really to make a fine point that in designing a layout featuring a mainline, it takes a lot of restraint to keep it clean.
When I first got into model railroading seriously about 15 years ago, a mainline layout for big power freights and prototypical passenger trains was only a dream with a lot of 'somedays' in it. Living in Southern California at the time, all the space I had was a corner of my garage. That all changed when I moved to Utah. Here I could have both the space for my layout and close proximity to my prototype. What could be better?
Fortunately, I now have a dream space for a layout that can have mainline running as it is meant to be. But space will always be a problem for modeling. I've heard the expression that "time is the fire in which we burn," but for mainline layouts, the problem really is that "space is the fire in which we burn." There's simply never enough of it to do what we would really want to do. Model railroading is the art of compromise. This is the planning aspect of model railroading. I approached the compromise of mainline running in the mountains in a unique way (not to be confused with superior, just different): inversion of levels to emphasize the city skyline on the top and mountain vistas on the bottom.
All mountains are not created equal
Model railroading is also the art of believable illusion. This is the modeling aspect. My layout plan is pretty simple: two levels of mainline run connected by a (mostly hidden) grade, a terminal operation and industrial switching on the main level, working staging yard with mainline running on the lower level. The city level on top is the destination - the terminal city on the mainline where one gets to see what happens to the trains once they arrive. As such, I wanted to emphasize the activity of the destination where it counts - at eye level. With a track height of 55" from the floor (I wanted to go higher, but the constraint of a basement ceiling forced this compromise), I want the eye at track level, rather than the typical birds eye view shown in the magazines.The architect in me is drawn to the composition of the space before wanting to run trains. So, this long dissertation has a purpose: to explain the importance of thinking through the concept in designing and building a layout. A layout to me is an architectural model first, and a place to run trains second.
Going against conventional wisdom, I decided to put the layout's mountain and canyon running and scenery on the lower - rather than the upper - level. Almost without exception, the idea was met with puzzled incredulity every time I explained it to other train enthusiasts I know. 'You should put the canyons and mountains on the top level where they will be most dramatic,' they all said.
But here's the problem with that thinking. Visually, mountains are always out of scale with the trains running alongside them. This problem gets exponentially worse when contemplating a mainline operation. With Weber and Echo Canyons in my back yard and as my inspiration, there is no way on earth that I could model the drama of these spaces on the upper level of my layout with a maximum of 37" of vertical clearance between benchwork and ceiling to model them. To me, mountain tops are the best way to ruin a layout scene because there is no practical way to model them convincingly in 3 dimensions in a confined space. There are lots of techniques for working around this problem - forests, blending background painting into molded scenes, optical illusions ad infinitum - but the problem remains. So, the trick is how to make the scale problem go away.
My solution was simple, if unconventional: flip the city and the mountains for better visual effect. This is what I referred to as "inversion" earlier in this post. I got the idea from those who came before me. As modelers, John Allen, George Sellios and Rod Stewart all use the City as Mountains. Each in his own way built ambitious cities that used buildings of all sizes and shapes, creatively packed together to create vistas like mountains and canyons. Cities solve the problem of scale because buildings are already proportional to the track and trains.
Buildings can be used to create arguably more effective skylines on a layout than mountains because their scale is human, not geological. With the city on the top level, I can create the drama of mountain and canyon vistas with a human scale - adding details to the buildings to draw the eye down into the scene rather than above it. Rooftops create more natural vertical vanishing points for models than scaled-down mountains. This fact becomes evident in the published photographs of urban layouts. As they appear in the magazines, these layouts are photographed closer to track level mainly to show the incredible detail they put there, but doing so keeps the overall scenery in scale with the trains running in them.
The other side of this equation is the natural mountains and canyons of my mainline. By putting these scenes on the lower level, the benchwork decapitates the mountaintops, thereby solving their scale problem. With canyon walls as backdrop to train operations, the benchwork itself actually creates new possibilities for visualizing mountains. Since my canyons are on the lower level, it forces me to put the most modeling effort where it counts the most - at track level. At 36" above the floor, the mainline forces the eye downward right to the track, which is by definition a forced perspective. Forcing the eye to the track level also forces the scene's detail to concentrate around the track. Trackside scenes where the eye is looking down into them builds interest along the track, allowing the mountains to be suggested more than built. With benchwork decapitating the canyon walls and mountains, the canyon floor with track in it gets all the attention.
Also useful is the benchwork supporting the upper level. As a frame, it creates many opportunities to add visual depth between supports with hidden trails and canyons, just as there are throughout Weber and Echo Canyons.
Here are a few illustrations from the prototype:
In Croydon, as pictured here, the bridges create a forced perspective of the Weber River by decapitating the hilltops and directing the eye to the ground level around the track (literally framing the scene). By pulling the eye toward the floor, rather than the sides and hilltops, this forced perspective creates new modeling opportunities to punch a scene back through the open supports. When mountaintops do appear, they are forced to the background behind the visual elements of the bridges. Here the star of the scene is the bridges and track. The real challenge will be keeping the eye from looking up into the benchwork supporting the upper level. Only good modeling can channel the eye down, and that is my challenge.
What a contrast! This shot in Echo Canyon (the Union Pacific mainline is below the grass level between the trees and the rock formations. In this dramatic shot the eye is drawn up the canyon walls to the sky, rather than to the ground. The cut in the background creates a nice visual effect, but it would be lost in the space of most layouts. Viewing these scenes pushed me to think about modeling canyons in a different way - one that emphasizes the (fore)ground in order to even the scale of the scene as a whole. Time and experimentation will tell whether I am successful in building these scenes.
And now back to the benchwork
Brad built the benchwork for the North Peninsula starting with the top level. The lower level did require some thoughtful engineering, which was helped quite a bit by having the upper level in place as a solid anchoring structure. To start, an outer frame was built using 2x2s for legs and L-girders to support the lower level deck:
With X-braced legs and L-girder support, the benchwork created a solid structure for the lower level. This area will become the end of the Canyon operation. Based on Union Pacific's double-tracked mainline through Weber Canyon, this entire level of the North Peninsula will have only the mainline to focus attention.
Viewed from the opposite side with subroadbed in place, the X-braced extension support structure becomes more apparent. The Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) subroadbed in place shows an important design decision made on the lower level - namely, dropping the benchwork level down 3 1/2" to add depth to the scenes that will occupy this level. The drop allows me to build up the trackside to accommodate the streams, rivers and other geology the railroad had to contend with in laying the mainline. Also important here is that the extra few inches dropped help to open up the space visually to counteract the limited vertical distance between the two levels. Once again, this drop in the benchwork pulls the operator's eye to the ground, and the interesting contours that can be modeled into that ground will help keep the eye there. Visually, the Canyon has to keep pulling the eye down away from the exposed benchwork, wiring and lighting above the scene.
With double-track mainline subroadbed in, the challenges in modeling my Canyon are evident. Although the curve is 39" Radius (outer) and 36.5" Radius (inner track), which is the maximum that the space would allow, the bird's eye view here (the operator's viewpoint) will require concentration of detail at or below track level in order to maintain a sense of realism. View blocks will be needed to soften the curve's appearance. Dropping the benchwork comfortably below track level both opens up the scene vertically and creates greater opportunity to pull the eye into the ground away from the benchwork.
The construction techniques are shown here as well. Anchoring the track on risers from the benchwork and splicing the subroadbed sections all stabilize the tracks for better running. The center space between the central support structure provides access to the liftout section on the upper level. This view helps visualize the merits of placing the city skyline on the main upper level and canyon mainline below. The lower level draws the eye into the ground, while the upper level draws the eye in and across the scenes, which is ideal for urban scenery.
The benchwork now complete, getting ready to lay track is up next.
Comments
Post a Comment