Design influences: third layout

I started my 3rd layout late in 1989, almost 9 years after my second layout was built and dismantled. I was newly married, and my wife, noting my intense interest in both real and model trains, suggested I build a layout. I immediately adopted her suggestion, of course, as I did not want to be disagreeable early in our marriage. ;)

Popular layout design theory holds that there are three decisions you need to make before you get started designing the layout: theme, scale and site, though not necessarily in that order. For my third layout the theme was a given -- European passenger trains. I'd moved to central Germany in 1987 and had traveled western Europe extensively for work and tourism while I was there. Europe had, and still has, a plethora of wonderful passenger rail. Furthermore, shops with European model trains were plentiful, with virtually one in every decent sized shopping district plus large model train departments in most of the big department stores. In 1989 I had one of each within 3 blocks of my apartment. Given that I was in the center of all this, and that I loved passenger trains, no other option was even considered.

As to scale, I was predisposed to HO but had to do some research before deciding. I visited a couple of local shops and found that German model trains were different in many ways from those in the U.S. In the U.S., with the special exception of Lionel Toy Trains, a wide variety of manufacturers will make interoperable equipment for the same scale. In Germany, at least back in 1989, modelers tended to stick predominantly to one manufacturer. I think this was mostly because the largest manufacturer, Märklin, set the tone with their distinct HO product line. Märklin HO has proprietary couplers and a unique 3-rail track system, with the third "rail" fairly well disguised as metal bumps in the center of the ties.

So the first question the train shop owners asked me was "which brand of model train are you using?" I hadn't decided, so in response I reviewed a few product catalogues and settled pretty quickly on Märklin HO. I suppose part of my rationale was the apparent quality of their product and the relative breadth of the their product line. But the main reason was that in 1988 Märklin had introduced their "Digital" line, which was what we now know as DCC. Such a product rollout was and example of the key advantage of a proprietary model train brand. While the rest of the model train industry would spend the next 15 years or so evolving the standards and practices to make DCC practical and universal, Märklin was able to provide all the necessary components all at once, out of the box. No messy decoder installs or debugging of weird timing problems between different manufacturers. It was literally plug-and play back in 1988.

Having decided on theme and scale I now needed to pick a site, and that was a bit of a challenge. We lived in a 61 square meter, one-bedroom apartment. Not small for two people, but not very accomodating for a model railroad. I knew the layout would need to be portable in sections, both because we would eventually move out of the apartment, and also because I would need to put it away in the storage locker when we entertained. I eventually settled on a 3x1 meter portable layout concept consisting of three 1x1 meter sections. This is roughly 32 square feet -- about the same as an American 4x8 layout, but somewhat longer and narrower.

With theme, scale and site decided I then needed a layout design. I quickly found that it was going to be very difficult to squeeze an interesting passenger layout into such a small space. When you start any layout design it's helpful to figure out the key constraints and requirements at the start, what the great layout designer John Armstrong called "Givens and Druthers". For me they were:

1. Train length. I wanted to run trains of up to 5 passenger cars. The longest train measured 160cm with the locomotive.


2. Curve radius. It was a given that any curves were going to be of the tightest possible operational radius, and hidden in tunnels because they would look so unrealistic. This turned out to be about 40cm radius if I recall correctly, or about 15".


3. Stations. Passenger train layouts need stations. At first I was open to a minimum of one station, either a through style or a stub terminal style. After sketching a few designs, though, I realized that I needed a minimum of two stations to keep it interesting, and ideally one of each style.


4. Realism. The setting should be at least possible, if not plausible. This implies that the trains would need to exit through a tunnel somewhere to go "off stage", which would represent the "rest of the world". I had not heard the term "staging" back then, but the requirement for staging was clear. It also meant that oval designs or twice-through-the-same scene designs were out of the question.

I sketched all kind of layouts but just couldn't find a solution that I liked. The best I could come up with was a layout with a 3-meter-long view block lengthwise down the middle. On one side would be the stub terminal, then the train would go through a curved tunnel to the other side where there would be a through tunnel. Then the train would go through another curved tunnel to an under-layout staging area.

But this design concept had at least three problems. First, the overall run for the train was very short, making it less interesting to operate. Second, there was the problem that trains would still be exiting the first station while simultaneously entering the second. Finally, this design requires walking around the layout to follow the train, which is acceptable in theory, but in practice is difficult given that Märklin did not yet have walk-around controls.

I bought some German layout books seeking inspiration, but found no answers. I dug out my old copy of the "101 Track Plans" book that I used for my second layout, but still nothing satisfied. I eventually got so frustrated that I seriously considered switching to N scale, even sketching some N scale plans for the same space. Finally I found my solution by looking "one last time" at a Märklin layout design book. Most of the Märklin layouts in that book eschewed realistic operations, but one design stood out:


To see why I liked this, ignore the logging and industrial elements in this picture and focus just on the layout of the main line. The railroad starts at the stub terminal at the top of drawing, which is at the top of the hill, then winds its way down slope, making two horseshoe turns with the second turn in a tunnel, and arrives at a through station. From there it goes into a tunnel that goes to "the rest of the world", a.k.a. "under layout staging".

I might not have seen the passenger possiblities here if my wife and I had not been making frequent visits to Switzerland, where I'd noted the following about Swiss mountain railroads: 1) The Swiss have a lot of tunnels, and often in places where Americans would have chosen a large cut; 2) There are a few mountain towns in Switzerland that are accessible only by train or hiking path; 3) There are some places where two stations are quite near each other, separated as much by elevation as by horizontal distance; and 4) compacted, complex trackwork is common throughout the Swiss mountains as they often have to squeeze track into small spaces.

So, I could see this track layout working with a Swiss mountain theme. The track distance between the two stations allows for a longer run that addresses the concerns stated earlier. The two stations would be separated mostly by elevation and in a mountain town that was accessible only by train. I would not include the industry shown on the Märklin drawing, but would allow a "goods track" at each station for local freight deliveries (what in America we would call a "team track"). For even more fun the theme would be a ski village in winter. And the whole layout could be viewed and operated from one side.

The next step was to compress the layout design from the 3.0x1.7 meter space shown in the drawing to my 3x1 meter space. This wasn't hard as I didn't need the space that was set aside for industry. As I drew the detailed design it I re-routed the main line and made a few changes, most significantly adding a turntable to the stub terminal. This was totally non-realistic as the Swiss converted to electrical railroads for their mountain tunnel lines very, very early (the first decade of the 1900s I believe), but I wanted the flexibility of running steam. I later gave the railroad a specific date of Boxing Day (day after Christmas), 1956, and planned to string electric catenary. The idea was that the catenary would be new, so new that the viewer couldn't tell whether it was yet operational. I could then run steam, diesel or electric depending on my whim.

I built the layout in early 1990 using a German language model railroad how-to book as a guide. The methodology they used worked, but I don't recommend it because it's not very conducive to later revisions of the layout. The Märklin turntable I'd included in the layout plans was announced but would not be available until 1992, so I ran trains without it for the first year. The digital system worked great, and I built a few models and a bit of scenery.

By 1991 I just left the layout in the storage locker, as moving it in and out had become a pain. In late 1991 I took a job in California, and in early 1992 we moved into a new house. The layout was setup in one of the bedrooms. This picture shows it shortly after things were unpacked and I had gotten the trains running:


Unfortunately, this amazingly is the only photo I have of the layout today. Alas, the angle is not good for seeing the track plan, the scenery is not in position, and there are even random items piled on the layout in places. I think I took this picture as part of a series showing each room in the house after move-in. Furthermore, the turntable was not yet in place. However, as it is the only photo I have I'll have to use it to describe the layout, and how it differed from the Märklin drawing that inspired it.

The top tier was the stub terminal -- this level had no slope. There were three tracks for passenger trains and one short track, on the side farthest from the camera, for goods cars. The space for the turntable and a few locomotive tracks was on the right -- I would add the turntable to the layout later in 1992. Two double-slip switches connected the turntable to the passenger tracks. There was an escape crossover near the end of the two longest passenger tracks, to allow for backing steam locomotives back to the turntable, turning them, and attaching them to the other end of the train for the return journey.

The middle tier was on a 4-5% grade connecting the two stations, with the left half of this tier in a tunnel. I added a siding to the middle tier between the curves, and this proved very useful in operations. The inspiration for adding a siding partially in a tunnel came from the line between Grindlewald and Wengen in Switzerland.

The lower tier was on a 1-2% grade with a two-track through terminal. A short goods track was also included on the left side. Curved Märklin switches were used at both sides of the lower tier so that the station tracks were long enough to accomodate the passenger trains.

The underneath staging level consisted of a double-track reverse loop. Because of Märklin's 3-rail system no auto-reverse mechanism was needed. Staging could accomodate up to 4 trains.

Operations consisted of a tight holiday schedule of regional, local, and worker passenger trains, with two runs for goods cars placed at gaps in the schedule. To add operational interest special events, such as late trains or a non-functioning engine, were introduced at random intervals.

I continued to run trains and enhance the layout occasionally through the end of 1993, when our first child, Paige, was born. During that time I'd converted the layout from being in 3 sections to one large section, in order to make continuing construction easier. Work then essentially stopped on the layout until late 1995, when the arrival of our second child, Daniel, meant the layout had to move into storage. I built a special holding platform for it high in the garage and packed it all away as carefully as I could, and it sat there for many years.

In early 2002 I found that my train-obsessed son was climbing up a ladder in the garage, lifting the layout dust cover, and spending hours staring at the the layout. He had his own HO trains (supplemented by my old American HO trains that had been converted with modern couplers) on an oval layout on a flat board. But he was fascinated by the mountain layout with the slopes and bridges. We decided to swap the two layouts -- the Märklin one went in the garage spot where his had been, and his went where the Märklin one had been stored. We then revived the Märklin layout and ran trains for several months.

It all ended when I decided to start a new layout in N scale. The Märklin layout went back into storage and was dismantled for our move in 2005. I have a tinge of regret about that, but I'd realized that I never was going to have time to finish the Märklin layout given a) my new interests in N scale and large scale and b) that I'd lost interest in Märklin 3-rail.

So, what were the lessons learned from the 3rd layout?

1. Yes, I love passenger trains. More specifically, I loved the drama of the trains coming in and out of the stub terminal and crossing over the double-slip switches. The stub terminal was my favorite part of the layout, especially with the abundance of operational possibilities after the turntable was added.
2. Double track is cool. This layout was single track operationally, although with two stations and a siding most of the actual main route was double track. I did this because single track is recommended for layouts because it increases operations activity due to having to accomodate meets between trains in opposite directions. But as I looked at the staging part of the layout, with the double-track curve, there was something about that "boulevard of steel" that made me want to emulate that on the main line with my next layout.
3. Digital is cool. Märklin digital, less so. For one it's ridiculously expensive, and for another many of the operations were very difficult due to limitations of Märklin controls.
4. I can do without turntables. Oh, they are fun and cool to look at, but the huge amount of work required makes me question the fun/work ratio. I haven't planned one since, although my outdoor layout will probably have two for prototype reasons.
5. I'm ready for a really big layout. After this layout was done I felt I'd done as much as I could with small space compromises, and that what I really wanted were long trains over very long runs and curves that weren't so tight that they had to be hidden in tunnels.
6. I want more realism than what this layout offered. Given the space I had it was the best I could do, but some of the pretenses required to create interesting operations were really stretching the term "realistic". Another reason to go big with the next layout.
7. I discovered that my modeling interests tend to be influenced heavily by where I live. When I built this layout I was surrounded by European trains and couldn't imagine modeling anything else. I think that part of the reason my interest waned in 1994, apart from the thrill of a baby in the house, was that European trains were becoming a distant memory to me -- and when I revived the layout in 2002 the European trains seemed no more realistic to me than the Thomas the Tank Engine trains my kids had. However, at that same time I'd become very interested in local railroads like the Southern Pacific and the old narrow gauge South Pacific Coast.

All of these lessons would factor into my current layout. Unfortunately, in 2002 I still didn't have the space to go "big", so my 4th layout would have to incorporate some, but not all, of these learnings.