Darrell's Comments and My Concept

Darrell had some comments on my layout plan and I thought it might be useful to respond, as well as discuss my overall concept. He cited personal experience with a similar layout in identifying some limitations.

Among his concerns were lack of mainline running, no provision for moving cars "off layout" and lack of room for scenery, other than piers and building flats. All valid concerns, depending on what you're aiming for. He feels I simply don't have the space to do all I want, and that operating the layout could grow stale.

While I appreciate his comments and a good discussion, I must respectfully disagree, and my disagreement is based on my personal preferences and experience. Allow me to clarify.

First of all, my layout is intended to be a relatively simple switching layout, with no mainline running; the short stretch of track representing the mainline is simply to suggest a connection off-layout, in effect a "dummy" track (that can also serve as a switching lead). One of the yard tracks will represent both an arrival and departure track; cars will be assembled for departure and then will "arrive" via a card-order system, to be delivered to the various industrial sidings.

As for scenery, my idea is to represent a limited portion of a small city, through use of building flats and a few semi-flats and full structures. There won't be any attempt to reproduce "open country." I like the creativity involved in detailing scenery in a limited space to give the feel of a particular time and place. In a way, it's not unlike a movie set. A small layout is in some ways an "operating diorama."

Now, as far as experience goes, my previous layout, when we lived in Idaho, was based on exactly the same type of scheme. In fact, the track plan was in many ways quite similar to that of my new layout. Take a look at the photos of my old layout in my June 29th posting. Notice how I included just portions of "main street" and the edge of a residential area to suggest more beyond. My old layout was 8' x 10', while now I have 11' x 13' to work in, which I've used to expand my curve radii a bit. I saved my structures and building flats and they should all find a place on my new layout, though some may be modified or cannibalized (such as grain elevators).

I've had larger layouts in the past that included mainline running and plenty of scenery, but I had the best time with my last layout, that small switching pike. I operated it for six years and never grew tired of it. The arrival/departure track and card-order arrangement worked well, as far as I was concerned. I would occasionally tinker with the scenery here and there and add rolling stock, but I was pleased with the overall situation.

In short, I am in many ways duplicating what for me was a layout that I thoroughly enjoyed, using ideas I have tested. I actually considered recreating the same Idaho-themed layout here, track plan and all. However, as a Seattle native, I have always thought it would be interesting to depict a waterfront railroad. And it seems only fitting, since we now live in Texas and are near the Gulf Coast, to model this region. Thus, the Gulf Harbor Terminal Railway!

Again, I do appreciate Darrell's comments and I hope my response has clarified my objectives a bit. I think we all have our individual preferences in model railroading and that's great. The variety of approaches is what I like most about this hobby. I always learn a lot by seeing others' layouts and hearing their ideas.