Ending the endless design phase

...but how do you folks all say "*$*#$#! it, it is done!"?

I've been building model layouts for 10 years and don't ever remembering being "done"!  If your plan has the basics you wanted and is working from end to end (or around a loop), lay it all out and start building around it.  Ever hear of the adage "if the shoe fits, wear it"?  You'll have plenty more to obsess over and work on after the track is down.  Once you start laying out accessories and scenery you'll begin to feel better about what you've created.

As good as a layout/track design software program might be, it eventually becomes necessary to clarify and resolve issues by actually building the layout. When you see it in reality, you can decide whether you like it or if something different would be better. Once you finalize a layout design in software, you should keep in mind what changes you might consider after you've begun to build - at which time they can be evaluated in the real world... Just my opinion.

MELGAR

I'm not a fan of the layout software, I prefer laying out real track. However I'm always changing things around, which is why I'm on my 9th layout since I started building in late 2012.

Why would I spend $$ on computer software when I could buy track with that money instead?  Of course, that kind of thinking lead to the results shown in these pics. These underside views of the decking show (5) generations of track-plan tweaks on the PER:

But the only way to get to the present track-plan was through actual operating experience. These pics of what is on that chopped-up added-onto decking is where the PER is today:

The underside pics were taken from where the silver waste-can sits:

IIRC this is the sixth iteration of the Paint Factory setup. Switching this, the West End, is fun and aesthetically pleasing and it was an ongoing learning process getting here.

At some point you need to dive in and see how it fits and works.

Plans are great to give you a starting point and a general idea of what you want to build. Once you start laying tracks you will find that things you saw in your mind don't work in reality, or don't look like you thought they would.

I'm in the middle of a change on my layout because what I designed doesn't work the way I wanted it too.

Build it and they will come......

Bob

Yeah, that is pretty much what I suspect will happen with me, I'll just have to bite the bullet, get the list of track and order it. Right now I am kind of looking at the design I have and trying to see if anything looks off or could be done better (like can I implement a run around on a spur area), seeing if changing a switch  radius from one to another makes it flow better, etc. But I think I am getting really close, the main loops of track (double main), and dock area I want, are pretty much set, now it is just figuring out how I want my spurs and industrial areas to be. 

At one point a Forum member replied to my planning-build topic to just start building.  He was right.  We had gone through one plan, then I decided to scrap it and go with something different.  I have built a few layouts over the years, and have done what Lew and Bob have shown above.  I agree with the others, start building a table, lay some track, wire it up, and see how it is working for you.  I have a track order I bought that now I have a couple switches I may not use, but if I don't need them someone else on the Forum can use them.

Oftentimes, a layout plan (and follow-up revisions) created with PC software may "look great on the screen" but may be subject to change in the "real world" of one's Train Room.  Tinkering with the tracks on a layout is part of the fun of this hobby.  My L-shaped home layout was initially created with ANYRAIL software but benefited from subsequent changes:  changed all the minimum radius curves and switches from O31 to O42, added an upper level for trolley routes, changed the locations of several operating accessories, and added an after-the-fact siding for Lionel's Dinosaur Train and a Dinosaur Park for my great-grandson (a dinosaur kid) to enjoy.

Few hobbyists are good-enough planners/prophets to foresee the ultimate end from the beginning of their project. At least, not me!

Mike Mottler    LCCA 12394

If you’re not yet at the point where you can start building, there’s nothing wrong with looking at various design options. Some folks have a hard time visualizing operations in software, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but today’s software packages generally have a simulation feature that you can use to see how things will operate. SCARM has an excellent 3D sim complete with multiple trains, uncoupling, engineer view, etc., so it can be almost like watching a video of a real layout. Software lets you figure out how things will fit in your space. For example, everyone wants O72 or larger curves, but does your space allow them? And if it does, how will they actually work? What happens when you buy a bunch of track only to find out they don’t get you around that column you mentioned. Now you have to plan something else and perhaps wait on more track. Switches aren’t cheap, so wouldn’t it be nice to test them in software to see if they are really worth buying? Then too there’s the issue of which brand track to use. With GarGraves you settle for what you can build with the shortest track being around 6” or you get into cutting track. They offer difference size curves too, so wouldn’t it be nice to see how GarGraves O42 compares to Atlas O45? Or a Ross 11° vs an O72 switch? Or how about the Ross 3-way or 4-way? Or how about building bench work only to find out you can’t reach something? You want a dual main, so how do you know things will fit without comparing curves before buying a bunch of track and then having to settle for how it all fits together? $60 is a cheap investment when you’re going to spend several hundred. Some people don’t flinch at $100 switches, but I do, so I’d like to know beforehand that it’s going to add operation value. Even then as Mark pointed out, you end up with extras, but hopefully it’s fewer extras because the software let you do some home work. And as Mark found out, what happens when something unexpected happens part way through the build and you have to completely redo your design? Mark and I went through that and all I had to do was move some sections around in SCARM and we had a new design, I believe the next day. There’s nothing wrong with seat of the pants design, but there’s also nothing wrong with using software. Ask Richie about his desire to add a Wye to his layout. I’m pretty sure he’ll tell you he wouldn’t have gotten there without the use of software, certainly not to the point where it’s already operational. Software has saved a lot of people a lot of money and headaches. And this forum has helped a lot of folks enhance their designs because they’ve been able to post their designs and let others take a crack at finding problems or just making things run smoother, etc. As you can see I’m a big believer in the benefits of using software. 🤪

bigkid posted:

... Right now I am kind of looking at the design I have and trying to see if anything looks off or could be done better ... seeing if changing a switch  radius from one to another makes it flow better, etc. ...

In addition to the general suggestion that laying track is the single best solution to paralysis-by-analysis, a good relationship w/a brick ‘n mortar shop is also very helpful at this stage. My go-to local shop has let me swap loops of O-track and switches more than once, no questions asked. Helped me work through a few iterations before I finally got a feel for how real life differed from the simulation. And, yes, I buy almost all my track gear from him now (even though I might save a few ducats elsewhere).

If you’re lucky enough to have a similar joint nearby, use ‘em. 

- The Other Guy

I just spent the last two months learning  SCARM and designing a complex layout (with forum help).  I have built many layouts over the decades.  Once I spent months drawing with old fashioned mechanical drawing before the days of CAD programs.  I have also free lanced floor layouts by dumping boxes of track on the floor and working it out. 

I think when the proposed layout is very complex and multi-level and one is trying to incorporate many features, there is a point to doing a lot of up front deign work.  However, experience has shown that a design is always changed when one starts to lay track.  So there is a point of going too far with up front design that will change anyway. 

I have passed that point and have gone too far with SCARM.  However, I have really enjoyed learning and designing with SCARM so I have kept going too far.  Its time for me to step away from the computer and start building bench work.

One thing is that programs like SCARM force one to be realistic about what will fit in the space.  I find that if I sketch ideas on paper, my natural tendency is to put in more than will actually fit.

Bill