"Modeling using selective orientation..."

Back in August, I wrote about a design and modeling concept that I referred to as selective representation. I concluded that it is just one aspect of the overall collective idea of selective compression. Now, I'd like to suggest combining that component with what I term, selective orientation. It's about the idea of necessary compromises to re-orient a structure relative to its relationship with the track, or the track's relationship with the benchwork footprint as mandated by room constraints. Everyone still on board so far?

As I play with track arrangements on my completed sub-roadbed, and continually fine-tune my drawings, I realize just how much of a challenge that selective orientation will be on my shelf layout. The photos below tell the story best.

The flour mill at Ellicott City bears off the main at a fairly sharp angle and crosses the river. The building itself is u-shaped and surrounds two spurs making operations difficult for my 1:1 crew. The angle can be reduced, but the building components may need to be staggered to allow decent access for visiting operators switching cars.

 

At Ellicott City, the track and Patapsco River travel east-west while the distinctive main thoroughfare climbs a hill in a north-south direction. Rotating that perpendicular relationship into more of a parallel one is the only way to depict any portion of the town, even when taking advantage of the depth that an inside corner of the benchwork offers.



One half mile up the river, around a horseshoe bend that would be best suited at the end of my peninsula is the Dickey textile mill in Oella. Alas, too many other layout design factors mandated that Oella end up along a straight portion of the benchwork, but that is the least of my worries. The structure is t-shaped and accepts a spur almost perpendicular to the mainline and river. This would work nicely if my shelf was about 42" deep!



The Dickey mill will need to be selectively represented predicated on its dominant window and brick fenestration, but re-oriented 90 degrees to fit the 20" deep benchwork. The sharp angle will be reduced so the spur can run alongside the front of the structure rather than the side. So exactly when is it that we enter no-longer-prototypical territory?





The Daniels mill complex is distinctive by the horseshoe curve of the river and the massive original building set perpendicular to the mainline. Like at Ellicott City and Oella, Daniels' spurs are severe and surrounded by structure causing headaches for humans bearing uncoupling skewers. And no one wants to be around a frustrated human wielding a skewer.



This axonometric drawing from the early 1900's shows the two original spurs, including a coal trestle, that bear off at about 45 degrees from the main. A third spur was present in 1960 and cut straight across the front of the original building into a 'well' created by the expanded complex. It is evident in the photo above.





Like so many aspects of building a prototype-based layout, compromises become the devil in the details. We continually try to determine the least of the necessary evils. How can we best determine what must be done, and what might be done without compromising things too much? Go too far, for whatever reason, and the layout becomes nothing more than the equivalent of a cheap made-for-television murder mystery, "based on actual events."

I guess we'll see as we move forward. My very first track plan shows my earliest attempt at dealing with each of these LDEs. Some modifications are forthcoming. But for now, work and life in general will waylay me for awhile. See you a bit later, but please comment with your own layout design experiences.
 

-30-

 

     BONUS:  JUST  ONE  MORE  THING  BEFORE  WE  GO... 

 

Check out the 2016 issue of Model Railroad Planning for a feature on the Rutland Railroad layout by Randy Laframboise and Mike Sparks that was a very popular post here last summer. Congratulations, boys!