When designing layouts, there is a series of questions that need to be asked prior to starting any plan. These questions include, “Are you going to model a prototype?” And if so, “What do you like about the prototype?” Many modelers have a favorite prototype railroad, but their answers to these questions vary widely, ranging from, “I like the colors of the freight cars,” or “The new paint scheme on the engines is cool,” to the more common answers, “It’s the railroad my father or grandfather worked for,” or “It’s the railroad I grew up next to.” Some answers are more operations specific, such as, “I like coal hauling,” or, “I like passenger trains.” These answers give the designer insight into the modeler’s wants and thought process.

The first four answers have a common theme and have the element of emotion attached to them. The last two are more “operational” answers, with emotions probably playing a secondary role.

There’s nothing wrong with “liking a color scheme” or “wanting to model the railroad your grandfather worked for” or “what you remember from growing up.” But from a track planning perspective, liking specific types of railroads for emotional reasons isn’t very helpful.  Liking a railroad because it’s big into coal hauling operations, however, is much more meaningful.

A designer’s job is twofold:  

1. Design a layout that the modeler likes,

2. and Make the design “believable.”

Why Believability Needs to Trump Emotions
Liking coal-hauling railroads can have elements of emotion tied to it as well.  For example, if you are seriously into coaling hauling, seeing a long string of loaded coal hoppers snaking their way through the mountains of West Virginia can elicit strong emotions.

Unfortunately, many modelers have trouble setting aside the emotional reasons to focus on the serious questions about building their dream layout.  The first is, “Do you have the resources to build your dream layout?”  And the second is, “Do you have the space required to construct the layout of your dreams?”  For the most part, these should be non-emotional questions; but many times they elicit emotional answers.  The most common of these is, “But it is what I like,” or “It’s really what I want.”

What the modeler should be asking his or her self is, “Can I successfully build a model railroad representing what I like or want?” and, “When completed, will the layout have a look and feel of believability?”

The designer’s job is to create a great track plan that operates as designed and is believable. Sometimes, the modeler has problems getting over the emotional hurdles that drew him or her into the hobby in the first place.  More than once, I’ve been told, “You’re the expert; figure it out!”  Most designers are very good at what they do, but performing miracles is not part of their expertise.

Many times, making a track plan believable means telling the modeler that he or she cannot have everything he or she wants.  Many modelers have unrealistic expectations about what can be built within a given amount of space. 

Unrealistic expectations lead directly to non-believable and unrealistic model railroads.  Many in today’s younger generations want double-track mainlines, the ability to run modern equipment, mountain scenes with lots of track elevation changes, large inter-modal operations, and so on. If the designer tries to give the modeler even a little bit of each “want” and the available space isn’t there, even the best track plan will not be believable.  Never let emotions trump believability!

What about the “Pure” Prototype Modeler?
I define the “pure” prototype modeler as the “no-compromise” modeler.  For the no-compromise modeler, believability and accuracy are everything. They will spend countless hours, days, months, and sometimes even years researching their favorite railroad.  Many times, they’ll know more about the prototype than half of the people working for the prototype railroad.

Designing track plans for this small, but a very determined group of individuals can be just as challenging as designing for the modeler who is basing all his or her wants on emotions.

For the no-compromise modeler, emotions still play a role.  These people know exactly what they want because they have invested years getting ready to build their dream layout. 

I’ve seen cases in which the no-compromise modeler never completes his or her dream layout. Such modelers have trouble making choices; they know that they can’t have it all, but because of the amount information they have absorbed, it is very hard for them to leave something out.  The term “paralysis by analysis” could apply to them.  In these instances, “pure believability” can be a serious constraint.

The Emotions Modeler vs. Pure Prototype Modeler
From a track planning perspective, designing for these two, very different types of modelers can be extremely challenging.  The person who likes a specific railroad because his or her grandfather worked for the railroad probably isn’t that interested in how many or exactly what kinds of industries are present, or whether the industries are located in specific towns.  Instead, they usually will listen to the designer and go with his or her recommendations. 

On the other hand, the pure prototype, no-compromise modeler – having spent years studying the prototype – knows not only what industries were in which towns, but they can tell you on which side of the mainline the industry was located and how many tracks led into said industry.

I have found the emotions modeler easier to design for, whereas, the pure prototype modeler always wants to know the reasons why this or that is not being included. 

Google and Google Earth
Two decades ago, if you wanted to be a serious designer, you literally needed a library of reference books. Back then, the designer had to rely on reference books, going to the public library, or subscribing to numerous railroad publications.

Today, Google and Google Earth have changed the way designers approach their job.  Research is a lot easier and less stressful, but not necessarily less time-consuming.  If I need information on a specific railroad or subject, I type a few words into Google search, and instantly I’ll have thousands of hits. The problem is that there is so much information – both good and bad – that the designer still can spend hours filtering out the irrelevant information.