QUOTE (Robert Stokes @ 31 Oct 2007, 23:38)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Some fair points Richard except that I don't see why your 2, 4 and 5 are any more difficult with solid top baseboards. For 2, you can cut a section of the board and pull it upwards. No idea why you included 4. For 5 you can cut holes in the solid board.
This leaves your 1 and 3, and I notice that you put scenery below track level as number 1.
Cheers, Robert
P.S. Sorry about the wrong spelling for 'principal'. I won't try to claim that it was a typing error; it was just a thoughtless moment.
***Spelling is not relevant - if posters on MRF were marked on spelling, nothing would get discussed!
Re your comments: I guess this depends whether you are simply playing devils advocate for the sake of conversation or really want to know the benefits. A few words online can't really describe the subtlety of the differences, and like many things in the hobby that require hands on skills, I don't think that you can really appreciate many of the differences without experimenting or experiencing them.
So... in a way, and as a simple reference, "Because the more experienced modellers all do it that way" is as valid as any other reason in that context - they don't do things because they are fashionable or in a "how to" book, they do it because there are real benefits
Re your comments: Please don't rank my comments in numeric order - they are all important. #1 is #1 only because it reinforces the comments of others - depending on the task at hand, each has its moment of ascendency and benefit.
Re 2 / There is a vast difference in appearance to a bit of wood pulled up on risers and a well planned transition. Its easy to see and hard to explain in simple words. I make any transition to a gradient extremely gradual and find that with the "average" point of the layout already above frame level It can be better controlled, also easily allowing me to include a well planned and supported transition curve and superrelevation as needed.
Re 5 / access: Access in hidden areaswill always be easier with trackbed only where the track is. Solid tops require to be cut away for access.
Re 4 / Ease of install and wiring: I included it because its a big plus: Having the ability to easily install and if needed "tweak" turnout motors and wire without getting under the baseboard is a VERY BIG plus compared to a solid top. I should also add that I always make layout sections removeable too, so the lightness of the non solid top is a benefit as well....
Re 3 / this is a massive benefit to the average "overly full of track" railway built by most. Halving gradients makes a huge difference to the potential of both running and realism.
Re 1 - this isn't my only reason for doing it But it alone is enough to validate the approach in terms of potential for realism - all the others are icing on the cake.
Finally... I should add that to me "potential for believability" of a flat topped layout is zero.
I've never seen a solid top baseboard layout that didn't look like a well presented trainset at best. Flat boards that form a common datum for both scenery and track at the same level, and which therefore have all variance only above the flat top level, can never look truly realistic, no matter how many aplications of scatter or how many buildings are heaped up on them.
Richard
