How Do You Design Your Routes?

iain2006

Member
I am just curious what different approaches people take to designing routes for trains, kind of a straw poll. For example:

Do you construct a straight terminus-to-terminus route or a loop along the lines of a typical model railway?

Do you lay tracks first and then modify the terrain around them or create the landscape first then add railways?

Do you base your routes on real railways or invent your own?
 
iain2006: I do a little of all what you have said..I think variety is a good approach to it all..Most of mine are fictious..I Love to do Mountainous topolgy..I have tried different approaches and try new things all the time..Trying to strive for what I think is realistic..I do not use splines because I think they affect your frame rate to much..Happy Trainzing..:wave: :wave:
 
You can design a prototypical route, using an exact topography DEM (which will control you, and will consume your whole life).

Or make a fun to create route, totally freelance, and fictional.

If I did not have my DEM, I myself would create a condenced abreviated PRR route using (only) all the great popular railfanning sites all the way from Camden NJ to Pittsburgh (all inside of 250 baseboards).

I still have found that since one rarely roam 100' from the mainline, a DEM really is an un-needed luxury.

Terrain is easy to create by hand.
 
Last edited:
I have been working on a route along the old steel mills that were around Pittsburgh. I created the rivers first, then the major parts of the steel mills then the main lines of the track. the rest I have been adding ad-hoc.
 
I just start with laying track then build around it adding anything that comes to mind. try avery thing and find what you feel is bust.:cool:
 
I only make trackside scenery as you don't need far off items affecting your framerates. I only make fictional routes and have a 228 trainz miles Central Mainline route. I have modern and my current obession BR blue/InterCity (with 35,42,47,55,86,87,HST's,Classd 90 and 91's)sessions.
 
I generally do model railroad style loops; a combination of lay track first and modify terrain around it and modify terrain and lay track on it; and I mostly base my layouts on prototypical roads. I've been using pictures off the internet to model for scenes on my layouts sometimes.

I aslo use model railroad track plans. I made a route from a Model Railroader track plan, it was an 16x16 double-deck (had to straighten it out) N-scale condensed representation of the NS B-line in the Manassas, VA area. It was a point-to-point route with return loops/staging areas at each end. I didn't have pictures, I wasn't working from the magazine; what scenery was indicated on the plan I did as best I could, and made up the rest. It turned out pretty good.
 
I enjoy adapting model railway track plans, using the basic principles but taking advantage of Trainz to use more protypical distances. Not model railway/toy train continuous circuits, as these are not seen in real life - except for very few examples such as the Glasgow Subway (the Clockwork Orange) - now there's a thought!

A lot can be achieved by linking individual model railway station plans and using imagination to provide the scenic setting. In fact I enjoy just creating the station layouts - and have uploaded a few which seem to have been modestly popular.

My website includes a short essay on how I adapt model railway plans.

Ray
 
I did build a duel loop layout Valley River Run its a nice starter route your free to add to it just a little something to play around with. for some reason its multilayer witch was not a part of the plan scents its only built for one. <kuid2:375451:1176:1>

something worth looking into for new builders.
 
In my two Trainz projects I am basing them on factual. Makes it especially interesting I think. Kind of gives you a goodly canvas to attempt your work of art (!).
 
Perhaps we can use this thread (actually one of many over the years on the same question) to reach some type of consensus. I admit that I don't do much route building now days, but there have to be some common factors that would affect the decision of what order to follow when building. We are free to follow any order we wish, or none at all, but there must be some advantages to one method over another.

Most of these advantages will likely be in the Terra forming -vs- track laying stages. Obviously a DEM would produce the ground for you, but lacking that, what is more difficult - to adjust the track to fit the ground, or the ground to fit the track?
 
I always love four track routes,

Freight >>>>>>>
High Speed >>>>
High Speed <<<<
Freight <<<<<<<


The above is mainly based on the East/West Coast Mainline UK.

I start with the overhead catenary, then I match the track up to the catenary, then I add the signals and lineside cable boxes, along with the concrete cable feed along the track to tidy it all up.

Then I work outwards placing fences, bushes and trees along the fencing, then adding fields and houses and streetlights and everything else you see from a train.

Then I merge the route, to make it three times as long, with everything spread out, like it is in real life.

Then I get board of it, and I delete it and start again...:hehe:

Joe Airtime
 
Last edited:
i have a mix of what the OP stated. I have one route that is one baseboard, all the sides are lifted as if it were on a table, and tried to make it like a model railway.

then i have a route on a 10x10 baseboard layout, which is a big loop, and i just finished one section, an industrial section with a yard, and many tracks running down the center of some streets. (like tight between buildings, alleyways, etc.)

and then theres the LIRR route im building. it will probally habe around 200 mi. of track. the real LIRR has 700 mi. of RoW, yet 700 mi. will take forever. it starts in brooklyn out of a yard, then continues east for about 30 mi. then splits. at about the 15 mi. mark, a secondary line branches off in the north east direction, which goes to two other terminuses (or termini?)

thats about as far as ive gone, but just that has taken like 2 months already.
the good thing about doing the LIRR is it is a terminus to terminus typre railroad, so you dont have to worry about cutting the line somewhere or making a portal.
 
How do I design a route?

Well it depends upon the purpose. I have created a couple of small tabletop style routes that are essentially track plans from Atlas' N-Scale Track Plan book. My Scenic and Relaxed is up on the DLS.

On a more purposeful route, you need to come up with reason for the railroad to exist. In reality a railroad is built, just like any other form of transportation, to haul goods and people from one place to another. So having said this, my own route is based on a fictitious New England rail company that took over some of the local operations in and around the Down East Coast in Maine and through the Merrimack Valley in Mass.

The route was built starting at one terminus towards the ultimate goal of a namesake mill city. The purpose of my route was to haul goods from the mills to the seaport many miles away. Today its purpose is to run commuter trains and some freight on the mainline, with some local switching on some branch lines. So, make up a story for your route. Why did some investors want a railroad? Did they find gold and coal in the mountains? Did the city want to move people in and out by rail to relieve some of the traffic?

These are little questions you need to answer, and once you've come up with a purpose, try to stay as close to it as you can. This will keep the route from becoming the infamous bowl of spaghetti that the old timer model railroaders used to call it.

For my route, the actual assembly was done through a combination of merging in others works. DEM maps using the old HOG method and now TransDEM, as well as the traditional sculpting. This is all with a little bit of each as I went along. I even used some displacement maps to lift the terrain in places where I couldn't find a suitable DEM, and didn't want to scratch build the terrain.

Not all has been completed on my route at this point, and after 7 years I'm going back and redoing sections with newer and improved techniques. I'm also using this opportunity to replace some of these well worn out sections with newer DEM files which serve the purpose better.

What I find really helpful is browsing different maps online, whether they are old topographic maps, or aerial photos. These give me an idea where to place assets, how to layout track and junctions, and even reproduce some long gone branch lines that were dug up many years ago.

Now keep in mind, route building is addicting and once you get into it, it'll become a life consumer. You'll also find that like a model railroad, a particular route may not ever be completed.

John
 
I like to build fairly long prototypical routes based on real world geography to give a decent length of run. That usually entails applying Transdem to create the terrain and mapping.

However I tend to freelance the actual scenery a bit once the foundations are laid. I too struggle with the detailing these days and the ambition to create a really long absorbing route has to be tempered by what I can do before losing interest in a project.
 
Route building

Or route creation, now that depends on whether the layout is prototypical or fictional. I have done both.
I got fed up with fiddling about with odd bits that were not really working out well so went for a long proto main line, well fairly long for the UK anyway, from a start at Paddington and aimed at Penzance. But then Marky started the Penzance end (which I am very glad about) so that saved me a whole mass of work. The trouble with long proto routes is they get boring after a year, especially modern UK ones because a lot of the branch lines have gone the way of the Dodo. So for big prototypicals be prepared for the long stay and as has been said, they take over your lfe, if you ever want to get them finished that is, and with any amount of accuracy.
Then there are the branch lines, many of which have long since gone to that big rail yard in the sky as stated. They are at least a reasonable proposition in time scale and effort because usually they are reasonably short and often only single track, although in the UK many were double.
One big problem that will face you is the correct content, especially stations and very noticable buildings close by the tracks. So you would most probably need to learn either gmax or Blender. I did not and had to ask and beg for people to make them for me, which in the main they did, all except one flyover I needed.
The WCL sections are still in the process of being made after a start made on WCL 1 in TRS 2004 when it first came out, so that gives you an idea of time involved. Now I am up to section 3 and still plugging away, but sadly my time on a PC is getting limited due to eye problems.

Then there are all the fictional routes I made. Some came from an idea and some from tabletop plans, but others began life as just as experiment on gradients, Overhills & Faraway being one of those routes. I was fiddling about with a spiral that ended up as a long gradient and then the two deep gorges appeared and it went from there, so it began life if the middle and worked outwards at both ends, now how is that for bad planning!
Some started with the idea of a name and a route that kinda brought that name to life, again maybe not the best way to plan ahead.
But in all cases these fictionals were fun to make, more fun that a long proto because those become a bit of a slog in the reality of the situation that ruins your overall perspective of what Trainz is all about and gives you a kind of 'tunnel vision' of the capabilities of this great program.

Then I got involved in gmax and the routes went by the board for a long time as I made the ascent up that long learning curve and into the realms of the fairyland called content creation. I don't regret this move and it has giving me a lot more insight into Trainz than I originally had and a big helping of pleasure (and agony/frustration), so I can recommend it, but it has the downside of stopping work on whatever you are doing as far as routes go for some considerable time. I should spend more time in gmax because I have still only just scratched the surface and there is so much more to learn, but at my age I don't think I have that amount of time left so plod on with what I have and try to split my 'free time' between section 3, gmax and carp fishing.

So there you have it. Perhaps the message is enjoy Trainz and all that comes with it. Do your best but don't put your first route up because you will eventually regret it. Why? Because as time passes your abilities will improve a great deal and when you look back at the first steps into Trainz you will winch. It was about 2 years before I felt good enough to tackle anything that might be put on public display, so practice and then practice some more. Get advice from a Trainzy friend and more importantly their honest opinions about your level of work and proficiency. Ask for a bald and honest opinion and don't be offended if it isn't a glowing report. Take on board what is said to you and try harder. I have done this with gmax work and it has helped me a lot.

Mainly good luck and make a lot of new friends.

Angela
 
Some interesting thoughts. My preference is for a loop with varied scenery as you can run trains around without creating a very long stretch.

Currently I'm working on a kind of multiple loop system with a main loop of 30 squares long by six wide and couple of extra lines stretching from one end to the other and a couple of terminating branch lines. I've also created a couple of short branch lines (2-3 map squares) to add large terminus stations wth junctions at the curve section of the main loop so I can run trains from terminus to terminus. Generally basing sections of the layout loosely on real stations (and using a great deal of creative licence not least with the liveries of trains that I'm running between them). I've added urban and rural stations/scenery and industrial scenery

The main problem I think with creating a faithful scale route based on a real one is, not only the size of the map but the journey time especially for intercity routes (such as Glasgow/Edinburgh to London).
 
Last edited:
Loops & circles

Yes, loops are good, can be compact and so save space and of course you can set up continous running.
I did a few on those lines (no pun intended) such as Edwards Town & Brambley Hall, Longhurst Deacon, Aleard & Hallington, Cranby Town (2 versions I think) and of course West Country Days. Oh, and Compton Magna, another circuitous route.
There are many combinations and part of the fun is making them up. Multi-level routes are another way to go, although I have never made one, and
subterranean such as the Metro or London undergrounds. There are elevated routes like those used in American cities too and I did try a London based elevated based on the tracks out of Waterloo but found that height meant detail and falling frame rates so gave up on it.

Just keep on inventing are the keywords.

Angela
 
In theory, nothing to stop someone using the track geometry/geography of a LUL route but freelancing, perhaps putting it on the surface rather than in tube. One location I've always fancied seeing in a train sim is Camden Town Jn with all those intertwining tracks, but you aren't going to appreciate it from the cab driving underground!
 
I confess to not being into gmax or blending directions and I am working on two seperate projects both based on actual real systems (!). Both are big -one a city tramway and the other a whole rail network (working on it aright now). Rather than just stick anything anywhere I have spent much time putting in the actual roads that exist and many of the farms, villages, towns. A lot of time has been spent on much of a city, parts of 8 largish towns (plus villages, etc) and I still have two cities to go although if I am near the end of a board that will be helpfu and keeping my fingers crossed. I dare say I could have skimped on the scenery items but I wanted a reasonable perception of the company's 6 lines even if means taking longer. In addition I travelled to the system which isn't here in Scotland where I live to get a better idea of things.

At one stage I was tempted to do as an earlier builder had done on 3 of those lines set about half a century ago in steam days which had a good effort put in but I wanted it it be more detailed as I was doing a modern scene and twice as big. So extra work but part of the general build as well as the rail lines. Gives me more satisfaction even if I get held up at times and inbetween needed breaks.
 
Back
Top