The Tragedy of CAD-Too-Soon

[cuyama]

There have been a number of posts recently on the other leading forum that involved designs drawn in CAD. Oh, the horror, the horror ...

Layout design is so much more than drawing. Unfortunately, the cheap or free CAD drawing programs make everyone feel that they are an expert layout designer because they can drive a mouse. In fact, there are whole web sites seemingly dedicated to catalogs of poor designs or whose main purpose appears to be handing out bad advice in the form of unbuildable, non-opererable designs.

What's worse is the ready chorus of "Attaboys" that greets these sorry track plans when they are posted on the web. I've tried to gently suggest to some of these people in off-list emails how they might improve their work. And my first suggestion is always to put down the mouse and slowly back away from the screen.

Bu they don't -- such is the virulence of CAD-Too-Soon Syndrome (CTSS). They just keep pounding out plans: each one more dreadful than the last.

I wrote a tongue-in-cheek piece on this for my website:
http://www.modelrail.us/id40.html

The sad part is, that article is not an exaggeration.

I wish there was some way to encourage these enthusastic but misguided CTSS sufferers to take the time to gain the foundation in layout design needed to understand the process instead of just blindly jamming track components in because they'll fit. But in the same way that cheap digital photography unleashed a wave of bad photos on the net, the legacy of cheap or free model railroad CAD seems to be a trail of layout tears.

Don't let CTSS remain a conspiracy of silence. Tell the sufferers there is help -- and hope. But they have to first be willing to help themselves by putting down the mouse and making the investment in time to gain some knowledge, background, and perspective.

Regards,

Byron

[SpaceMouse]

The good thing is that on these forums amongst all the attaboys a few sane individuals, like yourself, step to the plate and holler "Bullpuckey!" I know that I've gotten good advise from you on multiple occations.

By the way, Attaboy!

On the other hand, if a person draws a trackplan without a template, a CAD program will help show the person what will and will not fit. Either way, a CAD program and/or a pencil and paper, so not substitute for research and the advice of the old pros.

[CBCNSfan]

Unfortunately, the cheap or free CAD drawing programs make everyone feel that they are an expert layout designer because they can drive a mouse. Golly! just where does that leave me? I can't seem to get the Knack of using those programs.:( Oh! well the pencil, compass, scale and paper was my method, even at that mistakes were made :mad: All in all I enjoyed the link to your website, fairly accurate article, and I've seen such threads a few times on the forums. :D

http://bestsmileys.com/textinbubble1/13.gif Willis

[hminky]

All CAD programs are just an electronic Etch-a-sketch. They will not make you a layout designer.

Been a pencil designer and a CAD designer and the program will not give a person talent to design. It is just a tool.

Just a thought
Harold

[cuyama]

The good thing is that on these forums amongst all the attaboys a few sane individuals, like yourself, step to the plate and holler "Bullpuckey!" I know that I've gotten good advise from you on multiple occations.

By the way, Attaboy!


Thanks, but I've pretty much stopped offering advice for the same reason I eventually gave up trying to teach my dog to sing:
1) It's rarely successful
2) It seems to annoy the dog

People are very reluctant to go back and make changes .. once the basic concept is in CAD, it's the same as being set in concrete. And they _really_ hate being told something they've done might not be correct.

I'll leave it to others with more patience ...

regards,

Byron

[SpaceMouse]

I, for one, am glad you made exceptions. Thanks for your help.

[cuyama]

For you, MouseMan, anytime. Of course, I will still be harping on you to stop dithering and start the darn thing. :D

[SpaceMouse]

:D :D :D

I figure I gotta finish one layout before I start another. Besides, I have to practice all that good advice about operating on a 4(5) x 8.

[RCH]

All CAD programs are just an electronic Etch-a-sketch. They will not make you a layout designer.

Been a pencil designer and a CAD designer and the program will not give a person talent to design. It is just a tool.

Just a thought
Harold

So true!

I can design a real railroad on my machine, give approximate quantities and a cost estimate, but a layout? Not a chance. Why? I don't have the education for it. Hopefully one day I'll get to the part where I can study layout design, but that's pretty far off right now.

About CAD not giving designers talent: the vast majority of CAD operators I know and have worked with have never used a triangle set, dividers or a scale. You'd be amazed how often you can tell when someone doesn't have that background.

[SpaceMouse]

Byron,

You doing any clinics in Philly?

[cuyama]

Byron,

You doing any clinics in Philly?

No, unfortunately, I don't have time to travel for the convention this year. Trying to get my own layout going (the shoemaker's children always need shoes), as well as a backlog of work for clients.
http://www.hendoweb.org/ohb

I do think that Otis McGee and Jim Providenza are giving a clinic on Otis' fabulous SP Shasta Division layout, where I've been helping out with the operations plan. I think they may be talking more about the design (by John Armstrong, published in the April, 2005 MR) and construction, but they may touch on ops as well.
http://www.spshastaroute.com/

regards,

Byron

[hminky]

So true!
About CAD not giving designers talent: the vast majority of CAD operators I know and have worked with have never used a triangle set, dividers or a scale. You'd be amazed how often you can tell when someone doesn't have that background.

But using a triangle set, dividers and a scale don't give you talent either. There are more pencil guys without talent. They were just slower and had less opportunity to display their lack of ability.

Just a thought
Harold

[SpaceMouse]

But using a triangle set, dividers and a scale don't give you talent either. There are more pencil guys without talent. They were just slower and had less opportunity to display their lack of ability.

Just a thought
Harold

So you are a half full kind of guy.:)

[RexHea]

While I will agree with much of your editorial, I believe CAD programs are not any more to blame for bad layout design than the pencil. Without a doubt, the lack of research and understanding is. Let's not forget that we all have different starting points and even though the expertise of others may be welcomed, our own creativity should determine the final design of the layout...not the ideals of others. Prototypical? If that is what you want. Freelance? Why not. Spaghetti bowl? Sure.

[TrevorG]

I designed my old 8x4 and my new 16x9 using Atlas' free righttrack software. I use it as a general guideline to see what fits and what doesn't fit. Invariably there's always some fiddling and adjustments to be made. It's like anything else, and aid, or a tool to help you get something done. I don't think one should put all of their stock into em, but they do have their uses. There's no substitute for a good eye and some time worn advice.

Trevor

[RexHea]

I designed my old 8x4 and my new 16x9 using Atlas' free righttrack software. I use it as a general guideline to see what fits and what doesn't fit. Invariably there's always some fiddling and adjustments to be made. It's like anything else, and aid, or a tool to help you get something done. I don't think one should put all of their stock into em, but they do have their uses. There's no substitute for a good eye and some time worn advice.

Trevor

Very good, Trevor. I probably have over 100 revisions to my original CAD designed layout each coming from learning a better way or from a change in perspective.

[hminky]

So you are a half full kind of guy.:)

No, I just carried a bunch of those dead donkey's behinds in the work environment. Don't tell me about the good old days when everyone used a pencil and paper and was brilliant.

Just a thought
Harold

[RCH]

But using a triangle set, dividers and a scale don't give you talent either. There are more pencil guys without talent. They were just slower and had less opportunity to display their lack of ability.

Just a thought
Harold

That comment was directed toward CAD designers/drafters in particular, of which there are two types: 1) those who have drafting experience that predates the implementation of CAD and 2) those whose experience postdates the implementation of CAD. In my line of work, if you cannot operate the equipment, whether it be board drafting tools or a computer, you won't be hired. Obviously there are no prerequisites for anyone to use layout design CAD software, other than owning a computer and installing a copy of the software. My intent was to point out that the problem often extends to the professional environment.

As an example, at my office, we have a couple guys who are degreed professionals specializing in CAD, but whose college experience didn't include board drafting or all the techniques that implies. Of my coworkers, the fellows without prior board drafting experience show it in many ways, some not so subtle. I find it frustrating when they don't understand why what they're doing is poor form. Just because it can be done on the computer doesn't mean it should be. If nothing else, this statement bears out the point of the original thread topic.

No, I just carried a bunch of those dead donkey's behinds in the work environment. Don't tell me about the good old days when everyone used a pencil and paper and was brilliant.

Just a thought
Harold

Not what I was implying, exactly. I have to endure the rant about the good old days of DOS every time I have to seek the help of one of my coworkers, and I'm not convinced that the good old days were better by any stretch of the imagination, whether with DOS or pencil and paper. However, drafting as a craft is something that is being lost in favor of the high production that is gained by relatively unskilled users operating computers. Failing to practice the craft properly can result in confusing, illegible or even incorrect documents, simply by viture of poor form alone. When the stakes of correcting one's mistakes were higher, simply doing it right the first time was a principle everyone seemed to relate to better. Now the attitude seems to be, "it doesn't matter," since mistakes can be corrected in a few minutes. Most mistakes are caught, some aren't. The only change I really see from the old days to now is the esprit de corps. Does CAD enable operators with less talent to complete the requirements of the job at hand? My own limited experience would indicate it does, but I can only speak for myself.

[GrandpaCoyote]

Well I have to say that this post hit home far too hard.

*steps up to the mike uneasily and taps it once to check if it’s on*

Hello my name is Coyote and I am a CTSS sufferer…

*looks ashamed*

It was just so… easy… I admit I knew better, I had taken drafting back in high school and first year college and had even worked with CAD in very limited and simple ways in cooperation with some surveying and drawing design. But when I came to make a track plan did I stop and lay it out on paper first. *looks down* No, no I found a simple Model Railroading based CAD system and started using it, it seemed so easy so simple and so convenient… but it wasn’t enough soon I needed bigger and more powerful CAD systems... eventually I ended up using 3rd Plan It, by this time I was lost.

I tried to keep true to some of my old ethics by tossing whole plans away and starting fresh when I found their basic idea or principle to be flawed. But all too soon my vision narrowed and I found myself in tunnel vision.

Then by luck I received an email from a fine gentleman, our own Byron in fact. I had lost the email from when I first received it and only by chance did I stumble across it again. After reading it and some long thought I came to realize that I was lost down a tunnel of my own making. Now thanks to the help of CTSSA (CAD-Too-Soon Syndrome Anonymous) I am taking the blinders off and trying to see the big picture again.

*holds up a pencil*

This is my Four day pencil.

This terrible condition can be stopped in our lifetimes, please give generously.

Peace.
Coyote

P.S. Although my tongue is placed somewhat against my cheek I do want to say thank you to Byron. You have helped me a great deal Sir.

[modelbob]

While I agree CAD won't make you a better designer, I think it can be helpful to new model railroaders for a couple reasons.

First of all, very few folks can lay out a ladder with pencil and paper and make it as long as it works out to be in reality. Turnouts take up a LOT of space, and often the space allocated is nowhere near enough.

Secondly, the ease of changing and modifying designs will help them experiment and learn. It's a lot easier than starting over on a graph paper.

Granted, to learn they have to ask question and/or read books, but that's also just as true if you're using pencil and paper. They're all just tools, no more, no less.

[Cjcrescent]

While I agree CAD won't make you a better designer, I think it can be helpful to new model railroaders for a couple reasons.

First of all, very few folks can lay out a ladder with pencil and paper and make it as long as it works out to be in reality. Turnouts take up a LOT of space, and often the space allocated is nowhere near enough.

Secondly, the ease of changing and modifying designs will help them experiment and learn. It's a lot easier than starting over on a graph paper.

Granted, to learn they have to ask question and/or read books, but that's also just as true if you're using pencil and paper. They're all just tools, no more, no less.


Very true Bob, Very true.

Still got most of my mech drawing stuff from High School. Up until a couple of years ago, it was all I used. Had stacks and stacks of layouts drawn with that stuff.:p
It was amazing how my designs changed after a two hour talk and lunch with John Armstrong twenty years ago.:) He told me several things that I have followed as best I could since then. The most important thing was, "If you observe the prototype, and design from what you see there, you won't go wrong."

[hminky]

Very true Bob, Very true.
It was amazing how my designs changed after a two hour talk and lunch with John Armstrong twenty years ago.:) He told me several things that I have followed as best I could since then. The most important thing was, "If you observe the prototype, and design from what you see there, you won't go wrong."

Or observe what John Armstrong did.

There was the Mainline Modeler articles by John Nehrich about the RPI layout. THe group designed their Troy, New York yard freelanced model railroad style. They found that it was unworkable. They then compressed the real yard and it worked wonderfully. Seems the real railroad planners knew something about railroading.

I prefer the paper turnout cutout and rearrange them to fit yard and town areas in real size. It is much quicker and is easier to visualize.

Just a thought
Harold

[cuyama]

While I agree CAD won't make you a better designer, I think it can be helpful to new model railroaders for a couple reasons.
<snip>
Secondly, the ease of changing and modifying designs will help them experiment and learn. It's a lot easier than starting over on a graph paper.

You're right, CAD is helpful in that it suggests how much space components actually occupy ... and that's always a rude awakening.

But the pendulum has swung too far, in my opinion, because CAD makes everything look good when the design is really very poor.

What makes it worse, of course, is that so many have the knee-jerk reaction on-line to receommend CAD to everyone without suggesting the foundation knowledge needed for a good design.

The one good thing about paper-and-pencil is that it forces one to take their time and think between revisions. John Armstrong did all his designs with paper-and-pencil over the years, as did all the noted designers of the past up until Don Mitchell, who was the first well-known designer to make the transition.

My overall point is that newcomers to layout design would benefit much more by some time of study than by moving directly to CAD. A chain saw is a great tool, but if you hand it to someone who doesn't know the basic elements of tree-trimming, they are liable to do a lot more harm than good.

Regards,

Byron

[cuyama]

Hello my name is Coyote and I am a CTSS sufferer...

GC,

I wrote the article a while ago, so it certainly wasn't directed at you, but I think your experience is a good example of what can happen.

As others have noted, the railroads built the real thing based on knowledge gained over decades of engineering. Folks like John Armstrong have distilled that knowledge into a comprehensible form for modelers. We're all well-served to rely on that knowledge instead of simply plunking things down in CAD.

But that process takes time and study for which most of us lack the patience.

Best of luck on your design journey (and lose those switchbacks, huh?) :)

Regards,

Byron

[SpaceMouse]

I prefer the paper turnout cutout and rearrange them to fit yard and town areas in real size. It is much quicker and is easier to visualize.

Just a thought
Harold

While this works well for already built benchwork and set parameters, if you have a space with multiple possibilities, benchwork planning (and track planning), whether paper and pencil or CAD, is called for. Obviously, once you build the benchwork, you are much more limited to possibilities--unless of course, you don't mind tearing out and starting over.

[SpaceMouse]

My overall point is that newcomers to layout design would benefit much more by some time of study than by moving directly to CAD. A chain saw is a great tool, but if you hand it to someone who doesn't know the basic elements of tree-trimming, they are liable to do a lot more harm than good.

Regards,

Byron

The trouble is, and I fit this category when I started, is that there is so much to learn and there is really no good single source to learn even the basics. Not to say that reading Armstrong, Koester, etc. aren't valuable, it's that they don't make a lot of sense if you don't have the schema. Here is a clip from a recent post from over there.

Last summer before moving into a new house I spent probably 100 hours on Cadrail designing my new layout. I read a bunch of the track planning books and used the tools in them but it still requires a lot of effort and many iterations to pull everything together. Moreover, while the plan is largely done I still worry that in practice it won't meet my goals. In part this is because the hobby seems to lack decent rules of thumb on many important questions for layout design such as:

1. How many passing tracks should you have per feet of single track mainline?
2. What is the right ratio of industrial sidings to layout size?
3. How many staging tracks should you have?
4. How far apart should passenger stations be?
5. What should the car capacity of industrial sidings be?
6. What is a good ratio of track to layout size?

These are complicated questions especially when you think about them and the reaction you often get in this forum is something along the lines of "it depends on how many trains you want to run or what kind of layout do you want." This may be an appropriate answer for an advanced modeler who can draw upon their experiences to figure out how staging capacity relates to # of passing sidings and # of sidings. But for a serious beginner, how can you figure these things out? Even the best track planning books, like Armstrong's, only give us design tools: how to use squares, standards on curvature and turnout angle, and sample diagrams of things like passenger stations and freight yards. But I've never seen anywhere someone give systematic advice on how to pull these elements together. Maybe this can only come from developing a "feel" for what a layout should look like but this is hard to do, especially for a beginner.

Going from the beginner stage to having even a rudimentary concept of track planning is a huge chasm.

[cuyama]

The trouble is, and I fit this category when I started, is that there is so much to learn and there is really no good single source to learn even the basics.
<big snip>
Going from the beginner stage to having even a rudimentary concept of track planning is a huge chasm.

That's why the Layout Design Special Interest Group's publications (http://www.ldsig.org/)have been so useful to me. But I read and re-read to get some concepts down. I've read and re-read all of Armstong's books. And Chubb's How to Operate Your Model Railroad (Kalmbach, out of print) was very helpful.

But there were some concepts I didn't learn until I had done a design for someone else and had to crawl around inside their Gs&Ds (Santa Maria Valley RR here (http://home.earthlink.net/~mrsvc/gallery/id20.html) and in MRP 2004). And a number of concepts I didn't really learn until I had the chance to set up operating sessions on a well-designed layout (Rick Fortin's ATSF 5th District).

Maybe I'm just a slow learner.

But I don't think that there are any shortcuts to a great design -- the "rules of thumb" vary so much based on concept, era and prototype, space available, etc.

Once when talking to a client I likened the process to designing a kitchen. For a home kitchen remodel, there are only a few elements (fridge, stove, sink, etc.) and an already-defined space. But the average homeowner still has some challenge getting a useable design together. He or she might need some knowledgeable help; there's also a chance they could muddle through with decent results. But no way would we let that tyro design a new commercial restaurant kitchen -- even if they have the CAD templates! We want someone who has designed a few, studied some theory, and has some background in the field.

Some newcomers to design will be successful with smaller and less-involved projects. But most need a lot of study to attempt a large complex layout. There are just too many variables. And I think the over-recommendation of model railroad CAD can cause the design process to seem deceptively simple to the newcomer -- often with unhappy results.

I think it's also tough to design these things by committee, on-line in a forum. I see that many designs get better with lots of input. But most of these changes are just variations on the original theme and there is often a major systemic problem (or missed opportunity) that's never raised and never addressed, either because it isn't obvious or because nobody wants to mention the "elephant in the corner". Because that's often a complete "do over". and even in CAD, that's painful.

Fixing those major issues takes a lot of time and the best way would be to have a knowledgeable friend sit down with the designer and spend a lot of time working through all the issues -- a fresh start. But since so many of us seem not to have experienced modeling friends nearby, the on-line committee is the best alternative, I suppose.

On the other hand, I do recognize that it is a hobby and every design doesn't have to be optimized to the nth degree. But especially for a large layout, there will a lot of time and money invested. It seems to me it would be worth it for the owner/designers to do the homework up front -- but so often, they just jump directly to CAD.

Wow, I didn't plan to write that much ... hopefully some of it is interesting.

regards,

Byron