The One-Turnout Layout

[jpachl]

Lance Mindheim has just published a new article on small-layout philosophy in MRH 5/2013:

http://mrhpub.com/2013-05-may/land/#/95/zoomed

Joern

 

[Stubby47]

I so agree with his philosophy...

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/32981-stubbys-latest-boxfile-layout/

[jpachl]

There is an interesting statement in Lance Mindheim's article, namely that probably 90 % of all railway modellers operate their layouts less than one hour a year. If this is true, and I think it is, the question will arise why most modellers put so much effort in making their layouts operational. Why not just making dioramas? For most people, that seems to be a more logical option.

 

Joern

[chaz]

Well, I am outside that 90% then. My fixed home layout at one time was operated for three hours on at least one evening (sometimes two) each week. At the moment it probably averages a three hour operating session about once every two weeks (depending on the availablity of guest operators - it can't be worked single handed). rather more than one hour a year!

[Katier]

My counter question would be - how many of those 90% are layouts which are 'complete'?

 

Of my 3 :-

 

Emmyton - needs substantial financial input so is stalled. 0 hours per year currently.

BLT - getting there but far from finished - operational but not used much due to working on scenics.

London Terminus - newest layout but most like the first to be truly operational

 

So in 2 years I've not got to the stage of a layout that is to a degree 'complete' and as such am spending more time building than operating. When I have a fully working and reasonably complete layout, it'll be interested to see where the compass swings.

[forest2807]

On what evidence does he base those statistics? I'd be very sceptical of that claim.

[Kenton]

 

There is an interesting statement in Lance Mindheim's article, namely that probably 90 % of all railway modellers operate their layouts less than one hour a year. If this is true, and I think it is, the question will arise why most modellers put so much effort in making their layouts operational. Why not just making dioramas? For most people, that seems to be a more logical option.

 

Joern

lies, damn lies, and statistics especially unfounded statistics.

 

I don't believe that figure for one minute or that it is even based on any data. I think, like so many statistics it has been simply plucked from thin air to emphasise a point.

 

If it was qualified as being all layouts ever started I might just agree with him, but even then 1 hour is a very short time. None of my 7 currently active layouts are anything like finished (even half finished). Two of them are just about inaccessible and so probably fit his criteria. Three of them are not operational (yet) and none get worked on during winter months. But I spent at least 30 minutes yesterday cleaning track and running trains - so not much more to go to be in the minority.

 

As someone who enjoys operating a model railway far more than the artistry of modelling I cannot see the attraction of a diorama. If I were that artistic I also could not see why limit the subject of a diorama to a scene containing a railway?

 

I think he must have neglected to include in his cerebral calculations all those train sets built on the kitchen table / floor / Hornby trackmat - or don't they get classified as railway modellers?

[PatB]

Whilst the "1 hour a year" figure is suspiciously precse and, I'd agree, almost certainly far too low, I suspect that the point that the author is making is valid.  That is, that many layouts, in spite of the best intentions of their builders and probably for a variety of reasons, do not get operated as frequently or as regularly as was originally intended.  Leading on from this, a great many layouts are almost certainly never operated to their full capacity.  As a result, many modellers would be unlikely to lose much operationally, in reality, by downsizing to something resembling an Inglenook.

[Stubby47]

But how many of us only have small layouts because we can't have big ones ? Yes, an inglenook is interesting to shunt, but does it compare to a long sweep of track with a train ambling / flying along it ?

 

I wonder what the statistics would be based on US model railways, where larger layouts with operation as a priority seem to be the norm.

[Job's Modelling]

There is an interesting statement in Lance Mindheim's article, namely that probably 90 % of all railway modellers operate their layouts less than one hour a year. If this is true, and I think it is, the question will arise why most modellers put so much effort in making their layouts operational. Why not just making dioramas? For most people, that seems to be a more logical option.

 

Joern

 

For me that was one of the reason to start building diorama's. The other reason is I like to build scenery.  And building gives me more satisfaction than shunting. I tried that out on an Inglenook.

Although I love all those small operational layouts I see in this sections of the RMweb.

 

For me counts:

 

 

regards,

Job

[HeavyDuty]

  lies, damn lies, and statistics especially unfounded statistics.

 

I don't believe that figure for one minute or that it is even based on any data. I think, like so many statistics it has been simply plucked from thin air to emphasise a point.

 

If it was qualified as being all layouts ever started I might just agree with him, but even then 1 hour is a very short time. None of my 7 currently active layouts are anything like finished (even half finished). Two of them are just about inaccessible and so probably fit his criteria. Three of them are not operational (yet) and none get worked on during winter months. But I spent at least 30 minutes yesterday cleaning track and running trains - so not much more to go to be in the minority.

 

As someone who enjoys operating a model railway far more than the artistry of modelling I cannot see the attraction of a diorama. If I were that artistic I also could not see why limit the subject of a diorama to a scene containing a railway?

 

I think he must have neglected to include in his cerebral calculations all those train sets built on the kitchen table / floor / Hornby trackmat - or don't they get classified as railway modellers?

 

I suspect he means "operation" in the US sense - running a layout in a realistic fashion with predetermined car movements.  This is as opposed to just "running trains".

 

I agree with his assessment - the vast majority of US modelers do no operations at all mostly due to a lack of interest.

[Pacific231G]

But how many of us only have small layouts because we can't have big ones ? Yes, an inglenook is interesting to shunt, but does it compare to a long sweep of track with a train ambling / flying along it ?

 

I wonder what the statistics would be based on US model railways, where larger layouts with operation as a priority seem to be the norm.

I wonder if they're really the norm in the US or just what gets into the magazines. I'd hazard a guess that for every basement empire with a card order system and a regular operating session for a full crew there are probably at least a dozen four foot by eight foot tables with trains occasionally trundling round them.

 

Actually if you've got room for an Inglenook you've almost certainly got room for something a bit more ambitious. If you can get a classic 5-3-3 Inglenook into a length of four feet then you can include a run round loop to give a complete terminus still able to handle the same five wagon train in about six to eight inches longer depending on the size of loco you use.

 

Using that principle I've actually now got a layout that with just five points has enough options to be satisfying to operate and compact enough to leave up. In practice, though it  incorporates the five wagon Inglenook puzzle, I rarely use it that way . It does though get used for half an hour of quiet wagon bashing every week or so often by making up a five car goods train in the fiddle yard more or less at random and then deciding what should go where and what should be in the return working.  It's probably high time I wrote a proper timetable for it !!

 

It's interesting looking back through old magazines at the classic layouts that clearly were designed from the outset for timetable operation and those that probably weren't - Charford and Berrow come to mind for the former (and Charford was tiny) but there were also those including I suspect the Madder Valley and the original Craig & Mertonford where I suspect the enjoyment was modelling and then tinkering with them.

 

Even if I had loads of space I think I'd probably still want a relatively small or at least fairly simple layout with good possibilities for making and rearranging trains. I'd probably stick with a terminus to fiddle yard but maybe use the extra space for a bit of a main line just to let the Mikados and Pacifics stretch their legs but I do find that a train just running along the main  line gets dull pretty quickly. 

[Kenton]

 

I suspect he means "operation" in the US sense - running a layout in a realistic fashion with predetermined car movements.  This is as opposed to just "running trains".

 

Sadly, if true, I think that makes the article even worse, as it lacks clarity as well as unsupported statistics.

 

Does operating an inglenook to a set of pre-determined "cards" count? In which case I'm still in the minority.

[chrismears]

I'm a fan of Mindheim's work and quite like the sage points he's making. One comment he'd made recently was that we should all be trying to do some modelmaking or run a train every day or pretty close to it. This hobby is important to us, that's why we're so engaged in it after all. This winter I started a small layout of my own and purposely designed it so that while it allows me plenty of opportunities to indulge in my favourite parts of the hobby; it's not so grand that I get overwhelmed and never do anything with it. In many ways it's also been designed so that it can be quickly set up for operation and really operated prototypically in a limited time. I'm having a blast and I'm equally excited about the real progress I've made on it and embarrased that I didn't start one earlier - think of all the fun I've been missing out on while waiting to build the dream layout someday.

 

Here in Canada there is an amazing trend toward large home layouts. I've seen a number of them and even started one once. Sadly too many of them see very little use and it conveys a sense of having been a great waster of interest, resources and enjoyment. Many of them were designed to support operation involving a number of modellers so have become too much to operate on one's own so also never get operated. Operation here being simply running a train or maybe switching a few cars.

 

One of my favourite layouts for some time now has been the Kyle in a Boxfile layout. I love the prototype and I really love the way it's being modelled in a very small area. I brought up this layout as I feel it's a terrific example of purpose building something that suits this theme of getting us active in the hobby again instead of masters of the armchair (I'm thinking of myself in that role!). While scrolling through the blog for the Kyle layout I read this great idea that it's builder proposed:

 

 

Thanks Invercloy - Kyle certainly has a lot of appeal, even in the rationalised track layout of later years.

Although this layout will have limitations in terms of operability, I do like the concept of being able to set it up in 5 minutes, run it for twenty minutes and then pack it away in 5 minutes - 30 minutes better spent then watching a soap on TV me thinks!!

 

I thought it was brilliant!

[JohnQuincy]

I won't agree or disagree with the numbers but I think this misses the point that a large percentage of the model rail  community probably never gets a layout up and running and then actually uses it. I have been part of that group for to many years. 

 

Reading Lance Mindhiem, Carl Arndt  and Ian Rice (his UK oriented books) has motivated me to shelve the grand layout scheme and focus on something achievable. By that I mean it can be gotten up and running in a reasonable time frame, provides a place to run trains and has the potential to keep me busy for long time.

 

I read an article in "Railway Modeler" (a UK publication) about a 8 foot by 2 foot + staging, show layout, that the modeler has been working on and refining for almost 15 years. That's a long time and it's a great looking branchline terminal that works and can be enjoyed.

 

My current plan is for a 13 X 2.5 foot layout with 2 turnouts in On3 or On30 that I should be able to get up and running in short order and will keep me busy with working on for years.

 

Just my 2 cents worth,

 

John

[greslet]

 

Reading Lance Mindhiem, Carl Arndt  and Ian Rice (his UK oriented books) has motivated me to shelve the grand layout scheme and focus on something achievable. By that I mean it can be gotten up and running in a reasonable time frame, provides a place to run trains and has the potential to keep me busy for long time.

 

 

John

These three authors, along with Paul Lunn have been influencing me a great deal also. I'm currently building a micro for the first time, and thoroughly enjoying it. My grand layout scheme is also shelved simply due to work commitments and being away from home on business too often. The grand scheme definitely falls into the category of operated for less than an hour in the last 12 months. One issue is that if you don't operate regularly then you can't just walk into the railway room, switch on, and expect everything to "just work". My experience is that it usually takes a couple of hours of messing about with track rubbers, cleaning fluids, vacuum cleaners and pliers before anything will move with any degree of reliability.

 

With the micro it's possible to spend an hour building and see some real progress for the effort, and once the electrics are installed I'm aiming to have something that can provide a pleasurable 30 mins operation at least once a week.

 

I'm recording progress on my blog as construction proceeds, feel free to follow the link below.

[AdamsRadial]

LIke the rest of you I don't see any basis for the 90% figure, but I have an observation here about ultra-simple layouts: I've been fiddling around for years now with one or two-turnout ideas, and I have noticed that I rapidly get bored with the layout, stop using it as a layout, and let it turn into a diorama for static display. To and fro operation gets monotonous.  A couple of years ago, in a sort of reaction to this, I started playing with what I call 'Rug-railways' again, setting up clockwork track on the floor for an evening and running tinplate round and round. There's something about the utter simplicity of clockwork that makes it fun to do.

 

I still dream of building a layout that could be shown at exhibitions or photographed for a magazine, but again, of all the exhibition layouts I have seen these past few years, the one that appealed to me most of all, Bunbury Junction, was an unashamed round-and-round tight-radius tail-chaser.

 

Maybe the lesson to be learned is that trying too hard to follow the current standards set by exhibition and magazine layouts kills the fun of it for these (assumed) 90% of modellers? The answer for them could be a 0-turnout layout, a pair of dumbells with two trains running, when you get bored with one of them you stop it, lift it off the dumbell, and pop on a different train, then do the same for the other track.

 

OK, I'll get me coat....

[switcher 1]

......... but again, of all the exhibition layouts I have seen these past few years, the one that appealed to me most of all, Bunbury Junction, was an unashamed round-and-round tight-radius tail-chaser.

 

Maybe the lesson to be learned is that trying too hard to follow the current standards set by exhibition and magazine layouts kills the fun of it ............

I think the above quote says it all, too many people try to emulate club layouts & get disillusioned.

[Guest Jim Read]

Hello All,

 

I used to take a fairly large layout to shows in the 80's and recently in the last few years one that was smaller. But still meant moving from one end to another to uncouple.

 

Last year I made a 7mm 'shunter' on one board 55" long, I can operate it from a sitting position, it's operation because of the trackplan can get very complex and very enjoyable. It's quite simply the best layout I've ever made.

 

Jim

 

[edit] can't count

[hartleymartin]

Here's a one-turnout layout which might be just what you need:

http://www.carendt.com/scrapbook/page97a/index.html#chicago

I'm seriously thinking about doing my own version using British wagons and an Ixion Hudswell Clarke.

[trisonic]

I suppose it depends on whether you consider running trains running around in a circle just to watch them move as "Operating"?

I'm kind of opposite to Kenton (I think) in that the build is everything - then I get bored!

I believe that Lance is trying to get through that a simple layout is both achievable (and to fine detail, if you want) and has Operating potential similar to the real thing within a short time scale.

 

I'd consider building something similar - I'm still not sure whether I'd set up an operating system similar to his before I got bored and tear the whole thing down (again).

 

Best, Pete.

[Guest Jim Read]

Hello Pete,

 

I like operating and design my layouts with that in mind, I do agree about the boredom though and boring track plans produce boring layouts. The one linked to above is one that would be excruciating after a short time.

 

I order to make it a lot more interesting I would; scrap the sector plate and replace with a 3 road traverser (just as easy to make as an sp), and then have a two road fixed loco release behind that. This will mean that you can get a loco behind anyone of the roads with wagons stored in them without having to keep picking up the loco or the stock.

 

The operation then becomes very interesting indeed with lots of intricate movements needed to swap just three wagons around and a complete change when swapping from one outer storage road to another.

 

The linked layout would become superb with that arramgement.

 

Jim

[Mike]

Hi, here's a photo to illustrate Jims point about the traverser loco release arrangement

[trisonic]

But most prototype switching/shunting is more like Lance's i.e. without convenient loops/traverser Loco releases.... That is part of the whole point of his design to get the empties out put the loaded ones in (to the correct spots). It's challenging.

 

Best, Pete.

[Guest Jim Read]

Hello Pete,

 

Your comments are quite correct Mike's and my layouts are hardly prototypical. You did mention the 'boredom' threshold and doing what you suggest above would soon result in that kicking in.

 

Though, hold on Read think about it, what could be more prototypical than swapping one lot of wagons and replacing them with another lot and then having a thrid lot to swap as well. It's a shame you and I live so far apart you could have had a go on one of my layouts and seen the interest heighten as you realised the intricacies of actually operating it. And all without having to remove a loco or a wagon from the track.

 

Cheers - Jim