An Example of Operation Focused Modelling

[PatB]

Whilst looking for something else in the April 1932 edition of Meccano Magazine, I stumbles across the article beginning on page 302, which provides an excellent explanation of a method of operating a layout representing a railway system, rather than an individual station. The layout described represents the Midland Railway's London to Manchester main line, with terminii at "St Pancras" and "Manchester", and intermediate representations of "Derby" and, interestingly, the triangle at "Ambergate". The method of working London-Manchester expresses is described in some detail, including the use of through coaches for Liverpool.

 

I found the article interesting in view of the current thread diversion on C J Freezer's layout plans, as many of CJF's designs are ideal for exactly this approach to modelling. Perhaps not surprising as, although the man himself would only have been 6 or 7 when the article was published, I'd be very surprised if he didn't read it (and others like it) at some point.

 

I know that the current fashion is for the photorealistic reproduction of a small (sometimes very small indeed) piece of railway, but I suspect many, like me, have a sneaking desire for the old-fashioned "system" layout, where the individual models are often quite impressionistic but the emphasis is upon running a train service between geographical locations, even if those locations are represented by the same handful of stations on the layout. Perhaps it appeals to me because my artistic abilities are limited, but I enjoy mathematics and problem solving, which are the core skills involved in timetabling.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The whole reason I own a model railway is to enable timetable operation of the services. As such it is the track layout that is of primary importance, and general scenic treatment has rarely gone further than ballasting. Of the world beyond the railway fence, nothing is represented. No point: you cannot make trains of it and operate it to timetable...

 

As ever one is impressed by the Meccano magazine. Is there  even now some very elderly man, (inevitably now retired in Eastbourne or some similar location) glad that he read that article on the work of the company secretary at ten years of age; and so determined that this should be his career, which he successfully pursued?

Edited April 3, 2018 by 34theletterbetweenB&D

[chaz]

Whilst looking for something else in the April 1932 edition of Meccano Magazine, I stumbles across the article beginning on page 302, which provides an excellent explanation of a method of operating a layout representing a railway system, rather than an individual station. The layout described represents the Midland Railway's London to Manchester main line, with terminii at "St Pancras" and "Manchester", and intermediate representations of "Derby" and, interestingly, the triangle at "Ambergate". The method of working London-Manchester expresses is described in some detail, including the use of through coaches for Liverpool.

 

I found the article interesting in view of the current thread diversion on C J Freezer's layout plans, as many of CJF's designs are ideal for exactly this approach to modelling. Perhaps not surprising as, although the man himself would only have been 6 or 7 when the article was published, I'd be very surprised if he didn't read it (and others like it) at some point.

 

I know that the current fashion is for the photorealistic reproduction of a small (sometimes very small indeed) piece of railway, but I suspect many, like me, have a sneaking desire for the old-fashioned "system" layout, where the individual models are often quite impressionistic but the emphasis is upon running a train service between geographical locations, even if those locations are represented by the same handful of stations on the layout. Perhaps it appeals to me because my artistic abilities are limited, but I enjoy mathematics and problem solving, which are the core skills involved in timetabling.

 

 

It's an approach that has its merits, certainly. Possibly one of the reasons that such layouts are unfashionable is that they need plenty of space even in 4mm, and in 7mm..... I could possibly do it in N but then your "impressionistic models" would become next to invisible for me.

 

There's room for every approach you can imagine in the hobby so ...... go for it!

 

Chaz

[PatB]

It's an approach that has its merits, certainly. Possibly one of the reasons that such layouts are unfashionable is that they need plenty of space even in 4mm, and in 7mm..... I could possibly do it in N but then your "impressionistic models" would become next to invisible for me.

 

There's room for every approach you can imagine in the hobby so ...... go for it!

 

Chaz

 

Fair comment. You certainly can't get one into, say, 8 x 2 in anything bigger than N. CJF, however, designed plenty of suitable systems for a 10x6 (or even 8x6) garden shed. Not a space available to everyone, but not in the unattainable realms of fantasy either. To fit them in, there were, of course, some fairly severe compromises. Many of CJF's system plans presuppose 3 or, at most, 4 coach trains and 18" ruling radii (15" in some of the dogbones). Not something that everyone could accept, but not really relevant to the ability to run a train service if that is regarded as the main point of the exercise.

[Zomboid]

This is essentially what modular layouts are all about. It's not on the scale of St Pancras to Manchester, but you combine a bunch of "towns" and then run the trains which serve them. Each town can be highly realistic or plywood plains.

 

It's never really caught on for British models as far as I know, but there's a reasonable number of people doing it across the country in American HO and N. There's really no reason why it couldn't work for British models.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Zomboid

[The Johnster]

I run Cwmdimbath to a sequence, and sometimes to a timetable that uses the sequence.  The latter prototypically causes problems when shunting occupies roads that the signalman wants to clear into for other traffic.

 

The track plan is deliberately restricted to make shunting awkward, the excuse being that the railway is constructed on a narrow shelf between a mountain and stream; it is inspired by and very loosely based on Abergwnfi 2 valleys over.  Some movements take place off stage and in my imagination (colliery, timber yard, refrigerated food siding) but require trains to be marshalled in a specific way at Cwmdimbath.  Sequence running means that the analogy of a chess game can be used; one must plan several moves ahead if you are not to block yourself in and require an assistant pilot engine; Tondu shed manager and Control will cross you off the xmas card list...

 

There are 6 locomotive duties that have to be catered for, and one or two spare paths allowed for specials and out of course running.  A busy single track branch, even a short one, can have it's whole day's timetable put out of kilter by a hot box on a wagon, or sheep on the line, or al sorts of things. You can drop these in at will (auto loco gear fails; auto must be loco hauled and run around.  Do you use auto loco in conventional mode, or take it out of service for repair and substitute with another loco?).  I love this sort of stuff!

[71000]

Whilst looking for something else in the April 1932 edition of Meccano Magazine, I stumbles across the article beginning on page 302, which provides an excellent explanation of a method of operating a layout representing a railway system, rather than an individual station. The layout described represents the Midland Railway's London to Manchester main line, with terminii at "St Pancras" and "Manchester", and intermediate representations of "Derby" and, interestingly, the triangle at "Ambergate". The method of working London-Manchester expresses is described in some detail, including the use of through coaches for Liverpool.

 

I know that the current fashion is for the photorealistic reproduction of a small (sometimes very small indeed) piece of railway, but I suspect many, like me, have a sneaking desire for the old-fashioned "system" layout, where the individual models are often quite impressionistic but the emphasis is upon running a train service between geographical locations, even if those locations are represented by the same handful of stations on the layout. Perhaps it appeals to me because my artistic abilities are limited, but I enjoy mathematics and problem solving, which are the core skills involved in timetabling.

PatB et al,

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by 71000

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I would be interested to read about the logistical planning for the transport of what I take to be a 36 board assembly, off load and erection, and break down and pack up regimes for show attendance. It's fully possible (I have trade show experience) but not without challenges.

[71000]

I would be interested to read about the logistical planning for the transport of what I take to be a 36 board assembly, off load and erection, and break down and pack up regimes for show attendance. It's fully possible (I have trade show experience) but not without challenges.

The layout needs an articulated lorry, and there is a haulage company next door !

 

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by 71000

[LNER4479]

Definitely a 'thumbs up' for a layout with operational authenticity here.

 

We try to do this with Grantham which, although essentially a 'roundy roundy' in concept, features trains run as per the timetable of the day, locos coming on an off shed with a purpose, terminating stock being shunted across the mainlines, goods trains calling to attach / detach wagons, etc.

 

I estimate that we have a straight split in the audience. 50% wander off to find a layout more to their liking, perhaps disappointed not to have seen a constant parade of streamlined trains; 50% stay - sometimes for hours - engrossed in the operational ebbs and flows that would have been absolutely typical on a day's observation at the station. Maybe they also appreciated the time and effort into putting together representative train formations? Or the signals interlocked with the layout's control system?

 

So a classic case 'you can't please all the people all the time'? Certainly any show needs a good mix of layouts and I'm under no illusion that prototypical operation is not for everyone.

[luckymucklebackit]

Gateside and Northbridge is 100% an operational layout, built in 14ft by 10ft (approximately) it represents Central Scotland in the 1960s with the focus on operation between Glasgow and Edinburgh, Glasgow to all points north and Edinburgh to the ECML and Waverley route.

 

Jim

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...     I have plenty of experience lugging exhibition layouts around Europe, although never one as big as Basingstoke.  Its simply a case of "Time and Motion" a good old fashioned method of working out how long each job on the real railway would take...

I thought there must be an experienced show organiser behind this! Well worth the description so that people realise what a heavyweight operation this is.

 

... the biggest headache is simply unpacking 130 locos, 460 carriages, and 250 wagons. If this lot is still in its manufacturers packets, it will take four people around 8 hours to unpack. So unacceptable. As a result I have already started the process of altering aluminum tool cases (available from most DIY stores). So that each can carry 20 locos, and it takes five minutes to unpack each case. For the coaches and wagons, I am looking for classic old fashioned "Trunks". These being around four feet long, two feet wide and two feet deep. Each one of those should hold around 150 coaches, or all the 250 wagons. And hopefully wont take more than around 20 minutes to unpack each...

 The crucial piece being that they all 'rail up' in perfect working order. Have you given thought to the stock being in the storage on railed 'cartridges', and a docking point (or three) into the storage yard so that it is roll on, roll off? Anything to minimise handling which is where all the damage occurs. Would be faster than hand railing too.

 

On the modelling side, surely the plan is a little light on wagons? Or is it the case that these routes really were massively dominated by passenger services?

[LBRJ]

there is the Gainsborough Model Railway - O Gauge representing most of the ECML

 

http://www.gainsboroughmodelrailway.co.uk/

[71000]

I thought there must be an experienced show organiser behind this! Well worth the description so that people realise what a heavyweight operation this is.

 

 The crucial piece being that they all 'rail up' in perfect working order. Have you given thought to the stock being in the storage on railed 'cartridges', and a docking point (or three) into the storage yard so that it is roll on, roll off? Anything to minimise handling which is where all the damage occurs. Would be faster than hand railing too.

 

On the modelling side, surely the plan is a little light on wagons? Or is it the case that these routes really were massively dominated by passenger services?

C ?

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by 71000

[71000]

This is essentially what modular layouts are all about. It's not on the scale of St Pancras to Manchester, but you combine a bunch of "towns" and then run the trains which serve them. Each town can be highly realistic or plywood plains.

 

It's never really caught on for British models as far as I know, but there's a reasonable number of people doing it across the country in American HO and N. There's really no reason why it couldn't work for British models.

O

Edited April 7, 2018 by 71000

[LBRJ]

Fair comment. You certainly can't get one into, say, 8 x 2 in anything bigger than N. CJF, however, designed plenty of suitable systems for a 10x6 (or even 8x6) garden shed. Not a space available to everyone, but not in the unattainable realms of fantasy either. To fit them in, there were, of course, some fairly severe compromises. Many of CJF's system plans presuppose 3 or, at most, 4 coach trains and 18" ruling radii (15" in some of the dogbones). Not something that everyone could accept, but not really relevant to the ability to run a train service if that is regarded as the main point of the exercise.

 

It has been said before, but if you take CJF's 1960s plans for OO in a (very) small space, adapt them to suit, and build them to N scale then they should work out pretty good!

After all the typical ruling radius of 15" is not all that tight in the smaller scale.

[PatB]

This is essentially what modular layouts are all about. It's not on the scale of St Pancras to Manchester, but you combine a bunch of "towns" and then run the trains which serve them. Each town can be highly realistic or plywood plains.

 

It's never really caught on for British models as far as I know, but there's a reasonable number of people doing it across the country in American HO and N. There's really no reason why it couldn't work for British models.

 

Whilst I accept that modular layouts are, in theory, an interesting and versatile idea in theory, all the ones I've seen (admittedly a fairly small sample size in the greater scheme of things) have been rather disappointing, with badly laid flexitrack on bare boards, with frequent derailments at the joints, or bodged in connecting tracks, because the "standardisation" hasn't worked very well. Combine that with settrack standard curves for no good reason on the corner modules, and the circulation of toylike, mismatched collections of stock (one of everything from the catalogue sort of thing) which don't do justice to the few well done modules and I've tended to walk on by. 

 

As I say, this isn't intended to denigrate the modular concept as such, but I think modularity should be more than just whacking together as many boards as possible to create a huge train set, which is how I've seen it used.

[Zomboid]

Well just like anything else it can be done well or badly, but I have been involved in several modular events and don't recognise any of those criticisms. Probably because there is a set of standards (including minimum curve radii) which are pretty well adhered to by those who build the modules.

 

Completed scenery is not always present, and on those that are done you can have 12' of Florida directly adjoining 8' of Pennsylvania, which not everyone will be happy with. But when you're operating it that stuff fades into the background, and that's kind of the point - it's something primarily for the operators' benefit. Only once have I been involved in such a set up where the public was invited to watch (and it went down pretty well, I thought), most of the time these things are set up at a private event.

[mightbe]

As I say, this isn't intended to denigrate the modular concept as such, but I think modularity should be more than just whacking together as many boards as possible to create a huge train set, which is how I've seen it used.

 

There are exceptions--check out the finescale H0 modular layouts in Germany and the Netherlands. The people behind it codified every such pitfall out of existence, and while there are a handful of in-progress boards it's definitely no half-assed setup.

 

Example:

 

Edited April 13, 2018 by mightbe

[Brassey]

The whole reason I own a model railway is to enable timetable operation of the services. As such it is the track layout that is of primary importance, and general scenic treatment has rarely gone further than ballasting. Of the world beyond the railway fence, nothing is represented. No point: you cannot make trains of it and operate it to timetable...

 

Came upon this thread rather late but have to say that I totally agree with the above as being the purpose of a model railway