A crisis of prototype

[BillH]

A couple of months ago I started building baseboards for a 6.6m (21.5ft)x4m (13ft) layout that I had planned over some years. The original the idea was modeling a through station and branch somewhere between Colchester and Clacton-on-sea in the early-mid 1950s using the B17s, B1s,D16,J15,N7 etc that are or will shortly be available ready to run.

I will probably finish the final baseboard in the next week or so and will shortly look to begin laying and wiring track. 

The problem that has come up is that during the building process there have been a couple of new model locos announced for my other railway interest (South Australia in the late 1980s). I have been doing some measuring/planning and I could fit a decent model of either prototype on my boards.

I have seen layouts where people swap regions or era by changing stock, road vehicles and even the odd building and that seems to work well where it is well thought out. In my case one being one interest is OO and the other is HO so I could use the same track but 1950s Essex and 1980s Australia are not going to work for scenics, track plan, signaling, architecture etc etc. So aside from the odd train on special occasions I can't see joint running being an option.

 

I was wondering if anyone else has had to reconcile staying with the long term plan or going with something different and unexpected at a late stage in their layouts development. Particularly I would be interested in how they came to their final decision and how it worked out. I am keen to keep my momentum going but will need to sort it out before I lay any track.

 

Cheers

 

Bill

[Damo666]

Where is your layout going to be situated? If in the loft, then this wouldn't work, but if it's a free-standing layout, then here's a bit of lateral thinking.

 

When viewed from one side the scene is 1950s Essex, and when viewed from the opposite side then its 1980s Australia.

One face and side of each building would be in a particular style, so each building would be 2 halves representing each location.

 

You would need to be very careful about your viewing angle. Maybe even create visual obstructions to ensure you are controlling the viewing position, so that the illusion is maintained.

[Traintresta]

59 minutes ago, BillH said:

A couple of months ago I started building baseboards for a 6.6m (21.5ft)x4m (13ft) layout that I had planned over some years. The original the idea was modeling a through station and branch somewhere between Colchester and Clacton-on-sea in the early-mid 1950s using the B17s, B1s,D16,J15,N7 etc that are or will shortly be available ready to run.

I will probably finish the final baseboard in the next week or so and will shortly look to begin laying and wiring track. 

The problem that has come up is that during the building process there have been a couple of new model locos announced for my other railway interest (South Australia in the late 1980s). I have been doing some measuring/planning and I could fit a decent model of either prototype on my boards.

I have seen layouts where people swap regions or era by changing stock, road vehicles and even the odd building and that seems to work well where it is well thought out. In my case one being one interest is OO and the other is HO so I could use the same track but 1950s Essex and 1980s Australia are not going to work for scenics, track plan, signaling, architecture etc etc. So aside from the odd train on special occasions I can't see joint running being an option.

 

I was wondering if anyone else has had to reconcile staying with the long term plan or going with something different and unexpected at a late stage in their layouts development. Particularly I would be interested in how they came to their final decision and how it worked out. I am keen to keep my momentum going but will need to sort it out before I lay any track.

 

Cheers

 

Bill

I think like most modellers I have varying interests but the thing I have found over the years is hat I keep returning to the same major interest and find that over a given period of time my desire to model that interest is strongest and most frequent. So I don’t fight it. 

 

Odd side projects might pop up from time to time but it’s not enough to tempt me to invest in a who other project of the same scale. Most of these are just fads. 

[Nick Holliday]

Presumably you intended to have a fiddle yard on the opposite side of the room. Why not create a plausible track plan that still functions as a fiddle yard, but can be landscaped to suit your minority interest, say Australa? When operating in Aussie mode, your BR station can function as a fiddle yard. There will inevitably be some compromises, as neither track plan will be ideal, but at least you can have both interests satisfied.  Alternatively you could model your branch terminus as Australian, and still be able to send BR trains down the branch,leaving the fiddle yard as you have planned.

[D9020 Nimbus]

There were articles in RM and CM within the last few years about someone who had a British/Italian layout—if I remember correctly one served as the fiddle yard for the other. The scale and scenic differences would be comparable to the Essex/Australian case.

[HLT 0109]

Have a two-level layout with each prototype on a different level.  Twice the cost but twice the interest!

[Kris]

If you change your plan do you think that you will regret it? If so don't change the plan.

 

[BillH]

Thanks everyone for your replies. I have considered the option of having each side represent my different areas of interest (with the other side operating as a fiddle yard for whatever is being used) but due to the location of the layout I think I would struggle to make it work and be happy with it. The idea of different levels is also good but wouldn't work in my situation due to windows/other uses (spare bed) etc that are in the train room.

 

Last night I wrote out a long list of pros and cons for each proposed layout which has helped clarify the strengths and weaknesses of each concept. The points that Traintresta and Kris make are very valid my long term plan was made to allow a layout that suited the space and my requirements so I should probably stick with it and in time it will become my primary interest again. 

 

In the mean time I will also keep collecting Australian stuff as they become available for a future layout or occasional running on the current layout. I have added a couple of pictures I was looking at while making my pros and cons list. Thanks again everyone I think I just needed to hear other people say the same things I was thinking to move forward.

 

Cheers

 

 

[w124bob]

I've also been contemplating this dilema, late 50's S&D versus 1980's US shortline railroad. My compromise (only on paper so far) is to have one side of the room as North American with a modest S&D through station on the other. Behind the backscene on the English side would a couple of roads for the US trains, this will prevent any clearance issues .On the US side the trackplan is more switching orientated so I'll be sitting with my back to England! A U shape or end to end with English/ shared staging/ US could work equally well. I've ruled out the double sided revolving baseboard idea!

 

[Ravenser]

My instinct is that 1950s GE will be less space-hungry than 1980s SAR/ANR. Look at the length of trains in your two photos .  (Also the operating potential may be higher - more shunting, more passengers)

 

Therefore sticking with your original theme may mean a less compromised layout. Unless your leaning is strongly towards Australian outline and the GE branch was simply a substitute because of a lack of trade support then I'd be inclined to stick with your first thought this time round. You have several years' planning behind this scheme - but not behind the SAR/ANR alternative

[BillH]

12 hours ago, Ravenser said:

My instinct is that 1950s GE will be less space-hungry than 1980s SAR/ANR. Look at the length of trains in your two photos .  (Also the operating potential may be higher - more shunting, more passengers)

 

Therefore sticking with your original theme may mean a less compromised layout. Unless your leaning is strongly towards Australian outline and the GE branch was simply a substitute because of a lack of trade support then I'd be inclined to stick with your first thought this time round. You have several years' planning behind this scheme - but not behind the SAR/ANR alternative

 

Yes this is a part of the problem with a half and half layout for these two particular prototypes, one (1950s BR) has lots of short (comparatively) trains and lots of short sidings, double lines etc. The standard gauge ANR layout of the 8os has very simple track and long trains. I think the long trains would make the ANR layout only viable as a stand alone layout as it would need a large fiddle yard that couldn't really visually or logistically double as a BR through station. I could alternatively look at the urban broad gauge network that had shorter trains but much less variety, also 5'3" would be better modeled in EM so there is another heap of complications there, along with no current available model or kit of the STA 2000 class railcars.

 

As I mentioned earlier I am now inclined to resist temptation and stick to the long term plan, this will be my first large layout so perhaps I will build an ANR one in the future. It is interesting and reassuring that other people have run into similar difficulties and have found ways to make such layouts work.

 

 Cheers

 

Bill

[Allegheny1600]

Hi Bill,

 I certainly feel your pain mate as I have main interests that include UK, US and German as well as minor interests in Greek and Austrian outline.

 I can only offer my own inadequate solution which is to build smaller but separate layouts, my long term aim was to build several versions, all occupying the same space and even sharing the same fiddle yard but future house moves have changed this plan.

 I do hasten to add that this idea was okay to cater for my shunting interests but useless for my main line ideas!

Cheers,

John