Continuous run -discussion

[t-b-g]

Interesting discussion and I think I can probably guess one of the layouts that set it rolling.

 

My view is that the frequency of trains is less down to the physical track plan and more to do with the design of wiring/control systems and the skill and level of interest of the operators.

 

In either plan, if the wiring allows you to bring the next train to a "just off scene" position, it can be ready to go and you don't need a big gap between trains.

 

I am not keen on a curve, straight, curve design as it always smacks to me of a toy train set. I have built one like that and I never really found it visually satisfying, although curved boards at the end helped disguise the rather tight curve of the track.

 

 A continuous sinewy curve is fine, as is a hidden curve and a visible straight section but even then a really gentle curve or some variation is far more pleasing to the eye than a dead straight set of tracks on a dead straight set of boards.

 

Even at an exhibition, where the perception is that the punters want plenty of action, just seeing a constant stream of trains go round can become quite boring after a while and I have seen a number of layouts where there is plenty of operational potential but the operators just don't bother to use it, or maybe they don't know how to or perhaps they think that actually stopping a train and doing something with it will make the layout boring to watch.

 

If the design means that a shunting move stops everything else happening then they may be right but if the design allows a train to do something while others go by on the main line then it looks really good.

 

Dewsbury Midland is, to me, a superb example of just how a roundy-roundy layout can and should be worked.

 

Tony

[bike2steam]

The problem with the oval is that so much is of no interest to the viewer (or is out of bounds at a show) making a lot of the hall wasted space (or somewhere for the operators to hide). This simply doesn't happen with the end-end or out and back layouts.

Yay, I got me 'reply quoting this post' back !(at the expense of 'emoticons'!!)

 

The only trouble with 'end-end' if you want a thro' route instead of a terminus, you gotta have 2 fiddle yards ( just as much 'wasted space') !!! But I prefer to have a dual purpose layout, that can be a test-track as well. :-)

[trisonic]

I could build an end to end with much less square footage than an oval with fiddle yards behind. For a start one fiddle yard could be behind the scenery (but on the same board). One end to end on the circuit from a few years ago (it’s name escapes me) was built like that.

In fact an end to end need only have one fiddle yard like that if it went to a large industry or terminus (with kick back sidings on the scenic side but at the front).

 

Best, Pete.

[Kenton]

 

that can be a test-track as well. :-)

I certainly am not implying that Dewsbury or many other fine roundy-roundy layouts are "test-tracks" I'd keep that description for the ones with nothing but straight track and little else on the viewing side. Even then they have a purpose just not for entertaining the public.

 

One thing that has not been mentioned yet - so I will - are the layouts which are roundy-roundy but where the FY is placed on another level. Crewlisle is a good example that springs to mind (though not a pure roundy-roundy - it is a out and back). This multi level approach also seems popular with On30 logging layouts though maybe due to easier steep incline navigation. This type of layout really invites the public to view all sides.

[Grovenor]

 

The problem with the oval is that so much is of no interest to the viewer (or is out of bounds at a show) making a lot of the hall wasted space (or somewhere for the operators to hide). This simply doesn't happen with the end-end or out and back layouts.

The problem here is the fiddle yard, get rid of it and have scenic sections both sides. The first exhibition layout I worked on, at the MRC back in the '60s was so arranged, only the two end curves were hidden, providing somewhere to swap out anything defective and for trains to wait if necessary before entering the next scene. One side had a country scene with a small station where short passenger trains could be turned in the bay and a pick up goods could shunt but most trains just passed through. The other side had an urban scene with freight marshalling, passenger carriage sidings and loco depot. This side carried out all the functions of a fiddle yard, realistically in plain view. The operators worked hard and the watchers were well entertained, and the exhibition manager effectively got two layouts for the price of one. Two 32ft viewing sides and other stands could be located either end. I have not seen one as effective since.

Keith

[Andy Reichert]

The problem here is the fiddle yard, get rid of it and have scenic sections both sides. The first exhibition layout I worked on, at the MRC back in the '60s was so arranged, only the two end curves were hidden, providing somewhere to swap out anything defective and for trains to wait if necessary before entering the next scene. One side had a country scene with a small station where short passenger trains could be turned in the bay and a pick up goods could shunt but most trains just passed through. The other side had an urban scene with freight marshalling, passenger carriage sidings and loco depot. This side carried out all the functions of a fiddle yard, realistically in plain view. The operators worked hard and the watchers were well entertained, and the exhibition manager effectively got two layouts for the price of one. Two 32ft viewing sides and other stands could be located either end. I have not seen one as effective since.

Keith

 

Brilliant in depth thinking! I wonder how that concept got lost since?

 

Andy

[Dagworth]

Brilliant in depth thinking! I wonder how that concept got lost since?

 

Andy

It didn't, it developed.

It regained the fiddle yards (plural) and grew scenery around the end curves too. Big enough that the curves don't look too unreasonable, and board shapes that get rid of the corners. Trains leave the lower fiddle yard (yellow) at point A, they traverse the scenic section crossing above point A and making a second pass around the layout at a higher level, eventually exiting the scene into the upper fiddle yard (green) at point B. Both fiddle yards are balloon loops so trains then make a return journey without any handling.

You then add a set of reception roads on the side opposite the fiddle yard exits (with the lower level line in a tunnel beneath), a closed station on the other side, a junction on each end into the reception yard and a coal mine over the top of the whole centre section...

Then you call it Ravensclyffe and take it to Coventry

 

Andi

[Andy Reichert]

It didn't, it developed.

 

It regained the fiddle yards (plural) and grew scenery around the end curves too. Big enough that the curves don't look too unreasonable, and board shapes that get rid of the corners. Trains leave the lower fiddle yard (yellow) at point A, they traverse the scenic section crossing above point A and making a second pass around the layout at a higher level, eventually exiting the scene into the upper fiddle yard (green) at point B. Both fiddle yards are balloon loops so trains then make a return journey without any handling.

You then add a set of reception roads on the side opposite the fiddle yard exits (with the lower level line in a tunnel beneath), a closed station on the other side, a junction on each end into the reception yard and a coal mine over the top of the whole centre section...

Then you call it Ravensclyffe and take it to Coventry

 

Andi

 

I understood the footer reference to "Raising Steam", but unfortunately, being in the US, not the inside knowledge of the main posting and apparently well-known layout. Is it just very long, or two levels shown offset?

 

Andy

[Dagworth]

I understood the footer reference to "Raising Steam", but unfortunately, being in the US, not the inside knowledge of the main posting and apparently well-known layout. Is it just very long, or two levels shown offset?

 

Andy

I can't remember exactly how Andy Y described it but I think it included the word 'Insane' http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/3288-ravensclyffe/

 

Andi

[Crewlisle]

.........One thing that has not been mentioned yet - so I will - are the layouts which are roundy-roundy but where the FY is placed on another level. Crewlisle is a good example that springs to mind (though not a pure roundy-roundy - it is a out and back). This multi level approach also seems popular with On30 logging layouts though maybe due to easier steep incline navigation. This type of layout really invites the public to view all sides.

 

Thanks for the mention.  For those of you who have not seen my 00 gauge DCC layout ‘Crewlisle’, I have a different approach by having the usual single level of the U-shaped exhibition layout + fiddle yard on 3 interconnected levels with a central operating well because I do not have the luxury of a 20ft long layout!  At exhibitions I always ask for my layout to be displayed with 3 sides visible to the public.  The U-shaped high level with 4 road terminus for 6 coach expresses, goods yard/coach sidings, turntable, steam and diesel sheds are the 3 viewing sides.  The tracks leading down to the continuous run double track main line on the middle level representing the WCML with portable overhead catenary for scale 100mph running, runs down the inside of the high level U-shape.  The continuous run WCML on the middle level complete with station is also like a U-shaped layout with only the lower part of the ‘U’ on view.  This is on a continuous large radius curve, with second radius curves at each end under the high level.

 

The reversing loop is on the lower level so the trains can leave and return from the mainline/terminus.  The only part of the reversing loop in view is in the central operating well as it leaves the down side of the continuous run under the high level, through the operating well and then goes right under the rest of the layout to rejoin the WCML on the up side at almost the same place from where it leaves.   And because it was built to fit a bedroom just over 8ft square, I did not have the luxury of a fiddle yard to store a large variety of stock.  To me fiddle yards are wasted space.   My fiddle yard is a removable 1.35m section of the reversing loop on the inside of the operating well with 14 identical cartridges loaded with trains stored on a rack underneath the baseboards.  These are restocked as required from loco/stock storage boxes as required.

 

A total of 46 steam/diesel/electric locos and 179 items of stock are used representing the WCML from the mid 1950s to the mid 1980s so would not appeal to the purists expecting prototypical operation because of the long timescale and restricted space.  Crewlisle is currently featured in Issue 84 (June 2014) of Hornby Magazine, will be appearing at Hornby Magazine’s Great Electric Train Show in October this year and the 2015 Warley NEC because it entertains.  With two operators (sometimes three) I run a minimum of two trains and sometimes as many as four simultaneously.  Subject to operations, I even let children have a go; what better PR for the next generation of modellers?

[Boco_D1]

Throwing my two-pence in, what I think really spoils a layout is a lack of real life operational understanding, I agree there's nothing worse than lifeless layout but at the same time watching several trains play wacky races is just as bad. The worst I recall was a layout I saw at Steam a few years back the operator was spewing trains out of the fiddleyard like there was no tomorrow, the cringe moment was a goods train followed seconds later by an A4 on an express on the same line, not a signal between them! I don't think the shape of the layout matters if you can't get the operation right.

[Andy Reichert]

Thanks for the mention.  For those of you who have not seen my 00 gauge DCC layout ‘Crewlisle’, I have a different approach by having the usual single level of the U-shaped exhibition layout + fiddle yard on 3 interconnected levels with a central operating well because I do not have the luxury of a 20ft long layout!  At exhibitions I always ask for my layout to be displayed with 3 sides visible to the public.  The U-shaped high level with 4 road terminus for 6 coach expresses, goods yard/coach sidings, turntable, steam and diesel sheds are the 3 viewing sides.  The tracks leading down to the continuous run double track main line on the middle level representing the WCML with portable overhead catenary for scale 100mph running, runs down the inside of the high level U-shape.  The continuous run WCML on the middle level complete with station is also like a U-shaped layout with only the lower part of the ‘U’ on view.  This is on a continuous large radius curve, with second radius curves at each end under the high level.

 

The reversing loop is on the lower level so the trains can leave and return from the mainline/terminus.  The only part of the reversing loop in view is in the central operating well as it leaves the down side of the continuous run under the high level, through the operating well and then goes right under the rest of the layout to rejoin the WCML on the up side at almost the same place from where it leaves.   And because it was built to fit a bedroom just over 8ft square, I did not have the luxury of a fiddle yard to store a large variety of stock.  To me fiddle yards are wasted space.   My fiddle yard is a removable 1.35m section of the reversing loop on the inside of the operating well with 14 identical cartridges loaded with trains stored on a rack underneath the baseboards.  These are restocked as required from loco/stock storage boxes as required.

 

A total of 46 steam/diesel/electric locos and 179 items of stock are used representing the WCML from the mid 1950s to the mid 1980s so would not appeal to the purists expecting prototypical operation because of the long timescale and restricted space.  Crewlisle is currently featured in Issue 84 (June 2014) of Hornby Magazine, will be appearing at Hornby Magazine’s Great Electric Train Show in October this year and the 2015 Warley NEC because it entertains.  With two operators (sometimes three) I run a minimum of two trains and sometimes as many as four simultaneously.  Subject to operations, I even let children have a go; what better PR for the next generation of modellers?

 

Well I'm impressed with the thoughtful innovation.

 

Andy

[Izzy]

This has been for me a very interesting and extremely useful discusion. Having to try and plan a new minimum space circular layout the various apects raised, not least that about wasted visual track runs, has prompted me to look anew at what I want out of such a layout and how best to achieve it.

 

Izzy

[DCB]

I am not sure i follow the logic of this thread.   It seems to compare a straight piece of plain line as part of a continuous run against a terminus to fiddle yard.layout.

 

My contention is that a through station on a continuous run can do all the movements of a Terminus, and should if optimised for exhibition use feature trains terminating. 

 

All sorts of prototype through stations had local passenger trains terminating, Chalford, Kemble and Cirencester Watermoor  all a few miles from here being examples, none had departure bays for these trains, Chalford just had two goods sidings, yet Gloucester auto trains terminated (and where sometimes when there was no 14X available the 57XX or 94XX ran round the Autocoach) Watermoor the start of a double track section, and yet there were more trains in the single track direction.  Kemble too, with a Bay for Tetbury and a curving platform for Cirencester (Town)  branch terminted Swindon Locals in the Down Platorm. (Kemble had no goods yard, only marshalling Sidings)   Any of these stations would provide inspiration for an interesting layout.     

Actually the GWR had very few terminal stations, and many of those it did have served through trains, Swansea, Bodmin etc, we won't even think about Carmarthen.

 

But an ordinary two platform two track station with two trailing crossovers and two goods sidings can see through expresses and semi fasts,  Local passegers terminating, Goods, oh yes "up" Goods using the running lines as a shunting neck, and on occasion Up freights set back into the down platform to allow faster traffic to overtake, (yes I'm talking Chalford here so most freights will be banked and Down Freights will not call)

 

So why can't we have interesting through stations on continuous runs where shunting keeps the punters interest and the through trains add an air of excitement?

 

If you don't like GWR but want really interesting opeartion and minimalistic facilities try "The Mound" on the Farther North line of the Highland Railway.

[t-b-g]

There was an article about Mansfield Midland station in a magazine a while ago. That had three platform faces with a single platform one way and an island with a second platform face the other way. It looked like a through station but all the services were Mansfield to somewhere apart from a tiny number that went through. From memory, there were something like 140 passenger trains a day, of which 4 actually went through. The rest terminated or started there. In effect, it was a hub of a wheel, with lines going off in all directions.

 

It had a small number of carriage sidings, a loco shed and a biggish goods yard and it would make a superb model, especially if somebody would be willing to condense the huge spread of the sidings.

 

Marple is another example of a through station with many terminating services plus some through ones.

 

Such places would be fascinating to watch or operate as models.

 

Tony

[bike2steam]

So why can't we have interesting through stations on continuous runs where shunting keeps the punters interest and the through trains add an air of excitement?

With moderation, I've seen layouts, at some shows, with somewhat ridiculous, and aimless amounts of shunting, examples of small yards where in reality 30 minutes of operation a day would be it, not 4 hours.

[Kenton]

 

With moderation, I've seen layouts, at some shows, with somewhat ridiculous, and aimless amounts of shunting, examples of small yards where in reality 30 minutes of operation a day would be it, not 4 hours.

But no show visitor is going to stand there for 4 hours. There just has to be enough movement to relieve the total boredom of staring at the "tunnels" at each end waiting for some express non-stop to appear. But agree some of the shunting that goes on is completely unrealistic with the frequent use of the "hand of oh gawd not again", the buffer collisions at scale 90mph and the awe at the strong arm of the driver in moving the reversing leaver while still rolling in the opposite direction.

[bike2steam]

I know, just using it as an example of prototypical full-size operation, and how some can drag it out for too long a session on a model.

[DCB]

The problem with prototype operation is that away from London and the South East it tends to happen in clumps.  

 

Imagine the scene

 

The class170  sprinter arrives, the Sleeper a 67 on an 8 coach rake arrives, the sprinter departs, the sleeper departs, the blue Caledonian 0-6-0 arrives from the branch with a rake of 6 maroon Mk2s runs round and departs again.  This is Aviemore,twice a week and then the sprinted does not always cross and the sleeper and branch train are only in the station together on rare occasions,  so maybe if we only model the bits when something is happening and forget the mind numbing tedious waits between.

[Karhedron]

Another lateral way of looking at it is: Why bother with a Station? Look at freight options instead if necessary.

I’ve often wondered why British modellers feel the need for passenger stations at all as they are invariably too short, etc.

I suspect that it is because we tend to try and model the railways that appeal to us. As passengers, we spend a disproportionate amount of time at stations (ironcially, it can be hard to appreciate a railway fron inside the train ). Thus most layouts tend to be rather passenger-centric unless the builders make a concious effort to do "something else".

 

I always rather liked layouts like Welham Green that model part of a station to avoid the length problem. This was usually a good layout to watch but also suffered from only showing the front portion of the circuit.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46634

[sub39h]

You could make the entire ring a continuous run and have a spur in the middle as a fiddle yard. See Dorehill St Stevens for what I mean. 

[gordon s]

Ah, now that's a good idea…:-)

 

If only I could maintain the enthusiasm to build it.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/3422-eastwood-town-update/page-67

[richard i]

The key to interest is firstly having things running be it terminus, goods yard or through station in a believable way, so the right sort of stck i there and it does not do unrealistic moves, the time between each period of action can be cut out. This is more possible the less dead sections there are, (going back to the original premiss of the topic) the length of the layout also plays into the dead section issues, if it is too long it has too long away from any punter even if it does have a train moving in my experiance at exhibitions too long is about 40ft. Secondly interest wanes if the layout is stocked with models that are straight out of the box. I can see them in the model shop.