Gauntlet Thrown, ... Time to Shine

[Prof Klyzlr]

Dear RMwebbers,

 

Right then Lads and Lasses, appears that MRH has thrown down a US-outline "One-Module Layout" challenge.

 

http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/magazine/mrh-2015-09-sep/staff-notes

 

In short, typical geographically "North American" based modellers seem to struggle mightily with a "Basement or nothing" ethos
(with the "small switching layout" option being considered a derogatory term and a poor-substitute for a "Real Railroad"),

 

and it seems that MRH recognize it's well-time to re-dress this sad and sorry state of mind.

 

One of the core concepts being pointed-at is the idea of "an LDE with clip-on/mobile/movable staging, which moves as the layout/modules grow".
(See Tony Koester's "Wingate" layout design feature in the Inaugural "Model Railroad Planning" annual circa 1995)

 

SO, with the collective layout design (and demonstratable build) skills here on RMWeb,
can I respectfully encourage you to deluge MRH in typically-outstanding design examples,
(honestly, if one were to simply put-on-paper the designs of already-built-and-proven-solid UK-based US-outline show layouts from the last few years,
it'd already be light-years ahead in "design headspace"),

 

and wake up our continental North American modelling colleagues to the reality that
the luxury of a "basement or nothing" ethos is the exception in terms of worldwide model railway design and practical enjoyment, and not the Rule...

 

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

[298]

From the quick glance I gave the comments, does it still seem that a "module" has to fit onto one board, when in reality the RS Tower Freemo specs have proven that it can be any length...? (although exact feet is easier for planning or if a continous run is to be formed).

[shortliner]

Prof - I wonder, reading the details, if MRH have actually thought about what they are asking for - the specs automatically preclude a terminal/end of branch layout, and since they want, effectively, a six foot  staging section at each end, it will automatically require any layout to turn a corner and run along two walls of the 15' x 12' room - the fourth wall being effectively useless because of the door and closet ( although, If the layout is going to be de-mountable it can have a removable/ replaceable section that crosses in front on legs.)  given the parameters the thought of adding extension modules for erecting in that room is a bit silly , if it needs to be used for any other purpose. A lot of UK-designed/built complete layouts would fit on that size module. I don't think I'll be having a go!  I have posted this on MRH

[Prof Klyzlr]

Dear Jack,

 

I completely agree that the rules of the contest seem significantly "neither arthur nor martha",
it feels like a "big layout designers approach to planning a small layout".

 

However, look at it from the typical US perspective:
- we wanna run big trains
- we wanna run-thru trains
- for ops, we wanna run lots of trains in both directions on a single thru-road/"mainline"
(which for bonus points means we get to buy more trains to fill those staging yards,

and need more buddys to come round to run it if we work on the basis of "one fresh engineer per train")

 

With such a starting position, the idea of a pair of staging yards feeding a (comparatively) small "onstage" scene,
kinda makes sense... (It feels kinda like a typical "roundy" exhibition layout,
relatively small finescale "scene" out the front,
rest-of-the-loop formed by a dbl-ended staging yard,
only in this case it's a "scene" sandwiched between 2x single-ended yards with no continuous-run link)

 

Do you have the MRP 1995 issue handy? If so, check the "Wingate" article.
- Tony K took a 4x8 sheet of plywood,
- cut two 8x1 strips off it,
- used the remaining 8x2 as the "run-thru scene" section
- and put the 8x1s on each end as linear staging yards
(6 tracks per yard, RH yard IIRC "missed an opportunity" by splittiing into 2x 3-track yards)

 

Joe F's initial thought process, derived from Tony K's "Wingate" concept,
is that any modeller with "limited space"
(funny, the typical UK modeller would consider a 15x12 clear space as a luxury),

 

could fit a "Wingate" and effectively host "full op sessions" with multiple train crews
(fresh crew per train, "Wingate" can stage up-to 8 "run thru" trains + the local switching run),

 

and even a dispatcher if really pushed...
(invoking "theatre of the mind" ops, or "Phantom Ops" as Carl A used to refer to them).

 

IE all of the "big layout ops", in as-stage-compressed-as-possible deployment...

 

One key piece of info, nowhere in the rules did it say that the "70" staging yards" had to be straight! ;-)

 

Bringing it back down to reality for a moment, here's a quick "of the top of my head" rollcall of layouts referenced here on RMWeb which,
with some form of stub-end staging clipped-on on each end, 
could well be contest-winning entries

 

- Hacienda Ave (Nowhere in the rules did it say the staging had to be a turnout-based flat-yard,
and Hacienda has the "over the storm-water drain" Exit-Left which is begging for another "to destinations other" staging yard)

 

- Shilsole Yard (Interchange between Ballard Terminal and BNSF, although addmitedly the size of staging-yard being promoted in the contest rules would out-gun the prototype operations of Shilsole with capacity to spare... :-) )

 

- Haston (re-instate the operation of the "2 mainlines crossing at a diamond + curved interchange track" operation which ostensibly created the track arrangement in the first place)

 

- Oregon City Switcher /  BHIP / Blue Herron Paper mill  
(what if we backdate the scene, before the in-the-street "switchback" was cut-off,
when PT served the mill via their line "along the street",
and the SP/UP "backdoor" access to the mill was the "secondary option" as opposed to the "only way in")

 

- Julian Andrew's "Rachel, Georgia" (adapted to a thru station, "feedstore" line becomes the "Thru Mainline" and the feedstore gets served by the "hidden industry" track at top left)

 

- Carl A's "Cass W.Va 1955" (c'mon, the C&O line _was_ a thru line, the added depth of the contest rules would allow modelling of the C&O Durbin branch that Carl's micro-adaption had-to-loose...)

 

- CCT Lodi (consider the yard running W<>E in Lodi, there _used to be_ a single-track line on a overpass heading W beyond the current end-of-track...)

 

- Anything mentioned here which follows the "proto-nook" outline
(just add a road gradecrossing, derail, signal, or other "limit" to re-reinforce the "nook rules",
hey, "ChicagO Fork" was only 8' long, I wonder if I could "clip on" staging to it? ;-) )

 

- I wanna see Andy R make a single NE Corridor station section, 
end-to-end it with staging yards,
and be able to run at least 4x highspeed commuter trains each way per session
(may need to factor replacing the loco wheels every 12 months or so,
what with the full-throttle standing-in-staging starts,
scale-speed blitz-runs across the 8' "scenic section",

and mech-locked stops into the 2" foam "buffers" at the other end... :-) ).

 

- Jack, even your "Shortover Yard" could be expanded to win this thing...
(use specific parts of staging to act as the Loco-service track, the caboose track, various classification tracks,
and again, those with a UK-design headspace can use traversers/sectorplates to give much more "utility" to the "clip-on staging" than MRH ever thought possible...)

 

 

I have utmost confidence that there's more than enough talent and creative skill hereabouts to take the specs of this contest and create some mind-expanding object-lesson entries for it...

 

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

[shortliner]

John, no I don't have the 1995 MRP, but I was thinking about something like Nick Palettes "Hallsville, Pa." layout, that was built from an 8' x 4' sheet cut and re-assembled, however the dimensions given mean that that cannot be ripped out effectively or efficiently. A board 60" - 84" long and 18" - 24" wide as a module is a pain to move internally in a house, or in transport - which largely defeats the object of having/building a module, added to which boards with storage tracks "at least 70" long" are another pain to store and move - I know because my last layout had 60" boards and was dismantled because of them!

A proto-nook again defeats the object by having a module/staging board area that exceeds the intended capacity that the layout/headshunt/sidings was designed to hold.

Quoting your post "Jack, even your "Shortover Yard" could be expanded to win this thing...

(use specific parts of staging to act as the Loco-service track, the caboose track, various classification tracks,

and again, those with a UK-design headspace can use traversers/sectorplates to give much more "utility" to the "clip-on staging" than MRH ever thought possible...)"

 

my impression is that the "Flat-top staging section boards are to be used as just that, and not as parts of mini-modules ie loco service/caboose track, and various classification tracks which should be on the main module board.

 

As I said , the MRH staff really don't seem to have thought the concept through thoroughly, which is a shame, when you think that it could have really changed the US modellers way of thinking..

[298]

As I said , the MRH staff really don't seem to have thought the concept through thoroughly, which is a shame, when you think that it could have really changed the US modellers way of thinking..

Perhaps that would have been the problem all along, as change best comes from small steps instead of trying something radical...

[shortliner]

Simon, the biggest problem is persuading the module, plus additional module(s) at a future point and the two flat-top staging boards, to fit into that room - given the dimensions stated it requires either a pair of 45° or 90/ 180°curves  in either the main module board or in the staging board(s)

[shortliner]

Maybe I'm being constrained by my thinking -  to me a" modular" railway  is one where the modules are all standard sizes

[alastairq]

..........and interchangeable with others of the same ilk?

 

I like Simon's example....long long sidings, and few of them!

[shortliner]

Yes - maybe my definition of modular is different to that of other people - in fact I have been struck by an idea - though whether it will progress is another matter - overnight thunking required

[298]

Having now read it, the trick seems to be to design something operable on one board, then expand on it. Which I quite like the idea of if the round the room extension has more plain track on to give the impression of going somewhere and a couple of spurs for interest, but if the first part is ripped up during a mad expansion of facilities then it kind of defeats the object of building something that small initially.

 

Personally, not being particularly interested in building an exhibition layout at the moment (been there, got the T-shirt, etc) I am more inclined to make a layout transportable (in sections) should the need arise, with baseboard joints determined by the track plan. For an exhibition-portable layout, I would start with a fixed module size and try to fit the layout around keeping joints free of turnouts.

Can't argue with that from a UK perspective, but since US modellers are envious of our proliferation of modelling railway shows (and preserved railways), why not encourage them to try something new and enlarge on their RPM meets by taking a layout along...?

[doctor quinn]

It occurs to me that the minimum module size for the competition is 60" x18" - that's quite a lot of lumber to move around on your own. There have already been comments about it on in the thread on MRH http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/magazine/mrh-2015-09-sep/staff-notes

 

Nick

[Glorious NSE]

It occurs to me that the minimum module size for the competition is 60" x18" - that's quite a lot of lumber to move around on your own. There have already been comments about it on in the thread on MRH http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/magazine/mrh-2015-09-sep/staff-notes

 

It is, i'd be building something "in the 5-7' range" on two baseboards (and I think Alpha would fit the bill)... - but where does it say that a module must only have one baseboard? 

[torikoos]

Indeed, you could have 3 baseboards making up ONE module, if the range of 5-7' is not exceeded, that's my interpretation of  it too. :-) 

 

That's how we have always approached it, but perhaps their view is a modular approach where each baseboard is a module-section of a larger whole... Time to nag them and clarify?

[298]

Indeed, you could have 3 baseboards making up ONE module, if the range of 5-7' is not exceeded, that's my interpretation of  it too. :-) 

 

That's how we have always approached it, but perhaps their view is a modular approach where each baseboard is a module-section of a larger whole... Time to nag them and clarify?

I believe the term they use is "Sectional". But not that widely, as the concept of building something portable isn't really known to them.

 

My current layout is approximately 6' x 14", and I regret not building it so it could at least be easily lopped in half, should there be a need. Likewise the integral lighting pelmet is the same length and uses a single tube because I didn't want the slightly duller area between two end-on tubes. But LED lighting strips now mean any lengths could be used and still provide continous lighting.

[shortliner]

Okay - let me offer you one solution to the problem, since I'm not entering, involving lateral thinking - contest rules state maximum of 84" for main board and minimum of 70" for staging boards (2 off) and minimum of  18" wide, and that all modules can be custom without having to fit to a standard (like Freemo). Nowhere in the rules does it say that the modules/staging boards have to be straight.
Using those parameters make the scenic board 84" long by 18" wide and each of the two staging boards to the same dimensions -  that gives a total length of 84x 3 = 252"
Now bend the 3 boards to form a circle with a circumference of 252 " and cut it into 3 x 120° segments - these all form modules, and the radius of the circle will be almost exactly 40" (actually 40.1")  so the diameter will be (near enough) 80". subtract the width of the boards 18" x 2 = 36", and the hole in the middle will be 44" - big enough for an operator to stand in. Take one board and using either the inside edge or the outside edge - fit a backscene. - this is now the scenic module. Layout track to suit design requirements. NB Track design for the layout is not required   The other two boards are used (at this stage) for staging yards, either single ended or double ended, to suit the layout design) and one or more  track(s) can indeed form a continuous loop. Once the original scenic board is finished , one of the non-scenic flat-top boards has its staging track removed and becomes the next scenic module. There is plenty of room for this 80" diameter circle to fit into the 12' x 15' room (and allow room for people to walk around the outside. Further extensions to the system can be made by adding straight boards between the three curved segments.
I believe this fulfils ALL the requirements of the brief.
 
PS further thought suggests that the measurements can be "bent" slightly, without being broken,  to give a larger layout system - IE the centre line of the boards could be 84" giving an AVERAGE length of each board for 84", or the internal edge of each board could be 84"long, without actually breaking the rules. Also the boards could be 24" wide which will make the central hole a bit tight unless the operator is very skinny, so , in this case, we will specify that he works from the outside.

[pmackinnon2004]

Okay - let me offer you one solution to the problem, since I'm not entering, involving lateral thinking - contest rules state maximum of 84" for main board and minimum of 70" for staging boards (2 off) and minimum of  18" wide, and that all modules can be custom without having to fit to a standard (like Freemo). Nowhere in the rules does it say that the modules/staging boards have to be straight.

Using those parameters make the scenic board 84" long by 18" wide and each of the two staging boards to the same dimensions -  that gives a total length of 84x 3 = 252"

Now bend the 3 boards to form a circle with a circumference of 252 " and cut it into 3 x 120° segments - these all form modules, and the radius of the circle will be almost exactly 40" (actually 40.1")  so the diameter will be (near enough) 80". subtract the width of the boards 18" x 2 = 36", and the hole in the middle will be 44" - big enough for an operator to stand in. Take one board and using either the inside edge or the outside edge - fit a backscene. - this is now the scenic module. Layout track to suit design requirements. NB Track design for the layout is not required   The other two boards are used (at this stage) for staging yards, either single ended or double ended, to suit the layout design) and one or more  track(s) can indeed form a continuous loop. Once the original scenic board is finished , one of the non-scenic flat-top boards has its staging track removed and becomes the next scenic module. There is plenty of room for this 80" diameter circle to fit into the 12' x 15' room (and allow room for people to walk around the outside. Further extensions to the system can be made by adding straight boards between the three curved segments.

I believe this fulfils ALL the requirements of the brief.

 

PS further thought suggests that the measurements can be "bent" slightly, without being broken,  to give a larger layout system - IE the centre line of the boards could be 84" giving an AVERAGE length of each board for 84", or the internal edge of each board could be 84"long, without actually breaking the rules. Also the boards could be 24" wide which will make the central hole a bit tight unless the operator is very skinny, so , in this case, we will specify that he works from the outside.

Love it Jack, absolutely love it, best thing i've read for ages. Well done that man wish I had your vision.

[shortliner]

Thank you for that pmack, nice to know I haven't entirely lost the plot! - If anyone has a go at building something based on it - please post!

[Prof Klyzlr]

Dear RMwebbers,

 

As per http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/magazine/mrh-2015-09-sep/staff-notes#comment-208615

we have confirmation that the "scenic section" does not  have to be "one lump",
(in the range 5' x 18" <> 7' x 2"),

 

but can be formed from 2-or-more sections...

 

SO, don't let the "that's too large a lump to do in one piece" thought-hurdle roadblock your creative process,...

 

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

[Stubby47]

Quote - "There's no need to build it, this is a design contest"

 

Quote - "The best submissions will be published, so extra points will be awarded for high quality text, illustrations, photos and captions".

 

That's got me confused.

[shortliner]

Stubby - It would seem that "photos" covers pictures of how the module would be constructed and any special/innovative techniques required  - though, if it is a "design" contest, perhaps a photo of a hand drawing part of the design is what they want,  As I have commented , both on here and on the MRH thread, the contest requirements, parameters, and  details have not been thoroughly thought out by the staff. In theory a UK style 5' -  7' long layout, with a fiddle-stick ( at least a 6' long one) plugged in each side would fulfil the requirements - though I'm sure that that isn't what they intended

[Zomboid]

Isn't the general idea to come up with something that they wouldn't have thought of? Fulfilling the brief in an unexpected manner would probably be a good strategy, and they'll no doubt be drowning in the US equivalent of GWR BLTs.

[Prof Klyzlr]

Dear Jack,

 

 

 

In theory a UK style 7' long layout, with a fiddle-stick ( at least a 6' long one) plugged in each side would fulfil the requirements

 

_Now_ you're seeing what I saw first-up, just how easily well-established "UK layout design headspace" connects with the contest,... :-)
(IE "finescale scene with staging at one-or-both-ends" has been "situation normal" at UK exhibitions and in home layouts for decades... :-) ).

 

The only change would be to widen those "fiddlesticks" out to at least 3-tracks,
(the specs state "3-8 tracks" per staging yard),

 

which sounds awfully to me like a simple Traverser or Sector-plate staging solution
(eliminates the linear waste of the yard-throat turnouts,
and introduces a healthy dose of "Innovation" to the US lexicon, 
particularly if the design/construction can be made "bodge-verser" or "fiddlestick" simple),

 

again plays straight into "what UK modellers have been doing for years"...,

 

_and_ gives the UK modeller the mental exercise of "what would I do with my typical "one scene layout" if I had the chance to expand it?"
(How would I "design IN" the flexibility to "bolt on more" if/when space became available later?) 

 

Seriously, why _couldn't_ a "scene with multi-track fiddlesticks either end" layout be entered? ;-)

 

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

[Stubby47]

Taking the concept further, if a UK modeller were to build a layout in this way, it would end up as a series of short yards/stations immediately beside the next one; something alien to our layout style. We either build short, or long, but not piece - meal.

 

One option therefore might be to frame each section as a separate scenic unit, with back and side screens and a full theatre front.

[Graham Line]

Interesting. My reading of the idea is that they are trying to encourage modellers to start their dream layout by simply building it one section at a time, with temporary staging/fiddle yards at each end. Once the module is built, then the next module is started. This way, there is always a part of the model under construction, and part which can be played with/used as a scenic setting. Etc. etc....

 

 

Simon understands the challenge, and I agree that some of the rules seem half-baked.  70" is a long stretch for staging boards -- except that the hot activity in US modeling now is people working on contemporary layouts in HO -- cars long enough that not many fit in a conventionally switched board that length.

 

The rules do seem to preclude wrapping the primary "module" (bad choice of words on the part of MRH) around a corner -- this is the product of excessive linear thinking that runs counter to their purported iconoclastic desirs.  Still, it will probably be possible to fit an inspired design within a flawed set of rules. So far in the MRH Forum responses, I'm hearing a lot of people with excuses for not trying.

 

The rules state that you don't have to build the thing -- just design it.