Acceptable standards at exhibitions

[Michael Hodgson]

28 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

@whart57 - an excellent point!

 

The only modelling remedy for the scaled-mass issue might be filling the fly shunting wagons with lead. Or, for the really really serious perfectionists (including the Elucidated Brethren of the Counted Rivet) you could try uranium. But do make sure it's depleted uranium, or when the wagons collide one might have a Nano Ramsey nuclear event.

 

No, it's not the only remedy.

Fly shunting could be done using motorised wagons (like the long-discontinued Kitmaster product), and controlling it by DCC.

And of course, you wouldn't need to fit working uncouplers, as the loco would be assisted in rear by the wagon.

In fact you could even use a non-motorised loco and loose shunt that using the motorised van!

 

I'll leave you to decide whether any of this is a practice you think is worth replicating.

 

[whart57]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Fly shunting could be done using motorised wagons (like the long-discontinued Kitmaster product), and controlling it by DCC.

 

 

The trouble with that solution is that they no longer behave like wagons when in the train.

 

What you really want is something like the flywheel motors you used to have in toy cars, the ones where you had to whizz them up and down by hand a few times before letting them go. Could that be simulated electrically as I doubt it would work as a physical thing.

[6990WitherslackHall]

14 hours ago, newbryford said:

So how would you change the lamps at the ends on each train at an exhibition?

Regardless of scale/gauge/pretentiousness?

I don't bother with loco lamps for Draxbridge as it's a modern era layout plus it's N gauge.

 

But if I were to do this, I'd probably need tweezers, Blu tack, a magnifying glass and a steady hand!

[Nearholmer]

21 minutes ago, whart57 said:

Could that be simulated electrically as I doubt it would work as a physical thing.

It’s used in 16mm/ft scale to provide more realistic inertia for locos, you can buy a bolt-on flywheel to do it, and I have a c1910 model railway magazine in which is an article describing how a chap fitted the same sort of thing to an 0 gauge wagon. In 00 or smaller, the challenge would be to prevent the (inevitably highly geared) flywheel acting as too much of a brake during the charging phase, causing the wheels to skid, because intertidal works both ways.

 

A big capacitor can be used to provide electrical inertia.

 

I advocate that you conduct, and report upon, a series of controlled trials.

Edited October 3, 2022 by Nearholmer

[LBRJ]

The idea of a large flywheel to provide inertia sounds like the Dynadrive system of some years ago!

[Grovenor]

Dynadrive was in the loco not the wagons, a flywheel inertia gadget for wagons was once available from someone in the USA, I think it was NWSL. I have one hiding somewhere. I tried it fitted in a UK van but found the problem suggested by Nearholmer. Giving it a push by a loco just created skidding rather than a spinning flywheel. It took a long push with very gentle acceleration to get the flywheel spinning by which time it was to late to be of any use.

[newbryford]

Use DCC and motorise the wagons?

And use DCC controlled uncouplers.

 

Edited October 3, 2022 by newbryford

[andyman7]

3 hours ago, TEAMYAKIMA said:

Having just looked on YouTube and found coverage of Farringdon I think it would be interesting to hear from the layout's owner/operator. The layout is truly outstanding in every aspect that I have any knowledge /appreciation of and so my initial thought is that the team must be operating in that manner based on some knowledge /information of how the real station operated at the time modelled. 

 

I must point out that I personally have absolutely no axe to grind here either way. Each owner operates their layout as they see fit. 

Farringdon is not the same as Faringdon - Fleet Lane is a super layout based on the former. I bow to the creators of both!

[whart57]

9 minutes ago, newbryford said:

Use DCC and motorise the wagons?

And use DCC controlled uncouplers.

 

 

What do you do when you want them just as wagons? And no, consisting is not the answer.

[newbryford]

4 minutes ago, whart57 said:

 

What do you do when you want them just as wagons? And no, consisting is not the answer.

 

Maybe I should have used a "I'm taking the p*ss" icon?

[TEAMYAKIMA]

14 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

Farringdon is not the same as Faringdon - Fleet Lane is a super layout based on the former. I bow to the creators of both!

My apologies. It was a simple typo which I have now corrected. I can assure everyone that I viewed the correct layout in the Scale forum video and my comments remain valid. 

[t-b-g]

What we need is for all exhibition layouts to be test run, with inspectors watching, before they are invited to shows. The inspectors (who would have to pass a proper training regime before they can judge others) could grade the performance of the operators and running of the layout and could grant a licence both to the layout, for having suitable provision for realistic operation, plus the operators. Of course the operating licence would have to be specific to that layout. There is no guarantee that just because somebody can work one layout well, that they can do the same on a different one.

 

That way, any operators who make a mistake can be "weeded out" of the operating teams and replaced by one of the many thousands of volunteers who are just itching to give up their weekends to play trains.

 

Layouts that don't get a licence would, of course, have to be scrapped, or at least never exhibited and just run at home.

 

Those operators who don't make the grade could be asked to attend some sort of training camp, where they could be "re-educated".

 

I think that should sort it all out.

 

There may not be many layouts at future shows but that is a small price to pay for "improving the breed".

[Halvarras]

4 hours ago, Wheatley said:

No, loose shunting - propelling wagons into sidings by giving them a push and letting them roll, stopped by the shunter/guard running alongside and jamming a brake stick between the top of the brake lever and the solebar/curb rail. Dangerous if done incorrectly but an everyday operation. 

 

Back in 1967 when Truro still had a Class 08 yard pilot I used to watch it shunting the yard literally under my feet from the 'black bridge', a public footbridge which still spans the site although there are now considerably fewer tracks passing under it.........on one occasion the 08 gave a 16-ton mineral wagon a shove and the shunter set off in hot pursuit with pole in hand but failed to catch up with it before it struck a ventilated van with a loud bang - I can still recall the van's wooden body twisting momentarily when accosted by a wagon made entirely of steel! Probably a good job the latter was empty......hope there was nothing fragile in the van!

[AndyID]

4 hours ago, whart57 said:

.

 

The problem with reproducing that on a model is that mass scales down by the cube of the linear scale, 00 scale may be 1:76.4 in length but it is more like 1:450,000 in mass. The physics of fly shunting simply can't be scaled down, a 4mm scale wagon no matter how free-running will not behave like a full size one.

 

Newton's first law of motion still applies to any mass. The problem is that losses to friction do not scale.

[TheQ]

The branch train on the real line  I'm modelling, used pull into the bay platform, once the passengers were off, reverse back up the main line  1 in 200, disconnect the one or two carriages, then rapidly go down the main line while the carriages were diverted back into the bay. Then the loco would reattach to the carriages for the next trip up the branch.

[ardbealach]

1 hour ago, newbryford said:

Use DCC and motorise the wagons?

And use DCC controlled uncouplers.

 

And there would need to be the individual sound to wagons to complete the picture.  For example it would require the sound as wagons buffering up / and the coupling being thrown over the hook / the 'dum dum' noise from the rail joints as the wagon is running / and also the bang bang bang of wagons running into each other when the train stops and the clank as coupling tightens when the individual wagons move off in the rake.  [Alisdair] 

[Nearholmer]

40 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

What we need is for all exhibition layouts to be test run, with inspectors watching, before they are invited to shows.

Wonderful piece of humorous exaggeration, but it doesn’t alter the point that some beautiful layouts are sometimes let down by very patchy operation. 
 

I know it’s bl@@dy hard work operating a layout for days on end, but back to the Stradivarius in the hands of a person who can neither read music nor play well - the instrument is let down.

[Enterprisingwestern]

41 minutes ago, TheQ said:

The branch train on the real line  I'm modelling, used pull into the bay platform, once the passengers were off, reverse back up the main line  1 in 200, disconnect the one or two carriages, then rapidly go down the main line while the carriages were diverted back into the bay. Then the loco would reattach to the carriages for the next trip up the branch.

 

Wellington, Salop, had a similar arrangement I believe.

 

Mike.

[Phil Parker]

20 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Wonderful piece of humorous exaggeration, but it doesn’t alter the point that some beautiful layouts are sometimes let down by very patchy operation. 
 

I know it’s bl@@dy hard work operating a layout for days on end, but back to the Stradivarius in the hands of a person who can neither read music nor play well - the instrument is let down.

 

Well then. What's your solution? At least @t-b-g has a plan, even if it is tongue in cheek. Or is it? 😀

[Ian Simpson]

If there ever is a Model Railway Inspectorate, I'm certainly arrogant (and nosy) enough to volunteer to vet other people's layouts!  

But perhaps a simpler way would just be for us to recognise and recommend those layouts that attempt to capture and show working practices correctly and educate the rest of us on how railways really worked.

(I think modelling 1840s railways has probably made me more aware of operation because early railways were operated so differently to their later, safer successors.)   

[Gilbert]

I've watched this thread with interest.....it seems to be concerned with what I would call "Level 2" exhibition performance.

I'm usually happy if "Level 1" is achieved:

 

• Smooth (ish) running with no stalling
• Few if any derailments(caused by either track or operators)
• Reliable, competently managed couplings - if auto couplers of some sort are used
• No short circuits caused by neglecting to switch points appropriately
• No side swipes
• No bickering within the operating team - often characterisd by shouted communication
• Plausible locomotive/stock/layout presentation
• Willingness to engage with watchers

 

I could go on about "appearance" as well but I won't...the layout - not the operators......oh hang on...

 

Chris H

Edited October 3, 2022 by Gilbert

[Chris M]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

What we need is for all exhibition layouts to be test run, with inspectors watching, before they are invited to shows. The inspectors (who would have to pass a proper training regime before they can judge others) could grade the performance of the operators and running of the layout and could grant a licence both to the layout, for having suitable provision for realistic operation, plus the operators. Of course the operating licence would have to be specific to that layout. There is no guarantee that just because somebody can work one layout well, that they can do the same on a different one.

 

That way, any operators who make a mistake can be "weeded out" of the operating teams and replaced by one of the many thousands of volunteers who are just itching to give up their weekends to play trains.

 

Layouts that don't get a licence would, of course, have to be scrapped, or at least never exhibited and just run at home.

 

Those operators who don't make the grade could be asked to attend some sort of training camp, where they could be "re-educated".

 

I think that should sort it all out.

 

There may not be many layouts at future shows but that is a small price to pay for "improving the breed".

Although this is obviously tongue in cheek it raises some good points. 
In my view exhibition managers should be acting as “inspectors “ before they choose who to invite to their show. Many exhibition managers do go round exhibitions looking for layouts for their show and I hope they would look at the running before making an invitation. Sometimes a layout builder has a good reputation so layouts can be invited without being seen first. I know there are some managers who invite layouts seen in magazines. There is always a danger of inviting a beautiful layout that runs like a dog.

Putting a slightly different take on an operator’s licence I have long thought the model railway brotherhood could have  certificates for achievements. Maybe say three levels of certificate for building and completing a layout and maybe a certificate for showing competence in operating and understanding of basic train make up. Not a licence at all but a certificate of merit for reaching a level of achievement. It would of course be much to hard to do this.

[Phil Bullock]

5 hours ago, whart57 said:

Fly shunting only works because of momentum built up and that overcoming friction and other braking forces. As momentum and braking are impacted by mass then the velocity component doesn't have to be big. A full size wagon weighing many tons will roll a long way even if only moving at walking pace.

 

The problem with reproducing that on a model is that mass scales down by the cube of the linear scale, 00 scale may be 1:76.4 in length but it is more like 1:450,000 in mass. The physics of fly shunting simply can't be scaled down, a 4mm scale wagon no matter how free-running will not behave like a full size one.

Ah but Momentum is derived from kinetic energy … and kinetic energy = 0.5 x mass x square of velocity. In other words an increase in velocity will have a much greater effect that an increase in mass .

[The Johnster]

Good point about shunting speeds, and another one of my soap boxes.  On the real railway (and I deffo agree that having worked or volunteered on it in any capacity to dowith actually working trains alters your perspective massively), the general idea is to finish the job as soon as you can without derailing anything or injuring/killing anyone, so that you can grab some time for a cuppa (the fuel on which everything runs) or even get to go home early.  

 

On the ground, this depends on the situation, and the general speed restriction for working in yards under the direction of ground staff by handsignals is 15mph.  In a marshalling yard where there are plenty of bodies on the ground to keep on top of things, locos are hitting wagons up hard, they are flying about loose all over the place, several at a time on different roads, and loud bangs/dust clouds are par for the course (this would very difficult to reproduce on a layout, as the speed and momentum of the loose shunted wagons does not ‘scale down’).  
 

At a big goods depot, things are a little more sedate; you can’t go loose shunting wagons into busy handling facilities in the same carefree manner and some circumspection is advisable, but the vehicles have to be positioned for unloading and reloading in time for tripping to the marshalling yard or to be made up into depot-to-depot express freights, so  you aren’t hanging about either.  This is quite easy to reproduce in model form; as a rule of thumb, less than a driving wheel revolution (4 exhaust beats on a 2-cylinder steam pilot loco) per second is probably on the slow side.  
 

Probably the most common model scenario is steam age pickup shunting in a country station goods yard.  Here, things take a bit longer, though not necessarily because of snailracing loco driving.  Typically, there are two men on the ground, the guard and a shunter; one positions the wagons and the other changes the points.  This means that when the loco is moving away from the buffers it can be moving quite smartly (revolution per second rule again), and the points changed for the next move smartly as well, provided the distance from the last point change is short enough! Propelling wagons into roads, towards the buffers, will be slower, perhaps half the speed, and often the man on the ground will ‘walk’ the move in so that it doesn’t get ahead of him and he can couple up when the buffers make contact.  
 

Snailracing has a place, but is not needed in most normal shunting movements.  Positioning wagons individually on a weighbridge, or on the final approach into an end-loading dock, or entering a goods shed with restricted clearances, yes, fine, but apart from those sorts of situations, come on, chop chop, we’ve all got homes to go to.  
 

If you’re backing down onto passenger stock with passengers aboard or where staff are working with mails or parcels, the final approach needs to gentle and at snailracing speed, unless your loco is an ECML pacific or Class 33 with buckeye couplings, when you need to give it a bit of a knock to engage the  couplings.  But one sees show shunting at speeds that would be thought of as hanging about a bit by plate tectonics; pointless, unrealistic, and IMHO irritating.  I agree that your locos should be capable of this sort of performance in order to be able to start and stop smoothly, but this does not mean that it needs to be done in normal service, which, I submit, is what we are trying to emulate.  
 

Good operating practice and driving technique that recreates prototype practice as close to scale as practical is, IMHO, at least as important as detail, modelling realism, matching locos to stock or correct period livery.  If you wouldn’t have a Class 800 power car hauling a train of 1930s PO minerals on your layout (and I submit that no-one at Scaleforum would consider this other than as a joke), then apply the same standards to your operating!

Edited October 10, 2022 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

20 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

You've watched a tiny amount of operating on YouTube and from this have decided to condem the layouts featured. You know as well as I do, you are setting yourself up for a fall. Those layouts will have been operated for hours, by different people in the team, but you are condeming them on the basis of a few seconds.

 

However, I look forward to seeing what sanctions you propose for those who fail to meet your standards.

 

Just remember that there are human beings on the recieving end of your brickbats. Anyone commenting might like to consider how those people will feel reading this and moderate thier tone accordingly. 

I haven’t condemned anyone or anything, Phil, and I made my position clear in my first paragraph if you read it.  Commenting is not the same as condemning, and of course you are welcome to not agree with my comments.  I’m a human being as well, and consider that my criticisms are justified in the case of a purportedly ‘scale’ show.  I’ve done my share of layout operating at shows back in the day, often with club so-called mates who considered operating to be playing trains and would abandon the layout for the bar and ‘forget’ to relieve me, so I’m familiar with operator fatigue and similar problems.  I applied the same principle to show operating as I do to my layouts; 1955 Rule Book at realistic speeds as far as possible.