Continuous run -discussion

[Clive Mortimore]

Following a recent visit to an exhibition myself and a friend were discussing the layouts on the way home and a roundy roundy that was at the show was included in our chat. One thing that came out of this was the time it took for a train to get from the fiddle yard to the scenic section, this increased the time where there was no action for the viewing public. The curves leading from the fiddle yard to the front were not scenic.

 

 

 

Previously to this discussion there had been on another model railway forum a topic regarding another roundy roundy where one person said that making it "U" shaped changed the feel of the location, making it more train set like. This layout had scenic end curves. It has the advantage that trains are not travelling over "dead time trackage" and are viewed quite quickly after leaving the fiddle yard.

 

 

 

In the two drawings the fiddle yard is the same size and the scenic section is about the same. I hope from the drawings you can see what I mean about "dead time trackage".

I agree with the comment about the "dead time trackage" means there is less action on the scenic front but I also agree that "U" shaped layouts do not represent most mainlines as it is rare that they change direction a sharply as we model. I look forward to reading other peoples thoughts.

[maunsel]

From my view of such exhibition layouts it's not the dead time trackage that appears to reduce the train frequency, but the discipline of the operators. Often on a large roundy-roundy layout nothing is happening because all five or six operators are prodding or poking a stubborn loco or bit of rolling stock back into life in the fiddle yard, rather than just swapping it out and replacing it in order to "get something running". There seems (IMHO) to be an exhibition law that the number of train movements is in an inverse proportion to the number of operators.

 

Truly round layouts - the "polo mints" - often manage to fool the eye as it's all curve ( a bit like the Cadbury's Milk Caramel Bunny), but the rectangular ones often look out of place simply because the rest of the layout appears so straight, that the sudden curve becomes too obvious to the eye.

 

On the two coloured plans in the previous post I'd probably compromise with a scenic break running at 45 degrees from each outer bottom corner to each inner corner. Best of all - plonk a station at one scenic break instead of modelling the entire station in the middle.

 

My alternative suggestion would be to include a shunting area on the scenic section so at least one operator can keep us easily bored spectators entertained..........

 

 

Eric

 

 

edited for spelling. Serves me right for being up late.

[PatB]

I'd echo the comments above.

 

Personally I don't mind the reverse curves on the end of a roundy-roundy, as long as they're not of ridiculous radius. Indeed, on some layouts, such curves can be used to visual advantage by the skillful use of exaggerated superelevation to replicate the "lean into the curve" effect which is clearly visible in some prototype locations.

 

I'm also somewhat biased because I have an aversion to having too much hidden area on any layout. We're all constrained by space to a greater or lesser extent and so having anything up to 75% of the available area backstage always seems such a waste. As a result I'm also very interested in the various partially scenified fiddleyard concepts which appear.

 

All that said, I tend to agree that dead trackage has less to do with limited movement than does general operating practice. I recently attended the Canberra model railway exhibition where many of the layouts on show were of the large continuous run variety, with and without scenified return curves, and slick operation seemed to be the key to retaining audience interest.

[Kris]

The layout I am currently (slowly) constructing is very much in the realms of the second diagram. 

I did appreciate that there would be a lack of visible action for more time than not on each line, however I did not want to compromise on the setting. My aim is to have an accurate scenic setting. 

Hopefully with some slick operating then there should be a train visible and moving for at least 70% of the time. 

 

At the opposite end of the spectrum, I saw a model at a show yesterday where over 90% of the layout was visible. There was no fiddle yard and the 2 operators were just sat behind it reading magazines as the same trains repeatedly circled, they were still going 1/2 hour later when I walked past. Not many people were spending any length of time watching, where as they were spending lots of time watching other layouts. 

[PLD]

It does depend to some extent on what else the layout offers...

 

If al it offers is a procession of trains passing, you do need to minimise downtime to keep the audience entertained.

If there are other facets to the layout e.g. a station or yard it doesn't matter so much as action in those areas can buses to fill the gaps, and even a static train in view will hold the attention of all but the worst 'goldfish' until the next train arrives.

 

Reminds me of the quote by a young last waiting in front of a layout consisting solely of a 2 track main line where trains (irregularly) passed through without stopping: "this track is full of no trains..."

[Oldddudders]

Exhibitors may have different design needs from those of a home-layout builder. I see the advantages in both of Clive's diagrams - but if I were an exhibition organiser I'd prefer the U. It enables a greater viewer-frontage, meaning better bang-for-buck at a busy show.

 

As far as the passage of trains is concerned, that is down to the way the operation is staged. Letting one train berth in the sidings before another leaves is not the way to keep the punters engaged, and designs that enable parallel movement will simply be more versatile - if the operators choose to use them in that fashion. Ideally, even if you have the luxury of several operators, having a "despatcher" who dictates what moves next, and when, may be the best way of keeping faith with the audience.

[Kris]

Exhibitors may have different design needs from those of a home-layout builder. I see the advantages in both of Clive's diagrams - but if I were an exhibition organiser I'd prefer the U. It enables a greater viewer-frontage, meaning better bang-for-buck at a busy show.

Unfortunately it doesn't always work like that. My previous layout was effectively U shaped but at one of the last exhibitions I exhibited at the punters could only access one side of it. The other layouts around me meant that you just could not get to the other sides. 

[Chimer]

On the two coloured plans in the previous post I'd probably compromise with a scenic break running at 45 degrees from each outer bottom corner to each inner corner. Best of all - plonk a station at one scenic break instead of modelling the entire station in the middle.

 

My alternative suggestion would be to include a shunting area on the scenic section so at least one operator can keep us easily bored spectators entertained..........

 

 

Eric

 

 

Agree both these points.  45 degrees of preferably large radius curve on each end is fine, and I enjoy watching shunting ops - though I suspect the average non-enthusiast might not.

[bike2steam]

One of the worst things is seeing a good layout with curves that are too ridiculously tight, I prefer the '45 degree', with transition curves, break of scene as it gives the impression  that both ends are going off to different locations, and a larger 'dead-time trackage' helps with shunting stock for fresh trains, to reduce handling, on one circuit while a slow unfitted train ambles round the other, or a passenger train calls in the station - once, and once only. 

[trisonic]

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. If you just want to watch trains running around simply have them running through whatever environment that you choose (Urban, Rural, Suburban) after all that is what the majority of prototype trackage runs through and there are plenty of interesting options to choose from.

 

Best, Pete.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I have enough layout room length that I can fully conceal the return curves at the ends. Nothing looks worse in my view than coaches on a curve too tight in reality for the gangways to be connected. Having the track in the scenic section curved at a realistic radius (like a scale mile) for express running really helps the appearance in my opinion. Just breaks up the 'all parallel' view.

 

Cannot remember the first exhibition layout I saw where this was employed but it made a real impression of being a genuine railway. Seen recently at the CMRA Snorbens show, Kirby Stephen (West) and Melton Mowbray (North) were crackers in this respect. Viewed from either end, (or from above as if from the nearby Pennine top in the case of of the first), they really shone as believable railways in a landscape.

[Clive Mortimore]

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. If you just want to watch trains running around simply have them running through whatever environment that you choose (Urban, Rural, Suburban) after all that is what the majority of prototype trackage runs through and there are plenty of interesting options to choose from.

 

Best, Pete.

Hi Pete

 

In my opening post I purposely avoided stating what the scenic section was. Oddly enough both the layouts that spurred me to start this topic do not have a station.

 

Many have commented about the skill of the operators and the operating sequence (or lack of). Again I had considered this and left it out of the opening post. Perhaps I should have added a sentence "Both layouts are operated in the same way therefore it is the physical time covering the "Dead time trackage" and the appearance which form the purpose of the debate." I hope that covers good and bad operating.

 

Thanks for the contributions so far. I still think both are as good as each other and as bad as each other.

[BigAndy]

I will agree more with the thought that it is the Operators themselves, and their discipline, which makes a huge difference.

 

I know that we weren't everyones cup of tea, but on Runswick Leamside we attempted to follow a stage left/stage right policy. It helps that the layout is viewed on 3 sides, but with a layout size of 32' x 12', it can still take a time to get a train to pass you the viewing customer. There is of course, the delicate balance bewteen attempting to run a relatively prototypical service without it looking to toy trainish........

 

Stage left/stage right helps massively with this and fairly well keeps something moving at most times out on the front. We also had a very strict policy of clean wheels and track, with any poorly performing loco getting replaced as soon as possible, to avoid any delays.

 

We also spent a huge ammount of time, when building the layout, to try and get the bascis of well laid track sorted. Many a potentially good exhibtion layout is let down by poor runnning, which is down mainly to dirty wheels/track and also poorly laid trackwork.

 

 

 

Leamside has been retired for 5 years now but resides at the Crewe Heritage centre and will be in full operational condition ( as per exhibition standard stock ) at the modelling weekend of 12th and 13th July 2014.

Anyone would be welcome for a chat and to maybe comment on how we run the layout.

 

cheers

 

Andy

[pointstaken]

A shunting layout can be done quite reasonably without necessarily using the appropriate type of stock, e.g. an open wagon shunted into the cement works may not look odd to the casual observer (unless they are a real "rivet counter") ! What IMHO matters is a certain degree of realistic activity to attract the passing punter - uncoupling with the "Hand of God" or a scale 50ft x 2ft (scale) cocktail stick does rather destroy any illusions engendered by otherwise super-duper scenic work.

A roundy-roundy  can equally look unrealistic (as pointed out in post #5 above.

 

Dennis

[Kris]

Another lateral way of looking at it is: Why bother with a Station? 

 

Quite agree Pete. A station does not have to equal interesting. I've seen many that are frankly dull. If you do have a station there also seems to be the mindset that every train must stop at it.

[Rivercider]

One point to consider about the dead time trackage of the two layouts is that in version 2 there is more space for trains to get up to. and decelerate from, line speed.

At exhibitions it is not uncommon for a train to still be accelerating into the scene at one end, then as it leaves at the other end to be slowing down again (for an off scene signal check?)

 

cheers

[Kenton]

I think part of the problem is not thinking through the FY area on the big roundy-roundy. Limiting it to the areas in your diagrams and not making it start from the moment it goes off-scene.

 

Watching the layout Dewsbury at the weekend (Railex) a classic, the operators sending a loco off-scene accelerated them into the FY and similarly dispatched at speed the follow-up train ready to enter the scene. This is definitely the way to go - and on top of that there always seemed to bo something moving in the yard area.

 

The thing that doesn't work is long lengths of basic parallel track along the baseboard edge with little of no scenic features - the "test track" layout. You need to focus the viewer's attention away from the sharp bends at each end.

[Andy Reichert]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4VhleK5V3k

 

If you are particular to incorporate serious transition curve geometry into the end curves, then they become a very realistic way of extending the straight drag at the front of an oval configuration.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUTCuvy1lsA

 

And the obvious wild swing at the coach ends can be almost entirely eliminated.

 

Andy

[Clive Mortimore]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4VhleK5V3k

 

If you are particular to incorporate serious transition curve geometry into the end curves, then they become a very realistic way of extending the straight drag at the front of an oval configuration.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUTCuvy1lsA

 

And the obvious wild swing at the coach ends can be almost entirely eliminated.

 

Andy

 

 

Hi Andy

 

My diagrams were made simple, I could have drawn them with transition curves. This would have made no difference to my opening post. The question remains about the time taken from fiddle yard to scenic section verses the appearance.

 

With a sceinc "U" shaped layout, transition curves would improve the appearence but it will still remain "U" shaped. With a layout straighter sceinc section then transistion curves would improve the running, as they would a "U" shaped one as well.

[Clive Mortimore]

I think part of the problem is not thinking through the FY area on the big roundy-roundy. Limiting it to the areas in your diagrams and not making it start from the moment it goes off-scene.

 

Watching the layout Dewsbury at the weekend (Railex) a classic, the operators sending a loco off-scene accelerated them into the FY and similarly dispatched at speed the follow-up train ready to enter the scene. This is definitely the way to go - and on top of that there always seemed to bo something moving in the yard area.

 

The thing that doesn't work is long lengths of basic parallel track along the baseboard edge with little of no scenic features - the "test track" layout. You need to focus the viewer's attention away from the sharp bends at each end.

Hi Kenton

 

You mean something like this. It does make the fiddle yard larger than the other two which is one answer, except it isn't because the trains now have longer to travel in the fiddle yard so it ends up with a lot of dead time trackage in the fiddle yard.

 

[edcayton]

The genius bit of Dewsbury is the LH end curve into the fy in my opinion. Around 90 degrees of scenic curve, on two curving viaducts leading to tunnels at slightly different heights, with all sorts of streets, mills and streams going on underneath. The sort of 3D thinking that Tetleys does so well, and that I seem incapable of.

 

Ed

[Chimer]

If eliminating dead time is the principal issue, it shouldn't need operating geniuses (genii ??) to sort things out so train 2 leaves the FY before train 1 arrives, or even have 2 trains at least partially visible at once going in the same direction (appropriately signalled of course !!).  I could set that up for DC cab control so it should be easy peasy with DCC.  Granted it would need 2 operators for each line ......

[Kenton]

 

You mean something like this. It does make the fiddle yard larger than the other two which is one answer, except it isn't because the trains now have longer to travel in the fiddle yard so it ends up with a lot of dead time trackage in the fiddle yard.

In part, yes. But I would keep one end scenic. Curves at the end of a straight are just fine, it happens a lot on the prototype. The visual issue is more with a sharp curve at both ends. also why do we always seem to build an oval on a square/rectangle (I know there are a few circular and curved front layouts but they are unusual) Why do we seem to be defined by the piece of wood that we use to construct the layout. Surely we should decide on the layout area and then cut the wood to shape not the other way round?

 

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.

[Oldddudders]

If eliminating dead time is the principal issue, it shouldn't need operating geniuses (genii ??) to sort things out so train 2 leaves the FY before train 1 arrives, or even have 2 trains at least partially visible at once going in the same direction (appropriately signalled of course !!).  I could set that up for DC cab control so it should be easy peasy with DCC.  Granted it would need 2 operators for each line ......

Some of us have DCC throttles with two knobs (ooh!)! So doing as you suggest doesn't necessarily double the operator requirement, simply call for a little concentration......

[The Bigbee Line]

Interesting thread.

 

The debate about what to do with the ends of a continuous run etc.

 

One of the things I think makes a moving train interesting is how it twists and turns when following a route.  If you have straight track or curves of a continuous radius you do not get this snaking.  The train is also interesting if it is doing something; slowing down for a signal, negotiating a junction etc.  If there is a scenario to be played out, give the viewing public a clue and they can anticipate the action that's to take place, then get the feeling of satisfaction of correctly predicting the outcome.

 

From an operators point of view running time between the 'station' or 'yard' is a mental break before the next action to be completed.  Having once operated a point to point terminus layout with only a small station throat it was mentally taxing, how another four feet of run would have eased the strain.

 

One of the most rewarding layouts to watch was Bossington years ago.  A small GW branch terminus, but with a card system that let the audience into what was going on.  There was also other traffic attached to the passenger trains; horse boxes etc that were shunted into the loading dock.

 

Time to stop rambling, just a point of view.  Thanks to Clive for bringing it up.