Model Railway Operations

[west_clare_wanderer]

13 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

The problem with this layout is that it's too ambitious, I work on it in bursts and then get daunted and then switch to one of my other projects.

Wow! Your Swiss layout is amazing Mol! 

However, I think the point you raise is one of the real problems with such an ambitious/large project as a home layout. And conversely why micro layouts have become so popular. Not just the space saving aspect, but the fact that you can see progress with a couple of hours work. 

I admire anyone who can stick to a 'lifetime' layout project. Though I just don't have the mentality, willpower, or concentration to do so. I flit around like a butterfly and have no stickability!

When you're young, you're not so restricted by realism, but nowadays I understand it's pointless starting something that I know I'll never finish. Hence any notion of a reasonably sized layout being shelved a long time ago! Maybe that's a little sad, but sometimes reality comes with age. 

 

 

Edited Monday at 00:04 by west_clare_wanderer
Spelling

[Auto-Train Original]

14 hours ago, west_clare_wanderer said:

If my memory serves correct (it often doesn't!), Chris Ellis designed and built the Warren Branch (I think that's what it was called), along these lines. I'm not sure where it was published but I seen it referenced many times, and have seen extracts of a few articles and some photos over the years. 

Yes in N Gauge based on CNW push pull commuter services out of Chicago with a timetable working and everything. His articles always inspiring. Then produced UK and European versions of the Warren idea. Great stuff. 

 

Edited Monday at 13:51 by Auto-Train Original

[mfjoc]

MOL’s comments above about his Swiss layout got me thinking. Before Murphy Models and IRM seduced me I bought a lot of American rolling stock and built a 10’ long shunting layout, but longed for something bigger. I still have a large amount of it including a model of the Rio Grande Zeypher passenger train and many locos and wagons. One option would be to periodically take all the Irish stock off the D&WJR, put the American stock on and rename it the Denver Terminal Railroad. But then what to do about the Irish scenery when I ever get around to building it?

While out hillwalking in Wicklow today I had a brainwave, Why not build above the existing layout?

I had always considered double deck layouts too complex to build because of the gradients and or helixes required to connect the two levels. But what if I built a separate layout above the D&WJR?

Baseboard height of the D&WJR is 1270mm and height to the top of the backscene is 1570mm. A baseboard above this would be about 1650mm which is close to my eye level. I am approximately 1800mm high,  Roof height of my shed is 2100mm so I could stand on a 250mm high stool or bench to operate the layout. My thinking is that while the upper level would mimic the lower level it would be a lot simpler and narrower and would not need complex supports.

[jhb171achill]

3 hours ago, mfjoc said:

MOL’s comments above about his Swiss layout got me thinking. Before Murphy Models and IRM seduced me I bought a lot of American rolling stock and built a 10’ long shunting layout, but longed for something bigger. I still have a large amount of it including a model of the Rio Grande Zeypher passenger train and many locos and wagons. One option would be to periodically take all the Irish stock off the D&WJR, put the American stock on and rename it the Denver Terminal Railroad. But then what to do about the Irish scenery when I ever get around to building it?

While out hillwalking in Wicklow today I had a brainwave, Why not build above the existing layout?

I had always considered double deck layouts too complex to build because of the gradients and or helixes required to connect the two levels. But what if I built a separate layout above the D&WJR?

Baseboard height of the D&WJR is 1270mm and height to the top of the backscene is 1570mm. A baseboard above this would be about 1650mm which is close to my eye level. I am approximately 1800mm high,  Roof height of my shed is 2100mm so I could stand on a 250mm high stool or bench to operate the layout. My thinking is that while the upper level would mimic the lower level it would be a lot simpler and narrower and would not need complex supports.

There are parts of the USA - coastal Oregon, perhaps (same climate as here!) or various areas of New England, where the scenery is similar to here. 

Perhaps a few locos of types you’d have seen in those areas to haul your American freight stock, or even a fictitious “short line” which has “hired in” the locos you already have, no matter what railroad they originated on? A reasonable addendum to Rule 1? 

[Mayner]

2 hours ago, jhb171achill said:

There are parts of the USA - coastal Oregon, perhaps (same climate as here!) or various areas of New England, where the scenery is similar to here. 

Perhaps a few locos of types you’d have seen in those areas to haul your American freight stock, or even a fictitious “short line” which has “hired in” the locos you already have, no matter what railroad they originated on? A reasonable addendum to Rule 1? 

Some modellers & clubs in this part of the World have built layouts that combine sections/scenes/dioramas from different countries. The Auckland North Shore Club layout is a good example combining New Zealand, British and possibly American sections in three different scales on OO/HO track https://www.sporty.co.nz/northshoremodelrailwayclub/station-guide/tab. The North Shore Club hosts weekly informal "open running' nights and more formal operating sessions/nights involving 'switch list' and scheduled running" sessions

I once visited an Auckland N gauge layout home layout that combined distinct Japanese and American scenes including a Japanese city complete with elevated suburban railway, more a watching trains go by than an American or traditional UK (timetable/or sequence operation.

One of the magazine editors once commented that people operating an "operational layout" become so engrossed in operating the railway that they don't notice or are interested in the scenery or the actual locos and stock. Another commented that prototype signalling enthusiasts didn't mind if the trains were represented by tennis balls so long as they obeyed the signals!

[jhb171achill]

9 hours ago, Mayner said:

Some modellers & clubs in this part of the World have built layouts that combine sections/scenes/dioramas from different countries. The Auckland North Shore Club layout is a good example combining New Zealand, British and possibly American sections in three different scales on OO/HO track https://www.sporty.co.nz/northshoremodelrailwayclub/station-guide/tab. The North Shore Club hosts weekly informal "open running' nights and more formal operating sessions/nights involving 'switch list' and scheduled running" sessions

I once visited an Auckland N gauge layout home layout that combined distinct Japanese and American scenes including a Japanese city complete with elevated suburban railway, more a watching trains go by than an American or traditional UK (timetable/or sequence operation.

One of the magazine editors once commented that people operating an "operational layout" become so engrossed in operating the railway that they don't notice or are interested in the scenery or the actual locos and stock. Another commented that prototype signalling enthusiasts didn't mind if the trains were represented by tennis balls so long as they obeyed the signals!

Exactly - one of the reasons for the great variation in this hobby. Personally, I like exactly prototypical models, believable track layouts, and prototypical operation - however, if there are no signals at all, despite the above, that doesn’t bother me. Once Dugort is finally finished scenically (my 702nd birthday) the signals will be ornamental! To other modellers, that’s a horror story….! 

[derek]

22 hours ago, mfjoc said:

 

Baseboard height of the D&WJR is 1270mm and height to the top of the backscene is 1570mm. A baseboard above this would be about 1650mm which is close to my eye level. I am approximately 1800mm high,  Roof height of my shed is 2100mm so I could stand on a 250mm high stool or bench to operate the layout. My thinking is that while the upper level would mimic the lower level it would be a lot simpler and narrower and would not need complex supports.

Might sound silly, but would you not consider just reducing the height of the existing baseboard. 1270mm sounds a bit high to me and I am about the same height as you. But I am sure you know best. 

EDIT: Sorry, I thought you were talking about a different layout, and not your "Waterford & Dublin Junction Railway". The above title D&WJR threw me. I see now that it would be no easy feat to reduce the height 

Edited Tuesday at 19:01 by derek

[mfjoc]

The D&WJR is primarly designed for operation using hand held trottles and manually operated points. 1270mm height was chosen for this reason.

What I am actually thinking about is building a completely seperate layout above the D&WJR using the "air rights" so to speak. I have lots of american rolling stock sitting in boxes in my daughters attic and am under pressure to use them or loose them.  Operationally it would be very simple but there would be the space to run some decent length trains.