开云体育

Hi Folks,
I haven't seen much on this list lately so I thought I'd
get some conversation going.
I just picked up the Ian Rice book "Small, Smart & Practical
Track Plans" and had a read through. Lots of good ideas though
the U.S. exchange is a killer!
I'd be interested in seeing what the rest of you think about it.
One thing that I found quite nifty was the Verticalia Belt line
which had switching layouts on 3 different levels connected by a
removable staging yard.
So, you could assemble your train on the top level classification
yard, run it onto the portable staging and connect it to the middle
level yard and carry out your tasks, then onto the staging yard and
down to the lower level to do your set out and pick ups, returning
to the top via staging with an entirely different consist for the
yard.
Coincidentally,I had just finished reading about David Barrow's final
thoughts on the South Plains District switching layout (MR Oct '97).
In that article he had devised a movable staging yard with the added
benefit of not having to have the layout sections connected, or even
in the same room.
It seems to me it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to merge the 2
ideas together: instead of moving the staging yard around on the
horizontal, you could put both sections on one wall with brackets and
simply move the staging yard vertically. The result: all the fun in a
fraction of the space!
As I've stated before, I model in a closet, literally, so this is
somewhat of a revelation for me in terms of the possibilities.
Thoughts, anyone?
Jeff

Hello --

Sorry, Jeff, for the delay in getting back about this -- work's been
kinda busy!

Thanks for posting the info on the Rice book. If anyone is searching
for this book on-line, it might help to have the ISBN number.

The ISBN number for "Small, Smart & Practical Track Plans" is --

0890244162

I'd be interested to know how many North American modellers have
adopted the British techniques of fiddle yards or traverser tracks or
even Rice's more radical interchange track "elevator". I think these
solutions can be useful but they may require some compromises in what
you expect from your layout.

For example, I was sketching some layout designs for a (roughly) 10-
by-12 space and was discussing the possibility of using a "train
turntable" with a friend. In the layout I was sketching, I needed a
way to turn trains after they travelled through the main scene on the
layout, but I did not have room for a loop of any sort.

In addition to the engineering challenges I'd be up against, my
friend made a very good observation: having to operate the special
table or shelfwork during the operating session could really detract
from one's overall enjoyment of the layout.

My friend was concerned that the VERY OBVIOUS "model railroad"
thoughts imposed by having to deal with a full-size mechanical and
electronic interlocking system, movable benchwork and the concern
over accidentally sending models on a one-way trip to the floor would
really get in the way of operating trains and enjoying the layout. I
think he made a very good point and it was not really something that
I had thought of until then.

The point I want to make is that these special solutions -- traverser
tracks, flying interchanges, train turntables -- can be made to work
and can prove to be practical, but you might want to consider how
integral a part of train operations the special solution will become.

If it is something that MUST be employed to get a train through the
scenes on your layout -- that is, if you have to operate the special
solution right in the middle of a switching job or a local turn --
you might want to evaluate how that's going to affect the layout's
operations and your expectations from the layout.

If it's the only way you're going to be able to operate trains in a
very small space, then it might be worth it. If it's something
that's going to get in the way of normal operations, you might want
to reconsider it, as I did on that particular plan.

All that said, though, I'd be really interested to hear from anyone
who has built such a contraption and how they use it on their
layout. I'd be interested to hear about how it affects operations
and how it has been integrated into operations.

Thanks!

Jon Piasecki


--- In small-layout-design@y..., thehatchers@t... wrote:

Hi Folks,
I haven't seen much on this list lately so I thought I'd
get some conversation going.
I just picked up the Ian Rice book "Small, Smart & Practical
Track Plans" and had a read through. Lots of good ideas though
the U.S. exchange is a killer!
I'd be interested in seeing what the rest of you think about it.
One thing that I found quite nifty was the Verticalia Belt line
which had switching layouts on 3 different levels connected by a
removable staging yard.
So, you could assemble your train on the top level classification
yard, run it onto the portable staging and connect it to the middle
level yard and carry out your tasks, then onto the staging yard and
down to the lower level to do your set out and pick ups, returning
to the top via staging with an entirely different consist for the
yard.
Coincidentally,I had just finished reading about David Barrow's

final

thoughts on the South Plains District switching layout (MR Oct '97).
In that article he had devised a movable staging yard with the

added

benefit of not having to have the layout sections connected, or

even

in the same room.
It seems to me it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to merge the 2
ideas together: instead of moving the staging yard around on the
horizontal, you could put both sections on one wall with brackets

and

simply move the staging yard vertically. The result: all the fun in

a

fraction of the space!
As I've stated before, I model in a closet, literally, so this is
somewhat of a revelation for me in terms of the possibilities.
Thoughts, anyone?
Jeff

Jon and list,

These items pop up now and then in the model press when they seem to be short on anything of substance or want to introduce something "new" to the hobby. As one friend of mine put it, "There really hasn't been much of anything new in the hobby for the past forty years - most of the ideas are stolen or reworks of something from the past."

IMO, they are gimmicks and really aren't employed in the real world on a serious layout. When I see things like track elevators (vertical switch - been there, read that a L-O-N-G time ago) swivel plates, train turntables, and other gimmicks, I just move on to more serious and realistic articles.

Not trying to be difficult, but really people, has anyone ever seen one of these contraptions in use on a real layout. And if so, I bet it is only one or two of you on probably just one layout each, if that. Hardly a ground swell.

Well I have to go now and get back to work on the anti gravity interchange track which is picked up by a radio controlled model of the Goodyear blimp using advanced photon modulation technology and carried away to Oz - or is that never-never land? Who cares. I'm sure some model railroad mag will pay me to print it.


At 05:55 AM 2/23/01, jonp@... wrote:

The point I want to make is that these special solutions -- traverser
tracks, flying interchanges, train turntables -- can be made to work
and can prove to be practical, but you might want to consider how
integral a part of train operations the special solution will become.

Paul Kossart - Peru, Illinois, USA
BRHS, La Salle & Bureau County Model Railroad Club

Modeling the Fictional CB&Q Illiniwek River Branch in HO in the 1960's...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Serving Agriculture and Industry in the Illiniwek River Valley since 1904."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- In small-layout-design@y..., Paul/Celine Kossart <kozys@t...>
wrote:


IMO, they are gimmicks and really aren't employed in the real world
on a serious layout. When I see things like track elevators (vertical
switch - been there, read that a L-O-N-G time ago) swivel plates,
train turntables,and other gimmicks, I just move on to more serious
and realistic articles.

Not trying to be difficult, but really people, has anyone ever seen
one of these contraptions in use on a real layout. And if so, I bet
it is only one or two of you on probably just one layout each, if
that. Hardly a ground swell.

Hey there, Paul.
Despite the fact that there's only 10 of us, I wouldn't make that bet.
This is SMALL layout design, where the nature of our
compromises are more prone to be "gimmicky" than in
other designs.
When you think about it, all layouts use gimmicks to satisfy
their creators' need to have operations in limited space. We are
just so used to them that we don't think of them as "gimmicks"
anymore. Rather, they are "solutions" to our lack of space issues.
Examples would include:
1) Hidden staging.
2) Helixes/ multideck layouts
3) Selective compression
In our situations, the space is SO limited, that more drastic steps
may need to be taken. The result: compromises that others perceive to
be gimmicks.
These gimmicks don't exist in an intellectual vacuum. They really
are used. I may have an advantage here as I am a member of the BRMNA
(British Railway Modellers of North America)where most folks are used
to making do with a lot less space. These ideas aren't "new", in fact
I suspect most of them pre-date HO when a lot of Brits were trying to
fit their O scale layouts into considerably smaller abodes. You'd be
hard pressed to look through one of their monthlies without coming
across one or more of these "gimmicks". Just take a look at Paul
Dolkos' 1996 MRP article to see what I'm talking about.
However, if you're looking for examples close to home, you need go
no further than MR:
1) Barrow's South Plains layout revisited (staging on the fly)
2) Dolkos' Tight Yankee/Compact Dixie (sector plate)
3) Ben King's TC&NW (complete train turntable at Grizzly Flats)
4) Paul Scoles (moveable staging via carry ferry)
5) Nick Palette's portable BN switching layout(sector plate)

Also, there is a fellow up here in Vancouver, B.C., who had his layout
on the Trains '96 tour. I think his last name is Green. I know he was
mentioned in some capacity on ldsig not too long ago in connection
with the thread on teenagers and model railroading. If memory serves,
he has a multideck point to point where each terminus is a well
constructed traverser. It's not a small layout either by any stretch!
Summary: These "gimmicks" are used extensively over the pond and in
increasing numbers here as space becomes more of a premium. They are
referred to as solutions because they work. The use of gimmicks will
increase as operational interest increases with a
corresponding decrease in available space. I suspect that is why this
group is called Small Layout Design vs. Nice Diorama Design. Finally,
I'm pretty sure that the above authors would consider their efforts to
be serious and realistic in both their intent and execution. YVMV.
Now, let's see what we can do about that train turning problem....
Jeff