| |
 |
TICKING
THE BOXES
|
|
|
|
| |
| It
took me an embarrassingly long time to realise
why - possibly because the problem was twofold. The
first potential tripping point is linked to the
fact that whilst Z Scale is small, this doesn't mean that
everything undertaken in this modelling scale
will automatically be small too. I had far too often ignored the
reality that my limited amount of model railway space not
only meant that a layout (or parts thereof) would
need to be portable, easy to handle, and easy to
set up - but that it would also have to be easy
to store. The problem with my layout projects
wasn't so much the space it took to set it all up
temporarily, but rather the space that was
required to store it properly when not in use. I
needed to take the
approach originally advocated by Märklin and
Micro-Trains seriously - think small, build
small, and enjoy desktop railroading.
The second tripwire I kept stumbling
across was that Z Scale somehow generated an
enthusiasm that had me cutting corners and
rushing into far too many layout projects. It
happens with other scales too, and it happens a
lot, to a good many modellers. It can be fun,
too, but it inevitably leads to far too many
abandoned layout builds and far too few hours
spent actually running trains. Going back and
forth between single baseboards and modular
layouts that ultimately didn't work made me
realize that I needed to stay in the modeller's
armchair way longer, think things over more than
twice, and have a clear list of requirements.
Only if and when I had actual boxes to tick
should I start building a layout.
|
| |
| The first set of
these boxes/requirements concerned the
size and build of the layout, addressing
the storage problem. The layout
obviously needed to be portable, and a
few dry run mockup trials determined the
maximum comfortable size for portability
to be 90x60cm along with a maximum
overall height of around 15cm. Successful
portability also requires both a
lightweight and sturdy approach to
building the layout frame; based on
previous positive experience this was
built using XPS
boards (extruded polystyrene, Styrofoam)
framed with 10mm plywood fascia boards.
The second set
of boxes to be ticked would ensure that
the layout will provide sustained
interest and fun. Continuous running was
of course a given, and double track
definitely a requirement (nothing like
watching trains meet). Decidedly wanting
an urban setting, this would make the
multiple tracks not look too unrealistic
in the fairly small space available and
also allow for "scenic breaks",
which would both provide opportunities
for small cameos and provide interesting
changes in scenery, avoiding bland
all-over visuals. Rokuhan track would
ensure trouble-free running, and the chosen
dimensions actually make it possible to
stay away from minimum curves.
And finally, one
important aspect that I had come to
realize had been missing in previous
layout attempts: ensuring that what would
essentially be a standalone layout would
also have a connectivity option for
potential (future) expansion.
|
|
|
|
| |
| Ticking the boxes is
like connecting the dots - and the picture that
emerged was a 90x60cm minimum
space layout with a hybrid functionality. |
| |
| |
|
THE
FL9 APPROACH
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Going for a minimum
space layout
with hybrid
functionality was in some ways not unlike the
approach the New Haven Railroad and EMD took in
designing the FL9. |
| |
 |
|
Railroads
running in or into New
York City were forced by
anti-pollution
legislation to cease
operating steam and
diesel motive power on
underground tracks. This
included the tunnels
leading into Grand
Central Terminal and Penn
Station, making electric
or dual diesel/electric
traction a necessity on
those lines. The New
Haven had been a pioneer
of main line
electrification, but most
of its trackage beyond
New Haven was not
electrified. In order to
avoid a change of motive
power, the railroad
turned to EMD to design a
locomotive that could
switch between diesel and
electric power on the fly
- and the result was the
hybrid FL9. Running on
both diesel as well as on
660V electric current
from a third rail, it
also featured a set of
hybrid wheelsets, with
two front and three back
axles. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| The
FL9 approach to the layout meant that although
the primary function was a self-cotained
continuous run set-up, it would be designed to
provide connectivity for potential (future)
add-ons on the fly. |
| |
| The
track plan that resulted from a few
weeks' worth of doodling and playing
around in AnyRail track planning software
can hardly be labelled exciting in its
own right. However, it painted a picture
that did indeed connect the dots set up
by ticking the requirement boxes. Even
in Z Scale, 90x60 cm is not a lot of room
to work with, but this was a case of
making the limitations work in favour of
what the layout was supposed to provide:
having fun running and watching model
trains.
|
|
 |
|
| |
| In
terms of running trains, the layout is simplicity
itself. A self-contained inner oval of track with
a 195mm radius (T1), an inner oval of track with
220mm radius (T2), and an outer semi-circle with
245mm radius (T3) are all there is to it (apart
from a siding off the innermost track, existing
mostly for scenic purposes only). Continuous
running is possible on both T1 and T2, but the
latter has two turnouts that also allow the track
to continue straight on, in parallel with T3. |
| |
 |
|
It is
this feature that
provides the hybrid
function of a)
stand-alone double-track
continuous run layout and
b) connectivity as a
180° curved
"module". And
just like the FL9, the
switch from one mode to
the other happens
"on the fly" -
by simply throwing two
turnouts. Whilst not
going for a modular
layout per se, this
provides the option to
expand the layout at a
future point in time in
case this should become
an option compatible with
storage space
availability. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| It's
what previous continuous run layout projects had
been lacking: there is a potential to grow at a
later point in time, but no necessity. |
| |
| |
|
ALL
THE LAYOUT'S A STAGE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Whilst William
Shakespeare (1564-1616) noted that "all the
world's a stage" in his 1599 play As
You Like It, Frank Ellison (1887-1964)
stipulated in his 1954
book Frank Ellison on Model Railroading
that "a layout is a stage on which the buildings and
scenery are the setting, the trains are the actors,
and the
operating schedule is the plot." |
| |
| Ellison was an
early figurehead of US model railroading
and a prolific writer of articles in the
American modelling press from the 1930s
to the 1950s. He had spent several years
in the theatrical business, and this experience
greatly influenced his ideas on model
railway design, calling it
"theatrical layout design". The
comparisons and references make sense,
not the least because a theatrical
production and a model railway layout
both attempt to "carry out the
illusion of reality", as Ellison put
it. Indeed some of the best layout design
tricks are borrowed from the theatre
(such as view blocks and low relief
props) and even reflect theatrical
terminology ("staging tracks");
Ellison called them "stage
tricks for small layouts". Reflecting on
past layout attempts that failed to meet
initial expectations, looking at
approaches to theatrical stage design
turned out to be especially helpful for
putting together a concept for a Z Scale
layout as small as 90x60 cm - also
because as with an actual stage in a
theatre, the space available to create
interest is limited and requires
conceptual forethought.
In
order to achieve this, stage designers
come up with A) a basic floor plan
(showing all
stationary scenic elements), B) a
composite floor plan (indicating any
moving scenic elements and their
onstage/offstage positions), C) a
complete floor plan (A and B combined),
and D) an elevations plan (locating every
elevated scenic element).
|
|
|
|
| |
| Translating
this approach to model railroading provides a way
of looking at a layout in terms of scenic
segments as well as from different perspectives. |
| |
 |
|
There are
no moving scenic segments
on this small layout -
other than the trains
themselves - but even a
space of merely 90x60 cm
provides no less than ten
potential scenic segments
using different props, a
number of view blocks,
and elevation. Of course
this doesn't mean that
all ten of those scenic
segments have to actually
be incorporated into the
final layout (after all,
that's what accidental
modelling is all about),
but working out the
"stage setting
potential" as part
of the layout concept
helps enormously to
create a set of visuals
that supports the general
theme and atmosphere
(another important aspect
of stage design, and theatrical
layout design).
|
|
|
|
| |
| In the end, it makes the layout feel
much larger than it is and injects a lot more
interest than would normally be the case with a
small layout that can essentially be taken in
from one single viewpoint. In the end, it creates
a series of "vignettes" - similar to
what a railfan sees as they move from one
location to another. Ultimately, many points
of the "how to" of theatrical stage design are just as valid for
model layouts:
|
| |
|
|
- Plan a stage
layout that fits in the space and
lets actors move naturally:
- the set is a crucial part of
any performance and will be the
first thing that audience members
see;
- compose the stage set design
for each scene so that it focuses
the audience’s attention on
the major elements of the action;
- use colors to convey a specific
mood that you’d like the
audience to feel during each
scene;
- select physical props to help
bring the performance to life. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
MISTAKES
MAKETH LAYOUTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| It
is a fact (not just of modelling but life in
general) that in spite of the best laid plans and
plenty of diligence, things can go wrong -
because we make mistakes. |
| |
| Not
all mistakes are equal
when it comes to the
consequences they
trigger. Some can
ultimately wreck your
modelling efforts,
literally or
figuratively, and since I
had more than enough of
those in my Z Scale past,
I made a deliberate
effort of trying to steer
clear of that type of
mistake. But
in essence, mistakes
provide valuable lessons
and are an essential part
of improving our
modelling.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
Rather
than being of the
trainwreck type, those
mistakes are more akin to
derailments; a nuisance,
yes, but it can be all
sorted so that everything
is back on track again. The idea
is not, of course, to
eagerly await the next
derailment - but when a
mistake happens, to view
it as what it is: a part
of the process.
After
decades of getting it
wrong I was, of course,
intent not to make any
mistakes at all; however,
they do have a tendency
to creep in every now and
then. It's not a bad
thing per se, since it
keeps you alert and makes
sure you double and
triple check more and
more as the layout
progresses. Besides -
nobody's perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| One
such minor mistake in
building Gotham Central
was that I got carried
away during tracklaying
and used a Rokuhan 55mm
straight track on the
outer side of the double
track and two 25mm pieces
on the inner side. The
result was, of course,
the two tracks not being
the same length. Quickly
spotted and corrected
without much trouble,
this was one of those
mistakes that simply can
(and will) happen. It
also had the positive
effect of showing me that
I needed to stay
focussed; enjoy what
you're doing but do it
properly.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
 
|
|
Far more
serious - a major and
very disruptive
derailment - was the idea
to model the triple track
curve as a heavily used
main line, where deposits
from trains cover
everything in a uniform
rust colour. Painting
the rails and plastic
trackbed with acrylic
paint seemed like a good
start to more refined
weathering later on - but
test running then showed
that some locomotives
wouldn't travel around
the curvature without
stalling. I couldn't work
out why, but it soon
became clear that the
track so treated needed
to be lifted and
replaced. This affected
about half of the track
of the layout, making
this a real bummer of a
mistake. The lesson to
take away from it was
also not exactly genius
level: try things like
that on a short piece of
track and then give it a
test run...
The
one thing that's not okay
when it comes to mistakes
is to make the same
mistake twice. So from
this point onwards, I checked several
times during ballasting
that trains were running
as they should.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Mistakes
keep us on our toes, and derailments sometimes
prevent train wrecks. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
 
|
| |
| |
