Location

Discussion and happenings with a possible modular layout by members of the forum.
User avatar
toxation
Site Admin
Posts: 716
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 11:01 am
Location: Cobram, Victoria
Contact:

Location

Postby toxation » Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:03 pm

To get the ball rolling, this topic will develop the location for the modular layout...
Nick White
Image

S301
Moderator
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: Location

Postby S301 » Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:15 pm

I would like to suggest 'fictional' based on prototype. For example, pic a location that we base scenery off. From there, each individual can design their modules (either scenic, station, or what have you) to their own ideas, but using that basis for scenery.

One thing that should probably done is to specify a set of 'materials' to use as a base, at least at the edge of modules, so that they blend.

Example, require that the end 6in of each module use the Woodlands Scenic 'earth brown' dye as a base colour, and a specific set of colours for the grass/scatter/etc.

This should help hide the fact that the layout is a 'modular' layout :)

Might also be useful to recommend a variety of scatters to use as a 'guide' to ensure similar colours along the layout (excluding natural variations, especially in farm areas!) :)

Zec
Image
A beat of 6... The heartbeat of an S class...
All comments are my own unless otherwise stated.

User avatar
VRfan
Moderator
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:21 pm

Re: Location

Postby VRfan » Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:15 pm

My vote is to be loosely based on the north east mainline between Seymour and wodonga.

User avatar
Harrison (Hitachi)
Posts: 189
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:07 pm

Re: Location

Postby Harrison (Hitachi) » Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:56 pm

im with you VRFan! :D NE line all the way!

Cheers Harrison ;)
Image

User avatar
K160
Posts: 1394
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:04 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Location

Postby K160 » Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:14 pm

I'll put a vote in for the NE line.....

....or the main Western line to cater for the SA modellers. It all comes down to the era as well I guess. :)
Regards
Matthew Davis
http://www.flickr.com/photos/matthew-davis-photography/
Now on Flickr
Last updated April 21st 2015
Celebrating 30 years of the R-class in operating preservation 1985-2015

User avatar
dthead
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:33 am

Re: Location

Postby dthead » Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:21 pm

Like I said in the initial thread, I'd try to go with what most want, in order to get off the ground. I hope for many people to try it.

Personally the standards as set out by Melton Model Railway Club is basically doubletrack or single track mainlines, which is the common joining between modules of different owners. So making a SG BG looking layout may be a way to go but may also reduce the participants, ie some may wish to build a junction or crossovers - a no no for a dedicated BG/SG - there again each module is owned by the individual , and as long as it is ahering to joins, electrical specs it can be used as desired.

I wish the maxuimum user to turn talk to trains running. I do like the idea, my clkub has a BG/SG layout in planning. It even could have adapter modules made to fit in ! ( Shushh dont' tell them :) )

So I'm also hoping Mark Bau may jump in, It was him not me who suggsted a spark for us all !!!

Perhaps someone from Melton can chime in too to say how the standards are going within their club. Perhaps they could host a "thinking workshop" at a date agreed on too !

Most of us do like the BG modelling. If we amas a "cataloque" of modules - we could indeed make a differeny layout to suit.

Regards,
David Head

User avatar
toxation
Site Admin
Posts: 716
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 11:01 am
Location: Cobram, Victoria
Contact:

Re: Location

Postby toxation » Sat Sep 10, 2011 8:21 pm

Depends on the era. The North East is universal. I guess though that each module could be built to the user's desired era, that opens up a whole new ball game.

For the sake of consistency though, we probably should attempt to maintain the same era, and try and stick to it. It's not as if this module will be the only layout we have.

So... I like the idea of branchlines, but the North East was a feeder for the many branchlines along it, so branchline stock can run on it. In terms of variability, the North East clinches it, with the ability to make a pseudo standard gauge line.
Nick White
Image

User avatar
VRfan
Moderator
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:21 pm

Re: Location

Postby VRfan » Sat Sep 10, 2011 8:57 pm

I think being modular, some compromise needs to be required so that all can participate if there is a meet-up with train running where we string together modules from whoever shows up. Therefore, I think regardless of what we decide to do, we should follow existing standards. For example, if we were to go down the path of producing modules based on the north east, it wouldn't be that hard to fit in with free-mo and allow inter-operability with other free-mo modules.

If you were running "north east" with a SG and BG, but someone rocks up with a module that has a crossover, well I would suggest the simple solution is to not use the crossover and just ignore the fact it's there! After all, it is only model trains.

However, after saying all this, I think it would be interesting to have several people with modules set to a location/era that could be used at an exhibition. Just think, a real world layout on show that is produced by people on an internet forum rather than a traditional club. Might create a bit of interest!

S301
Moderator
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: Location

Postby S301 » Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:03 pm

Rather than specifally modeling the N/E, a group who like the N/E could easily do a section based on this. It wouldn't be hard to make a pair of short modules that move the SG off to a hidden staging area behind the layout. Or just link the SG into the BG, and run it as a 'freight' line, or a large loop...

If someone stated 'this is a modular layout based on the N/E', it would be expected to operate correctly, unfortunately. If someone turned up with an S or H, there could very well be some rather nasty comments made at exhibitions about running it if the SG were there...

If, on the other hand, you stated 'use the NE scenery as a base', you could have both single track modules, and BG+SG modules. If no one had any station modules for the BG+SG, this could simply run as a crossing loop (with specially made 'end' modules). Or to extend a crossing loop. Or to simply 'merge' the lines to represent dual gauge running ;)

I personally would avoid the NE line for another reason. Single track modules are by far the easiest to get right, you just place the track in the center (for trackwork). A board that is a length of flex track will be well within the reach of younger members, and would be easy to do scenery for. They would only need a single length of flex track, no need for joins... Get 3 or 4 of these, and you've already got 4m of layout! Other members could easily build stations, or double track sections.

Again, the 'location' should be more a 'basis' than a 'specific' though. You would have, say, a set of photos to base your scenery on. Plus a set of basic materials to use at the ends of the modules, to ensure that they blend.

Personally, I love the Ballarat line. It has *heaps* of operational potential, and could take practically any VR loco. Apart from possibly the H (you would be stretching things there ;) ). I'm intending to one day build Ballan station (likey to be slightly compressed ;) ). If some carefully, I could easily 'merge' these into a free-mo system (I intend to design this into it). Particularly if I can blend the end modules into it.

The issue is, if the NE line were done, I would need to include a SG track into it. Everyone would. And you would really need to model specific NE line stations, otherwise it will look odd, since the NE is unique for the way the SG runs. Unless the SG modules again simply operated as 'loops'.

Zec
Image
A beat of 6... The heartbeat of an S class...
All comments are my own unless otherwise stated.

User avatar
dthead
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:33 am

Re: Location

Postby dthead » Sat Sep 10, 2011 11:24 pm

I would assume we would plan a show with known modules. So no one could rock up as such.
By going Nth East one presents a big operational problem of single lines - pass trains. True some may build staions or loops, but they would need to be more than 3 modules long at a minumum I'd say. And that means someone has to make more than one module !

A double track is more exhibititon firendly topology. We want this as simple so we all can afford and can build thes modules to make a layout up. I do not want to see people walk away from this, we all have see this when any club build a alyout, it will not suit someone.

When I think of VR I think of a classic Bendigo line double track, or the single line. The triple NE line ,might be too big. three lines across ( melb-seymour) or two (seymoure-Albury) add width to make any station.

I'll be honest,I can see the first layout built with double track in a classic 4 corners, staging one side, members modules out the front. A test to run trains thorugh the coutnryside. Then expand as members wish. May not have any staion, just track and countryside to watch trains pass through.

We could end up with long layouts or square. Or L shaped etc. But we need to do alot of work to get it together. I see the group may split into two layouts - only time may tell.

Regards,
David Head


Return to “VR-Enthusiast Module Layout”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest