It may be a good idea if everyone used the same colour ballast.
Is this a definate maybe for 2012/.
Liked the bit about "further back from the crowd" Ian

I'm going to be quite busy building the extension to Pen y Bont over the next 12 months or more. ( I work slowly!) so may, or may not have time for doing anything towards this project for a while. But, if it is ongoing then I might be able to contribute.

The only thing I can see so far that could cause you problems are the baseboard joints.  
Can I suggest that the "project leader" supplies a template of the track centre lines and holes for the fixing bolts?
(This could be a pdf file)
By using a common template all the boards should bolt together perfectly.
It has also been suggested that track level should be 40inches. No problem with that.
Again to help alignment I would suggest the legs are made somewhat shorter and some sort of adjusters fitted to the base of each leg to "tweak" the height adjustment to suit the adjoining unit.

Just a couple of points worth considering.

Cheers!

Hmmnnn!! I think this is just a little bit too similar to the modules,albeit on a grander scale.
What I envisaged Alan meant was a "club layout",where the buildings were built by our buildings experts,track by track experts, wiring by electrical talent,etc etc.
   That way,EVERYONE could contribute something.For example…Mike C painted backscene,Perry,Doug,Mikencini and Les on buildings….you get the idea…Everyone could at least contribute some trees,some weathered rolling stock,whatever.
   Admitedly,we would need a "central assembly point".and a small 'layout assembly team' to put it together,and a place to store it all
   :hmm
That being said,you can count me in whichever way you go in the end,its just that the super module option seems a bit complex to me.

Cheers,John.B.:thumbs

Whilst a YMR layout would be good, this has the potential to be something quite spectacular making a large exhibition centrepiece that could be different every time it appears, smaller layouts that could appear at smaller exhibitions and still serve as personal layouts or part layouts.

We could also incorporate existing layouts to give the project a flying start. For example I have two branch termini that have their own fiddle yards - Walton and Charmouth. By creating a special link module to fit each one with a bespoke fixing on one side and the 'standard' fixing on the other they could be joined together for an end-to-end or to someone else's through station. The same applies to Pen y Bont.

Let's call the individual elements 'scenes' - be it a station, viaduct, shunting yard or whatever. You could build an exhibition layout from linked scenes - making a Cornish main line and branch, for example, and run them using stock correct for the area and period. You could build a different layout as a 'crowd spectacular' rather like the Carn Brae modules - where there was a wide variety of scenes and stock operated.

The key is that the link sections need to have a standardised end. The control system would also need to be agreed. I'd suggest local control of points and signals for each scene and DCC for the rails. By breaking or joining the circuits at link sections we could add boosters where needed. The cab bus would need to run around the layout - either built in to new scenes or in standalone boxes for older layouts converted to be compatible. We'd need to settle on Lenz or Digitrax - they are the market leaders and the easiest to find handsets and boosters for.

A 'scene' could be operated as DC at home but would need to be able to be switched so that it could be run on DCC at exhibitions.

Oh dear, I think I'm hijacking Alan's idea. :oops:

[user=201]georgejacksongenius[/user] wrote:

That being said,you can count me in whichever way you go in the end,its just that the super module option seems a bit complex to me.

Cheers,John.B.:thumbs

John, far from it. You could build anything from a 2'x4' board on your own up to a 60'x40' monster as part of a group, with standard connections onward to other units. At home it could form part, or all, of your home layout - or just sit in its crate.

It is an old saying that "a camel is a horse designed by a committee…….." and I'm worried that that is what we could end up with.

Please don't think I'm being negative, just very cautious.

This is the sort of affair, that with its inevitable wrangles, problems, divisive sub-cliques and factional leanings, drove me away from the model railway club atmosphere in which everything is O.K. as long as it goes with the wishes of the movers and shakers of the moment, no matter how genuine and open hearted they may believe themselves to be.

After all, it would be very difficult to reconcile the wishes, efforts and focus  of the hand-built track lover with those of a historical structure  enthusiast, to reconcile the locomotive rivet counters tunnel vision that decries a lamp-iron being 10 thousands of an inch too far to the left but who remain oblivious to the cries from the PW enthusiast that the ballast the locomotive is running over is  scaled to the size of grapefruit.

On a purely practical point of view, unless I have interpreted this wrongly, when brought together 'It' would need storing somewhere, would need to be kept clean, safe, insured, and any work done would have to pass muster by all.

Who will be the arbiters of taste and ability? Who will be the judge of appropriateness of an offered building, a weathered wagon, the quality of paint finish on the side of a plastic card retaining wall?

Before the muddy puddles of track plans and gauge standards are paddled through, the maelstroms of accountability, supervisory responsibility and arbitration of taste and standards need to be set in stone worthy of any safe harbour wall.

I've re-read this several times, and only hope that in the morning I won't still think I sound like a pompous ass, those who have met me know I am anything but that, so I await with interest your collective comments.

On the other hand, if I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick, I apologise for wasting all these electrons, and your time.

Doug

If we adopted the 'scene' approach then it would be up to the individual builder (or team of builders) if things pass muster. Ditto for storage, transportation, etc..

It would be up to the person selecting the 'scenes' to be linked together for a given exhibition to decide and agree which 'scenes' he wants to include. They could be selected on different criteria depending on what is to be portrayed - from a sleepy branch line to a multi-train roundy-roundy.

Various posts in this thread mention that the module ( for want of a better name) could be part of the home layout. Now initially that idea sounded good but thinking more about it, not really viable. For instance outside of where I could fit this "module" into the layout so that it fulfils a normal part of the operations, while I may model in 4mm 00, I use code 75 & 83 track. There would have to be special legs made to hold the "module" upto the the YMR layout standard; electrical connections utilised to match the standard and then of course the scenery side would normally match the rest of the home layout.
To me, using part of the home layout to make up a YMR layout is really no different than the recent module layout that was put together at the Show.

Now of course if the "module" was designed so that when it came together, it made a layout that looked complete, just like a normal exhibition layout made up of several modules,
then it means storage somewhere at each persons home.
Me, I have enough on my plate with the current layout & helping others, without taking on more !
Just my 2 bobs worth .

Doug,
      I'm sure no-one who's ever met you would think you're at all pompous,and I share your caution.Its going to be a big and fairly complex undertaking whichever way it turns out.

Ian,
     While I love your enthusiasm,at the end of the day what you appear to be suggesting is basically the linking up of existing members layouts (a bit like with the modules)with a few new bits thrown in,whilst what was initially suggested was a "club" layout.
     (Ironically I actually think your suggestion might prove the most practical AND interesting!)
My vision is of every individual on the forum that wants to contributing SOMETHING.It may just be a couple of trees,it could be Mike C painting a backdrop to specification to be sent over,a building each from.say Perry,Doug,Stu…..you get the idea.It needn't be too big a layout,but it would be a joint effort,with bits from as many people that wanted to contribute.
     As there's no time limit,it's something we can all think about and hopefully come to a consensus of opinion about.I certainly don't think any of us should fall out over it,that's for sure,and I'm willing to go whichever way is decided.Whichever way we DO decide on,there will be a lot of decisions to be made all the way down the line.

:hmm

Cheers,John.B.:thumbs
    

Those who have seen my struggles with RR&C0 will recognise that I'm not all that bright.  :oops:   Initially put my name down to make a module for the previous exercise, but I slowly faded away.  I got lost in the maze of discussions about the minutae and I just hoped that no one would notice my absence - which turned out to be the case.

No modelling undertaking should be discouraged; so more power to your collective elbows.  I have already lost track of where this is going, so I will stay out of it, but I will be watching with interest tinged with confusion and garnished with emotional (and very quiet), support.  :thumbs

sorry but I will not be able to contribute to this one, too long in the tooth and to much to do on my own railway,
and to be brutally honest I don`t think it will work, the last one was for a good cause, and a novel idea we all wanted ,
so we made it happen,but a club thing I just don`t see people travelling willy nilly to exhibitions up and down the country.
nice idea but ????

lol::cool:

I think we need to be careful that we're not just doing the modules again, only differently !!  If that were the case, then as I've already done it (although it STILL isn't finished !!), I wouldn't want to do it again so soon.  Having said that, it was great fun and there are lots of members who weren't involved last time and may wish to get involved now.

We also need to be careful that we don't end up with Doug's "camel".  Once everone has "had their say" and we've thrashed ideas around, the "project leader" should state what IS going to happen !!!   As with the modules, we had ideas and likes and dislikes thrown in from every corner of the forum.  In the end, some standards were published and that's what we worked to like it or lump it !!

I'm not at all clear about how your "links" might work using existing layouts Ian - unless your sketches were just illustrations of an idea.  Most layouts are either "roundy-roundy or have a "closed" end so to fit in with your ideas, wouldn't they have to be newly designed "layouts" working to the linking standards ?  "Modules" ?

The idea of each "section" joining to form a layout does appeal to me but I do tend to work spasmodically on actual modelling so any time limits would certainly create a problem for me.  That's why, IMHO, any track plan would have to be very carefully done so that the layout could be "exhibited" using a flexible combination of "sections".  Naturally, those within a geographic region are far more likely to meet up and so it would make sense to have a "stand-alone" layout in each region.  These should however,  be capable of accepting other "sections" from other regions / countries.  Otherwise, we'll end up with 10 YMR layouts and that would turn the forum into 10 local clubs………….:roll::roll::roll:

It's a good idea but will be extremely tough to get off the ground.

I think that any group layout would end up being built by a small band of geographically close modellers. Things like track-laying, wiring, ballasting and landscaping just can't be done from the other side of the country - let alone the world. This would limit most people's involvement to providing buildings, figures, rolling stock and such like.

I know we have 'done' modules but I am thinking more of a sectional layout, where each section can, if needs be, be run or exhibited on its own.

By only specifying the minimum it will allow the greatest flexibility so that scenes of almost any size could be built, either by an individual or group, and then linked to other scenes when the opportunity arises.

As a bonus it would be possible to adapt some existing layouts to match the interface standards and become scenes in their own right. They would have to be portable layouts and might need an extra board or two as replacements for existing ones - but that would be less construction and storage problems than building a new layout.

We could all decide to follow a certain prototype - but the more you restrict it the fewer people will take part. OO, code 100 and DCC (for exhibition use) will already restrict the players. There's nothing to stop a group deciding to each build a GWR 1930's station and link them together to make the Cornish main line - whilst someone else could produce something entirely different.

I'll be starting on a new Hornby Magazine layout soon, and would be very happy if I could put an interface on it that allowed it to link to something else in the future.

I'll keep quiet now and let someone else get a word in;-)

[user=285]Alan[/user] wrote:

How about a YMR layout ?

 

We would need  a track plan ( discussed on here ) that could then be designed on Templot and printed out with sections sent to those that wanted to participate, meaning that the boards and tracks would fit. The scale and type of track etc all needing to be agreed by those that fancy a longer term forum project, this could then be something that the whole forum helps with, some building track others buildings, trees etc etc,.

 

We have enough members that want to do something different on here and as the show proved, we all enjoyed doing something with a common cause, ie the good and future of the forum, depending on the size of the layout some sections could be worked on by members living close, other sections might be built by one person with help from others, this then means that it will be something that ALL members can help with if they so want without stopping work on their own layouts or projects, so what do you all think ?

Please take note of the above from the first post, which was the idea in the first place, and one that I feel is still the best, A YMR LAYOUT one that a team takes time in designing and then planning, after which when the plans are finished others can be involved, the joining up plates interested me, but not really different layouts, but that's my thoughts, if more of you would rather link layouts, ( which New Bourneville was designed for !) then so be it, but my main idea is still to work on a larger project, involving more members.

 

For my part, working on a section of a complete layout, which could then be joined together to make a good cohesive model railway is the preferred choice.

Interesting as a method of joining all our layouts for display as one is, it's too much like another module layout for me. If this is the way we want to go, there would be no point in moving away from another set of modules (using current and new ones). It been proven as a huge success and there would still be a lot of mileage left in the concept.

If we want to try something completely different, I'm for a single layout, built in sections. Ian's new layout for Hornby magazine could be "designed into" the plan anyway.

I haven't seen this mentioned already in this thread, but in both Europe and the USA this concept has been developed and with standards that might be worth following-Fremo and Free-mo.

See www.fremo-net.eu/index.php?L=6 and www.free-mo.org

There is also an interesting article in MRP 2010 and comment on p82. If you don't have access to this I can email you a scan.

I'm firmly with Alan and Jeff here.  I like the idea of building a model railway layout in sections.  As I said earlier, apart from the overall track plan, the difficulty would be ensuring that the layout will both operate and look good even if many of the sections are not present.

I think this could perhaps be overcome by trying to forward plan any likely gatherings.  For example, those members who live within 50 miles of Birmingham could each build a section that might make up a town station and some countryside.  This "mini" layout could be augmented from time to time when members who live within 50 miles of Portsmouth visit and they will have built a dockside scene which could be tagged onto the Birmingham "scene" - or is this just too complex ?  :roll::roll::roll:

Whilst I'm going to finish my existing module and would be happy to bring it along to another gathering, I wouldn't be up to building another at present.

Similarly, I don't go for the idea of Fred doing the track, George the buildings and Alfred the scenery.  Whilst we'd probbly end up with a superb layout built by our "best" modellers, were's the fun in that for the also rans like me ?

Doing a sectional layout would overcome those points raised about storage.  Each section would belong to the builder - just as the modules do - and they'd take it home with them after the gathering.

[user=446]John Flann[/user] wrote:

Yes please

Going back to the start, for this to work we need some sort of commitment from a few to decide on the plan of action, I am for a large layout, with the track-plan designed in Templot ( or something else ) then sections of the plan can be sent to those that want to be involved and then built to those plans.

The layout could be something like Jim is building, or the Eurostar !!, the choice is endless, it just needs organising, but before that members saying they are interested, and putting names forward for people to set it up first, again this could be a first for our forum :thumbs

Templot needs you to handbuild the track - it doesn't 'do' Peco.

You'd be looking at Anyrail, XtrkCad or one of the other programs that have a Peco library.

We do have our resident expert Martin on here for Templot. Not only an expert but the owner if you do go down the Templot road.