OK, all very interesting; but aren't you getting the cart before the horse. A common standard I suggest,needs to be agreed first.

The two I offered have already been agreed, presumably after a great deal of thought, trial and error.

If your not careful I consider you'll be like Brunel, the only one's in step. (I know that's the British way, but it's not helpful in today's world.)

I'm totally disinterested in this but having had work experience of trying to reconcile different standards, a common one is the best place to start.

I have nothing more to offer.

http://yourmodelrailway.net/view_topic.php?id=7025&forum_id=85

 

Sorry guys count me out this time too many other projects on the go !! :thumbs

[user=2]Robert[/user] wrote:

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.

 

This way sounds interesting to me, as it will also be the cheapest way of building the track !

Does anybody want to join me in coming up with a plan that we can then come back and explain to you all in greater detail ?

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

[user=2]Robert[/user] wrote:

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.

 

This way sounds interesting to me, as it will also be the cheapest way of building the track !

Does anybody want to join me in coming up with a plan that we can then come back and explain to you all in greater detail ?

A qualified 'yes'.

Track planning, to me,  is only slightly less of a dark art than electronics so I'll happily leave it to those far better qualified………:thumbs

Reflecting on this in the cool light of morning I'm amused at my mixed metaphors. So maybe I'll try again.

But ideas such as this are not new, and every idea needs to be encouraged, however, in considering and implementing them I always try to bear in mind the wise words of Rudyard Kipling '…WHAT, HOW, WHY, WHEN and WHO…'

And as regards the proposal Free-mo appears to offer advantages in that it seems more flexible whilst Fremo's are more rigid.  

I obviously will not be participating, being out of the UK, nor am I into 'joint' ventures preferring to go my own way, but if involved that's where my vote would go.

Hi all,This will sure take some getting together.
As said if its to be a YMR club layout shown in the uk, Then a reasonable/geographic local group will need to put it together and should be responsible for baseboards/tracklaying and wireing and of course looking after the layout.
Members who do not live near or abroad could donate buildings, scenic items, track points and rolling stock.
Items that could be easily packaged and posted and would not cost a fortune to send.
Now just maybe a whip round from the members for a cash donation to cover the cost of straight track lengths, basebords/frames,scenic material, plaster or whatever and wireing could be feasible.
Perhaps the local group could supply control units on exeibition days?
At the end of the layouts life span, it could be sold and proceeds split amongst the members.
Of course it will have to be The Premier line or even LMS ha ha. code 75 track? P4/EM/00?what about the N gauge followers, Hmm maybe a narrow gauge section if the layouts too 4mm scale then the N-gauge followers could also work on points and things.
You will need a chairman/Directors and Treasurer too keep thing coordinated.
For scenic buildings, When a baseboard plan is agreed on a copy of a section could be sent to each member who is involved with a drawn out plan of the section that each member is responsible for with buildings and Trees,ect marked out on the plan, That member will then know what buildings to make or trees needed ect could make them and post them to the local committee.
Next big question what period/era, steam /diesel/electric what region?
anyway just a few of my thoughts.
regards all,Derek

As only a recent member to this club, having got involved just a couple of weeks before the YMR exhibition, it's perhaps not my place to try to influence things.

But.

The idea behind and (to my mind) the success of the module layout was that each individual's contribution was different from the next. They all linked together and ran as a 'layout' because of the simple standards adopted.
Most clubs take years to build a layout for exhibition, and that's with members living close to the clubrooms.
What is being proposed here, is a) something which could bring this club disarray with some members feeling excluded (scale, gauge, distance, perceived quality of contribution, etc) and b) an extremely long term project which would possibly never be completed or even collated together.

Alan's Boxfile project, which many have alreay taken up, is something I think we extend.
Yes, by all means build an individual boxfile as a project (I am, as I'm a big fan of the concept), but, and this is where the idea trancends all of the negative reasons above, if boxfile layouts were built, to a simple standard, they could be joined together as the modules were by bridges, BUT as the size and weight of each is not going to be prohibitive, ANY member could initiate hosting a boxfile layout anywhere in the world, and all it would take is each participating member posting their boxfile to that member.
Matilda & Winston have travelled the world - why not boxfiles as well ?
I accept that a boxfile in OO gauge is not a lot of use to a non-OO modeller, but, as an exercise in modelling, it's not a big project to complete.

Sorry if this seems to be getting away from Alan's whole layout concept, but the idea of having to have a sub-committee to run this project is one of the indicators to me that this could be a disaster for this on-line club.

Stu

Stu,

The modules went down a similar route. Initial idea, robust discussion, a group of interested parties hammering out the details and presenting the standards followed by people building, or not.

There are huge logistical and planning problems to be addressed with this one and, I must admit I am not convinced that they can be overcome BUT I am happy to help to try ans solve them - the end result could be remarkable.

[user=339]Ian Morton[/user] wrote:

Stu,

The modules went down a similar route. Initial idea, robust discussion, a group of interested parties hammering out the details and presenting the standards followed by people building, or not.

There are huge logistical and planning problems to be addressed with this one and, I must admit I am not convinced that they can be overcome BUT I am happy to help to try ans solve them - the end result could be remarkable.

Totally agree, but we need to start somewhere or else it will never get off the ground


 

YMR Layout should be cancelled

Alan's Boxfile project, which many have alreay taken up, is something I think we extend.
Yes, by all means build an individual boxfile as a project (I am, as I'm a big fan of the concept), but, and this is where the idea trancends all of the negative reasons above, if boxfile layouts were built, to a simple standard, they could be joined together as the modules were by bridges, BUT as the size and weight of each is not going to be prohibitive, ANY member could initiate hosting a boxfile layout anywhere in the world, and all it would take is each participating member posting their boxfile to that member.
Matilda & Winston have travelled the world - why not boxfiles as well ?
I accept that a boxfile in OO gauge is not a lot of use to a non-OO modeller, but, as an exercise in modelling, it's not a big project to complete.

Sorry if this seems to be getting away from Alan's whole layout concept, but the idea of having to have a sub-committee to run this project is one of the indicators to me that this could be a disaster for this on-line club.

Stu

Try not to get confused with the box-file project, this is a larger term project for the forum, not just the members of today, but also any new members that join in the future

[user=477]shunter1[/user] wrote:

For scenic buildings, When a baseboard plan is agreed on a copy of a section could be sent to each member who is involved with a drawn out plan of the section that each member is responsible for with buildings and Trees,ect marked out on the plan, That member will then know what buildings to make or trees needed ect could make them and post them to the local committee.

regards all,Derek

Hi Derek

This is what I have been saying, to make this as simple as possible, once a plan has been decided, then a master track-plan can be drawn up, this then into sections, and sent to whoever wants to be involved, it's not that hard if you keep things simple, and all built to the master track plan, the boards can be any-size depending on the number of people helping.

Alan wrote :

Try not to get confused with the box-file project, this is a larger term project for the forum, not just the members of today, but also any new members that join in the future

I'm not getting confused ;-) - I understand that the box-file layout is a small, individual layout project for the winter, and what you're proposing here is a larger layout, made up from 'standard' sized baseboards, all built as part of one track plan.

Whilst that is a great idea, I think, and I stress this is only my opinion, that this will be very difficult to achieve in practice and will not necessarily include all our geographically spread members. Not to mention the logistics of getting the various boards together for an exhibition, they will also need to be joined for testing prior to any public display.

What I'm suggesting is having a collective layout made up from boxfile modules - not the ones for the winter project, but another set made specifically to be joined in the same way the modules were. Due to their small size, they could be posted to a central location, even from overseas, so the members who were not able to join in with the module layout could get involved this time.

Maybe this could be another longer term project alongside the larger, single layout idea ?

Stu

Update Guys

Since the last post Ian ( Morton ) and I have been discussing lots of ideas regarding a YMR layout and the possibility of the project, we understand about the geographical problem and the money side of the project, but both of these are just problems that can be sorted  if we get this off the ground

The area that we have decided on is Bristol Temple Meads, this will allow a large section to be built (the station) and then other sections can be added, these can be from countryside sections to a section that runs under the River Seven ! all of these can be stand alone layouts, which will be able to join at shows etc in the future, talking about time spams, this will be a long term project, that ALL members can be involved if they so wish.

We thought about the scale and N would be the way to go regarding size, but most of the members have OO Gauge layouts, so we have decided on the following as a start.

OO Gauge

Track code 75


Steam/diesel transition era

DCC

What we need is another couple of members to join us at the moment to plan this project in more detail before coming back and explaining it all to you, so come on guys will two or three of you join us to help start something rather special for the forum ?

 

I dont want to get involved with the planning or construction as I have enough on my plate already - however as I have a very detailed knowledge of Bristol Temple Meads in the steam to diesel  transition period particularly between 1958 to 1964 mainly because my father worked there  then and it was where I spent most of my leisure time so I am of course happy to make this knowledge available to the project if needed.

I would like to be involved in some way Allan but my knowledge of said area is zero but i am willing to research anything you want and i would be able to help with say the logistics ie planning on how we can move forward on this project regarding funds, have a idea on this. Let me know as and when u can.

Phill

[user=373]Wheeltapper[/user] wrote:

 

I dont want to get involved with the planning or construction as I have enough on my plate already - however as I have a very detailed knowledge of Bristol Temple Meads in the steam to diesel  transition period particularly between 1958 to 1964 mainly because my father worked there  then and it was where I spent most of my leisure time so I am of course happy to make this knowledge available to the project if needed.

Richard,

We'd already got you down to do Portishead ;-)


Seriously though guys, if you have an alternative proposal fire away - we've considered a number of options including the Exeter area, the North London Line and the GWR (well, a sizeable chunk of it) so no suggestion will be considered as too wacky. We'd even go N if it would get more support…

[user=339]Ian Morton[/user] wrote:

We'd already got you down to do Portishead ;-)


Seriously though guys, if you have an alternative proposal fire away - we've considered a number of options including the Exeter area, the North London Line and the GWR (well, a sizeable chunk of it) so no suggestion will be considered as too wacky. We'd even go N if it would get more support…

 

Mmmmmmmmmmm now how did I know you might say that ?  :roll:

For those who dont know the area Portishead was the terminus of abranch line from Temple Meads.

Anyway if thats the case I will have to know the basic standard for connecting boards sooner rather than later as construction is in the process of starting.

If you do go for N gauge then you would have to leave me out as my eyesight wouldnt cope.

[user=373]Wheeltapper[/user] wrote:

Anyway if thats the case I will have to know the basic standard for connecting boards sooner rather than later as construction is in the process of starting.

If you do go for N gauge then you would have to leave me out as my eyesight wouldnt cope.

Hi Richard

The favoured scale is OO, the main reason behind this being the amount of stock that we can call on from members when the time comes to running. As you already know the area that we are looking at offers us so much scope, and using some modellers license! we can make something rather special and at the same time very good individual layouts, which it sounds ( I must have missed the thread somewhere :oops: ) that you are already planing to build, that can be linked in the greater scheme of things

Welcome aboard to both you and Phill :thumbs

Come on guys just one more person to make up the planning group, you don't have to sign up for anything, just help with ideas for the planning of the project :cheers

I'll throw my hat in the ring. Not sure what I can give but willing to pitch in and suggest things…

Stu

[user=465]Stubby47[/user] wrote:

I'll throw my hat in the ring. Not sure what I can give but willing to pitch in and suggest things…

Stu

:thumbs