--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "Dwyane" <dwyaneward@...> wrote:
>
> I have develop an interest in the plan "Ocho Pie" in the file area
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/small-layout-design/files/Shortliner%27s%20Folder/
>
> Does anyone know if there is a XTrkCAD file for this plan available.
>
> I like to play around with extending this layout to 12' and make it one-sided.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help.
>
> Dwyane
>
Dwayne - I've just looked on the CD where my old trackplans are stored - sorry,
although it was drawn with XTrkCad, I don't seem to hold a copy - but feel free
to redraw it, and play.  BTW There has just been a query on another forum
looking for On30 XTrkCad Parameters - I note that you have a couple of ON30 .xtp
files on the XTrkCad group files section - but both give an "input error" when I
try to download them. Any chance you have them available? if you do email me
please Chacmool at lineone dot net
Best
Jack (aka Shortliner)

I have develop an interest in the plan "Ocho Pie" in the file area

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/small-layout-design/files/Shortliner%27s%20Folder/

Does anyone know if there is a XTrkCAD file for this plan available.

I like to play around with extending this layout to 12' and make it one-sided.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Dwyane

Here is what NOT to use...

Some years ago I built a very ambitious 6 ft x 4 ft HO layout based on French
railways (SNCF/PO) in the Massif Centrale. It spiralled up a moutain to a
terminus at a mountaintop village.

The terminus was designed to lift off the top and fold for transport and use at
exhibitions attached to a fiddle yard.

In those days I used "heroic" era carpentry. The permanent part of the layout
was L girders with a cookie-cutter sandwich of chipboard and caneite (soft stuff
made from leftovers of crushing sugar cane) for roadbed. This worked well here
as on a previous layout.

The terminus was made entirely from chipboard and was hinged at the rear on top
of the chipboard backscene at about 9 inches above track level and at the front
by a fold-up timber arrangement much like an carpenter's old-time folding ruler
that allowed it to attain the same height. To my amazement the fold-up hinge
thing worked.

BUT the chipboad was REALLY HEAVY and the lift-and-fold action done at
moutaintop height of 5 ft above floor level twisted both front and rear hinges
out of alignment, with severe consequences for subsequent track alignment.

Additionally the resulting folded 18 inch x 18 inch x 3 ft box was very awkward
and heavy and had to be carried by two adults, putting further strain on the
hingeing "system".

As a result there was massive disincentive to remove the terminus from the
permanent layout once track alignment had been re-established. Hopes of
exhibition were dashed.

There was another serious problem with this layout, the 6 ft x 4 ft footprint,
but that is another story.

Sadly the Chemins de Fer de la Vallee d'Arc-en-ciel (the Rainbow Valley Railway)
was dismantled in 2004.

The moral of the story is use lightweight materials and stick to shelf type
layouts rather than "islands".

regards
Sooty

--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey" <jmccl23697@...> wrote:
>
> I would like to know what materials are needed for putting this item together!
>
> Moderator's Note:  Please sign your posts so we know who you are.
> Thanks
>
> Bruce Wilson
> Moderating Team
>

Nice information John, thank you for the link.
Our friends down under  are doing some nice work.

Jacques

--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "sfupbn" <sfupbn@...> wrote:
>
> Gentz,
>
> Re Laurie Green's ARIZONA GRAVEL COMPANY
>
> Here is a link courtesy of Google, advanced search, region Australia
>
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/jdennis/arizona/frameset.html
>
> regards
>
> John L
>
>
>
> --- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "shortliner2001" <chacmool@>
wrote:
> >
> > Michael - I would point you towards Laurie Greens ARIZONA GRAVEL COMPANY
(which does exactly that - but the site seems to have gone walkabout - anyone
know what has happened to it?????
> >
> > --- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "MICHAEL" <bocamikey@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think I lost the link on this message.  Where was a folding layout
discussed or designed?  I would like to build a folding 32mm gage layout that
would fold up into an airline carry-on size package, approx. 4"x12"x14" ?
> > >
> > > --- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey" <jmccl23697@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would like to know what materials are needed for putting this item
together!
> > > >
> > > > Moderator's Note:  Please sign your posts so we know who you are.
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Bruce Wilson
> > > > Moderating Team
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "sfupbn" <sfupbn@...> wrote:
>
> Gentz,
>
> Re Laurie Green's ARIZONA GRAVEL COMPANY
>
> Here is a link courtesy of Google, advanced search, region Australia
>
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/jdennis/arizona/frameset.html
>
> regards
>
> John L
>
> Thanks John L and the Prof for those links - much appreciated
>
> --- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "shortliner2001" <chacmool@>
wrote:
> >
> > Michael - I would point you towards Laurie Greens ARIZONA GRAVEL COMPANY
(which does exactly that - but the site seems to have gone walkabout - anyone
know what has happened to it?????
> >
> > --- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "MICHAEL" <bocamikey@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think I lost the link on this message.  Where was a folding layout
discussed or designed?  I would like to build a folding 32mm gage layout that
would fold up into an airline carry-on size package, approx. 4"x12"x14" ?
> > >
> > > --- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey" <jmccl23697@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would like to know what materials are needed for putting this item
together!
> > > >
> > > > Moderator's Note:  Please sign your posts so we know who you are.
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Bruce Wilson
> > > > Moderating Team
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Dear Team,

Laurie migrated his old site to a new server back in July this year (2009).
However, it would appear that in the very recent past, his www.lauriegreen.info
domain has lost the connection to the new-server's content... :-(

In the meantime, you can look back at (some of) the original site via the
WayBack Machine

http://tinyurl.com/yaecd3t
(Archived site)

http://www.archive.org/index.php
(Wayback Machine homepage)

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr



--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "sfupbn" <sfupbn@...> wrote:
>
> Gentz,
>
> Re Laurie Green's ARIZONA GRAVEL COMPANY
>
> Here is a link courtesy of Google, advanced search, region Australia
>
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/jdennis/arizona/frameset.html
>
> regards
>
> John L
>

Gentz,

Re Laurie Green's ARIZONA GRAVEL COMPANY

Here is a link courtesy of Google, advanced search, region Australia

http://members.optusnet.com.au/jdennis/arizona/frameset.html

regards

John L



--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "shortliner2001" <chacmool@...>
wrote:
>
> Michael - I would point you towards Laurie Greens ARIZONA GRAVEL COMPANY
(which does exactly that - but the site seems to have gone walkabout - anyone
know what has happened to it?????
>
> --- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "MICHAEL" <bocamikey@> wrote:
> >
> > I think I lost the link on this message.  Where was a folding layout
discussed or designed?  I would like to build a folding 32mm gage layout that
would fold up into an airline carry-on size package, approx. 4"x12"x14" ?
> >
> > --- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey" <jmccl23697@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I would like to know what materials are needed for putting this item
together!
> > >
> > > Moderator's Note:  Please sign your posts so we know who you are.
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Bruce Wilson
> > > Moderating Team
> > >
> >
>

Here are some links to folding layout ideals from (Jack) Shortliner

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sldfiles/files/Jack%27s%20Pythagoras/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SLDFiles3/files/ACME/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sldfiles/files/The%20Kristallburg%20Series/



--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey" <jmccl23697@...> wrote:
>
> I would like to know what materials are needed for putting this item together!
>
> Moderator's Note:  Please sign your posts so we know who you are.
> Thanks
>
> Bruce Wilson
> Moderating Team
>

N scale about 18" x 8" - Z around 12" x 6" It really depends on the size of the
turnouts and the radius of curve that the stock will tolerate


--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "William" <willfish57@...> wrote:
>
> what would be the size of this layout in z scale? the size in ho is too big
for my apt
>

Michael - I would point you towards Laurie Greens ARIZONA GRAVEL COMPANY (which
does exactly that - but the site seems to have gone walkabout - anyone know what
has happened to it?????

--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "MICHAEL" <bocamikey@...> wrote:
>
> I think I lost the link on this message.  Where was a folding layout discussed
or designed?  I would like to build a folding 32mm gage layout that would fold
up into an airline carry-on size package, approx. 4"x12"x14" ?
>
> --- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey" <jmccl23697@> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to know what materials are needed for putting this item
together!
> >
> > Moderator's Note:  Please sign your posts so we know who you are.
> > Thanks
> >
> > Bruce Wilson
> > Moderating Team
> >
>

I think I lost the link on this message.  Where was a folding layout discussed
or designed?  I would like to build a folding 32mm gage layout that would fold
up into an airline carry-on size package, approx. 4"x12"x14" ?

--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey" <jmccl23697@...> wrote:
>
> I would like to know what materials are needed for putting this item together!
>
> Moderator's Note:  Please sign your posts so we know who you are.
> Thanks
>
> Bruce Wilson
> Moderating Team
>

what would be the size of this layout in z scale? the size in ho is too big for
my apt

It is probably of no use to you unless you live in the UK but the January
2010 edition of Railway Modeller includes "Littlewood - a foldaway layout in
N gauge".

I am sure there are photographs of similar arrangements online. The key
feature is having vertical structures at the join so the hinges are above
the baseboard. On Littlewood the join and hinges are covered by a removable
bridge. I have seen a more complex scheme with four hinged  sections - the
middle two boards hinge down and the ends hinge up, i.e. like a "W", so the
middle hinges are on the underside of the baseboard.

There is even a scheme (I think by Shortliner Jack) where the backscene is a
structural element. The hinges are at the front of the baseboard and top of
the backscene on the line of the diagonal so the two L-shaped (base and
back) baseboards fold together into a box.

Graeme
Aberdeen, Scotland

2009/12/18 Jeffrey <jmccl23697@...>

>
>
> I would like to know what materials are needed for putting this item
> together!
>
> Moderator's Note: Please sign your posts so we know who you are.
> Thanks
>
> Bruce Wilson
> Moderating Team
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Prof me ole mate

I have to say thanks for the PDF on your foamcore adventures, excellent
stuff. It has given me the catalyst to progress with my new layout using
similar techniques, not foamcore but 1" foam as uprights holding up 9mm ply
for handlaying and open frame timber base. Not quite confident enough to try
5mm foamcore on a 17' x 30" layout :)

Cheers
Bruce


On 18/12/09 9:09 AM, "loggingloco1" <johnd@...> wrote:

> Dear Gator (Um, who?)
>
> You can find it by
>
> - log into your Yahoogroup account
> - get to the Small-layout-design list homepage
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/small-layout-design/
>
> - click on the "Files" link in he menu bar at left
>
> - in the new screen that appears, scroll down to locat the folder called
> "PK-01"
>
> - get in there, and you should find the PDF you are after
> Prof_Klyzlr_Foamcore_Modules.pdf
>
> along with some other possibly-useful stuff... :-)
>
> Hope this Helps...
>
> Happy Modelling,
> Aim to Improve,
> Prof Klyzlr
>
> PS as a courtesy to other list members,
> please remember to sign your posts... ;-)
>
>
>
> --- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "gatoreye2000" <gatoreye2000@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Would love to read this but cant find it .
>> Can anyone help?
>> Thanks.
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> #### Remove any unnecessary content when replying to posts
> #### Remember to check the extension groups
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sldfiles
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sldfiles2
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SLDFiles3Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I would like to know what materials are needed for putting this item together!

Moderator's Note:  Please sign your posts so we know who you are.
Thanks

Bruce Wilson
Moderating Team

FOUND IT!!  WOOHOO!!
Thanks for the help.
The info is terrific.

.

--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "loggingloco1" <johnd@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Gator (Um, who?)
>
> You can find it by
>
> - log into your Yahoogroup account
> - get to the Small-layout-design list homepage
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/small-layout-design/
>
> - click on the "Files" link in he menu bar at left
>
> - in the new screen that appears, scroll down to locat the folder called
"PK-01"
>
> - get in there, and you should find the PDF you are after
> Prof_Klyzlr_Foamcore_Modules.pdf
>
> along with some other possibly-useful stuff... :-)
>
> Hope this Helps...
>
> Happy Modelling,
> Aim to Improve,
> Prof Klyzlr
>
> PS as a courtesy to other list members,
> please remember to sign your posts... ;-)
>
>
>
> --- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "gatoreye2000" <gatoreye2000@>
wrote:
> >
> > Would love to read this but cant find it .
> > Can anyone help?
> > Thanks.
> >
>

I'll second that! As a 3mm Society member, I'd recommend having a look and
joining up!
in the meantime - International Models supply Tillig 12mm track and 3SMR also
supply different 12mm track - all should be suitable. The latter are 3mm
specialists and should be able to recommend as regards old Triang wheelsets etc.

--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew" <mattjcoleman@...> wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> Since you are in the UK, you should contact the 3mm Society -- they have both
used Triang Track, as well as newer tie base. You could also used Tillig TT
track from Germany -- which is 12mm gauge, same as Triang, but requires some
modification of the guard rail spacing on points to handle Triang.
>
>
>
>
> --- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "steve_1900uk" <steve_1900uk@>
wrote:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > My father has just bought a quantity of original Tri-ang TT gauge stock
(late 50's early 60's) and I was wondering if there was commercially available
track that would work with it?  The Tri-ang wheels aren't too bad actually -
though coarser than today's standards naturally!
> >
> > If all fails, I'm quite happy to hand-make the track but obviously if
there's a commercial system which would work then that would be ideal. I'd heard
that the Peco 12mm points would need some work on the check rails to allow the
Tri-ang wheels to go through. I know Tillig make TT gauge track and maybe a
couple of other manufacturers; if anyone has had experience of using them with
Tri-ang stock I'd be grateful for any info.
> >
> > Incidentally, once thoroughly cleaned and lubricated, the 50-year old locos
(0-6-0 'Jintys') work very well with my 'modern' Gaugemaster hand-held
controller, even though they only have 3-pole motors!  One of the loco's has a
GEM whitemetal Collett 97xx body on it and the extra weight makes it run even
smoother.
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > Steve
> >
>

Dear Gator (Um, who?)

You can find it by

- log into your Yahoogroup account
- get to the Small-layout-design list homepage

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/small-layout-design/

- click on the "Files" link in he menu bar at left

- in the new screen that appears, scroll down to locat the folder called "PK-01"

- get in there, and you should find the PDF you are after
Prof_Klyzlr_Foamcore_Modules.pdf

along with some other possibly-useful stuff... :-)

Hope this Helps...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS as a courtesy to other list members,
please remember to sign your posts... ;-)



--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "gatoreye2000" <gatoreye2000@...>
wrote:
>
> Would love to read this but cant find it .
> Can anyone help?
> Thanks.
>

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the small-layout-design
group.

   File        : /PK-01/On30Loco_n_Car_Radius_pics.pdf
   Uploaded by : loggingloco1 <johnd@...>
   Description : Listing of most common On30 models available, and the radii they
can be expected to handle "straight outta the box"...

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/small-layout-design/files/PK-01/On30Loco_n_Car_Rad\
ius_pics.pdf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles

Regards,

loggingloco1 <johnd@...>

Would love to read this but cant find it .
Can anyone help?
Thanks.

--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Wilson <wilsonbrucea@...>
wrote:
>
> I just took a look at the PDF on foamcore modules "The Prof "
> uploaded.  Very nicely done.  Thanks for sharing
>
> -
> Bruce Wilson
> Barrie, Ontario
> Life Member NMRA           Member Gauge 0 Guild
> Member Scale 7 Group    Member 7mm NGA
>

Steve,

Since you are in the UK, you should contact the 3mm Society -- they have both
used Triang Track, as well as newer tie base. You could also used Tillig TT
track from Germany -- which is 12mm gauge, same as Triang, but requires some
modification of the guard rail spacing on points to handle Triang.




--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "steve_1900uk" <steve_1900uk@...>
wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> My father has just bought a quantity of original Tri-ang TT gauge stock (late
50's early 60's) and I was wondering if there was commercially available track
that would work with it?  The Tri-ang wheels aren't too bad actually - though
coarser than today's standards naturally!
>
> If all fails, I'm quite happy to hand-make the track but obviously if there's
a commercial system which would work then that would be ideal. I'd heard that
the Peco 12mm points would need some work on the check rails to allow the
Tri-ang wheels to go through. I know Tillig make TT gauge track and maybe a
couple of other manufacturers; if anyone has had experience of using them with
Tri-ang stock I'd be grateful for any info.
>
> Incidentally, once thoroughly cleaned and lubricated, the 50-year old locos
(0-6-0 'Jintys') work very well with my 'modern' Gaugemaster hand-held
controller, even though they only have 3-pole motors!  One of the loco's has a
GEM whitemetal Collett 97xx body on it and the extra weight makes it run even
smoother.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Steve
>

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:26:44 +0000, you wrote:

>Hello all,
>
>My father has just bought a quantity of original Tri-ang
>TT gauge stock (late 50's early 60's) and I was wondering
>if there was commercially available track that would work
>with it?  The Tri-ang wheels aren't too bad actually -
>though coarser than today's standards naturally!
>
>If all fails, I'm quite happy to hand-make the track but
>obviously if there's a commercial system which would work
>then that would be ideal. I'd heard that the Peco 12mm
>points would need some work on the check rails to allow
>the Tri-ang wheels to go through. I know Tillig make TT
>gauge track and maybe a couple of other manufacturers;
>if anyone has had experience of using them with Tri-ang
>stock I'd be grateful for any info.

Try the 3mm society..
http://www.3mmsociety.org.uk/

>Incidentally, once thoroughly cleaned and lubricated, the
>50-year old locos (0-6-0 'Jintys') work very well with my
>'modern' Gaugemaster hand-held controller, even though
>they only have 3-pole motors!  One of the loco's has a
>GEM whitemetal Collett 97xx body on it and the extra
>weight makes it run even smoother.

The Triang TT motor was the best they did, well engineered having a
thrust bearing outside the worm. It's the same one they used in the OO
Caledonian and GWR singles.

It is still an excellent motor today. I suspect if it has any problems
it would be finding the right gear because it had a permanently
attached two start worm - two screw threads instead of one.
>Thanks in advance
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>#### Remove any unnecessary content when replying to posts
>#### Remember to check the extension groups
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sldfiles
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sldfiles2
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SLDFiles3Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Hello all,

My father has just bought a quantity of original Tri-ang TT gauge stock (late
50's early 60's) and I was wondering if there was commercially available track
that would work with it?  The Tri-ang wheels aren't too bad actually - though
coarser than today's standards naturally!

If all fails, I'm quite happy to hand-make the track but obviously if there's a
commercial system which would work then that would be ideal. I'd heard that the
Peco 12mm points would need some work on the check rails to allow the Tri-ang
wheels to go through. I know Tillig make TT gauge track and maybe a couple of
other manufacturers; if anyone has had experience of using them with Tri-ang
stock I'd be grateful for any info.

Incidentally, once thoroughly cleaned and lubricated, the 50-year old locos
(0-6-0 'Jintys') work very well with my 'modern' Gaugemaster hand-held
controller, even though they only have 3-pole motors!  One of the loco's has a
GEM whitemetal Collett 97xx body on it and the extra weight makes it run even
smoother.

Thanks in advance

Steve

This reminds me of the situation in NSW in days of old when the fuel was coal.

The general appendix (operating rules) stipulated that the driver of a train
held too long at a signal near an interlocking should send the fireman to the
signalbox (tower) to "inimate" to the signalman (towerman) that the train was
being delayed and to enquire the reason and approximate length of time the train
would have to wait.

You may imagine that the language actually used in the "intimation" was not of
the stilted bureaucratese of the general appendix.

Also, a trick played by drivers on new firemen under such circumstances was to
say to the fireman... "Go and ask the signalman for a long weight... we only
have a short one on this engine (locomotive)."

Lots of luck with your Chesnut Hill layout.

regards
Sooty

--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, Hannah Miyamoto <hsmiyamoto@...>
wrote:
>
>
>   Thank you very much.  I forgot about the obvious, "put a telephone at the
interlocking entrance" solution.  Of course, before Mr. Bell invented his
wonderful device, railroads must have used something like an electric bell. 
Before they had bells, but they still had mechanical interlockings, they must
have climbed those stairs.

<snip>

> > Hannah
> >
> > Honolulu, HI
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Prof

Comments interspersed.

regards
Sooty

--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "loggingloco1" <johnd@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Derick,
>
<snip a bit>
>
> However, to tag NG modellers as "vigilantes" via any public forum would seems
presumptuous at best, and a serious mis-understanding of the members of the NG
sub-section of the hobby at worst.

I didn't do it first! Someone else on the group said it before me!

<snip a bit more>

> I think the organiser's plan succeeded pretty well...)

Agreed

<snip snip>
>
> if your intention is to "Stir to action",
> (in the positive, get-alongside-and-encourage-fellow-modellers sense of the
word),

I confess! Its a bit of both.

> then I sould suggest by being a part of the Small-Layout-Design list,
> you've already found possibly one of the most active
cross-continent/cross-prototype-outlines/cross-scale/cross-language subsections
of the hobby right here.

To quote Humphrey Bogart "Tell me something I didn't already know". I seriously
enjoy reading the contributions about the hobby from a wildly different range of
approaches.

<snip again>

> (I'll be interested to hear more of this adventure at the next BDO... ;-) ).

It is/was the Big Day In? I hope to be there and an active participant,
hopefully with the back of the taraka full of proscenium foamcore module.

>
> Happy Modelling,
> Aim to Improve,
> Prof Klyzlr
>
> "...rubber scaling,
> rubber gauging,
> and promoting all sizes and forms of Model Railroad/way'ing
> any chance I get,
> somewhere deep in the Aussie Bush..."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "Derick" <derick.cullen@> wrote:
> >
> > At the risk of stirring the NG vigilantes to even greater efforts.....
>

Prof

The answer is "probably all".

The only one that sticks in the mind, however, is Swans Crossing.

But then you already know that cute models of quaint prototypes are not my thing
generally speaking.

If I were to go NG then West Coast Tassie, Pichi-Richi Pass, or the Silverton
Tram all of which I have experienced in the flesh (so to speak)would be more my
choice. I am not (completely) biased against NG.

But I do have a tendency for the grimy industrial / city scene or heavy duty
assistant engine operation (Molong or Valley Heights for eg).

Of course only the city thing is compatible with the small layout ethos.

regards
Sooty

--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "loggingloco1" <johnd@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Derick,
>
> May I enquire as to whether you ever saw any of the following layouts over the
last few years at NSW train shows:
>
> - Broughton Vale Tramway (HOn30)
> - Swan's Crossing (HO/HOn3/HOn30)
> - Nine Mile (On30)
> - AmperSand (On18)
> - LadySmith Siding (On30)
> - 29 Acacia Rd (G9)
> - Yallah2
>
> All of these layouts were and still are capable of "1 sleeper per minute"
crawl performance, (max 10smph under all trackwork and trailing load
conditions),
>
> under the extreme duress of the typical Aussie show environment. I would
respectfully suggest that such sweeping statements as below are based on the
observation of only a small selection of layouts, with possibly dubious pre-show
"performance qualification/preparation".
>
> It's not hard to achieve smooth reliable slow running, even in HOn30 (and
smaller!). Whether ot not the modeller involved wishes to undertake the required
work is another matter entirely,
> (as is the unfounded tarring and feathering of all layouts of a given
scale/gauge, based on the observations of one particular layout...)
>
> I say again,
> As long as _you_are enjoying _your trains_,
> far be it for me or anyone else to take issue,
> (and I would hope you would extend me and other modellers the same
courtesy...)
>
> Happy Modelling,
> Aim to Improve,
> Prof Klyzlr
>
>
>
>
> --- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "Derick" <derick.cullen@> wrote:
> >
> SNIP
> >
> > This reminds me of another problem with NG modelling. It seems to me that
you get some benefits in that more can fit in a given space than SG of the same
scale, but because you have to drop in gauge, the mechanical performance is more
like a smaller scale. If you have ever watched those Canberra blokes with their
modular HOe layout you will understand that they have exquistitely modelled
scenes and buildings in HO but the layout performs probably worse than the
average N scale SG layout. I have yet to see them get a train from one end to
the other without two or three dramas along the way.
> >
> \
>

Thanks Prof

I'm pursuing an option 2 solution as I intend to use the interior of the
building as a storage place for 5 cassettes that will each take 2 * bogie wagons
or 4 * fixed wheelbase wagons (or 1 bogie + 2 fwb).

On the (now suspended) plywood version access to these cassettes was to be both
from the rear (behind the backscene) in exhibition mode, and from the end (in
against the wall home use mode). After seeing your foamcore module I have given
up on the rear access idea.

I regret giving up the elegant simplicity and lightweight of the card stiffener.
But the cassette storage won the day. I *hope* I can cut that double layer
foamcore stiffener square.

BTW 2 1200*600 mm proscenium modules are a nice fit for my FWD dual cab (the
taraka). I guess that's my bid for the dimesions for small layout... anything
that will fit in the taraka.

regards
Sooty

--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "loggingloco1" <johnd@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Derick,
>
> I see 2 possible solutions
>
> 1 - truncate the top of the building,
> (IE model it as if it continues Above/Thru the ceiling)
>
> OR
>
> 2 - adjust the module design for a flat ceiling/90-degree backdrop<>ceiling
angle
>
> Looking at both options.
>
>
> OPTION1: truncate the building
>
> Given that the top fascia/procenium is an integral part of the visual
structure, and effectively cuts off the viewer's sightline of "where the
building meets the ceiling", this may actually be mitigated to the point where
you CAN get away with it.
>
> The overall display/track height of the layout will have a significant effect
on how effective this is, along with the relative "thicknesses" of the base
module/lower fascia, and the ceiling/lighting valance fascia.
>
> As an object lesson, imagine "StringyBark Creek"
> (Aussie 7mm scale NSWGR show layout,
> http://www.carendt.com/scrapbook/page60/index.html )
>
> with the 'viewing slot' being significantly smaller,
> (or said another way, the roof being far LOWER to the deck).
> In the photos linked above, you can see that even the existing roof fascia
blocks the direct view of the backdrop/roof 90-degree join.
>
> Ergo, if a building stretches that tall,
> the 'top of the building' will be hidden too!
>
> Of course, if a viewer steps up and sticks their nose right up against the
layout edge,
> (replicating a scale viewer<>building distance of under 100' accross a 24"
deep module),
>
> they will be able to "look up" at a steep angle and see the building/"sky"
joint.
>
> However, if you are standing less than 100' away from the prototype building,
you'd have to look UP at a fairly steep angle before you could 'see the joint'
too.... :-)
>
> Try this, get the viewer to 'step back 2 steps'
> (as is the typical viewing distance at the average train show),
> and the fascia will block their view of the "joint", rendering the question
'how tall is the actual module building' irrelevant...
>
> Red Stag used this visual Point-of-View to great advantage when modelling the
Sequioa RedWoods in O scale, in a module only 30" tall.
> If you model only the "visible to scale" bit of the trunk,
> the "rest of the tree" is exactly where it should be,
> out of view unless you step right up close and "look UP" :-).
> (Check the pics again, particularly the last "long angled" shot of the
layout...
> http://www.modvid.com.au/html/body_red_stag_on3.html )
>
>
>
>
> OPTION2 : Mod the module design.
>
> Despite the initial module design requiring the curved backdrop to act as a
stiffener and "tension member",
> (as shown HERE, on the original design by Keiran Ryan
> http://www.krmodels.com.au/module.html ),
>
> it is entirely possible to
> - remove/omit the rear vertical members of the intermediate "profile boards"
> - substitute a known square sheet of MDF or laminated-dual-thickness of 5mm
foamcore as the 'backdrop' between the end 'profile boards'
> (NOTE!!! This board becomes the primary gusset/strengthener for the vertical
component of the module. If it is NOT cut absolutely square, your module will
appear to be 'on a lean'. Similarly, weakening or unduly cutting thru this board
will also weaken the resulting structure)
>
> - use a known square laminated dual-thickness of foamcore,
> (with rebate cut into the short edges to match up with the end profile
boards),
> to form the roof/ceiling sheet.
> Again, the squareness is CRITICAL to ensure that the front edge of the roof
fascia sits "inline" with the base-domino/benckwork fascia.
>
> This will
> - maximise the available room INside the module,
> (you've effectively created a diorama box),
> - avoided the 'hard to deal with' curved backdrop
> - and still maintained the ease-of-build and lightweight elements of the
original design.
>
> As examples of such a module,
> albeit rendered in MDF and plywood,
> check any of the modules by
>
> - Geoff Nott
> http://www.modvid.com.au/html/body_geoff_nott_2006.html
>
> - Steve Pettit
> http://carendt.com/scrapbook/page43/pettit2.jpg ,
>
> or the "Red Stag" team,
> http://www.modvid.com.au/html/body_red_stag_on3.html
>
> and indeed my own "Nine Mile" layout
> (light pine frame,
> 8" of extruded polystyrene sheet benchwork,
> 3mm MDF vertical "end profile" boards,
> a single 3mm sheet of MDF as the "backdrop"/rear module wall,
> and a dual-thickness of 5mm foamcore as the roof,
> with Foamcore Roof Fascia,
>
> http://www.carendt.com/scrapbook/page58/index.html
> (picture cuts off most of the roof fascia, but you get the idea).
>
>
> I hope this helps you shoehorn Darling Harbour,
> (That's h-a-r-b-o-u-r for the non-aussies in the crowd :-) ),
>
> into a Procenium-style module...
>
> Happy Modelling,
> Aim to Improve,
> Prof Klyzlr
>
>
>
> --- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, "Derick" <derick.cullen@> wrote:
> >
> SNIP
>
>  I have one design problem : fitting in at least a three storey compaction of
the Waterside Cold Stores building against the curved backdrop, or not curving
the backdrop until it can clear the building.
>

Thank you very much.  I forgot about the obvious, "put a telephone at the
interlocking entrance" solution.  Of course, before Mr. Bell invented his
wonderful device, railroads must have used something like an electric bell. 
Before they had bells, but they still had mechanical interlockings, they must
have climbed those stairs.  Anyhow, by WWII, it would be the telephone callbox;
a nice functional trackside (and platform) detail.

    Incidentally, I looked up the Ansaldo STS (they bought Union Switch & Signal)
website, downloaded a manual for a power-operated switch machine, and verified
that every power switch machine has some kind of hand crank or lever to throw
the swith when the power won't work--some (all?) are interlocked so that when
you go to manual, the motor can't throw the switch.

    When you think of it, that's perfect for the forgetful tower operator; if the
switch can't be thrown, the route can't be cleared, and the signal won't change
from "stop."  What a KISS solution.

       I also now see what the "Call On" indicator is for: the tower operator can
"Call On" the mid-day local, then go eat lunch--in essence--and the brakemen
(head-end and rear-end in a 5-man crew state) can throw any switch they need to
get through the interlocking, if the tower op didn't switch it in advance.



    FYI, I am designing a version of Cyril Freezer's "Minories" plan using PRR
Philadelphia Terminal Division (think Chestnut Hill branch) equipment during
WWII.  I want to add a freight station/express terminal, coal-yard, oil
terminal, and maybe a metal fabrication plan, to let, say, an H-9 2-8-0 switch
boxcars, tank cars, hoppers and gondolas (with loads going back to the transfer
table, and empties coming from it).

    Trying to do all that with mid-day MP54 MU trains, and even a loco-hauled
train switching from a GG-1 (or taking modeler's license, my steam-generator
equipped P5a) to a G-5 4-6-0 will make what should normally get done in a few
hours into a day-long job.





To: small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com
From: johnd@...
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:24:30 +0000
Subject: [small-layout-design] Re: Quesion about operation through interlockings





Dear Hannah,

Most switching areas had defined 'yard limit' areas which were deliberately kept
seperate from major crossovers and interlockings.

However, where a local had to traverse a interlocking to complete it's mission
for the day, 1 of 2 things tended to happen.

1 - The dispatcher (remote CTC) or Towerman (Local),
would give the local 'track and time' train-order

IE "Extra 2200 West has clearance from Terminal Yard A to Switch District B...

(the local engineers/firemen/conductors/brakemen would realise this
included the run accross/thru the interlocking "Interlocking X"),

Until 15:00 Month/Day/Year..."

During this time, the local had free reign to cross the interlocking as many
times as it so needed to get the job done,
on the assumption that the Towerman remembered it was there,
and didn't let any other train thru the interlock...
(Yes, "Ooops"'s did occasionally happen...)

This kind of 'long term free reign' only happened if
- there was sooo little traffic due that the crossing could be tied up without
unduly affecting either or both RRs involved
- or the local had soo much "back n forthing" to do that it would have been
impractical to have to call the Dispatcher/towerman every 2 minutes...
(HOW did they call? See below)

and/or

2 - The local does most of it's work on One Side
(Lets says the timetable EAST side of the interlocking)

pull up to the interlock,
where a phone-on-a-stick callbox was located,
call the dispatcher (CTC) or Towerman (Local),
and get permission to run accross the interlocking/crossover.

If the local reported that they were only doing to be say 15 minutes, and
perform a number of back/forth moves accross the interlocking,
the Dispatcher/Towerman may give them a short-duration 'track n time' permission
as above,

OR may give them permision to "get accross the crossing" ASAP,
and then hold on the WEST side,
having to use another callbox to ask permission to return when they were done...

There were many variations, based on
- the work the local had to do
- the ammount of time required
- physical distances between the terminal yard, interlocking, and switching
district
- whether the local crew had any time contraints,
(Must delivery the grain cars by 15:00,
must meet the interchange train from the other RR at the Interlocking at 16:00,
etc etc)
- local "rules"
- railroad-specific "rules"
- etc etc

Of course, yes, locally-documented whistle codes was also always an option...
(AAR/FRA may have had some known standardised codes, maybe?
http://everything2.com/title/whistle+code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_whistle#Whistle_code
http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/1318 )

Hope this Helps...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, Hannah Miyamoto <hsmiyamoto@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Aloha everyone,
>
> Since everyone is so nice, I have a historical question about operation
through interlockings that I would like to ask before writing Model Railroader,
etc. I know that it does not specifically apply to "small layout design,"
although it applies to my small layout.
>
> Specifically, I would like to know how interlocking tower [signal box]
operators knew where to direct trains before radio. I understand that a
timetable and a little intuition was probably sufficient in the general case,
but I am specifically wondering about a local switching [shunting] movement
across a junction under the control of an interlocking.
>
> Would the train actually stop, and the conductor [guard] climbed up to the
tower to directly tell the operator where he or she wanted the engine to go
next? I have never discovered a whistle code that covered this. I can't imagine
semaphore flags or lanterns were used, at least not in the U.S. Shouting from
the ground doesn't seem effective. Was it common to at least supply the
conductor with a speaking tube, the way a ship captain used to command the
engine operator? Thank you.
>
>
>
> Hannah
>
> Honolulu, HI



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

However, if the run included switches/signals controlled by the tower, this
would have to work in union with the train crew's needs.

Cheers NB


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: loggingloco1
   To: small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:24 PM
   Subject: [small-layout-design] Re: Quesion about operation through
interlockings



   Dear Hannah,

   Most switching areas had defined 'yard limit' areas which were deliberately
kept seperate from major crossovers and interlockings.

   However, where a local had to traverse a interlocking to complete it's mission
for the day, 1 of 2 things tended to happen.

   1 - The dispatcher (remote CTC) or Towerman (Local),
   would give the local 'track and time' train-order

   IE "Extra 2200 West has clearance from Terminal Yard A to Switch District B...

   (the local engineers/firemen/conductors/brakemen would realise this
   included the run accross/thru the interlocking "Interlocking X"),

   Until 15:00 Month/Day/Year..."

   During this time, the local had free reign to cross the interlocking as many
times as it so needed to get the job done,
   on the assumption that the Towerman remembered it was there,
   and didn't let any other train thru the interlock...
   (Yes, "Ooops"'s did occasionally happen...)

   This kind of 'long term free reign' only happened if
   - there was sooo little traffic due that the crossing could be tied up without
unduly affecting either or both RRs involved
   - or the local had soo much "back n forthing" to do that it would have been
impractical to have to call the Dispatcher/towerman every 2 minutes...
   (HOW did they call? See below)

   and/or

   2 - The local does most of it's work on One Side
   (Lets says the timetable EAST side of the interlocking)

   pull up to the interlock,
   where a phone-on-a-stick callbox was located,
   call the dispatcher (CTC) or Towerman (Local),
   and get permission to run accross the interlocking/crossover.

   If the local reported that they were only doing to be say 15 minutes, and
perform a number of back/forth moves accross the interlocking,
   the Dispatcher/Towerman may give them a short-duration 'track n time'
permission as above,

   OR may give them permision to "get accross the crossing" ASAP,
   and then hold on the WEST side,
   having to use another callbox to ask permission to return when they were
done...

   There were many variations, based on
   - the work the local had to do
   - the ammount of time required
   - physical distances between the terminal yard, interlocking, and switching
district
   - whether the local crew had any time contraints,
   (Must delivery the grain cars by 15:00,
   must meet the interchange train from the other RR at the Interlocking at
16:00, etc etc)
   - local "rules"
   - railroad-specific "rules"
   - etc etc

   Of course, yes, locally-documented whistle codes was also always an option...
   (AAR/FRA may have had some known standardised codes, maybe?
   http://everything2.com/title/whistle+code
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_whistle#Whistle_code
   http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/1318 )

   Hope this Helps...

   Happy Modelling,
   Aim to Improve,
   Prof Klyzlr

   --- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, Hannah Miyamoto <hsmiyamoto@...>
wrote:
   >
   >
   > Aloha everyone,
   >
   > Since everyone is so nice, I have a historical question about operation
through interlockings that I would like to ask before writing Model Railroader,
etc. I know that it does not specifically apply to "small layout design,"
although it applies to my small layout.
   >
   > Specifically, I would like to know how interlocking tower [signal box]
operators knew where to direct trains before radio. I understand that a
timetable and a little intuition was probably sufficient in the general case,
but I am specifically wondering about a local switching [shunting] movement
across a junction under the control of an interlocking.
   >
   > Would the train actually stop, and the conductor [guard] climbed up to the
tower to directly tell the operator where he or she wanted the engine to go
next? I have never discovered a whistle code that covered this. I can't imagine
semaphore flags or lanterns were used, at least not in the U.S. Shouting from
the ground doesn't seem effective. Was it common to at least supply the
conductor with a speaking tube, the way a ship captain used to command the
engine operator? Thank you.
   >
   >
   >
   > Hannah
   >
   > Honolulu, HI
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Hannah,

Most switching areas had defined 'yard limit' areas which were deliberately kept
seperate from major crossovers and interlockings.

However, where a local had to traverse a interlocking to complete it's mission
for the day, 1 of 2 things tended to happen.

1 - The dispatcher (remote CTC) or Towerman (Local),
would give the local 'track and time' train-order

IE "Extra 2200 West has clearance from Terminal Yard A to Switch District B...

(the local engineers/firemen/conductors/brakemen would realise this
included the run accross/thru the interlocking "Interlocking X"),

Until 15:00 Month/Day/Year..."

During this time, the local had free reign to cross the interlocking as many
times as it so needed to get the job done,
on the assumption that the Towerman remembered it was there,
and didn't let any other train thru the interlock...
(Yes, "Ooops"'s did occasionally happen...)

This kind of 'long term free reign' only happened if
- there was sooo little traffic due that the crossing could be tied up without
unduly affecting either or both RRs involved
- or the local had soo much "back n forthing" to do that it would have been
impractical to have to call the Dispatcher/towerman every 2 minutes...
(HOW did they call? See below)


and/or

2 - The local does most of it's work on One Side
(Lets says the timetable EAST side of the interlocking)

pull up to the interlock,
where a phone-on-a-stick callbox was located,
call the dispatcher (CTC) or Towerman (Local),
and get permission to run accross the interlocking/crossover.

If the local reported that they were only doing to be say 15 minutes, and
perform a number of back/forth moves accross the interlocking,
the Dispatcher/Towerman may give them a short-duration 'track n time' permission
as above,

OR may give them permision to "get accross the crossing" ASAP,
and then hold on the WEST side,
having to use another callbox to ask permission to return when they were done...

There were many variations, based on
- the work the local had to do
- the ammount of time required
- physical distances between the terminal yard, interlocking, and switching
district
- whether the local crew had any time contraints,
(Must delivery the grain cars by 15:00,
must meet the interchange train from the other RR at the Interlocking at 16:00,
etc etc)
- local "rules"
- railroad-specific "rules"
- etc etc

Of course, yes, locally-documented whistle codes was also always an option...
(AAR/FRA may have had some known standardised codes, maybe?
http://everything2.com/title/whistle+code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_whistle#Whistle_code
http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/1318 )

Hope this Helps...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr




--- In small-layout-design@yahoogroups.com, Hannah Miyamoto <hsmiyamoto@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Aloha everyone,
>
>    Since everyone is so nice, I have a historical question about operation
through interlockings that I would like to ask before writing Model Railroader,
etc.  I know that it does not specifically apply to "small layout design,"
although it applies to my small layout.
>
>    Specifically, I would like to know how interlocking tower [signal box]
operators knew where to direct trains before radio.  I understand that a
timetable and a little intuition was probably sufficient in the general case,
but I am specifically wondering about a local switching [shunting] movement
across a junction under the control of an interlocking.
>
>    Would the train actually stop, and the conductor [guard] climbed up to the
tower to directly tell the operator where he or she wanted the engine to go
next?  I have never discovered a whistle code that covered this.  I can't
imagine semaphore flags or lanterns were used, at least not in the U.S. 
Shouting from the ground doesn't seem effective.  Was it common to at least
supply the conductor with a speaking tube, the way a ship captain used to
command the engine operator?  Thank you.
>
>
>
> Hannah
>
> Honolulu, HI
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>