Gauge 3 Exhibition Track

[AllWight]

Easy way of overcoming transportation issues. The G3S purchases a second hand trailer that can be adapted to suit  the carrying requirements of the layout. It's what I did with blackgang. This also becomes the permanent home for the layout when not in use so at the end of a show the trailer is parked up and the car is still a car. The only decision is to decide where to store the trailer.

Mark

[John Candy]

A practical solution providing there is secure storage for the trailer ........ in rural areas trailers, tractors and even large farm machinery "goes missing" in the night.

My builder, who lives not far away in the same village had his trailer stolen from his driveway during the night and nobody heard a thing.

John.

[John Candy]

The initial configuration for the G3S exhibition line (which will be constructed for both indoor and outdoor use) will be an end-to-end line designed for radio control operation with battery-powered locomotives and with a scenic aspect.

The method of construction will be based around the modular unit method introduced by Ian T a few years ago and that design is currently being updated and refined by Ian.
The idea is that the Society-owned units will be capable of being inter-connected with the trackwork owned by individual members to create larger layouts whenever possible.

The flexible nature of the modular design will result in both end-to-end and continuous circuits being possible, to suit the requirements of any particular venue. Live steam operation will be appropriate under suitable conditions, particularly when the portable layout is used at regional garden Get-togethers, where the host has no track of his own.

The practicality of this project is wholly dependent upon the availability of volunteers.
You can help in several ways:-

1) Helping with construction.
2) Volunteering to help at exhibitions.
3) Sponsoring components of the track or by donating surplus materials.

If you live in a region where there is currently no G3 garden line on which to run your models, this is an opportunity to participate in a project which could bring the portable line to your garden and enable you to host a Get-together.

There has long been a need for such a track as this and members have often raised the idea BUT it can only come about if you are willing to help make it happen.


John.

[IanT]

If anyone wants it - there is an old camping trailer on my back drive that was obtained for this very purpose. It needed a new floor and a roof of some kind back then - and it's gone down hill since. But the frame still looks sound, so some new tyres, a ply floor and some form of top covering would make it usable.

I never progressed the idea because I found that (on top of any trailer costs) a 'hook' for the AR 166 was going to be £389 (plus fitting) so it became a tad expensive. I've no plans to fit a drawbar to my nice new shiny Alfa either.

What I actually did was purchase an inflatable roof rack (max load 80kgs) which is like two inflatable bags that strap on the roof. I used this to bring two large modules to Biggleswade a few years back. Unfortunately, the only way I could 'mount' them on the bags was upside down. On arrival I tried to get them off and found that they had filled with water on the way up. I was forced to pull them off (didn't want to damage the car) but I got soaked in the process, with water pouring down my sleeves and inside my coat. Soggy arms and feet at an AGM doesn't add much to one's enjoyment I discovered.



Regards,

IanT

[dajo]

In early January I contacted Ian Harper asking for an email
address and mentioned that I had been interested in the recent
Newsletter articles about new railways because I am building a
portable railway that got a little of its inspiration from the
IanT Connect and M01 articles from about five years ago.  I was
asked to write about what I was doing, that has happened, and I
expect that you will be able to read about it in the next
Newsletter.

I am interested in a couple of semi-technical issues because I
want to do some comparison.  In a small contrast to what has been
written on this thread, my belief is that both weight and volume
are important.  It all depends on whether the thing you are
holding at this very moment is too heavy or too big.  Can anyone
tell me how much typical modules weigh and how big they are?  My
nominally 6ft long double track modules (without track at the
moment) do not exceed 15lbf each, and they each do not exceed 76
x 24 x 4 inches, the 4 inches allows for the addition of track.

So, adding 6lbf for track makes the specific weight around
3-1/2lbf per foot of track length.  That means I can build a 4ft
module that weighs 17lbf maximum, including legs; and I wonder
how that stacks up with the norm.  I chose 4ft because I have
seen that size in this thread.

With regard to (storage) volume, my 115ft long track can be
stored in two racks each being 76 x 24 x 48 inches.  Each loaded
rack weighs less than 300lbf.  Wheels are extra 8-) and add 10
inches to the height of each rack, and, as a guesstimate, 30lbf.

The last item is cost.  How much does a 115ft oval railway cost?
I know that people are somewhat shy of this kind of question; but
I think that it is a good one since I am not rich.  I like to
express this not in terms of currency, but in number of
locomotives or trains, I like to do this for perspective - where
do the priorities lie?  My railway (no storage rack) cost between
one and two medium priced G1 tender locomotives; or less than one
G1 medium priced locomotive and medium-high price five coach
passenger train.  How does the cost of, e.g., a Kingscale G3
Britannia, compare with the projected total cost of the G3S
railway?

OK, the whole story.  My railway cost $1100 for development,
including jigs, tools, and three prototype modules.  The latter
all turned out to be useable, although I was not counting on
that; they are not included in the production run, however, so
they still are spares.  Production of the 115ft railway cost
$3800 in addition.  So the total cost is just under $5000.  This
is cheating, because I have a lot of track from my previous
railway.  So, add in another $3000 (two tracks) and you get 1.011
Kingscale G3 Britannias.

Good Luck with the G3 Exhibition Track; I hope that it is a huge
success in every way.

[classicdelights]

Gents

Some valid points have been raised in the last post.  The South Coast Model Railway Club (SCMRC) of which I am still a member from my gauge 1 days built a large indoor gauge 1 track; that was fine.  Then came the idea of building an exhibition layout and things went sadly wrong from there in.

I am sure none of these issues will become Society ones but there are worth mentioning, they are:

The layout was built as an end to end layout.  It proved completely unsuitable for live steam operation as small-scale live steamers are not inherently suited to this type of layout; they much prefer to run continuously round in circles.

The modules when constructed proved too heavy for the majority of feeble antiqued members to move easily so the whole burden of moving the layout fell on 2 or 3 members that could manage them - just.  This led to much bad feeling.

The layout was damaged every time it was moved.

As the end to end layout was unsuitable an effort was made to build more modules to make a continuous run.  This was counterproductive as the layout was now too large to handle and transport.

The layout cost far more than was anticipated - more bad feeling.

Eventually it led to the breakup of the gauge 1 part of the club.

I don't say any of these things will befall the Society but it is worth mentioning what happened.  An exhibition layout to properly showcase gauge 3 needs to incorporate a continuous run but with the curves that any self-respecting pacific demands the layout will be huge.  Not many exhibition venues can accommodate such a layout - all this needs thinking through before a false start is made on something that can never be realised.

Sorry to put a dampener on it but this happened to the SCMRC.

Regards

Phil

[jamiepage]

 I  do not feel a roundy- round layout is necessary to efficiently fly the flag and attract new blood into G3 modelling, if that is the intention of this initiative.
Indeed,  there is surely an argument that presenting a large roundy- round may simply confirm (incorrect) prejudices that it needs a large estate to participate in G3.

It may be more productive to  simply develop further a participatory environment whereby all forms of modelling across the G3 spectrum from single wagon to large layout are actively encouraged at the individual (or informal group)  level and  then to further encourage these to exhibit in the various model railway environments to show just what can be achieved by anyone.

This forum has done great work with various initiatives to encourage active modelling and more modellers need to see what can be done. The G3 movement as a whole will benefit from greater exposure.
G3S can do its part if it wishes to, by making it as simple as is safely and legally possible to participate, by looking for synergies with other scenic railway organisations, by helping with exhibition costs,  and specifically by providing a test track if a particular geographical area has no ready access to a large running track. (Or at an AGM perhaps).

At model railway exhibitions, a  simple working G3 diorama has significant impact, out of proportion to its investment, especially perhaps if accompanied by a video of G3 Gresley Pacifics thrashing around a garden in the sunshine to show what else is going on in G3.

Each individual who can be encouraged to build even one G3 wagon in a bedsit may also then join G3S, even if only to access GTG or society owned test track to give their stock an occasional longer run.

And such new membership is surely just as valuable as a large garden owner. Apart from the cash, who knows where the new blood may lead?

[492]

Some very small (in overall dimensions) 16mm NG exhibition layouts have been produced and exhibited, often depicting a working quarry or port. These always attract a lot of interest at shows, and potential 16MMNG members. There is no reason why a G3 standard gauge layout can't be made of the same type of scene, (coal mine, factory works, railway erecting shop etc etc.) Any working machinery in the layout will add to the interest and crowds.

We really need members, not just  landowners. Interested potential members, as Jamie says, can be encouraged to build or acquire stock. There will be many opportunities for them to run their stock and enjoy G3 company at GTG's etc.

Robert. 492

[Roy]

David, Phil, Jamie and Robert,

Thank you for your contributions.

David, I'll let Ian Turner answer your questions about size and weight of modules because he is the expert.

Phil, you raise some important points, thank you.  The exhibition track we are working on will be assembled from modules using the modular system pioneered by Ian Turner.  These are made of thin plywood and the structure is stiffened with plywood webs and cross-members, aircraft fashion, so they are not heavy, but pretty stiff.

It is initially planned that the layout will be end to end, but with the modular system curved sections could be added, perhaps at a later date, to make a continuous circuit.  This will give us the flexibility to offer a track of a size dependent on the available space.

Jamie and Robert, I agree, a simple working G3 diorama, or exhibition layout, can have a significant impact, and we do, as you no doubt know, usually have video facilities at exhibitions, demonstrating G3 garden layouts with running trains.  These will we hope attract new members.

The main objective of the exhibition track is to demonstrate G3 to a wider audience, get more people interested in G3 and ultimately to increase the membership of our society.

Roy

[IanT]

Thank you for your interest (and concerns) everyone.

As may be evident from my posts, I've been a believer in 'Modular' for some time and have experimented in this area over many years. I'm therefore very well aware of the problems in making any G3 layout 'portable'. It brings a whole new set of challenges to the designer/builder. For this reason I've developed a new version of module for my own use that meets my requirements whilst still complying with the M01 standard.

As Roy has indicated, the Society layout will have to meet a wider range of needs, so will most likely differ from my own modules in some respects but it will still be modular (M01) based. For that reason, the issue of end-to-end or 'roundy' does become somewhat academic, because a layout can be configured in any way that the available modules allow. Size and weight are always a challenge in G3 but hopefully our solution will at least mitigate these issues, even if we cannot entirely eliminate them. I can't give any actual data at this point, because the design isn't settled but my units dissemble into very small/light components that are not difficult to handle at all. The Society 'design' will most likely differ though.

I'm not sure that it's that obvious but whilst all modules must be standard there is no such thing as a standard module. In other words, there are many ways to build a module that meets the M01 Standard.   

As for 'live-steam' there is no technical reason (I can think of) why some small LS/RC engines could not be used end-to-end, although I certainly agree that larger engines might not be suitable given the likely available space. My experience is also that coal-firing is less than desirable when used in-doors. But again, given a corner of a car-park and sufficient and suitable modular track, even the larger engines could be run at public events or GTG's.

Mention has been made of 'dioramas' (etc.) and one of the advantages of 'modular' is that even very modest items can be incorporated into the larger whole, provided they are designed to do so. I remember the late (and great) Dave Lowe showing a small level crossing diorama at an AGM a few years back. Well, with a C3 connector at either end, this could have been very easily incorporated into a larger track system. This would provide a practical route into G3 for those with limited space or means. I also think that modular could provide a great boost for local group activities and this seems to be the norm with Spur II in Germany

We are still in the process of discussing and agreeing the details of this project but the key thing (in my experience) is that a 'core' of members has agreed to take on the work. At the end of the day that is all that is really required to get things done.

I will be very pleased to discuss this further with anyone interested at the AGM, where I also hope to have a few of my modules to show.

Regards,


IanT

[jamiepage]

With the caveat that a large G3 layout could adversely reinforce any pre- conceptions amongst its audience that G3 needs a lot of space and so 'not for me', it would be quite wrong- impertinent even- to argue against this initiative.

However, the risk of reinforcing a prejudice is real, I think, and a large layout will require a large investment of time and money.

These assets (time and money) are finite, so it seems only right to deploy them as effectively as possible, hence my previous.

I would only add that a smaller amount of time and money could be deployed in other directions eg commissioning a number of competitions, either annually or occasionally, to attract the 'entryist'.  'Best wagon', 'best coach', 'best Roundhouse-based steamer'...etc. annually. Or a one- off diorama competition, some kind of moving G3 activity within space limits. That sort of thing.
Competitions such as this can only promote more activity, sends out the idea that stuff can be done in a small space as well as large, and importantly (I assume) can be used to generate 'copy' for the general modelling press- and hence exposure for G3.

In other words, it doesn't take much imagination for the unconvinced to see what could be done with a lot of space - they need help in seeing what could be done with less.

Anyway, that's probably drifting too far away from the topic so I'll stop there and wish it well.

[John Candy]

To give an insight into what is under consideration, below is the current proposal for a layout with an overall length of 50ft.

Only basic detail is included, but for ease of exhibition operation, all turnouts will be electrically operated from a control panel and there will be basic (operational) signalling.

The precise nature of the "fiddle yard" is under discussion.

John

[cabbage]

ERRRmmmm -No!

Try this from "Layout Designs for Operation".



This will produce a layout that is far less "static" than the one above and be easier to run.

regards

ralph

[John Candy]

Clapham Junction would also make a very interesting layout : Are you volunteering to take on the project?!

Regards,
John 

[cabbage]

John,

My backgrounds are vastly different to yours -so that is why I see things that you cannot. This source book I bought for my Son when he was 11. As a source book it is very good. One of the problems young builders have is the fact that they have no money and there is normally only the one of them to run a layout. The plans used by the youngster must also be simple and obvious in operation.

As envisaged the proposed layout is all dead ends.

Any loco and train must load in and then propel out -hardy realistic and has a great deal of careful driving would be required to prevent derailments whilst propelling out.

The advantages of a commercial book designed layout is that the concept, construction difficulties and operating problems will have been tried and tested before publication. My Son uses a French SNCF layout plan from the same book -which has steam, diesel and OHL electric locos -which has been turned into "Sheffield Victoria".

In my view, "Trains Should Go Somewhere", although there is just the single line into and out of the layout the same line can feed two passenger and two freight lines. It may look very "busy" but it devolves down to trains moving in two different directions at the same time. This would, (and does!), look impressive. There is the potential to have at least two running trains in motion at the same time.

If you examine the interlocking and signalling required for the proposed layout and the commercial layout -the commercial one wins hands down. I am no expert but I don't think that even Westinghouse could more than control one loco in motion on the proposed layout?

As to length of train I would suggest no more than 12 feet.

As to taking on the project, the design aspect and some of the construction -that I can do. However due to failing health and eyesight -running it would be a problem for me. I can no longer see the bottom of my garden. Thus my layout has two ends almost side by side -and yes they do come from this book! It has proved to be an easy and usable design. The locos exit onto the dragstrip, (disappear), and then appear at the back of the greenhouse about 2 minutes later.

Could I suggest before you start doodling -that you closely examine published commercial simple designs. It may be that one of your small watchers recognises your choice and says "That's XXXXX -but isn't that an "N" gauge design???" - and then his jaw will drop!!!

regards

ralph