Rules and playing the game

As mentioned in my previous blog post, I went to Cancon in Canberra to check out the way in which miniature wargames and even board games use rules to simulate some aspect of reality. It was difficult to follow some of the WWII miniature wargames with the complexities involved but I nevertheless came home with these three rule books to examine at my leisure.

These rule books, and others including the popular Flames of War, seek to represent different conflicts (principally WWII) in terms of geographic location, battle contexts, and military personnel and equipment. Establishing the right combination of personnel and equipment (e.g. number of soldiers and number of tanks) is necessary for each "game". Added complexity comes into play when dealing with levels of experience and resilience to stress in combat situations; psychological aspects that seek to simulate real life situations and add operational interest. Some miniature wargames include aircraft to add another layer of complexity.

The upshot is that these wargames rely on history (and research) for their operational contexts. While not mandatory, having a good understanding of the history enhances the experience of the game. The games also rely on geography and the types of equipment rosters applicable at the time and place. Such characteristics are very similar to those in the model railroad hobby. Also very similar to the model railroading experience is the commercial side of the hobby with various books and magazines, kits, detail parts, hobby tools and accessories, and paints and powders all available at the show.

There are of course some differences between the two hobbies  However, I am more interested in finding out whether aspects of the wargaming experience (e.g. the rules and the "playing") can be applied to enhance the operational enjoyment of model railroads. I need to read more and talk with more wargamers to better understand what they do and how they do it.

That said, I would be interested in hearing from any dual code modellers (wargaming and model railroading) to get their perspective on the operational aspects of both hobbies.

Model railways as a game

Welcome to Armchair Modeller Down Under in 2015.

Last year was a rather quiet year with my time taken up with a number of other activities. I hope this year will allow me some spare time to publish regular posts here and in sister blog, DME Down Under.

One of the themes I want to cover this year is gamification.  Briefly, gamification is the use of game thinking and game mechanics in non-game contexts to engage users in solving problems and increase users' self contributions. In the context of model railways where we seek to draw inspiration from the prototype, I want to investigate some of the thinking around gamification and how other hobbies, such as wargamers, combine elements of gamification with historical or contemporary real life practices. Gamification is also important in other fields such as education and technology development.

In model railways, many of us want to simulate prototype railway operation on our layouts to increase our enjoyment of the hobby and to give a sense of purpose. At the same time, we cannot always exactly replicate the prototype (although there are modellers who aim for such perfection) and therefore compromise prototype operational authenticity to increase modelling potential and other operational practicalities. Gamification is something I am interested in furthering my knowledge about to see if there are elements I can use to increase the enjoyment of my model railway.

And this is one reason why I will be attending Cancon this Australia Day long weekend in Canberra. I will be interested in the different forms of wargaming, in particular the rules and concepts, which underlie the actual playing of the game. As people know, wargaming is often based on an extensive knowledge of historical conflicts with as much enthusiasm and detail as many in the hobby of model railways. There is definitely a connection to history and research that both hobbies share.

In addition, the range of paints and ancillary items for sale at Cancon are of use in both hobbies and are an added bonus. I especially enjoy talking with people about the painting techniques of wargame miniatures which is indeed a very special skill.

So, with this rather offbeat introduction to the year, I hope that you will find this and future blog posts on Armchair Modeller Down Under of continued interest.

Model Railroad Planning 2014

Just got my copy of Model Railroad Planning 2014 direct from Kalmbach Publishing. As usual, it is full of interesting articles and some excellent model railroad photography.

The first article is "operating a busy passenger terminal" which is based on the New Orleans Passenger Terminal (NOUPT). The modelled station is huge and exceptionally well done, including fully lit interiors. The layout is HO scale.

The next article is the "Southern Pacific's Siskiyou Line" in N scale. The layout size is 25 x 27 feet which is pretty big for an N scale layout. One of the things I like about the articles in MRP is the emphasis on the decision-making process in designing a layout. This article didn't disappoint in that department.

"Alice Street in 4x8 feet" is a prototypical track plan based on the Santa Fe rail-marine operation out of Oakland, California. There are some fascinating historical photos (B&W) here.

The next article is called "A moving experience" about a layout built for a newly purchased retirement home. The original layout based on Moscow, Idaho (I think the Americans pronounce it moss-cow) was featured in Model Railroad Planning in 2008.

My favourite article is "Switching for breakfast". This article describes the prototypical train operations for switching (shunting) the large Post Cereals food complex at Battle Creek, Michigan. A description of a typical shift switching the industry was very informative. For me, the best part of the article was a table showing the different spots (positions) within the Post Cereals complex that had to be switched with what particular product (receiving and shipments).  This table alone gave me plenty of food for thought in just what variety can be achieved with a single, large industry on a model railroad. A HO and N scale track plan accompanies the article providing suggestions for how the prototype can be modelled.

A short article on five layouts in four different scales that occupy 14 x 34 inches was next.

Lance Mindheim follows with an article, "Simple plan, plenty of action" based on a southeastern USA switching layout. Lance makes a nice distinction between planning and design - planning deals with more strategic issues that will inform the decisions about overall layout design (track arrangements, for example.). The suggested model railroad layout plan is for a room size of 12 x 13 feet. Lance includes both a plan of the layout and a plan showing switching options.

"Big train, small layout" has an interesting circular design based on a figure eight. It is a portable layout used for model railroad exhibitions and is a little bit different to the norm.

Byron Henderson's article, "North Western's Chicago commute" offers some thoughts about a model railroad track plan 8 x 20 foot in size. The layout is based on the Chicago & North Western's commuter services between the North Western station and the western suburbs of Chicago. Again, the thinking behind the layout design is what is key to this article.

"Slogging up to Locust Summit" is a model railroad based on the Reading Co.'s train operations over Locust Summit near Gordon, Pennsylvania. The track plan fits into a space of 31 x 40 feet and includes plenty of big hauling steam locomotives on this predominantly coal-hauling route. An interesting depiction of a typical day at Gordon gives a nice summary on operations. There are some nice model photographs in this article as well.

Tony Koester next goes out on a bit of a limb with an idea about modelling the same town on two decks and switching cars between them. This idea could be a way to save on available space.

My other favourite article from Model Railroad Planning 2014 is the article by James McNab: "Choosing the right place at the right time". The article describes the importance of time and place in consideration of design and the need for being selective about motive power and rolling stock. It is important to balance traffic levels for certain times of the year (for example, seasonal factors play a major role in agricultural production). James' layout is the Iowa Interstate Grimes Line. The article has both model and prototype photos. Videos of this layout are available on the Model Railroader website to registered viewers: see www.ModelRailroader.com

Model Railroad Planning 2014 ends with articles on staging yards, improving a published (Atlas) track plan, space-saving use of "wye-less wyes", dummy tracks, and modelling a passenger terminal in 15 x 18 feet.

While the focus of the annual is on US modelling and prototypes, there is enough information and thinking potential here for anyone interested in model railways to find something of use. As usual, this publication is of high quality and recommended.

Time and distance

One of the difficulties model railways have is in dealing with time and distance.

Layouts that want an operational focus will have to come to terms with the fact that the scale distance between towns on the model railroad can in no way approximate the prototype. We already seek to compress towns and yards to fit within our defined model railroad space as best we can. Trying to actually compress real distance between towns is even more difficult due to limitations on model railroad space.

And when the distance between towns is relatively short on our model railroads, the amount of time a train takes between those towns is also relatively short.

For the most part we get by with using fast clocks. Fast clocks seek to reduce "real" time to model time so that we can have some useful timetable operation. It's no good using real time when the time it takes for your train to travel between Town A and Town B is ten seconds! By using a fast clock we can pretend that the train took ten minutes or forty minutes or whatever between towns.

The time factor, even with a fast clock, also faces the problem that it is often the case that as the head of the train arrives at Town B, its tail is just leaving Town A! While the distance between towns will depend on overall layout size, I have operated very large model railroads in the US where this is still a problem.

In essence, if we want to try and replicate time and distance on the model railroad based on the prototype, it is damned hard to do well. This leads to compromise and ingenious proxies (like the fast clock) to help us manage as best we can.

However, I am thinking of an alternative solution. I haven't calculated the exact times to use just yet, so please just stay with me at the conceptual level at this stage!

On my proposed US layout, one option for my layout plan is to have a key junction station as the starting point, a large station and yard in the middle of the layout footprint for interchange, and then continue along the branch to another junction station for the remainder (including modelling a couple of the intermediate towns here).

In this scenario, the first "half" of the layout will be the first station and the middle station with no modelled towns/yards in between. I am therefore skipping 2 intermediate towns from the prototype because I don't have the space and they aren't operationally interesting enough to warrant inclusion on this part of the layout. What this means is that I would have two stations close to each other on the layout but on the prototype they are actually 60 miles (97km) apart. Using a fast clock in this scenario won't really work.

There is a peninsula between the two towns and I want to enclose this curved section in a shadow box. It is not considered part of "the railway". It won't be scenicked and the top of the box will be used by the dispatcher for his paperwork. As such, this curved section on the model railway does not really exist! This section will also need to be long enough (and hidden) to hold a complete train so train length becomes an issue too.

My idea is to hold the train in this "hidden" section while I run a real time/scale time sequence that will represent the time and distance between the two major towns I am modelling on the layout, but representing the 60 real miles apart on the prototype.

The travel of my model train (distance and time) will be represented by four lights, each representing the four towns on this section of the prototype. The first light goes on when the train leaves the first modelled station and yard (the junction - Town A). The train enters the curved shadow box around the peninsula and stops, being now fully enclosed and not visible at either end. A second light now comes on and the first light goes out. The second light indicates that the train has "arrived" at the second (unmodelled) station. After (say) thirty real seconds, the second light goes off and a third light goes on, representing the next unmodelled town. After another thirty seconds, the third light goes out and the fourth light comes on to indicate that the train is now (under power) entering the fourth town which is the mid-town on the layout that is actually modelled. We have now used a proxy for the time and distance between two modelled towns, including the two unmodelled intermediate towns.

I appreciate the fact that we will have the train operator/s waiting for over a real 60 seconds to get his/her train from Town A to Town D. And most of this real time is actually just waiting for some lights to go on and off before moving the train into the next station and yard on the model railroad. I figure that if I had the space and had actually modelled those two small intermediate towns, then the real time factor of the train moving between Town A and Town D would be the same or more. So pretending to run the train through those unmodelled intermediate towns shouldn't be much of a strain.

By holding up the train off-stage between modelled stations (or in the space-time warp I would prefer to call it), I am using a proxy for the time and distance between two towns, some 60 real miles apart on the prototype.

Comments welcome....

Update

It has been a while since my last blog post. In that time, I have been sorting through all the stuff that has congregated in the garage since our house move late last year. Unfortunately, the garage has become the place to put things when they either don't fit in the house, or where we don't know where to actually put things in the house!


To add to the mess, we had some rain last week and the garage sprung a couple of leaks that caused a few problems, but fortunately not damaging anything of importance.

I am experimenting with shelf support systems at the moment. I am trialling some slotted metal shelving brackets along a short length of wall on one side of the garage. On another wall, I am experimenting with a heavy length of timber dyna-bolted to the brickwork from which an arc shaped piece of plywood is nailed to support the layout benchwork. It was the method used for David Low's previous layout, Parkes, and looks a sturdy and relatively cheap method of layout support.


I'd like to get my layout, Winmar, out of the way too. As mentioned in previous posts, the layout is a single baseboard 8' x 16' and weighs a ton! It currently sits sideways and lengthways up against one of the outer walls of the garage. I need to get some mates around to move the layout outside to the driveway and then look at where to make the saw cuts to try and save the station area for a possible exhibition layout. The layout as it currently exists will not really fit and it no longer suits my model railway preference for operations. It has to go, but perhaps some salvage work can be done.


In the meantime, I also have some solid reading to do with recent issues of AMRM, Model Railway Journal, Model Railroader, and Model Railroad Planning 2010 to get through.

Railway operation is for me

Last night I went over to Rob's place for the monthly operating session on his VR/NSWR layout. The layout uses DCC for loco control and a card operating system based on train sequences.

The experience of operating this layout has reinforced to me that I really love model railway layouts that feature a system of "prototype" operation. Now, this layout wasn't run exactly as on the prototype because it represents a railway line between towns in Victoria and the southeast coast of NSW where no real prototype line existed. But that's not the point: the layout is run as an approximation of prototype railroading with an emphasis on establishing a real purpose for the movement of particular trains and the locations on the line. This blend of operation and railway purpose is what is of greatest interest to me. It also helps to have a good bunch of people to be with during the operating session and Rob's "crew" certainly fits that category.

I am now more seriously considering that when the move to the new home takes place in a couple of weeks time, the "old" layout (Winmar) will get dismantled. I need to build a new layout based on my model railway operation-oriented preferences. My thinking at this stage favours a shelf type of layout. The design of the layout will be planned specifically for the actual size and shape of the available space in the garage of the new house. I shouldn't need to compromise the new layout because of a previously designed and built layout from many years ago; one that was constructed within the parameters of a different overall plan and housed in a different location in Sydney.

The development of Winmar did offer some operational potential with the proposed Lake Hume branch and the industrial siding leading off to the traverser (fiddle yard). However, in the new location in Canberra, a single-top baseboard that is 16' x 8' in size does not really fit conveniently within the space available, and nor does it really offer an easy path for any potential Lake Hume Branch extension in the future.

The stage is therefore set for a new layout design that reflects my current thinking and preferences. The layout will be designed specifically for the new physical space of the garage at the house we move to at the end of the month. I think we have a new beginning...

Back in Oz after US trip

I am back from my trip to South Dakota (SD) and Minnesota (MN) in the USA. It was an interesting two weeks travelling across two US states to follow a prototype railroad between Rapid City (SD) and Winona (MN). I drove almost 1500 miles during the course of my trip so there was plenty of experience driving on "the other" side of the road! The weather wasn't the best and I would have liked to have seen more prototype railroad action, but the trip was still worthwhile and enjoyable.

The full story is in my other model railway blog, DME Down Under.

I will get back into the swing of things with new posts to this blog in the next few days.

Buying a house for the layout

I spent much of today looking at houses for sale in Canberra. The reason is that the family is sick of renting and we are keen to find somewhere to live that we can call home now that we have settled back into Canberra life (we lived in Canberra for five years in the late 1990s). Naturally, we have some pretty clear ideas as to the type of house we are looking for and what attributes are important to us. You can guess at what I am particularly interested in.

The first problem is that Canberra house prices are ridiculously high; almost as high as Sydney property prices for equivalent stock. The second problem is the complicated triad of relationships between the type of house, location, and the market price (i.e. the price at which someone will pay - often much higher than what most of the houses I have seen so far are actually worth). And thirdly, at what point does one compromise space for that dream layout if nearly all the other desirable attributes of a home can be ticked off the checklist?

The latter point is a problem that I now face after viewing one of the houses for sale today that had most of what we are after within that complicated triad of relationships. The price is within bounds, the basic house layout and structure are ok, and the location is within an acceptable distance from work. And yes, there is a double garage but there is also a solid brick wall down the middle, possibly the original outer wall of an original single garage. The actual length and width of this double garage are also an issue since I don't think there is enough space. The garage is capable of fitting in a car on each side but without too much extra space for anything else (not that I would actually put a car in there!).

I sometimes read about modellers who "build the house around their model railway empire". I'd like to say that this will be possible, but somehow I rather doubt it. Pity really.

Lake Hume

In a previous blog post about my current layout Winmar, I mentioned a possible branch line extension to Lake Hume.

My fictional railway junction of Winmar is just north of Albury. The equally fictional Lake Hume branch extends east towards a real body of water called Lake Hume. A real railway (the Wodonga-Cudgewa line) to Lake Hume exists on the Victorian side of the border. My Lake Hume branch would be the NSW equivalent of the Cudgewa line and would reflect the historical parochialism of state-based railway systems.

As such, some recent thinking has converged around the idea of using my (yet to be constructed) model railway terminus at Lake Hume as the basis for this small exhibition layout I have been rambling on about. If I did this, then this module would be available for both my home-based layout AND for exhibitions. I could develop the module along the lines of a four metre (a bit more than 12 foot) display with a traverser at one end, similar to layouts popular in the UK at exhibitions. I could perhaps turn the terminus into a L-shape with that power station or mineral sands industry extending onto a new baseboard beyond the station and yard itself.

And, what might be doubly appealing, I could run a session using some of my Victorian locos and wagons as well and pretend I was in Victoria! Don't know what the Victorians might think of that scenario but I am sure most exhibition-goers wouldn't know the prototypical difference. Hmmm.

Notes on a layout - Winmar

I was searching through a bundle of papers in the study over the weekend and found my notebook about my Australian layout, Winmar. It was interesting reading to go back a few years and see how some of the ideas formed about the layout. Here are some tidbits from those notes:

• the layout was named after former St Kilda AFL player, Nicky Winmar
• the layout design was influenced by the prototype track configuration at Culcairn and Blayney, both towns in New South Wales, but on different lines.
• I liked the Main South Line for the types of trains I could run (express passenger and varied freight). I also liked the added operational interest generated by using a fictitious pioneer branch (inspired by a Lloyd Holmes article on Culcairn in one of the Byways of Steam books), and just like the lines to Oaklands, Kywong, Westby, and Holbrook.
  
• the layout baseboard had initially been built by my dad in the late 1970's using a 12 inch grid framed at the perimeter by aluminium lengths for rigidity. The baseboard is 16' x 8' with an operating well in the middle. I put a series of formers on the layout to raise the actual baseboard height above the grid so I could fit point motors and dip the scenery. The baseboard is now extremely heavy but after several moves, remains intact.
  
• the 8' long traverser that acts as a fiddle yard first used drawer rollers. These were not strong enough so I decided to use heavier steel rollers used to hold shelves of computer servers. This has been much better, although I intend to put in another roller in the middle to prevent some slight sagging.
• I had initially used a diamond crossing to get from the inner siding to a factory but was later informed that diamond crossings were very rare on the NSWR. I changed that to an 'S' bend from the inner siding to the factory/flour mill/biscuit factory (still undecided on that one) used 24" radius curved Shinohara track. This has since been replaced by 30" curved Shinohara track, requiring an insert in one corner of the operating well to hold the track and the to-be-constructed industry.
• a mixture of Peco and Seep point motors were used. The Seep motors seem a more simple yet just as effective mode of turnout operation.
  
• single track running is fine for home layouts
• the junction behind the station to the left (but at the front of the viewing area) at Winmar offers potential for future extension and the Lake Hume branch is gradually finding some "prototype history" to explain its existence.
• the Lake Hume branch could be used to bring coal to the power station and agricultural supplies to farmers, and ship out timber, livestock and grain. I made a subsequent note that perhaps a mineral sands industry (like Bemax) might be possible.

There were a few more bits and pieces of information in the notebook. However, much of what was important in the early planning and construction days were formed from the thinking recorded in the notebook and mentioned in point form here. Perhaps if I had started a blog back then, there would have been even more revealed and remembered.

Now, if I could find some of the digital photos that either Bob or I have taken of the layout to actually illustrate these notes I'd be very happy!

A time and a place

Having read the June issue of Model Railroader a couple of times now, I want to comment on one of the thinking pieces in it. The piece is a monthly article written by Andy Sperandeo called "The Operators". In the June issue Andy talks about choosing locomotives for operation and how time and place have a major bearing on those decisions.

The gist of the article was that Andy had selected a specific time period and location for his model railroad - the second half of 1947 in the Cajon Pass area of southern California. That decision reflected his strong personal interest for particular prototype locomotives, especially the 3800 class 2-10-2's, on this section of the Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe. Andy concludes by saying that he has "arrived at a roster (of locomotives) representative of that particular railroad at that particular time and place".

Looking at my own layout, Winmar, I have selected a particular geographic area ("just" north of Albury on the Main South line), although my station name and town are fictional. I have also fictionalised a branch line leaving Winmar and heading east towards the upper reaches of the Murray River - the branch line, of course, being that future extension to the layout once I have a permanent place to house it all.

I am therefore basing much of my operation on Winmar on the real prototype that ran between Sydney and Albury on the Main South line. This allows for 38 class steam locomotives but not 57 class steam locomotives, for example. 57 class locomotives didn't go past Junee on the Main South.

My period of time, however, is much more flexible. I like the early 1960s but I also like the late 1990's as well. And in between, I have a few locos (422 class diesels) and rolling stock (PRX cement wagons, for example) that fit this "middle" period (1970-1990). If I was dedicated and disciplined, I should get rid of these outliers from my collection and concentrate solely on one time period. Having read Andy's article, I understand how such a decision makes decisionmaking on locomotive rosters that much easier (and no doubt, less expensive).

In terms of my collection, however, I just can't make that decision. Sure, in my 1965 period running sessions I will try and keep to the prototype. The 422's and PRY/X cement wagons are banished. Yet, for fun, I will run some of these out-of-period trains for the variety and chance to imagine, albeit imperfectly, that I am back in the late 1970's or early 1980s - but don't get me started on the beginning of the four digit wagon codes!

The outcome is that I have far too many locomotives and too much rolling stock for the time frame and location I am modelling. When I am in my serious operating mode, I can be pretty disciplined as to what I run on the layout and how it all fits together with the prototype.

So maybe Andy is right after all - limiting the locomotive roster to the most favoured time of your favourtite locomotives is the way to go. At least, it's certainly a more inexpensive option and will free up some space in the storage cabinet!

Model railway magazine wrap

Like a true armchair modeller, I read a lot of model railway magazines. I subscribe to some and then I buy the odd one or two from the newsagent when I see something of interest. And now for the first of my model railway magazine wraps...

The June issue of the Australian Model Railway Magazine (AMRM) featured the O scale layout Queen's Wharf by Trevor Hodges. Besides some very nice photos and some excellent modelling, the article was brilliant because Trevor went into detail about much of the thinking that went into developing and constructing his layout. For me, the key quote was : "this hobby is about balancing the dreams and expectations you have for the layout you want with the real world challenges and limitations you're presented with". The other quality article of note was Malcolm Smith's piece on modifying the Redfern Models BD wagon.

I recently resubscribed (after a short delay) to US magazine, Model Railroader. However, I had to buy the latest issue from the newsagent - the June issue. The issue has a couple of good articles on adding lighting to model scenes. There are two layout articles that are a bit thin on text but with good accompanying photos and excellent track plan illustrations. I note from the Model Railroader website that the July 2009 issue is out so maybe check out the website and see what's coming up. I see that Model Railroader is looking to leverage the website more in conjunction with the printed magazine - this is an excellent thing to do.

I also picked up a copy of the UK magazine, Railway Modeller. It was the April 2009 issue and featured the usual half dozen layout articles of varying quality and length. I have noticed, however, that the quality of the layouts on offer in this magazine has improved from a few years ago. The featured layout was Trevellyn Bridge in OO gauge but Ashbourne Midland (EM) and the delightful Two Sisters Farm (1:32 scale) were highlights. I also liked the article on adapting plastic kits, although experienced modellers may find that article a tad simplistic. These days, Railway Modeller seems to maintain a consistent, if sometimes uninspiring, formula for magazine production and content. It's definitely one of those magazines that I buy on an ad hoc basis. The Railway Modeller website features the July issue, so we're a few issues behind down under!

There are three more model railway magazines I need to report on - perhaps in the next blog post.

Why?

A couple of friends rang me after my previous blog post and asked me why I thought Muskrat Rumble and Bowen Creek were such great layouts.

Since I can't upload the photos I took from the exhibition yet (internet at home still not working), I will have to explain.

I liked the way both layouts were professionally presented. Both were well lit and both were constructed to showcase quality modelling. The scenery on both layouts was superb, yet completely different from each other. Bowen Creek was sparse and lightly vegetated while Muskrat Rumble was full of trees in a swampland, super-detailed buildings, and rich cameo scenes. The scenery was integral to the presentation of the layouts AND emphasised the time period and the location the layouts represented. The scenery contributed to the feeling of authenticity.

Now, since I am more familiar with the Central West of NSW than Louisiana in the USA, you will note I said that the scenery felt authentic. This is very important for exhibition layouts because most of the audience will not have much personal experience of the actual locations, fictionalised within a real environment, or not. Therefore, authenticity is important to the maker of the layouts (personal fulfilment and representing a prototype) AND to the audience (having a sense of believability and credibility).

Geoff Nott (Muskrat Rumble) doesn't hide the fact that he loves to build scenery and dioramas. His group effort with logging layouts like Red Stag is testament to that. For Geoff, the moving train is subsidiary to the rest of the scenic elements within his dioramas (layout). On Bowen Creek, the sparse countryside, single line running, and simple track arrangment meant that train movements were limited to running through the layout, and maybe passing another train (or rail motor) at the station. There were no lineside industries as such and shunting would have been limited to the goods shed.

I mention this because operation is so important to me and the two layouts from the Epping Exhibition I have lauded were not run "for operation" at that venue.

Firstly, I appreciate that the focus of exhibitions is not necessarily to provide prototypical operations and that constant train movement and variety of trains are usually preferred. Secondly, I can appreciate many elements of a model railway even if the operational side of things is not as challenging as I might personally like. Indeed, Ian Millard told me that the intention with Bowen Creek is to run the layout with prototypical operation. Thirdly, I can certainly appreciate certain qualities and skills used in many model railway layouts that do not have to conform to my own personal preferences - that's certainly something an armchair modeller can really understand!

In other words, I can always find something of personal interest at exhibitions that I can simply admire. And I can look for some aspect of a displayed layout to enhance my own thinking and my own home layout. That's why I go to exhibitions and read model railway magazines - to enjoy AND to learn.

In the beginning

In the beginning something starts. And so it is with this blog about my thoughts, discussions, observations, and actual application of thinking to model railways. Unlike some other blogs about model railways, this blog is more than just a diary of a model railway layout.

Yet I do have a model railway layout. The layout is based on the New South Wales Government Railways (NSWGR) and subsequent permutations of that railway system. The layout is based on a fictitious town called Winmar located just north of Albury in New South Wales on the single track Main South line. The layout is operational (i.e. the electrics work and I can run a train) but there is no scenery, and no buildings have yet been erected. The layout is 16' x 8' (or roughly 5m x 2.5m) on a single baseboard with an operating well in the middle. The main technical feature of the layout is a moving traverser for a fiddle yard, capable of holding 12 individual trains 6' (2 metres) in length. The actual railway era varies, from 1965 to 2000, ensuring considerable flexibility towards locomotives and rolling stock in keeping with my broad range of interest.

So much for the explanation about the railway layout at this stage.

Now, the intention of this blog is to let loose the ramblings of an experienced (over twenty-five years) armchair modeller with plenty more to do to get where I want to be.

And so, as I say, I am at the start...of this blog...with more to discuss and think about in the future.