I just play toy trains so am beneath your consideration

I can think of several layouts that are capable of being run like this:
Bevois Park & St. Denys
Acton Main Line (now Dragonby)
Law Juction
Chee Tor

I'm not sure any, when shown at an exhibition, would be the better for it. As a concept for a group of friends running a railway it has potential, although I suspect it'd rapidly move away from the points set out above. Would someone acting as signaller be happy to be stuck in a corner not able to see the trains passing? Would a train driver avoid the temptation to throw their own points because they're bored of waiting for the solo signaller to get back from the loo?


@jamespetts where does your paradigm stand when models aren't available? A layout based on Oxford needs a class 165 for example. What if you need a different diagram of PGA wagon to those produced?


Steven B.

I'm sticking with the Buckingham Branch 

Quote from: Bealman on October 03, 2022, 09:12:24 AM
I'm sticking with the Buckingham Branch 

Certainly, it looks a good fit with the 'Real Operations Pardigm'.  I should like to add Heckmondwyke, Retford and Burntisland 1883 as layouts which might be appropriate.

All of these are in 4mm scale.  Perhaps, James, it might be worth making also contact with some of the 4mm 'finescale' modelling community who will also share your interest.  As was remarked earlier in the thread, each to her/his own (a sentiment with which I fully concur) and I wish you every success with your approach.

All best wishes

John

I attended a show which had a large layout on show, complete with signallers and timetables...
trains running were very intermittent, as you waited for a cacophony of bells from each end as they passed each train to each other..
It was,
A, not very interesting to those watching,
B, XXXXy noisy,
C, totally irritating to anyone else in the hall.

Quote from: Bealman on October 03, 2022, 01:15:53 AM
Interesting. I have only one layout that I can think of that I consider the holy grail of this sort of thing - the layout I first encountered as a teenager.

That's the late Peter Denny's Buckingham Branch Lines, which has had a huge influence on my approach to this hobby.

I have heard of that - it sounds to have been a very interesting layout.

Quote from: JanW on October 03, 2022, 07:25:59 AM
Hi James,

I model a country branch line, a very simple 'one engine in steam' light railway (GWR Blagdon Station approx 1925)
My intention is very much to run it in a realistic way according to the real timetable.
The focus is quite different than yours I think. What I want to achieve is that running it puts you in the place of the loco crew. The loco has to stop in front of a turnout, someone walks to the point lever and throws the points, climbs back on the footplate heading for the next action.
It is DCC controlled but last week I removed the accessory decoder and replaced it by switches on the layout fascia to represent the ground frame and point levers. I even included a facing point 'lever' (switch). I have to walk with the train to operate it. The whole 2,5m 
I will not separate moves by dimming the light or something like that but simply pause for a while. Not too long because I am operating it and that's what I enjoy doing.
On my second (very small) layout I will announce trains with bell codes sounding from the signal box. On Blagdon there is no signal box so it is not possible there.

Interesting - a slightly different approach/emphasis, but I can imagine quite enjoyable.

QuoteMaybe your set of 'rules' is a bit too restrictive and as you said only valid for large automated layouts. I also think it only works for very busy suburban stations. We live near a mainline junction station but running trains according to the real timetable would be quite boring I think.
Would it be possible for someone not knowing the prototype location and timetable to judge if this is prototypical operation or just running trains in a realistic way?

But I still like your efforts and very much agree that running a layout like the real thing can be very rewarding.

Jan

The paradigm describes a particular set of preferences, and I do indeed tend to favour large automated layouts and busy suburban stations (or stations on principal main lines).

I should note that there may be all manner of very similar but slightly different paradigms, such as the one that you describe for your layout. I suspect that layouts operated to a paradigm that substantially overlaps with the Real Operations Paradigm, even if it does not fit that paradigm fully, are likely to be significantly more interesting to me than layouts that are very far away from it, but less interesting to me than layouts that fulfil the Paradigm fully.

Quote from: PLD on October 03, 2022, 07:54:32 AM
If you are demanding that level of authenticity, how can you accept the compromise of a steam loco being propelled by an electric motor? Surely for true authentic operation, you will want to replicate the 3 hours prep to set the fire and build up steam before it can move    
For true authenticity DCC is most certainly is out of the question other than for the most recent models - there are no microchips in the authentic pre-1980s loco... 

This rather misses the point. Different people have different focuses, and so are more interested in authenticity in some aspects than others. My focus is on operations/signalling rather than the mechanical engineering of rail vehicles. If my focus were on replicating the mechanical engineering of rail vehicles, I should probably be into model engineering rather than N gauge model railways.

And also, as I took great pains to point out in the original post, I am not "demanding" anything. I am just setting out the paradigm to which I try to build my layouts, and layouts fulfilling which most appeal to me, in the hope of finding some like-minded people. I do not criticise those who have different tastes and prefer to build layouts to different paradigms any more than I criticise people who like to eat Marmite.

Quote from: njee20 on October 03, 2022, 08:21:41 AM
I was ruminating on this last night, I can't help but think it's just far too restrictive to be feasible. Is there a reason you've not posted it on RMWeb, as I suspect that's a more likely source of people who may be interested.

I can't quite reconcile the idea that a total work of fiction complies, but a real location must not have any material compression or it does not. To me the idea of an entirely fictitious busy mainline station is always going to rank below a real location shrunk by 30% in the realism stakes. Particularly as your own layout is basically Oxford, but not, so that you can run different trains. It feels a bit like you're trying to make 'rules' that describe your own layout, and exclude all others on the grounds of trivialities.

I am not sure that I really understand this. I have nothing against compressed or otherwise altered locations based on real life. I am planning one myself. I just prefer to change the name if there are any non-trivial changes to make clear that it is not quite a model of the particular location. My own layout will be "Finchley Town" rather than "Finchley Central". Another well known layout is "King's Park" rather than "Queen's Park" for the same reason. (Incidentally, that is a layout that looks as though it potentially could be run to this paradigm, even though it is not in fact so run at exhibitions). On the other hand, my planned model of Morden can be done without any material compression or alteration, so it can keep its original name.

Quote from: Steven B on October 03, 2022, 09:06:29 AM
I can think of several layouts that are capable of being run like this:
Bevois Park & St. Denys
Acton Main Line (now Dragonby)
Law Juction
Chee Tor

I'm not sure any, when shown at an exhibition, would be the better for it. As a concept for a group of friends running a railway it has potential, although I suspect it'd rapidly move away from the points set out above. Would someone acting as signaller be happy to be stuck in a corner not able to see the trains passing? Would a train driver avoid the temptation to throw their own points because they're bored of waiting for the solo signaller to get back from the loo?

As set out in the original post, the Real Operations Paradigm is a sufficiently uncommon set of preferences that it is unlikely in most cases (intensive urban locations or very major stations aside, perhaps) to produce sufficiently intensive operations to be of interest to members of the general public at ordinary exhibitions. This is why finding an assortment of like-minded individuals who wish to collaborate in running a few layouts is more likely to be productive (and, as you point out, there are layouts that could be run either as conventional exhibition layouts or according to the Real Operations Paradigm, so could potentially be taken to conventional exhibitions or ROP meetings if the latter ever came to exist).

I suspect that the kinds of people who would quickly get bored operating according to the ROP are unlikely to be the sort of people who would want to participate in an ROP meeting in the first instance.

Quote
@jamespetts where does your paradigm stand when models aren't available? A layout based on Oxford needs a class 165 for example. What if you need a different diagram of PGA wagon to those produced?

An Oxford based layout only needs class 165s if set in or after 1992; my own layout based on a fictional portmanteau of Didcot and Oxford is set in 1989.

Generally, the approach consistent with the Paradigm is only to model locations that can be modelled accurately with available rolling stock. Some people have the skill to build the rolling stock themselves or from kits, of course. I am having a go at 2-EPB kits from B&H Enterprises for my Broadgate layout.

Quote from: Train Waiting on October 03, 2022, 09:24:30 AM

Quote from: Bealman on October 03, 2022, 09:12:24 AM
I'm sticking with the Buckingham Branch 

Certainly, it looks a good fit with the 'Real Operations Pardigm'.  I should like to add Heckmondwyke, Retford and Burntisland 1883 as layouts which might be appropriate.

All of these are in 4mm scale.  Perhaps, James, it might be worth making also contact with some of the 4mm 'finescale' modelling community who will also share your interest.  As was remarked earlier in the thread, each to her/his own (a sentiment with which I fully concur) and I wish you every success with your approach.

I shall have to look into those layouts. I have seen some interesting videos from the Scale Four Society about how they operate some of their layouts, which is quite impressive. I am less focussed on the accuracy of the track spacing than the finescale modellers, however, and do not think that the tradeoff of the time/skill required to improve track accuracy is worthwhile for such improved appearance as there is, especially in N gauge where the difference is much more subtle.

Quote from: The Q on October 03, 2022, 10:12:14 AM
I attended a show which had a large layout on show, complete with signallers and timetables...
trains running were very intermittent, as you waited for a cacophony of bells from each end as they passed each train to each other..
It was,
A, not very interesting to those watching,
B, XXXXy noisy,
C, totally irritating to anyone else in the hall.

I can imagine that the block bells may get tedious after a while. I suspect that the layout may have been much more interesting to at least a subset of those watching if they could see for themselves (1) the timetable; (2) the current time; and (3) the current states of the signal levers, block instruments, etc.. The layout that you described strikes me as one designed to appeal to operators more than observers.

Although mine is a roundy roundy I like to operate it in a reasonable manner. I run to a sequence rather than a timetable which I find quite sufficient; I reckon I would need a 100 road storage sidings to hold all the trains required for a day's operations. I do have some sympathy with what the OP is doing but it is rather on the extreme end of things. I think my approach is towards that end of the spectrum but nowhere so far along it. Even when I am on my own the signals have to be set for every train movement. As I have two full control panels, one at the front and one at the back it would be very easy to run the layout with one signalman and two drivers. I must say that nobody has suggested doing that. I did once try running with what I think is full bell codes. It was interesting but hard work. It's strange how the bell codes that I used to love to hear (and still do on heritage lines) start to become irritating quite quickly when they are dinging away almost continuously on the layout . Each of us is different which is a good thing and we all want something different from our interest in model railways.

I made a short video of running with bell codes. With a through station a huge amount of communication is required. Whilst I find operating the signals is an essential part of enjoying running trains I found adding bell codes to the operations diminished rather than enhanced the pleasure of running trains.

Quote from: Chris Morris on October 03, 2022, 02:00:06 PM
Although mine is a roundy roundy I like to operate it in a reasonable manner. I run to a sequence rather than a timetable which I find quite sufficient; I reckon I would need a 100 road storage sidings to hold all the trains required for a day's operations. I do have some sympathy with what the OP is doing but it is rather on the extreme end of things. I think my approach is towards that end of the spectrum but nowhere so far along it. Even when I am on my own the signals have to be set for every train movement. As I have two full control panels, one at the front and one at the back it would be very easy to run the layout with one signalman and two drivers. I must say that nobody has suggested doing that. I did once try running with what I think is full bell codes. It was interesting but hard work. It's strange how the bell codes that I used to love to hear (and still do on heritage lines) start to become irritating quite quickly when they are dinging away almost continuously on the layout . Each of us is different which is a good thing and we all want something different from our interest in model railways.

I made a short video of running with bell codes. With a through station a huge amount of communication is required. Whilst I find operating the signals is an essential part of enjoying running trains I found adding bell codes to the operations diminished rather than enhanced the pleasure of running trains.

I think that I have seen that video before. I do find this layout interesting and am looking forward to seeing it at GETS this year. Operating signals and working signalling add so much joy to a layout.

I wonder whether this bell fatigue described by several on this thread is related to unrealistically intense operations on many model railways? In reality, I suspect that there would be far less bell ringing in any given period of time.