The Drop

Vern

Trainz Maverick
No, not the hangman's "drop" but can someone remind me what the true scale height should be from the floor to the baseboard level with the latter being around 4 feet (1.3m) off the ground, please?
 
HO gauge 1.3x87=113m
O gauge 1.3x43=57m
N gauge 1.3x150=198m

I just used the model railway scales although N scale does seem to be a bit variable. No doubt somebody more knowledgeable will correct me. Personally for HO scale I use a lower baseboard level and set the floor to -70m.
 
For UK 1:76 scale, I use a 70m drop, based on my slightly approximate scale of 2m Trainz = 1 inch on the simulated model layout. This is the scale I use when creating overscale artefact for suggesting that the Trainz models are to scale. To increase assets I have made, I simply scale up by 7600%.

Ray
 
Well in real model railroad distances, I used 28 inches or 71 cm for my floor to baseboard distance. It worked well since I could then reach across the layout without risking crunching something in the back. We don't have that issue of course in Trainz, but using a realistic height off the floor makes sense.
 
Vern --

Interesting.

I drop the floor at -55. Mainly because it looked about right to me. But now I know that they are O-gauge layouts.

Phil
 
Once I've done a bit more placement, I'll try and get some screen shots up.

Must admit I'm quite enjoying my excursion back into the MR scene. It's only a fairly simple tail chaser layout - the idea came about after seeing pictures of the Binns Road and Duke Street Hornby Dublo layouts, old style 1960's where most of the baseboard is given over to trackwork with minimalist scenery. The actual plan is based on L35 from the old Peco Large Layouts book, but adapted a little bit. There's also a bit more in the way of scenery.

It should be quite easy to recreate some of those classic Hornby/Triang/Wrenn consists with what we have in Trainz, hence my query elsewhere about the Caledonian Single (which I'll probably sub with one of the better more recent Caley steam models).

Makes a change from starting one prototype route after another and not getting much further than a few miles of track. Working in the confines of a model railway focuses the mind and leaves less room for distraction. I also find myself already placing little "scenes" as I start putting down scenery - all the details you miss doing a 50 mile real route, such as the cat and dog conference in one of the back gardens, Mrs Jones hanging out her washing etc. I love it!
 
Vern, you've summarised exactly why I was attracted to virtual model railways and experimented with 0 gauge, 2mm fine scale and 1:22 garden layouts. They were sidelines though - my main efforts are in 00/1:76. I'm glad you found my suggestion of a 70m drop useful - my supporting cupboards are based on that floor level.
Do you use TMR? I haven't ventured into that yet and I'm wondering whether it is like earlier verions of Trainz, where built-in layouts could be inspected in Surveyor to see what and how other creators had used assets, or like T:ANE where this is not possible as bought and the only option is to drive sessions - which does not appeal to me.
At present, I have two virtual model railways being detailed, one in TS12 and the other in T:ANE - based on an actual layout (same plan for each).
John - yes, it's all a case of what works best for each modeller. I used to go for around 36 inches for my portable layouts which I took to exhibitions, although the fashion later seemed to be nearer eye level. I found operating at 36 inches while seated was comfortable - so did my wife who used to take over at meal breaks and when I (frequently) wandered off to look at other layouts or just to chat!

Ray
 
Ray - I'm building this one in TRS2019, never got round to buying TMR. I may do the next one in TANE so that it can reach a wider audience. Just had a back issue of Railway Modeller Feb 1976 arrive in the post which had "Swissberg" as Railway Of The Month. Another tail chaser but with a continental theme, so that might be next. I also need to track down the issues with J G Glover and Chris Leigh etc. plans from the mid 70's onwards which had some quite clever prototype adaptations as the featured plan.
 
Thanks, Vern. Old RMs, especially during the Cyril Freezer era, are a super source of inspiration. I wish I had catalogued mine at the time! At the moment I'm trying to get them into year order as I've had the habit of removing ones which I wanted to use (plans, drawings etc.) but not getting round to putting them back.

Ray
 
Ray,

If you have T:ANE, I wouldn't get TMR2017. TMR2017 is an older version that came out just ahead of SP2 so it has some SP2 features, but not all the other fixes that came out afterwards. In a sense it's like the special "lite" releases of the Trainz Classics series in many ways with it's specific routes and smaller content set. What's interesting is you still have access to the DLS and can still download non-MR routes, but run into issues with missing built-in content, and if you have T:ANE Deluxe, the TMR2017 routes will download and become part of the built-ins. Once that happened, I uninstalled TMR2017 because I had all those routes in T:ANE, besides, why have two versions of the same thing with one being limited and I needed disk space for other stuff.

Anyway sorry for derailing the thread a bit too far.

Back to topic...

I too love the older-style model railroads as well. They're actually a bit of a challenge due to their compact track layout. I have a bunch of layout books that I've been eyeing again. There's some great plans in there that are really nice and it would be nice to see them built. Linn Wescott and the other great authors would be amazed with what we can do on the computers with their plans.

What I've noticed is things don't quite work as they show on their plans either due to the publisher scaling stuff to fit the pages, or perhaps to fudging on paper. I ran into that on one particular route I started a year or so ago, but need to go back to it again. I ended up scaling up a bit more than I wanted because using the scaling given in the plans made isle ways too narrow for a person to walk between. I did, however, convert the heights to the scale given, and that works perfectly for tunnels and bridges.
 
John, thank you for your sound advice - as always.

As I understand it, layout plans published in magazines are always drawn initially at a much larger scale, then reduced to fit. Copying them exactly into Trainz is unsuccessful because the result looks wrong, as curves and turnout angles look unrealistic and much too sharp, although on a "real" model railway/railroad the eye overlooks and accepts this. When using a published plan - and I have used several - I either use it as an inspiration and make it entirely from scratch, or make it at least twice the size. The problem then is that parallel tracks are too widely spaced, so a great deal of adjustment is needed. On my latest project, which is at present a simple quayside diorama (capable of extension) the main tracks run from end-to-end so I scaled up in that direction only to make a template, after first ensuring that on the necessary artwork the parallel tracks (only two) were correctly spaced. This worked well and needed minimal adjustment. The other problem in Trainz can be the distance from a turnout that rolling stock has to be for them to operate, so headshunts, for example, also need to be increased in length. The template I made is a simple scenery object which can be adjusted to just above the baseboard or lowered to just below, and on its own layer so that it can be hidden at will.

Sorry to carry on like this with stuff that you no doubt know so well but I thought it worth including in case others are interested.

Ray
 
You are quite right Ray. One of the plans I have unsuccessfully tried to scale into Trainz is the infamous "Aberbinear Bayfore" rabbit warren from Oct 75 Railway Modeller. Even with a bit of expansion just couldn't be done and this was a layout that existed in reality, not just on paper. One of the bigger challenges with "TMR" is where tunnels in particular several are required as these take up far more space than on a real model or the plan it is derived from.

As regards my current project, TRS2019 causing a few frustrations particularly with regard to setting up sessions. I was scratching my head yesterday trying to get a simple oval lapping circuit working, then on closer inspection found the still outstanding spline deletion bug had removed the track from one side of an AJS island platform. No wonder the train couldn't find it's way! That sorted I rejigged the circuit with a few more track marks to help but the train still went off and did it's own thing, instead of staying on the Up Main as instructed, crossed to the Slow lines at the back of the layout then tried indulging all sorts of weird reversing moves.

Moral of story: build the next one in TANE ad be wary of continuous runs!
 
I remember that plan well, Vern - quite a challenge anyway as a "real" model railway! "Bad Schmelling" (horrible pun) in CJF's PSL Book of Model Railway Track Plans is similar, as is on the following page "Kleine Freidegg", although perhaps this would be appropriate for the season! They have never appealed to me, although other plans in the book have inspired me for many years - I see I've now had it for 31 years. My first Trainz route, Dukes Denver, was his Holman Valley straightened out.

I haven't got TRS2019 yet, but staying with T:ANE is good advice, at least for the time being, and I still use TS12 and am still trying to transfer stuff from TS10. If I could still run TRS2004, with several old routes, I would do so from time to time, but all attempts to use it in W10 have failed.

Ray
 
Yes, Graham, I've seen your views of Warrenburg and it looks good. Reminiscent of Bad Schmelling which I mentioned earlier, but a much better name. UK 2ft gauge would be good.

Ray
 
Last edited:
I'm downloading your route now Graham - screen shots in the referenced thread are inspirational!
 
Quick question guys, looking at how some of the more recent routes are put together, I take it using digholes to remove the sides/floor to create a hollow appearance under the table are out of favour and fascia style panels enclosing the "drop" are in?
 
Back
Top