Z Scale Modules - Accidental Modelling

"Often one plans and builds something
that later shows itself to be less interesting or of less value than originally anticipated.
Occasionally the reverse is true: the product proves better than hoped for."
(John Allen, Model Railroader, November 1972)

My Z Scale layout is entirely the result of "trial and error" and a long journey of "back and forth".

Much of what has materialized in the end happened to do so because my initial idea didn't work at all or simply because I changed my mind.

At times it was like seeing only a hazy shade of a distant train in the fog, other times it felt like pushing on a fast freight through a snowstorm wipe-out.

But it all came together in the end - the result of "accidental modelling".

THE LURE OF THE CONTINUOUS RUN

Something that separated real trains from model trains since the latter's inception was the direction their travels would take them in. In the real world, trains would travel from A to B, whereas model trains generally just ran around in circles.

No matter the scale, the brand or the style, "starter sets" have come with either a circle or an oval of track for decades.

As boys playing with toys evolved into serious modellers, the starter set's oval of track was recognised as being very far removed from actual train operations, subsequently frowned upon, and finally given the derogatory labels "toy set" or "tail chaser".

In an attempt to elevate it far above and away from the toy train set, the term "continuous running" was coined, and serious modellers built some serious layouts which strived to camouflage as best as possible the fact that trains ran in circles. The companies making model train starter sets also tried to improve the perception of the basic oval, by adding double and triple track running as well as more and more complex yards and sidings - all provided for, step by step, through "expansion packs" of track to this day.

Individual railway modellers came up with more prototypical linear layouts very early on in the hobby's history (such as A. R. Walkley in the mid-1920s or Cyril J. Freezer in the 1950s), but the happy memory of watching trains pass by (albeit in a repetitive circle) persisted in many railway modellers.

The lure of continuous running is at least partly rooted in its resemblance to what a person standing trackside in the real world sees: a train approaches from one side, runs by, and then disappears to the other side of the onlooker's position. Even though it happens over and over again on an oval of track, the passing train essentially recreates this scene. It also allows for a very relaxed experience - with the controller set to a fixed speed, the assembled model train will simply loop around the track without any further handling needed.

However, one of the major problems with continuous run layouts is the space required to accomodate them.

They are space hungry because they have to accomodate semi-circles of track; in the most popular modelling scale of HO/OO, even using the fairly tight so-called 2nd radius curves requires a minimum board width of at least 100cm (40 inches) - although this will give very little room outside the track for e.g. scenery, so actually a baseboard width of 120cm (48 inches) is called for.

Having (too) many hobbies that all require space has put me in a position of lacking an exclusively designated, permanent "model railway space" for most of the time. And whilst this introduced me to "shelf layouts" and "shunting puzzles", the lure and pull of the continuous run layout with its trainspotting perspective always remained, and strongly so.

Z SCALE: DESKTOP RAILROADING

Lack of space has always been one of the main reasons for the development of smaller model railway scales (such as the introduction of TT (1:120/1:130) in 1945, and N (1:148/1:160) in 1962), but at a scale ratio of 1:220, Z Scale offers the possibility of running trains in a confined amount of space which simply would not be possible in other modelling scales.

In promoting Z Scale, Märklin thus always emphasized the smallness of the models; besides choosing the last letter of the alphabet to designate the scale, they also used the moniker "mini-club".Initial advertisements also made certain to point out the advantages in comparison to the traditional space (and skill) requirements of larger modelling scales.

"Nothing like it has ever existed before. Never before has reality been presented in such fascinatingly small size and exciting detail (...) Mini-club will conjure up a wonder world on your table, all in full view, which you can reach from your armchair. No basement is required, no suite of rooms and you do not have to be a do-it-yourself fan either. The mini-club is a true leisure time hit and makes an exciting hobby into a portable leisure time game."

Micro-Trains, on the other hand, sold their US Z Scale train sets back in the 1980s and 1990s as "desktop railroading". Either way, modellers had to be introduced to Z Scale, and starter sets for continuous running on a circle of track were the traditional and proven ticket.

Micro-Trains, 1992

Märklin's starter set with the diminutive BR89 0-6-0 steam locomotive has been on offer (with occasional technical upgrades) since 1972

Märklin, 1986

The initial starter sets from Märklin and Micro-Trains (containing Märklin track) came with track ovals measuring only 51x44 cm (21x17 inches), and those small round-and-round layouts became something of a calling card for Z Scale, with some of them even finding sufficient space within the confines of a briefcase.

As the years progressed, some of Märklin's starter sets grew to to include more track and turnouts (and in some cases even two trains), but for obvious reasons they always stuck with the formula of the continuous run oval of track.

I initially saw Z Scale as nothing more than a gimmick; putting together a briefcase layout seemed like the obvious (and only) thing to do in order to see the models run.

However, once I actually got to run a few Märklin and Micro-Trains models, I started to view Z Scale as a potentially serious modelling scale. I was sold on desktop railroading, but there had to be more to it than just a simple circle of track.

LOOP TO LAYOUT - FALSE START & DERAILMENTS

The logical progression from the basic (starter pack) loop of track is to build something a bit more complex and interesting. Several "shake the box" ready-to-run options are available, ranging from Märklin's track extension packs to pre-formed scenicked layout bases (some even contained in the (in)famous briefcase).

Neither of these appealed to me since I wanted a North American layout (Märklin's track plan suggestions display essentially European settings), so I started sketching a few layout plans - until I came across the Pennsylvania & Pacific, a Z Scale layout that featured prominently in the April 1985 issue of Model Railroader. The layout packed a lot of model railroading and inspirational allure into a mere 2'x3' (60x90cm) - and everything about it felt exactly like what I was looking for in going from a loop to a layout..

So I set about building a straightforward clone with regards to the track plan (a figure eigth folded back onto itself). However, I left out most of the hidden track and the scenic divider running down the middle of the layout - which proved to be a huge mistake. Whilst the layout was fun to build, simplifying the scenic contours seriously diminished the visuals and resulted in a somewhat disappointingly uninteresting layout.

It was an almost classic false start, and it completely derailed my Z Scale plans.

At the time I wasn't entirely certain why, but as a result my interest waned and shifted to linear shelf-size layouts in N and eventually HO/OO scale. They were fun to build and operate - but they didn't offer the delights of continuous running.

I dipped back in and out of Z Scale once every few years, but none of the approaches (modular or small single baseboard layouts) were able to rerail things.

It seemed like Z Scale just wasn't right for me - until I came across David K. Smith's James River Branch layout and website by chance in late 2011. I was completely mesmerized not only by his superb modelling efforts but also by the approach (you might even say philosophy) to modelling in Z Scale that he formulated (which also happened to include the assertion that false starts are, quite simply, part of the modelling process).

His layout was small and a simple single track affair, measuring a mere 15"x36" (38x92 cm), but it was massively inspirational. It also sent me on a decade-long back-and-forth journey from one layout project to the next; it never seemed quite right, and in a rather peculiar way the many options offered by Z Scale made it more difficult to determine why exactly my efforts ultimately still kept derailing.

TICKING THE BOXES

It took me an embarrassingly long time to realise why - possibly because the problem was twofold.

The first potential tripping point is linked to the fact that whilst Z Scale is small, this doesn't mean that everything undertaken in this modelling scale will automatically be small too. I had far too often ignored the reality that my limited amount of model railway space not only meant that a layout (or parts thereof) would need to be portable, easy to handle, and easy to set up - but that it would also have to be easy to store. The problem with my layout projects wasn't so much the space it took to set it all up temporarily, but rather the space that was required to store it properly when not in use. I needed to take the approach originally advocated by Märklin and Micro-Trains seriously - think small, build small, and enjoy desktop railroading.

The second tripwire I kept stumbling across was that Z Scale somehow generated an enthusiasm that had me cutting corners and rushing into far too many layout projects. It happens with other scales too, and it happens a lot, to a good many modellers. It can be fun, too, but it inevitably leads to far too many abandoned layout builds and far too few hours spent actually running trains. Going back and forth between single baseboards and modular layouts that ultimately didn't work made me realize that I needed to stay in the modeller's armchair way longer, think things over more than twice, and have a clear list of requirements. Only if and when I had actual boxes to tick should I start building a layout.

The first set of these boxes/requirements concerned the size and build of the layout, addressing the storage problem.

The layout obviously needed to be portable, and a few dry run mockup trials determined the maximum comfortable size for portability to be 90x60cm along with a maximum overall height of around 15cm. Successful portability also requires both a lightweight and sturdy approach to building the layout frame; based on previous positive experience this was built using XPS boards (extruded polystyrene, Styrofoam) framed with 10mm plywood fascia boards.

The second set of boxes to be ticked would ensure that the layout will provide sustained interest and fun. Continuous running was of course a given, and double track definitely a requirement (nothing like watching trains meet). Decidedly wanting an urban setting, this would make the multiple tracks not look too unrealistic in the fairly small space available and also allow for "scenic breaks", which would both provide opportunities for small cameos and provide interesting changes in scenery, avoiding bland all-over visuals. Rokuhan track would ensure trouble-free running, and the chosen dimensions actually make it possible to stay away from minimum curves.

And finally, one important aspect that I had come to realize had been missing in previous layout attempts: ensuring that what would essentially be a standalone layout would also have a connectivity option for potential (future) expansion.

Ticking the boxes is like connecting the dots - and the picture that emerged was a 90x60cm minimum space layout with a hybrid functionality.

THE FL9 APPROACH

Going for a minimum space layout with hybrid functionality was in some ways not unlike the approach the New Haven Railroad and EMD took in designing the FL9.

Railroads running in or into New York City were forced by anti-pollution legislation to cease operating steam and diesel motive power on underground tracks. This included the tunnels leading into Grand Central Terminal and Penn Station, making electric or dual diesel/electric traction a necessity on those lines. The New Haven had been a pioneer of main line electrification, but most of its trackage beyond New Haven was not electrified. In order to avoid a change of motive power, the railroad turned to EMD to design a locomotive that could switch between diesel and electric power on the fly - and the result was the hybrid FL9. Running on both diesel as well as on 660V electric current from a third rail, it also featured a set of hybrid wheelsets, with two front and three back axles.

The FL9 approach to the layout meant that although the primary function was a self-cotained continuous run set-up, it would be designed to provide connectivity for potential (future) add-ons on the fly.

The track plan that resulted from a few weeks' worth of doodling and playing around in AnyRail track planning software can hardly be labelled exciting in its own right. However, it painted a picture that did indeed connect the dots set up by ticking the requirement boxes.

Even in Z Scale, 90x60 cm is not a lot of room to work with, but this was a case of making the limitations work in favour of what the layout was supposed to provide: having fun running and watching model trains.

In terms of running trains, the layout is simplicity itself. A self-contained inner oval of track with a 195mm radius (T1), an inner oval of track with 220mm radius (T2), and an outer semi-circle with 245mm radius (T3) are all there is to it (apart from a siding off the innermost track, existing mostly for scenic purposes only). Continuous running is possible on both T1 and T2, but the latter has two turnouts that also allow the track to continue straight on, in parallel with T3.

It is this feature that provides the hybrid function of a) stand-alone double-track continuous run layout and b) connectivity as a 180° curved "module". And just like the FL9, the switch from one mode to the other happens "on the fly" - by simply throwing two turnouts. Whilst not going for a modular layout per se, this provides the option to expand the layout at a future point in time in case this should become an option compatible with storage space availability.

It's what previous continuous run layout projects had been lacking: there is a potential to grow at a later point in time, but no necessity.

ALL THE LAYOUT'S A STAGE

Whilst William Shakespeare (1564-1616) noted that "all the world's a stage" in his 1599 play As You Like It, Frank Ellison (1887-1964) stipulated in his 1954 book Frank Ellison on Model Railroading that "a layout is a stage on which the buildings and scenery are the setting, the trains are the actors, and the operating schedule is the plot."

Ellison was an early figurehead of US model railroading and a prolific writer of articles in the American modelling press from the 1930s to the 1950s. He had spent several years in the theatrical business, and this experience greatly influenced his ideas on model railway design, calling it "theatrical layout design". The comparisons and references make sense, not the least because a theatrical production and a model railway layout both attempt to "carry out the illusion of reality", as Ellison put it. Indeed some of the best layout design tricks are borrowed from the theatre (such as view blocks and low relief props) and even reflect theatrical terminology ("staging tracks"); Ellison called them "stage tricks for small layouts".

Reflecting on past layout attempts that failed to meet initial expectations, looking at approaches to theatrical stage design turned out to be especially helpful for putting together a concept for a Z Scale layout as small as 90x60 cm - also because as with an actual stage in a theatre, the space available to create interest is limited and requires conceptual forethought.

In order to achieve this, stage designers come up with A) a basic floor plan (showing all stationary scenic elements), B) a composite floor plan (indicating any moving scenic elements and their onstage/offstage positions), C) a complete floor plan (A and B combined), and D) an elevations plan (locating every elevated scenic element).

Translating this approach to model railroading provides a way of looking at a layout in terms of scenic segments as well as from different perspectives.

There are no moving scenic segments on this small layout - other than the trains themselves - but even a space of merely 90x60 cm provides no less than ten potential scenic segments using different props, a number of view blocks, and elevation.

Of course this doesn't mean that all ten of those scenic segments have to actually be incorporated into the final layout (after all, that's what accidental modelling is all about), but working out the "stage setting potential" as part of the layout concept helps enormously to create a set of visuals that supports the general theme and atmosphere (another important aspect of stage design, and theatrical layout design).

In the end, it makes the layout feel much larger than it is and injects a lot more interest than would normally be the case with a small layout that can essentially be taken in from one single viewpoint.

Ultimately, many points of the "how to" of theatrical stage design are just as valid for model layouts:
- Plan a stage layout that fits in the space and lets actors move naturally:
- the set is a crucial part of any performance and will be the first thing that audience members see;
- compose the stage set design for each scene so that it focuses the audience’s attention on the major elements of the action;
- use colors to convey a specific mood that you’d like the audience to feel during each scene;
- select physical props to help bring the performance to life.

All images and graphics are (c) Adrian Wymann unless labelled otherwise

Any commercial products mentioned here are purely bona fide indications of what I have been using myself.
I have no connection to any manufacturing companies nor do I profit from listing any products or brands.