| |
 |
|
My Z Scale layout
is very much the result of "trial
and error":
much of what has materialized in the end
happened to do so
because my initial idea went wrong or
didn't work at all -
or because I changed my mind.
Here's a brief account of how it all came
together in the end,
using "theatrical layout
design".
|
|
| |
| |
 |
Z SCALE - LESS SPACE,
MORE TRAINS
|
|
|
| |
| With a scale ratio of 1:220
and a track gauge of a quarter of an inch
(6,5mm), "Z" is the
smallest commercially established electric model
railway scale - making it only 72% the size of N
Scale and a mere 40% of H0 Scale. |
|
| |
| As a result, Z Scale offers
the possibility of running trains in a confined
amount of space which simply would not be
possible in other modelling scales: the rather
complex trackplan shown here only measures
24"x48" (60x120
cm) in Z Scale yet offers continuous running
(even twice around) along with several spurs and
the potential to model scenic variety. You
might just be able to shoehorn this into that
space with N Scale but only by using very tight
curves, markedly shorter straights, and
foresaking much of the pointwork. And of course
it would be absolutely impossible in H0.
|
|
Grey River Northern Trackplan (c) David K. Smith
|
|
| |
| It's
almost something of a calling card for Z Scale - the
small round-and-round layout, as Z Scale allows for continuous running on
a full circle of track with reliable operation of medium
and larger locomotives in an area of approximately 20"x20" (50x50 cm);
tight curves and short rolling stock will even find
sufficient space within the confines of a briefcase. |
| |
| German toy
and train manufacturers Märklin,
the inventors of
Z Scale, have almost
always emphasized the smallness far more than
the option to model more in the
same given space in comparison to
N and HO. But unless
you are into gimmicky micro
layouts in odd places, it is in
fact precisely this quality of
being able to model more in the
same given space which makes Z
Scale shine.
Z Scale
really suits any prototype, but
when it comes to the typically
long drags and hauls seen on
North American rails, the space
saving qualities become truly
apparent.
|
|
A
long Norfolk Southern train of
covered hoppers rumbles through
Downtown Roanoke Va in May 2017
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
This is
because the overall footprint
over ties of Z Scale track is
only half an inch (12.4 mm) for a
single line of straight track. The width
required by a double track line
is no wider than a mere 1.4
inches (36 mm), or 1.6 inches (40
mm) when using track with a
permanent plastic roadbed base
imitating ballast.
|
|
|
| |
 |
| |
| The
small footprint even of a double track line makes
Z Scale an optimal choice for a modular layout,
made up of several individual elements which can
be joined together, as opposed to a layout which
is built up on a permanent understructure. |
| |
| |
|
A
MODULAR LAYOUT - LESS
SPACE, MORE OPTIONS
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| The list of my requirements
(small, lightweight, straightforward) made me
come across T-TRAK - a tabletop
(hence the "T") modular system with
individual modules which are substantially
smaller than those of other module systems. The modules
are easy to build, store, transport and set up,
and can be used to form layouts ranging from a
simple circle to large complex affairs. Originally
developed by N Scale modellers in Japan, the
T-TRAK concept has also been adapted for HO
and Z Scale, but given that I simply intended to
have a modular layout which could be set up
temporarily without much of a fuss I did not have
to concern myself with the compatibility of parts
of my layout with other modeller's modules -
which is why I took the T-TRAK concept as a basis
but introduced some changes according to my own
preferences.
|
|
 |
|
| |
|
| |
| |
|
THEATRICAL LAYOUT
DESIGN
|
|
|
|
| |
| Even if you
have never read a line of Shakespeare you will most
likely have encountered the saying that "all the
world's a stage" (taken from As You Like It,
Act II Scene VII). Although one of his most famous and
often used quotes, the idea for this comparison didn't
actually originate with Shakespeare; it goes back at
least to the times of Ancient Greece and Rome, and it has
been used extensively and in many different contexts ever
since. |
| |
 |
|
I first came across
the idea of likening a model railroad
layout to a theatrical stage in John
Armstrong's now classic Creative
Layout Design (1978), but just like
Shakespeare, Armstrong (1920-2004)
provided a synthesis of ideas already
previously formulated. Frank Ellison
(1887-1964) was an early figurehead of US
model railroading and had spent several
years in the theatrical business. He saw
many similarities between the operation
of a layout and a theatrical performance:
"the tracks are the stage, the
buildings and scenery are the setting,
the trains are the actors, and the
operating schedule is the plot". |
|
| |
| Carl
Arendt (1936-2011), undisputed master of the
micro layout, referred back to Ellison too as he
made use of "theatrical layout design"
and promoted "stage tricks for small
layouts". The comparisons and references
make sense, not only because a theatrical
production and a model railroad layout both
attempt to "carry out the illusion of
reality", as Ellison put it; many of the
best design tricks are borrowed from the theatre
(e.g. forced perspective) and are even reflected
in the terminology (e.g. staging tracks). The insight
and inspiration to be gained from comparing a
modular model railroad to the theatre becomes
apparent once you think about "setting the
stage" - which is not about replicating
(i.e. providing an exact rendition) but rather
about representing scenes of the real
world (i.e. "re-presenting" certain
features while leaving out others). This is an
especially heplful approach for Z Scale, where
applying a degree of modeller's license
(i.e. taking creative liberties in modelling
something) is sometimes the only feasible way to
do things, due to a lack of available items or
the minuteness of the scale.
|
| |
| |
|
|
SETTING THE STAGE FOR
A RAILFANNING LAYOUT
|
|
|
|
| |
| A
theatrical stage provides a designated space, in which
the scene is set with props and the actors move, and
therefore becomes the focal point for the audience. The
stage also defines the boundaries of scenes and actions,
often through architectural features which create the
equivalent of a picture frame (proscenium in
theatrical terminology) - which at the same time also
means there are parts of the stage which are not visible
and never revealed to the audience. |
| |
| The stage design model shown
here (created for an 1895 Paris production of
Verdi's Otello) clearly defines and limits its
"viewing and acting space" in what can
basically be seen as a box, and individual layout
modules work much the same way - inside this
"stage box", a specific scene is set
which puts the actors in context, just as a
module provides a specific setting for trains to
move in. Theatrical
productions began to move indoors at the
beginning of the 17th century, and the
buildings which housed them started to resemble
the arrangement so familiar today: a stage
separated from the audience by a proscenium arch.
One of the drawbacks of this arrangement is the
need to rearrange the stage if different settings
are to be shown - a change often carried out
either with the lights out or behind a closed
curtain during intermission.
|
|
 |
|
| |
| During
medieval times, however, theatrical productions often
used what is called "simultaneous (or multiple)
setting". |
| |
 |
|
All the different
scenes were in view at any given time,
with various locales being represented by
(sometimes very elaborate)
"booths" lined up side by side.
To change scenes, actors simply moved
from one booth to another, and if need be
the audience would follow them. If we
view an individual model railroad module
as sharing certain aspects and properties
of a theatrical stage, then
"multiple setting" is really no
different to putting several modules
(think "stages") together to
form a string of changing settings
through which trains (think
"actors") move while following
an operational concept (think
"plot").
|
|
|
| |
| Viewing a
modular layout this way not only opens up the possibility
of using a couple of stage tricks (some, as pointed out,
already well established in model railroading) but
provides a coherent view of both the individual module as
well as the assembled layout. You know what to look for
and what is required to make it all work: first the plot,
then the staging, then the actors to bring it all alive. |
| |
 |
|
In my case, this meant:
railfanning vignettes in which trains (mostly
Norfolk Southern, along with some CSX) pass
through different Mid-Appalachian scenery (mostly
Virginia, West Virginia and Tennessee) almost as
though they were crossing a theatrical stage, in
a plot which is all about simply watching those
model trains roll by. |
|
 |
|
| |
 |
| |
| |
|
ASSEMBLING THE
MODULAR RAILROAD STAGE
|
|
|
|
| |
| There are
numerous ways of lining up layout modules, but if the
location and scenery changes from one module to the next
(as is the case with my layout), some form of transition
is required - unless, of course, you are happy with
abrupt bumps of change where spring turns to winter or
the Rockies to a downtown scene in an instant. On a "multiple
setting" stage, the transition is often eased by
spacing out different scenes, but a modular layout
ultimately requires the individual elements to be joined
up and thus form a connected viewing area.
|
| |
 |
| |
| Scenic
transition from one module to the next (as opposed to rail
transition, which ensures a proper connection of
tracks across two modules) is best achieved using a stage
trick in the form of a view blocker. This simple device
prevents a person viewing the layout from seeing the
actual break in scenery which inevitably occurs at the
joining outer edges of two modules. |
| |
| This could simply be a scenic
foreground element, such as a row of trees or a
tall building, but it could also be an attempt at
recreating a contemporary theatrical stage, with
its rectangular arch and two pillars as sideways
boundaries. |
|
 |
|
| |
| This may be
a matter of taste, but apart from providing a smooth
visual transition between modules it also adds an element
of support and protection to each segment of the layout,
which can be especially worthwhile having in Z Scale
where scenic items get knocked off or damaged even more
easily than in larger modelling scales. |
| |
 |
| |
| The idea of
simultaneous setting can also be applied to a 180o
corner module, in a way which is known in theatrical
circles as a "thrust stage". |
| |
 |
|
While the audience in
the theatre is seated around three sides
of the stage, the module of course allows
for "mobile viewing", where one
can follow a train's movement. Adding
corner viewblockers helps to create three
distinct settings, even if the scene
itself is the same.
|
Breaking up the onlooker's
view in this way also tones down the fact that
this is actually a perfect half-circle of track -
a rare feature on the real railroads.
|
|
 |
|
| |
|
| |
| |
|
ROKUHAN TRACK
|
|
|
|
| |
| Z Scale
offers the same basic types of track other modelling
scales do: sectional track versus flex track, and
standard track versus track with an integrated roadbed
imitating ballast. Ultimately the choice will be a
decision based on a specific layout’s requirements
and needs as well as previous personal experience. Rokuhan (the company
name meaning "6.5" in Japanese, refering to the
Z Scale track gauge of 6.5mm) introduced their Z Scale
track in 2011; it features an integrated trackbed which
simulates ballast, similar to Micro-Trains' Micro-Track
in Z and Kato's Unitrack in N and HO. The rails
are nickel silver and have an inverted H profile, aimed
at providing better wheel to rail contact and thus
current pick-up.
|
| |
 
|
|
The brand has become popular
amongst Z Scale modellers due to the large and
varied track geometry avilable; standard track
pieces even come with either wooden or or
concrete sleepers. Rokuhan track is, however,
modelled on Japanese permanent way, which is
closer to the European average of 2,640 ties per
mile of track rather than the up to 3,000 ties on
North American track. This
difference is visible, but ultimately it was a
case of function over appearance in order to get
the best operational results and the most
planning flexibility possible for my US prototype
modular layout. All in all, the compromise on
visual aspects is not too big as careful
ballasting and weathering of Rokuhan track goes a
long way in disguising the "wrong" tie
size and spacing.
|
|
 |
|
| |
|
| |
| |
|
MODULE SPECIFICATIONS
& LAYOUT SETUP
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Corner segments can be built
in 180 or 90 degrees segments, but in order to
keep the number of module connections to a
minimum I settled for one 180 degrees double
track and one 180 degrees single track corner
module, both falling easily in line with the
required ease of building, carrying, setting up
and storing. The corner modules
measure 450mm x 650mm, a size which allows the
use of Rokuhan's extra-large radius curves plus a
standard 110mm straight track attached to both
ends of the curve in order to ease the travel of
trains into them.
The straight modules have a
depth of 250mm, which I found to be a good
compromise between keeping down overall size and
still provide some space for scenic modelling,
especially on single track modules (the
Australian T-Trak standard for Z is only slightly
larger at 280mm).
|
|
| |
 |
| |
| Designed as
an extended oval layout, modules
can be set up either for
continuous single line running
with a double track passing loop
at one end, or for continuous
double line running with a
shortened inner oval. Either way,
the width across the corner
modules is 65cm (25.6 inches). Expansion is
possible by adding an unlimited
but even number of intermediate
modules (only straight modules
are pictured here for the sake of
clarity).
The
operational nucleus of the layout
is the basic oval formed by the
two corner modules, although this
renders the inner line of the
double track segment
non-functional.
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
An important
aspect of the modular segments is
a strict adherence to level
track, resulting in no inclines
of the track itself while the
scenery around it may rise and
fall in all directions. Overall,
this not only results in smoother
operation but also makes
connecting modules a lot easier. |
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
       
|
| |
All images and graphics are (c)
A. T. Wymann unless labelled otherwise
|
