Cliffhanger at Warley

[tedp]

...If bookings and further funds allow, we do intend to add a screen with live camera shots from differing angles, including two from the railcars. This will also include behind the scenes shots. This will require some more difficult programming so it is not as simple as it sounds....

Now that might be an idea to follow up! It might give people a close-up view of all the detail.

[pilotfriend]

I also have smell (the sea and seaweed) but the NEC is too drafty for it to work so I left that one behind! The draft also affected the waterfall at times which occasionally fell upwards! ;D

If a layout is not foreshortened, and one is modelling an exact location, you get what is actually there. At least I was not modelling the Ghan in OZ! CH is based on my phoney history and it had to be in this position which is about half way between CG and Glenthorne Harbour.

I am a believer in the 'less is more' school and feel that for the public, the working waterfall and lido/funicular are sufficient. For some reason, the ambient sound was too quiet while it was too loud on CG!. Again, it was a question of too much to do with 3 layouts!

With regard to lighting, we were unable to properly view the rig working in my own workshop. The angle of the lights is still too high and I intend to have isolating switches so one or two tubes can be lit.

Parkinsons is slowly overwhelming me and I am not so swift at fixing things as I used to be. This is why Cliffhanger is my last call.

[B.Meldon]

I think it is a bit late now John but perhaps the frequency of trains in view on the layout could have been improved considerably by placing storage loops one train length long just out of view on the curves at both ends of the layout.

If this had been done the gap between trains in view could be virtually none and trains at the back of the layout could be moved up into position on the curved loops while others were moving in view at the front.

One train would disappear and another could re-apear with hardly any delay, if that was required. Not prototypical I know but very good for the viewing public.

Brian Meldon

[pilotfriend]

Sadly this would not work as we do have to operate within the limitations of the auto system.



The curves are to a minimum for some of the stock. To do it any differently would double unreliability, raise the cost of electronic hardware enormously and add far too many variables in programming.

You have to remember that the Desperados familiar with the systems were spread very thin and the problems with County Gate (simply solved in the calm) added to the issue. This did result in some greater delays at times. I feel that 2.5 minutes maximum is acceptable.

The fiddle yard also developed a warp after storage in the Luton and this stalled one of the locos every time. This is a job to be undertaken before the next show.

Here is the track film taken by Jeff Synenham at the show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYNmM2oBwfs&feature=youtu.be

[tedp]

I'm sorry about the Parkinson's, John - I knew of that already. If you cannot do what you like, you have to like what you can do is what they say...

Some of the operational troubles are familiar to me - baseboards warping, automatic systems playing up etc., and having more than one layout to attend to at the same time won't help. Improvements can always be made, but still I think Cliffhanger is a wonderful project.

[pilotfriend]

Thanks Ted. S**t happens!

For a first time out, Cliffhanger did very well indeed. It does take a while to iron all bugs out though!

[B.Meldon]

As I said it is too late now, but just 6 inches less visible track at each end of the layout would have been enough room to fit in the loops on the end curves and they would be no tighter radii than the present curve.
Looking at the plan you would also still have had enough room for the double length ladder loops at the back.

I am not familiar with your automation system John, but I notice that the track plan for the automated part of County Gate is also a simple ladder loop and single station loop set up. Presumably from what you say adding two more

[pilotfriend]

Automationwise, the loops that you speak of would not be of sufficient length to incorportate a slowdown and stop block apart from the programming becoming too complicated. Apart from hating operating model trains, tests have shown on CG that manual operation increases time behind the scenes by at least a minute!

[Tigger]

A most fascinating thread all round.  Although I've been following the construction of CH over the months, I wasn't able to get to the NEC.  Everyone who has, speaks incredibly highly of it and I'm not surprised.  The "WOW" factor was big enough on the website!  I love to see the railway in the landscape; although I enjoy all 009 layouts, I believe that's what narrow gauge and 009 is all about and there are many fine layouts which have been able to exploit this.

It's not my place to speak about the operating merits as I haven't seen CH.  My own philosophy (acquired many years ago from another well-known modeller, I hasten to add - I'm not all that original ;D) for operating any single line with a passing loop, is that it is preferrable to run one train into the loop and wait for the other to arrive.  The first train then departs and the second then waits for it to be replaced.  That way almost constant movement is achieved and there is always at least one train in the station.

That's a bit of a deviation so I'll rush back to the 'subject on the card' and say well done John for producing and exhibiting such an obviously stunning layout.

[pilotfriend]

Thanks Tigger. We shall be looking at that mod to the programming but nothing will happen before our next show at Doncaster as our programmer is unwell too!

I also have to say that the funicular is also a railway and that works continuously anyway.

I wanted to develop new ways of displaying trains in exhibitions and this was one of the ideas. I have other concepts but they are not to be I am afraid. I think there can be a greater difference between club/home 'layouts' and exhibition model railways and by the reaction of the general public, CH really did knock their socks off. Many excellent layouts do not show so well as they still emulate the classic Hornby 'tabletop' concepts. CH is intended as a piece of showmanship or as Ted describes it, theatre!

One lady told me that she HATES model railways until she saw Cliffhanger. For me, that was worth all the effort!

thanks
John

[tedp]

...I also have to say that the funicular is also a railway and that works continuously anyway....

But it is broad gauge...  :P

[pilotfriend]

WRONG Ted!  4mm/ft and 16.5mm track. NARROW GAUGE, just like so many who claim to be modelling standard gauge!

[invercloy]

Conversely, I've often thought of using OO track to model the Lee Moor tramway, but I wonder how well it would be accepted by narrow gauge modellers as actually being narrow gauge.

Anyway, back on topic.

[Brandyman]

single line with a passing loop, is that it is preferrable to run one train into the loop and wait for the other to arrive.  The first train then departs and the second then waits for it to be replaced.  That way almost constant movement is achieved and there is always at least one train in the station.

Ummmm, easier to trace on the PC as well.

Despite, the changes to County Gate track work, which no one seems to have noticed. Except for the kid's who ran a locomotive on the branch line and received their certificate for doing so. Trying to get kids involved in modelling is what a few of us aim for or there is no future for our hobby or society (sorry might be company) and they will all run computer simulators.

I was placed in charge of Cliffhanger (a daunting task on it's first showing) and on the Saturday, I counted the crowd on average six deep, with young kids faces pressed against the barrier. For Sunday I (yes I) insisted the barrier be moved back as if there was a problem on front of scene, at least I could get to it, although it may have distracted from the viewing distance at least it gave a greater viewing area, and safer for the kids at the front. As I have said on other forums Cliffhanger has to be seen to be believed, which is why I signed up for helping out with it.

[pilotfriend]

Barrier positions are always contentious. Cliffhanger has its detail but frankly, I think that the barrier is better a bit further back. The same applies to County Gate although at times I have angry emails saying the barrier should be much closer. I feel that the composition of the displays are lost when viewed too close.

The 'best' complaint I had was from an exhibitor who stated that he could not see the trackwork properly. His own layout is so high that all I have ever seen is his front curtain!