Issues arising...
Dear Brandon,
Issue 1 - 3' depth VS touring
I would and do worry about building such a deep module.
Brandon, you've already stated you envisage taking this layout to shows. If so, this means that:
- fitting thru single-person doorways
- fitting in the typical transport vehicle
- fitting within allowable show hall stand space
all become very important factors in the design and construction of any-and-all components involved.
A recent Blog posting I stumbled upon highlighted this.
The Blogger sought to build an "All Foamcore" module,
(you can see why it caught my attention... ),
actually did build something
(which deserves wraps for actually building something as a test,
although what was eventually built detoured significantly from the initial stated "test parameters",
see below)
and eventually wrote the experiment off as "nice theory, but a failure".
We could dig into the details, but the core "problems" appear to be that:
- when not able to obtain foamcore, the builder opted for an un-related "foam sheet" product
- did not follow established working "sheet-material" based designs, foam-construction techniques, or basic structural principles
- made the (kinda logical) mis-assumption that the reduced weight of an all-foam module somehow enabled a traded-gain in do-able physical dimensions,
("If it's lighter, I can make it larger without exceeding a known single-person-lift weight limit"),
and thus sought to build a one-piece module which was significantly oversize in any practical single-person-transportable sense.
(EG a 4'x2'x2" sheet of extruded Blue/Pink 300kpa foam weighs in at 1.2 kilos.
So too does a 1.2 kilo bag of sugar in a shopping bag.
Same weight, but the foam sheet dimensions make it significantly harder for a single-person to carry, particularly when navigating typical single-person-width domestic spaces,
than the shopping-bag-of-sugar)
"What were the module dimensions in question?" I hear you ask?
Um, 4' long x three foot deep x 2' 4" tall
(sound familiar?)
That the standard single-person doorway in many parts of the world is only 30" wide,
(and many such doorways immediately exit onto a 90-degree hallway or other forced-rotation condition),
compared to the above dimensions should immediately start ringing alarm bells...
(this is not a time or situation for "Gibbs from NCIS" moments,
IE building a boat in a basement with no prior thought or regard for how to get the completed boat outside!)
FWIW, from decades of show-layout experience (and not just my own layouts!)
a 4'x2'x2' proscenium module is just navigatable by a single person under most domestic conditions,
(Industrial or event-venue conditions may be more-generous, it's the "weakest link in the chain" that becomes our "minimum spec" benchmark...
...and as one gets older, a pair of wheels on one end,
and ensuring the module can handle being "trolly-ed" on-end without damage is a good-move!...),
anything larger, and you'd better be darn sure that:
- the "home storage area" access
- the show venue access
- the transportation vehicle
- and the # of crew members available to load-in/out
are up to the task, every time the layout gets a show-booking...
Issue 2 : "Modular Layout" spec compatibility.
Please recheck the initial stated "givens and druthurs" for the layout. Unless I'm missing something very fundamental, it would appear Brandon's goal is all about presenting a finescale ("Best foot forward" high-grade show-presentation spec) impression of a very specific and modelgenic proto location. There is no need or want to "integrate wth other (likely completely non-subject/theme-related) modules", nor is there want to run any equipment other than that which supports and is-material to telling "the story" of the proto location in question.
There are enough "what to keep, what to pair-back, and what we can 'bend-the-rules-around' " challenges to overcome in modelling a proto scene in a functionally-do-able "design you can actually live with" as-is,
(ask me about the design background for "Brooklyn : 3AM" and "Nine Mile"...)
let along having to also have to subject the design to artificial "compatibility formats" which do not materially aid in the stated goal for the layout.
Consider, Brandon is already agonising over tweaking the industrial spur track geometry away from strict "as the proto array is laid" configuration as is, against actual hard-reality "available layout surface area" issues. How is/would he deal with a mandatory "extra mainline" or enforced "continuous track must be at middle of module end-plate" physical array that integrating "modular layout spec" configuration would force upon him?
(If we can't tweak the curves of the industry spurs without "excessively compromising the end result",
I'm struggling to see how a dirty great S-bend joggle at each end,
to get the nominated "main line" in-alignment at the module joints to match Fremo-spec is "easier" or "more acceptable a compromise"...)
Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr