Operational Interest

[Smardale]

Hello there. 

I'm spending many hours designing layouts. Partly because I find it fun, but mostly due to not knowing how much space I'll have to work with due to an upcoming move. I want to be ready though for when the time comes and have some pre-existing ideas to call upon.

One thing I'm wary of is designing a layout without significant operational interest or with missed potential for more, and so therefore I'm constantly looking at layouts, literature and prototype designs to see what's possible. I have to say that the many topics on Minories in this forum have been a real eye opener regarding this.

I was wondering if people wouldn't mind sharing either their 'operational must haves' during the design phase, or perhaps operational examples from their own layouts that they find really enjoyable. It would be a huge help to me as well as I'm sure to other novices out there.

 

Thanks in advance!

[Chris M]

Working signals and running to those signals.

[Zomboid]

I think this is something where if you wait for enough answers, every single aspect of the real railway, and a load of things that are only ever seen on models will be mentioned.

 

Personally I like switching cars to a pre-generated switch list. It gives the exercise some point. I suppose the British version of that would be running to a timetable/ sequence, but i haven't tried that personally.

[ITG]

I’ve quickly learnt that I like (in no particular order)…..

Having somewhere to run trains to/from, like a storage or fiddle yard to represent the rest of UK

Having a roundie facility so at least one train can be left running whilst I’m doing something else (either on the layout or otherwise)

Sufficient sidings of differing types (industry, cattle dock, goods shed etc) to support purposeful shunting

As I use DCC, I’m glad I separated loco control (on my handheld unit) away from points control (on an LED switch mimic panel)

 

Things that I wish I’d included….

A facility to support an automated shuttle, like a self contained branch

More storage sidings so I could add more stock but not have to park off-layout

Working signals linked to points and blocks

 

 

[Rivercider]

Since my teenage years I have doodled hundreds and hundreds of track plans, a number of which I have worked up to some detail.

All the plans had operational interest that includes shunting of some sort, and almost all include a fiddle yard of some sort. The plans are mostly dominated by freight traffic but I can see the interest parcels or van traffic attached and detached from passenger services. Versions of Minories where parcels or van traffic can be attached and detached to a bay or parcels depot also appeal to me. I also like the idea of exchange sidings or sorting sidings where the traffic type can be varied as I please.

In recent years having had my first proper layout I now realise I much prefer research and planning to actually building or operating a layout,

 

cheers

[Zomboid]

And here's where I can offer a dissenting voice. Whilst I appreciate to to do many things it's not possible, my ideal layout would not have any kind of fiddle yard. I would rather use the space to do more actual operation rather than manual meddling. It requires a different mindset and doing things like starting the operation just after a train has arrived "on scene", and finishing just before it leaves. Though I realise it wouldn't work at all for a busy city terminus.

[DCB]

Unless you copy an odd ball station like Bodmin GWR, its up to you how much operational interest you have.

You need somewhere to run locos round  to run them in.  All locos benefit from a gallop every now and again. but it doesn't have to be part of your layout.   A circle of 3rd radius laid on the kitchen table or an a base hung on a wall will suffice.

A simple double track two platform station like Mutley(?) Plymouth it can have a series of SR and GWR  main line trains, light engines to and from North Road and Laira shed ands Carriage sidings passing. Locals (Autotrains) stopping, other trains stopped by signals stopping and starting.   That is the premise on which my layout was based, the next station down the line to a terminus, with the loco depot adjacent, like Monument Lane Birmingham, and a marshalling yard.  Trains in ECS out, ECS in Trains out.  Lots of activity, not much track.

Half a dozen parallel tracks make an excellent marshalling yard for re arranging goods trains, (Moreton Cutting Didcot)  but Okehampton managed with just a couple and sorted wagons for Bude/Padstow and the Plymouth Line.    Goods yards where goods is loaded and unloaded need far more space.  The fun is in shunting,

A pair of crossovers and a Platform or two and trains can terminate and change direction. Even single line stations with a passing loop can have trains terminate and reverse direction, Cirencester Town was one example. 

The usual mistake is to compress a prototype plan and end up with a run round holding 2 coaches with 25mm tolerance.

Much easier to plan where you want trains to go.  That way it usually ends up like a prototype plan.

Trains run to timetables. they don't turn up unexpectedly, even if 10 hours late they are expected so no need to keep main lines clear, use them for shunting and use a 3rd radius circle on the shed floor for running in.

If you build a continuous run make provision for reversing trains or the Flying Scotsman always runs clockwise and the HST always runs Anriclockwise.  Mixing HST and Caledonian 903?   Model the future, preservation 2030 style. 

Use your imagination, or CJ Freezers Peco  60 plans series.

[F-UnitMad]

12 hours ago, ITG said:

Sufficient sidings of differing types (industry, cattle dock, goods shed etc) to support purposeful shunting

One thing to realise with shunting is that operating potential depends more on "car spots" (in American terms) than the amount of sidings.

To illustrate it in British terms, you might have a goods yard that only has two or three sidings, but the wagons will have different places to go along those sidings - the vans will go to the goods shed, coal trucks to the staithes, cattle trucks to the cattle dock, etc. Some of these facilities can be on the same siding, so the wagons have to be shunted in the right order.

There's a lot going for freight & shunting layouts, as it can take a similar amount of time to do as the real thing does.

[Zomboid]

When it comes to shunting/ switching, there is definitely a point where more track = less interest, because you just end up filing everything into it's designated siding, which doesn't require any thought.

 

If you've got 3 industries on a spur, then you need to clear the front ones to get to the back and then put the cars back where they came from. With some types of traffic you might even need to line the wagon doors/ fillers/ whatever up with the equipment that's provided to handle the contents. You may also find that your industry has one filler nozzle and two tank cars to fill, so the job might also involve swapping them over.

 

So @F-UnitMad is right, it's about "car spots" as much as anything else, if you're doing a shunty freight layout/ area.

[Dungrange]

15 hours ago, Smardale said:

One thing I'm wary of is designing a layout without significant operational interest

 

I guess the start point is to define what you mean by "operational interest".  In my view that would be a layout where a significant number of movements can be undertaken before you start doing the same thing again.  A basic oval of track has no operating interest because all you can do is drive the train, stop it, and repeat.  A single track line through a scenic section with multiple fiddle yard loops would permit a choice of trains, but in essence, apart from seeing a greater variety of stock and trains running in both directions, it's still doing the same thing over and over again.  As such, I'd say there is a need for shunting to provide operational interest.  That may be shunting a few wagons in a couple of sidings as has been mentioned above, where they need to be placed in the correct order, or it could be changing locomotives on a mainline train, marshalling stock into a bay platform, or running round a train to depart in the opposite direction.

 

I think it's great to be able to sit back and watch trains completing a circuit, but for me, there needs to be a run round loop and sidings, which is why I like freight operation more than passenger trains.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Hi @Smardale.  Your question is a sensible one to ask, but as @Zomboid noted in an early reply, it could generate as many responses as there are respondents (if not, more).  And none may fit your interests!  If I could offer a few thoughts that I hope might be helpful:

• ‘Operational interest’ and ‘enjoyment’ may well overlap (significantly), certainly at the design stage, but experience has taught me that they can also diverge.  I’d suggest a layout you enjoy is likely to be one that lasts.  What do I mean?

Some modellers find that a simpler layout actually proves to be more relaxing to run.  And if it turns out you’re more interested in building kits or scratchbuilding, whether locomotives, rolling stock, buildings or scenic features, a layout that offers sufficient operation for (perhaps) less frequent operating sessions may get built quicker and last longer.

 

One thing I’ve learned the hard way is to think about logistics as well as track layout.  What I mean is this:

• Whole layout design includes the space around the layout (aisle width can be key to enjoyment, but is the bit that isn’t layout at all), size and weight of baseboards, whether you also need to carry boxes of rolling stock and large buildings around, how confident you are at wiring (etc), what your budget is (expect it to be exceeded ) and - crucially - how long you want to take to get a layout to a state you’re happy with.  I then try and fit operating features I want into that equation.

When I do get to actual track design for operation it can help to recognise the value of ‘balance’.  What I’m thinking about here is this (the discussion in recent days on the Minories thread is a good example, incidentally):

• If I want to operate a busy Minories-style terminus station, it may be a good idea to have a Fiddle Yard at the other end of the layout, even if I wouldn’t naturally want to have a Fiddle Yard.  It’s there to feed the station I’m focused on.  It may help to spend time designing an easy-to-use Fiddle Yard, precisely because it’s the bit I don’t want to spend time on.
• Similarly, a length of ‘open run’ track that appears to do nothing operationally can be the key to a successful layout - it can put some much needed space between operating features, or add to realism, or just be nice to watch.

I hope there’s something of use in those thoughts.  If I can add just two practical suggestions:

1. No harm in trying building something if you can now, rather than wait till you move.  Perhaps a building kit, or a rolling stock kit, or even a short ‘photo plank’ so you can try track laying, ballasting and basic scenery.  Every skill you develop now will come in use when the day of the layout arrives (this is something I wish I’d realised many years ago).
2. And finally, to answer your specific question, my favourite operating feature is a continuous run - I simply enjoy watching a train build up some mileage and feeling like I’m watching a journey unfold (even if someone else would look at it and only see a train chasing it’s tail, that’s not what I see).  The key thing is not to run the train too quickly.  For me, gentler running is an operational feature that doesn’t appear on a track plan.

Hope that helps.  Above all, as is often said, “Have fun!”  Keith.

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Oldddudders]

A junction is likely to have more operational interest than a through station. Even if the two routes are separate, i.e. the branch line has just a shuttle from the junction station. And a junction station with a yard, in which the branch freight service is sorted, despatched and returned, to be picked up by a mainline service, is even better. 

[Flying Pig]

2 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I simply enjoy watching a train build up some mileage and feeling like I’m watching a journey unfold (even if someone else would look at it and only see a train chasing it’s tail, that’s not what I see).

 

It's a shame that this simple way of enjoying model railways (it was a large part of the fun when I was a child) is so often denounced as unrealistic.  "The same train must not appear twice in succession", boom the pundits.  Why not?  We liked it and haven't finished looking at it yet.

[C126]

While most has been said above far more eloquently than can I, if "operational interest" is another phrase for 'variety' or 'complexity', I would suggest some sort of shunting is involved.  Whether this is passenger and/or N.P.C.C.S. and/or wagon-load/Speedlink goods trains is then down to your interest and space available.  Post a draft layout on the web-site of what you considering, and you will not be short of ideas for amendments.  Let us know a little more detail, and we may all pitch in.  Good luck!  It is always of interest to see a layout being created.

[Pacific231G]

18 hours ago, Zomboid said:

And here's where I can offer a dissenting voice. Whilst I appreciate to to do many things it's not possible, my ideal layout would not have any kind of fiddle yard. I would rather use the space to do more actual operation rather than manual meddling. It requires a different mindset and doing things like starting the operation just after a train has arrived "on scene", and finishing just before it leaves. Though I realise it wouldn't work at all for a busy city terminus.

 

I did design my current small H0 layout to be capable of that. It's 62 inches long and, with a small tank loco, can be shunted entirely on the station board by assuming that the daily pick up goods has just arrived and then shunting it to transfer all the relevant wagons to and from their respective sidings and to make up the departing train which then becomes the next arrival without actually going anywhere. 

It was designed to be used as a pure shunting layout at home for a bit of gentle wagon bashing whenever I need a break from work. but with a two road fiddle yard plugged in for outings or when friends come round.

HOWEVER, having used it that way for a while, I've  found in practice that I reallyu do want the train to arrive and depart and even built a simpler (and shorter) single track fiddle yard just long enough to allow the normal train (five wagons plus a goods brake or a mixed train with three wagons) 

Without that the train remaining  on stage and never arriving nor departing seemed a bit too much like one of those Samuel Beckett plays that I never enjoyed  (Winnie and Willie in "Happy Days" or Vladimir and Estragon in  "Waiting for Godot") Even with Inglenook Sidings, I prefer the version where the long five wagon siding is hidden.  

In terms of what is the minumum operational potential  to make a layout interesting I've found that I need at least  three sidings to shunt to and from with one of them facing in the opposite direction from the others (which with just five points and a run road loop my current layout has). Given that, I can happily solve the challenge of shunting a goods train, especially if it's a bit too long for the run round, for an hour or more, especially if the arrival of a passenger service half way through means that you have to plan the shunting very carefully if you're not to get snookered. Simpler shunting puzzle layouts, like Inglenook, don't keep me amused for anything like as long.  

I've had  my current very simple layout for quite a few years now and still enjoy operating it.

I agree with others about making the fiddle yard as simple to use as possible and having them more as the storage sidings for an appropriate number of pre-assembled trains (which in the case of a BLT may be just three) seems far better than spending half an operating session off stage. That's OK for exhibitions with a separate yard operator where you want to keep things busy but not I suggest for solo  operation at home.

Edited November 30, 2021 by Pacific231G

[5BarVT]

11 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Similarly, a length of ‘open run’ track that appears to do nothing operationally can be the key to a successful layout - it can put some much needed space between operating features, or add to realism, or just be nice to watch.

If I can add to that: my last layout had double track but no gap before the fiddle yard. I became frustrated because I couldn’t have a train arriving as one departed - so much so that I made a second connection to one road so that it was possible to get two trains passing sometimes.

My current layout has a long ‘double track nothing’ so that any departure can pass any arrival.

It has made it more complex and thus slower to build though!

Paul.

[Harlequin]

There are some very interesting contributions in this thread that start to pin down this elusive concept of “operational interest”.

 

Something that is implicit in all that’s been said, but not stated explicitly yet I think, is to operate prototypically correctly. Breaking the rules of the real railway makes operations too easy, less challenging and ultimately uninteresting because operation then boils down to driving something from A to B simply because you feel like it. Doing that repeatedly gets boring very quickly. So operating like the prototype gives some structure.

 

There are two corollaries to that:

Correct operation requires a correct track plan and correct signalling.

Correct operation in the real world does not involve a huge hand reaching down from the sky to change/fix things!

 

Of course there is a limit to the “correctness” you can achieve and compromises have to be made in every model. The levels you go to are a personal judgement but my argument is that more “prototypical correctness” generally makes operations more interesting.

 

Another interesting point emerging from the discussion is about shunting. Shunting is more a thing of the old railways. Modern railways have been rationalised to avoid it where possible because it’s not efficient. So is operational interest inherently more achievable in a model of an older railway era?

 

 

Edited December 1, 2021 by Harlequin

[F-UnitMad]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Another interesting point emerging from the discussion is about shunting. Shunting is more a thing of the old railways. Modern railways have been rationalised to avoid it where possible because it’s not efficient. So is operational interest inherently more achievable in a model of an older railway era?

For British outline, yes, I'd say. There was a modern-era O scale layout at Telford a few years ago - lots of exquisitely modelled modern DMUs, but dull as ditchwater to watch for more than a few minutes.

 

For the American scene things are different, being primarily a freight-oriented network anyway, and whilst a lot of UK modellers will think in terms of mile-long freights with 5 locos, for modellers there are the Short Lines (a legal term, not based on track miles) that are rather more modelable, and for whom switching freight cars (shunting wagons!) is their bread and butter.

[Kris]

For me, I am personally less interested in shunting or even stations. I would rather see a range of prototypically plausible trains passing by. If signals require it, they do need to stop. To me this more represents the true nature of the railways.

[Zomboid]

I think that with the exception of pure shunting puzzles (such as the timesaver), it does boil down to doing real railway things accurately, and with a purpose.

 

For many of us that will mean shunting (partly because this can be achieved in a relatively small space), but running a plain line and obeying signals (which are themselves serving since kind of purpose) is equally a real railway thing with a purpose.

 

The real railway does an awful lot of things though, so there's plenty of scope for different opinions within that, especially when you consider worldwide operations.

[C126]

1 hour ago, Kris said:

I would rather see a range of prototypically plausible trains passing by.

 

I agree with this as well, for what it is worth.  Having grown up with a 'tail-chaser' in my parents' loft, I miss not having the space to run prototypical-length trains of which I have 'emotional attachment' from years past (e.g., last Manchester Picc. - Newhaven Marine, 33-hauled West Coastway services).

 

However, watching a simple stretch of double-track main line at an exhibition becomes tedious to me if one does not know what trains are going to be exhibited, and turns thoughts to admiring the scenic work and contemplating what cake to choose soon from the refreshment hall...

[scottystitch]

Operational interest for me largely comprises the following (layouts are set 1962-64):

• Passenger trains made up from BR Marshalling Documents.
• Locomotives appropriate for the area, era and train being hauled - based on historical sightings or photographs where possible.
• Passenger trains operating to a sequence based on an historically accurate or plausible timetable.
• Passenger trains changing locomotive at stations.
• LE moves backing down to attach to passenger trains.
• All trains running at appropriate scale speed for their class.
• Freight/goods trains trundling past at a scale sedate pace or being held at signals for faster trains to pass.
• A system of chance to determine if a locomotive or unit has failed en-route and needs to arrive "rescued".

I model in N gauge primarily, and shunting of individual goods stock is a bit of a fiddle for me, but I would add:

• Shunting of coaching stock rakes to/from carriage sidings.

Best

 

Scott.

[Chimer]

On 30/11/2021 at 13:18, Flying Pig said:

 

It's a shame that this simple way of enjoying model railways (it was a large part of the fun when I was a child) is so often denounced as unrealistic.  "The same train must not appear twice in succession", boom the pundits.  Why not?  We liked it and haven't finished looking at it yet.

 

Especially if you've spent a while putting a special together in the fiddle yard, watching and admiring it for a few  laps seems entirely reasonable.  Count it once for the purposes of the timetable, if you're running to a timetable or a sequence, but you want to have a decent chance to look at it.  I remember seeing Grantham at a pre-Covid show, they let most services do two laps for that reason iirc.

[Smardale]

I've really enjoyed reading everyone's replies so far. The enthusiasm people have for certain aspects of the hobby is really making me want to get started! I'll try and reply to some posts now but apologies if you asked me something and I've missed it.

 

On 29/11/2021 at 21:11, DCB said:

Trains run to timetables. they don't turn up unexpectedly, even if 10 hours late they are expected so no need to keep main lines clear, use them for shunting and use a 3rd radius circle on the shed floor for running in.

 

That's a really good idea. Has anyone ever created a 'running in' loop? Perhaps an elevated section on a layout just for running in purposes? 

 

On 30/11/2021 at 07:49, F-UnitMad said:

You might have a goods yard that only has two or three sidings, but the wagons will have different places to go along those sidings - the vans will go to the goods shed, coal trucks to the staithes, cattle trucks to the cattle dock, etc. Some of these facilities can be on the same siding, so the wagons have to be shunted in the right order.

 

I didn't even think about this. Whenever I'm doodling track plans I often have a use per siding - it never occurred to me that it could actually be more fun to have multiple facilities on a siding. @Zomboid also said something similar, so thank you both.

 

On 30/11/2021 at 10:41, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 A length of ‘open run’ track that appears to do nothing operationally can be the key to a successful layout - it can put some much needed space between operating features, or add to realism, or just be nice to watch.

@Keith Addenbrooke your entire post was very insightful, so thank you. What I've quoted above however is something that you've really got me thinking about. I'm now looking at many layouts in a different way (trying to picture myself as an operator and needing a breather!). Also I think creating a small photo plank is a very good idea to get me started.
 

On 30/11/2021 at 14:32, C126 said:

Let us know a little more detail, and we may all pitch in.  Good luck!  It is always of interest to see a layout being created.

 

I'm wary of doing this before I know how much space I'll have as I don't want to waste peoples' time. But rest assured I'll be posting a thread with concepts as soon as I move! 
 

17 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Something that is implicit in all that’s been said, but not stated explicitly yet I think, is to operate prototypically correctly. Breaking the rules of the real railway makes operations too easy, less challenging and ultimately uninteresting because operation then boils down to driving something from A to B simply because you feel like it. Doing that repeatedly gets boring very quickly. So operating like the prototype gives some structure.

This is something else that I never appreciated as a newbie to the hobby. I guess one of the main perks of modelling a real location is that you have all the historic timetables and regulations to follow from the off.

[Chris M]

Operational interest very much depends upon the operator. There are some who can happily spend hours shunting a few trucks around a couple of sidings while at the other end of the spectrum there are those who love to see as many trains as possible just going round and around. There are some folk who love building layouts but aren't interested in running trains while there are others who just lay down tracks and run trains without bothering with scenery. There is no right or wrong; its about what the builder wants from a layout. My own fetish is that I like to make a mode of a real place rather than a made up one. One big pleasure/pain is working out where to make the compromises between reality and model. I think its really great to see  trains running through a landscape that really exists (or existed) and that sort of trumps operational interest for me but I'm sure it would leave others cold.

 

At the moment I am finding running a roundy roundy to a sequence using signals to control all movements and with each train only doing one circuit at a time is very satisfying. When running to the sequence half an hour passes in what feels like 5 minutes. I ran to this sequence at a recent exhibition and it seemed to work fine. One operator who baulked at the thought of a sequence at the start of the day was loving running to that same sequence by the end of the day. I think the track plan of my layout would be considered to be too simple to be interesting to operate by many folk. Indeed I thought it might be myself when I was designing it. As it turns out I really enjoy running it but without the signals and sequence it wouldn't work for me.

 

It really is all about what works for each individual although of course you don't fully understand what works for you until you try it. One aspect of the real railway I have always loved is hearing the bell codes ringing out from a signalbox. As I was enjoying running to signals so much I decided to have a go at the bell codes as well. This turned out to be a total disaster so far as I was concerned. What was relaxing running suddenly became quite stressful, hurried and hard work. It did improve my admiration for bobbies though. There will be some folk out there who find the bell codes an essential part of running their layout while a lot of layout builders won't see the point of working signals at all. Again nobody is right and nobody is wrong. All you can do is try things and see how you feel about it. What is absorbing and interesting to one is boring or hard work to another.

 

Here is my simple and yet enjoyable (for me) track plan.