Modular system operation

[roundhouse]

Sorry, pre-reading this it's very "rambly" - but bear with me, much of it touches on stuff that others have said, and it's from the point of view of us working with JMRI, as Paul says there are other ways to skin that cat, so this needs to be read as our experiences of using what we know, not that it's a reccomendation...

 

One thing we need to keep in mind is that (as Jon says above) the aims and objectives of the person planning this may not be exactly the same as the aims and objectives of a real traffic planner!

 

On the real thing a real-world objective might be efficiency, doing that job with the fewest resources (crews, loco's, fuel) possible. In the scenario where you've 25 people coming together for a modular meet that's almost the opposite of what you want, you want to keep as many of those folk engaged and entertained as possible. And lets face it unlike a real railway you've loads of potential crewmembers, all of whom are eager to work for nothing, fuelled by little more than a bacon buttie and a cup of coffee, and happy to bring their own engine or two with them...that's a really unprototypical problem to have!

 

You also have to allow a little for your knowledge base, for example a few years ago we used car cards and waybills - they should be much simpler overall to use than the manifests in theory, the card gives you all the info you need to know about each wagon and where it's headed, and similar to Mike's comments above then at yards you then use a chart to work out what tracks to put them in to build the trains to get them moving in the right direction - the problem I observed is that not everyone, when given a small pile of cards, can easily convert that stack of raw data into an efficiently shunted train/yard, if you like, the intellectual knowledge of what a car card is doesn't neccesarily equip you to know what to do with 20 of them - some folk get distracted by what to do with individual cars, rather than using them as the raw data to plan the whole train/yard's moves.

 

I know that can be overcome by experience, but one odd/minor downside - operationally - of modular model railways is that local knowledge  of the "we just know what to do" type listed up-thread effectively does not exist, you're operating a railway that's popped into existence from nothing that morning, and will cease to exist tomorrow afternoon!

 

Changing to the JMRI lists simplified it enough that I'd suggest anyone can easily work out what needs doing (or to put it another way, what the planner wants you to do) - People with more experience can usually still do it much more efficiently than ones with less experience by not wasting moves, but both are now capable of completing the job, and coming away with that satisfying feeling of having "done something useful".

 

You also find yourself making judgement calls on capacity (if we do too much of this here, will it "stop the job") and complexity (not wanting to create something that becomes a chore rather than a challenge) - all of the above impacts on:

 

 

The setup we did at Armitage used yard tracks (particularly at Dale) in a very prescriptive way, Dale has 6 tracks, allowing for an arrival/departure road (track 2) and a runround (track 1) that left four tracks to use for building trains, I allocated those four tracks to specific departures - Track 0 was Wallingford as in the OP, track 3 is the longest so was staging, track 4 for Fort Myers, track 5 for Lloyd - doing that makes it as simple as possible for crews - they may have to cut out some cars that the system hasn't added to the train (usually down to train length or siding capacity elsewhere) and they may have to do a quick shuffle to comply with Hazmat rules (we gave the crews the information to do that - but left it optional whether they followed them), but it does mean they can get out of the yard fairly promptly - sometimes as simple as "hook and haul". 

 

But - those trains didn't serve Sunnydale or Brownville - as Lloyd and Fort Myers both had a small amount of yard track capacity I created the jobs to Sunnydale to work from Lloyd, and to Brownville from Fort Myers (also via Lloyd to runround, so I included a yard connection there too)

 

So the "3 yards" wasn't really because you have to have multiple yards on a real US railroad - it was really a reflection on:

 

( 1 ) Dale being too small to service 6 departures and arrivals, at least, whilst remaining simple in planning and operation. 

( 2 ) Having some modules available with extra yard capacity that we could use.

( 3 ) Using them to spread the workload out so that one location (Dale) didn't clog up operations on the whole railway.

 

Whilst further shunting them to block departures into order would be entirely prototypical, I don't like crews to do that in this environment as the effect is just to block the key yard up, preventing other trains from running. Remember we have a very finite yard capacity, where only one train can shunt at once, but balancing that some very short (by real world standards) routes outside the yard.

 

I think on the weekend it worked out quite well - sometimes you had to wait a few minutes for access to Dale, but it stayed reasonably fluid, and what we didn't have was multiple trains queueing up to use it whilst their crews get bored, which was the big worry... 

Its really working with what you have in terms of modules being offered for the meet and I think it worked well last weekend. Ok my first one but certainly want to do more of this thing

 

There is always going to be a compromise between real operations on the railway / railroad and that which keeps people interested. The same goes when operating a traditional layout set up at a show open to paying visitors.

 

Ian

[Kenton]

 

JMRI can produce passenger (or mixed!) trains too, and the list of trains you create can be presented in the context of a timetable to run all of those moves - but IMHO the passenger side is a lot less polished.

 

and that is very much the impression I get from this discussion.

 

I still see that there is a real issue between operation of modules US vs British. From what I gather US operation has just about remained the same over a very long period with far more freight than passenger working. The same seems to be true of the models/modules that are produced. The British practice I can see as being very different, it is also strikingly different between eras. I do not like this reference to TOPS (a relatively modern addition/complication) it is restrictive to module design and the stock/locos used. I would guess that if left to our own devices most British modules would be pre-TOPS and would have an exaggerated influence of goods traffic - but would be very surprised if passenger orientated modules were not built. (IF I were to participate mine would probably be a small through station, simply as a change of scene from my normal planks - either that or an MPD (not TMD) module)

 

I also think what we call things is important.

[PaulRhB]

I think that stations will feature heavily too as that's what we see. There's no reason we can't run pre and post TOPS and use different control methods to represent the appropriate traffic.

We aren't going to achieve a fully realistic timetable as it would require loads of planning by someone and not support the potential number of operators. We also need to acknowledge that a bit of goods shunting is more interesting than just running passenger trains back and forth so we might have a heavier emphasis than the real railway. You tend to operate in a little bubble of your train, much like a real driver does, without a full view of the railway out of sight. As a result you could look at it as more realistic operation of a train than the whole system in the frequency but still serve the industries and stations as a train would.

Hope that makes sense

[Talltim]

It should be remembered that this is a thread about module operations, not British module operations so all the various terms are relevant, although it does get a bit confusing. From what I gather, Martyn's UK interest is mainly BR blue and later so that's his 'go to' for thinking how things work. Paul seems to be thinking of earlier periods.

The operations side of things comes long after the modules are built and what modules are built is up to the people building them. As a timetabler/operations planner, you can only start when you know what the layout of the modules you have for an event will be, and before that comes the designing of the layout from the available modules. As a module owner, you should be thinking of how your module would operate when you design it, the same as any layout, but you don't need to think of the overall operations picture.

People build the modules that interest them, (and some are public spirited enough to build the boring plain track ones too ) and so with a representative selection of UK modellers I would imagine that there would be a good selection of passenger facilities (carriage siding module anyone?). Some people like running fast passenger trains and other like pottering around shunting and I can't see them being much swayed in their module design by the software used for goods vehicle movement planning.

 

 

BTW TOPS in the UK has been around for just under a quarter of the period that railways with locos have existed!

 

Edit : one day I will be able to get a post right first time.

[The Stationmaster]

So a local freight in steam days would travel from the nearest large yard, would this see local freights inbetween two major yards working in opposite directions and there be a crossover between them or would all traffic for that area be allocated to one yard? Just thinking this would only require one yard for a UK layout while we had three terminal yards with the US setup. The other end could just be a terminus station.

There is a fair degree of crossover these days but often it's based on who is operating the freight flow and where their nearest yard is.

It varied but using GWR examples in many cases local traffic for a group of station would be worked via single yard and it would then run out & back trips with that traffic to serve the stations concerned.  In some cases the trip was effectively split and worked out from one end with traffic for some stations and then returned from a yard at the other end with traffic for the other stations between the two yards.  Usually this sort of working seems to have been more related to known regular flows of traffic from wherever as much as to wherever so in some cases a trip could serve an intermediate station twice - once on its outward working and again on its return.  

 

The same could also apply with originating traffic from busy small stations where particular flows would be sent in one direction when the afternoon trip (if there was one) came along to pick up.  But also sometimes important regular flows, or even special flows, could be picked up by a passing through train instead of working via a local yard - quite common with some perishable traffics for example.

 

Don is of course eight about everybody knowing what they were doing because it was regular but equally they thought out and knew what to do with anything out of the norm although if it was something particularly special there might be an Inspector of some sort sent along to deal with it, especially if it required unusual or additional cartage or cranage.  But for most locations it was straightforward enough - cartage traffic placed on outside roads in the yard, coal etc placed for the coal merchant, smalls (goods) placed in the shed, and any private siding traffic placed at the appropriate exchange point.  These were all things which were learnt as part of learning the job.

 

There is of course nothing wrong with adding extra wagons - but you do need to set a length limit (I think I mentioned that above) for practical reasons and JLTRT.  This means that you can handle special traffic such as market days (lots of cattle wagons perhaps - in older times), or - as happened locally - you have a sudden influx of ferry wagons with some sort f imported whatever (here it was toys and furniture - yes, back in steam days).  Equally you could run in a lot of extra empties for some sort of additional loading outwards - sugar beet is again a good seasonal example at many smaller/more rural stations.

 

Pasenger:freight mix?  Britain's railway were predominantly freight in revenue terms into the late 1950s/early '60s but a lot of this was always concentrated in industrial areas.  However I would think that in number of trains terms on many routes freights were still predominant well into the 1950s.  However on branch and rural lines the situation was probably the opposite with only limited numbers of freights as they were doing no more than perform a limited delivery/collection role at local stations - and that basically ended during the 1960s.  The only figures i can easily lay hands on show 73,132,000 freight train miles run in 1967 (10% steam hauled) and 196,130,000 passenger train miles run (less than 1% steam hauled), by 1977 the passenger train figure had risen to 201,362,000 miles and the freight figure had declined to 49,314,000 miles.  In the same period parcels train mileage declined slightly from 15,472,000 miles to 13,814,000 miles.

[Glorious NSE]

I still see that there is a real issue between operation of modules US vs British. From what I gather US operation has just about remained the same over a very long period with far more freight than passenger working. The same seems to be true of the models/modules that are produced.

 

US operation has changed hugely over the years as British operation has - and just like British operations, it all depends on context - where and when and what.

 

Parts of the US rail network are absolutely dominated by frequent busy passenger trains - those parts are in a minority - there's parts of the British network where freights are more common than passenger trains - again, that's a minority, but they exist.

 

It is true thought that our operational focus for this meet (1980s+, secondary and branch line routes, all loose carload freight traffic, no lineside signalling, minimal passenger traffic) still reflects the real thing in some places (it's definately not the mainstream - we're modelling backwaters here) - it's definately not true however to assume that because that was our operational focus this time, that it's the only focus we could possibly have, or that it always will be the same focus - what we can build/operate/acheive depends on the modules we have available.

 

The British practice I can see as being very different, it is also strikingly different between eras.

 

Totally agree with that.

 

I do not like this reference to TOPS (a relatively modern addition/complication) it is restrictive to module design and the stock/locos used.

 

I disagree totally.

 

Operating scheme is something that's created by the folk organising a meet, based on the modules available and the criteria (such as era) you want - the TOPS list example I showed earlier is something that fits very well with a certain era as I explained in the previous post where I offered to create it, it's pretty suitable for 1970s+. If you're running that era at a meet, then what I showed is how it could look.

 

If you're running earlier, (assuming that a computer printed list is the way you want to go for aesthetic reasons) than the 1970s then referring to wagons by TOPS code is obviously not helpful, as they don't exist!

 

As I wrote in the last post though, this is all configurable. If you want to call it a boxcar, call it a boxcar, if you want to call it a VKA, call it a VKA, if you want to call it a vent van, call it a vent van. If you want to call it a MOGO, call it a MOGO.

 

 

 

I would guess that if left to our own devices most British modules would be pre-TOPS and would have an exaggerated influence of goods traffic

 

Maybe - maybe not. I'm continually pleasantly surprised by the creativity of the module builders we've been involved with...

 

 

 

but would be very surprised if passenger orientated modules were not built.

 

As would I.

 

For the record, we also have passenger orientated modules, we had one in use at Armitage, and nothing said on this thread precludes running passenger trains.

 

 

 

I also think what we call things is important.

 

If you mean "Freight" - I'll be remaining unapologetic for using a word that our real railway has consistently used for at least 40 years...

[Talltim]

I also think what we call things is important.

 

In some way yes, in some no. The basic underlying concept of a train going from somewhere; to somewhere else; with such and such stock; at what time, is the same. The way is is presented and named makes it realistic to the the people playing trains.

An UK express passenger driver might only have a copy of the WTT for his train, along with info on what loco he is picking up at the shed and the train weight, but the underlying information required is the same as for a train manifest for a US shortline railroad engineer. Even if the passenger driver doesn't need to know the exact details of what stock he is coupling onto at the station, the shunters at the carriage sidings will.

So, whatever system you use for planning, all the info needs to be in it, the part that makes the realism is how it is presented to the the people operating the layout, with the just the relevant info in their documentation.

 

Going back to something Stationmaster said, on a British pre-TOPS branchline goods train, the train crew* might not be presented with the details of what wagons they are picking up, or which exact siding the wagons they have are going to. This info might be passed to the stationmaster/signalman for the module, and the crew have to talk to them to find out. Again, the 'system' knows all the details, but the realism is maintained by being selective in which info is given to who.

 

*how old is this term?

[Kenton]

 

It should be remembered that this is a thread about module operations, not British module operations

:no: not what I read in the 1st post. More along the lines of: we have this system, it works with US modules, let's see if it can be adapted/ what could be changed for use in British Modules ... reference the link to the Brit Modules topic.

 

Also in the wrong forum to be pure US.

 

 

BTW TOPS in the UK has been around for just under a quarter of the period that railways with locos have existed!

 

that sounds like an overwhelming majority vote for a strike :D

[PaulRhB]

Just to throw a hypothetical layout into the mix based on a 2ft square as the grid. This is just to show the potential to use different size stations and some pure industries.

 

[Glorious NSE]

More along the lines of: we have this system, it works with US modules, let's see if it can be adapted/ what could be changed for use in British Modules ... reference the link to the Brit Modules topic.

 

 

Not how I see it - more of "What tools to we need to do more than just randomly run some trains, and what's available already?"

 

I don't know of a pure British operations system for model railways - is there one? I suspect not, as very few British layouts are capable of applying more than small specific snippets of those operations. 

[PaulRhB]

  :no: not what I read in the 1st post. More along the lines of: we have this system, it works with US modules, let's see if it can be adapted/ what could be changed for use in British Modules ... reference the link to the Brit Modules topic.

 

Also in the wrong forum to be pure US.

 

  that sounds like an overwhelming majority vote for a strike :D

 

The thread is titled as UK operation but it is inevitably going to compare to the only experience some of us have of model ops as systems exist already that we know work. Using that as a base and adapting it to our needs, if possible, has got to be better than trying to write something from scratch. The advantage is the PC system kept track of stock to keep things fluid and not bunching at one location.

[Glorious NSE]

Going back to something Stationmaster said, on a British pre-TOPS branchline goods train, the train crew* might not be presented with the details of what wagons they are picking up, or which exact siding the wagons they have are going to. This info might be passed to the stationmaster/signalman for the module, and the crew have to talk to them to find out. Again, the 'system' knows all the details, but the realism is maintained by being selective in which info is given to who.

 

I suspect the difficulty you'll have with that kind of distributed knowledge is that it would require everyone involved to act like a professional, to know how it's supposed to work and what their roles are beforehand...from personal experience with what we've done that's a big challenge.

 

Giving people info in advance is fairly easy - them reading and understanding the import of it is much harder.

[Talltim]

  :no: not what I read in the 1st post. More along the lines of: we have this system, it works with US modules, let's see if it can be adapted/ what could be changed for use in British Modules ... reference the link to the Brit Modules topic.

 

Also in the wrong forum to be pure US.

 

I wasn't saying it was pure US either, more generic. With regards to JMRI, can we adapt it? What is wrong with that? It may be that it is not suitable for what people want, but until it is know what is wanted, you aren't going to know. It may be that there is a better one for UK operations, but I've not seen anyone suggest anything else, software wise certainly. Are there other applications?

Obviously the railways managed for years without computer based systems, but the people that planned these things had full time jobs doing it, and were tweaking timetables that were established for railway geography that hadn't just sprung into life for a weekend. Many modeller produce timetables and operating sequences for their layouts by a variety of methods, however they are working with a known set of variables and have as long as they like to produce it. The layout also tend to be operated by a known team, who have time to get used to it.

Where a modular set-up varies is that it (obviously) changes each time and the people running the trains may never have met before. I've only had experience of turning up and being a driver, perhaps Martyn could give an indication of the time he spent preparing for the recent meet?

[Talltim]

One thing that I like from the recent meet was that each turn was assigned to a crew (engineer and conductor in this case), rather than one person. In a situation where a lot of people don't know each other, this helps with the social aspect.

This would work equally well for the UK, the driver drives and the guard dispatches passenger trains; tells the driver what wagons to pick up ; changes the points on hand frames; etc. Might not work so well for DOO EMUs tho'!

[Glorious NSE]

Just to throw a hypothetical layout into the mix based on a 2ft square as the grid. This is just to show the potential to use different size stations and some pure industries.

 

25689b.JPG

 

I know I suggested keeping passenger traffic out of JMRI - but one thing I suspect it could do for passenger traffic is create (era permitting) semi-random provision of through/connecting coaches/vans/horseboxex and tail traffic for certain passenger workings...

[The Stationmaster]

In some way yes, in some no. The basic underlying concept of a train going from somewhere; to somewhere else; with such and such stock; at what time, is the same. The way is is presented and named makes it realistic to the the people playing trains.

An UK express passenger driver might only have a copy of the WTT for his train, along with info on what loco he is picking up at the shed and the train weight, but the underlying information required is the same as for a train manifest for a US shortline railroad engineer. Even if the passenger driver doesn't need to know the exact details of what stock he is coupling onto at the station, the shunters at the carriage sidings will.

So, whatever system you use for planning, all the info needs to be in it, the part that makes the realism is how it is presented to the the people operating the layout, with the just the relevant info in their documentation.

 

Going back to something Stationmaster said, on a British pre-TOPS branchline goods train, the train crew* might not be presented with the details of what wagons they are picking up, or which exact siding the wagons they have are going to. This info might be passed to the stationmaster/signalman for the module, and the crew have to talk to them to find out. Again, the 'system' knows all the details, but the realism is maintained by being selective in which info is given to who.

 

*how old is this term?

In a good many years of working with and managing Drivers it was extremely rare (roughly on a par with hen's teeth I reckon) to find a  Driver who actually had the WTT details for his train (apart from the fact that Drivers weren't supplied with WTTs) but most in my experience would at least write down the stopping points when they were going to work a passenger train - and don't forget, Drivers didn't officially have watches either.

 

Traincrew was certainly in use as a term by the 1960s but I don't think it appeared in the Rule Book until 1972;  it was almost certainly in colloquial use in the 1950s, possibly earlier, although the way duties were divided in those days and earlier meant there was minimal official need for it.

 

As far as setting up a timetable and various other things are concerned a lot of it is a relatively straightforward task that can readily be done as a modular layout is assembled, on the day it is assembled provided that the various module owners have, where necessary, any critical information but particularly length limits (on the length of trains).  The timetable itself depends entirely on how the modules are arranged, what stock etc folk have with them and, really, what the assembled company wish to do on the day.  Putting a basic timetable plan together for the sort of module arrangement illustrated above by Paul wouldn't take long and you can't do it until you know how long it takes various types of train to get from A to B to C etc

[PaulRhB]

The only thing I'd suggest is that whoever plans the layout plans a basic timetable before the event. This worked very well for the US meet as all the data was ready to go. Following the example of two wagons for each spot at a siding, (so a cattle dock might have 3 wagon spots), you could start 3 at the siding and three in wherever you decide as the other destination, whether it's another siding or a marshalling yard. The advantage is you could have a town with a market served directly by the branches around it so you can say to three module owners you only need to bring 4 instead if 6 wagons.

Passenger trains could pick up milk traffic etc too.

[Kenton]

 

Passenger trains could pick up milk traffic etc too.

Milk churns on an APT ? some things would never quite look right

[roundhouse]

 

Milk churns on an APT ? some things would never quite look right

It would end up as a milk shake!!!

[PaulRhB]

Ooh don't let Mr Tilt hear you

[Donw]

I like Mike's (Stationmaster) confidence that working out a timetable wouldn't take long. I assume that until the day you cannot be certain what the final layout will be and what stock will actually have been brought plus there could be problems such as the clearance on Bill's module are too tight for Tom's stock. I can remember someone bringing an o/s cyliner GCR loco to run on another's layout. When the beautifully painted (probably a professional job) loco had marks along the lined out cyliners there was definately a strained atmosphere.

This is not meant to be a damper but a recognition that things may need a lot of adjustment. I have the impression the US made a lot of use of train orders whereas in the UK specials seem to have been planned out more although perhaps I am wrong on that.

Don

[The Stationmaster]

I like Mike's (Stationmaster) confidence that working out a timetable wouldn't take long. I assume that until the day you cannot be certain what the final layout will be and what stock will actually have been brought plus there could be problems such as the clearance on Bill's module are too tight for Tom's stock. I can remember someone bringing an o/s cyliner GCR loco to run on another's layout. When the beautifully painted (probably a professional job) loco had marks along the lined out cyliners there was definately a strained atmosphere.

This is not meant to be a damper but a recognition that things may need a lot of adjustment. I have the impression the US made a lot of use of train orders whereas in the UK specials seem to have been planned out more although perhaps I am wrong on that.

Don

A timetable is simply a framework Don - it sets out when you can run trains of different types without them operationally getting in the way of each other although it is a fairly simple task to add balances (i.e when an incoming train has to return) and of course it takes account of platform/siding capacity (an equally simple task provide you have some graph paper and drawing implements, and a rubber (eraser should the PC police chucker go beserk).

 

What you 'populate the timetable with is a different matter and whether or not a particular loco does or doesn't fit is really down to the initial standards and compliance with them.

 

Specials are easy if you know where you can run them and a proper timetable graph will tell you that at a glance  (even if you're looking at it upside down although as it happens German TT graphs are easier to read upside down than any others in Europe).

[PaulRhB]

You'll need some kind of order if there's to be any interaction between different layouts that make up the line or people will send a train of totally inappropriate goods or too many for smaller stations to handle.

Someone coordinating is important to make sure it will fit or it will take a day to figure out a massive 3D jigsaw as you find there's no gangway left or bits clash.

A basic timetable as Mike suggested just makes sure you get a service and allows you to consider some extra traffic to fill any gaps, a market train or holiday special if one arm will be light on traffic?

If you don't have a rough timetable trains will bunch in places making it totally unrealistic and frustrating with too much waiting.

[PaulRhB]

We mentioned era themes earlier and that is important so the stock you work with matches but there isn't really a reason you can't mix regions as you concentrate on working just your train. In an ideal world you would theme it so the coaching stock and locos are from the same region if you have enough stock but it's not essential to have a go at operation. That part can develop once it is established or you could run it mainly LMS with a proportion of cross regional trains so S&D and GWR might have a couple of passenger workings too.

 

Taking the hypothetical plan from earlier I looked at the basic routes of services that a timetable could be built around. Assuming the big fiddleyard is the starting place for all goods you can see how potentially busy the first station is. If you assume though that the three pure industrial freights alternate between the passenger trains they would only see services every third cycle of the hourly timetable. Then take the two branchlines and serve them alternately every 2nd hour and it's far less congested and easy to build in around the passenger trains.

Although station 1 has more trains they mostly pass through, Station 3 however has less trains but they all require running round so it should even out the work.

Each of the goods trains that pass through a station can serve it if there is additional capacity required at short notice, that also means that 'Control' on the day can have fun allocating appropriate locos

 

 

Just as something to get ideas going I was thinking about a modern alternative, around privatisation or up to the 2000's and you could swap the Colliery for a cement works with shorter length MGR traffic. China clay, scrap, waste disposal, various aggregates etc all could be served with short block trainloads that don't require shunting at other locations just a runround. You might leave the boards as they are if they are 60's based or you could have alternative buildings.

My Lulworth layout has interchangeable buildings to move area and period at home, while the alternatives aren't fully matched to the scenery they change it enough for the illusion to work for something like this. Something to consider when designing a module or choosing whether your existing layout would fit in

Which way round you put a junction can add a runround to the operation making it a little more interesting to run that train

[MacRat]

You're right, Paul, with thinking about different train services and planing routes, however, I think this is the second step already. 

 

The number of trains concurrently on the layout is generally limited by the actual track layout of the stations that people build and bring to the meeting. All trains, whether they are running, stabled, shunting, overtaking, crossing or reversing, block a section of track or siding, that cannot be used by another train. And people keep building what they want, not what the layout planer wants, and this would be more smaller stations than stations worth serving a town.

 

Thus, I wouldn't even start thinking about types of trains and possible routes without having the slightest idea of what the layout could look like. But, yes, once there is an idea of the layout, drawing desired services into it is the second step. And the third step would be to write the times down, keeping in mind that there is a fast clock for train times but that all shunting and communication happens in normal time.