Something to think about - can you really operate a one turnout layout?

[shortliner]

http://www.lancemindheim.com/blog.htm the section dated September 17, 2012

Is track complexity really necessar4y? Discuss.

[JWB]

Well, he calls it ". . . a 'grown up' layout, and at virtually no cost", although you calculate cost in different ways (something Lance, an engineer, should know). There's the opportunity cost of the space, for instance. My impression of UK layouts and UK space constraints is that roughly a foot of shelf width in an L shape along twelve feet and eight feet (or whatever) of wall is major space in the UK. If you can get that space for a permanent layout, why not take maximum advantage of it? There's the opportunity cost of the effort, too: he thinks you could put up a shelf in a couple of weekends max, although I think that's pushing it, and as far as I can see, a decent backdrop in anything but sky-blue paint will take longer than that. Plus the opportunity cost of things like the power supply -- especially if you consider DCC, it ain't cheap, but you're using the expensive system for one loco at a time and one turnout, which I'm not at all sure is cost effective, especially considering the scope that DCC is supposed to provide. Then there's the opportunity cost of the prototype: if you commit to shoebox "generic" structures and the more or less standard corn flake plant or whatever, you're walling yourself off from other possibilities and more potential variety. There are prototypes other than Miami or Vernon, CA, with potentially greater interest and variety. Corn flakes are gonna get old.

 

Given that the space is actually non-trivial, there are things missing -- where's the connection with the rest of the world? There's a "cassette" drawn in (6-8 feet long added to an 8-foot leg -- good luck with that space, too). Are you going to muscle that cassette on and off each evening? Not my idea of relaxing.

 

Jack's Box St design uses a couple more switches in a lot less space. I built a Box St half a dozen years ago, it takes up trivial space, and it provides more scenic and operational potential.

I don't think Lance's idea is cost-effective, or it's cost-efective only in environments where a good part of a room using two walls, with the cost of control but the absence of even basic prototype operating potential, is considered trivial.

[HeavyDuty]

Jack, you beat me to it - I meant to post a link to that here.

 

Lance has hit on one of the truths of US railroading, that track tends to be very simple and multi-purposed. Many US modelers would fill the space he's shown with much more track, but Lance's approach is much more typical of actual practice for at least the last 30 years. As much as modelers like switches, short spurs and runaround options, the prototype tends to follow the less is more (money in our pockets) mantra.

 

I remember being introduced to the concept twenty or more years ago in an early issue of the Layout Design Journal that analyzed a similar arrangement based on (IIRC) the UP in Denver. Two long industrial tracks, one on either side of a roadway each serving numerous industries with a single runaround. To work the job you needed to pull most of the track, rearrange as needed and then respot the entire track. After adding time for coupling, uncoupling, setting and releasing brakes and modeling human movement it becomes quite time consuming.

 

Another layout that is good food for thought regarding usual US practice is the one described in the following blog, sadly not updated for some time. I know many of you have seen this, but I'm sure it will be new for some.

 

http://oscalewcor.blogspot.com/

[signalmaintainer]

I think Lance's proposal is inspiring. Even with one switch, this minimalist track plan will operate in an entirely prototypical manner. It's based on a prototype location, after all, and one merely need replicate how the prototype switches the plant to prove the point. I would think the CSX switch crew would need at least a two to three hours to make all the moves.

 

Is Lance's plan the best use of the available space? That's a matter of personal preference. Track complexity isn't necessary for a model railroad to operate well. Complexity is something the prototype strives to avoid. The more switches, the more maintenance and expensive hardware required.

 

Sure, we can quibble over the unwieldiness of the staging cassette, but again that's a matter of personal preference. Other practical off-scene staging options can be implemented were one to build this layout.

[JWB]

I don't know if it was here or elsewhere, but Dave1905, a professional railroader, once remarked that if you want to know what actually working for a railroad is like, you need to walk around your block at midnight, over and over, while trying to read a newspaper. (My uncle, a professional railroader who rose high in the industry while learning to dislike professional railroaders, once warned me of the same thing when I was in college. The advice took.) The question is whether that's what you want to do when you build a model. As I understand it, every time there's a derailment, there's more or less of a committee meeting to determine whose fault it was, and the guy who couldn't make it to the meeting usually gets the blame. Again, the question is whether you want to duplicate those sorts of tasks. These are in fact personal preferences, and preferences other than Lance Mindheim's are entirely legitimate.

 

Another thing I notice: there are several feet worth of abandoned track on the plan. Why go to all that trouble to lay track you aren't going to use? Again, the space isn't "free", despite Lance's idea that it somehow is.

[shortliner]

I suspect it would be a fairly ideal layout for someone who only has a one-car garage for his layout, and still needs to put the car away overnight. I'm glad that others have found it a subject worth discussing - It shows where others agree and disagree about operational concepts for the railroad model - a subject dear to my heart.- along with incorporating it into minimum spaces - your thoughts are appreciated

[JWB]

Jack, that's a potential place for a layout, though in many climates not a good one, and for reasons of ambient dirt coming in, also not so good. But then you've got the question: why the cassette? If you've got, say, a clear 20 feet along one wall, why add to the hassle by installing the cassette? Why not use the full 20 feet and build in conventional staging? The whole idea is a little like a "concept car", some vehicle of the future that nobody in their right mind would ever want to actually drive!

[trisonic]

D'oh! My next layout was to be 4' long, one turnout ( a nice old 14" No.8 Shinohara that I found) and a separate double tracked mainline (on a different level). No Fiddle, Nothing else either.

 

Lance's is way more sensible.......

 

Where does he get his shirts btw?

 

Best, Pete.

[steve1]

Where does he get his shirts btw?

 

I take you want to know as to avoid the place?

 

steve

[steve1]

I can see what he is trying to achieve, being a micro-layout sort of chap, and I like the modelling on the finished product. Even so, I wouldn't bother with several yards of plain track just to get to the fiddle yard.

 

steve

[trisonic]

I take you want to know as to avoid the place?

 

steve

 

I wanted to warn the Wife. No, seriously (Lance does visit this site).....

 

Actually they look better in the Summer somewhere where you actually get a Summer like here, which as I just reminded Mike The Stationmaster, New York can get as hot as Brisbane (it's on the same latitude as Rome).

 

Best, Pete.

[trisonic]

I can see what he is trying to achieve, being a micro-layout sort of chap, and I like the modelling on the finished product. Even so, I wouldn't bother with several yards of plain track just to get to the fiddle yard.

 

steve

 

Oh, I would, I think. After all GWR modellers do it with BLT's. Besides I personally like modelling stuff.

 

Best, Pete.

[JWB]

So I was eating lunch and gave this some more thought, especially along the line of the fellow above who asked why such a length of plain track just to get to the fiddle (the GWR BLTs I've seen wouldn't use 8 feet that way, and they'd have some countryside to spruce it up, not urban blight!). Here is what I think would be a much more effective use of the same space:This would be based on two California short lines I'm familiar with, though I would stay away from pedantically reproducing either one. Rather than have interchange on a cassette, especially one 6 or 8 feet long, I'd simply put it in back on the long leg behind a semi-view block, much like alcanman now does on his Deerfield Beach layout. The interchange job would then double these cars back to a small yard, similar to the Ventura County Ry at Oxnard or the Santa Maria Valley at Guadalupe. The line would curve around to a station on the 8-foot side of the L, possibly the railroad's headquarters. The scan truncated this side, you could certainly have a runaround, or not, but the prototype short lines I know do have runarounds in these circumstances. You could have a side loading ramp or other simple industry here, too. The line then curves back to another station on the long side of the L, with a transload, a loading ramp, and one or two other industries, possibly suggesting them on the aisle side.

 

There are several advantages. One is the ability to use a greater variety of cars, like centerbeams, bulkhead flats, covered hoppers with feed or whatever, coil cars, anything else. Another is the ability to detail a loco service area and have the loco or locos on display. Another is the ability to have a variety of operating patterns. You could certainly just have a mini-session like Mindheim talks about, where you just pull a siding or something, but you aren't limited to that. You could even take advantage of DCC and have one job working the yard and another on the road.

[jhock]

Personally I like it, but as with all hobbies people are attracted to different aspects of the hobby. I think there is a balance to be struck between prototypical operation and having fun with your layout, I agree with previous comments that given that amount space (which for me would be a lot) I would not model abandoned tracks, I would make them active.

 

I think the cost and space issues just highlight the difference between the USA and the UK, just the cost of the wood alone would be considerable in the UK.

 

However as a talking point it has certainly provoked debate.

[298]

It does seem a little controversial, almost as if he's trying to stir up a debate with someone...!! His initial "less is more" a few years ago proved to be quite inspirational amongst US modellers I know, as some removed excess track from home layouts or designed new ones with more of a prototypical operations bias, instead of the "twee" designs that most newcomers used to come up with that usually included an engine house as they couldn't believe they were less of a necessity on US prototypes.

 

I think it all depends whether you're a modeller or an operator, and his comments about only operating for an hour a year have ring true to me, my home layout was intended to be run for a few minutes a week and although it sits in the study looking pretty with the lights on, it's very rare for me to actually move something...!! We may aswell just build a sucession of small "Fishtank" dioramas with lots of semi-animated action but no trains moving....

[JWB]

"Less is more" comes in a different context in the US, and the people who espouse it are often trying to say more is more, without quite saying so outright. Kevin Shanahan, a modeler who from all appearances is quite well off, had a Union Pacific layout with a lot of brass steam and turbines in the attic of his restored San Francisco Victorian. Then he moved to Marin County or environs and has been publishing progress on his new RGS layout in the Gazette -- the layout room has something like a 16-foot ceiling, which he used to extend his mountain peaks, while proclaiming to the rest of us, yes -- less is more!! I'm not completely sure what point Lance is trying to make. I certainly agree that modeling involves balance and getting to know your own preferences.

[Jon Grant 4472]

I would install the second turnout that's shown in the photo - going straight up from the cassette, parallel to 35th St. That would make it into a prototype shunting puzzle and much more interesting operationally. I might have a go for the Mississippi layout and I already have all the 'ingredients'

 

Jon

[PaulRhB]

. Even so, I wouldn't bother with several yards of plain track just to get to the fiddle yard.

The run in or out though is the time you get to just watch the train pass, like the real thing, rather than having to just shunt. Interesting idea but I think 30-60 minutes a night on the same thing operating might be a bit much for many, I think 5-10 mins pottering around would have me looking for something different, fine as a quick 'fix' each evening though.

[Glorious NSE]

I can see what he is trying to achieve, being a micro-layout sort of chap, and I like the modelling on the finished product. Even so, I wouldn't bother with several yards of plain track just to get to the fiddle yard.

 

The concept is you need (minimum) double the capacity of the track in the lead in order to switch it all 'on scene' - but using your cassette as part of that I would have thought would work also...

 

So, trying to come up with some thoughts of my own.

 

1. I'd also want to put more operational variety in that much space - but I do agree that would give you plenty of action to cover an hour or so's op session, especially in conjunction with a system to generate a 'random' switchlist or similar - so lets assume I was going to do something like this...

2. My take would be to use prefab off-the-shelf construction components and I would have thought you could be up and running in one day....then go back and make it look nice later

3. I'd drop the cassette, and have the lead double up as the staging.

4. I hear JWB's comments ref cost of components like a control system - but assuming you're already in the hobby does it matter? Is there anyone in this thread who does not already either have a control system (DC or DCC) they could connect up? Even if not you can pick up a DC powerpack quite reasonably...if you took that argument to it's logical limits then the majority of us would not use DCC as it's got far more capability than 95% of us can ever use!

 

Balancing capturing that simplistic *look* whilst giving yourself more variety I think is the challenge.

[Talltim]

As someone who is planning a one turnout layout (hopefully, pending house move that will see the space become available, although will probably eat all the time and money instead) I should agree with him, but I really don't like that layout idea. Others have made several valid points above, its not as cheap or simple to build as he makes out, likely the area available would need a wall finish (garage) or you wouldn't just be able to paint ias a backscene (internal house wall) and as someone said, even the hollow core doors aren't all that cheap. (and despite many people using them I feel that they aren't suitable baseboard material, partly because they restrict the shapes of boards)

I think a lot of my issue is that I don't like layouts where the track is parallel to the boards. For roads particularly, having them go off scene at a diagnal to the backscene allows the join be hidden better. However I do understand that for somewhere built on a grid pattern like the area of Miami modelled t does make a lot more sense than on a British layout. Actually if you look at the photos, the two tracks don't run parallel and replicating that would add some interest, to my eye. at least

The long length of the plain track section of the L is to allow the pull of the cars to stay on layout, you could do it into the fiddle yard but I reckon it is better done all in the scenic section. I agree with Jon, the second turnout would be a great addition, the track could be disused as per life or go to a hidden-in-the corner second industry.

[PhilM]

I think it is an intriguing concept and had been having similar thoughts about a hypothetical exhibition layout and/or module - i.e. how simple could it be and maintain interest.

 

Some of the criticism is a bit harsh. Baseboards could be built out of scrap (or is that why mine are so bad!) and if this is your only layout you would need a control system whatever you build and if it is a second you can swap controls - it's what I do.

 

I like the long run in - you can watch the trains go by as well as have a switching layout.

 

If I was going to build it I would put in the removed tracks to increase the interest even more. I am also planning a bakery and with similar in bound cars. My main problem is I simply do not have the length bt do have some opportunity for width so have to have a series of spurs for the different needs. Still find it insprational though.

[F-UnitMad]

I think there's part of Lance's argument that has been missed here; and that is just the sheer amount of time it can take to operate a 'simple' plan like this. He's partly trying to show (I think) that layouts do not have to be complex to take a long time to switch.... there is a "but" though, and that is that the sheer length of the layout increases the amount of time it takes to switch.

On my loft layout, I have a freight branch which is basicly a very long Inglenook, just two switches & three 6-foot-ish spurs along a 17ft wall, then around the end (about 6 feet) to a two-track 'siding' or passing loop on the other side of the room, and it can easily take all evening to switch the whole branch.

The problem I see with the "one switch layout" is one I discussed with Chris Gilbert after the TVNAM show... he had operated quite a few of the layouts that day, and whatever their setting or Era, he said how they were all a bit 'the same' because all you were really doing was going back'n'forth with the loco pulling or pushing boxcars, with the loco always at the one end of the train... it can get a bit monotonous, no matter how long the actual train.

[Glorious NSE]

Alternative take on the concept - this is a paper mill at Neenah WI, just off what the Menasha chaps have modelled - it's a former through route now truncated to provide just enough lead to get a couple of cars in and out...

http://binged.it/PSC3Ff

[Jan]

I like it.

 

Personally, I think it gives a good opportunity to "paint a picture". The buildings form a (not so) natural backdrop that could be left plain - unlikely with the graffiti gang in town - to highlight your particular skill in building and weathering stock, or Vicky Verky - attention paid to depth and relief in structures and scenery to draw the eye away from some dodgy stock. I like the idea of space in a layout. And with the high light levels that seem to exist over there (and not just from Lance's shirts), the stillness of a sporadically-visited single siding can be added to by modelling the oppressive noonday heat. It can always be added to later; perhaps by cleaning up the scungy rails, or putting one end of a loop in on the bit between the fiddle yard up and crossing 67th St.

 

Nice piece of crossing trackwork over at 193 River St, Menasha, WI 54952.

[Talltim]

They seem to like high maintenance leads round there http://binged.it/UMCcgn