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

[trisonic]

Turned into an interesting thread.

Of course if people like this type of route it is unnecessary to remain in Miami. Try downtown Phoenix (BNSF/Industrial/Cactus mix), Kansas City (BNSF/Industrial/MidWest), South Jersey (SMS/Industrial/UK type scenery), Bayonne (CSX, NS/Oil/Rustbelt). Pick something different.

There's a "cute" little prototype Container port further down on Lance's site.

 

Best, Pete.

[Glorious NSE]

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

 

Yeah - no longer in use, but this one is a doozy...no room for a boxcar dock? Build a track in the river...

http://binged.it/UOGNi2

[298]

"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.

 

I had a strange thought for a second that John Gray has dismantled his Union Pacific layout, but there must be two prolific UP brass collectors in the Bay area with large layout rooms.

 

I've just recieved an invite to a Pacific Northwest RPM meet (unfortunately I can't make it), but the details do say they're looking for stock or small dioramas. I'm not sure if this means something akin to how an off-line structure might be presented at a NMRA contest, but in years to come we might see an increase in small, easily portable layouts that are modelled on actual locations and would otherwise be stand alone layouts or a detachable part of a larger home project. It's what us Brits have been exhibiting for years...!!

[Colinw62]

As has already been said ....this is turning into a really interesting thread.

 

I think though that part of the debate revolves around Lance's point not being grasped. To me it is summed up in the last paragraph of his Blog. It is about a layout concept that can be up and running very quickly. Lance suggests in a couple of weekends, with minimal outlay of both time and money. The modeller can then "operate" the layout pretty much straight away, getting a feel for the layout, then expand, detail and grow the concept at leisure, focusing effort on areas without being overwhelmed by a huge project. The result being able to complete each element relatively quickly....or slowly, at your leisure...isn't that why we model in the first place? (To relax, escape etc...)

 

At the end of the day it comes down to "is this for you or not?". As always it is an idea, a concept to get poeple thinking and indeed talking......Lance has definately succeeded in this! Let's keep it going!!

 

Colin

[Jan]

Yeah - no longer in use, but this one is a doozy...no room for a boxcar dock? Build a track in the river...

http://binged.it/UOGNi2

 

Smashing. Good spot. Anyone fancy a shelf layout above a fishtank?

[JWB]

I think we're still talking about opportunity cost here, along with a question of focus. What's the actual audience for the layout? Is it the beginning modeler who wants to get something up and running right away? Possibly -- but I'm very skeptical that a 12 feet by 8 feet L along two walls with one switch, patterned on a specific prototype in Miami, is a good choice for a beginner. Maybe a shelf layout is a good idea, although if I were to give someone advice, I'd probably suggest Kato Unitrack or equivalent, following any of several possible published shelf layout plans (smaller, with more than one switch!). And I'd want to listen more to what interests that person in modeling the rail industry. Quite possibly they're inspired by something other than Miami, FL -- maybe it's the UP, for instance, somewhere other than in an urban semi-industrial area. Actually, if it's a beginner, I've discovered the best solution is a train set -- a family member approached me a while ago asking for advice on how to get her husband to take the next step beyond just dreaming about a layout one day. I suggested a gift certificate to a hobby shop, getting him to buy some basic stuff and try to see what he liked. She said absolutely not, he'll never use the certificate, something has to push him harder. She talked to the owner of the hobby shop in her area, and he suggested a train set. I made sure it had the track and the power supply so it would all work, and she just gave him the whole deal for Christmas. That was what worked. My "informed" advice would have been counterproductive.But we're not even sure if Lance has beginners in mind here.

 

Lance also talks about not wanting to operate for hours at a time. Fine, but he should know enough about the prototype to know that different jobs often work the same track: one job serves industry A, another B and C, another just D if needed on weekends. There's no need to build a specific layout just to switch one industry because that's all you might feel like doing! If your layout has five industries, there's no requirement that you switch all five on the same night -- just set up a job called Third Smithboro Local that runs as needed to switch the corn flake plant, and don't worry about the lumber yard!

 

So part of the issue is, as I guy I used to work with used to ask in meetings, "What problem are we trying to solve here?" The answer would often not be very clear, or irrelevant (it could be "I'm trying to look good to my boss by creating a lot of busy work", for instance.) But it's a worthwhile question. What problem is Lance trying to solve?

[Jan]

"What problem are we trying to solve here?"

 

Perhaps it's the problem of over-populating the available space with too much track, and then getting disillusioned and dropping the idea. Perhaps this layout is achievable and interesting, and can progress very quickly from a "plonk and play" collection of set-track and straight-out-of-the-box stock into an accounting of an actual place; something that can be visited on foot and by remote sensing (Bing and Google maps seem to be an essential resource for inspiration!). Or perhaps it's anchoring the railway in a setting; integrating it in an actuality. Modelling the setting. Is it too grandiose to suggest model railways as vehicles for social history? Probably... I do get pompous after "lights out" ....

[F-UnitMad]

... If your layout has five industries, there's no requirement that you switch all five on the same night ....

An excellent point.

Following Lance's "How to Operate..." book, when I ran a train recently I made a deliberate decision to just pull the 'empties' from one of my industries, without replacing the cars with 'loaded' ones.... This may sound stupid, but it was quite a surprising feeling doing that, as somehow we/I seem to have been almost unconciously "conditioned" to the idea of always swapping cars at each industry, and that somehow an industry without cars present is "wrong".

[dave1905]

It really boils down to what your concept of a railroad is. Mindhiem is all about the minute, mundane details of actually executing an activity. Unlocking a gate. Walking to the switch. Tieing a handbrake. If you are into that, great.

 

I was operating at a layout where the owner was trying to stress that approach. He mentioned that the modelers seemed to be getting into the mindset, but all the people who actually worked for a railroad were having a hard time with it and weren't very enthusiastic.

 

I view a railroad as a transportation system, so for me, MOVING the cars is important. You want to tie on handbrakes, great, knock yourself out, just make sure the right cars get on the right train in the right block on time. I realize that at some point i'll end up in a situation where I'm in an apartment or something where I only have a 1 ft x 4 ft board to work with and I'll have to make compromises. But until then, all the detail stuff isn't that important to me. I'm modeling the larger system.

 

The hardest part for me, when somebody says they want to operate "prototypically" along the Mindheim school of thought is to resist the temptation to REALLY operate prototypically and to ball the works up so nothing moves. Entirely prototypical by the way. There are lots of scenarios I've seen over the years, multiple times, that will just bring everything to a screeching halt. That's when we'll see how much fun this detailed operation is (well it will be fun for me). Its one of those "be careful what you ask for" type of things.

 

Once a dispatcher was harrassing me about being "on time" so I arranged to be stopped for a fast clock half hour or so because of "cattle on the right of way". The prototype is a cruel world. 8-)

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

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.

 

It doesn't matter how long the train or how many turnouts you actually have - essentially, that's railroading in a nutshell... pushing and pulling cars backwards and forwards.

 

Although I have an issue with Lance's space - it is a heck of a lot of real estate most of us don't have - his point is that operating it like the real thing can occupy hours. Again, just like the real thing this can get pretty monotonous.

 

I was at Colton Yard the other night - a yard switcher set of SD40-2/SD40-2/SD38-2 pulled a couple of hundred cars under Pepper Avenue bridge, waited a few minutes, then pushed them all back again. In the flesh, it was interesting and thrilling. I can't imagine the same thing on model railroad being anything other than tedious. I was trying to think through what made it interesting in the flesh, and concluded that it was the noise and spectacle. Banging couplers as the slack is taken up, cars creaking, brakes squeaking, turbos howling, and of course the warm California night. None of those elements are modelable, and so reluctantly I'm beginning to conclude that my interest in model trains is waning as my appreciation of real railroads grows.

[298]

Perhaps it's the problem of over-populating the available space with too much track, and then getting disillusioned and dropping the idea.

 

Perhaps he's trying to appeal to those who would build (or at least plan) a layout with excessive amounts of track or switches in such a space, to make them think "I can see how one switch would work, but adding a run round track along the other wall and maybe another switch at the bottom of the curve" would still end up with a minimal but achievable plan in the same space, but with alot more variation over his single switch.

 

To put it another way, it's the same trick used by developers (but in reverse) when building on small pockets of land. You might want to build 6 apartments but know the council wouldn't approve the plans, so you submit plans for 8 plus a couple of houses, that of course gets refused and the council recommend 5, so you submit your original plans with the notion that any less and you won't be able to make money and the land will stay an undeveloped eyesore, to which the council give you the green light to go ahead. The net result is the developer gets what they want and the council think have been brainwashed into thinking they've got their way.

 

I guess the proof is in the pudding, and we'll just have to wait and see if any of the prolific layout builders on here go ahead and build an exhibition layout based on Lance's idea.

[signalmaintainer]

It really boils down to what your concept of a railroad is. Mindhiem is all about the minute, mundane details of actually executing an activity. Unlocking a gate. Walking to the switch. Tieing a handbrake. If you are into that, great. I was operating at a layout where the owner was trying to stress that approach. He mentioned that the modelers seemed to be getting into the mindset, but all the people who actually worked for a railroad were having a hard time with it and weren't very enthusiastic.

 

I view a railroad as a transportation system, so for me, MOVING the cars is important. You want to tie on handbrakes, great, knock yourself out, just make sure the right cars get on the right train in the right block on time.

Right on, Dave. While I appreciate Lance's layout designs and modeling techniques, that aspect of his approach to operation doesn't appeal to me. I can easily see why the TY&E professionals might not cotton to it. I suppose somewhere in the evolution of uber-prototyping on a model railroad would be ops testing of participants, mock investigations for failures and discipline.

 

The hardest part for me, when somebody says they want to operate "prototypically" along the Mindheim school of thought is to resist the temptation to REALLY operate prototypically and to ball the works up so nothing moves. Entirely prototypical by the way.

 

A very interesting point and entirely true. It's curious to me how most of the operation-oriented modelers I know tend to have these silky smooth operating sessions. Very little out of of the ordinary ever happens on their layouts: no broken slide fences, no broken rails or slow orders, no set-outs due to a hot bearing or a locomotive malfunction, no signal or track maintenance crews to move trains around.

 

More than a decade ago I was operating on a quite well-known HO scale layout which portrays the steam-diesel transition era in Ohio. Timetable-train order operation, double-decked -- layout's been in Model Railroad Planning and Model Railroader many times. I was having a good ol' time when suddenly the rear truck of my hot through freight's caboose went on the ground. The kingpin had broken away. Perfect opportunity, I thought, to do what the prototype would probably do: spot the damaged crummy on the nearest siding or spur, snag a caboose from the nearby local, issue new train orders as needed to cover the situation, and then get the train onward to the terminal. The local would go dead on hours without a caboose, so might a couple of other though freights, including mine, due to a gummed up mainline -- but that's railroading.

 

Wrong. Instead, the owner had me move on with the damaged caboose at the best speed possible. I had to stop every 20 feet or so to rerail it. No prototypic at all, but hey, at least his staging yards weren't out of whack at the end of the operating session.

[Barry Ten]

One thing that's clear to me is that with sound (in-loco and ambient), slow running, weathering, good lighting, modern scenic techniques, and so on, you generally get more bang for your buck out of a given piece of trackwork than in the "old days".

 

Do people really not operate their layouts as much as he says?

[HeavyDuty]

Right on, Dave. While I appreciate Lance's layout designs and modeling techniques, that aspect of his approach to operation doesn't appeal to me. I can easily see why the TY&E professionals might not cotton to it. I suppose somewhere in the evolution of uber-prototyping on a model railroad would be ops testing of participants, mock investigations for failures and discipline.

 

 

 

A very interesting point and entirely true. It's curious to me how most of the operation-oriented modelers I know tend to have these silky smooth operating sessions. Very little out of of the ordinary ever happens on their layouts: no broken slide fences, no broken rails or slow orders, no set-outs due to a hot bearing or a locomotive malfunction, no signal or track maintenance crews to move trains around.

 

More than a decade ago I was operating on a quite well-known HO scale layout which portrays the steam-diesel transition era in Ohio. Timetable-train order operation, double-decked -- layout's been in Model Railroad Planning and Model Railroader many times. I was having a good ol' time when suddenly the rear truck of my hot through freight's caboose went on the ground. The kingpin had broken away. Perfect opportunity, I thought, to do what the prototype would probably do: spot the damaged crummy on the nearest siding or spur, snag a caboose from the nearby local, issue new train orders as needed to cover the situation, and then get the train onward to the terminal. The local would go dead on hours without a caboose, so might a couple of other though freights, including mine, due to a gummed up mainline -- but that's railroading.

 

Wrong. Instead, the owner had me move on with the damaged caboose at the best speed possible. I had to stop every 20 feet or so to rerail it. No prototypic at all, but hey, at least his staging yards weren't out of whack at the end of the operating session.

 

Bill doesn't need defenders, but I have to say this was extremely atypical for him. I'm a session regular and have been for many years, he normally takes great pleasure in making us work unexpected challenges out in a prototype fashion.

[shortliner]

One thing that's clear to me is that with sound (in-loco and ambient), slow running, weathering, good lighting, modern scenic techniques, and so on, you generally get more bang for your buck out of a given piece of trackwork than in the "old days".

 

Do people really not operate their layouts as much as he says?

 

I know that many US modellers tend to hold operation sessions, frequently in a round-robin fashion, and their layouts are rarely designed for, or capable of, solo operation - so I imagine that he may well be right regarding how often an average railroad actually does get operated

[Barry Ten]

Bill doesn't need defenders, but I have to say this was extremely atypical for him. I'm a session regular and have been for many years, he normally takes great pleasure in making us work unexpected challenges out in a prototype fashion.

 

I guess we're talking about the Maumee Route here?

[Talltim]

People seem to have fixed on the track plan and its available operating potential as the main problem with the layout idea. Myself, I don;t like the layout (as a whole) while not minding the track layout. There appears to be no real framing of the scene, no interest in the composition, no use of sightlines.

On a more general note, while I am all for prototypical operation, I don't see the point of waiting while brake tests are done, or the conductor walks the length of the train on a model. I reall life something is actually happening, on the model it isn't.

[Barry Ten]

I know that many US modellers tend to hold operation sessions, frequently in a round-robin fashion, and their layouts are rarely designed for, or capable of, solo operation - so I imagine that he may well be right regarding how often an average railroad actually does get operated

 

See, I probably run trains for at least 30 mins a night, provided I'm home. Even if I'm tinkering with something on the bench (or, like last night, painting a 1/48th scale Mustang) I'll have a train orbiting. It may not be operation in the strict sense but I'm still enjoying my train set.

[JWB]

There are more ways to operate than the magazines want you to believe -- the 1000 square foot multideck layout is a form of conspicuous consumption, promoted by mags pretty much the same way that restored colonials are promoted by the architectural magazines. The editors seem to think people want to read about them, although the declining circulation of all print mags suggests editors don't know everything. For that matter, I've found that operating sessions at such large layouts tend to have a lot of interpersonal baggage that I'd also just as soon not deal with.

 

On top of that, I think railfan-modelers are starting to rethink operation again. The really-really big layout with a dozen or more operators is an idea that seems to have hit its stride with Allen McClelland, and it was good for its time, but he did focus on main line CTC style operation. Charles Freericks's Southern California Locals book http://www.amazon.com/Southern-California-Locals-Railroad-Enthusiasts/dp/1475166788/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348669899&sr=8-1&keywords=freericks+southern+california+locals gives an incomplete but growing picture of how trains other than main line intermodals run. There's a lot of scope for operating an hour or so in a given evening on a layout of any size.

 

I think the McClelland style layout has limited scope and even misses some good opportunities, just as I think the UK style exhibition layout has limited scope and misses opportunities. But I don't think Mindheim's approach is the best bet for a lot of people, either.

[Barry Ten]

The editors seem to think people want to read about them, although the declining circulation of all print mags suggests editors don't know everything.

 

I quite enjoy reading about them, as it happens. I'll never build one, will probably never visit one or know anyone who has one, and I'm not sure I'd want to build one even if I had the time, space and resources, but I can get something out of reading about them. I suppose it's the model railroad equivalent of Hello magazine, a glimpse into a different world.

 

Edit: actually, the first time I picked up MR, sometime around 1996, my jaw hit the floor; I literally could not get my head around the size and complexity of some of those basement empires. This was at a time when 20x12 was considered a big layout in UK circles. Now there are some UK layout projects of equivalent scale, but even so, my mind still boggles at some of the US projects.

[298]

More than a decade ago I was operating on a quite well-known HO scale layout which portrays the steam-diesel transition era in Ohio. Timetable-train order operation, double-decked -- layout's been in Model Railroad Planning and Model Railroader many times. I was having a good ol' time when suddenly the rear truck of my hot through freight's caboose went on the ground. The kingpin had broken away. Perfect opportunity, I thought, to do what the prototype would probably do: spot the damaged crummy on the nearest siding or spur, snag a caboose from the nearby local, issue new train orders as needed to cover the situation, and then get the train onward to the terminal. The local would go dead on hours without a caboose, so might a couple of other though freights, including mine, due to a gummed up mainline -- but that's railroading.

 

Wrong. Instead, the owner had me move on with the damaged caboose at the best speed possible. I had to stop every 20 feet or so to rerail it. No prototypic at all, but hey, at least his staging yards weren't out of whack at the end of the operating session.

 

If that's the owners way of keeping things moving, then so be it. However, someone might argue that if you want to treat derailments and car defects as prototypically as possible, then you probably have to start engineering some method of causing them at random into the operation. I used to help operate an exhibition layout and despite it's reliability, some Saturday morning gremlins invariably crept in and we used to deal with them by setting out errant stock into a cripple siding. Unfortunately it seemed to stay there for the weekend before hastily going back into the same stock box when the exhibition closed so we were probably setting out the same wagons at every show.

[JWB]

We're back to the question of how much you actually want to pretend you're at work, rather than having purposeful fun. Keep in mind that the crew is paid to set out the cripple and gets picked up by Renzenberger when their hours expire. The modeler isn't paid and may or may not want to go through the motions. Current computer switchlist packages simply let you pick up the bleepin' cripple, but it in a box, delete the car from the switchlist, and move on. As dave1905 says, it's possible to get really, really bogged down.

[shortliner]

I guess the proof is in the pudding, and we'll just have to wait and see if any of the prolific layout builders on here go ahead and build an exhibition layout based on Lance's idea.

 

Andy - I think building this sort of thing, and displaying it at a show, may be a bit self-indulgent - operating in this sort of fashion on this sort of layout will be fine for someone at home, to whom that sort of operation appeals - but it would certainly very rapidly loose you spectators doing it at a show where the punters have paid to see something moving (and that is really their ONLY interest) - it is difficult enough to get a lot of the " OH! it's just another American layout!" brigade to not just walk on by

[298]

Andy - I think building this sort of thing, and displaying it at a show, may be a bit self-indulgent - operating in this sort of fashion on this sort of layout will be fine for someone at home, to whom that sort of operation appeals - but it would certainly very rapidly loose you spectators doing it at a show where the punters have paid to see something moving (and that is really their ONLY interest) - it is difficult enough to get a lot of the " OH! it's just another American layout!" brigade to not just walk on by

 

Thinking about it Jack, most small layouts of the "one engine in steam" (insert your own variation here) tend to hold a select audience regardless of the track complexities, basically people will stick around to watch you finish the job, and some kind of interpretive display to show which car goes where will explain what you're going. Some might ask questions about the layout construction or stock, and others will tell you about their Nephew who lives in Arizona or try to get you to join a society that promotes a completely different scale or gauge, but generally, I think the biggest problem will be trying to explain why you haven't crammed more track in.

 

Anyway, the usual disclaimer applies that the Exhibition Manager takes responsibility for the design execution (and in part the running qualities) of a layout at his show. He doesn't have to invite it...

[Bagpuss]

Yeah - no longer in use, but this one is a doozy...no room for a boxcar dock? Build a track in the river...

http://binged.it/UOGNi2

Not only was the track built in the river but the only access to it was via a long curving trestle across the river. It remained in use into the 1990s.

http://wc2scale.org/...i-photo.jpg.php

The whole Neenah Menasha area is a wonderful maze of tracks formerly owned by the Milwaukee Road, SOO Line and C&NW and rationalised by the Wisconsin Central leading to complex reversing moves to access many of the industries. One of the many reasons we chose to model this area.