Some trends in model railroading

[FJ and G]

About every decade trends change and some even come back in style--witness the bell bottoms coming back from the 70s.

Same w/model trains.

In 3 rails, the trend is towards command control and greater realism; but this has been more long term, dating back to Lionel's scale Hudson.

Trends in HO and N and other "scale" gauges has been a lot more fluid and dynamic than traditional 3-rails. However, that doesn't mean we cannot learn something from them.

Some trends over the last 10 years:

1. More flat layouts, representing railroads from the midwest and flat areas; areas that have been traditionally unrepresented (you don't see too many Missouri Pacific or Illinois Central layouts in 3-rails, come to think of it).

2. More industrial switching (in 3 rails, there aren't many switching only pikes)

3. Decompression---a new technique of leaving a lot of space between layout elements; not easy to do in O scale.

4. Less free-lance and more prototype-based modeling. There's still plenty of free lance out there but a small trend to model the prototype. In 3 rails, interestingly enough, there aren't that many free-lance layouts---as defined by making up a railroad and painting the locomotive and cars for that fictitious road.

dave vergun

[brianel027]

Dave, I think some of the trends in product offerings have a lot to do with good old fashioned competition and technology. When I got back into the hobby 14 years ago, the shop I used to go to sold a lot of N-scale. The dealer pulled out a magnifying glass and invited me to look at the detail on the N-scale items... it was really impressive. I remeber guys asking why that level of detail and painting couldn't be there on the much larger 3-rail cars?

Look at how the features (and prices) on even HO stuff continue going up. It may be in part market demand. But it is certainly the old story of one manufacturer trying to outdo another by offering more features and details. The Proto 2000 series in HO certainly raised the bar for many HO trains. (just as what's happening today with 3-rail trains). And I notice more HO products being released in limited runs... that also sounds familiar.

I think the 3-rail guys (even those who like the more scaled, detailed items) still have the old die-hard habit of just enjoying the aspect of simply running trains. I've noticed the photos in the train mags of 3-rail layouts where you see lots of scale sized, new higher detailed products... I notice things like a BNSF SD90MAC running on the mainline, while a 2-8-0 sits on a siding?? Or an FP40 pulling woodside freight cars. And I've seen more than enough photos and videos of 3-rail layouts where a Santa Fe engine was pulling a NYC caboose.

From my vantage point, it's harder for an 027 modelers to really run trueprototype, as far as actual models are conerned. For example in the real world, when Conrail took control of the northeast railroads, 40 foot box cars were quickly phased out in place of longer box cars. Roofwalks were also removed from existing box cars (notice how the vast majorty of 3-rail box cars still have roofwalks). 2-bay hoppers were also scrapped as the longer 4-bay hoppers made more money for Conrail.

The importers also give into our sense of "play and fun" with trains: Conrail had exactly one CR blue box car, test painted as an experiement. Yet, seems every time a box car is issued that will run on 027 track, it seems to be CR blue instead of brown or tuscan (or even PC green, of which they had many box cars done with).

Or a prototypical oddball one-of-a-kind car like the "buy savings bonds" Conrail car that Lionel offered a few years ago. Another example: the Lehigh Valley had far far more box cars in Penn Central green than in white. Yet there's no shortage of LV model box cars in none other than white.

Folks gripe about the "fantasy" paint schemes, esp. the ones MTH does. But they must also be buying the cars. Otherwise they wouldn't be made in the first place.

I've learned to "mimic" prototype instead of modeling prototype. I've taken a few broken spring loaded dump car frames, made modifications and converted them into a "suggested" modern-looking intermodal trailer spine cars with Trailer Train paint and markings. I've taken 2 bay hoppers and made them into suggested "bathtub" gons. The S-2 diesel switcher disappeared from Class A railroads ages ago... but the K-Line ones look good size-wise on my layout. So I repaint them to modern roads and add some modern details. Same for the Alco FA's. Real trains today are bigger and longer. As an 027 modeler, I have to settle for the art of suggestion.

Real railroads once ran smaller cars that were meant for localized service to smaller companies. Now, everything is a mega-corporation and the railroads run much bigger and longer cars to reflect this change - along with their desire to minimize costs, increase efficiency and make money. Which means for a 3-rail operator with a small layout, if is nearly impossible to run to true prototype... many of the scale sized cars won't make the 027 curve. Even those that will just clear the 031 curves, look pretty silly doing so.

Dave, some would say that an 027 modeler can hardly have a prototypical layout. But I look at it this way: the real railroads did whatever they could do to make money and save money. They often converted one car into another, taking old beat up cars and giving them new life as something else. They came up with new ideas that always didn't catch on: Conrail experimented with coal containers on flat cars; the Chessie experimented with the nicknamed "tupperware tops" on open hoppers. The idea for them is to make money, not necessarily have fun-filled, colorful rolling stock.

I don't have to worry about the profits on my layout. But like the real railroads, I take what I have available and do as much with it as I can possibly do. For me that means a lot of kitbashing, repainting and scratchbuilding... I've learned to make do with the limitations.

And from what I've seen of the real railroads, that is as prototypical operation as it gets.

[cnw1995]

I get new ideas from just about every post from Dave and Brianel! 027 curves certainly seem to concentrate the mind. I don't mind more scale and more prototypical details or offerings - especially since they are more 'visible' in this scale than in the smaller scales but it isn't a high priority for me for many of the same reasons articulated by Brianel.

[FJ and G]

Brian,

Very nicely articulated. Yes, I too have noticed that many details are absent (or you pay dearly for them). See thru catwalks and diesel grills among them.

I do realize that 3-railers like things "RTR out of box" and like to run em fast and furious; but I believe that we can have the best of both worlds (see my May04 CTT article for further details).

For example, switching, greater scale, believable scenery, scratchbuilding, kitbashing, prototypical operations; as well as tighter curves, semi-scale mixed with scale, Plasticville and non-prototype (but fun) operating accessories, and strange mixes of trains (even the "scale" guys in HO and N make up their own road names!).

While what I just said sounds incongruent, a well executed mix of these things in a layout can blend pretty well and offer believable railroading as well as loads of fun that 3-railers demand.

Why not have the best of both worlds?! This is one of the less discussed strengths of playing with toy trains. Yes, folks, I'm here to tell you that you CAN have your cake and eat it too.

dave v

[jkerklo]

I think the trend to increased scale may be a bit natural; that is, it is easier for the trend to be to increased scale, rather than to decreased scale, towards the more toy aspects. Even manufacturer's attempts to broaden the toy line seem to change directions towards increased scale. Maybe some reasons:

The toy train operators don't reject scale. If I like an engine, I won't refuse to buy it because "it has too much scale." Maybe because it is too expensive or too big, but not just because it is too scaled. Scaled products serve a broader market than strictly toy train products.

Scaled products can command a higher price/margin.

New products need to be different in some way. There aren't too many ways to be different with toy trains, anymore. The market is already well served with old and new items.

Technology has created an opportunity to increase "scale," realism, with sound, motion, and control. May seem silly to put "real" sounds in an obviously toy engine. And, the proportional costs for the sound technology sell better in a higher priced scale engine.

Anyway, I think we can expect the increased scale trend to continue until the price exceeds the market, and it crashes.

John Kerklo
TCA 94-38455
www.Three-Rail.com

[Anonymous]

one un-mentioned trend is a growth in european style mini-layouts. You see alot of it in smaller scales, but also in large scale narrow guage. My favorites are the people building working O and G scale 15" guage layouts in shoeboxes. No way to put "toy" trains into that small a space, but one can get a few ideas from them. Very Small yards or industries could be modelled on a shelf layout, when there is no space for a round-and-round setup. Use short wheelbase locomotives and rolling stock for switching games, or dig out the gang car or trolley for end to end "continuous running".

[FJ and G]

While there is a trend to greater scale, I do not want to marginalize or belittle those who like the charming look of traditional toy trains such as PW and Marx, not to mention the renaissance in Tinplate. These types of trains have their own allure.

Incidentally, CTT, once ran a nice feature on a tinplate fellow who hi-railed his layout with believable scenery. Some creative individuals out there.

[jkerklo]

I don't see anything wrong with mixing "toy" and "scale." Say an area of a predominately toy layout that has some detailed buildings, scenery, and figures.

I am mostly in the hobby for the creation, construction, and showing off. I like building it and visitors seem to like it all.

Now, what I have never been able to understand are those so into scale that they have clocks that run fast, produce consist lists, makeup trains to the list, and run a layout to a perfect time scale.


John Kerklo
TCA 94-38455
www.Three-Rail.com

[FJ and G]

John,

As to operations and fast clocks, I'm in complete agreement w/you. I am not that obsessive-compulsive and if I were a real railroader, I'd probably stop the train over a trestle and go fishing, which would get me fired pretty quickly.

As to operations, I've been told that some who felt about it like we, who then tried it, got completely hooked.

My solution: don't even try it so you don't get hooked.

dav

[jkerklo]

Might be tough to do in O-Scale. It would take 100 ft of layout to run a mile. Not much for a prototype train. Actually, I am not sure how even N-Scale would do much. Must have a very large layout.

Maybe it is something to do when you just can't think of anything more to change on a scale layout.

John Kerklo
TCA 94-38455
www.Three-Rail.com

[Anonymous]

Interesting topic, Dave. Thanks for starting it. And great comments along the way too.

Have you guys seen the article about the two layouts of Bob Hillerich in OGR Run 200? Both layouts are really nice, one being traditional, and the other being scale-oriented. The use of weathering, and the impressive level of detail, make the scale layout look about as good as any of the others I've seen. The traditional layout is good-looking too, only not as fully developed as the scale one. Interestingly, the author talks about how he was happy with the traditional layout and only built the scale layout after more scale equipment, which didn't seem to fit the first layout, became available for O-gaugers.

It seems to me that a traditional layout such as this could be taken to a very believable level of detail if 1) the tubular track had added ties and ballasting, 2) the non-scale accessories were replaced with scale ones, and 3) the landscaping were made to look more realistic. Even though the trains are traditional size, such a layout would look very believable and would only be offensive to the most scale-conscious modelers.

With such an approach, I believe even O27 can be made to look very much like the real thing. The key is in going for well-detailed elements that present a believable representation of reality, while perhaps camouflaging things like tight curves, with landscaping. I think it's much like the difference in painting between impressionism and realism. Each painting when viewed as a whole presents the artist's interpretation of reality, a reality in each case which is recognizable. The impressionist, however, is not as concerned about literal interpretation, but still strives to connect the viewer with a way of looking at reality.

This is the fun of O-gauge. We can take our representation of reality as far as we want, without being bound to fixed rules about what's acceptable. BTW, the author of the article mentioned that he has neither TMCC nor DCS and seems to basically just enjoy running the trains.

[Anonymous]

From John Kerklo: The toy train operators don't reject scale.

Very true John. As a tradtional operator, I don't mind buying and running scale and Lionmaster sized engines. Where I diverge from my scale focused brethern is that I'll run a mix of postwar cars behind them without worry about proper road names or eras.

[Anonymous]

Amen, Joe. I run a mix too. As long as it looks good, I see no problem with that. Just look at the hodge-podge of cars in real trains, at least the ones on the CSX line that parallels my drive to and from work. There's mostly uniformity of scale, but there's also the occasional little box car sandwiched in with the bigger ones and the double stacks.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Ok guys, this has been long overdue. I have never posted my track plan. I hope this shows up well enough to read.

This is the main level, there is a hidden staging / storage yard below, and there will be an upper level. The overall design is strongly based on the prototype, and includes a long mainline with 072 minimum, single track mains with passing sidings, some double track mains, realistic industrial switching, lots of yard space, and interchanges. The helix in the upper right corner will allow the trains to move between levels.

Eventually, there will be full computer control on the mains, where either the computer or a human operator will be able to control trains. There will be realistic scenery, with only minimal whimsy. I also plan to use a fast clock and a car forwarding system. The space is 46' x 38'.

The prototype that I am modeling is my local area, and follows the Amtrak Empire Builder as it passes through the Twin Cities, switching from the CP (ex Milwaukee) main to the BNSF (ex GN) main. With only one passenger train each way per day, there will be a lot of freight.







By the way, THIS LAYOUT HAS NO LOOPS. NO CONTINUEOUS RUNNING.

[nitroboy]

On my layout you will see pre-war Lionel right up to some MPC era engines. To me, this hobby is running trains. No matter what level of detail. They all look good with the lights low and all the accessories lights on, that smoke and engine smell........ Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Dave

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jkerklo

Might be tough to do in O-Scale. It would take 100 ft of layout to run a mile. Not much for a prototype train. Actually, I am not sure how even N-Scale would do much. Must have a very large layout.

Maybe it is something to do when you just can't think of anything more to change on a scale layout.

John Kerklo
TCA 94-38455
www.Three-Rail.com

John, it's called selective compression, and smiles. Smiles are not these guys[:)][:)] but shortened scale miles. They help compress the distance, and this is where the fast clock comes in. Instead of a scale mile being 110 feet, it is crushed down to maybe 10 or 15 feet, and train lenghts go down with it. The clock might run at ratio of 12:1. Now you can have a schedule.

In the case of my layout, the folded main will be about 600 to 700 feet long, representing about 50 miles of real distance. My passing sidings will be about 12 to 15 feet, keeping the proportions correct. See how it all ties together????[:D]

[Big_Boy_4005]

One final thought guys, on my last layout everything was loops. On this, MY ULTIMATE LAYOUT, there will be none of that. BUT it doesn't mean that I don't like that too, or that I've forgotten how, just that it won't be on this one. [swg]

[Anonymous]

For all you O27 tinplaters out there----my On30 Christmas layout was 36" X 18" and ran as smooth as wet glass. Eat your hearts out! Odd-d

[jkerklo]

Elliot,
It is hard to tell from the track plan, there is so much of it, but are you saying that a train starts in the yard in the upper right, runs through 600 feet of track, probably on multiple layers, then ends up in the yard on the bottom. Then a new train is made up and sent back?

Probably more complicated, since I note what might be passing sidings and intermediate industrial sidings. TRAINS start from both ends and move to the other ends?

Tell me more about running such a layout. How many dispatchers would you have? Just One? Sounds like a good group activity for train people. And beer.

Hey, great idea for realistic scenery: a WORKING brewery! Probably wouldn't be too difficult, and all the ingredients would be delivered by train. And end product to "beer mug" tank cars.

John Kerklo
TCA 94-38455
www.Three-Rail.com

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jkerklo

Elliot,
It is hard to tell from the track plan, there is so much of it, but are you saying that a train starts in the yard in the upper right, runs through 600 feet of track, probably on multiple layers, then ends up in the yard on the bottom. Then a new train is made up and sent back?

Probably more complicated, since I note what might be passing sidings and intermediate industrial sidings. TRAINS start from both ends and move to the other ends?

Tell me more about running such a layout. How many dispatchers would you have? Just One? Sounds like a good group activity for train people. And beer.

Hey, great idea for realistic scenery: a WORKING brewery! Probably wouldn't be too difficult, and all the ingredients would be delivered by train. And end product to "beer mug" tank cars.

John Kerklo
TCA 94-38455
www.Three-Rail.com

John, your first paragraph is nearly DEAD ON! One minor detail, when the trains go into the staging area below , they just park and rest there, lined up 5 or 6 deep on one of 5 tracks. When one train leaves the layout, a different one will appear almost by magic! (actually computer)

For this layout there will only be one "dispatcher", and that job goes to the computer. The guests, friends who have been taught the system, will be able to run mainline through trains, run local trains that run out from a yard and pick up and deliver cars, or operate the yards, sorting and making up new trains. If I want to break up a train, I bring it into the yard, just like a real railroad (only smaller).

The layout is really a giant reverse loop, connected by the helix to a smaller reverse loop which is the hidden yard. Enter the layout from the yard and helix one way and the train is heading east, throw the switch, and the train enters the world at the other end heading west. Pretty cool huh??? [8D]

Gather enough friends, and you have an operating session!!! I used to do that every week when I lived in Denver, but with the HO guys that I hung out with. Back then command control was brand new, and pretty basic, but it was a blast!!!

Yes this is a model railroading social event!!! However, in observance of RULE G, no alcohol is served, soft drinks and snacks are common, but the clock on the mineature world is stopped, or full sized humans would get indigestion from eating too fast.[xx(][:o)][dinner][(-D][(-D][swg]

Here is the track diagram for the hidden yard. Is this a cool hobby or what??[swg]

[Anonymous]

since elliot's layout is so big, it would be interesting how many scale miles it is[:)]. THIS LAYOUT IS HUGE!!![:O]

[FJ and G]

Elliot,

I'm impressed. What a nice project you have there. Your layout has inspired me to create a post: "Have you bitten off more than you can chew?" I will be looking forward to you giving us updates about what went right, and, more importantly, what didn't, so we can all learn something.

Folks, Elliott admitted in public that he's a "fast clock" kinda guy. We forgive you, Elliot, I think?

Dave Vergun

[Big_Boy_4005]

No problem Dave, I've been hanging around HO guys all my life, but could never give up my 3 rail trains. I've said this before, "Now I can have the best of both worlds."

I sit back and smile when I hear those guys whine about how they want sound and remote couplers and smoke in their engines. Where do they think they are going to put all that stuff, the trains are too damn small.[banghead][:P][:P][:P][:D][:D][^][:-,][(-D][;)]

Oh yeah Jerry, all the numbers are in the posts to do the math on the scale mile problem.

• 5280 feet to the mile
• O scale is 48 scale feet to 1 real foot (1:48 or 1/48)
• do the math and you get 110 feet to 1 scale mile
• I said I was representing about a 50 mile section of the real railroad
• My mainline will be about 600 to 700 feet
• and my compression is about 10:1