In regards to combining time compression (faster clock speed) and time compression (time zone districts), is the following diagram self-explanatory?
https://gyazo.com/04f898209e5f230a565c1312b3726158
The way I interpret this diagram is that one or more persons stay within their "time zone" for their entire shift (or until their mid-shift break). They are handed the DCC controller, by (ie) operator #1, for any train entering their zone and pass it on, (ie.) to operator #3, as it leaves their zone.
Not only does the entire session work under time compression, using faster speed clocks, but time is compressed further when a train crosses from one time zone to another.
However, the operator, keeping to his own zone, does not need to experience the compression of crossing a time zone (since he doesn't cross the zone boundry). And no train re-enters a particular time zone during a particular session.
Each time zone has its own clock; which started the session set at a different starting time.
Is this familiar to anyone?
I have enough trouble getting people to pay attention to the fast clock. This would result in a total operator meltdown here.
Why the slip of 2 hours between "time zone sections"? There's usually just an hour's difference between adjacent zones (or in a few cases, increments of less than an hour.)
Are you modeling the Transiberian Railway? I'm having a hard time getting past the need for more than a couple, three timezones??? Some more explanation seems necessary if you want informed comments. The link doesn't really help here.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Also, the whole "hand train off from section to section" makes me think "Holy 1940s, Batman!" At that point, why bother with DCC? Cab control for two trains per section would be plenty.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
Time zones, a novel idea. But because even the largest layouts only represent a small portion of a real railroad, even with staging, I don't see it catching on. If it works for you, have at it.
I get the concept, but why more than two time zones? Even then the only way I could see it make sense is if you're modeling some place like Chattanooga where the time changes from Eastern to Central just west of the city.
mlehman I have enough trouble getting people to pay attention to the fast clock. This would result in a total operator meltdown here. Olson: It sounds like you're thinking operators would have to be conjoled to pay attention to the time zone they're in. I think all they'd have to do is acknowledge they're starting the session at a particular time of day and certain others around them are starting the session at a different time of day. If they can't accept that premise there's something wrong with them. Why the slip of 2 hours between "time zone sections"? There's usually just an hour's difference between adjacent zones (or in a few cases, increments of less than an hour.) Olson: I think you're thinking of Earth's time zones. I think the use of the term "time zones" is inhibiting how the term is being used. Maybe "time of day" would have been a better term to use. The issue is time compression; Earth's time zones aren't for that purpose. Are you modeling the Transiberian Railway? I'm having a hard time getting past the need for more than a couple, three timezones??? Some more explanation seems necessary if you want informed comments. The link doesn't really help here.
Olson: It sounds like you're thinking operators would have to be conjoled to pay attention to the time zone they're in. I think all they'd have to do is acknowledge they're starting the session at a particular time of day and certain others around them are starting the session at a different time of day. If they can't accept that premise there's something wrong with them.
Olson: I think you're thinking of Earth's time zones. I think the use of the term "time zones" is inhibiting how the term is being used. Maybe "time of day" would have been a better term to use. The issue is time compression; Earth's time zones aren't for that purpose.
Olson: My layout has nothing to do with this thread (but I wouldn't mind having the depicted layout). Again, I think the term "time zones" has you thinking of Earth's time zones. The link leads to the graphic; they're the same thing. That was intentional. I'm learning how Gyazo works and am not sure if the in-msg. graphic will get dropped after 30 days (I don't have an upgraded Gyazo acct.). The link better assures graphic accessibility after 30 days.
Bayfield Transfer Railway Also, the whole "hand train off from section to section" makes me think "Holy 1940s, Batman!" At that point, why bother with DCC? Cab control for two trains per section would be plenty.
I wouldn't know. Would "flexibility of operation" be the reason to use DCC? Which is easier for the greatest flexibility of operation: DCC or cab control for two trains every section? If either would allow one-to-many person(s) to enjoy the layout then I guess it wouldn't matter.
slammin Time zones, a novel idea. But because even the largest layouts only represent a small portion of a real railroad, even with staging, I don't see it catching on. If it works for you, have at it.
It doesn't "work for me" (as far as I would know). I've never heard of it before. That's why I'm asking.
jmbjmb I get the concept, but why more than two time zones? Even then the only way I could see it make sense is if you're modeling some place like Chattanooga where the time changes from Eastern to Central just west of the city.
From what I understand, the idea is to keep a particular train visible on the layout (rather than parking it behind scenery) but avoid the situation in which one person takes the train three actual feet in a few seconds but has to imagine the train just traveled (ie) 50+ miles.
I imagine that the boundries between "zones of time" represent the compression of distance and, therefore, time needed to cross that distance. The number of such boundries would depend on how many times a layout compresses (great) distances; esp. to the extent the engineer would be hard-pressed to suspend disbelief that he actually just crossed 50+ miles in a few seconds.
If, however, the operator enters that zone of distance compression and passes control of the train to another operator then neither needs to address the issue of "I just traversed a great distance in a few seconds". Instead, at the time of the hand-off, one operator will imagine "that train is about to journey across a great distance" and the other operator will imagine "that train just completed a journey across a great distance".
This is a confusing thread, perhaps only to me. I guess that this is not olson185’s layout plan, but someone else’s? A link to wherever olson185 saw the plan might give others more context.
To me, this idea has several problems, the most important one being that no operator actually experiences the time zones, so they are pointless. Only an external observer, not involved with actually running trains, would perceive the “time” spent on the journey. Meanwhile each operator runs the train only 20 feet or so through one town before giving up the throttle to someone else? Besides the logistical nightmare, how would this be any fun? And it’s certainly not the way real railroads operate.
Not to mention that switching and yard work take relatively much more time than through-train running, so that would also throw off perceptions. There are more issues, but I’ll stop there.
Seems like a bad idea all around -- in my opinion.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyamaThis is a confusing thread, perhaps only to me.
Nah, I'm confused, too.
I think the point is to address the fact that there's often an unprototypically short distance between stations on most layouts. The fast clock is not an ideAl solution for many reasons, but it's not as confusing as this.
That said, why does the plan skip every other time zone, i.e. it's divided into segments that skip every other time zone? That just layers on more confusion and begs for some explanation.
I mentioned the Trans-Siberian, because it's the only prototype I can think of that crosses lots of time zones. In North America, the most zones a long-distance train would cross is maybe three? I'm thinking Chicago (CST) to the West Coast (PST) passing through the Mountain time zone on the way. For 95% of trains other than those, they don't even get out of the starting time zone because the runs are too short.
Or maybe it's a prototype from an entirely different planet?
mlehman cuyama This is a confusing thread, perhaps only to me. Nah, I'm confused, too. I think the point is to address the fact that there's often an unprototypically short distance between stations on most layouts. The fast clock is not an ideAl solution for many reasons,...
cuyama This is a confusing thread, perhaps only to me.
I think the point is to address the fact that there's often an unprototypically short distance between stations on most layouts. The fast clock is not an ideAl solution for many reasons,...
And the rest of that sentence could be a proposed solution or work-around.
Time Zones?
Subway of LION is all in one city! Nothing but REAL TIME clocks will work on layout of LION. Trains depart 242nd street every 5 minutes, and you want to speed that up. Cannot work.
24 Hour Train Register of LION
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
olson185If, however, the operator enters that zone of distance compression and passes control of the train to another operator then neither needs to address the issue of "I just traversed a great distance in a few seconds". Instead, at the time of the hand-off, one operator will imagine "that train is about to journey across a great distance" and the other operator will imagine "that train just completed a journey across a great distance".
I'm not sure how it actually works, but it was my understanding that in the real railroad world time changes were not done on the fly. I believe that there were certain places where the time change would occur. Possibly a division point? There everyone would get together and reset their watches to be at the new "correct" time.
But so far as the engineer/crew went, the actual hours they spent getting from there to here would not change. I think this translates to the same thing in the model world. So if the model engineer takes 1 actual minute to travel 20 feet, I don't see how he gets any different feeling stopping at the end of 20 feet and then changing his watch an hour or two before becoming the new engineer and traveling another 20 feet.
Now if he travels 20 feet and you tell him to come back in 2 real hours to travel the next 20 feet, then I think you will have accomplished time expansion.
I think the concept has some merit on a smaller scale. If the scenes are separated by a view block they can interchange freely with diffetent time zones. If two division points were seperated by a hidden staging area trains could be parked out of sight until scheduled. Example: Ft Wayne Indiana and Crestline Ohio on the PRR. Part of the operation could be removing and replacing steam engines at both locations as well as car movements. Some additional refinement is required but it shouldn't be hastily discarded.
maxman olson185 If, however, the operator enters that zone of distance compression and passes control of the train to another operator then neither needs to address the issue of "I just traversed a great distance in a few seconds". Instead, at the time of the hand-off, one operator will imagine "that train is about to journey across a great distance" and the other operator will imagine "that train just completed a journey across a great distance". I'm not sure how it actually works, but it was my understanding that in the real railroad world time changes were not done on the fly. I believe that there were certain places where the time change would occur. Possibly a division point? There everyone would get together and reset their watches to be at the new "correct" time. But so far as the engineer/crew went, the actual hours they spent getting from there to here would not change. I think this translates to the same thing in the model world. So if the model engineer takes 1 actual minute to travel 20 feet, I don't see how he gets any different feeling stopping at the end of 20 feet and then changing his watch an hour or two before becoming the new engineer and traveling another 20 feet. Now if he travels 20 feet and you tell him to come back in 2 real hours to travel the next 20 feet, then I think you will have accomplished time expansion.
olson185 If, however, the operator enters that zone of distance compression and passes control of the train to another operator then neither needs to address the issue of "I just traversed a great distance in a few seconds". Instead, at the time of the hand-off, one operator will imagine "that train is about to journey across a great distance" and the other operator will imagine "that train just completed a journey across a great distance".
In the real world railroad, if a train took one hour to travel 25 miles then the train really took one hour and really did travel 25 miles. The conductor wasn't looking at a 4x faster speed watch and his one hour wasn't really 15 minutes and his 25 miles wasn't really 25 feet.
Thank you for your reply. I'm going to let this thread die. It's clear now I shouldn't discuss distance-time compression so succinctly. I can't keep correcting people without sounding invested in the topic and defensive of its premise. I just thought it was interesting.
So, you're doing physics, not model railroading? RRs don't compress time and space, except figuratively.