Fugate's Trackplan Analysis

 Or rather - Joe Fugate has come up with a way of *describing* the operating potensial of a given layout - he calls it Track Plan Statistics.

 Here: http://siskiyou.railfan.net/model/layoutDesign/layout.html

 It is a neat idea - allowing you to compare the operating characterisitics of fairly different layouts, allowing you to chose the layout that gives you the level of operation you want. 

 I did consider trying it on my Minnesota Transfer Railway layout plan, but in the end it seemed like to much work for a lazy guy like me

 Grin,
 Stein

There was no misunderstanding of the question..You see a layout is a personal thing base on our givens and druthers which is based on our observations of the prototype and our operational needs.Even using Joe's analysis we must remember that is his views which may or may not suit our needs.We may not have room (say) for staging or even for a modest size yard.

Make no mistake I fully agree a layout plan should be analyze by the designer and especially if a layout is chose from one of the many layout books or magazine to insure the given layout plan fits our needs for years of enjoyment..However,we should follow our guide lines in choosing a layout design.

Stein-

 Exactly.  Although from what I understand adapted someone else's initial work.

Brakie-

I just guess we will have to agree to disagree on the point of my question.

I think that there are some useful things to look at such as actual sq ft of layout when planning a layout. But the analysis part is really most applicable if you're interested in the the kind of operations that Joe does.  If you're operations are different then his analysis part won't work for you.  For example say you're recreating a PRR 4 track main under wire, then passing sidings may not mean much to you and staging of whole trains may be more important.  OTOH if you're modeling a one horse shortline then staging is less important and passing sidings only have to be long enough and frequent enough for needed run arounds.

Enjoy

Paul 

I just went through Joe's calculations, and it doesn't work for my new layout, in any of the parameters.

My new layout will be a double deck, around the walls layout in a 30x32 basement, with a five lap helix. My trackplans are taken directly from railroad track charts, and in certain areas include two different mainlines paralleling each other, being crossed by a third (active) mainline. That blows my mainline ratios all out of proportion. In addition, one city takes up fully 1/3 of my benchwork and features a LOT of long spurs, all of which have the potential to hold three times as many cars as they really will (a six foot spur to service a two-bay freight dock, for example).

The operating potential stats are all out of whack. The layout is designed with nineteen staging tracks to service four different railroads, each with a different role to play. The NKP, which is the main player on the layout, uses 12 of the tracks to run 16 trains plus one town switcher. The P&E uses two tracks to run four trains plus one town switcher. The IC uses four staging tracks to run four trains plus one industry switcher. The ITC uses one staging track to run four trains. That's a grand total of 31 dispatched trains in a 24 hour cycle. Joe's formula is giving me a dispatching threshold of 171.6 trains!

I'm looking at all of the numbers that Joe told me to calculate, and while neat to see, they don't tell me a thing about the true operating potential of my layout. Of course, I figured in the real potential of my layout before I started drawing up my layout plan, by looking for prototypical features along the stretch of mainline that I wanted to model, to look for that potential. I then just slapped down a few LDEs and fiddled with compression until I had something workable that held to the flavor of the real line(s). Joe's formulas MIGHT work for a completely freelanced layout with no connection to real railroad engineering and traffic patterns, but I don't see how it's useful for proto modelers. 

BRAKIE wrote:

There was no misunderstanding of the question..You see a layout is a personal thing base on our givens and druthers which is based on our observations of the prototype and our operational needs.Even using Joe's analysis we must remember that is his views which may or may not suit our needs.We may not have room (say) for staging or even for a modest size yard. Make no mistake I fully agree a layout plan should be analyze by the designer and especially if a layout is chose from one of the many layout books or magazine to insure the given layout plan fits our needs for years of enjoyment..However,we should follow our guide lines in choosing a layout design.

 I think you guys may be speaking past each other. The Fugate track statistics just describes various capabilities of a layout in fairly compact and standarized notation. They do not say "this is how your layout should be".

 By all means design your layout to fit your own givens and druthers. Nobody has suggested anything else.

 Grin,
 Stein

Roy/Rooster-Gotcha, which is why I asked the question in the first place.  My layout is freelanced and no where near as big or as complicated as the ones you describe.

Stein-I think you are, once again, correct.

Yes, I have used Joe Fugates analysis and calculations for my track plan, and I like the results of the analysis. I created a spreadsheet based on the analysis items and came up with the following statistics (see below). I use this as a guideline, find it very helpful, and will keep it updated as the layout plan changes.

Currently the lower deck of the layout is 95% complete with 90% of the around the walls grade leading up to the upper deck done too! The upper deck construction has not started, and I am back to the drawing board for the upper deck, so these figures will change, and most likely will improve as I plan to add more staging to the upper deck that was not in the original plan when the analysis was done.

bearman wrote:

Has anyone analyzed their track plan using the method described on Joe Fugate's web site, and what is your opinion of the method?

I believe the first two posters in this thread have a difference of opinion as to the criteria that Joe decided were the most germane or decisive with respect to judging the operational suitability of a given track plan.  Once "we" can agree that the criteria are acceptable, have face validity that is, and that they are genuinely the best set of criteria, the definitive ones, for evaluating an operational component, then we can all do our calculations (no control for measurement biases unfortunately...we'll all be subjective in that regard) and report back.

selector wrote:

I believe the first two posters in this thread have a difference of opinion as to the criteria that Joe decided were the most germane or decisive with respect to judging the operational suitability of a given track plan.

Actually, I am not that bright at all to be able to discuss the necessary criteria.  I was just wondering what other people thought about the method.  I ended up using it when it came down to making a final decision on which of two different track plans I would build.  From what I understand, Fugate took someone else's work and expanded on it.  I would be more than pleased to look at any other method just for kicks (since I already am building my layout) simply because I am interested in an objective evaluation of a situation which is inherently subjective.

Gandy-Check it out if you like, especially since it sounds like you have an interest in measuring something which it appears most people believe can't be measured.  The real point being that if I aware of Fugate's method, or any other method for that matter, before I started on my first layout, there are several design mistakes that I could have avoided.

Joe's comments are always interesting and thought-provoking, and he is a shining example of those who expend time and effort to "give back" to the MR (model railroading) community.

But I, personally, don't find his proposed formulaic approach helpful - even though I am very mathematically inclined and use math and formulas extensively in other ways in my MR planning and building.

Above all, his analysis is aimed at establishing the MAXIMUM operation that can possibly be squeezed out of a given layout. I think his formula on the whole achieves that goal, and thus might arguably be considered a yardstick for potential operating interest. But maximum operation isn't my goal, and I believe from extensive anecdotal experience, that it also isn't the goal of the majority of MRs. For one thing, I personally prefer more relaxed operating; for another thing, I model (more or less - I've played with the reality to some extent) a prototype short line whose physical plant always exceeded its actual business. I'm not convinced that his formula has a lot of meaning for those whose operating goals are different.

However, there ARE some statistics and relationships that I believe to be very important in layout planning, but you really don't need a bunch of formulas, just some careful measurements, simple math and logical thinking. While Joe also measures the same statistics, where I fall out with him is the idea that this should (and arguably even can) be extended to a cut-and-dired holistic mathematical determinant.

1. Max / avge / min length of passing sidings in terms of (number of cars PLUS typical locomotive length [Joe's formula ignores the space taken up by locomotives]). Assuming that you want to run more than one train at a time, this is the single most important determinant of typical operational train lengths. I say "typical" because its not as simple as that; a train longer than any passing siding can be easily operated as long as it does not have to meet any OTHER train that is also longer than any passing siding. And if you are really into challenges, two trains that are both longer than the passing siding can pass each other using the maneuver called "sawing". While speaking of passing sidings, I'll note parenthetically that a good track plan also needs run-around sidings, which in most cases should not be double-counted as passing sidings.

2. Capacity in cars of all sidings that accept cars. Multiplying this number times one plus the average number of times you expect to service the sidings during a session gives you the approximate number of cars that will be moved around between points ON the layout (but does NOT count the cars that may be in through trains). Comparing this figure with Item 1, typical train lengths, also gives you a quick estimate of how many trains per session will be required to service your local industries.

3. Total main line run expressed in terms of the number of trains of MAXIMUM operational length that it can hold can usefully and easily be used to calculate the maximum number of trains you want on the layout at one time. To do this, you must decide on the minimum number of train lengths that you wish to SEPARATE each train. So lets say your main line run could hold 12 maximum-length trains, and your personal sense of aesthetics says you want three train-lengths BETWEEN each train. Then your total effective train length is actually four train lengths (one actual train plus the empty track for three more), and you will enjoy seeing a maximum of three trains on the layout at one time (12/4), while a working maximum (a nose-to-tail situation around the whole main line would lead to gridlock just like on highways) is probably 40% of the theoetical maximum, or between four and five trains (.4 * 12 = 4.8).

Measuring these three items objectively (especially actual passing length versus nominal siding length) is an excellent means of evaluating a plan in terms of your own goals. 

BRAKIE wrote:

I haven't seen Joe's layout analyze since that will be his observation based on his perferances..I prefer to analyze my layouts with my own preferences.We get the same results.A layout that fits our personal preferences based on our givens and druthers.

For not even having looked at it, you made a lot of assumptions here, Brakie.  It's just a tool, and it may or may not be useful to you.  What it can do is make sure that you have thought about some things that you may not have.  You can decide to use the information in any way you want, or ignore it completely.  But my feeling was that it was not a measure of 'good' and 'bad', but rather a objective(as much as possible) method to help determine the operational possibilities and/or limitations of a layout before it is built.  I guess if I knew everything about layout design and operation, I wouldn't need to read books and use tools like this.  For now, I'll take advantage of all of the experience and expertise I can find, and then make my own choices.

steamnut wrote:

2. Capacity in cars of all sidings that accept cars. Multiplying this number times one plus the average

Nice idea. It will take some time for me to do all the measurements.

Wolfgang 

steamnut wrote:

I think his[Joe's] formula on the whole achieves that goal, and thus might arguably be considered a yardstick for potential operating interest. But maximum operation isn't my goal, and I believe from extensive anecdotal experience, that it also isn't the goal of the majority of MRs.

  I just took the time to measure on my plans and do the calculations. I was surprised at how accurate the statistics actually describe operating potensial - it matches pretty well what I had figured out counting on my fingers and toes

 Her is the MTRY layout:

 Here is the stats calculated by the method Joe Fugate describe (to the best of my knowledge - the measurements may be off by a couple of percent, but shouldn't make a huge difference)

 Smile,
 Stein

I truly did not believe that I was creating a controversy when I started this thread.  I would point out that I used the method as a tool in making a decision between two rather different track plans, and I also used it as a tool in an attempt to ensure that I would be able to operate my layout the way that I wanted.  For example, I wanted to run two locomotives (and up to two switchers) and before I spent the big bucks I was able to validate this requirement.  Additionally, I wanted to run a train(s) up to 7 cars long and the plan I chose again using this tool will allow for trains up to 10 cars.  Finally, I wanted to make sure that the main yard was big enough and using Fugate and the 80% rule-of-thumb approach, again I was able to validate my minimum requirement.  In other words, as someone else has posted, I do not intend to operate the layout at the maximum, I want to ensure that I can operate the layout the way I want it to operate.

I'm not suggesting Fugate is some sort of god, but I have visited his site on more than one occasion for information, and I have learned something about ballasting from his video.  I have also visited the sites of any number of the posters on this forum and have, again, learned a lot from you guys as well.  Finally, I would like to point out that sometimes I get the same answer to a question from more than one site, and in these cases I appreciate being able to get a "second opinion" whcih validates the initial answer.

Hey, if it works for you, use it.  There will always be controversy in this hobby because there are many ways to do things and there are many different goals.  Personally, I like having lots of choices and ways of doing things - keeps the hobby from getting stale.

Enjoy

Paul 

"That is exactly why I was trying to define an Algebra rather than just a formula.  That way one could change the end criteria, work backwards through the formulas thus solving for the variables to make that given end criteria happen"

Gandy - I hear you.  I suspect, however, that algebra won't work but a linear program, matrix algebra I believe, might, where you have a series of equations that you solve based on minimizing or maximizing the different variables.  Unfortunately, solving a linear program by hand becomes a big mess after the third equation which is why we have computers. 

Having just run a rough cut on my under-construction layout, I can see that the Fugate Formula might be useful for analysis of competing layout designs but is rather less useful if the layout has been specifically designed to meet the requirements of running the prototype's timetable with prototypical consists.  In my case, train length came FIRST, and everything else was sized to fit around it.  Also, since my prototype didn't switch wayside industries the way most American model railroads do, most of my trains run through with nothing but an engine change - and possibly not even that.

I see one item that Joe didn't address, which can be critical.  Granted that it's nice to cram a lot of layout into a space, but that space also has to be able to allow operators to function - throw switches, couple and uncouple, or just watch the train to make sure that locomotive and throttle setting are on the same page of the book.  Having to squeeze past one another or bump butts with the guy switching across the aisle gets old in a hurry!  (Lone wolves who do it all themselves can smile here - but how many of them are trying to run a 140+ train/day timetable?)

If I had nothing better to do, I could run a complete, detailed Fugate analysis on the layout, which would be of only marginal value to someone trying to do what I'm striving to do and no value to me at all.  Thanks, but I'd rather spend the time laying track.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

Time to weigh in on this discussion ...

The track plan analysis stats give you metrics on a layout design, they aren't meant to somehow alert the layout design police to come knocking! They make you aware of important track relationships and use rule-of-thumb values based on widely accepted best operational practices.

UNDERSTANDING THE LIMITATIONS OF THE FORMULAS
Where the formulas tend to break down is for layouts that have multi-track parallel main lines. For this kind of layout you need to pick one mainline as "main" trackage and then if you have crossovers between this "main" and the other mains, consider the other mains to be some combination of passing siding and connecting trackage. If you don't do this, the formulas give you very skewed results that are of little value.

MAKING THE FORMULAS WORK FOR YOU
One of the beauties of the formulas is you can elect to analyze the design in different ways by assuming different usage of certain trackage. For instance, if like me you have lots of varying lengths of passing sidings from real short to real long, you can elect to not use the shorter passing sidings for passing, but simply as runaround trackage for switching -- in other words make them connecting trackage -- and then see how that changes the operational characteristics of your design.

To Brakie's point -- the formulas capture what amounts to the "unchangeable rules of operation" in them -- the "laws of physics for layout operation" if you will. How you define your design's trackage types is where your judgement comes in and you are free to change track types around to see what it does to your design's operation characteristics.

NEWCOMERS ESECIALLY CAN USE THESE FORMULAS
Once you become more experienced in the hobby, analyzing track plans using the formulas will be less useful because you can just look at a track plan and tell something of its operational potential. But for newcomers who don't have all this layout operation experience, the formulas provide a quick way to draw on this expert knowledge and apply it to a track plan to assess its operational potential. 

bearman wrote:

I'm not suggesting Fugate is some sort of god ...

Let's dispell any such notion right now ... I put my pants on in the morning just like everyone else and every day I make mistakes when working on the layout just like the rest of you.

My main goal in sharing with my fellow modelers is to help us all make only new mistakes.

It's like I tell my kids: good judgement comes by experience -- and experience comes from poor judgement. No reason why that poor judgement has to be *your* poor judgement. The really wise people in the world learn from everyone else's poor judgement instead of their own whenever possible.

So by sharing my experience I'm giving you insight into the stupid mistakes I've made in many cases. Sometimes though, I'm smart enough to learn from the other guy's mistakes ...  

jfugate wrote:

I make mistakes when working on the layout just like the rest of you.

Speak for yourself...

mononguy63 wrote:

jfugate wrote: I make mistakes when working on the layout just like the rest of you. Speak for yourself...

Sounds like *you're* the god then ...

jfugate wrote:

mononguy63 wrote:  jfugate wrote: I make mistakes when working on the layout just like the rest of you. Speak for yourself... Sounds like *you're* the god then ...

LOL!!!

Joe, you took the words right out of my mouth! That's exactly my response when I read that one!

jfugate wrote:

mononguy63 wrote:  jfugate wrote: I make mistakes when working on the layout just like the rest of you. Speak for yourself... Sounds like *you're* the god then ...

Maybe he meant -- and this would describe me -- nobody makes mistakes like mine.  I strive to someday lift myself up to the level of Fugate-type mistakes but currently dwell in the muck of Nelson-type mistakes. 

Dave Nelson