Subtopic: Humps
Trying to remain on topic… and encourage... which I think is the topic:
I was able to learn that the first hump yard in the US was around the turn of the Century. My own favorite railroad (Texas & Pacific) had a large one I used to listen to from my home in Fort Worth, but I have been unable to discover when it became a hump yard. If very early, the number of tracks on the prototype might not have been but a few. I believe that since I moved away, it has been planned to remove the hump and bowl-- but I don’t keep up with the UP and haven’t been home in years.
As for modeling one (and I have no plans to do so), I would tend toward a mechanical tractor design, rather than gravity and retarders, to simulate the car's free run into the bowl. I’m thinking of something like a series of bristles that are directed by tubes in the direction of the “bowl” at about 45 degrees which are mechanically raised and lowered between the rails to gently and slowly prod the underside of each car “downhill.”
I once saw a model railroad yard plan for a steam era hump yard that had only five classification tracks, but I do not believe it actually intended a hump simulation. I have wanted to find what the smallest such yard was in the earliest decade of the Twentieth Century but all I have been able to find is the competition for the largest in the modern era.
As a “Modest Proposition,” I would suggest that no model railroader have a main line, because modelers do not typically have any concept of how long real mainlines are—so we should stick to yards, only yards.
Crews
I think that the answer to the OPS question "Are we mssing something?" is a resounding YES!
I have just spent the better part of an hour reading all of the posts on this thread. Some valid points are made, but I think that the point that is being missed is that the so called track plans printed here are basically inoperable.
The way I analyze a track plan is to mentally operate it as railroad would. If there is a freight yard or passenger coach yard, where does the motive power come from to connect to the train consist? How does the caboose get attached, if used. Is there a passing siding at the station so that freight trains can continue on while passengers are being loaded?
How practical is the track plan? Are there facing point sidings that cannot be switched, or dead end sidings, say at a mine. How would that be switched. If a loaded car is to be delivered, how would the empty be picked up first.
No need to go into the gory details here. The point is that if you can't mentally operate the so called track plan as a real railroad would operate then it isn't a plan at all. It is disaster looking for a place to happen.
The time to find that out is while it still on paper, not after the track has been laid.
tangerine-jack wrote: Again and again it comes back to having a theme or a purpose for the model railroad to exist, whether you have a backwater short line set in the 1930's or a modern Class I. If a short line, then is it a logging pike with mountains, switchbacks and sawmills? If modern is it coal or intermodal? Or maybe something else, passenger service for example?
The challenge is that very few beginners has any idea what "operation" is or what we mean by a "theme" or "concept". Most tend to have a cafeteria style concept, I'll have one of those and one of those and gimme one of them too. A lot of it is that they haven't had time (or possibly taken the time) to do any research or haven't had enough experience to realize what they really want.
Each type of railroad requires different track arrangements in which to operate. A small logging pike would do well with a point to point track plan, one passing track, and a wye. A modern passenger line would be urban, two or three tracks at high speed and a loop to loop track plan (or dogbone). Try to run a passenger train on the logging pike and you are in immediate trouble.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Right you are Dave, and you will get no argument from me. I believe it is the duty of more experienced modelers to educate the newbie on what operations are, how to arrive at a theme or concept from the "cafeteria" selection they have made. Perhaps some mature guidance will save them a lot of headaches later on down the road. Is it always necesary to reinvent the wheel every time somebody enters the hobby? The idea of "let them make their own mistakes" never sat well with me when it is possible to avoid the mistake. In the end, we will build what we want, advice or not. When a newb asks for advice on a "track plan", then that is an open door to greater understanding of railroads in general.
While it is true that the prototype infrastructure has remained more or less the same, on a model railroad we have the ability to create the proper facilties from the begining. Why not make our model tracks with the ability to handle the type of equipment we have? Why not make our model railroads adaptable to future equipment (eg 36" curves instead of 18")? I truly believe in my heart of hearts that a well thought out, cohesively planned, and operable model railroad will bring much more enjoyment and satisfaction than a hodge podge of "experiments" on a single train table. Ok, so you build a logging pike C. 1932 and found out you wanted more, fine, next railroad build a modern Amtrak in the north east corridor, but keep it pure in concept and execution.
This topic runs very, very deep indeed.
The Dixie D Short Line "Lux Lucet In Tenebris Nihil Igitur Mors Est Ad Nos 2001"
tangerine-jack wrote:Is it always necesary to reinvent the wheel every time somebody enters the hobby?
boatman909 wrote:It seems that box cars have been used to carrry just about anything, but trains of just box cars seems to be a bit uninspiring. What, for example, are flat cars and gondolas and covered hoppers used for. For a cement/concrete works, what raw materials come in, in what kind of freight car, and what goes out - I assume covered hoppers, but are there other typres of freight, for example, coal for a boiler house, oil for heating, etc?
Dave H said:Lets say an operating session is 4 hours long and the hump is occupied 50% of the time. That's 120 minutes x 12 cars per minute = about 1400 cars switched per session. As I said in my original comments if you need to switch hundreds or thousands of cars per session, then a hump makes sense. If you only have to switch 60-200 cars pers session (three to ten 20 car trains) then a hump yard probably doesn't make sense.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually we average 40-50 car trains except locals.Needless ro say our hump cuts down on the time we need to switch out trains when compared to our 2 "flat" yards-layout is point to point so ALL trains need to be reclassified..
--------------------------------------
The dozens of people who want to put a hump yard in HO on 4x8 sheet of plywood are just doing it because they want to or don't understand what it entails. There is no conceivable operating reason you NEED a hump yard to operate on a 4x8 layout. If you want to build one, go for the gusto, its your time and money. But on a small layout you will get more operation for your real estate and money with something smaller.
---------------------------------------------------
I agree.There is no real advantage having a hump yard on a small 4x8 layout.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
tangerine-jack wrote: Right you are Dave, and you will get no argument from me. I believe it is the duty of more experienced modelers to educate the newbie on what operations are, how to arrive at a theme or concept from the "cafeteria" selection they have made. Perhaps some mature guidance will save them a lot of headaches later on down the road.
Right you are Dave, and you will get no argument from me. I believe it is the duty of more experienced modelers to educate the newbie on what operations are, how to arrive at a theme or concept from the "cafeteria" selection they have made. Perhaps some mature guidance will save them a lot of headaches later on down the road.
While I certainly won't challenge what are obviously the good intentions of many posters in this thread, some facts need to be pointed out concerning what the actual hobby is in practice.
MR has pushed "formal operations" in its pages for about 60 years now. Nevertheless, this part of the hobby has never become mainstream and is unlikely ever to. In fact, survey after survey of hobbyists has demonstrated that less than a third of them do ANY form of operating beyond arbitrarily switching cars in and out of sidings on a whim, while those that consider themselves as "serious" operators consitute decidedly less than 10% of all hobbyists. By example, my local NMRA Division has about 46 member, many of them lifelong model railroaders. Of these, only a couple do any regular operating sessions on their layouts and even then only when outside help is available (i.e. never on an individual basis).
Our hobby is not regarded as "Railroad Operations in Miniature". Just as it was with kids and their Lionels in the past, for the vast majority of HO and N scale hobbyist today the draw and fascination with the the hobby is simply about running trains - regardless of whether the individual is a newbie, or someone 50 years in the hobby. Model Railroading can be subdivided into many facets of specific interest among its practitioners: model making, scenery building, collecting, etc. but the only facet all have in common is their practitioners all will occasionally run trains.
That said, I would definitely agree that when a newbie, or anyone else, asks specifically for advice regarding the building of an operations-oriented layout, those with practical experience should indeed offer them every assistance. However, it should be appreciated that in most situations the individual asking the question is probably seeking only basic/general advice on the subject of layout building, often just enough to get started in a simple fashion. Offering unnecessarily complex advice regarding a design for formal operations can simply confuse and prove more of a disservise than anything else. Interest in car cards, rights of trains, time schedules and hump yards may come in time to a few but keeping the reality of the situation in mind and just offering an answer to what the question asks for would far better serve the individual.
CNJ831
Big Rusty said:How practical is the track plan? Are there facing point sidings that cannot be switched, or dead end sidings, say at a mine. How would that be switched. If a loaded car is to be delivered, how would the empty be picked up first.
First one must fully understand perfection isn't always there in the real world of railroading and fully understand how a local crew goes about their work on a daily bases..These are the lessons I learn while working as a brakeman.
Why not switch those "unswitchable" facing point sidings on the return trip after all you gotta head back to your terminal-not to mention it saves time and unnecessary moves and that's exactly how we handled such switching except on few occasions where that was the last switch and we was going for a early quit..
About those dead end sidings.
While a pain to switch,we would pull the loads/empties first and return with the loads/empties.Yes that is 2 moves but,you see how simple it really is?
Normal every day moves in the life of a local crew.
I agree with Brakie.
CNJ831, You may have a point about the percentages. I wonder how much time a modeler spends with the layout after completing based upon whether or not they are involved in some level of formal operations.
From the flip side of that coin, when planning a layout, the operative word is "planning". Planning for what? That is what gets me-- i assume they are planning for as much flexibility and enjoyment as possible.
Lastly, I wonder how many who built a fine layout, picture perfect, but who do not even attempt to bring operations into their enjoyment -- how many of those -- have beautiful layout for which operations was never part of the plan simply because operations had not occurred to them before it was planned?
My first layout had a very tiny bit of operations potential. One four-track yard and three spurs. I had not finished it when I realized I wished it had more.
I find myself agreeing with CNJ831 largely. What he said is in line with my comment earlier. There is a fine line between encouraging the person to spend his time and money wisely when making initial inquiries about "planning" a layout; we might assume too much from his use of that term. Planning for someone like Chuck Beckman means one thing, but if Chuck were to take 300 words and try to convince a newbie to plan for A, B, C, and D if his layout is to have any merit, it would be like filling a stomach with a firehose.
I think we can find middle ground where we ask for clarifying questions to ensure we have a good appreciation for the novelty we're dealing with when a newcomer pokes his head in here. Once we understand more about the person's limitations in appreciation, in a generic sense, we can point out common pitfalls and common elements that tend to satisfy most of us. One of those is sure to be encouragement to narrow definitions and concepts a bit so that the person understands how useful time spent on some operational capability will be when he is up and running. But encouraging him to build Chuck's layout's complexity is going to throw water on the person's enthusiasm. We don't want to place obstacles and puzzles before the newbie, but we do want to do the ethical thing and offer some guidance about common defects or deficiencies...then we move on and let him move on. Once he begins to ask specific questions, we can help orient him to the nitty gritty, but much earlier is going to be a mistake for the majority.
Or, so I worry.
BRAKIE wrote:CNJ831,While I FULLY agree a newbie shouldn't be over burden with operations he/she should be taught the importance of having a small yard and industries to switch
selector wrote: I find myself agreeing with CNJ831 largely. What he said is in line with my comment earlier. There is a fine line between encouraging the person to spend his time and money wisely when making initial inquiries about "planning" a layout; we might assume too much from his use of that term. Planning for someone like Chuck Beckman means one thing, but if Chuck were to take 300 words and try to convince a newbie to plan for A, B, C, and D if his layout is to have any merit, it would be like filling a stomach with a firehose.
HEY!!! You blew my cover!!!
Seriously, when I said that every modeler should make up a list of 'givens and druthers' I meant HIS givens and druthers, not mine, Mark Newton's or Brakie's. If that includes, 'Run a train in a circle,' and, 'no turnouts on the main line,' so be it. While I might think that's extremely limiting, it isn't my layout. (To get what I'm referring to, check Spacemouse's N scale efforts.)
When I use the term, 'operate,' I mean make the wheels roll. Car cards, waybills, superdetailed timetables and prototypical TTTO, including a DS in a closet physically removed from the layout, are NOT necessary - unless the individual modeler wants them. (If he does, he's very unlikely to be asking our advice about layout design!)
The object is to have fun - and only the individual can determine if that objective is being met.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - and having fun!)
tomikawaTT wrote: selector wrote: I find myself agreeing with CNJ831 largely. What he said is in line with my comment earlier. There is a fine line between encouraging the person to spend his time and money wisely when making initial inquiries about "planning" a layout; we might assume too much from his use of that term. Planning for someone like Chuck Beckman means one thing, but if Chuck were to take 300 words and try to convince a newbie to plan for A, B, C, and D if his layout is to have any merit, it would be like filling a stomach with a firehose.HEY!!! You blew my cover!!!Seriously, when I said that every modeler should make up a list of 'givens and druthers' I meant HIS givens and druthers, not mine, Mark Newton's or Brakie's. If that includes, 'Run a train in a circle,' and, 'no turnouts on the main line,' so be it. While I might think that's extremely limiting, it isn't my layout. (To get what I'm referring to, check Spacemouse's N scale efforts.)When I use the term, 'operate,' I mean make the wheels roll. Car cards, waybills, superdetailed timetables and prototypical TTTO, including a DS in a closet physically removed from the layout, are NOT necessary - unless the individual modeler wants them. (If he does, he's very unlikely to be asking our advice about layout design!)The object is to have fun - and only the individual can determine if that objective is being met.Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - and having fun!)
That's correct. One has to eventually "dive in" and get "wet." If one is interested and curious, one will learn and "evolve" toward whatever brings the most joy within one's limitations. I've been doing this for the last half-century, and it is still fun.
Mark
OK, I think what it boils down to is that we should be asking the newby what he/she wants in a track plan. (His/Her givens and druthers, limited as it may be.) And what he/she wants to accomplish or do with their trains. Once that information is known, we should gently remind them that railroads are a transportation system and they usually operate in such and such way, and here is how you can do it if you want to, and here are some ideas how to do that. After that it is up to them to continue and learn.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
I asked earlier about how one could determine suitable freight traffic for one's layout, using the various industries one is modeling as a basis.
I discovered that there is a program that lists 1000's of industries and their products and raw materials (so now I can determine what kind of trafic should come and go from my "empire"!)
I am sure someone else has posted this but I discovered the Operations Special Interest Group (OpSig) has created a list of more than 40,000 industries across the US and Canada. A company called Shenandoah Software has provide a free program to acccess different views of all this data, including an input/output list, detailing the incoming recipts (for raw materials and supplies such as fuel oil, coal, metal, etc) and the outgoing products.
Using this information, one can easily (?) determine the traffic patterns and types of freight cars needed to supply one's industries and take away the finished goods, and even decide where to send them (via interrchanges with "real" railroads)
I suppose one could also use the information to help define your "givens" and druthers" for even a small layout, so that you start from the beginning to create a "working" layout, rather than just a circle of track with no specific purpose (unless of course all you want to do is run trains round and round - which I know is some people's goal - as it was mine until I had actually built a layout and then discovered that there needs to be some rational for its existence if it was to be more interesting (for me at least)).
I had actually started a large layout based on an Atlas track plan (#29 - The Central Midland), which initially appealed to me because I thought that modeling steam/diesel passenger trains would be fun, but I never got beyond laying the basic track, as I realised that I needed something more than a place to "run trains". I still want to have a continous run on my new layout, but the raison d'etre will be combining passenger and freight traffic, and with a focus on modeling the operational aspects, along with mountains, harbors, city scenes and backwater towns.
I also decided that I would get more fun from a round the walls (using modules based on 4'*2' dominos) than from a table top layout. Having said that, I am still going to keep my original 4'*8' Logger layout as the core, as it makes a first class scenic divider between the mountains and the sea scenes.
John______________________Steaming into the future...
(Edited to correct the URL Link)
Chuck,I believe its a two edge sword..A newbie can design a "fun" layout and become bored in the process and move on to bigger and better things thinking the hobby of model railroading is boring or he/she can be taught the basics of layout design.Then it will be his/her choice which path to follow after they been given sound advice in layout design based on there given and druthers..Even I went forth asking advice on a simple upgrade of a 2x4 foot layout.See my reply on page one of this discussion.
I fully agree car cards and waybill,dispatchers etc is not needed for operations seeing that one can simply change/trade out cars at a industry which only adds "play" value and interest to the layout..
I also feel many modelers misunderstand the meaning of "operation" since operation can be enjoyed in many forms.On the same token I am sure there are those that may even feel intimidated by the simplest form of "operations".
I find that many folks already have intended standards in their heads, and their already-made decisions on these standards are at odds with what they said in givens and druthers. What I would do first, based on the response to John Armstrong's Givens and Druthers, is submit back a partially filled out set of standards for client review and correction. The other issue I have with the Givens and Druthers is that because Armstrong was an operator, his form has a definite operations focus. While I have no problem with operations, I think many times the overlooking of other aspects of the hobby doesn't give a full enough picture of what a particular MR really wants.An example would be my case. Time (primary) and $$ (secondary) constrain what I can do for a model railroad far more than space or operational givens and druthers. My already selected standards for track system, uncoupling system, control system, and duck-unders dictate to a large extent what type of layout and design I'm willing to accept and build. (end of snip)
Postscript: I discovered that the full Givens and Druthers that Armstrong sent actual clients was much more comprehensive than that published in his books, and covered some of these points. Still, I think asking a newcomer what locomotives he owns now, and which he would like to buy in the near future if provided with funds, is an easier question to answer than favored prototype and era. And indentifying existing and desired equipment can be just as defining (if not more so) as stating favored prototypes and eras.
Longest train length, length of rolling stock, uncoupling system, and track system are much easier for a newcomer to answer, and are at the same time real constraints on an acceptable layout design.
just my thoughts
Fred W
I only scanned through some of the postings and don't remember anything being said about "staging." Staging represents the trains beyond the edge of your layout. Staging can be one or two tracks "hidden" behind a treed berm or a backboard somewhere accessible on the layout. Or, it can be a full blown 14-track double-ended yard handling trains from every corner of the compass.
It is not a necessity in our hobby but, apart from very early on, I have always modelled a prototype. My present layout models the Maine Central's Mountain Subdivision between Whitefield, NH and St. Johnsbury, VT, circa 1975, including the paper mills at Gilman (MEC) and Berlin (B&M). St. Johnsbury enjoyed a tremendous variety of equipment and operations back then (which is what drew me to model it). CP Rail and Boston & Maine operated pooled-power freight trains between Montreal, QC and B&M's East Deerfield yard, MA. Maine Central trains operated to/from the east, and the St. Johnsbury & Lamoille County came into town from the west. I am able to handle all trains [arriving onto and departing from the edge of my modelled world] from one common staging/fiddle yard.