If you ever get a chance, I recommend attending your local NMRA meets. Ours put on a 3-day meeting of Railroad Prototype Modelers. For $30, it was a great bargain. The first two days were clinics served up two at at time. These went from morning to late at night and after two days, by brains were full.
Some of the clinics were way over my head--the different hopper styles of the B&O railroad and how to kit-bash them. Other's were extremely informative--like how coal is really loaded on trains and why the AHM kit is wrong on so many levels, modeling steel, modeling slate, how to find information and model a branch line.
One of my favorites was a gentleman that researched and modeled PRR towers--interior and exterior.
The last day was layout tours.
One of my goals for this weekend was to find a group to operate with. The hotel was conveniently on the NS main and during the breaks a bunch of us would bring our meals to the back parking lot and railfan. I struck up a conversation with a man and after a while it turned out he lived about 45 minutes from me and was short a couple operators. He runs twice a month. During the layout tour, I was invited to operate on another layout owned by Roy Ward that was 1 hour and 10 minutes away that operates weekly.
Now for the dumbing down part.
I have made myself sort of a student of layout design, and in doing so, I have adopted some "rules" that I like to follow. These are based upon what is considered state of the art design and general logistics. Stuff like "a train passes through a scene once" and "you can only reach 30 inches."
Roy Ward's layout threw all that out of the window. Roy's layout was the epitome of a spaghetti bowl and when I walked into his basement my first thoughts were that this is not my kind of layout. There was track everywhere. Each scene was well-composed, but there were 3 levels of track everywhere that wound though each other like a French weave through mountains and tunnels and at one point, a 3% grade (with helper service) crammed into a small space.
But........
It worked.
It was a point to point operators layout that kept seven crews jumping. Each station was real-world challenges. The dispatcher was located in an office built into a shed outside and he communicated to the group on one channel, while yard masters communicated on another.
It is a thinking man's layout. It was based around coal and there were several mines of varying grades that shipped to a coal processing plant. the processing plant sorted the coal into grades then set the coal out for shipping to four different railroads. The switching alone in the coal processing plant rivaled a busy yard.
The operators of this layout didn't just describe how it worked, they gushed about it. If I were to describe it, I would say it was reminiscent of John Armstrong's designs of the seventies. In fact, I found out later, it was started in 1979--which in my book puts this layout way ahead of it's time. I'm really going to enjoy operating on this layout.
And I have to rethink a few things.
If you want to read about this layout look in Model Railroad Planning 2006. It is the article about designing a layout around a unique crossing in West Virginia.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
I might have to read about that being a WV native and all, and I just happen to have a 4x8 and some more to work with.
-beegle55
SpaceMouse wrote: ...Now for the dumbing down part. ... I have made myself sort of a student of layout design, and in doing so, I have adopted some "rules" that I like to follow. These are based upon what is considered state of the art design and general logistics. Stuff like "a train passes through a scene once" and "you can only reach 30 inches." Roy Ward's layout threw all that out of the window. ...
Chip,
Even the great TK himself was amazed to see one of his favorite dogmas busted - the one that stipulates that a yard's drill track should be as long as the longest track in the yard. He was researching the NKP yard in Frankfurt, IN, and noticed that it had no such "drill" track. When he asked a retired NKP worker about this, the guy told him that in the days before radio usage became widespread, crews were hesitant to shift very long strings of cars in-and-out of the yard tracks because of limited sight distances. (This is in the Kalmbach book "Realistic Model Railroad Building Blocks").
Just goes to show....
-Ken in Maryland (B&O modeler, former CSX modeler)
SpaceMouse wrote: Now for the dumbing down part.
Sounds more like "enlightenment" than "dumbing down." It may be that this looked like a spaghetti bowl, but was actually a carefully-constructed "linear" operating layout that had simply been folded back on itself for space reasons.
Think of all the mis-conceptions that we've had to overcome as we've developed as model railroaders. Starting with "It's nothing but grumpy old men," all the way up to "I could never model anything that good," we learn something new every day. Often, learning something new entails unlearning something old.
Have some more pasta. Clam sauce, Bolognaise or marinara?
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
I think this proves that the number one rule in model railroading is "There are no rules in model railroading".
Sounds like a really good time Spacemouse.
Tom
Pittsburgh, PA
CSX_road_slug wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: ...Now for the dumbing down part. ... I have made myself sort of a student of layout design, and in doing so, I have adopted some "rules" that I like to follow. These are based upon what is considered state of the art design and general logistics. Stuff like "a train passes through a scene once" and "you can only reach 30 inches." Roy Ward's layout threw all that out of the window. ...Chip,Even the great TK himself was amazed to see one of his favorite dogmas busted - the one that stipulates that a yard's drill track should be as long as the longest track in the yard. He was researching the NKP yard in Frankfurt, IN, and noticed that it had no such "drill" track. When he asked a retired NKP worker about this, the guy told him that in the days before radio usage became widespread, crews were hesitant to shift very long strings of cars in-and-out of the yard tracks because of limited sight distances. (This is in the Kalmbach book "Realistic Model Railroad Building Blocks"). Just goes to show....
Its not uncommon to use the main line or a interchange track for a yard lead.You would be surprise what the railroads do.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
tsgtbob wrote:Now I'm really sorry I missed that!I was planning on going, (even though there is usually not much for the O scaler) but for the general information they are priceless!One question Chip; on the layout tour list, did they get the Laurel Highlands Model RR club in?We were open, but no one from the meet came by.
I'll have to check. I know there were 10 layouts on the tour and I planned to go to them all, but time had expired on my fourth visit. They were quite spread out.
The info was really not scale specific for the most part. Most people who talked about cars, for instance would give the best bashes for each of O, HO and N. The layouts discussed were all HO to my knowledge, but there was always an alternative clinic to go to.
I'll only almost quote myself on an earlier message on layout design (specifically about staging as I recall). The trendy "have to have" elements today may be the cliche and things laughed about by tomorrow's "trendy crowd". People who today make fun of 101 Layouts, will be the ones who have then next generation making fun of and being called obsolete.
If there was any magic perfect layout design step by step. It would have been written long before now.
Texas Zepher wrote: I'll only almost quote myself on an earlier message on layout design (specifically about staging as I recall). The trendy "have to have" elements today may be the cliche and things laughed about by tomorrow's "trendy crowd". People who today make fun of 101 Layouts, will be the ones who have then next generation making fun of and being called obsolete.If there was any magic perfect layout design step by step. It would have been written long before now.
I'll tell you this. I'm digging out my Armstrong books and looking at his plans again.
Texas Zepher wrote: If there was any magic perfect layout design step by step. It would have been written long before now.
There is such a design scheme. It goes, "From this stake in the ground, build in that direction. Where operations dictate, establish stations, build yards, engine terminals and connections to industries. If necessary, employ buffalo hunters and combat troops to protect the construction crews..."
Unfortunately, it only worked in 1:1 scale, and was totally obsolete before the end of the nineteenth century.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
tomikawaTT wrote: There is such a design scheme. It goes, "From this stake in the ground, build in that direction. Where operations dictate, establish stations, build yards, engine terminals and connections to industries. If necessary, employ buffalo hunters and combat troops to protect the construction crews..."Unfortunately, it only worked in 1:1 scale, and was totally obsolete before the end of the nineteenth century.Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I'm modeling 19th Century. I guess I'll have to redesign my layout.
"Insincere" doubling back and double deck layouts are both logical reactions to the same desire -- to have a run longer than the linear length of your benchwork. The longer run creates more opportunities for meets, passes, local switching (i.e., fun) -- and it also creates more time so that even a fast clock can make some sense. After all there are only so many usable pieces you can slice 30 fast clock minutes into. So the longer run is a good thing -- now, how to do it?
It does seem a little arrogant to me to have some of these layout design experts proclaim that there is only one truth, that it is laughable to have a doubled-back track just a few hundred scale feet away from the main line that actually represent the same line miles and miles away, while prefering and finding nothing unrealistic whatever about an alternate (upper deck) universe hovering a few hundred feet up in the sky! Never once have I operated on a double deck layout where I utterly forgot the presence of the upper or lower deck, especially if someone was trying to operate on it while bumping me to the side or breathing down my neck. Mind you I did NOT say that never once did I have fun operating on a double deck layout, just that I never lost awareness of the other deck. I have yet to operate on a Joe Fugate-style mushroom however. I think that would be utterly different.
You can design a layout that is so darn sincere that nobody wants anything to do with it. Stated another way, let he who is without compromise cast the first stone.
I think it is worth pointing out that the fairly recent insistence on "sincere" layouts -- where the track goes through the scene just once -- was not a reaction to the thoughtful layout designs that had lines double back to gain run length in a clever way so much as it was a rejection of some of the nearly absurd layouts that just crammed in track everywhere. In other words it was not a reaction to the best of the "insincere" layouts but to the worst. At the risk of annoying someone I think some of the club layouts of the late 1950s and early 1960s were the worst in this regard perhaps because no one design philosophy was calling the shots, and if someone belongs to a club because they love to lay track, then lay track they will even after there is no longer a need for more track.
Dave Nelson
40 years ago, this type of layout was the rule rather than the exception. Doubling or tripling the mainline through the same scene was a way of lengthening the mainline in a limited space. Typically, these were also island layouts with access openings, covered or uncovered, to reach areas of the layout that were inaccesible from the aisle. It was probably Allen McClelland's V&O layout that influenced the movement to more linear, around-the-room layouts where the train passed through each scene once creating the feeling of going someplace rather than around and around. Each approach has it's advantages and there is no right or wrong way. While I prefer the around the room approach on my layout, I still like seeing a well done, old-school spaghetti bowl layout with tracks passing over and under other tracks on different levels. It can create a very interesting, if somewhat unrealistic scene.
I also think the 30 inch rule is way overrated. I have bent and broken that rule all to heck without any adverse consequences. This rule assumes we can reach only with our arms. If you can raise your waist to benchwork height with a stepstool, you can bend forward and reach much farther than 30 inches into the layout. You do need to consider the frequency that you will need to make such a reach and what scenery might be in harm's way when fudging on the 30 inch rule, but I think that should be used only as a guideline and not a hard fast rule.
I'm also glad to see that the long drill track rule has been given a good kick in the teeth. That one never made sense to me. With real estate at a premium, even on a large layout, who can afford a drill track as long as the longest yard track. With a double ended yard, the two drill tracks would wrap halfway around the room, one of them passing through the next town. Better to shorten the drill track and break up the train in several moves. It's nice to know that this approach is also prototypical.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton