I retired from the Air Force 11 years ago after 20. You will be surprised how quickly it passes!
majortom
My last layout was a 4x8, and because of such, operations were very limited, mainly a one man job, although my step son and I did manage a couple of two person sessions. One would primarily run an RDC around making station stops while the other running the local freight would work around the RDC and it's priority. It wasn't anything big but it was a step in the right direction. We did have a passing siding that allowed for some switching and staying out of the RDC's way, but there was no yard lead so the main had to be used, this made things interesting!
That layout has since been taken down and slowly replaced by shelf style that is still in the track laying phase. Since we are moving two weeks I've stopped all construction and am revising the track plan for the new area. My plan is a single track with a multitrack return loop at each end that will allow for either "roundy-round" running or point to point as the loops can double as staging.
I really enjoy operating sessions with other modelers, the interaction is a lot of fun, but there are certainly times where I enjoy just "railfanning" my layou too!
Modeling the fictional B&M Dowe, NH branch in the early 50's.
Dave,
I too had a small layout when I was in the Navy and rarely got a chance to operate it myself much less have a full blown ops session. The roundy round layout is just fine for now and 2016 isn't that far away. (i'll retire in 2014 and will probably build layout #7 since my wife and i plan to move from this God forsaken part of Texas.)
When i tear down a layout i usually get to keep everything except the scenery, track, and the benchwork. My next layout which will probably start in 10 years is going to be the ultimate layout intended for ops sessions. What i'm trying to say is that one day you will have the layout of your dreams but start planning it now so that when the day comes you'll be ready for it. We all learn from our mistakes and can only improve on the next go-around. Getting good at model railroad ing doesn't come overnight. One day you'll get it right. heck, i'm still learning stuff in this hobby after being in it the last 30 years...chuck
tattooguy67 wrote:Hello Dave, what are you doing Dave? ops?, i'm sorry i can not allow you to do that Dave, lol, but seriously you sound kind of troubled that you are not doing ops on your layout, at least not "Real Ones" with the waybills and car cards and such, but at the same time it sounds like you and your boys are haveing lots of Fun, so is it really all that bad?, what crandell says makes a lot of sense, this is kind of a lone wolf sort of hobby, and if it were not for my wife that would be the boat i would be in, i have been given some strange looks at train shows and told that i look more like i should be busting skulls or working on a harley then working on N-scale stuff, so i am guessing it will be a while before i get an invite to try ops myself.
Oh, no, nothing's bad per se...
I've been in this hobby over two decades. But in all that time, I have focused on "getting there." Now, I finally feel I'm "there." I'm in the "now what?" stage.
I have a "complete" layout. Sure, I plan to upgrade the signalling or change out a few structures... but now what?
The answer for most is that now it's time to operate. But being as how I've never gotten a layout to look and function as well as this one does I never really thought that far ahead. In the past I was always trying to get the trackwork better or messing around with scenery or simply growing the roster.
As I said, there's a lot of "trial and error" getting to where I am, and the current lesson is to think ahead about what you want the layout to do for you after it's done -- but do it before you lay the first piece of track.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
tattooguy67 wrote:Well Dave it sounds like maybe you just realised that it was the journey rather then the destination that you enjoy more, or said another way could it be that you secretly enjoy building and scenicing and railfanning more then ops?, or should i stop trying to practice unlisenced psychology here?lol.
No, you're spot-on!
I do enjoy building more than running.
But I want to change that... I can't keep building a new layout every 2 years on a GI's salary!
Seems like everyone has some sort of experience on "getting there" so here's mine.
I built my first permanent layout in a 10 by 13 foot space. N scale. I had read all the hype about Kay-Dee couplers, then Micro-Trains came out with delayed operating couplers. So..... when I started my layout, I knew that I wanted to railfan and watch trains run, but I also knew that this would get old fast, and that I wanted some way to "operate". My basic design started off as a single mainline, twice around the room on 24 inch wide benchwork. As to the switching areas and towns, I choose track plans from several switching layout modules. I wound up with three areas (towns) that were taken directly from module plans, one of which was John Allen's Time Saver. Two other areas consisted of one passing track with a couple of industries. These track plans were inserted into the mainline at different locations, and the mainline adjusted to suit. When I did get building on the layout, I made sure that it could be switched, and installed under track magnets for the couplers. Let me tell you that if you take your time, adjust the magnets, and adjust the coupler height and pins, they will work flawlessly. Operations started with car cards, but darn, those N scale car numbers were hard to read. So I went with a TAB on Car operating system. I also put paper TABs on the industries to help me out. That actually worked out quite well. The car TABs would go into a container, be shaken up, a specific number of them drawn out each session and placed on the cars. (The TABs were color coded with not only the industry information, but the town, car type, and weather empty or loaded (they always started empty); then you got to turn it over for the next destination.) This made things truly random and kept me busy for hours.
I have now moved on to HO, and working on designing and building a new layout. I am doing it the same way.
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.
Okay...this thread has had an interesting effect on me.
I started defending ops, which I love. But on the other hand, I am 4-5 years away from having a basement empire at the stage where I can invite the gang, my ops buddies over for a session.
So I've been thinking, what I like best about my home layout is modeling scenes and rail-fanning. I have a switching layout for personal ops, so why not design the basement to suit my individual tastes. I may be back at the drawing board.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
IMHO, if you are a take-no-prisoners operator who won't turn a wheel without a schedule card, clearance card and full deck of car cards, that leads you to WANT to make every aspect of your layout perfect. While that drop-side gondola loaded with pit props can be spotted next to a Kleenex box with a Post-it industry sign, it is so much more satisfying to position it precisely under the overhead crane sticking out of the mine supply department's transload/warehouse. Checking for reporting marks adds to the value of careful rolling stock detailing. (If track problems interfere with operations, they get fixed NOW, not later.) You can railfan from across the room. Operations tend to be up close and personal.
Chip, you have hit upon a key point. You have to find a balance between a layout which will be satisfying to a group that may assemble once a month or so and one which will keep the owner happy all the time. If compromise is required, favor yourself.
Full disclosure: My present layout doesn't have a millimeter of track which won't be buried under scenery. I AM operating, to a timetable, between 'stations' that are actually reporting spots on the hidden track (no switching, since there are no spurs.) On one hand, I can't wait to surface from the netherworld into something that actually looks like the Upper Kiso Valley. On the other hand, time spent running trains subtracts from building time. Knowing me, if I couldn't run trains, nothing would get built!
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - eventually)
This is very interesting because you have to determine what floats your boat, to be sure.
For me, just running trains around does not interest me all that much. Everything's for the group ops session. When I'm running trains by myself, I'm more in debugging mode with an eye to smooth operation for my crew. I rarely run trains just for the heck of it.
And that's fine with me. I enjoy the group ops event so much that the rest of it is all worth it to me. I also get a big kick out of shooting photos and videos ... as if you couldn't have guessed!
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
tomikawaTT wrote: Chip, you have hit upon a key point. You have to find a balance between a layout which will be satisfying to a group that may assemble once a month or so and one which will keep the owner happy all the time. If compromise is required, favor yourself.Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - eventually)
I guess that's it. I already can do ops 6 times a month on larger layouts than I have space for. If I wanted to do more there are 3 other groups that I have standing invites to. The layout I have planned is good for out and back ops, but I won't have continuous running or staging until I remodel a huge section of the basement--maybe 12-18 months down the road.
First, Dave V, you deserve many compliments for your excellent work with your PRR Middle Division. You will most likely find that the eight years will pass by too fast. It's good, therefore, that you are planning for when 2016 arrives.
I'll share how I operate my railroad, and it may be of interest to others, also. The layout plan is around-the-wall or a "shelf" layout. It has a double track mainline with a loop at each end and also a wye at each end. It's a fictional divsion of the Burlington Route. I'm not "done" with it, but there's plenty to operate with numerous industries.
For visitors I may have a "Running Session" or and "Operating Session". The runnig session is for non-model-rairoaders who would quickly be bored watching a complicated switching operation. Any of my wide variety of trains could be used in a running session. For example, my Pennsy T-1 could be hauling my tuscan red passenger cars across my Nebraska-like scenery. No problems at all when it meets my SP cab forward.
For model railroaders, I have an operating session. Then I make an effort to simulate railroad operations, and I have an assortment of commodities to transport between industries. My daily passenger schedule includes three trains in each direction. (Heartland Zephyr, Prairie Zephyr, and Twilight Zephyr). I use sequential scheduling with events occruing in order. I do not use a scale time clock. The equipment in my operating sessions is mostly CB&Q, but NP and GN trains have running rights. It's about 1960 era, but that can vary.
Most of the time, of course, there are no visitors. I follow the sequence each time I operate by myself. Usually, it's a small fraction of the total sequence each time. I try to do a little of that each day.
Best wishes, Dave, and thanks for your service to America in the Air Force.
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU
Thanks, Garry...!
You know, once I'm done with this PhD (I defend my dissertation in June) I'll hopefully have my weeknights back.
I report to Offutt AFB near Omaha, NE in August. I know already there's an NTrak group there.
I'm thinking I need to take the time and find other modelers in Omaha/Bellevue/Council Bluffs and see if I can crew on their layouts. I crewed on a layout in Ohio a few times but we never really got an ops session working right. They were mostly work sessions.
The main reason I'm so clueless about ops is because I have so little experience at it. The more I do it the more I'll understand it and the more I'll be able to apply it to my current and future layouts.
Anyone in the Omaha area? I can bring my own Digitrax throttles! Heck, I'll even bring (and make) the beer! Hello?
By the way, thanks to EVERYONE who has responded. You have helped give me some perspective. Plus, now I understand it's not just choice of prototype... I need to get some crew members on my call board!
tattooguy67 wrote: i guess it's lucky you don't talk to your little scale people, you don't do you Dave?
How do we know he doesn't?
loathar wrote: tattooguy67 wrote: i guess it's lucky you don't talk to your little scale people, you don't do you Dave? How do we know he doesn't?
I have enjoyed your posts and your sense of humor on the forum.
I think you hit the nail on the head with the idea of finding some ops guys in your area and going out to run some trains at an ops session. Careful though, afer I attended a few sessions my fully completed layout was "dead layout walking" when I realized it wouldn't work well for Ops.
I enjoy building, railfanning and ops. My new layout had its first shakedown session last October, The track plan is designed to operate but also has provisions for trains to run in loops for layout tours. The best of all three worlds.
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
I've been reading this insightful thread with great interest for several days and now have formulated some thoughts and want to share with you my experiences on the subject.
I went through a major re-drawing of my layout plan in 2006 once we settled down in NC after our move from New Orleans. In my plan I wanted to have room for both operations and running so that I could enjoy and share the hobby with my family (crew of 4), but also just run trains when I wanted to Railfan. So when I started thinking about both I had to incorporate track arrangement features such as continuous loop segments, staging yard(s), classification yard(s), passenger sidings, main lines, and industry spurs and sidings. The entire layout plan includes an around the walls shelf bracket benchwork system with 2 levels and a no-lix double main line track connecting the two decks. The room measures approximately 21'X16', and I am modeling the Southern and Norfolk Southern merger era of the early 1980's through the mid 1990s.
Now that I have about 100% of the benchwork and 90% of the track work for the lower deck completed, and 90% of the no-lix built. I have scraped the current plans for the upper level and have started re-working those plan ideas in my head and in favor of other options. Such as adding an interchange area with another road name such as CSX on the upper level, and in the process will keep in mind all of the track arrangements from the lower level.
At the moment I cannot conduct a full ops session, but I can run trains around a loop on the lower level. I can also switch cars between the staging yard, classification yard, and a few industry sidings and spurs, but this is just to get them moved out of the areas for scenery work and such. So I am partially there, but I still have a lot of work to do before full crew sessions will arrive on the layout.
So I guess that it fits somewhere in between the sliding scale of the mode and the mean on the roller coaster curve of running and ops.
Cheers,
Ryan
Ryan BoudreauxThe Piedmont Division Modeling The Southern Railway, Norfolk & Western & Norfolk Southern in HO during the merger eraCajun Chef Ryan
I've been discussing this on one other forum with a high percentage of prototypers and operators, and I came to this conclusion:
So it seems the "Holy Grail" is the layout that is large enough to give a sense of going somewhere, but small enough to be completed in reasonable time, with a traffic base and track design that is both manageable for just plain running when the owner feels like it, yet can support a half dozen or more operators at a real ops session.
This is a tall order... When it comes to layout construction, I will always be a lone wolf (in that I will always be picky about how things are done). So for that, I imagine a 16x20 single-decked layout in N is probably the practical upper limit of a layout I could complete in a few years' time. But for layout ops I would love to host monthly sessions with a decent-sized crew.
Again, the trick is to understand what type of ops I want before I build, and include provisions for it in the design. For example, lots of run-throughs would need extensive staging and locals obviously need places to pickup and setout cars.
An example of a layout which might capture much of these ops would be the Harrisburg to Northumberland, PA portion of the PRR's Northern Division (today's NS Buffalo line) which, by 1956, was a combination of single and double track:
Harrisburg and Enola would be staged... The scenicked portion would pick up at Rockville Junction, at the east end of the famous Rockville Bridge. The line would proceed to Millersburg, PA, with a passeneger and freight depot, some light industry, and the connection with the PRR Lykens Valley branch. Then, some scenic along-the-Susquehanna-River running. Next, the big Pennsylvania Power and Light coal-fired power plant. Then the Sunbury industrial area for switching and the Reading RR interchange. From there is some street running through Sunbury, past a unique 3-story brick station. Between Sunbury and Northumberland (Norry for short) is busy KASE tower, where the Shamokin coal mining branch comes in. Then there are a series of truss bridges across the river. Lastly, we arrive at Norry. There's a depot, an engine terminal (including roundhouse and turntable), and a massive classification yard.
Now, Norry would be a good candidate for a hybrid approach. I would model part of the classification yard to assemble and tear down locals between Harrisburg and Norry and off the Wilkes-Barre Division, but pre-block through cars south to Harrisuburg and pre-block cars heading north to Buffalo and Erie. They'd go into staging for that. That would hopefully simplify things.
All this could be done, I think, in a few years' time in a reasonable space. Plenty of staging is key. The kicker would be an operating Pennsy-style signal system; I've already started acquiring LED-style PRR position light signals for future use.
Excellent topic Dave. (I always enjoy your threads, you always put a lot of thought into them).
I have come to the conclusion that I will always be a small layout guy. Huge layouts just take up too much space & time commitment.
It also seems to me the most realistic layouts are those based on realistic looking scenes. That's the absolute first thing that draws my attention to a layout. So how can this be achieved in a small space? It seems to me there are two options for my next layout:
1) Have a layout of a tiny "slice" of a mainline, with hidden or unscenicked return oval. If you just see a train pass through the scene (say, an 8ft long scene), then disappear, you could run long trains, and the scene will still be 100% believable. Heck, for your situation, you could do a 4-track main for Pennsy stuff. You couldn't do super realistic operation, but then again, there's no way you could without a huge layout. But you'll still get to see those monster-sized trains roll on by!
2) Have a layout of a tiny slice of real life. As in, a represnation of a very small industrial switching area of real life. Lance Mindheim did this with his layout shown in the latest GMR magazine. He purposely modeled a small area of real life, which translated very well to a small space.
It seems like a lot of people try to compress way too much into a small area, and it just doesn't convey realism.
Then, there's always option 3)
Have one of each of the above, double decker style. Like a shelf below with the roundy-roundy main line (of course, we only view one straight segment of the loop, the rest is hidden, or staging, etc.), and an upper deck of a pure switching layout. This way you could satisfy the mainline running on the lower level (kneel or sit down to put your nose on the track when you want to see some mainline action), or stand up and operate the pure switching layout at nose level when you want to do switching stuff.
Like you, I "feel" like I should be into operation. But I swear, and I am not kidding, I can never, ever read an article on realistic operation and make it through the entire article without flipping pages to something else. I just can't do it, even though I want to. And yes, I am a total techno geek (mechanical engineer), and I love all things technical. But so far I just can't get interested in operation. On the other hand, show me a video clip of a train going by with sound, and I'm in!
I think I'll likely enjoy some informal "operation". As in, pick up this car here, dump that one off there, etc. I will freely admit to just "playing with trains".
Edit: Lance Mindheim (who has made beautiful N and HO layouts) suggests on his website something to the effect of the sooner you accept the space/time/money contraints you have and model within those constraints, the better off your layout design will be.
Dave Vollmer wrote:Anyone in the Omaha area? I can bring my own Digitrax throttles! Heck, I'll even bring (and make) the beer!
Anyone in the Omaha area? I can bring my own Digitrax throttles! Heck, I'll even bring (and make) the beer!
If you're ever in the Massachusetts area I could use some operators! (except I'm too young to drink beer)
I’m pretty new in this forum, and while I have recently visited your web site, you and your layout already seemed very familiar. Am I mistaken, or does memory serve that I read about you and your work in a model railroad magazine a few years back?
I recall it being one those articles (the only ones I tend to remember at all) that had me going: "Yeah, that's it. I want something like that!"
If I am right, then this new emphasis on operations will be something for me to look forward to reading as a featured layout.
(No pressure!)
Crews
Crews,
Nope, sorry! The only stuff I've had published was on locos and cars, and they were in The NTrak Steam Information Book and The Keystone Modeler. Now, the plan I used is based on one Lou Sassi did in MR in the early 90s called the Mowhawk Division. It also appears in a Kalmbach layout project book. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of. His was an early Conrail in upstate NY theme.
There have been other small PRR layout features from time to time also in MR and GMR.
I have been working on a few articles (though they've been competing with my PhD dissertation for my attention) but I'm aiming for the Pennsy and N scale audiences.
With all due respect to our hosts (MR), their submission standards for photography are beyond my skills and the reported lag time (submission to publication) of upwards of several years is just not acceptable in my view.
Nevertheless, I do plan to hit the model railroad press more often as I improve the layout and equipment. Up next will hopefully be an article on constructing an N scale PRR M1 4-8-2 for The Keystone Modeler (which, by the way, is free for download through the PRRT&HS!).
Dave Vollmer wrote:...Now, the plan I used is based on one Lou Sassi did in MR in the early 90s called the Mowhawk Division. It also appears in a Kalmbach layout project book. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of. His was an early Conrail in upstate NY theme....
...
Now, the plan I used is based on one Lou Sassi did in MR in the early 90s called the Mowhawk Division. It also appears in a Kalmbach layout project book. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of. His was an early Conrail in upstate NY theme.
Perhaps, especially if that plan was on a door. But I was in grad school in the early 90's and do not recall reading any MR's in those days. After graduation and in the late 90's I was back into it and joined an N-Trak club in San Diego and continued reading N-Trak publications when I returned to Texas. I'm guessing it was that, because your name is as familiar as they layout. I don’t know, maybe I stumbled across your web site some time ago.
Still, get busy with that new layout and start taking photography classes! I like your work and am really interested in designing for operations.
One thing that keeps coming up as I search for that perfect prototype...
No one part of the PRR is a perfect match for my druthers. I love the Pennsy so I don't plan on changing railroads. But my druthers are somewhat strict:
1. Must be east of Pittsburgh... Mainly for familiarity but also because I prefer the scenery east of the Burgh.
2. Passenger service (but not too much!).
3. Decent mix of through freights and locals.
4. Decent selection of online industry.
5. Mostly double-tracked.
If I had a million dollars, I'd do the 4-tracked PRR Middle Division. But I don't have the staging, the loco roster, or the stomach for the 150+ trains a day.
I keep coming back to 3 possibilities. The Bald Eagle Branch between Tyrone and Lock Haven had lots of traffic and was near my alma mater of Penn State. But it had no passenger traffic after 1950 and most of the "online" industry came in the form of branchlines that connected to it (i.e., the Clearfield, Snowshoe, and Montandon Secondaries). The Northern Central from Baltimore to York, PA offers plenty of passenger service (almost too much) but almost no through freights (except after 1963, TrucTrain service between Baltimore and York).
That leaves the Northern Division between Harrisburg and Northumberland. Again, many folks have done this already, so I'm not breaking any new ground by doing it. But one passenger train a day each way, plus a good mix of locals and through trains, several branches, and the Reading interchange give this line lots of possibilities.
The trick is to keep the action at Norry under control; Northumberland yard, while smaller than Enola to the south, was still huge and could easily become overwhelming. Staging for this segment would also be a heck of a trick; on the north end (Norry/Sunbury) I'd theoretically need to stage for Buffalo, Erie, Wilkes-Barre, and Shamokin. On the south end I'd need to stage for Harrisburg and Enola.
Run-through staging, forming a continuous run, starts to sound pretty good. This makes pre-staging much easier. I think offering a small section of Norry to classify southbound locals (both for the Northern Division and for the Lewistown and Selinsgrove Secondary) and to tear-down freights up from Harrisburg/Enola (hopefully pre-blocked for their respective desitnations) would be the way to go.
I think David Popp's Waterbury yard would make a great representative classification yard for Norry. The rest of the yard would be in staging. Again, pre-blocking would help keep things manageable.
Groan. It gets worse than that. Sometimes I have to interview them for newpaper stories...
The South Jackson Gazette
and the Horace Fithers sometimes just goes on and on and on. I can't get him to shut up!
Regards,
Charlie Comstock
Hey Dave,
Oh boy.... you ain't saking for much... just everything!
When I set out to design the third Bear Creek and South Jackson I had a few goals in mind.
* I wanted a mainline long enough to get a sense of going somewhere
* I wanted a largish yard that would have some real work to do building and breaking down trains and keeps cuts of cars sorted and available for block swaps with passing trains. I also wanted to be able to handle 'empty requests' from the 'business' department when an industry 'orders' some.
* I wanted a helper grade because concentrating on keeping a train with multiple crews moving on a steep hill is a lot of fun (once you get past the terror of stringlining the train or shoving it over the outside of a curve)
* I wanted local switching (another source/sink of cars in the yards)
* I wanted mostly freight ops with some passenger trains
* I wanted a single track mainline with opposing trains
* I wanted a 'dark' (unsignalled) railroad - partly because I'm cheap and didn't want to spend the bucks required to fully signal/control the railroad and partly because following a bunch of traffic lights around a layout isn't much fun (to me anyway)
* I wanted to be able to have the 'boyz' over to run it because the social aspect of an op session is one of the most important factors of running (I strongly agree with Joe Fugate on this)
I'm blessed with a fairly large basement that's allowing me to do most of this but lets look at what all those 'wants' I listed really mean...
D I V E R S I T Y
There are lots of different jobs on the BB&SJ III - let me list 'em:
Dispatcher - Yard Master - Yard Crew - Local switcher crew in Redland - mainline crew men - local turn crew - crew caller (under tt&to add Operator)
If I don't feel like switching there are through trains.
If I do there are a three trains doing a lot of switching.
If I want to sort cars there's the yard crew job.
If I want to plan what's gonna happen in the yard there's the Yard Master job.
If I want to tell everyone where to go there's the dispatcher job.
It's the diversity that keeps it all fresh and interesting.
Now is this ALL possible on a small layout. Sadly I'd say no. This makes it important to pick and choose the ops features you're going to install.
One casualty of a small layout is a long mainline. On a 4x8 even a twice around design will have a max mainline length of around 40'. At a scale 60 mph (HO) thats a lap in 40 seconds (N scale is more polite taking around 80 seconds to do that. If you want the run to last you'll need to reduce the speed of the trains. Significantly.
If you're trains all run the layout in 2 minutes it can get a little boring/trivial to run them. So Dave, I'd not worry too much about having 50 trains set to run your layout.
That leaves an emphasis on yard ops or switching (but having the occaisional through train coming through town forcing the local's crew to dodge it is good for interest too).
This says to me that the smaller the layout, the more important the plan for switching industries or doing some sort of yard operations becomes (theorizing that running on the short mainline won't be satisfying -except when you wear your railfan/foamer/photographer hat)
So now there's a trade off for double tracked mainline. With a double track main you can easily have the local doing its thing on one track while a through train orbits on the other (and this is probably a good thing for the lone wolf operator). But if you'll be having a friend or three over to run, the guys who aren't doing the switching won't have much to do and it greatly reduces the interactions between crews.
I define interactions as times/places where the crew of one train has to either wait for another train to pass/meet or when two or more trains have to collaborate to get the work done (for instance - a through train hands some cars to a yard crew or a local). Another interaction is a yard crew building a train and giving it to a road crew or the road crew giving their train to the yard crew when they tie up.
Another form of interaction occurs on the BC&SJ when a crew calls the dispatcher for a track warrant.
The more interactions you can arrange (within limits!) the more fun I think the layout becomes to operate. If each engineer has their own track so they can run laps without interfering with other trains there is no interaction (other than railfanning) and (to me) it gets old quickly. But an extreme case where a crew can't get anything done without another train being in their face will become frustrating rather than interesting.
I really like having the boyz come and run trains. It's the real reason for having a largish layout. And you don't need to have a layout finished to 'operate'. For that all you need is enough trackwork so trains can operate with a purpose.
I hope all this blather was worth reading.