loathar,Are you a lone wolfer? If so, I can understand your opinion (or at least how you've come to hold it). But let me tell you about my club. See, just last week, I had 18 operators. I was the dispatcher, and we had half a dozen mainline engineers, plus yard crews, local freights, brakemen, etc.
Without a dispatcher and a timetable, there would be utter chaos. The dispatcher plays traffic cop, while the timetable provides the framework. We run some 30 trains in a two hour span...and our layout is only about 1/3rd built. A dispatcher and a timeable is necessary to keep the accidents to a minimum and keep the wheels rolling.
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
4x8 are fun too!!! RussellRail
Flashwave wrote: Got the pic? we have to log into Zealot to see them. Can see the forum and original 2x4, but not anything Squidbait puts up.
Got the pic? we have to log into Zealot to see them. Can see the forum and original 2x4, but not anything Squidbait puts up.
Here ya go
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
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.
Umm.... Isn't the thing we're really missing is that over time our interests change. And we can't predict when we start where our interests will be next year, or 2 years from now, or 5 or 10?
So either we get preoccupied with trying to design the ultimately perfect dream-come-true lifetime layout (which often results in analysis paralysis in which we become so afraid of failure we never start building), or we just start building something without having a clue what it is that we really want (what kind of railroad do Tiggers like best?).
So who has more fun? Well I couldn't tell you that. Infinitie planning cycles can be a lot of fun for certain people. And for others seeing that the 4x8 sheet of plywood layout isn't what was really wanted can be disheartening.
What we are missing is that there is no such thing as a lifetime/dream layout. There's only the layout you're planning or working on now. This means that often times there will be layouts built that will get dismantled so another one can be built. But with each succesive layout the builder will know more of what they want and how to get there.
Better to make a bunch of (so called) mistakes with a smaller layout early in the life cycle of a railroad modeler than make those mistakes with a bigger layout.
And instead having the attitude its up to us enlightened modelers to teach the newbies what they need to know, wouldn't it be more effective to SHOW them what it is that interests us? Blessed is the newbie with a couple of experienced modelers nearby who will share what they're doing with him (or her).
FWIW
Charlie Comstock
ps. Loathar, is the DS talking on a radio to crews 20' away any less realistic than being able to see from one town to another when those towns would usually be 10 miles apart? Or that our steam engines actually run on electricity? Or that our water is made of plastic? If you haven't tried ops on a layout where the ops have been refined perhaps you should. If you have, but still didn't like it, then I guess we have different interests. Who would have guessed all people aren't the same?
Charlie-The whole OPs thing just isn't my cup of tea. Not trying to "dis" anyone that likes that sort of thing. I personally don't see the fun in packing my stuff up to drive an hour across town to a club and wait in line for someone to "allow" me to run my trains.
This is one of the reasons I quit my brief stint in slot cars once the track got crowded and the owner started getting picky about what kind of cars you could and couldn't run and when you could run them.I'd rather spend the effort to make my layout look real, (like yours!) than worry about prototypical OPs. (I'd feel REAL silly wearing a headset to run my trains...)
loathar wrote: Charlie-The whole OPs thing just isn't my cup of tea. Not trying to "dis" anyone that likes that sort of thing. I personally don't see the fun in packing my stuff up to drive an hour across town to a club and wait in line for someone to "allow" me to run my trains.This is one of the reasons I quit my brief stint in slot cars once the track got crowded and the owner started getting picky about what kind of cars you could and couldn't run and when you could run them.I'd rather spend the effort to make my layout look real, (like yours!) than worry about prototypical OPs. (I'd feel REAL silly wearing a headset to run my trains...)
This is exactly the type of sentiment I was alluding to in my earlier rambling, pain induced post You have no interest in OPs just as I did (didn't?) while today it drives everything I do. And we probably both enjoy the hobby just as much as the next person. Jamie
CLICK HERE FOR THE CSX DIXIE LINE BLOG
I've always felt that the best place to start is to look at the prototype. If you don't have a lot of space, then find a prototype scene that doesn't take up a lot of space. Perhaps a small village with a freight house, a small industry, maybe a grain elevator and a coal pier. This simple, rural scene, can provide for a fair amount of interesting operations. Maybe the coal comes in from the west, the grain cars might be empties coming from the east, or loads from the west, depending on the season. The freight house can get stuff from anywhere. Maybe it's an REA stop, and an express car would be there to be picked up by a passenger train.
Even if you don't know how the actual prototype scene was switched, you can create an operation scenario based on your track plan. Or, maybe your interest will be piqued by this small scene, and you'll take some time to study what the prototype actually did to serve this village, then base your track plan on that.
That's basically how my layout evolved, and continues to evolve. The more I learn about my prototype, the more I have an understanding of what I need to simulate its operations on my layout. At this point in my "career" I can hardly imagine having a layout that lacked a yard to support the break down and make up of trains.
And while I generally agree that Engine Terminals can be space consuming and under-utilized, I found that my operations require a sizeable one. I run westbound time freights out of staging, and at the yard, power is changed out for the remainder of the trip west, likewise for eastbounds, which stop for fresh horses before heading back into the staging yard. I also have a fairly sizeable fleet, which I do like to display, but I also have to call on many of the locomotives during an ops session.
All that being said, I also think it's important for someone seeking to dip their toes in to go ahead and build something, even if it is a simple loop on which to run a train. In addition to coming to grips with modeling HOW a railroad runs, it's also important to try your hand at building a platform on which to run it. In N scale, the 36" x 80" door slab has become the norm for this type of "test bed" layout, giving the modeller a manageable project on which to experiment with everything from wiring to trackwork to scenery. Despite all the good information available on the web and elsewhere, there's still an awful lot of trial and error that goes into learning this hobby.
I doubt that there are many of us "experienced" model railroaders who are operating on the first layout we ever built. But, with a little thought about operation, that first layout can be something that will keep you amused while you are learning the ropes.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
loathar wrote: But that's exactly why I'm putting mine in. I want a "display" area right up front for my engines.How many newbies have never heard terms like OPs, proto, code, DCC, blocks, etc...I fear we overwhelm some newcomers with too much info when they ask a simple question about a track plan. Wonder how many we've scared off when a 4x8 question turns into a 6 page roundy round vs. point to point philosophical debate??I think we forget some people aren't fanatics about this hobby like most of us are.
But that's exactly why I'm putting mine in. I want a "display" area right up front for my engines.
How many newbies have never heard terms like OPs, proto, code, DCC, blocks, etc...I fear we overwhelm some newcomers with too much info when they ask a simple question about a track plan. Wonder how many we've scared off when a 4x8 question turns into a 6 page roundy round vs. point to point philosophical debate??I think we forget some people aren't fanatics about this hobby like most of us are.
It must also be remembered that a newbie question that has been asked 10,000 times here is the first time for them!
Yes, there is a search function, they may not know it, they may not know how to use it, they may forget it's there (I do), they may not know what key word to type in.
They are simply looking for information. And nothing is more important to them than having it answered. They don't deserve to be stomped on.
I had trains as a kid, and teen (o/o27 & N). I recently got back into the hobby some 30 odd years later. This time I wanted the HO I always wanted. I had no idea what a DCC was. My DC wiring knowledge practically non-existant. I am not good at electronics, I can fry something electronic like an egg!! I have very tight small space restrictions.
I need RTR DCC stuff now that I decided to go DCC. Not everybody can scratch build a loco from tincans, bale wire, telephone cord and taperecorder motor and duct tape!! Computer programming my locos? my layout? Out. I've worked my small layout by trial and error. Mostly error, lol. I still haven't figured out how to use the Atlas freebie trackplanner. Not a clue...and I don't dare ask here...because of some of the responses I may get from someone here who works as a computer programmer by day, and an electronics troubleshooter on weekends and can tear apart a nuclear bomb and rebuild it to be DCC compatible!!!! Atlas says its as easy as any other such programs (like what and how do I use them?). I'm lucky to know MS Word program, and can use AOL. I am not a programmer, nor an electronic engineer!
I could get very discouraged by some of the answers I have seen and the slaps I have seen from older, more experienced modelers and forum members. They should, instead, impart their wisdom and experience not their disdain, and intolerance for someone who wants to run their trains/layout/railroad differently than they, or who cannot understand something that to them is "so simple". ANd some worry the hobby is dying! No wonder if newbies get discouraged.
I joined this forum sometime ago. I have now seen some "same questions" come up again and again, yada yada yada, but I try to remember that when I have seen a repeat question, it is new to the asker!!!!!(And I haven't been here for many years and thousands of posts)
When newbies get hooked, they see grand layouts, and want one too! Then they find out the limits of their space or a 4 x 8.
There are no stupid questions, (though I may ask some) and there are no new questions...just a new askers!!
Please be gentle with newbies, we want them to come to the hobby and stay!!!
-G .
Just my thoughts, ideas, opinions and experiences. Others may vary.
HO and N Scale.
After long and careful thought, they have convinced me. I have come to the conclusion that they are right. The aliens did it.
Well said, Galaxy.
I think the biggest problem about trying to offer ANY advice to a newcomer is that we can't have the rapid-fire one-on-one conversation that would give us a picture of that person's dream world. Typed question/response, wait for answer, someone chimes in with something that may be helpful, totally irrelevant or downright insulting. If there have been six or a dozen answers before the original poster gets back, his inclination might be to go hide under a rock (or take up origami.)
Any time someone is venturing into a new area they are hesitant, sensitive and woefully ignorant. Helpful, friendly, informative comment will bring them in and begin to raise them up. Harsh or abrupt answers will send them fleeing into the night.
My point? When answering a newcomer's queries, be helpful and gentle. If that's impossible, just back off and go to another thread.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Thank you Chuck.
Yours would be a perfect "wisdom" I was hoping some experienced folks add!
I may not that experienced now, but far more experienced and knowledgeable than when I joined this forum 2 years ago.
I hope if I respond that I am gentle also, I try to be.
Remember, it's a HOBBY, and every HOBBY should be FUN to the person HOBBYING! Each person will enjoy it his own way!
tomikawaTT wrote: I think what is missing was brought up on the 'What should I buy first...' thread.A lot of the folks who come on with, "This is my first post. I want to have a big engine terminal and an operating hump yard on my HO 4-by-8. Tell me how to do it," have seen ONE magazine or ONE display layout and want to learn to swim by tackling the English Channel.What we, as experienced modelers, need to do is point out that everyone needs to make up a list of givens and druthers. Then there is the delicate task of convincing somebody that they can't build the White House in a space that is barely suitable for a dog house.It would be nice if everyone who wants to jump into the deep end of the pool would first READ! John Armstrong's books, Spacemouse's beginner's guide, Westcott's HO Railroad That Grows... All contain valuable information that every modeler should know. Most newbies don't even know they exist.Having just re-read it, I didn't realize just how much Frank Ellison's The Art of Model Railroading had influenced my thinking. The modeling is stone age, but the ideas are as fresh as tomorrow's sunrise. I fervently wish that I could give every new or would-be model railroader a copy.Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I think what is missing was brought up on the 'What should I buy first...' thread.
A lot of the folks who come on with, "This is my first post. I want to have a big engine terminal and an operating hump yard on my HO 4-by-8. Tell me how to do it," have seen ONE magazine or ONE display layout and want to learn to swim by tackling the English Channel.
What we, as experienced modelers, need to do is point out that everyone needs to make up a list of givens and druthers. Then there is the delicate task of convincing somebody that they can't build the White House in a space that is barely suitable for a dog house.
It would be nice if everyone who wants to jump into the deep end of the pool would first READ! John Armstrong's books, Spacemouse's beginner's guide, Westcott's HO Railroad That Grows... All contain valuable information that every modeler should know. Most newbies don't even know they exist.
Having just re-read it, I didn't realize just how much Frank Ellison's The Art of Model Railroading had influenced my thinking. The modeling is stone age, but the ideas are as fresh as tomorrow's sunrise. I fervently wish that I could give every new or would-be model railroader a copy.
I couldn't agree more Chuck. As a re-beginner after not modelling for 20 years, the very first thing I did was to buy as many beginners guides and READ as much as I could on the internet. There IS soooo much to absorb when you first start out that it is quite overwhelming. BUT, with a little patience and a lot of research I was able to create a track plan with XTrkCad and begin to design my first layout. This was after months and months of reading magazines and internet forums such as this along with hitting as many train shows as I could get to.
I say my first for two reasons, one, it is my first layout since I was 14. And two, because although I've just barely started on this one,(in the grand scheme of things) I'm already thinking about the mistakes I've made and how I can do things better the next time. And what I want my railroad to do next time.
So back to my original beginning, I think we should get these new modelers like myself to read and research a little before shooting for the stars. Which is very hard not too do when you consider funds, time, family, work and possibly other hobbies. I myself need to devert funds from trains in the winter time to motorcycle related costs in the summer.
Just my $.02
AltoonaRailroader wrote: the very first thing I did was to buy as many beginners guides and READ as much as I could on the internet. There IS soooo much to absorb when you first start out that it is quite overwhelming. BUT, with a little patience and a lot of research I was able to create a track plan with XTrkCad and begin to design my first layout. This was after months and months of reading magazines and internet forums such as this along with hitting as many train shows as I could get to.
the very first thing I did was to buy as many beginners guides and READ as much as I could on the internet. There IS soooo much to absorb when you first start out that it is quite overwhelming. BUT, with a little patience and a lot of research I was able to create a track plan with XTrkCad and begin to design my first layout. This was after months and months of reading magazines and internet forums such as this along with hitting as many train shows as I could get to.
Your approach sounds sensible to me. Read up on the subject first. Look at what others have done. Think about what you want to end up with. Make a plan. Then start building. Accept that the result probably won't be perfect the first time. Take note of what works well and what works less well. Plan to do better next time.
To me, it seems that the core challenges with quite a few new modellers (including myself) is twofold:
The first challenge is to make the new modeller mentally accept that TTT - Things Take Time. Many of us at least initially wants to skip over the "boring" work needed to get from here to there, and just leap straight to the end result.
It takes a while for most new modellers to fully accept that we all need to spend quite a bit of our own time - either on reading, researching and planning before we starts building, or on experimenting while building and redoing things that doesn't work well enough afterwards. Or spending time both on planning before you start building and on reevaluating & redoing things afterwards
You can have someone else design a track plan for you. You can get someone else to build a layout for you. But even if you do that, you still will need to invest enough of your own time to figure out what you want and spell out clear specifications of what you want. There really isn't any easy way around spending quite a bit of our own time on this hobby.
The second challenge is to make the new modeller accept that there will be plenty of mistakes, false starts and wrong paths chosen, and that to get a good result we all need to remain flexible and be willing to make changes and try new approaches when the approach we first tried doesn't work well enough for us.
A lot of us (again very much including myself) grow attached to our plans and our methods. We treasure it when we feel that we finally feel that we are starting to master something we have been working hard to learn. Very few of us like to start over and "throw away" the time we have spent on something.
It is very hard to accept that something we have spent quite a bit of our time on figuring out may not be the best approach in the situation we are in, and that to move forward we first need to take a step backwards, reexamine where we want to end up and where we are, and be willing to discard at least some of what we have already done, and try a different path towards our goal.
And yet I suspect those two things are indispensable if we want to build good layouts: the willingness to spend a significant amount of our time on learning how to do things, and the willingness to discard some of what we have already done to start over again from time to time.
Smile, Stein
tomikawaTT wrote: What we, as experienced modelers, need to do is point out that everyone needs to make up a list of givens and druthers.
Autobus Prime wrote:But I think we, as experienced modelers, tend to forget that usually we had to play around with trains a while /before/ we really knew what we wanted. Most people, when starting, just want Trains, and if you want them to make a list of requirements, it usually ends up being Pretty Much Everything. So I don't think we should point that out all the time. Sometimes the best thing to do is throw up a flat table and throw down some snap track.
I agree. But when the newby askes for help with his trackplan, we should try and remind them what the sidings and industries are really for. I sort of think they know in a limited way, but but don't necessarily see the big picture of what the reason is for the RR to exist. By knowing this, the big picture, I feel that it will help them plan a layout that may be more that a roundy-round type. After all, they have put a siding or two on their layout, so lets try and help them make it as close to the real thing as we can. It's sort of like not seeing the forrest for the trees.
loathar wrote:Charlie-The whole OPs thing just isn't my cup of tea. Not trying to "dis" anyone that likes that sort of thing. I personally don't see the fun in packing my stuff up to drive an hour across town to a club and wait in line for someone to "allow" me to run my trains.This is one of the reasons I quit my brief stint in slot cars once the track got crowded and the owner started getting picky about what kind of cars you could and couldn't run and when you could run them.I'd rather spend the effort to make my layout look real, (like yours!) than worry about prototypical OPs. (I'd feel REAL silly wearing a headset to run my trains...)
Loathar, no problems mate. I don't feel dissed at all. But I'm still suspecting you've not given ops a real test drive if you've only done the club thing. Very few clubs are into prototype operation. And even fewer have gotten to refined operation. Rather than insisting on taking your own equipment to run, I'd suggest looking for a 'complete' layout that really operates (like Joe Fugate's). As a newbie you'll likely be assigned the job of engineer and paired with an experience conductor who can tell you what to do when you get confused or forget. For me ops isn't about the equipment used (as long as the engines run reliably and the cars stay on the track), instead it's about the interactions between trains and their crews. Refined operating layouts spend as much time 'weathering' and 'super-detailing' their ops systems as many of us do 'weathering' and 'super-detailing' our structures and rolling stock.
If after a session or two like this you still don't see what the fuss is about then you'll be able to return to your baliwick knowing that you're not missing out on a different facet of the hobby that might fascinate you. If so, no problems mate, it's a hobby after all, and like the slogan used to claim "model railroading is (or should be) fun".
Perhaps you've already done all this though, in which case I apologize for beating your dead horse...
Best regards,
trackplan - n. (from model railroads) - an arrangement of tracks for a model railroad.
With that simple definition, a simple oval fits the description. But is it really a trackplan? Isn't it intuitive that a newcomer would know to close the loop so that he/she can avoid the train having to reserve itself? Would a newcomer not figure this out even if they had not seen similar arrangements and adopted the configuration into their "worldview" of model trains?
In the past 10 or so posts, we have revolved around what the term and its host question from a newcomer is really asking. Will a newcomer want to know how to close an oval? If they use the term trackplan, do they understand all that it represents? Is it our ethic, here, to explain all that a trackplan can be if anyone uses the term in a request for help? If not, could it be?
How should we orient ourselves to the term? What should we agree a typical newcomer means when he/she uses the term in a first-ever request for help in getting one underway?
I'm not meaning to be facetious here. I think we have some variance as to what help we should offer a newcomer, whether that be encouraging them to continue to learn without spending money that may soon be wasted, or encouraging them to go ahead and make some purchases, learn from that and subsequent playing experience, and then come back and we'll see what we can do.
I think they get lots of mixed messages here, some friendly, some not, some indifferent, some not. It would be nice, for the sake of the forum and all it represents, to have at least a semi-packaged approach to helping newbies get the most of their time, interest, and resources. Hopefully, that would also translate into a fair bit of fun.
Well said Charlie! I have never been to a full operating session, just ones where it was me and the owner running trains. I've tried to hold some of my own, but I can never get enough operators, and my layout runs horribly anyway... most of them aren't really that fun because of dirty track/derailing issues.
Once upon a time (well, two years ago anyway) when I was part of a club they were supposed to hold operating sessions, which was one of the main reasons I joined, but they never really happened... they were supposed to be every other month, and at $15 a month membership wasn't really worth it...
I'd love to be part of a regular crew on a good railroad (I'd even pay the $20 required to buy my own headset that many people require) but I don't really know of any in the area...
gandydancer19 wrote: Autobus Prime wrote:But I think we, as experienced modelers, tend to forget that usually we had to play around with trains a while /before/ we really knew what we wanted. Most people, when starting, just want Trains, and if you want them to make a list of requirements, it usually ends up being Pretty Much Everything. So I don't think we should point that out all the time. Sometimes the best thing to do is throw up a flat table and throw down some snap track.I agree. But when the newby askes for help with his trackplan, we should try and remind them what the sidings and industries are really for. I sort of think they know in a limited way, but but don't necessarily see the big picture of what the reason is for the RR to exist. By knowing this, the big picture, I feel that it will help them plan a layout that may be more that a roundy-round type. After all, they have put a siding or two on their layout, so lets try and help them make it as close to the real thing as we can. It's sort of like not seeing the forrest for the trees.
I think that this discussion thread has identified a potentially major issue for many people.
Having recently come back to model railroading as a hobby, and having built (at least almost completed) an 8'x4' version of Ian Rice's Lilliput Logger, I discovered, that although, scenically, it looks good, I discovered that it lacks any extensive operating potential (not least because there is very limited sidings capacity).
I then started looking at extending the layout by adding "wings" off both side, resulting in a large "W" shaped layout, with the wings extending round the room, the original 4x8 acting as the center of the "W", and the wings providing space (16" - 24 wide), one side 14ft long and the other 16'ft, both with "blobs" on the ends to provide for loops for continuous running.
However, now I have the probelm, since I want to "operate" the whole setup, of knowing what type of freight traffic I can create. I realised that, with my limited knowledge, you need to know what sort of traffic (types of freight cars, etc. and possible contents) are associated with common rail based freight services. I am modeling some indeterminate time in the 30's - 40's, on an out-of-the-way short line, using mostly small steam (2-6-0, 4-4-0, Shays) and maybe a few diesels (F3??). The small (18") radius curves limit me to 40'- 50' cars. I also want to run occasional short passenger/freight servives between the various "towns". I am going to add some additional staging tracks off one of the "blobs", and an interchange track, so I can imagine traffic coming and going from my "empire" to the outside world.
I want to have logging activities (small sawmill), together with several port facilities, ranging from a small fishing harbor with a packing plant/cannery, to a larger one with a rail ferry acting as a conection to the outside world (I like rail-water interchanges!!). I will also have several backdrop industrial warehouses (industries as yet undetermined) - as a background to the larger port with associated sidings, a boat builders, a cement works, a small western style township (over the top of one blob, reached by a single line extending off the upper logging camp area on the original Logger layout, a small ore mine and a larger coal mine, small oil storage yard, and a small stockyard.
Has anyone ever created a matrix of industries and suitable freight loads - incoming and outgoing. Obviously, lumber/logging can have all sorts of end traffic, from sawmills to industries needing pallets, packaging, or even raw materials for furniture making or paper (for example). I am at a quandary, since I have little (read none) experience of North American railroading, having only recently come from Europe.
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?
Sorry this is la bit long, but in just putting down my thoughts, I hope I can inspire some further discussion to help not just myself but other newbies, who have realised that "operations" make things more interesting. My goal is to create a card/waybill system, but I need to have some idea of what car types go with what industries. If nothing else, maybe someone can point me to other resources so I can do my own research.
Thanks in advance.
John---------------------------------------Steaming into the future.....
Hi Everyone,
Since we're on track planning, i have a flat table layout, to where i can run 3 trains and do some switching, there is a pretty neet item that i would like to add to my layout, and that is a hump yard, i don't know if anyone has ever built a working one, i would like to research this i've watched railroading on tv and seen how they work, need to find books or someone out there that has built one that can send me drawings on how to build one in HO scale, don't know if i'm even on the right track, so if anyone out there can help, would be greatful,
steam618lover1
Boatman, welcome aboard from a long ago blue water sailor (fireman-watertender aboard a modified C-1.)
I can understand not wanting everything to be shipped in box cars - but in the '30s, almost everything WAS shipped in box cars - even the loose Portland cement used to build the Hoover Dam. (That project was the ultimate concrete plant feeder.) Flats would have carried machinery, heavy timber, preassembled fuel and water tanks... Logs were usually carried on ordinary flat cars or 'skeleton' flats (flatcar frames without flooring,) but might be carried in gondolas. The purpose-built wood chip and cordwood carriers weren't developed until later, nor were covered hoppers for cement (the problem with leakproof drop door seals weren't solved until the late '40s.) Especially in the West, drop-bottom gons were more common than hoppers in coal service, and household heating lump coal was shipped in, you guessed it, box cars.
If you have a car ferry slip AND an interchange track, you can route cars the length of your railroad from one to the other. That way, you can have cars, and open-car loads, that don't have a modeled destination. (On my own railway auto racks, container flats and all-door cars fitted with specialized loading gear shuttle from up staging to down staging with nothing but an engine change - steam to catenary, or vice versa - between.)
The best way to develop a realistic 'industrial base' is to stick a pin in a map, then research what was actually there during the time you want to model. Check out some Spacemouse posts - that's what he did with his home town. I did the same thing, a continent and an ocean away.
Most of the people who say "I want a hump yard" have NO idea what the size of those things are or what they do.
They are the aircraft carriers or battleships of the railroad world. They are huge production facilities designed to switch hundreds, if not thousands, of cars a day. A typical prototype hump yard is expected to process 1500-2500 cars a day.
So if your layout classifies 300-1000 cars a session, then it might be useful to have a hump yard. If not then it probably won't be useful to have a hump yard.
If all you run is 3 trains then there is no way a hump yard is anywhere close to prototypical.
If you want to go to the trouble of building a hump yard, go for the gusto. Just realize that anything a typical modle hump yard can do a flat switching yard can do almost as fast with a lot less trouble and technology.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Humpyards? The effort and technical expertise to compensate for the laws of physics that don't scale down to 87.1 to 1 or whatever so far appears to be beyond 99.999999 percent of us. My recommendation is to stick with a flat yard.
Mark
dehusman wrote:So if your layout classifies 300-1000 cars a session, then it might be useful to have a hump yard. If not then it probably won't be useful to have a hump yard.If all you run is 3 trains then there is no way a hump yard is anywhere close to prototypical.
I beg to differ! (and am aware that we are off-topic)
We do selective compression in model railroading and if the prototypical yard you are wanting to model is, say, Lancaster Yard (now Centennial Yard), then compressing it without a hump (or bowl) is un-prototypical. Every single car pushed to the bowl represents those dozens that a real yard sends down the way.
Do a search on “hump yard” on this site and you will find some threads. An article, in the mid-to-late 90’s from N-Scale Magazine was something I recall as trying out using toothbrush fibers as nearly invisible retarders.
Crews
markpierce wrote: Humpyards? The effort and technical expertise to compensate for the laws of physics that don't scale down to 87.1 to 1 or whatever so far appears to be beyond 99.999999 percent of us. My recommendation is to stick with a flat yard.Mark
Mark,I hate to disagree but,it can be done..One HO club I am a member of has a working hump complete with a "puller crew".
I know of another club that has a working hump.
The "retarders" are a series of air hoses controlled by a valve which is operated by the hump master all switches is "route line" for the bowl track by pressing the desired switch control for the track you need. A "master" hump operator can hump 12-15 cars a minute.
cregil wrote: We do selective compression in model railroading and if the prototypical yard you are wanting to model is, say, Lancaster Yard (now Centennial Yard), then compressing it without a hump (or bowl) is un-prototypical.
It still will be a bear to operate and build. The moral of the story is model a smaller facility.
OBTW, its not Centennial Yard, its now "Davidson Yard".
BRAKIE wrote:Mark,I hate to disagree but,it can be done..One HO club I am a member of has a working hump complete with a "puller crew". I know of another club that has a working hump.The "retarders" are a series of air hoses controlled by a valve which is operated by the hump master all switches is "route line" for the bowl track by pressing the desired switch control for the track you need. A "master" hump operator can hump 12-15 cars a minute.
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.
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.
This has to be the topic of most value currently on this forum! Well thought out posts by all!
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?
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.
THIS IS THE POINT OF THE ENTIRE POST!!! Nothing has been said about the intensity or complexity of operating sessions, which is left up to the builder of the model railroad to decide, but the TRACK PLAN MUST BE FORMED FROM A CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS, however sketchy it may be.
The Dixie D Short Line "Lux Lucet In Tenebris Nihil Igitur Mors Est Ad Nos 2001"
IF you must absolutely, positively have a hump yard, be aware that it will either have to have a big black boxful of electromechanical controls or a trained octopus for a humpmaster. It will also have a tendency to develop maintenance problems that won't occur anywhere else on the railroad (unless you use pneumatic switch machines.)
I had thought of a hump yard - briefly - before succumbing to reality. My prototype flat-switched, for very valid reasons (not the least of them a lack of a suitable location in the bottom of a canyon.) So will I.
Discussing hump yards isn't really . A LOT of new modelers want them - not realizing just how big they are. Even a small gravity classification yard is an overload for all but garage and basement filling layouts. The problem is to be tactful about pointing out this painful fact.
BRAKIE wrote: markpierce wrote: Humpyards? The effort and technical expertise to compensate for the laws of physics that don't scale down to 87.1 to 1 or whatever so far appears to be beyond 99.999999 percent of us. My recommendation is to stick with a flat yard.MarkMark,I hate to disagree but,it can be done..One HO club I am a member of has a working hump complete with a "puller crew".I know of another club that has a working hump.The "retarders" are a series of air hoses controlled by a valve which is operated by the hump master all switches is "route line" for the bowl track by pressing the desired switch control for the track you need. A "master" hump operator can hump 12-15 cars a minute.
Brakie, you found part of the 0.000001 of us capable and willing to construct/operate a model hump yard. I'm not suprised your examples were the result of group efforts.
I read an artcle about 45 years ago in MR about constructing a hump yard using air to act as retarders. So, I have known for decades it can be done.