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.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
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
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.
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.....
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...
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.
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...)
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,
Charlie Comstock
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.
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.
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: 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
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!
-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.
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!!!
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: 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
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
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?
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!"
4x8 are fun too!!! RussellRail
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************
Teh Ops club could use timetables to help spread us out. for the 50 feet long of space, for 4 of us or more to cram into one 30" walkway is rediculous. Beyond that and keeping Passenger trains in service, then I can't find much use either.
-Morgan
Don't need to worry about timetables for a beginner. Just getting the concept of "here" and "someplace else" is a big enough leap.
The other critical part is understanding that you have to bake the operation into the plan. My son's layout is operated almost exclusively as a roundy-roundy layout. That's the way he likes it. But it has all the parts that it couldhave a more organized operation at any time.
The other concept that is really hard for people to grasp is "scale" (and I don't mean HO vs N). That is what you can accomplish in a certain space. The modelers drive the hobby towards HUGE engines and LONG trains with LONG cars. Search the archives and how many beginners are wondering how to put their 4-8-8-8-8-8-4 around 18 in radius curves with a 50 car train on a 4x8 layout in HO.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
It's perfectly possible to operate in a prototypical manner without a dispatcher, a timetable, track warrants... Plenty of short lines and industrial switching districts made do with a single locomotive. I'm sure that the closest thing to timetable operation at the car float served freight houses in Da Bronx was having things ready to switch the float when it arrived.
For that matter, doesn't the UP run all freights as extras?
To be successful, a track plan has to allow the kind of operation the owner wants - even if that is to run in a circle (which is also prototypical, if the circle is big enough) or to simply shuttle a single streetcar back and forth. Still, before the plan can satisfy the owner's wants, the owner has to figure out just what is wanted.
I will not say that it's impossible to simply slap some track on a sheet of plywood and run trains. I will say that it would be a good idea to allow for frequent (and possibly drastic) changes in the track pattern.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - TTTO, 24/30)
cregil wrote: Flashwave wrote:Unless we have all the other people who a rr have, it a slag of a lot easier to figure out how best things run befroe builing a timetable. Been trying to figure one in head to kill time. They can be useful, but it as a neccecary piec for us new guys? not close.No? Not even close? Really? We'll, I'll be. Then, I must be wrong. My mistake must have been in believing that most new guys probabvly do not have other people who have railroads to help them figure it out, and that trying to do it in one's head without understanding how real roads devloped, would have made it so.Your right, I am sure. My bad. Must have just been my own experience. After all, what people wanting critiques really want to hear is where the styrofoam mountain looks best once the Christmas Tree has been removed. Crews
Flashwave wrote:Unless we have all the other people who a rr have, it a slag of a lot easier to figure out how best things run befroe builing a timetable. Been trying to figure one in head to kill time. They can be useful, but it as a neccecary piec for us new guys? not close.
No? Not even close? Really? We'll, I'll be. Then, I must be wrong.
My mistake must have been in believing that most new guys probabvly do not have other people who have railroads to help them figure it out, and that trying to do it in one's head without understanding how real roads devloped, would have made it so.
Your right, I am sure. My bad. Must have just been my own experience. After all, what people wanting critiques really want to hear is where the styrofoam mountain looks best once the Christmas Tree has been removed.
Crews
Don't take it like that, as I don't mean it that way. But I myslef have tried to think about a timetable. And I;'ve been in a new group trying to set up ops, which should have a timetable (we tend to end up in the same place.) But a new modeler has enough on their plate trying to set up the rest of the above before figuring that train L should try to leave at 3:47. It's not a problem to set up the layout, practice moving cars, and if desired, scrub the personal intrest ops (I wanna swap the boxcar at the warehouse with a new one, it's been emptyed by now) to a timetable design once it;s up.
As to the sarcastic remark about the Christmas Tree, there's a fair bit of those as well.
dehusman wrote: If somebody just wants to run stuff in a circle, fine. Have at it.But that's not what most people who ask for help with a trackplan say they want.Dave H.
If somebody just wants to run stuff in a circle, fine. Have at it.
But that's not what most people who ask for help with a trackplan say they want.
If a question is asked about a track "plan" than it can be assured that a "plan" is what that person wants. A simple concept about the purpose, scope and operation of a model railroad is sufficient to make a track plan feasible.
Otherwise, if there is no intent towards operations, orderly train traffic, or specific prototype practices, if all the person asking wants to do is run trains through a scene, then a track plan becomes redundant because ANY arrangement of track will suffice.
It is right that we direct a newcomer into what may eventually lead to a fully miniature rail transportation system by giving them honest and accurate guidance. This hobby is called model railroading, not toy train collecting, for a reason. Take the newcomer, welcome them, answer their questions with accurate information, then support whatever they choose to do with that information.
Even a simple circle of track is a far more interesting and imaginative place to showcase your train if that said train is running the circle with a theme or a purpose. Later, maybe that circle will grow a siding, perhaps a branch line, perhaps not, either way that toy train is now functioning (at least conceptually) as a model railroad.
Well then, I've said my peace.
The Dixie D Short Line "Lux Lucet In Tenebris Nihil Igitur Mors Est Ad Nos 2001"
Yeah, we are missing something. Two somethings, to be exact:
I could not begin to start planning my “dream layout” until I could understand this:
Limitations on a model railroad are what keep a good one from becoming insanely complex (and they probably should not ever look like a plate of spaghetti).
Yard too small at one point? Sorry, this railroad does not own the adjacent property, and so operating is going to be ugly and difficult when an extra is thrown at you at five pm just as the flyer is trying to get out and the yard is full of the end of the day interchange. That local due to leave in an hour may have to be cancelled, sent the wrong way to the first available siding and stay out of the way until things quiet down. That dang facing point industry track a mile away now comes in handy so I have a place to get Baldy’s 4-4-0 out of the way, since he won’t be using it until morning. We’ll send a hostler to bunk with the fireman in a caboose until we can bring her in and get her ready.
In real life, the railroads were planned around an assumed time table, and adjusted out of financial necessity thereafter. I assume, but cannot find, that sidings were originally placed with such issues as “the down grade eastbound will not be needing water at Y on his way to X, but the opposing westbound and climbing passenger will have to stop for water at these points, X, Y, and Z. Therefore, the timetable which was created with the geography known, not only dictates where the pax and freight meet, but even where Y is located and what services are provided there (siding, water, maybe a boomer shack). Industries desired to be serviced do the same—where the line crosses the Chisholm trail, there will be a yard and a town, where at present there is nothing but prairie dogs.
The most necessary function of the board for newbies is to try and help them not create fatal layout deign errors—impossible radii, impossible grades, and clearance problems. Aim them at a book of good “first layout designs” and hopefully that book contains information on why it is a good design, as in how it runs, why it exists and a sample timetable to run it. I have never run across such a book, but the MR Planning issue on David Barrow’s Cat Mountain back in the late 1990’s at least gave me the ability to start thinking about these things. Nothing I have read since compares.