Running Fast and Smiles.

[SpaceMouse]

I've been reading Chubb.

He goes very deep into scheduling and that of course is dependent upon time and in model railroading that means fast time.

However, I hear very little conversation anywhere about Fast Time or scheduling issues and that leads me to believe that no one uses it.

Furthermore, this lack of dialog leads me to believe that we as a hobby ave abandoned the idea of keeping schedules--ant therefore are limiting our operational capacities greatly.

Am I getting this right?

Is anyone making and keeping schedules ala John Allen?

[nbrodar]

What do you mean my schedualling? The lastest tend in MR (Tony Koster, Bill Darnaby and others) is Timetable and Train Order running. Which is the essince of schedualled railroading.

The other thing to look as is after the widespread installation of CTC many roads abandoned schedualled railroading, in favor of a traffic based system. Now in an effort to improve customer service, many roads are returning to a form of schedualled railroading, where the same train leaves at the same time, everyday. The train has a schedual of pick up and set outs, too. And we catch heck when we miss our departure time, and have to explain any delays at imtermidiate points.

Nick

[cuyama]

Chip and all,

Yes, some people are still using Fast Clocks and using some form of compressed miles. This is especially true for layouts based on Timetable and Train Order (TT&TO) operation, since it's important for all the operators to share a common understanding of time and the schedules. In TT&TO, crews make their own decisions on when they may proceed from place to place based on the rules, the timetable, and a consistent clock.

The problem with time is that it does not really scale down in the same way that distance does ... I believe becasue we each have an internal clock that is constantly running at 1:1 (real) time. For soem people, a Fast Clock becomes a source of stress and frustration. So for many serious operators who wi***o focus on the swithcing, yard work, and simulating real-life operator roles, a move back to 1:1 time is attractive.

I posted an article on model railroad fast clocks a while back on my website.

This goes into some detail on the different types of operating roles and how Fast Time affects them. In short, Fast Time works better on long runs, like a passenger train with few stops running over a medium-to-large layout. But, IMHO, Fast Time works poorly in a yard or local switching situation, especially on a smaller layout.

So there are still many people using Fast Time, but it's less popular for people with small layouts .... because the cognitive dissonance of a 12:1 or whatever Fast Clock ratio when combined with very short runs is less satisfying.

One thing is important to note, I think. Fast Time is not necessary for engaging operating sessions, even with TT&TO. Fast Time is an option some people enjoy, but many people are also discovering the benefits of 1:1 time.

regards,

Byron

[cuyama]

Oh, and your title is a little misleading. You don't actually run your trains any faster when using a Fast Clock (although some people do, unconsciously, as they try to keep up). The trains should still run relatively slowly, it's the clock that is fast.

[cuyama]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

Furthermore, this lack of dialog leads me to believe that we as a hobby ave abandoned the idea of keeping schedules--ant therefore are limiting our operational capacities greatly.

I reaiize I did not answer your question directly. Yes, many people still keep schedules. Some use Fast Time. One reason it's featured less in the hobby press today is that it's been around for a long time and is somewhat understood.

Another reason may be that in more modern times, the real railroads rely a lot less on printed timetables, since there is direct communication to the train with radio. That means track warrants, direct traffic control (DTC), or CTC (as was pointed out) are used instead of traditional timetables in most modern situations.

One interesting underlying subtlety in Chubb's scheduling rigor is that he was also controlling use of a few DC cab controls. If you read between the lines, part of the reason for scheduling things so tightly is that they could run out of cabs if they didn't and as well had to manage when a train would be handed from one cab to another.

Nowadays with DCC as an option, this is much less of an issue. So op session designers can better emulate what their real or imagined prototype did in temrs of running a less-defined schedule (freight trains as unscheduled extras, for example).

regards,

Byron

[nbrodar]

Byron brings up some good points.

DCC elimates the need to tightly control DC throttle assignments, so schedualling is not so much an issue. As with the real thing, technology has elimated the need for ridged schedualling.

Also it is dificult to compress the time needed for switching. So, as modelers tend towards local switching type layouts, schedualling and fast clocks become less useful and important.

But here's an interesting twist. Many of my customers have "switching windows" where my crews can only enter at certain times. This could be an unusual challenge for someone modeling local switching.

Nick

[gvdobler]

I said this in an earlier post:

If you run a fast clock, say 4 to 1 and you are running a train at a scale speed of 40 mph. How fast are you going now?

I say you are now going 160 mph. Now don't laugh. If you wanted to remain at 40 mph you would have to turn the clock back to real time or slow the train to 10 mph. Now 10 mph on a fast clock would be 40 mph.

Or is it the other way around??

Now I know know one operates their trains in the same clock speed, we operate in real time so, that's why fast clocks don't make sense to some people. They're used so operating sessions only take 6 hours to resemble a 24 hour day,.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Actually Chip, real railroading has changed over time , to the point where they don't exactly live by the clock anymore. There not really hard time schedules, except for Amtrak. The railroads work off a plan that sends trains to particular destinations on a regular basis based on the loads going. The goal may be to depart at 1PM, but it may not leave until 3 based on other factors.

I would say that most people who hold operating sessions on their railroads use fast time. It is an important factor in making things seem real. I've been to a quite a few sessions over the yoear, and they all use fast time. Ask Joe Fugate.

Distance = Rate x Time

The train doesn't really move faster, the clock does to create the illusion of distance.

Say you have 2 towns on your layout, and in the real world they are 10 miles apart. In HO, at 60 feet per mile, that would be 600 feet to represent that distance. Even my basement isn't that big. So we speed up time to cru***hat distance to something more managable.

Most people use speeds between 8:1 and 15:1. Higher or lower than that range can get ugly. Too low and it gets boring waiting for things to happen, too high, and things don't get done for lack of time.

Common speeds are 8, 10, 12, and 15 to 1.

[SpaceMouse]

I guess I was point out here that except for back in February, I've neot seen a discussion of fast time and that was a question about what it was.

I assumed that people have given up on the concept. Certainly in my limited experieince, I've not met anyone who even considers it. Although i you can do from Digitrax DCC systems.

[Anonymous]

Two things to keep in mind 1) mainline running and "switching" run at different time lengths 2) the impact of the need to access the main for switching operations can greatly hinder by timetable mainline runs.
1) The time required to perform switching moves does not really change between prototype and model all that much, unless you run your switcher at 160 mph in the yard to move cars around , and still the "time" required to uncouple a car and move it to a siding for spotting would take three minutes real time but 15 minutes fast clock. The question then is how far does the mainline train go in that 3 minute interval. More complicating is the timetable mainline train that has some switch moves (set out a diner, an express reefer, or pickup a Pullman car along the way, all prototype possiblities on a passenger timetable) could become one hour station stops on the fast clock. Not too prototypical.
2) The day to day switching tedium of an industrial area can be thrown into turmoil with constant interuptions of "timetable" access to the mainline that is part of "the switch lead" of that industrial area. Careful planning of the trackwork in the area and DCC can over come these problems to a large extent if concidered at the appropriate time. Before your son comes barreling through with a hotshot freight, because his sister is hot on his heals with the premier varnish on the "schedule".
The easy part of scheduling and fast clock is the realization that somethings don't happen at that fast clock speed, which takes a lot more "planning" of the track plan to "get the job done". DC was far more difficult to work around limitations of the track plan.
Your time era was very much a "schedule" time period when passenger traffic had a higher priority than it has had since the 1970/80's onward. To do it without frustration on most of the other operators, the head guy has to have planned the work space on the layout to provide the right environment for both the fast clock and the timetable.
Just a few thoughts on the subject.
Will