Joe,
Just a few questions: How much of this forum is going to be rehashed on Vol. #5? When is Vol. #4 going to arrive? Do you ever sleep?
Bob Hayes
In your Aug. 08, 2006 posting entitled “What do we mean by ‘prototype operation’?”, you state that “On the Siskiyou Line, empty cars went south (railroad WEST) to the Lumber mills, and cars loaded with lumber came north (railroad EAST).” Over here on the Cascade Line, most of the lumber cars going south are loaded with lumber and the ones going north are empty. I would think that was the way it was 30 years ago, too. Does that mean that the loaded cars from points south of Eugene went north to Eugene to get on trains going south through Klamath Falls???
Nit Picking Bob Hayes
Bob:
You got it exactly. Most of the lumber from Riddle through Goshen on the Siskiyou Line went north to Eugene and then either south over the Cascade Line through Klamath Falls to California or on north to Portland and then from there split up to go on north into Washington or east into Idaho.
However, lumber from Glendale south on the Siskiyou Line generally went on south to Medford and over the Siskiyou summit into California.
But if the lumber was destined for say, Iowa, it made more sense to ship it north through Eugene, even out of Medford, than to send it south into California which would be going exactly the opposite direction. So lumber destined for the northern midwestern states would often go north to Eugene even from Medford since that was the more direct route than it would be to go south to Sacramento and then over the Dunsmuir route.
On the Siskiyou Line, the big dividing line is Cow Creek Canyon and the grade through Wolf Creek. It made more sense for loads north of that dividing line to always go to Eugene (basically down hill) and then back south to California over the much easier grade of Cascade Summit.
Once you got far enough south on the Siskiyou Line, there was less up and down mileage to just go over Siskiyou Summit into California and to have less “backhaul.” When it makes sense because of grades and curvat
Back in the harness on volume 4 next week. Three and a half chapters done, six and a half chapters to go. I work best when I kick around my thoughts on the next video as a breather from the current one (and as a breather from all the hub-bub around the PNR convention).
I pre-processed volume 4’s content a year ago as my scenery forum on here while I was building the DCC volume 3. The back and forth discussion helps me find blind spots in my presentation up front and to make sure I cover certain topics well that might otherwise confuse people.
So if I am to deliver number 5 sometime next year, I need to get the gears rolling on its content now. Hence this clinic.
Meanwhile, people can benefit, even if they never see the video that gets refined and produced from the forum clinics discussion and feedback.
Contrary to how it may look sometimes, I often take a nap in the late evening and then get up and work on things at 1 or 2 am, then go back to bed. I am more refreshed this way, and get kind of a second wind working these odd hours.
So yes, I do take naps even if I am posting at odd hours! [swg]
TOPIC THIS POST: The secret to a satisfying layout - quality of run
Read this forum clinic post by clicking here.
If you read the latest forum clinic posting (see link in previous post), you should see pretty quickly that there’s a lot to be said for making your layout smaller rather than larger.
It’s all a balancing act. I’m convinced many modelers try to build a layout that’s too big, then get boored and never finish it. A large well-done layout is a lot of work.
The other thing you need to do is examine closely where your interests lie. If you really like accurately detailed cars and locos, then doing a large layout is probably not a good idea. With a large layout, you just don’t have the time to do all those hundreds of kitbashed or scratchbuilt accurate cars, nor the dozens of carefully detailed locos – it just isn’t possible. You will have to settle for reasonable facsimiles.
For me, the whole goal of all this work is to run trains … and as I point out, when that equipment is moving and you are concentrating on running realistically, the precise details just don’t matter because you don’t have time to count ribs, make sure the brackets are all there, and all that. It’s the things you notice right away at a glance that matter – like realistic weathering.
And finally, tuning your track and equipment so you don’t get derailments is huge. But I’ve heard stories about layouts in the magazines that look gorgeous but run like crap. I’ve even run on a few of them myself. The magazines, I think, do the hobby a bit of a dis-service because they focus so much on what is easy to portray in print – good looks. Plus you can study those still photos for a long time and notice tons of details that don’t matter one bit when you operate.
Then there’s the whole question of how many magazine readers actually have layouts. Darn few, I’m afraid. I notice that the pages on my web site with the great scenery shots get the most hits, while the pages where I speak about operations get a lot fewer hits. You want to know why?
That’s because about 10-20% of MR’s readers have layouts. The other 8
Your “Quality of Run” topic was very interesting, Joe. As I read it I was thinking “He keeps saying ‘smaller layout,’ but his is pretty big.” But your comments make a lot of sense. Do you ever think about reducing the size of your layout?
Quality of run has been something of a concern for me - I have a LOT of hidden trackage, especially in The Behemoth Helix. Most of my branch lines are hidden, appearing mainly in the towns, with most of the distance in between on hidden trackage. But the goal of all that hidden trackage isn’t just to increase the length of the runs - it allows me to arrange the layout to INCLUDE all the non-hidden elements. Otherwise I’d lose towns and scenic features (like scenes that aren’t infested with a mess of track) I really want. Take the bad with the good, I guess.
Joe,
I really liked the “qulity of run” post. This has always been my goal, but I never really thought about prioritizing things in quite this manner. Some great food for thought as I continue construction (track laying) on my new layout. Thanks again.
Ron
Mark:
Yes, the thought of reducing the size of my layout comes to mind now and then. But I have realized it’s all about tradeoffs. So instead of detailing my locos to the ying yang and kitbashing a bunch of rolling stock, I do some basic detailing of my locos and get reasonable facsimile rolling stock and try to weather it realistically. In other words, use methods to populate the layout that are fast rather than accurate.
This runs in the face of today’s trend toward prototype accuracy to the max, but I want a larger layout so I cut corners to make it something I can complete in my lifetime. [swg] And in my experience with a really fun to operate layout, I’m finding a fetish for detail accuracy really doesn’t matter. The hobby press is kind of leading us astray in this regard, IMO.
Another spin on my layout size is a question I get asked now and then: “If you could start over, what would you do?” or “What would your ideal layout space be like?”.
My current layout is 810 square feet – its multideck mushroom design allows me to get 1100 sq feet of layout (single deck equivalent) into that space. I love the mushroom concept and would build another in a heartbeat.
But if I could start over with an ideal layout space, I would like a space of about 1600 to 2000 feet. I would build a single deck layout with a very similar schematic as my current layout. I would put a lot more of that space into the aisles, and on the layout I would use that extra space to add single track between towns – more running distance between towns in other words.
I would probably build the benchwork even narrower than it is now. The maintenance monster and the derailment attracter on a layout is turnouts. Turnouts mechani
Joe,A couple of side notes…First is on safety.
You said:
Detailed right-of-way: Detail and weather the track and things close to the track since that’s where you spend most of your time looking when running trains. Bridges and structures close to the track also fit this category.
While this is excellent detail advice remember that brakemen/conductors need to walk along the edge of the right of way so,keep rails and ties back far enough so these crewmen won’t trip and fall.[:)] This is a common safety mistake seen time after time on layouts.My past experience and observation is the ties and rail seems to be 1/2 a crane boom from the nearest rail.
======================================================
Second side note.
Joe,For the record there is no real difference if the cars are weathered or not…You see it boils down to the modelers preference as far as weathering cars and locomotives and has NO real operational value.Also large layouts can be realistically operated by DC control…
The reason I point this out is to let modelers of ALL skill levels and DC users know you can still operate prototypically with unweathered cars and locomotives and your current DC system…
I hope that this is taken in the spirit of this operation clinic as another option as that is my intention…[:D][:D][:D]
Thanks Joe for another outstanding clinic. Just wondering if you use a prototype locomotive maintaince system for your units entering your service facilitys. Im Planning to do this when I get to the operational point this fall. Will keep one person very busy for te evening…John
John:
The prototype maintenance facilities in the main yard (Roseburg) on my layout are minor, so there’s no servicing of locos to be done on diesels in the 1980s except by running to Eugene staging. So there really isn’t much on-layout loco servicing. Many of the locos run-through as well, and only a few trains originate or terminate in Roseburg.
I’ve always thought it would be interesting, however, to track loco motor voltage somehow and to have your locos use more fuel if the engineers work your locos harder than they need to – and then when the locos get low on fuel, you will need to get them to a location where they can be refueled. Maybe someday …
TOPIC THIS POST: Adding more complexity to the operations
Read this forum clinic post by clicking here.
Another great installment as always!
Thanks Joe!
Joe,As food for thought I like 10-1 ratio.Thats 10 real minutes equal 1 scale hour…Why? Because I find this gives the YMs more working time to build or break down trains…Of course SPEED must be adjusted to match the scale time.I found on a large layout 40smph for freights an 45smph for passenger trains seems about right. A down and dirty way of tracking scale time can be done with a standard wall clock with a red tick mark every ten mintues…
Joe,
I’m in the process of designing a garage & shop area with a layout room above. Looks like the footprint will be 30x60 or so. Depends on where the stairs go. The upstairs will loose the area for the stairs, bathroom, and some cabinets for microwave & refrigerator. Also need a spot for paint booth & workbench, probably under the layout. Stairs cannot go on ends as the garage doors are on one end, and a large access door is on the other. First plan was to have the stairs running across the middle, so as to divide the room into two parts. That made planning easier, but left me with several 20’ long blobs. If I put the stairs along the side, there are no obstructions in the middle, but I end up with a lot of 60’ runs. I want switching areas with a good distance between them. I like long trains(40-60 cars), and UP/BNSF joint operation with a little D&RGW thrown in. I like David Barrow’s “sincere” layout designs but not his 18" wide dominos(they use too much wood). There is an additional area that can be used for staging, however layout height may be a problem. Access for this area is at one corner. Any suggestions?
Bob Hayes
Bob:
So if I understand this correctly, the layout room is upstairs and the stairs come up into the room, right?
If so, this means it’s possible to have the stairs come up into the room at one side and to run a narrow shelf along one edge of the stairs. If the stairs are say, 3 feet wide, having a 6" - 12" shelf along one side wouldn’t be too bad and if it helps the layout could continue right across the stairs. If you don’t put any turnouts in that part of the layout design and lay the track especially carefully on that section, you will be able to minimize any maintenance needs on that section.
Another consideration with stairs into a layout room is keep in mind the need to bring in lumber later for layout construction. If you place the stairs with that in mind as well, you won’t create a situation later where you could kick yourself because you made it nearly impossible to get lumber up there!
Otis McGhee has a well done example of stairs coming up into a layout space. Here’s a link to a closeup of his plan with the stairs, and then a link to the overall plan in the room (stairs are in the bottom middle-right). Notice Otis is doing a double-decked mushroom design and the upper deck goes right over the stairs like nothing’s there.
Joe, et al: It seems to me that the way you are set up either part would be a good interesting layout. The focus of operation would be a little different, but the upper level could be mainline run from Eu-Me and Me-Eu with maybe a small staging yard where the Coos Bay branch takes off. For a different approach, a similar staging yard could be a source/destination for a Coos Bay branchline layout. And either one would be a fun entity in itself, just a slightly different focus of operations, eh? Gee, I love this hobby! jc5729
I believe what you describe here would be not a 10:1 but rather a 6:1 fastclock ratio (60 scale minutes:10 real minutes = 6:1). Both sides of a ratio must be rendered in the same measurement as opposed to 10 real minutes:1 scale hour.
Ron
Ron,Your are correct if you follow the rules…However…I know several guys that uses real 10 minutes as one hour without braking it down into “scale” time.On my industrial switching layouts I use 15-1 thats 15 real minutes to one wee hour.60 minutes would be 4 wee hours to my HO crews…
This 10-1 works especially well and doesn’t put the rush on the yard masters like your mention 6:1 ratio…Remember there is NO law/rule stating you need to break real time to scale time ratios.[:D]