Curious as to what people thought of the Passenger Operations layout plan in January’s MR?
Good points/bad points? All those doughnut hole access areas were…interesting in an age of
walk in layouts. Do folks her think the operations and overall layout track plan are prototypical enough to
satisfy knowledge-able passenger ops modelers? A bunch of passenger ops concepts all squished into
one relatively small area or a realistic “real world” concept for a layout?
While it was nice to see with passenger operation, the layout presented had a little too much track crammed into too little a space - for my taste.
I enjoyed the article and layout, and it comes at a great time for me, because I’m designing for passenger operations with my extension room layout that I will start building soon.
I think MRR should feature more of these passenger types of layouts. Or even how to incorporate passenger operations to an existing layout.
I found it very interesting but I am very new to model railroading, so I don’t have a strong (or well-informed) opinion right now.
I too would also like to see more attention to passenger operations in MR, as this is a major interest area of mine. More examples of high-speed passenger ops in the magazine would be much appreciated.
IMHO, that layout is a throwback to the, ‘Bowl of spaghetti,’ layouts of the mid 20th century. My own layout is oriented toward extremely dense passenger operations, but I concentrated on a subdivision point in a rural area and avoided the many track, ‘Urban freeway,’ look.
Note that I don’t think that the layout’s designer and owner will be unhappy with it - but it really needs to be spread out into something like a basketball court to provide enogh elbow room for the trackwork featured. It would make a poor fit for my personal givens and druthers.
Chuck (Modeling Rural Central Japan in September, 1964)
There were a number of problems with this layout, access and clearances among the more noticeable. IMHO, it’s a shame that many of these theoretical plans (even “prize winners”) are published without at least a comment or two about areas that could (or should) be reworked for better appearance, operation, or reliability.
Newcomers to model railroading or to layout design may not notice the areas where improvements should be made, both to the physical plant and the operations concept.
It’s great that layouts are published featuring different approaches and concepts. But since so many newcomers take their cues only from published plans and have little experience of their own, I don’t think it would be a bad thing if the magazines were to suggest areas where a small change might provide significant benefits. I do recognize that it’s a tricky line to walk, informing readers without disappointing or upsetting authors.
Byron
Thing is, in a dense urban environment, a large passenger terminal IS a bowl of spaghetti. Check the articles in Classic Trains, each issue usually highlights some major terminal. A pair of tracks crossing 9-10 other tracks, on a cruve - sometimes through a turnout. It’s all there.
Me, I don;t really have an opinion one way or another as I’m not a big fan of passenger operations. My modeled branch had no passenger service in the era I model, not so much as a rail bus or a combine tacked on the end of a freight train.
–Randy
Byron lst hipped me (about 3 yrs. ago) to the fact that published layout plans not only are somewhat unrealistic (optimistic)and since pinpointing spots on my own layout’s original plan that were, I’ve not only known what to change/fix, but have a better eye for seeing trouble spots in magazine plans, now. Luckily, I was able to get my grades down with some initial tribulations. In fact just got my lower level’s main line up and running (finally!) just last night, two years in!
With this experience and hand wringing I agree 100% that It would be nice if the NMRA or the editors would strongly encourage MR and other magazines and book publishers to only publish plans that are truly to scale and have realistic grades, and possibly even brand names used in planning, for the turn outs.
I also feel that a prize winning design should certainly be up to snuff in all of those areas. It’s pretty ludicrous-really when they aren’t.
The thing I found attractive about the passenger oriented layout in January’s issue was the fact that it’s narrow and woulda/coulda been a candidate for my train room 3 years ago. But…all of those doughnut hole work stations! I’m still analyzing the plan to see if it would have a realistic feel for operations (with my still beginner’s level of knowledge). I agree that the spaghetti bowl aspect is more tolerable with a passenger terminal/commuter trains layout than mainline run kinda designs.
I guess what I was wondering when I started the thread, was whether or not this track plan was fairly realistic (at least plausible) for a passenger terminal layout and if anyone’s spotted any glaring/complete " fictions".
I did like how much layout was squeezed into a narrow room with the lower level staging, etc.
Byron educated (more than 2 years ago) me to the fact (with my own chosen, published track plan) that a lot of magazine layout designs are not to scale, have overly optimistic turn out configurations, unrealistic grades, etc. As a beginner, it was a shock to find several issues that needed fixing before I could continue to build. A completely unnecessary situation and one that should never have passed an editor’s perusal.
Luckily I was able to get my grades down to 2.5%-ish but I am in complete agreement that it’s irresponsible of the magazines (and other sources) to publish plans that are just…wrong! In the case of prize winning contributions in my opinion it’s just plain irresponsible! Many of us are beginners when we chose a track plan and if the hobby is to continue growing, the publication of these optimistic plans is damaging to the hobby.
I guess what I was asking when I started this thread was whether or not the passenger layout in the January issue is operationally realistic or at least “more than plausible”. It’s hard to find a layout this complex for narrow rooms so I was intrigued. Plus, I love passenger ops but just now learning about them.
Any passenger oriented layout owners here who’d care to comment?
Cheers.
Complexity does not equal plausibility or realism. Usually, the opposite is the case.
It’s quite possible to design passenger-oriented operating layouts for longer, narrower spaces. I’ve done a couple (hopefully they will be published in the future).
“Passenger Operations” covers a lot of ground: Mainline long-distance passenger trains; commuter operations; terminal switching; union passenger terminal operation; express, LCL, and head-end activity; etc.; etc. Designing a passenger-oriented layout in a modest space involves prioritizing among these interests (along with any desired freight ops), and then designing the layout to suit.
In some cases, it may make sense to optimize length-of-run and number of stations with multiple laps around the room. In other cases, prioritizing a metropolitan terminal with only a suggestion of the “rest of the world” is in order.
In my opinion, “one-size-fits-all” does not apply for passenger operations. Because of a lack of focus, most published plans do a poor job of providing the infrastructure for engaging and realistic passenger operations, IMHO.
Byron
[1] January 2010 MRR’s “Metropolitan Union Passenger Terminal” does a nice job of multi-mainline passenger runs. The layout is 10’x20’. There is a lot of action in this tighter layout space.
[2] The 8-page “12 Hours at Argentine” (PDF-download) in Modeling Realistic Passenger Operations, for Chuck Hitchcock’s ATSF Argentine Division, depicts passenger operations with essentially the same track-planning “concept areas” with a major exception: Each passenger yard track is specifically labeled as to the purpose of each track.
For example: Pullman set-off track, South Depot track, North depot track, Overflow express track, etc. This better understanding of the specific purpose of each track is insightful. This article is also quite a bit more more in-depth at explaining its comprehensive passenger operations. The layout is 28’x54’, and allows for more walk-around.
In Common: Each trackplan has a ton of passenger yard trackage.
For me, there’s a lot of curvyness to it. Granted, it was in a tihter space, and granted, Pass ops often have a balloon track too. I do however like the plan, and he seems to have all the elements for ops at a terminal.
Like has been said, Pass Ops covers a lot. You have the “Local Switching” that can be anything from dropping REA to even piucking up dropping Sleepers, even some roads didn’t take the Dining Car the whole way. (The George Washington ((C&O)) Picked up the Dinign Car En-rout and dropped it again before terminating), but you also have the switching within the terminal. Trains turning directly have to be scattered, the Observation cars turned, the sleeprs and dining cars re-linened and restocked, cars need to be wqatered, cleaned, it’s an intenser bit of switching, and I think he’s got it. In a perfect world, one would ditch the pop-ups, but it is what it is.
It’s interesting you all mention having suggestions for tweaking the plan, the article does mention alternatives for sqwitch placements for the staging yard.
I’m coming to this discussion rather late, but in spite of some of the rather conflicting opinions so far presented, I think that I would probably enjoy this particular layout’s design from an operator’s standpoint. I would certainly accept the overall design, which I find quite plausible and be willing to build it were I a passenger-only operations kinda guy (I’m personally more of a mixed service, short-line, operator).
The “pop-ups” several posters remarked about are distracting and something of a throw-back to designs often seen long, long, ago. While these prove less acceptable today, I can see ways of reducing their size and minimizing their perceived presence from the operator’s point of view.
The trackplan itself is reasonably realistic in my opinion and experience, although I would definitely eliminate that first station in the upper left corner of the trackplan. It comes much too soon after leaving the main terminal. The design does include much of the support facilities that would make an essentially passenger service only pike fun to operate, yet is often overly minimized on pikes of this size.
Overall, I liked it, found it interesting and would encourage publication of more such designs.
CNJ831
For my taste, it has too much track and not enough scenery.
But that’s not why I read those articles. I like reading about how someone else chose to incorporate their givens and druthers into a unified design, and envisions creating the kind of operations he wants to have on his layout. The designer of this particular layout was after a particular concept of operations, and I think he achieved it. True some of us would find fault with his choices, but it’s his layout, not ours. I don’t think the editors include these layouts to mess up newbies, but to stimulate their thinking about what is possible. Only by building it and running it yourself can you know what you want from your layout.
A further word on the use of pre-published track plans. I started by adapting an MR design for a logging and coal hauling line to my own uses. It turns out that the design, as published, had an elevation change of 3" in about 72", for a grade of a little over 4%, as well as a switchback that limited train length to a small loco and 2-3 40’ cars. Experienced hobbyists will recognize that as not unheard of for a mountainous road, especially geared logging locos like Shays. For what I wanted, however (long freights and the occasional passenger flyby) it was a nightmare. So was that an “unrealistic grade”? Looking back on my experience from ten years later, it’s obvious that it was my ignorance that led me into trouble, and that if I had read and really understood the designers intentions, I wouldn’t have tried to adapt that particular plan.
BTW, have a look at overhead imagery of a good-sized passenger terminal (Union Station in New Haven, CT comes to mind). The track plan is not at all far fetched.
Speaking as a “newbie” I want to reply with my impressions; but first I have to say that after studying the layout constantly ever since I received this issue, I agree with CNJ831 completely.
I just bought a house last year and I finally have a garage (9’3" x 22’6") unfinished and most of all UNCLAIMED by the Mrs.! So for better or worse, this space is my train room to be. I was looking for a layout with a 50-50 mix of freight and passenger traffic. This requirement makes me desire a pike with large curves for HO scale operations. Before I critique this plan I want to say that it shows me that one can have 30’ plus radius curves in roughly a one car garage. So I like the plan and initially was considering building it as-is.
Then I started running trains on it (in my head). I tried different routes, switching passenger and freight traffic, dropping cuts of cars - etc. For my mixed service desires, it needs some customizing. One half of the total track is hidden; and the yard and engine facilities lack a “flow” into and out of them both. It seems that for my mixed service needs, there are too many reversing moves neccessary to move freight cars into and out of the yard.
Having said that, I realize that I AM a newbie at RR planning (and everything else outside of research and reading) so I may be speaking out of turn. Is this layout (specifically the yard and engine facility) prototypical?? Do engines have to make the reversing moves to move cars into and out of BOTH
First major passenger terminals was massive and had could have 20-30 tracks with lots of double slip switches…
In the hey day of passenger trains there could be a passenger train departing or arriving within minutes of each other…Some times they would arrive or depart at the same time.
These inbound passenger trains had to be switchout ,the coaches to the coach yard for cleaning and servicing,the Pullmans to the Pullman yard,the diners to the dining car track for cleaning and then to the commissary building for restocking,the express cars to the REA building and the mail cars to the Post Office building…
The above was a 24/7 operation and would make a very interesting layout.
Of course one would need to have a love of passenger cars and equipment and like switching a passenger terminal.
I’ve recently become slightly enamored with passenger operations. Its too bad they’re just so huge and require such enormous outlays of space. My girlfriend asked me how big a model of DC’s Union Station would be after I’d mentioned something about wishing I could do modern Amtrak operations on a layout. She seemed to have a hard time grasping that the station alone, not the platforms and trackage, would have the same footprint as her car.
The layout does have a lot of track in a small space, but I don’t think of it as a spaghetti-bowl at all. If you look at the mainline runs, most of this layout could be stretched out into an almost linear point-to-point. It looks complex because it’s folded back on itself, and it uses hidden track and staging to extend the linear run of the main lines while staying within a room-sized space.
If you actually built this, I’d argue for making the access openings into scenery-covered liftoffs, high enough so that the trains could disappear behind them. I think I’d also figure out a way to put a few switchable industries along the main line, so that you could run a local freight during the afternoon before the commuter rush begins.
It’s a pretty good plan if running passenger trains is your goal. It reflects the usual problems of trying to get a lot in a small space. Access openings aren’t ideal, but you gotta compromise somewhere. And it looks like the layout will be mostly run from the main aisle anyway.
Personally, I would eliminate all the freight sidings. They appear to be mostly scenery anyway. Use the extra space in the top of the plan to expand the coach yard - those 80’ cars take up a lot of room.
Second I would raise the layout 8". Crawling around under the layout gets old. With more height you can at least roll around on a desk chair. Bonus is you can fit a work desk or two under the layout.
I applaud MR for including something a little different. from the usual walk arounds.
Enjoy
Paul