Here’s a challenge to you brave souls out there. Dr. Joe (of model railroadology) has a systems of analyzing model railroads that take into account things like yard storage, passing sidings, etc.
I think it would be a great learning experience if we each took our layouts and went through the analytical process. Obviously, some of us will score higher than others. What will make this educational is if we then do a write-up of what we had in mind and why we chose what we chose and then relate it to the score. This goes for planned railroads as well as railroads near completion.
Don’t think of it as a contest, rather a mutual learning experience. As for me, I’d like a chance to learn from other’s mistakes for a change. I’m asking everyone to go out on a limb, so to speak and put yourself out there.
Hi Chip. Good idea, though I don’t have an hour or two to invest there today. My current layout is the best I have done so far. There are lots of layouts on this forum two, three, ten notches above including the Siskiyou, Bob’s and Twhites, all who have inspired me. The G&D is still my main benchmark.
Ditto, I just don’t have the time these months. But, this will be an improvement if for no other reason than I have switched fully to flex vice EZ-Track. Other improvements are two passing sidings (yay!)…with one of them a twin siding with staggered access to the main (yay!), a yard (yay!), handlaid turnouts (we’ll see), and a reversing loop (yay!) so that I can turn trains to go around my main in the other direction.
I would probably run a bit short on marks from the point of industrial track. So far, I have only two industries, but I did heed Armstrong’s advice to make at least one of them a leading point access for interesting work. I have room to add one more, and may do that before I call it a layout.
Just one more thing (pulls several large black feathers from his teeth)…there is a LOT to be said for EZ-Track, in hindsight. While limited, it would have saved me tons of hours of curve tweeking and connecting Code 83 Shinohara’s to Code 100 Flex. Them adaptive joiners are #@%&ing hard to press on. Also, I have had to make manual turnout controls using lumber blocks and push-pull rods. Snap turnouts were soooooo easy.
I just received the title to the other half of the garage, so a major redesign is in order. I’m certainly going to take Brother Fugate’s ideas to heart.
Just as soon as the redesign is completed, I’ll attack the calculations with great gusto - and probably come up 'way short.
Very true, indeed. While I have great respect for Joe Fugate and his modeling abilities, judging your layout by somebody elses criteria and druthers is a foolish proposition, at best. And since fully 2/3 of hobbyists don’t even consider anything beyond unorganized or minimal “operations” as an important aspect of model railroading, where does that leave you?
If you are happy with how your layout has turned out, then it is totally irrelevant how it stacks up against some other person’s ideas of the way things should be.
I ran my layout through Joe’s formulas and found that I was real close to what he had developed with the formulas.
I had designed my layout many years before I read anything about the layout formulas, but I was using the Conrail ZTS maps to set up my towns like the CR maps had the trackwork laid out in 1984. So that may have been one reason I was so close to the ideas Joe had laid out.
My layout was designed as a point-to-point with OPs as the main focus from the beginning. I was tired of the same-o-same-o that everyone else had gotten themselves into, a roundy round with a few places to switch cars into. I figured that if Conrail was able to make it work so could I! So far it is working out real well as the line is moving more freight than the real one ever did.
Don’t you just love it when a plan comes together!
I think we’ve all gone through this topic before in a lively debate about what makes a perfect layout. My layout ranks as perfect…for me. I made it for me, therefore it is perfect for me. I agree with a previous poster. If I defined a formula based on my criterion, it would be very different from Joe’s, and while I respect and admire Joe and his layout and his website and his tips and his articles etc etc…you get the idea, I don’t see why I should judge my layout vs his criterion.
I think some of you are missing the point. The point is not to see who ranks well using someone else’s criteria, but rather to place your layout in light of others so that we can learn from your wins and losses. It also rates the rating system to determine if indeed it is a useful tool. Your self analysis in light of the rating system helps others to learn from you. This is not about brownie points or bragging rights.
Nobody says that your layout isn’t good for you. My intention was to use the system to further our members’ knowledge base. If you don"t want to help fine, but not my intention to insult your sensibilities.
I’d have to rate mine at a ZERO at the moment, since it currently doesn’t exist (pending an upcoming move). However, I’m looking at the 15x20 foot room in the basement of our “prospective” house… Will keep posted.
I’m game. Here’s my summary. If I pick up one improvement from this thread, then I win.
HO SP Siskiyou Line (Joe Fugate)…HO Taylor, Elgin, SMtihville (Tom)
Room Area (sq ft): 810…300
Layout Area (sq ft): 689 (85%)…234(78%)
Number Turnouts: 122…67
Total Track (ft): 1078…814
Train Length (cars): 44/30/10…10/9/8
Maximum Cars: 816…225
Trains: 16.7…17.7
Dispatching Threshold: 22 car trains…8
First, my druthers:
Like operations vs. just running (note that I have included the capability to just run trains round and round as I have grandchildren).
Like steam more than diesel hence the period is '45 to '55 (I also like some of the early diesels F3 etc). So, transition for me is just about right.
Want to model something from the area I live in, hence the MKT, Missouri Pac etc. around Taylor Tx, Elgin and Smithville.
After studying Joe’s formula’s and logic, I built a spreadsheet and started plugging my numbers in. I adjusted the layout to maximize a couple of stats that are important to me based on my druthers, ops potential. Those are:
a) Maximum cars - my initial numbers were in the 80’s. I added staging to compensate and also learned how staging is the “connection” to the rest of the world.
b) Number of cars moved in a session - Again, my numbers were relatively low based on amount of track, probably under 60. The staging I added boosted this to 139.
c) Number of trains possible - I seem to recall my number here was less than 10 initially. Staging as well as increasing my passing siding length brought this number up.
Bottom line, tinkering with # of passing sidings as well as their length along
Chip, the point you miss through being a tyro in model railroading, is the broad diversity in intent guiding layout design. While I’m sure Joe’s formula has application to those interested in serious operations, that aspect is not the major objective of model railroading for the majority of those in the hobby…and never has been. Anyone long in the hobby will immediately point this out.
Posting a given layout’s rating will only be meaningful if the modeler has designed it for operations. Then there might be some indication of success or failure in meeting various of Joe’ criteria. For may other applications it would either be misleading or downright pointless. Unless the question is posed strictly to “operators”, or broken down in to catagories/types of layouts, such a survey will serve to demonstrate nothing about whether Joe’s forumla is on the right track, or much of anything else.
I would suggest you find and read Linn Westcott’s article on how the hobby is subdivided or is broken down by what particular interest or intent drives modelers and, as a result,. just what their layout design goals are.
I don’t understand the tyro comment, but I admit to being inexperienced. But I did not miss the point that a layout designed for railfanning might not score as well as Joe’s it still might be interesting to see where in the rating system it score’s high and low and hear the owner’s opinion as to the layout’s strengths and weaknesses.
What we would find out is that there are WAY MORE roundy-rounders than serious operators and they my may feel that their layout does not stack up to the so called professionals.
Everyone builds their layout to please themselves! This is not a contest! The MRR Police will not come and take your layout away!
It is to see how your design stacks up agains a written set of formulas.
It will give those that are not sure what it takes to make their layout operate better not to put down ones design.
HO SP Siskiyou Line (Joe Fugate…Rock Ridge & Train City
Room Area (sq ft): 810…108
Layout Area (sq ft): 689 (85%)…40 / (37%)
Number Turnouts: 122…17
Total Track (ft/cars): 1078/2156…102ft/244.2 cars
Mainline Track (cars): 706…150
Passing Track (cars): 338…9.6
Storage Track (cars): 516…26
Staging Track (cars): 336…36
Service Track (cars): 18…4.0
Connecting Track (cars): 242…9.2
Passing Sidings: 10…2
Passing Train Length (cars): 44/33/12…4.2/4.2/4.2
Staging Tracks: 11…3
Staging Train Length (cars): 43/30/10…14/12/10
Maximum Cars: 816…53.3
Cars Moved: 500…52.4
Trains: 16.7…13.1
Dispatching Threshold: 22 car trains…2.6 car trains
I made an adjustment in that my largest cars are 36’ with many at 34 and 26. I used 5" as my average car length.
This was an interesting exercise. However, what ever the numbers say, I have limitations that the numbers don’t show. I can only run 4 car trains not only because of the sidings, but because that’s all my engines can pull up the grades. Although I have more theoretical room in my staging, I can really only hold 5 trains at a time getting 13 trains out in a sessio
Personally, I think model railroading is both art and science. How much art vs. how much science is a choice of the author of that layout.
I personally feel I learned something, worthwhile to me a least, from looking at Joe’s method and trying to understand it.
I think that is much of what this thread is attempting to discover; Have others who’ve used Joe’s method learned anything and would they step up and share that.
I do not think anyone is implying here that one layout is better than another - beauty is in the eye of the beholder. [^]
I’m so radical when it comes to layout design and concepts, it will take the rest of the hobby twenty years to catch up with me!
I am a outspoken advocate for the keep it simple rule, not the popular concept of more is better or a popularity contest as to how my layout should be designed and operated.
No thank you, I’ll march to a different beat at my own pace and enjoy model railroading in my chosen means.
Some good statistical engineering here. It’s hard to visualize operations by just looking at plans.
My method with N scale has been trial and error. No track plan. I started with a doorslab and grass mat. Then I grew it by slowly adding Kato Unitrack and structures, constantly rearranging everything as I add to the layout. Currently, the theme is “toy”. You could say Unitrack is a planning tool for me because eventually it will take shape and I will build a permanent sceniced version with flex track and terrain. But that could be a fairy tale. Who knows. The journey has been fun I must say. I am content operating trains as the layout stands now.
I went to Dr. Joe’s site with every intention of completing the evaluation. I ran right into a problem with the room dimensions, layout square footage and free-space square footage. I’m not at the layout (It’s in my brother in law’s basement.) so I can’t even estimate these numbers. The basic dimensions are lost to the years and my memory. Maybe 18’ by 24’? So the railroad fills maybe 70% - 75% of the room?
Here are some of the other pertinent things from the evaluation that I do know off the top of my head.
Room area (sq ft): 432
Layout Area (sq ft): 300 (Approx.)
Number of Turnouts: 68
Passing Sidings: 3
Passing Train Length (cars): 22 +/-
Staging Tracks: 8 Double-ended, 4 Stub-ended
Staging Train Length (cars): 15-19, plus power and caboose
Maximum Cars: 217 Coal Hoppers, 34 Other Types. Total 251, give or take a few.
Cars Moved: 246
Trains: 18 Trains, 1 Pusher Set, 2 Yard Jobs and 2 Local Switch Jobs.
I have no idea where this puts us on the scale, but I can tell you what we feel we did wrong (Or could have done better) and what we feel we did right.
Could have done better:
We should have added more hidden storage.
We should have made the aisles a little larger.
We should have made the layout a little shallower in a few places (We will need a pop-up in one spot.). Generally, the layout is no more than 24"-30" deep.
We should have made better access to the hidden storage tracks. Not a huge problem, but bothersome.
We should have gone with the Switchmaster (Or other stall-type motors.) for all the turnouts from the start. It would have saved us some money and a lot of headaches.
Other than that, not really any major issues.
What we feel we did right:
We did put in a fair amount of hidden storage in the original plan.
We planned the layout to be operated and tried to put operating points (Coal loaders, yards, etc.) at different