Trying to remain on topic… and encourage… which I think is the topic:
I was able to learn that the first hump yard in the US was around the turn of the Century. My own favorite railroad (Texas & Pacific) had a large one I used to listen to from my home in Fort Worth, but I have been unable to discover when it became a hump yard. If very early, the number of tracks on the prototype might not have been but a few. I believe that since I moved away, it has been planned to remove the hump and bowl-- but I don’t keep up with the UP and haven’t been home in years.
As for modeling one (and I have no plans to do so), I would tend toward a mechanical tractor design, rather than gravity and retarders, to simulate the car’s free run into the bowl. I’m thinking of something like a series of bristles that are directed by tubes in the direction of the “bowl” at about 45 degrees which are mechanically raised and lowered between the rails to gently and slowly prod the underside of each car “downhill.”
I once saw a model railroad yard plan for a steam era hump yard that had only five classification tracks, but I do not believe it actually intended a hump simulation. I have wanted to find what the smallest such yard was in the earliest decade of the Twentieth Century but all I have been able to find is the competition for the largest in the modern era.
As a “Modest Proposition,” I would suggest that no model railroader have a main line, because modelers do not typically have any concept of how long real mainlines are—so we should stick to yards, only yards.
I think that the answer to the OPS question “Are we mssing something?” is a resounding YES!
I have just spent the better part of an hour reading all of the posts on this thread. Some valid points are made, but I think that the point that is being missed is that the so called track plans printed here are basically inoperable.
The way I analyze a track plan is to mentally operate it as railroad would. If there is a freight yard or passenger coach yard, where does the motive power come from to connect to the train consist? How does the caboose get attached, if used. Is there a passing siding at the station so that freight trains can continue on while passengers are being loaded?
How practical is the track plan? Are there facing point sidings that cannot be switched, or dead end sidings, say at a mine. How would that be switched. If a loaded car is to be delivered, how would the empty be picked up first.
No need to go into the gory details here. The point is that if you can’t mentally operate the so called track plan as a real railroad would operate then it isn’t a plan at all. It is disaster looking for a place to happen.
The time to find that out is while it still on paper, not after the track has been laid.
The challenge is that very few beginners has any idea what “operation” is or what we mean by a “theme” or “concept”. Most tend to have a cafeteria style concept, I’ll have one of those and one of those and gimme one of them too. A lot of it is that they haven’t had time (or possibly taken the time) to do any research or haven’t had enough experience to realize what they really want.
I will have to somewhat disagree with you there. The physical plant tends to remain the same for decades. There are yards in use today that haven’t materially changed in decades. There are subdivision that haven’t added sidings in 50 years. One of the major challenges railroads face is having yard that were designed for switching 40 ft boxcars handling 50 and 60 and even 70 ft cars. Operations and the rail equipment can change waaaaaay faster than the physical plant.
Right you are Dave, and you will get no argument from me. I believe it is the duty of more experienced modelers to educate the newbie on what operations are, how to arrive at a theme or concept from the “cafeteria” selection they have made. Perhaps some mature guidance will save them a lot of headaches later on down the road. Is it always necesary to reinvent the wheel every time somebody enters the hobby? The idea of “let them make their own mistakes” never sat well with me when it is possible to avoid the mistake. In the end, we will build what we want, advice or not. When a newb asks for advice on a “track plan”, then that is an open door to greater understanding of railroads in general.
While it is true that the prototype infrastructure has remained more or less the same, on a model railroad we have the ability to create the proper facilties from the begining. Why not make our model tracks with the ability to handle the type of equipment we have? Why not make our model railroads adaptable to future equipment (eg 36" curves instead of 18")? I truly believe in my heart of hearts that a well thought out, cohesively planned, and operable model railroad will bring much more enjoyment and satisfaction than a hodge podge of “experiments” on a single train table. Ok, so you build a logging pike C. 1932 and found out you wanted more, fine, next railroad build a modern Amtrak in the north east corridor, but keep it pure in concept and execution.
Like 3T said, you don’t have to worry about the covered hoppers. One nice thing is that 1930-1940 trains can be solid boxcars and still look pretty neat. They don’t have the fancy flashy paint schemes, for the most part, but there were lots of different car designs in use. Looking at photos, various single-sheathed boxcars (visible truss-framing) are everywhere, with some double-sheathed wood boxcars (hidden truss-framing) still in use. Along with the wood cars, you’d have early steel cars like the X-29, and some brand-new AAR 1937 boxcars now and then, which really stand out with their greater height than the older designs. Occasionally you see something really old. The RRs really seemed to hang on to their obsolete rolling stock during the Depression, and I almost think the late 30s can give you one of the wider ranges of ages for rolling stock you’d typically see in use (a similar sort of thing happened much later, when RRs hung on to their 40 foot boxcars instead of modernizing the fleets).
To make up for the lack of flashy paint, you get lots of neat railroads that got merged or abandoned fairly early, such as the Alton or NYO&W, and lots of subsidiaries like the Hocking Valley or Boston & Albany that eventually disappeared under parent-road paint later on.
So those plain old boxcars can be really neat. Don’t forget that any 1930-1940 railroad needs stock cars, even an Eastern line. Stock pens were all over the place. You would also see refrigerator cars for meat, produce, and other food produc
Dave H said:Lets say an operating session is 4 hours long and the hump is occupied 50% of the time. That’s 120 minutes x 12 cars per minute = about 1400 cars switched per session. As I said in my original comments if you need to switch hundreds or thousands of cars per session, then a hump makes sense. If you only have to switch 60-200 cars pers session (three to ten 20 car trains) then a hump yard probably doesn’t make sense.
Actually we average 40-50 car trains except locals.Needless ro say our hump cuts down on the time we need to switch out trains when compared to our 2 “flat” yards-layout is point to point so ALL trains need to be reclassified…
The dozens of people who want to put a hump yard in HO on 4x8 sheet of plywood are just doing it because they want to or don’t understand what it entails. There is no conceivable operating reason you NEED a hump yard to operate on a 4x8 layout. If you want to build one, go for the gusto, its your time and money. But on a small layout you will get more operation for your real estate and money with something smaller.
I agree.There is no real advantage having a hump yard on a small 4x8 layout.
While I certainly won’t challenge what are obviously the good intentions of many posters in this thread, some facts need to be pointed out concerning what the actual hobby is in practice.
MR has pushed “formal operations” in its pages for about 60 years now. Nevertheless, this part of the hobby has never become mainstream and is unlikely ever to. In fact, survey after survey of hobbyists has demonstrated that less than a third of them do ANY form of operating beyond arbitrarily switching cars in and out of sidings on a whim, while those that consider themselves as “serious” operators consitute decidedly less than 10% of all hobbyists. By example, my local NMRA Division has about 46 member, many of them lifelong model railroaders. Of these, only a couple do any regular operating sessions on their layouts and even then only when outside help is available (i.e. never on an individual basis).
Our hobby is not regarded as “Railroad Operations in Miniature”. Just as it was with kids and their Lionels in the past, for the vast majority of HO and N scale hobbyist today the draw and fascination with the the hobby is simply about running trains - regardless of whether the individual is a newbie, or someone 50 years in the hobby. Model Railroading can be subdivided into many facets of specific interest among its practitioners: model making, scenery building, collecting, etc. but the only facet all have in common is their practitioners all will occasionally run trains.
That said, I would definitely agree that when a newbie, or anyo
Big Rusty said:How practical is the track plan? Are there facing point sidings that cannot be switched, or dead end sidings, say at a mine. How would that be switched. If a loaded car is to be delivered, how would the empty be picked up first.
First one must fully understand perfection isn’t always there in the real world of railroading and fully understand how a local crew goes about their work on a daily bases…These are the lessons I learn while working as a brakeman.
Why not switch those “unswitchable” facing point sidings on the return trip after all you gotta head back to your terminal-not to mention it saves time and unnecessary moves and that’s exactly how we handled such switching except on few occasions where that was the last switch and we was going for a early quit…
About those dead end sidings.
While a pain to switch,we would pull the loads/empties first and return with the loads/empties.Yes that is 2 moves but,you see how simple it really is?
Normal every day moves in the life of a local crew.
CNJ831,While I FULLY agree a newbie shouldn’t be over burden with operations he/she should be taught the importance of having a small yard and industries to switch compared to a roller coaster loop layout that has limited “play” value.
CNJ831, You may have a point about the percentages. I wonder how much time a modeler spends with the layout after completing based upon whether or not they are involved in some level of formal operations.
From the flip side of that coin, when planning a layout, the operative word is “planning”. Planning for what? That is what gets me-- i assume they are planning for as much flexibility and enjoyment as possible.
Lastly, I wonder how many who built a fine layout, picture perfect, but who do not even attempt to bring operations into their enjoyment – how many of those – have beautiful layout for which operations was never part of the plan simply because operations had not occurred to them before it was planned?
My first layout had a very tiny bit of operations potential. One four-track yard and three spurs. I had not finished it when I realized I wished it had more.
I find myself agreeing with CNJ831 largely. What he said is in line with my comment earlier. There is a fine line between encouraging the person to spend his time and money wisely when making initial inquiries about “planning” a layout; we might assume too much from his use of that term. Planning for someone like Chuck Beckman means one thing, but if Chuck were to take 300 words and try to convince a newbie to plan for A, B, C, and D if his layout is to have any merit, it would be like filling a stomach with a firehose.
I think we can find middle ground where we ask for clarifying questions to ensure we have a good appreciation for the novelty we’re dealing with when a newcomer pokes his head in here. Once we understand more about the person’s limitations in appreciation, in a generic sense, we can point out common pitfalls and common elements that tend to satisfy most of us. One of those is sure to be encouragement to narrow definitions and concepts a bit so that the person understands how useful time spent on some operational capability will be when he is up and running. But encouraging him to build Chuck’s layout’s complexity is going to throw water on the person’s enthusiasm. We don’t want to place obstacles and puzzles before the newbie, but we do want to do the ethical thing and offer some guidance about common defects or deficiencies…then we move on and let him move on. Once he begins to ask specific questions, we can help orient him to the nitty gritty, but much earlier is going to be a mistake for the majority.
Oh, definitely. In fact, when I say “slap down some snap track” I also try to point out a simple plan, like an oval with a runaround and two spurs, or a two-track yard and a branch, that will be fun to run. I just think there is a difference between some basic guidance like that and telling someone he has to come up with a specific set of requirements, when he might not know what he wants yet.
Seriously, when I said that every modeler should make up a list of ‘givens and druthers’ I meant HIS givens and druthers, not mine, Mark Newton’s or Brakie’s. If that includes, ‘Run a train in a circle,’ and, ‘no turnouts on the main line,’ so be it. While I might think that’s extremely limiting, it isn’t my layout. (To get what I’m referring to, check Spacemouse’s N scale efforts.)
When I use the term, ‘operate,’ I mean make the wheels roll. Car cards, waybills, superdetailed timetables and prototypical TTTO, including a DS in a closet physically removed from the layout, are NOT necessary - unless the individual modeler wants them. (If he does, he’s very unlikely to be asking our advice about layout design!)
The object is to have fun - and only the individual can determine if that objective is being met.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - and having fun!)
That’s correct. One has to eventually “dive in” and get “wet.” If one is interested and curious, one will learn and “evolve” toward whatever brings the most joy within one’s limitations. I’ve been doing this for the last half-century, and it is still fun.
OK, I think what it boils down to is that we should be asking the newby what he/she wants in a track plan. (His/Her givens and druthers, limited as it may be.) And what he/she wants to accomplish or do with their trains. Once that information is known, we should gently remind them that railroads are a transportation system and they usually operate in such and such way, and here is how you can do it if you want to, and here are some ideas how to do that. After that it is up to them to continue and learn.
I asked earlier about how one could determine suitable freight traffic for one’s layout, using the various industries one is modeling as a basis.
I discovered that there is a program that lists 1000’s of industries and their products and raw materials (so now I can determine what kind of trafic should come and go from my “empire”!)
I am sure someone else has posted this but I discovered the Operations Special Interest Group (OpSig) has created a list of more than 40,000 industries across the US and Canada. A company called Shenandoah Software has provide a free program to acccess different views of all this data, including an input/output list, detailing the incoming recipts (for raw materials and supplies such as fuel oil, coal, metal, etc) and the outgoing products.
Using this information, one can easily (?) determine the traffic patterns and types of freight cars needed to supply one’s industries and take away the finished goods, and even decide where to send them (via interrchanges with “real” railroads)
I suppose one could also use the information to help define your “givens” and druthers" for even a small layout, so that you start from the beginning to create a “working” layout, rather than just a circle of track with no specific purpose (unless of course all you want to do is run trains round and round - which I know is some people’s goal - as it was mine until I had actually built a layout and then discovered that there needs to be some rational for its existence if it was to be more interesting (for me at least)).
I had actually started a large layout based on an Atlas track plan (#29 - The Central Midland), which initially appealed to me because I thought that modeling steam/diesel passenger trains would be fun, but I never got beyond laying the basic track, as I realised that I needed something more than a place to “run trains”
Chuck,I believe its a two edge sword…A newbie can design a “fun” layout and become bored in the process and move on to bigger and better things thinking the hobby of model railroading is boring or he/she can be taught the basics of layout design.Then it will be his/her choice which path to follow after they been given sound advice in layou
I dredged up something I wrote a while back. It seems most newcomers aren’t able to fill out the traditional Givens and Druthers form. And even if they could, the information is often in conflict with what is really in their head. Armstrong intended the Givens and Druthers to primarily define the operational characteristics of the desired layout. He wanted the final choice on lots of issues left to him when possible. But a lot of us have already established standards and preferences that would drive our layout design - standards and preferences that may only be asked indirectly in the Givens and Druthers. So I worked on a questionnaire that would both solicit the choices already in the requestor’s head, and would drive thinking about the trade-offs inherent in layout design for the newcomer. So here’s a snip of what I said a while back:
desired minimum radius
absolute minimum radius
desired normal train length
minimum normal train length
maximum acceptable mainline grade
maximum acceptable grade
primary track system? sectional, flex, or handlaid
couplers/uncoupling system
DCC or DC?
Willingness to pay extra for walk-around control?
Wired or wireless?
are duckunders acceptable?
Willingness to build liftout, hinged bridge or gate?
acceptable distances between decks
my favorite aspects of model railroading are (list your top up-to 3 in order; 1, 2, 3)
operation of a scenicked layout
building locomotives and cars from kits and scratch
detailing locomotives and cars to exactly match a prototype
I only scanned through some of the postings and don’t remember anything being said about “staging.” Staging represents the trains beyond the edge of your layout. Staging can be one or two tracks “hidden” behind a treed berm or a backboard somewhere accessible on the layout. Or, it can be a full blown 14-track double-ended yard handling trains from every corner of the compass.
It is not a necessity in our hobby but, apart from very early on, I have always modelled a prototype. My present layout models the Maine Central’s Mountain Subdivision between Whitefield, NH and St. Johnsbury, VT, circa 1975, including the paper mills at Gilman (MEC) and Berlin (B&M). St. Johnsbury enjoyed a tremendous variety of equipment and operations back then (which is what drew me to model it). CP Rail and Boston & Maine operated pooled-power freight trains between Montreal, QC and B&M’s East Deerfield yard, MA. Maine Central trains operated to/from the east, and the St. Johnsbury & Lamoille County came into town from the west. I am able to handle all trains [arriving onto and departing from the edge of my modelled world] from one common staging/fiddle yard.