it was around the time MR published an article on controlling signals(?) using an Arduino that i thought didn’t explain the code nor hardware very well and they posted the code as a pdf which meant it couldn’t be dropped into an IDE.
i submitted an article (2018) describing how to build an NCE Compatible Cab using an Arduino. after being asked if it could be built for < $100, (i figured $15), this was the final response from Harold Miller
It’s not a question of interest, it’s a question of space. Right now I’m sitting on three other stories that use arduinos. I’d say if you want to see it published in the next 24 months, please shop it around.
not sure i’ve seen many MR articles on arduinos since that one and came away with the impression that anything written might take years before published
I made the comment earlier about lack of technical depth these days. I think the Iphone generation is not interested in technical depth - until they finally set their mind to something - then they just want to ring it up on the web.
I think this is a real challenge for the magazines.
Having programed early (very early - 1980?) PLC’s, I get the Arduino concept, but have not bothered to learn anything about them. BUT, I would read a good in depth beginner article - just to know.
For me it fun to use old fashioned tech to build signals for my 1950’s period layout.
The layout represents the preservation of history both above and below the bench wo
whatever we build is a model railroad. but it may not be built to actually operate like a railroad. real railroads don’t run trains around in circles.
the photo is from Boomer Pete’s How to Run a Model Railroad (1944) showing an O-gauge layout built on the floor of a basement. operators would step over the track to move around the layout.
they operated by running trains on a schedule. not sure about freight operation. but the point is no scenery or structures are needed to model and operate a railroad. on another forum i asked, and i found out that most modelers are interested in building models, not operation.
no actually. all the modelers i know are from a club. i was actually taken by richhotrains comment about just wanting to see trains running and not interesting in having others over to have an operating session. it made me think a little more about automation, an oppotunity to build intelligence into the layout
[quote user=“ATLANTIC CENTRAL”]
We touched on the idea o
I don’t know if you have read my layout design thread, or would remember much of it if you read the beginning back when I first posted it.
But you and I have had other conversations.
A great many people interested in trains, or model trains, have no interest in participating in staged prototype operating sessions.
Some just like building trains and train layouts, and run them casually for their own enjoyment or for guests - who may or maynot be railfans or modelers.
Some are more interested in casual running and only build what they must to achieve that, prefering to buy RTR as much as possible - still without much interest in prototype simulation of train movements.
Some people (Me) like many different aspects from the more serious to the more casual. I have designed my layout accordingly to support different types of uses and to be a display for model building - not just models of trains, but of houses, buildings, “the model village” as it were.
I have learned that I don’t want to go too deep in the weeds in any one aspect of the hobby.
Examples:
My CTC system and signal system are simplified
Not every piece of rolling stock needs to be a high detail completely correct model
Commercial track is generally fine
A little nostalgia is fun - I have models from the 50’s and 60’s on my layout
I would never want a “proto” throttle - I don’t want to have to turn lights on, etc
The fiction of “protolancing” is fun - but I take the believeablity of it pretty seriously
I like all phases of operation, but don’t want to get too bogged down with rules or paperwork
Respectfully, you need to get out more. Meet some other modelers, serious and casual, see some more layouts, have some fun as Kevin would say.
My opinion - ONLY my opinion (did everybody get that?) point to
In a conceptual sense, operating a model railroad is nothing more than solving a puzzle of how to get cars from one point to the other, in the least amount of moves of course.
The concept can be drawn out on a schematic, like and electrical circuit or a blueprint.
Once the layout is built to operate trains along the schematic, that may be all some need. In 3D tangible, like the pic.
The curves, loops, are just a way to fold the 3D schematic in
I don’t need or want automation. It goes against Charles Ketterings first rule - parts left out cost nothing and cause no service problems.
It was easy enough to design my layout so that the 420’ double track mainline converts into four dedicated, none conflicting, dispay loops with the throwing of a few turnouts.
And my WESTERN MARYLAND branch also has a continious loop thru its staging, giving me five display loops.
During “serious” opps sessions, those cutoff tracks, which are shortcuts to or from staging, double as interchanges.
My signals work with or without a CTC dispatcher, so in display mode the signals will still appear to be controling the trains.
As the tains run in display mode, a single operator can “grab” one at any time and make a station stop, and in some cases redirect it, or replace it with a different train from staging.
All without any computers or little brains in the trains.
Operation does not have to be an “all or nothing” thing - so I would not want automation.
it’s just another way of “running” the layout. of course, different modelers have a different preferences for what they do with their layout from making something to run trains around to highly detailed to detailed railroad operations.
there’s no reason trains can’t be manually operation along with automated trains. i think the enjoyment of an op session (regardless of type) is the satisfaction of doing something with others. guests will have to adapt to the way the layout is “run”
it seems many MR articles are “yet another” layout tour, building a structure, detailing something, … of course you can see how different modelers design their layout for what they want to do with it. the drawback is you don’t see a complete range
re-staging is another way the layout is operated; a time consuming task from what i’ve heard and read (see tony koester, june MR) depending on the type of staging
i should note that the “On Operation” column by Jerry Dziedzic breaks this mold. i’m note sure about DCC currents, which is presumably focused on DCC products (although the june column discussed resistance soldering).
i imagine it’s hard to come up with ideas for a column every month, but i wonder if a column on wiring/electronics wouldn’t be of interest. seems critical on the layouts i’ve seen from basic wiring of reverse loops, switch machines, panels, to remote sensing and control using buses to minimize wire (and confusion)
what puzzles me is many modelers seem more than satisfied with the magazine. but i think it could offer more
I wasn’t advocating an art-less concept or the timesaver as my preference. I was following up on Greg’s concept as I understood it.
One could take this schematic
And plan an operating session for 30 trains, each 50 cars long. The planner could have an origination and destination for each of the 1500 cars established. Could be operated solely on computer. Figure out a plan to get them all where they belong in the most efficient way. Have dots represent each car and move them along the system, tracking them to see how well your plan works.
Throw in a wash out somewhere, and then adjust the schedule.
You could operate a model railroad totally on computer, schematically. (But would it still be a model railroad? Well, you’re operating one, even without the 3D “model”)
No actual model building. No artsy expression. The layout does not have to come to 3D tangible life in your basement.
That pic that Greg attached is exactly what was going on. Total problem solving. Puzzl
Because the hobby is generally more visual than it is cerebral. We are cerebral in our daily lives, and most treat the hobby as an escape. Just my theory.
As far as staging: My layout revolves around taking cars from interchange and swapping them out at the industries along the system. About a 15 mile system.
Various short trains do the job. At the end of the session, when all of the cars are swapped out, the cars that started the session at the industries end up in the interchange yard. Effectively, the layout is restaged for another swap out session.
Yes, if you model trains going from east to west and west to east, you may have to restage. IF you use two staging yards on a purely point to point layout.
If you have a continuous big loop with one double ended staging yard, the trains essentially leave one side of the yard, appear on the layout, then disappear and return to staging from the other end, still pointed in the correct direction for the next session. One double ended staging yard can be self-restaging.
I think that’s what Sheldon is planning, which also makes it a continuous running layout and not a pure point to point layout. Its operated like one, but the tracks are just arranged so that the two points 20 miles away (on the schematic) loop back and touch each other.
Exactly, that is how my layout will work. The thru staging in not one big yard, but a series of small ones along the hidden part of the continuous route.
And is enhanced by a 10 track sub end staging yard on the leg of a wye - trains easily restaged by turning them on the wye.
another type of layout is just a roundhouse, associated tracks and a portion of a yard. i had read somewhere that this type offers the most interesting operation in the least amount of space.
an outside analyst at qualcomm gives a 400 slide “survey” talk each year. her talk makes listeners aware of what her slides include and listeners review them after the talk. i’d be interested in a survey article that attempts to briefly describe a variety of different types of layout. I won’t say all types because who knows how many types there are
while i agree many may just want to come home and watch trains run while having a beer, but i believe many are also interested in gadgetry and do want to control theire layout using tech. (in some cases it’s unavoidable, see interlocks)
that schematic suggests the scope of the problem. part of the solution is the string diagram that helps determine a schedule of which trains to run when and where the “meets” are.
i think one possible goal is to have an op session where everyone knows when and what to do, everything runs smoothly, all trains run on schedule.(see Frank Ellison’s “Art of Model Railroading”)
i think some may think where’s the fun of that, but i for one can be very satisfied when it works. (kinda like playing a song in a band)
I understand the concept. Actually designing somehting like this is above my pay grade, so to speak.
I assume Gato is some sort of small terminal destination. Maybe an interchange with a shortline, or an out and back branchline operation from Silverton (I would model that line). The longer lines are trains traversing the entire system, and they meet where the lines cross.
Taking this into layout design. The modeler better have a passing siding long enough where those lines cross or else a big part of the system will be shutting down.
I thought that this thread was about what kind of articles you, the readers, want to see in the magazine. When it comes down to it, obviously we want to publish what you want to read. If we didn’t, we’d soon run out of readers. So asking me what kind of stories we want you to write is kind of counterproductive. We want you to write the kind of stories you are qualified to write. If we tell you what to write and you aren’t familiar with that topic, either you won’t write it or you will and you’ll do a bad job at it. Or my list might inadvertently leave something off that we would actually be surprised and thrilled to receive, but if you don’t see it on the list you won’t write it.
So I won’t give you a list. But I can give you some idea of the kind of article we don’t want:
Artices that start “I’ve never seen this kind of article in your magazine before, but I thought you’d find it interesting.” We’ve been in this business 88 years. If we found it interesting, we would have published something about it at least once before. (The obvious exception to this being new technology which we haven’t had much opportunity to publish a story about before, like 3-D printing or the uses of an Arduino.)
Fiction. And when I say “fiction” I’m talking about those “Let’s take a ride along with Engineer Charlie Baker and the crew of the No. 6 as they work the Podunk Turn” narratives. The magazine is called Model Railroader, not Fantasy Railroader. Tell us about your layout, not the daily lives of your made-up characters.
How-to’s for something nobody does any more, like dying sawdust for ground cover, or kitbashing a locomotive that hasn’t been sold for 30 years.
Articles that show sub-par modeling, just in the interest of inclusiveness. Yes, we realize people have different levels of modeling skills, but the purpose of MR is to show readers what they *co
When I made that comment on another thread, it was in the context of a lone wolf. I have never been a member of a train club, and I never will be a member of a train club. And, I don’t have friends nearby who have their own layouts. For all I know, there may be guys on my block who have layouts in their basements, but I am not aware of any.
My layout has operational possibilities, but for me it is more a matter of show, the visual aspect, than the tedium of spotting cars, using waybills, etc. So, I build layouts to look good and then sit back and watch trains run.
[quote user=“gregc”]
another type of layout is just a roundhouse, associated tracks and a portion of a yard. i had read somewhere that this type offers the most interesting operation in the least amount of space.
an outside analyst at qualcomm gives a 400 slide “survey” talk each year. her talk makes listeners aware of what her slides include and listeners review them after the talk. i’d be interested in a survey article that attempts to briefly describe a variety of different types of layout. I won’t say all types because who knows how many types there are
Rich, if you (or anyone else out there) would like to write such an article, I bet that Tony Koester, editor of our annual Model Railroad Planning, would love to hear from you.
