| Joe Fugate's Siskiyou Line :: Forums :: Operations | << Previous thread | Next thread >> | |
| FORUM CLINIC: Operating like the prototype | ||
| 1 [2] 3 4 | |
|
Moderators: admin, joef, bear creek
|
| Author | Post | ||
| michel |
| ||
 Registered Member #69 Joined: Fri Dec 17 2004, 02:54AM: posts: 126 | Joe, Can't wait for the "quality of run" topic......... You and Charlie both of sensible ways of guessing speeds - I think the point is to keep things moving slow & steady. Racing trains around the layout is a pet peave and I can't count the number of otherwise nice layouts I've visited where the experience has been spoiled by trains hauling butt all over the place ala the Addams family! Cheers. Michel | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| joef |
| ||
   Registered Member #3 Joined: Wed Dec 08 2004, 09:01PM: posts: 2112 | TOPIC NEXT POST: The secret to a satisfying layout - quality of run Quality of run is key to getting a layout that's fun to operate. Newcomers tend to think bigger is better, so they tend to focus on QUANTITY of run, not QUALITY. But once you get some experience in the hobby, you will realize a small layout with a high quality of run is far more satisfying than a large layout with a mediocre quality of run. It is also important to note that quality of run is mostly visual. If you don't believe that, try running your layout with a blindfold on and just *listening* to the trains run! Running trains blindfolded is maybe just a little more fun than it used to be now that we have sound-equipped locos, but you get the idea.  GETTING A GOOD QUALITY OF RUN Here are the elements you need to consider in order to get a good quality of run. These are listed more or less in order of priority -- which means you should spend more time on the things at the top of the list than the things at the bottom of the list.
Let's take each of these one by one and look at each one in more depth. Trains are interesting to run: If the trains do a realistic purpose and have real character to them, they can enhance the quality of run greatly. For example, if you run a train called "the Logger", and it's full of log bunks loaded to the gills with logs going to the lumber mill, you immediately can identify with the train's purpose. If it looks the part, the quality of run goes up dramatically. Notice *quantity* doesn't do anything here. More generic trains that don't have an interesting and realistic purpose just do not increase the fun of operating the layout. But a few high quality trains that have a well-defined realistic purpose and great character will be far more fun than any number of generic trains. Derailments are rare: This one is obvious, but the larger the layout and the more turnouts it has, the more derailment prone it will be. Plan to spend time keeping things well tuned if you want few derailments. On this point, quantity can kill your fun big time. Lots of turnouts and equipment means lots more stuff that needs carefully debugged and tuned. This work is just plain tedious grunt level effort and the larger the layout the less likely it will get done. Which would you enjoy more -- a 4 hour op session on a small layout that had not a single derailment in the entire 4 hours, or a 20 minute run on a large layout that had a derailment every minute or two? Trains run at realistically slow speeds: This one is huge and nearly a freebie. It pays to train your operators to run at realistically slow speeds -- which is pretty easy to achieve with your equipment these days if you use DCC. Watching two slowly moving model freight trains meet is sheer delight! But to get slow moving locos that run well means you need to take the time to tune settings on your decoders. Getting this sort of performance from a straight DC layout will be tougher because you will need to use high quality power packs, and you will need to spend time tuning your locos mechanically to run as smooth as possible. With DCC, this sort of smooth low speed performance is easier to achieve and one example of where DCC layout performance will outshine a straight DC layout. Also, the greater quantity (larger layout) you have, the more loco decoders you will have to buy and tune. Which would you find to be more enjoyable? Running on a small layout with two locos that crawl along smooth as silk at slow speeds, or run on a large layout where many of the locos run like jackrabbits? 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. Of course, the more quantity (the larger your layout), the more right-of-way you will have to detail, so this becomes more work. On a larger layout the temptation will be to cut too many corners in order to get the layout done. But if you cut too many corners on detailing your right-of-way, you will compromise your quality of run! Locos and rolling stock looks real: The things you notice right away, like realistic weathering, count most here. If you have to study the equipment to notice the details, it doesn't count much on equipment that's running because you can't see it easily. But the more *quantity* (larger layout) you have, the more locos and equipment you will need to have in order to fill it appropriately. Which would you rather run trains on -- a small layout where everything is realistically weathered, or a larger layout where most equipment looks like it is straight off the shelf -- shiny and stark, with little weathering and some of the details are still just unpainted black plastic?  Even a layout without much scenery can be a blast to operate if the quality of run is high Scenery looks good: This one comes last because when running trains you don't spend much time just looking all around -- your attention is focused on the trains. Many people have reported having a great time operating on layouts with little scenery -- and if they have the other items in this list already in place, that is very true -- quality of run will still be very high, even without the scenery. There are a lot of not-so-obvious elements to this last point on scenery. For example, an nicely scenicked N scale layout can outshine an HO layout here because it is much easier for scenery to realistically dwarf the trains, which enhances the quality of run. On the other hand, if you go overboard on trying to get more *quantity of run* (larger layout), you might decide you ought to triple deck your Milwaukee Road West layout on which you are modeling the Cascades, helpers under catenary, and all that. Reasonable deck heights for a triple decker layout will be something like 30" - 48" - 66", which will give you 18" between decks -- which sounds reasonable. Now remember decks are not zero thickness, so let's allow 4" for deck thickness (tough, but doable), which leaves us 14" between decks. Keep in mind that with spectacular mountain scenery, you not only need towering canyon walls, you need bridges over deep canyons to give you the dramatic scenery you are after. So scenery needs to both tower *over* the track and drop deep *below* the track. So you have 14" to work with ... if we split the difference, this means you can have canyon walls towering 7" over the trains, and deep canyons dropping 7" below the trains. In case you haven't noticed, a 50 foot boxcar in HO is longer than 7 inches! So by trying to cram a triple decker into your space, your scenic quality of run is going to *suck* big time. Forget dramatic towering slopes or deep canyons. It just won't be possible on an HO triple decker to model dramatic scenery. You have sacrificed quality of run on the altar of quantity of run. CONCLUSION Because things like good looking scenery are at the bottom of the list, that means you can have great fun operating a layout even if it isn't scenicked. The hobby press will seldom admit that, but it's true. Consider, which of these layouts would you enjoy running trains on more: LAYOUT A
LAYOUT B
Most experienced modelers won't hesitate: Layout A! However, Layout B will be the one the hobby press covers. Go figure.  Maybe now you have more insight into the newcomer mistake of thinking quantity of run is better. You are much better off to build a smaller layout with a great quality of run, and you will find you enjoy the hobby far more! TOPIC NEXT POST: Adding more complexity to the operations [ Edited Thu Jan 03 2008, 10:04AM ] Joe Fugate http://siskiyou-railfan.net - 200,000 hits and counting!  In video ... | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| joef |
| ||
| Registered Member #3 Joined: Wed Dec 08 2004, 09:01PM: posts: 2112 | TOPIC THIS POST: Adding more complexity to the operations So you've held some basic operating sessions like I described back in the topic Getting started operating. Now you want to add more realism to your operating session by adding more complexity -- so how do you do that? ADD COMPLEXITY BIT-BY-BIT You want to take it slow and add complexity to your operating sessions bit by bit. You want to build up a cadre of operators who are seasoned and very experienced with your layout operations. And you do that by not overwhelming people with new things all the time. I run monthly op sessions. Here's how I slowly enhanced the operators' skills on my Siskiyou Line:
But notice, I gave people time to adjust to the changes and to become proficient at them. This is very important to making sure people stay with you and that they enjoy the sessions.  Here I am thoroughly enjoying being the Roseburg yardmaster during an op session. By having people who are very familar with your layout, you will get to run trains too, instead of always running around answering questions and playing troubleshooter. And getting a cadre of experienced operators sets you up well for my favorite way to operate -- using two person crews (more on this in a later post). So let's discuss in more detail the next layer of complexity. First, let's look at fast clocks. FAST CLOCKS With a fast clock, the compressed distances we use on our layouts seem larger and the times sound more correct. On my Siskiyou Line, we run the fast clock on a cheap laptop I got for $80. The dispatcher periodically will report the time to crews over the radio, or the crews can call in for a time check.  The dispatcher has a fastclock running on a laptop during the op sessions on my HO Siskiyou Line. The only thing we really use the clock for is to time when to call crews for trains, and when to move to the second trick (second shift of the day). Once in a while when we run an excursion or business special, it will have a schedule to keep, and then the fast clock time matters for that train. The tendency in the hobby today, however, is toward slower fast clock ratios. I have experienced the same thing on my layout. When I originally designed the layout, my estimates showed a 12:1 fast clock would probably yield times closest to reality. When we started operating the layout and began using a fast clock, we tried 10:1. After a few sessions with 10:1, that seemed a bit fast, so we dropped to 8:1 and have stayed there ever since (over 6 years now). Many people have dropped to even slower times like 6:1 or even 4:1.  Since I’m a software developer, I wrote a fast clock program as way to learn Visual Basic. You can download the fast clock program for free from my web site (you will have to register, but registration is free). Be aware, however, it only runs on Windows – not the Mac or Linux. Next post, we'll look in depth at how to implement using Track Warrants in your op sessions. TOPIC NEXT POST: Track Warrants [ Edited Mon Aug 21 2006, 02:40PM ] Joe Fugate http://siskiyou-railfan.net - 200,000 hits and counting! In video ... | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| bear creek |
| ||
   Registered Member #305 Joined: Wed Feb 01 2006, 01:57PM: posts: 342 | With regard to fast clocks... The Roseburg Yard Master needs to know what time it is so they know when they'll need to get the Rice Hill Rocket, The Fruit Loop, and the Segull East ready to roll. In reality, the trains are often times ready when they get ready. Things like starting a session with a packed yard can make getting the Rice Hill Rocket (Oakland Turn) ready difficult because there's no manuervering room. I've also seen the Rice Hill Rocket running late because there just weren't any cars for it in the yard when time came to run it. But a bunch of cars for Oakland and Sutherlin were expected later. So the train was delayed. Joe, would the Rocket have gone out with NO cars on it to do pickups only on the prototype? Or would they have delayed the train like we sometimes do on the model? Cheers, C. [ Edited Mon Aug 21 2006, 04:23PM ] Bigwig Bear Creek & South Jackson Railway Co. http://www.bcsjrr.com | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| joef |
| ||
| Registered Member #3 Joined: Wed Dec 08 2004, 09:01PM: posts: 2112 | bear creek said ... Joe, would the Rocket have gone out with NO cars on it to do pickups only on the prototype? Or would they have delayed the train like we sometimes do on the model? Good question, Charlie. I recall seeing in recent years (still SP days though) a turn that ran out to Sutherlin, dropped all its cars at Murphy's and the lumber reloader, then ran light with just the loco + caboose back to Roseburg. So I'm assuming the reverse could be true as well -- run light out, bring cars back.  Joe Fugate http://siskiyou-railfan.net - 200,000 hits and counting! In video ... | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Electrolove |
| ||
  Registered Member #221 Joined: Thu Oct 13 2005, 12:42AM: posts: 34 | Joe, I feel that this clinic is so good (very interesting and easy to understand) that it would be nice to print it out and save it as a reference for the future. Same for your other clinics. Maybe you can make a pdf for downloading? Just a suggestion. [ Edited Thu Aug 24 2006, 01:49AM ] Rio Grande Zephyr 5771 from Denver, Colorado to Salt Lake City, Utah \"Thru the Rockies\" | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Greyhart |
| ||
  Registered Member #238 Joined: Sun Nov 13 2005, 03:06PM: posts: 134 | joef said ... [1156190793=bear creek]Joe, would the Rocket have gone out with NO cars on it to do pickups only on the prototype? Or would they have delayed the train like we sometimes do on the model?[/quote1156190793] Good question, Charlie. I recall seeing in recent years (still SP days though) a turn that ran out to Sutherlin, dropped all its cars at Murphy's and the lumber reloader, then ran light with just the loco + caboose back to Roseburg. So I'm assuming the reverse could be true as well -- run light out, bring cars back. I believe I saw over in the Ops Sig a discussion of this, and from what I gathered, most prototypes send the train out at it's scheduled time. Even if they know more cars are coming, the train leaves on time. At least in the modern era. Ken Biles  | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| joef |
| ||
| Registered Member #3 Joined: Wed Dec 08 2004, 09:01PM: posts: 2112 | TOPIC THIS POST: Track Warrants Part of moving to a more robust way of operating your model railroad using prototype practices is to start using Track Warrants in concert with a fast clock and train procedures. We covered fast clocks in the last post, and we'll discuss train procedures in the next post. In this post, we focus in detail on Track Warrants. THE TRACK WARRANT FORM Here is the Track Warrant form we use on my HO Siskiyou Line layout when we operate. This form is a slightly simplified version of the prototype track warrant, having just the check boxes for the most common options needed on a layout.  When we use this form, we fill it out like this:
When using named points, the railroad rule book defines precisely how named points work. Here's an example to help explain:  (Click to enlarge) Basically as this excerpt from the rulebook shows, the first named point gives you the siding switch directly in front of you, but not the siding switch behind you. And the last named point gives you authorization just to the first siding switch at that location, but not the far end siding switch. If you get a hold authorization, that gives you all the track at that location up to but not including the far end siding switch. This approach to track warrant authorization allows the dispatcher to easily arrange meets at a siding without having to write a bunch of verbose track warrants. So let's look at how you request a track warrant from the dispatcher. REQUESTING A TRACK WARRANT DIALOG We use two person crews on our trains -- an engineer and a conductor. The engineer gets the throttle and runs the loco according to the conductor's instructions. The conductor communicates with the dispatcher, then tells the engineer what to do. A typical track warrant request dialog between the conductor and the dispatcher goes like this: Conductor: "Roseburg Dispatcher, this is Conductor Laycock in Eugene, requesting clearance for SP 4408 to depart westbound, final destination Medford. Over." Dispatcher: "4408 West, this is Roseburg Dispatch. Tell me about your train. Over." Conductor: "Dispatch, we have 4 locos, 4408, 4411, 4302, and 4407. We have 28 cars and a caboose. Over." Dispatcher: "Okay, 4408 West, are you ready to copy a track warrant? Over." Conductor: "Affirmative, Dispatch. Ready to copy. Over." Dispatcher: "This is track warrant number 101, Date, September 5, 1980. To: 4408 West at Eugene. Check box 2. Proceed from Springfield Junction to Roseburg. Check box 8. Clear main track at last named point. Over." Conductor: "We have track warrant number 101, Date, September 5, 1980. To: 4408 West at Eugene. Check box 2. Proceed from Springfield Junction to Roseburg. Check box 8. Clear main track at last named point. Over." Dispatcher: "That's OK at 12:13pm. Dispatcher, JDF. Over." Conductor: "OK at 12:13pm. Dispatcher, JDF. Copied by JWL. Over." Dispatcher: "Roseburg Dispatch, out." Conductor: "SP 4408 West, out." And here's the track warrant that's produced:  As you can see, now the conductor knows exactly what he needs to tell the engineer to do with his train, and they can run from Springfield Junction to Roseburg confident that they can make this run safely and won't accidentally collide with any other trains (assuming the dispatcher has his act together and that all other train crews likewise do what they're told -- which is usually the case). But as the crew of a train, how do you know what to tell the dispatcher you need to do and where your train needs to run? That's where train procedure sheets come in, and we'll cover that next. TOPIC NEXT POST: Train Procedures [ Edited Fri Sep 01 2006, 02:23PM ] Joe Fugate http://siskiyou-railfan.net - 200,000 hits and counting! In video ... | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| bear creek |
| ||
| Registered Member #305 Joined: Wed Feb 01 2006, 01:57PM: posts: 342 | Joe, In the warrant you used as an example it conveys authority from Springfield Jct. to Roseberg and requires the train to clear the main at the last named point. But the last named point is Roseburg. At least on your Siskiyou Lines layout Roseberg is within yard limits so the train doesn't need authority to occupy the main (due to the yard limits). When arriving at the Umqua bridge the crew should contact the yard master to determine which track they should come in on (or it they need to hold outside the yard while the YM makes a space for them). So is it rule book standard pratice to use "clear main at last named point" when entering yard limits at the last named point? Enquiring minds want to know, Charlie Bigwig Bear Creek & South Jackson Railway Co. http://www.bcsjrr.com | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| michel |
| ||
| Registered Member #69 Joined: Fri Dec 17 2004, 02:54AM: posts: 126 | Joe, "Quality of run" is a great post. I think it neatly summarizes what a lot of us are shooting for. In terms of priority, I agree with your top 3 - interesting trains, no derailments & reliable, slow speed. After that, it gets pretty subjective, don't you think? build more trees or weather more freight cars? I think that ends up being very personal for each modeler. I also think your comments on balancing quality of scenery vs. length of run are very insightful - probably worthy of its own thread of discussion. I'm curious as to what caused your little rant against the hobby media? Editors - and not just train magazine guys - want to focus on what can be easily be understood and appreciated from static text & photos so they naturally lean towards the beautiful scenery, building models, detailing loco & rolling stock typ articles. Hard to right a sexy piece about the joys of no derailments! I think that once more traditional hobby magazines start taking advantage of the internet and adding video clips, etc (much like this site) you'll see more focus on the some of your other criteria for high quality of runs that need to be appreciated by actually experiencing the "run" For me, it just confirms that more interactive, dynamic, web sites like yours are definately the direction that out hobby magazines will have to move towards. And if they don't, we'll still have siskiyou-railfan.net to enjoy! Cheers, Michel | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| 1 [2] 3 4 | |
Powered by e107 Forum System