Long Trains / Switching / Spaghetti Track

Thank you Bruce.

Looking forward to it. Thanks Bruce!

Paul K - The CB&Q Guy wrote: >>> my layout plan also is designed to operate point to point with a continuous run option as suggested by others. >>> The continuous run section is connected to a wye junction.

I really feel that this combination [point-to-point along w/ a continuous run] is fabulous. I cannot recall who posted the description earlier in the thread, but the concept of having a continuous run while trying to operate local switching, etc. is great. That simple train conflict offers endless opportunities for creating main line protocol [including elaborate wiring possibilities as safeguards against collisions].

I look forward to your comments [and other's comments] on the use of a magnetic [non electric] CTC board and a Fast Clock.

Obviously, my experience of one operating session on one layout is inadequate to generate any sort of concrete opinion on the use of either system. However, I would certainly enjoy to read about other's experiences [especially successful ones] and how they overcame the obstacles that we faced during our operating session.

Simplified summary of issues:

- engine failure

- unplanned uncouplings of train cars

- derailments

- malfunctioning electric switch

- failure to radio one's position to the dispatcher at the correct time

These issues ended any chance of maintaining the time table, and it seemed like the dispatcher's role had been reversed. He was put in a position of being 'reactive' vs 'proactive'. At the outset, he called the movements. Not so long into the session, he was asking questions such as "where are you?"

Sincerely, Matt

Our Best Wishes for a Wonderful Thanksgiving !!!

Thanks Jerry. I have also learned a ton from the input that has been offered throughout this thread.

Personally, I can't recommend it highly enough! My last layout was also designed for 'operation', but with no continuous running capability, and three staging tracks at each end. Both turned out to be mistakes.

My current layout (N scale) continues the same theme, but I've almost tripled the number of staging tracks, from 6 to 17:

- six at each 'end',

- two branchlines (actually just very long extensions to the yard leads),

- three on the continuous run (although I've never used them for staging).

This amount of staging seems to be 'just right' for my needs, but if ever need more I've made allowance for their easy addition :-)

The first few times that we tried to 'operate' the layout, we used a fast time clock. The less experienced ops couldn't keep up with the pace, and things just glugged up. We never got more than half way through the timetable. Then we started just running the through trains in sequence, with the other trains taking their cue from them. Most importantly, the through train operators just set a leisurely pace, and didn't run trains until the yards (in particular) were ready. Now we easily get through the whole timetable.

Ron

RonMcF wrote: >>> I've almost tripled the number of staging tracks, from 6 to 17:

That should certainly offer you far more flexibility for operations. I cannot speak from experience, but every single article that I have read stresses the importance of staging tracks. Your total of 17 staging tracks w/ the potential for adding more, if needed, speaks volumes to the effort you put forth in the planning stage.

Regarding operations, I have not yet settled on the exact style of train movement that I want to use on our eventual layout. I am quite sure that it will not include a fast clock or a precise timetable. I would love to build and install a modest, electronic, CTC machine to control the main line turn outs. Time will tell if this is possible. A compromise might be an electronic CTC board that merely controls indicator lights [red/green] along the main line requiring the operators to throw the actual switches. That would allow for manual throws using [DPDT] switches to route power to the frog vs the expensive Tortoise switch machines at every location.

In lieu of a firm time table, I foresee the use of a "mole" in the hidden staging area(s). That person will most likely become the creator of each operating session. Based on the types of trains that emerge from the tunnel onto the layout [as created and assembled by the "mole"], train priority and movement would then be dictated via some sort of written [guidelines] as created by the board of directors. I plan to use the time proven [car card / 4-sided waybill system] to route traffic throughout the layout. I like the surprise factor that a "mole" generates. You have no idea what type of train is due to arrive. It could be coal, tankers, automobile parts, wood, perishables, etc. Each commodity dictates the route on the layout [east or west], and the yard master can add more deliveries, accordingly.

The disptacher would assume ownership of each new train that appears on the layout. Somehow, the "mole" would be able to follow the action on the layout so as to know when it was appropriate to assemble and create another train for operation. I envision the "mole" and the dispatcher being situated in the same location so they can communicate off the air [w/o the use of their headsets].

I am editing some aspects of my track design to allow for a continuous loop to create conflicts. I really like that idea. It'd be the perfect answer for our passenger train. You get to enjoy a beautiful train in motion while handling your local deliveries in its wake.

Ron, thanks for sharing your layout design and experiences with all of us. Your input and everyone's input has created a wonderful collection of ideas, cautions, and recommendations.

Most Sincerely, Matt

Continous run is desirable for two reasons

1. Time will come when you just want to sit back and enjoy the train running. Trains get the to end of a point to point quickly, and movement stops until you get up and do something to turn it around. It can be very pleasant just to sit down, and watch 'em roll for a while.
2. Continuous run is needed to qualify rolling stock. Many little things can cause derailments or undesired uncouplings. Only after a train has looped around the layout for an hour or so trouble free can you feel confident that it will not misbehave during an operating session.

Staging tracks. These allow you to feed a new train onto the layout by merely flipping some turnouts. You can never have too many different trains, and so you can never have too many staging tracks. Without staging track, you have to get the cars and locomotive out of storage and put them on the track before you can enjoy running the train. With staging you don't have to fool around.

David Starr

"RonMcF"

Seems to me that you tried to run far too many trains.

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway (Site now back up and working)

"David J. Starr"

I never get any pleasure out of that. "Boring" is the word that springs to mind.

One can always break in locos with a simple loop of track on a square of plywood. Works for me.

Agree almost 100% with the above. You can have too many different trains depending on your definition of "different".

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway (Site now back up and working)

Is that possible!?? ... NAH!!!

Paul

Roger,

I can't 'see' your post, but i picked it up from Paul's reply.

You're probably correct, in that I tried to run through-trains too frequently for an inexperienced crew. I designed the timetable based on my own 'experience', but it turned out that few of the (8 or so) guys had ever "operated" a layout in the manner I envisaged. To most of them, "operation" meant building a train up, running it around the main a few times, and then breaking it down again. My timetable was not too forgiving of operators (esp. in the yards) who took too long to determine where cars had to be set out, or who slipped up and put a car or two in the wrong place and then had to retrieve it. Cars simply arrived faster than they could clear them.

We're still using the same 'timetable', and scheduling the same number of trains. But we're not using the times, just the train sequence. Running the timetable sequentially has allowed everyone to learn how to operate the layout without the added pressure of beating a clock. What surprised me was that it worked so well that I might never again attempt to use a fast time clock.

I'm not saying that this will work for everyone else. That will depend on how you want to run your trains. But it does work well in my case.

Ron

An interesting operation concept that I read of somewhere many years ago was an 'incident' programmer. This basically was an electric bell connected to a timer that would ring the bell at random times. when this happened, the operator would pick up a card from a stack and carry out the actions described on the card. An example: Bell rings, pick up card, it says next down (Southbound) train has suffered loco failure six miles out. Then the operator has to take whatever action necessary to bring this disabled train in. With modern electronic technology, the random bell could be easily done, and the cards would be replaced by incidents programmed into a computer. Incidents could be a hot box on a car in the next train, requiring a car to be detached, a full scale derailment requiring the attendance of the accident crane , a rock fall blocking the line and so on. Of course, you wouldn't want the 'incident' bell going off every five minutes, you'd have to adjust the timings to suit the length of your operating session. Regards, Bill.

"Matt & Kathleen Brennan" wrote in message news:41a4f3e0 snipped-for-privacy@newspeer2.tds.net...

"William Pearce"

Even on my small 12 x 16 foot Great Eastern Railway I've never found it necessary to add "incident" or "situation cards" to an ops session. Each session is sufficiently different and offers it's own challenges that artificial problems don't need to be added.

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway (Site now back up and working)

Friend of mine has a talking hotbox detector on his layout...

I think I used to double-date with a talking hotbox detector in 1957.....

Jim Stewart

trains Rock

Tighten the screw under the truck...

Mike Tennent "IronPenguin"