Discussion:
Long Trains / Switching / Spaghetti Track
(too old to reply)
Matt & Kathleen Brennan
2004-11-21 14:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Along with my book search to assist me in drafting a layout and my train
era questions from a recent thread, I am equally interested in your
views [practices] regarding track design. I have over simplified the
options into three general track designs that I have toyed with in my
sketching effort [HO scale].

(A) Long trains ==> a layout that allows for trains that have 14+ cars,
a caboose, and 1+ engines [consists].
(B) Switching ===> a layout that allows for a lot of local switching
activity along the rails [local deliveries, multi-track industries,
multiple yards, etc.].
(C) Circular ===> a layout that has a lot of return loops, large
interwoven circles, crossovers, elevated track, bridges, and tunnels.

In my many hours of studying track designs in MR articles, via on-line,
home layout schematics, and train club visitations, I have not seen any
one design (A), (B), or (C) emerge as the dominant selection. They each
have clear advantages and, I suspect, limitations.

1) I am curious what design style you have and/or favor.
2) And, if you have torn down and re-built a new layout, did you stay
with the same design style the next time? If not, why?

Sincerely,
Matt
Gregory Procter
2004-11-22 00:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
Along with my book search to assist me in drafting a layout and my train
era questions from a recent thread, I am equally interested in your
views [practices] regarding track design. I have over simplified the
options into three general track designs that I have toyed with in my
sketching effort [HO scale].
(A) Long trains ==> a layout that allows for trains that have 14+ cars,
a caboose, and 1+ engines [consists].
20 wagons, caboose and multiple locos.
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
(B) Switching ===> a layout that allows for a lot of local switching
activity along the rails [local deliveries, multi-track industries,
multiple yards, etc.].
A small amount plus a small add-on baseboard of a small industrial area.
(basically a "time saver" with scenery)
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
(C) Circular ===> a layout that has a lot of return loops, large
interwoven circles, crossovers, elevated track, bridges, and tunnels.
Enough to give some nice scenes for the trains to run through.
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
In my many hours of studying track designs in MR articles, via on-line,
home layout schematics, and train club visitations, I have not seen any
one design (A), (B), or (C) emerge as the dominant selection. They each
have clear advantages and, I suspect, limitations.
1) I am curious what design style you have and/or favor.
2) And, if you have torn down and re-built a new layout, did you stay
with the same design style the next time? If not, why?
My earliest layouts tended to consist of a station, yard and main line.
(limited space)
My current one has the station, yard, mainline and _large_ hidden staging
yard. I still don't have the space for much more.
One thing I have learned is that trains need a destination.
Another is that the number of trains/locos/wagons keeps multiplying.

Regards,
Greg.P.
Kennedy (no longer not on The Haggis!)
2004-11-22 02:03:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
(A) Long trains ==> a layout that allows for trains that have 14+ cars,
a caboose, and 1+ engines [consists].
(B) Switching ===> a layout that allows for a lot of local switching
activity along the rails [local deliveries, multi-track industries,
multiple yards, etc.].
(C) Circular ===> a layout that has a lot of return loops, large
interwoven circles, crossovers, elevated track, bridges, and tunnels.
In my many hours of studying track designs in MR articles, via on-line,
home layout schematics, and train club visitations, I have not seen any
one design (A), (B), or (C) emerge as the dominant selection. They each
have clear advantages and, I suspect, limitations.
1) I am curious what design style you have and/or favor.
Primarily A, with some B here and there for switching interest. Most of B
is on a second level with 5 industries to switch, with a max 9 cars
possible to work per switching day. There is a 3 track yard off in another
area which could be used to store cars.

Kennedy
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Jim Stewart
2004-11-22 02:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
(A) Long trains ==> a layout that allows for trains that have 14+ cars,
a caboose, and 1+ engines [consists].
Watch the Pretty Trains run.....

Needs at least 20 feet in HO to look good.
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
(B) Switching ===> a layout that allows for a lot of local switching
activity along the rails [local deliveries, multi-track industries,
multiple yards, etc.].
Drive the train......

Bookshelf or part of A
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
(C) Circular ===> a layout that has a lot of return loops, large
interwoven circles, crossovers, elevated track, bridges, and tunnels.
Control the routing......

Needs square feet of space

Each is a different way of enjoying a layout.


Jim Stewart
Bruce Favinger
2004-11-22 02:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Matt,
My current HO layout is designed to operate point to point but has a
continuous run. I like peddler freight operation and switching best. I do
like to just watch trains run from time to time so having a continuous run
is something I wanted but not for use in normal operation. The run is long
enough to accommodate a train of about a scale mile in length with out
appearing to chase it's caboose.
I have elements of layout type C because I liked the feature, layout
type A because it worked out that way and B by preference.
My fist layout was a simple loop with a siding and spurs. My second was
point to point. Since then I have always incorporated both. I like older
steam era short lines and narrow gauge best so really long trains have never
been a factor when working out a plan. Yet trains of 14 to 20 cars would
defiantly be something of interest to me if I had the space to build sidings
that could hold them. Bruce
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
Along with my book search to assist me in drafting a layout and my train
era questions from a recent thread, I am equally interested in your views
[practices] regarding track design. I have over simplified the options
into three general track designs that I have toyed with in my sketching
effort [HO scale].
(A) Long trains ==> a layout that allows for trains that have 14+ cars, a
caboose, and 1+ engines [consists].
(B) Switching ===> a layout that allows for a lot of local switching
activity along the rails [local deliveries, multi-track industries,
multiple yards, etc.].
(C) Circular ===> a layout that has a lot of return loops, large
interwoven circles, crossovers, elevated track, bridges, and tunnels.
In my many hours of studying track designs in MR articles, via on-line,
home layout schematics, and train club visitations, I have not seen any
one design (A), (B), or (C) emerge as the dominant selection. They each
have clear advantages and, I suspect, limitations.
1) I am curious what design style you have and/or favor.
2) And, if you have torn down and re-built a new layout, did you stay with
the same design style the next time? If not, why?
Sincerely,
Matt
William Pearce
2004-11-22 07:05:49 UTC
Permalink
My HO layout is in a room about 14 ft. by 13 ft. It has a continuous
double track main line, that can feed into a couple of low level concealed
sidings from either direction. At a higher level is a terminal station with
two main and one dock platforms, the longest being about nine feet long.
(eight passenger cars and a loco). There is a goods yard alongside, capacity
of largest siding twenty fourwheelers and a loco, and five roads of carriage
sidings. Also at this level is a small loco depot, no turntable. Further
across at the high level is a larger loco depot (Steam and railmotors), with
turntable and eight loco roads.
From the terminal station a single track branch line runs off to a
somewhat unsatisfactory conclusion.
Trains can start from the low-level sidings and run around the main line
anti-clockwise before either ascending to the terminus, or continuing on and
finally diverting down to the other roads of the low-level, and vice-versa.
Or, starting off from one set of the low level, they can run around and
around and then descend to the other low level sidings, without going to the
terminus. These are through trains on the main line from somewhere far
afield that you just see passing through.
Plenty of variety, all run by cab control, usually one person operating.
Nowhere near enough space for all my stock on the low-level sidings,
they have to be lifted off and on from storage shelves nearby.
This layout allows me to run express passenger trains of reasonable
length, goods trains of twenty waggons, (10 feet or so long) which doesn't
sound much but looks convincing, and little trains on the branch line, along
with rail motors, and shunting (switching) in the pass. and goods yard. Not
much in the way of industrial sidings. Two diesel locos, thirty or so
steamers.
This layout is basically European, with some non-European intruders just
for fun, but the same theory could be applied to a North American layout.
Regards,
Bill.
Post by Bruce Favinger
Matt,
My current HO layout is designed to operate point to point but has a
continuous run. I like peddler freight operation and switching best. I do
like to just watch trains run from time to time so having a continuous run
is something I wanted but not for use in normal operation. The run is long
enough to accommodate a train of about a scale mile in length with out
appearing to chase it's caboose.
I have elements of layout type C because I liked the feature, layout
type A because it worked out that way and B by preference.
My fist layout was a simple loop with a siding and spurs. My second was
point to point. Since then I have always incorporated both. I like older
steam era short lines and narrow gauge best so really long trains have never
been a factor when working out a plan. Yet trains of 14 to 20 cars would
defiantly be something of interest to me if I had the space to build sidings
that could hold them. Bruce
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
Along with my book search to assist me in drafting a layout and my train
era questions from a recent thread, I am equally interested in your views
[practices] regarding track design. I have over simplified the options
into three general track designs that I have toyed with in my sketching
effort [HO scale].
(A) Long trains ==> a layout that allows for trains that have 14+ cars, a
caboose, and 1+ engines [consists].
(B) Switching ===> a layout that allows for a lot of local switching
activity along the rails [local deliveries, multi-track industries,
multiple yards, etc.].
(C) Circular ===> a layout that has a lot of return loops, large
interwoven circles, crossovers, elevated track, bridges, and tunnels.
In my many hours of studying track designs in MR articles, via on-line,
home layout schematics, and train club visitations, I have not seen any
one design (A), (B), or (C) emerge as the dominant selection. They each
have clear advantages and, I suspect, limitations.
1) I am curious what design style you have and/or favor.
2) And, if you have torn down and re-built a new layout, did you stay with
the same design style the next time? If not, why?
Sincerely,
Matt
Gordon Reeder
2004-11-22 06:33:53 UTC
Permalink
It sound like you are a bit unsure of how you will want to enjoy
your trains. I suggest that you can incorperate the features of
all three styles (to a point) in a layout.
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
(A) Long trains ==> a layout that allows for trains that have 14+ cars,
a caboose, and 1+ engines [consists].
A shelf style layout with turning loops at the ends or lots
of staging.
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
(B) Switching ===> a layout that allows for a lot of local switching
activity along the rails [local deliveries, multi-track industries,
multiple yards, etc.].
And why is this incompatible with (A)?? If the train runs through
several industrial areas/towns it will have plenty of switching
activity.
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
(C) Circular ===> a layout that has a lot of return loops, large
interwoven circles, crossovers, elevated track, bridges, and tunnels.
A good way to get a lot of track into a small space. but this type
of design is falling out of favor. Personally I would not create
anything more complicated that a Twice Around or a Folded Dogbone.
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
1) I am curious what design style you have and/or favor.
2) And, if you have torn down and re-built a new layout, did you stay
with the same design style the next time? If not, why?
I have built a few. The first was a folded dogbone on a hollow
core door. Second was a tiny design based on an Ian Rice design.
It was a simple "Blob loop" that feed two staging tracks. The
train came in, switched a few cars, and left.

Currently I have no layout. But I now favor the shortline
model. Train picks up cars from an interchange with a Class 1
Railroad and distributes the cars to customers down the line.
Works best as an along the walls shelf layout. Put in a bit
af staging and you can make a hidden return track. Then you
can watch the trains run.
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
Sincerely,
Matt
--
Just my $0.02 worth. Hope it helps
Gordon Reeder
greeder
at: myself.com

Hey Dubya!
Unity means let's try to meet each other halfway
Matt Brennan
2004-11-22 15:15:55 UTC
Permalink
Thanks everyone. I appreciate all of the descriptions regarding your
track designs. I am definitely leaning toward a combination of styles
(A) and (B) with a little more emphasis on (B).


--------- My one Operating Session -----------

I do like the idea of using a "mole" in hidden staging to spice up
operating sessions. My wife and I participated in an operating session
a year ago which helped a lot in defining ideas that we would like to
incorporate in our own layout. We didn't experience a "mole" in use,
but it sounds interesting via the reading I have done.

Our operating session was quite entertaining. The layout was fairly
large, it weaved throughout the basement, it was thin on switching,
but the intent was clear and well defined. The head sets we wore made
the event for us. We marveled at the range of train lingo and operator
seriousness that was expressed through the headset communications.
Some folks sounded like the 'real thing' as I imagined they'd sound.
Others were more layed back and lighter in their tone, yet they
certainly understood the instructions. The cross talk was quite
educational and humorous at the same time. We thoroughly enjoyed it.

-----Dispatcher Board [Magnetic] ----------

The dispatcher was tucked away in a remote space under the mountain
scenery. He only had a magnetic board to track train movements. That
became problematic when people missed switches, mis-stated their
position, or simply forgot to radio in at the appropriate time. Our
dispatcher was forced to surface several times to visually identify
certain train locations. I ruled out the magnetic dispatcher board
based on the confusion. It seems that you need an electronic board OR
the disaptcher needs to be in a perch over the layout [not likely]
where he/she can see the layout.

------Time Table / Fast Clock -----------

I also lost confidence in the fast clock approach. There were several
derailments, a couple of engine failures, numerous unplanned
uncouplings, and etc. that basically threw the entire time table out
the window - eventually. It was obvious that some folks tried in
desperation to preserve the fast clock and time table while others
recognized the impossibility as issues mounted. That led to some
tension [mostly on behalf of the dispatcher]. I think he hit his head
a couple of times tunneling in and out of his den, and that took its
toll on him. As a footnote, both my wife and I were assigned to
'experts' so we escaped the tension completely as our partners were
highly advanced in this operating process. We sat in sidings, and
witnessed the issues from afar. They were fine [not major by any
means], but it certainly caused us to really evaluate exactly what led
to the issues as we made a mental list of the things to avoid in
creating an operating layout.

Do you have experiences you can share ???????
RonMcF
2004-11-23 12:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Brennan
Thanks everyone. I appreciate all of the descriptions regarding your
track designs. I am definitely leaning toward a combination of styles
(A) and (B) with a little more emphasis on (B).
Do you have experiences you can share ???????
Hi Matt.

We've probably all been through the same process you're going through. My
advice is that you try to get around and see what others are doing, and get
a feel for what YOU like, before you do too much building. Otherwise, you
run the risk of building something that you'll quickly grow tired of as your
preferences change/refine.

My N scale layout represents about 45 miles of ATSF mainline in Oklahoma.
There is (or will be when it's finished) about 120' of modelled mainline,
and at each end of the layout there is a hidden six-track staging yard with
turning loops. One staging yard represents Texas, and the other represents
Kansas. There is also a 30' long hidden continuous running track connecting
both ends of the layout, which does not foul the staging yards.

If I just want to run trains on my own, I switch in the continuous running
track, and set one or two trains running around slowly (same direction) on
one throttle, while I operate another train (usually a local freight) on
another throttle.

When friends come over for an operating session, I switch the layout to
point-to-point mode (using the staging yards). I originally intended to use
a fast time clock, but for the reasons you've mentioned I have never
implemented it. Instead, the through trains (passenger and freight) running
between the staging yards sequentially set the tempo of the railroad. By
dropping off and picking up cars at the classification yards, the through
freights create traffic/business for the yard operators and the local
freight operators. It all works surprisingly smoothly, and we have a lot of
fun.

Ron
Matt Brennan
2004-11-23 17:47:56 UTC
Permalink
My N scale layout represents ...
It sounds terrific. I like the option of running continuous trains
while operating the RR by yourself. That has been mentioned by others,
and it sounds ideal.

I am anxious to acquire some of the books from my list. Those will
help me a lot in determining track options to achieve some of the
ideas I am formulating.

Thanks for sharing your ideas and your layout design.

Most Appreciated!
Matt
Bruce Favinger
2004-11-23 18:35:03 UTC
Permalink
Matt,
While your gathering a few books you might try to find either the Jan.
or Feb. 1980 issue of MR that has an article by Andy S called the "San
Jacinto District". This is a very simple point to point track plan ( from
staging to a terminal and back with some stops along the way) it based on
the actual Santa Fe branch line in Southern California but would be
applicable to any place and any era. Its a very modest plan but when you
start looking at it you can see there is a lot of operation delivered by
such a simple design. Also the article explains very clearly how the line
was operated. You can also see how easy it would be to connect the ends for
a loop or how you could stretch, bend, twist or turn in to conform to
various spaces and layout shapes. Very simple, very clear and very
functional. In a recent MR a layout was featured that modified this plan for
a continuous run but the new article did not really touch on the operational
aspects of the design to the degree or clarity of the original article. Even
if you do not build this design these few pages speak volumes. I'll be glad
to scan and email you the article if you wish. Bruce
Post by Matt Brennan
My N scale layout represents ...
It sounds terrific. I like the option of running continuous trains
while operating the RR by yourself. That has been mentioned by others,
and it sounds ideal.
I am anxious to acquire some of the books from my list. Those will
help me a lot in determining track options to achieve some of the
ideas I am formulating.
Thanks for sharing your ideas and your layout design.
Most Appreciated!
Matt
Brian Smith
2004-11-23 20:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Favinger
Matt,
While your gathering a few books you might try to find either the Jan.
or Feb. 1980 issue of MR that has an article by Andy S called the "San
Jacinto District". This is a very simple point to point track plan ( from
staging to a terminal and back with some stops along the way) it based on
the actual Santa Fe branch line in Southern California but would be
applicable to any place and any era. Its a very modest plan but when you
start looking at it you can see there is a lot of operation delivered by
such a simple design. Also the article explains very clearly how the line
was operated. You can also see how easy it would be to connect the ends for
a loop or how you could stretch, bend, twist or turn in to conform to
various spaces and layout shapes. Very simple, very clear and very
functional. In a recent MR a layout was featured that modified this plan for
a continuous run but the new article did not really touch on the operational
aspects of the design to the degree or clarity of the original article. Even
if you do not build this design these few pages speak volumes. I'll be glad
to scan and email you the article if you wish. Bruce
Bruce, if you don't mind would you be so kind as to e-mail this article
along to me? Thank you.

Brian
orion at accesswave dot ca
Bruce Favinger
2004-11-24 02:46:10 UTC
Permalink
Brian, Matt,
I will be happy to email it to you guys. I will have to wait till monday
to scan it as my wife has a suitable scanner at work and she is off this
week. Check your mail boxes Monday nite or Tuesday morning. Bruce.
Post by Brian Smith
Bruce, if you don't mind would you be so kind as to e-mail this article
along to me? Thank you.
Brian
orion at accesswave dot ca
Brian Smith
2004-11-24 12:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Favinger
Brian, Matt,
I will be happy to email it to you guys. I will have to wait till monday
to scan it as my wife has a suitable scanner at work and she is off this
week. Check your mail boxes Monday nite or Tuesday morning. Bruce.
Thank you Bruce.
--
Brian
http://www.accesswave.ca/~orion

Practice safe eating - always use condiments.
Matt & Kathleen Brennan
2004-11-24 20:30:41 UTC
Permalink
Looking forward to it. Thanks Bruce!
Bruce Favinger
2004-12-01 19:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Matt & Brian,
Did you get the article I emailed to you guys? Brian, I got a failure
notice the first time I sent it to you and got then got a second failure
notice but I don't know if it was the email I resent to you or the one I
sent to Matt. Contact me off list ***@swbell.net or post here in this
thread if you have not received them. Thanks Bruce.
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
Looking forward to it. Thanks Bruce!
Matt & Kathleen Brennan
2004-12-04 13:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Hi Bruce,
Post by Bruce Favinger
Matt & Brian,
Did you get the article I emailed to you guys?
I did receive the article. It was great - very helpful! Hopefully, you
received my return e-mail.

Thanks Bruce!

Matt
Matt & Kathleen Brennan
2004-11-24 01:25:02 UTC
Permalink
I'll be glad to scan and email you the article if you wish.
That'd be fantastic. Thanks so much! I very much look forward to
studying it.

Thanks Bruce!
Mike Tennent
2004-11-22 13:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Like Bruce F., I like a design that allows for continuous (unassisted
DCC) runs but can be operated point to point. You can set a through
train running and then operate your way freight point to point,
dodging the "through freights" that run regularly. <g>

I personally think a loop around a room using a duck-under is the way
to maximize this and simplifies running because you don't have to
worry about reverse loops. Some folks don't like duck-unders, though.

My present N scale layout loops twice around the room, with a
peninsula. Track in the same area is separated visually and usually by
some elevation.

Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"
Matt & Kathleen Brennan
2004-11-23 01:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tennent
Like Bruce F., I like a design that allows for continuous (unassisted
DCC) runs but can be operated point to point. You can set a through
train running and then operate your way freight point to point,
dodging the "through freights" that run regularly. <g>
I like the sound of this design as both you and Bruce have described it.
It offers a nice balance between train watching and train operating.
Hog'r
2004-11-23 01:36:51 UTC
Permalink
Matt ( and all! )

Design of a useful layout has been my bain for a few months. I have
taken into account the things that I want the layout to do for me and
started with that. For instance:

I am more of a railfan than I would like to admit and love watching
trains go by. So, the plan I am shooting for is more geared to
operation and mainline runs. Right now my interest does not include
super detailing cars or engines, but does include railroad structures
and line side industry.

Sure, there is more to it than just what is above, as I have taken into
consideration buidlings and MOW stuff and I think that I have left room
for that... I also see pix ( in MR and others ) of spaghetti trackwork
that would be great to have here or there.

I think that the whole thing boils down to what you have room, time,and
money for. I would like to think that by starting with what I want the
railroad to do will at least get me started watching trains run ( ok, so
I get to run them ), and I can expand from there.

Maybe I am wrong in this thinking, but what the heck, at least I get to
start somewhere.

tod
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
Along with my book search to assist me in drafting a layout and my train
era questions from a recent thread, I am equally interested in your
views [practices] regarding track design. I have over simplified the
options into three general track designs that I have toyed with in my
sketching effort [HO scale].
(A) Long trains ==> a layout that allows for trains that have 14+ cars,
a caboose, and 1+ engines [consists].
(B) Switching ===> a layout that allows for a lot of local switching
activity along the rails [local deliveries, multi-track industries,
multiple yards, etc.].
(C) Circular ===> a layout that has a lot of return loops, large
interwoven circles, crossovers, elevated track, bridges, and tunnels.
In my many hours of studying track designs in MR articles, via on-line,
home layout schematics, and train club visitations, I have not seen any
one design (A), (B), or (C) emerge as the dominant selection. They each
have clear advantages and, I suspect, limitations.
1) I am curious what design style you have and/or favor.
2) And, if you have torn down and re-built a new layout, did you stay
with the same design style the next time? If not, why?
Sincerely,
Matt
--
MY preference is to take only pictures
while leaving only footfalls
on railroad property which I know is not mime
even though I treat as mime!

Todd Hackett
SoundRail
KTØT
2004-11-23 03:54:41 UTC
Permalink
I am also a railfan and enjoy watching trains run. I also want to do some
switching in the future and am trying to run reasonably long trains (as has
been said, train length is pretty much a function of the length of the
passing tracks and sidings - further complicated by the steepness of the
grades on the layout.)

Fortunately I lived in a small town (Waseca, MN) for a couple of years and
married a gal from there who's brother is also a modeler. Between them they
provide great historical insight to the area. Waseca happens to be a
junction of M&St.L and CNW lines and has yards on both as well as an
interchange track (a very tight curve). The diamond has been gone for
several years along with the northbound track, but the DME is alive and
using the yards and the rest of the tracks.

My layout is an attempt to emulate the Waseca of the '50s with both lines
operational. I run freights of up to 12 cars (depending on motive power) and
provide passenger service with the '400 pulled by F7s running AB on the EW
CNW line. Also run a doodlebug for passenger service on the M&StL as well as
small freights, both steam and diesel.

Being essentially a loner, I wanted: 1) to be able to have some continuous
running; 2) switch a yard when I want to; 3) have several main line trains
that don't repeat; and 4) service some industries. And, I wanted to have
full signaling and "CTC" capability - with no block power switching. In
other words, Fun, use of various skills (software, electronics,
construction, imagination - if that's considered a skill).

All of the desires haven't been completely met and may never be due to my
own, and space, limitations. However, here's the approach:

The layout is two levels; the bottom level is hidden and serves for
reversing loops and staging. The top level shows the main lines and their
junction and interchange at Waseca. A 6 track yard with engine servicing
capability, TT and roundhouse is adjacent to the CNW main. So far there are
only 3 industry sidings and one passing track on the visible level but there
is room for another passing track and a couple more sidings when I do more
construction.

The M&St L is mostly hidden, surfacing for about 12 feet to go through
Waseca and the junction. Under ground there are reversing loops and a
passing track at each end. I operate this line under computer control using
CTI software and hardware, running two freight trains and the doodlebug back
and forth through Waseca. Once a train completes its run there is a delay
before the next starts in the reverse direction. The CNW operation has to
watch for traffic at the Waseca junction (and vice versa - the signaling and
automatic stopping sections help avoid accidents here.)

The CNW is mostly on the surface with an underground reversing loop and 6
track staging yard at the East end and a 5 track staging area (and loop) at
the West end in another room. Track selection going into staging is
automatic and a single button selects the outbound train. Unfortunately I
set this up before transponding was available so have to keep track of
trains manually with a magnetic board.

Hope I've given y'all some ideas...
--
73 de KTØT
Bob Schwartz
Modeling Waseca, Minnesota in the 50s


"Hog'r" <***@soundrail.com> wrote in message news:U_2dnbcctN2pCT_cRVn-***@speakeasy.net...
: Matt ( and all! )
:
: Design of a useful layout has been my bain for a few months. I have
: taken into account the things that I want the layout to do for me and
: started with that. For instance:
:
: I am more of a railfan than I would like to admit and love watching
: trains go by. So, the plan I am shooting for is more geared to
: operation and mainline runs. Right now my interest does not include
: super detailing cars or engines, but does include railroad structures
: and line side industry.
:
: Sure, there is more to it than just what is above, as I have taken into
: consideration buidlings and MOW stuff and I think that I have left room
: for that... I also see pix ( in MR and others ) of spaghetti trackwork
: that would be great to have here or there.
:
: I think that the whole thing boils down to what you have room, time,and
: money for. I would like to think that by starting with what I want the
: railroad to do will at least get me started watching trains run ( ok, so
: I get to run them ), and I can expand from there.
:
: Maybe I am wrong in this thinking, but what the heck, at least I get to
: start somewhere.
:
: tod
:
: Matt & Kathleen Brennan wrote:
: > Along with my book search to assist me in drafting a layout and my train
: > era questions from a recent thread, I am equally interested in your
: > views [practices] regarding track design. I have over simplified the
: > options into three general track designs that I have toyed with in my
: > sketching effort [HO scale].
: >
: > (A) Long trains ==> a layout that allows for trains that have 14+ cars,
: > a caboose, and 1+ engines [consists].
: > (B) Switching ===> a layout that allows for a lot of local switching
: > activity along the rails [local deliveries, multi-track industries,
: > multiple yards, etc.].
: > (C) Circular ===> a layout that has a lot of return loops, large
: > interwoven circles, crossovers, elevated track, bridges, and tunnels.
: >
: > In my many hours of studying track designs in MR articles, via on-line,
: > home layout schematics, and train club visitations, I have not seen any
: > one design (A), (B), or (C) emerge as the dominant selection. They each
: > have clear advantages and, I suspect, limitations.
: >
: > 1) I am curious what design style you have and/or favor.
: > 2) And, if you have torn down and re-built a new layout, did you stay
: > with the same design style the next time? If not, why?
: >
: > Sincerely,
: > Matt
: >
: >
: >
:
: --
: MY preference is to take only pictures
: while leaving only footfalls
: on railroad property which I know is not mime
: even though I treat as mime!
:
: Todd Hackett
: SoundRail
:
Paul K - The CB&Q Guy
2004-11-23 06:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Matt & Kathleen Brennan <***@yahoo.com> wrote . . .


````````
Hi Matt,

Let me throw out some thoughts, ideas and suggestions that came to
mind after reading your post.

You have broken different model railroad types down into three
categories, A, B and C. My first thought is that it seems like you
are trying to decide what type of layout you want by what is the most
popular, not by making a decision based on what YOU like, which would
ultimately be the best type of layout for YOU. I could be wrong but
that was my initial reaction. Based on the amount of research you
have done into layout types, I am most certain that you are familiar
with the concept of listing your Givens and Druthers, as stated by
John Armstrong in his writings. I would recommend you do this if you
haven't already. Another suggestion I just read recently on another
group, was to relax in a quiet area with your favorite beverage
nearby, relax, put your feet up, close your eyes, and let you thoughts
drift to images of trains you recall from your memory. What did you
like? What seemed of interest? What got you interested in trains and
in wanting to build a layout in the first place? What locale or time
period is most of interest to you? Steam or Diesel or both? You get
the idea. When you start identifying some of these areas, it will
make it easier to make some sort of Givens and Druthers list, at least
in general, and ultimately lead to an easier decision of the type of
model railroad YOU would like to have. From there you can pick the
type you would like to build just for YOU.

In my opinion, the most popular layout would be, using your system of
identification, a combination of types A and B. Type A is generally
referred to as a "railfan layout", where you pretty much stand/sit
back, and just watch 'em roll. N-scale lends itself well to this type
of layout. Type B is a layout for those who's desires for a model
railroad tend towards "operations". And Type C is traditionally
called a "spaghetti bowl" layout. These were in vogue mostly 40-60
years ago in the hobby but with the ease of walk around control in the
past decade or two, staying with your train through the layout, as of
course the engineer on the prototype does, has mostly taken over. As
was mentioned they have pretty much fallen out of favor, but one
proponent of the style, and who has in fact built one himself, is
ex-prototype railroader and hobby author, Jim Mansfield.

As I mentioned above, my guess would be most layouts would be a
combination of A and B types -- either actually or if the builder had
enough room to do so. That is what I am trying to do in my 24 by 38
foot basement. I like ops but also like watching them run. I could
make one heck of an urban switching area with a branchline to other
industries in the space I have, but I want some running room, too. So
in general, I will have one wall as staging, and the other three as
double-main running on the old CB&Q, mainly set in a rural area but
coming through a small, as yet unnamed, urban location before
returning to staging. This will allow fairly decent length trains,
passenger and freight, to run on the layout. Some will just pass
through between Galesburg and Chicago, IL, and vice versa. Some will
drop and pick up blocks of cars at the main yard in the city area,
including some express and mail cars on the passenger trains. Plenty
of local switching chores in the area in the city, as well as across
the canal and outlying areas on the way back out toward the rural
area.

There will also be some interchange activity with other railroads via
locals and "transfer runs" to other areas off the mainlines and
staging in appropriate locations. At one point out in the country, a
single track will diverge from the eastbound main and that will be the
start of what I'm calling the Illiniwek River Branch. This rural
branchline will meander throughout the central portion of my basement,
stopping to switch at a couple small agricultural towns, and
eventually end up at a coal mine jointly owned by the CB&Q and the IC.
So you see, I'm not limited to one or another type of layout, but
have combined two types, I feel, quite nicely.

There are some great resources online for considerations and
suggestions based on experience and hard data, in the areas of what
type of, and how, to build a model railroad. One excellent source is
the Layout Design Primer which is located at:

http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/BFSpages/LDSIGprimer/TOC.html

It is a compendium of articles written by members of the Layout Design
SIG but is accessible to non-members at the above link. It is a work
in progress. IIRC, Jim Mansfield whom I mentioned above, has written
a piece there explaining why he thinks the "spaghetti bowl" type
layout is still a viable option. Check it out...

I believe you said in the past that you aren't participating in any of
the Yahoo Group email lists, but for those who do, a couple which are
EXCELLENT in this area of layouts are the

Layout Design SIG at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ldsig/

the Operations SIG at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ry-ops-industrialSIG/

and the Layout Construction SIG at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LayoutConstruction/

These are just three which would have some bearing on putting together
a layout, but there are others which deal more with down the line type
topics such as scenery, structures, modeling, etc.

Hope some of this is helpful, and if you have any questions or need
clarification, etc. on anything, just let me know, online or off.

More later . . .
Paul - "The CB&Q Guy"
(Modeling 1969 in HO.)
***@yahoo.com
Matt & Kathleen Brennan
2004-11-24 01:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Let me throw out some thoughts, ideas and suggestions mind after
reading your post.

Excellent insights and suggestions.

I have decided to configure a layout that incorporates both (A) and (B)
with a continuous run option as described by others. I am anxious to
purchase a few of the books from my list [my wife will most likely
surprise me with some], and I am looking forward to receiving the
article from Bruce that describes operations centered around a
point-to-point design.

There have been a ton of great suggestions, reminders, and ideas within
this thread. Your step back and 'dream approach' has been my daily
routine for quite some time. It has served me as a pleasant distraction
while commuting. I even carry a small audio recorder in the car to save
any neat ideas that come to mind while I am in transit. I also carry a
digital camera to every train show and club opening, and I have
collected many train images from the internet and from train magazines
for possible ideas as well.

Your list if links are great. I have spent many hours pouring through
the LDSIG website. Their articles have been terrific teaching tools. I
belong to the OPSIG group and their quarterly magazine [The Dispatcher]
is excellent. I am reaching input overload, but that's OK. I have been
sorting and sifting my collection of images and articles and that has
helped me a lot. Slowly, I am creating item-specific, 3-ring binders to
use as reference books. I must say, the internet is the most incredible
resource. I cannot imagine succeeding without it, though many people
certainly did.

Your layout design certainly answers many of the desires I hope to
achieve in my final drawing.

As always, Thanks Paul !!!

I will certainly contact you as questions and obstacles present them
self in my drafting effort.

Most Sincerely,
Matt
Paul K - The CB&Q Guy
2004-11-24 07:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
I will certainly contact you as questions and obstacles present them
self in my drafting effort.
Most Sincerely,
Matt
````````
Feel free, as always, Matt.

Two things I want to add...one I forgot to mention before, the second
is something I just thought of/remembered.

The first is, 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. If you take
the wye to the left, you will go in a circle around the double track
mainline. In normal operation you wouldn't use that leg of the wye,
though. Instead you would use the right leg, which goes into/comes
from a staging yard back in the dispatcher's area.

The other thing I thought of...you might want to consider building a
small operating area of the layout, or some scene, as a removable
module built to one of the modular standards. That way you can
increase your fun in the hobby and this section can do double duty --
it can serve as part of the layout, or it can be removed and taken to
public shows and/or joined with other modules if you have a modular
group in your area. I thought of this early on in my layout design,
but wasn't able to work it in. Also, at the time our local informal,
round robin group was starting a module group, but it fizzled and
died.

I have another post of yours to write up a response to but haven't
gotten to it yet. It's the one where dispatching and fast clocks were
mentioned. If I don't get to it some time tomorrow (well actually
later today as it's now 1 am as I write this), I want to be sure to
wish you and the family a very happy Thanksgiving.

"Talk" at you later.

Paul - "The CB&Q Guy"
(Modeling 1969 In HO.)
Matt & Kathleen Brennan
2004-11-24 21:01:07 UTC
Permalink
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 !!!
RonMcF
2004-11-25 10:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
I really feel that this combination [point-to-point along w/ a
continuous run] is fabulous.
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
Matt & Kathleen Brennan
2004-11-25 16:25:56 UTC
Permalink
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
David J. Starr
2004-11-25 17:24:04 UTC
Permalink
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
Roger T.
2004-11-25 19:29:53 UTC
Permalink
"David J. Starr"
Post by David J. Starr
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.
I never get any pleasure out of that. "Boring" is the word that springs to
mind.
Post by David J. Starr
2. Continuous run is needed to qualify rolling stock.
One can always break in locos with a simple loop of track on a square of
plywood. Works for me.
Post by David J. Starr
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.
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)
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Roger T.
2004-11-25 19:26:12 UTC
Permalink
"RonMcF"
Post by RonMcF
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.
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)
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Paul Newhouse
2004-11-26 00:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger T.
"RonMcF"
Post by RonMcF
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.
Seems to me that you tried to run far too many trains.
Is that possible!?? ... NAH!!!

Paul
--
In order to return good value to our shareholders, the light at the end
of the tunnel has been outsourced to a country with no ability to power
the light. However, they are cost effective thus, we will be able to
support the light well into the future. Let's move on to the executive
compensation plan ...


Working the Rockie Road of the G&PX
RonMcF
2004-11-27 00:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger T.
"RonMcF"
Post by RonMcF
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.
Seems to me that you tried to run far too many trains.
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
trainjer
2004-11-24 04:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
Along with my book search to assist me in drafting a layout and my train
era questions from a recent thread, I am equally interested in your
views [practices] regarding track design. I have over simplified the
options into three general track designs that I have toyed with in my
sketching effort [HO scale].
(A) Long trains ==> a layout that allows for trains that have 14+ cars,
a caboose, and 1+ engines [consists].
(B) Switching ===> a layout that allows for a lot of local switching
activity along the rails [local deliveries, multi-track industries,
multiple yards, etc.].
(C) Circular ===> a layout that has a lot of return loops, large
interwoven circles, crossovers, elevated track, bridges, and tunnels.
<snip>
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
1) I am curious what design style you have and/or favor.
As with so many of the others who have written, I don't believe this
either-or trichotomy (sic) is completely valid. My present approach is
as follows: It is NOT by any means recommended procedure--just how I
do it. Oh, for the record, I model in HO scale using traditional DC
control. By traditional I mean standard
Linn Wescott dual cab control superimposed on the much older section
control system. My cabs enable two operators to independently function
over ALMOST the entire system (vide infra). There are five
sections--high concentrations of turnouts representative of yards,
industries, terminals,etc. (Each of the sections consists of from four
to twelve individual blocks.) Any of these sections can be removed
from the cab system for control by an independent operator.
Theoretically five slim people can each handle a section while the
system-wide cabs lie idle. Because of my particular layout design, the
dual cab system can still work nicely with up to three of the sections
removed.
How do I actually operate for the most part?
From my central cab area I will bring in a train from either of my
staging areas. After an appropriate number of runs the train can
return to a staging area. This is standard ops for long (>10 car)
consists. Shorter freight trains can be taken to any yard for
breakdown or proceed to individual industries. Passenger units
frequently end up in a fairly large terminal. I now abandon my central
area-go to the appropriate section--do the requisite switching
moves--and when done reverse the process by returning to cab control.
One can, of course, quite truthfully argue that these operations could
have been carried out from the centralized location. But, I enjoy
doing them up-close. In the above I believe there is a succesful
integration of A, B and C and I'm very glad not to have had to make a
choice among them.
BTW, let me clarify the "almost" utilized above. There are three
blocks which can be operated only from their appropriate sections. Two
of these are turntables operated by 0-5-0 units. My proximate presence
is necessary for proper track alignment. The last is a car ferry
interchange. You can bet I'm right next to the darned thing before I
begin pushing cars over the edge of the table.
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
2) And, if you have torn down and re-built a new layout, did you stay
with the same design style the next time? If not, why?
The layout above was begun in 1995. It pretty much resembles its
parent. At my age, next time is not very likely. Still, I've had a lot
of fun with this methodology and-----
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
Sincerely,
Matt
Matt, please allow me to say that IMHO you have a real talent for
originating super threads. I'm equally appreciative of the other fine
messages herein posted. Thank you.
Jerry
Matt & Kathleen Brennan
2004-11-24 21:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Thanks Jerry. I have also learned a ton from the input that has been
offered throughout this thread.
William Pearce
2004-11-27 08:22:01 UTC
Permalink
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.
Post by Matt & Kathleen Brennan
Thanks Jerry. I have also learned a ton from the input that has been
offered throughout this thread.
Roger T.
2004-11-27 09:50:21 UTC
Permalink
"William Pearce"
Post by William Pearce
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.
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)
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Cheery Littlebottom
2004-11-27 16:24:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:22:01 +1100, "William Pearce"
Post by William Pearce
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.
Friend of mine has a talking hotbox detector on his layout...
Jim Stewart
2004-11-27 23:16:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cheery Littlebottom
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:22:01 +1100, "William Pearce"
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
t***@cox-internet.com
2004-12-26 04:00:56 UTC
Permalink
trains Rock
Mike Tennent
2004-12-27 13:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@cox-internet.com
trains Rock
Tighten the screw under the truck... <g>

Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"

Loading...