Lessons learned from the planning of Phase 1

If you have been following the progress on the layout's Facebook page you know that last week I completed the planning for Phase 1 of the layout.  Unless some glaring design errors with Phase 1 that impact phase 2 and 3 rear their ugly head there will be no need to revisit phase 1 until construction begins. So I thought I would share some of the lessons learned on Phase 1.

Orignially I had intended to save these lessons for the end and write an article however for a couple reasons I have decided to share them now.  First and foremost sharing them now will allow me to come back and revisit these lessons as the planning progresses. What may seem like a big lesson now, may in the grand scheme of things be a minor issue by the time the layout is completed. Secondly by making the blog post it puts my thoughts in writing where I can revisit them if needed; I can still possibly write the article as it will now most likely be the summationof multiple blog posts. So enough rambling on to the lessons I learned on Phase 1.

Lesson 1: Choose a scale that works for you

No I am not referring to whether to model in O, HO or N. I am referring to picking a drawing scale that works for you.  When I started out, I attempted to draw the plan in a smaller scale than I am used to in order to minimize the number of sheets of paper used.

Years ago I acquired a track planning template, I forget who made it and I dont think they are available anymore, but it was one of those transparent green plastic thingies. The scale on the template is 1 inch equals 12 inches (1 foot), this is a nice scale to work in as most graph paper is 4 squares to the inch which means there is a line every scale three inches and aside from helping friends plan on occasion this has been the scale I have worked in.

When I began this plan I thought that if I drew the plan in 1 inch equals 24 inches (2 feet) it would be a more efficient way to work and I wouldnt have the huge curves that require a compass to draw.  Well apparently my brain doesnt function as well in that scale and the plan quickly grew unrealistically large.  I was able to shrink the footprint in half just by starting over in a scale I was comfortable in.

Lesson 2 Set a footprint

When I started I figured the plan would set its own size organically. After all I was building this to be a sectional layout with no layout space as of yet. The idea was design the space for the layout instead of the traditional route of making the layout fit an available space.

 I soon realized this was a mistake as the layout quickly grew in size because questions on how much compression was needed could not be answered.  As freeing as it was to not have to worry about walls or other obstructions I had to realize that I was not going to have a space the size of the Boeing Everett Assembly Plant (largest building in the world by volume) build this layout in and even train shows have size limitations for layouts.

 After much soul searching and perusal of many websites specializing in outbuildings I decided on a footprint of 50 feet by 100 feet including aisles. Now I realize that this footprint is larger than most basements, but in all the areas I have lived in, basements are either rare or completely non existant. Also the average cost for a building this size is about the price of a fully loaded fullsize pickup.  My plan has always been that upon retirement I would move out to the country where an acreage with outbuildings could be acquired.  So as long as I have a reliable truck by that point I dont think a building that size is too far out of the question.

Lesson 3 when in doubt lay it out full size

When drawing a plan it is easy to subconsciously cheat to make a switch fit or a track diverge faster tan it should.  To solve this sometimes laying things out full size will allow you to see where issues might arise. Is that curve to tight? Does that track really hold that many cars? How are my clearances? Sometimes you just have to break it down Barney style into the simplest components and see if it truly works. Thankfully for me since I plan on using Fast Tracks to build this layout I have access to full size templates of the entire line. Those templates, a few pieces of flex track and a couple of your standard sized cars can quickly show you if your plan will work. Also I learned a yard stick (Im sure a meter stick would work too) is the same width as a piece of HO flex track. So when laying out yards full size this can be a very useful tool.

I am sure I will learn many more lessons as I complete the next two phases but thats all for today. Until next time remember in model railroading and life it is the journey, not the destination which is important.

Layout Design and Frustrations with the NMRA

Those that follow the various model railroad podcasts, specifically A Modelers Life, are well aware that I have become frustrated by the National Model Railroad Association.  Although I am a dues paying member I feel that the association is out of touch specifically in regards to their meeting the needs of those under 50. That however is not the subject of this post; today I am frustrated with the NMRA achievement program as I feel the association is out of touch in this arena as well.  When I decided to set out on this odyssey it was determined that the title of Master Model Railroader was something that would be fun to obtain.  So as I started the design process I took into consideration the various categories and their criteria. 

Since this layout is supposed to represent a prototype, I knew that it would be difficult to find stand in kits for many of the structures and so scratch building would be a necessity therefore I should be able to easily fulfill the structures category.  I also figured that this process would yield substantial fodder for articles even if some were of the “look what I did while gluing my finger to my eyelid” variety and therefore satisfy the author requirement.  Another given was that scenery would be constructed to meet the requirements for the scenery category.  Ok, so that would be three certificates down, four to go but only two of the four required areas covered.  So I still need something from railroad equipment and although unique models of rolling stock are not necessarily needed I do have some ideas of cars that I could scratch build or super detail. So that takes care of the cars category and gives me something in the area of railroad equipment.  While I am at it, I might as well build three locomotives to collect the motive power certificate. Although I can’t think of anything I would want to scratch build motive power wise for the layout perhaps building a critter or other vehicle for an O or S scale narrow gauge line might offer a nice change of pace  and break from the HO modeling. So that’s five certificates and three categories. 

This leaves us the area of construction and operation.   Since there are not too many operational operations based layouts near me, that pretty much rules out the Chief Dispatcher certificate for the time being and leaves the two engineer certificates needed in order to complete the MMR.  This is where the frustration with the NMRA begins.

For the Electrical Engineer Certificate one of the options is to satisfy Part C is an engine terminal.  The passage reads as follows:

Engine terminal, including an electrically powered turntable or transfer table, a minimum of three stall tracks, and at least two blocked storage sections for parking locomotives outside the stall area. (This means you need to have a total of five tracks (three inside an engine house or roundhouse, and two outside), that you can cut power independently to store motive power).

Although my track plan has an engine terminal it does not qualify to satisfy this option for two reasons:

1. My prototype only had a two stall locomotive shop, so despite the fact that the terminal still has five tracks  (2 loco shop, 2 refueling/service pad, and 1 roundout/ready track) it does not satisfy this criteria.

2. Since this is a small service area in the diesel era it does not contain a turntable or transfer table.

Once again this is an example of the NMRA not evolving with the times.  When these criteria were written the transition era was the most popular era however many of today’s modelers especially the younger ones prefer more modern operations. Second there has been an increase in prototype modeling and while a freelance road can justify an engine facility that meets these criteria, a prototype based layout may not be able to. Also this criteria limits itself to a large layout that needs an equally large locomotive fleet which thereby ruling out small switching layouts that are currently in vogue  and also rules out modeling some prototypes that only have one locomotive and a single track engine house.  I find the requirement for an engine terminal in the Civil Engineer criteria to be much more palatable. It reads as follows:

Adequate terminal facilities for storage and service of motive power. This doesn't mean you need a turntable with a twenty stall roundhouse. For a small operation, a simple engine house with a fueling track may be sufficient. It should be consistent with the theme of the rest of your plan. Again, remember that you don't necessarily have to build these facilities, just show that you know how to plan one.

While the NMRA suggests that these criteria are consulted in the design phase of a layout it is frustrating that the two criteria are not necessarily compatible.  While this is not a deal breaker for obtaining the Electrical Engineer certificate it does mean that I have to figure out how to shoehorn in the third item to satisfy this section, as opposed to having it come about organically.  However this is where I diverge on my satisfaction with the Civil Engineering certificate requirements.   

The requirements for the design of a layout to qualify for the Civil engineering certificate read as follows:

This plan must include:

a.Adequate terminal facilities for handling freight and/or passenger cars ◾This will vary, depending on the nature of your layout. Keep in mind that a railroad needs to have a reason to exist, other than to provide modelers and railfans something to look at! There needs to be someone that will pay for it to haul something from one place to another, be it lumber, coal, fruit, passengers, etc. (and usually more than one thing). Your plan and your layout should reflect this. Remember, you don't necessarily have to build these facilities, just include them in your plan. This is to show that you know what the design of a logical terminal facility would look like.

b.Adequate terminal facilities for storage and service of motive power ◾This doesn't mean you need a turntable with a twenty stall roundhouse. For a small operation, a simple engine house with a fueling track may be sufficient. It should be consistent with the theme of the rest of your plan. Again, remember that you don't necessarily have to build these facilities, just show that you know how to plan one.

c.A minimum of one mainline passing siding

d.Four switching locations, not counting yards, interchanges, wyes, and reversing loops ◾These would typically be spurs for setting out or picking up cars. Again, each one should have a purpose.

e.Provision for turning motive power (except for switchbacks, trolley lines, etc.) ◾A turntable, wye, or reverse loop, which actually changes the way that the motive power faces. Not just a loop of track that sends it back through the scene in a different direction on another track.

f.Provision for simultaneous operation of at least two mainline trains in either direction. ◾Remember, you don't have to actually build this, just show it on the plan.

First of all how is a bridge line moving from point A to point B with no industries not a reason to exist? Second does a tourist line or museum line not exist solely for the enjoyment of railfans and the public? Perhaps only giving them something to look at? Yes they move passengers from point A to point B but sometimes there is not much in the way of facilities other than the track used for movement. 

                The next item I take issue with is that the layout must include a provision for turning motive power.  This is a mainline steam centric requirement.  Modern diesels do not need to be turned, therefore this causes the modeler to have to plan something in there layout that is not necessary. Of course the powers that be will state that it doesn’t have to be built just planned, but why would someone take the time to plan a feature they do not intend to include on their layout.  I lucked out, the Southern Pacific removed the roundhouse and turntable in Yuma in the 50’s however when they built Dieselville Yard they included a wye most likely for turning full sets of cab units. However as far as I can tell from my research the biggest use this wye got was for turning pig (TOFC) flats so they would be facing the correct direction for circus style loading at the pig ramp in the old yard.  This lack of turning is not limited to diesels in the modern era as many logging roads did not turn their steam locomotives. On many logging lines the locomotive was left facing so that the crown sheet would always have water covering it on the extreme grades these lines worked. This means the locomotive was always pointed with the boiler facing uphill. The locomotive would shove the empties up hill and then use its breaking effort to hold the loaded cars back as it slowly backed down the grade.

Which leads us to the final exception I take to these requirements; the simultaneous operation of two mainline trains. This limits the scope of what can be modeled as many logging operations only had one locomotive operating at a time especially on the steep grades. There were no passing sidings just a single track going into the woods.  This also means switching layouts are ruled out as many of these do not include a mainline, let alone a provision for two mainline trains.

The NMRA needs to get away from its mainline steam centric roots and re-examine the requirements they have in place for their achievement program.  I won’t even go into depth the service to the hobby portion of the achievement program as I have already gone on too long.  Other than to say that I am disappointed that the NMRA chooses to require participation in the good old boy network in order to achieve an MMR other than being an author which can be difficult to do for some people.  I know of a couple people who have attempted to volunteer with the NMRA who were either told quite frankly that their services were not wanted or completely ignored.  I am not saying I am done with attempting to pursue my MMR but all of this does give credence to what my father is always griping about, that the NMRA is just Boy Scouts for model railroaders and the MMR is just for those that feel they need validation.  He also stated that being a member of the NMRA was not worth the headache from dealing with the politics.  I am slowly seeing the validity of his point.

2017 Annual Report

When I started out this post I thought about calling it the state of the layout but that seemed like too limiting a title. Thats why I am going with the annual report much like many businesses give their share holders. So here is the first ever annual report for the YPG Lines.

As we close out 2016 many milestones were accomplished even though no physical layout has been started. It has been about 2 years since I officially changed my focus from a protolanced Southern Pacific Railroad to modeling the Sunset Route. While I spent much of 2015 questioning this decision 2016 provided many to opertunities to help solidify this decision.

First and foremost Athearn announced they were rerunning the SP ore gons that were unique to this segment of railroad. In 2016 I also successfully 3d printed a preformed concrete electrical box that are located in the Yuma yard, as well as have been working to learn how to design structures for 3d printing.

The SPH&TS convention in Palm Springs was attended and much was learned about all aspects of the Yuma to Colton segment of the line.  The biggest milestone is that the critical research has been completed and track planning has begun. I have examined all the photos in the Railroad section of the Historical Society collection and have gone through 35 of 70 boxes of their entire collection looking for photos thay may show railroad. Research will continue but will focus more on aesthetics of the area versus track planning.
In 2016 I also joined the local model railroad club which has two benefits, first it has introduced me to other modelers in the community, several of which have contacts within the community which I am trying to use for research.  Second the club is in the process of designing a layout based on Yuma Arizona set 20 years earlier than my era.  This has meant that I have been able to give the other member research I have uncovered in exchange for other information that they might have.

During 2016 I appeared twice on Model Rail Radio which allowed me to not only publicize my efforts, but to reach out to other modelers and bounce some track plan and layout design ideas off of them.

The final milestone for 2016 was the layout went from being a concept to having a name and getting its own Facebook page.  The Southern Pacific YPG Lines was chosen to represent the areas being modeled. This layout will model the Yuma, Phoenix and Gila Subdivisions of the Southern Pacific so YPG for short. I felt this was more descriptive than calling it the Sunset Route because the modeled area will only be a small section of the sunset route and to call it a division would be a misnomer as the modeled areas include parts of two division, the Tucson Division and the Los Angelos Division (or depending on the year San Joaquin Division) and not a whole division.  This need for a name came about because the Facebook page I created for the layout needed a strong name that invoked images of a class 1 railroad that was simpler than the title of this blog.

So where is the railroad headed in 2017?

The railroad was always intended to be built using the TOMA approach(even before MRH coined that term) and be built in phases with phase 1 being the Yuma area, phase 2 being the line from Colton to Araz, and Phase 3 being the Phoenix and Gila subs with the idea being that these last two parallel subdivisions could be added later as a second deck.

In 2017 I plan to finalize the track plan for phase 1 as well as start design work on phase 2 and 3.  I am hoping to be able to start construction on phase 1 before the summer as it will be miserably hot and using power tools outside is not an enjoyable process.

 I plan to finish the design work on a structure for my father's layout and possibly start construction on it so that he can display it at the 2018 GNRHS convention which is being held in my hometown.  This structure is being worked on in a as time is available capacity and mainly serves as something to shift gears to when the YPG lines frustrates me to the point I need a break.

I am hoping to acquire the needed kits to build the Salt Creek Bridge along the Salton Sea and have that done in time for the 2017 SPH&TS Convention in Sonoma as I won my lodging and convention registration at the Palm Springs convention.

I also plan on starting on a locomotive model and posibly having that ready for the SPH&TS convention as well.

I plan to attempt to add a blog entry atleast once a month. Which is certainly more regularly than I have before.

So how do I plan to get there?

I am going to try and stick to the 15 minutes a day on the hobby and also use part of one of my nights off.  Smaller projects or parts of projects can be accomplished in the 15 minutes with longer projects and design work being reserved for the night off.

 All in all these seem like managable goals and hopefully will be easily obtained with other goals being picked up along the way. Overall the state of the railroad is good and we are a lot further along than we were two years ago.

Happy rails and see you in 2017

Morgan