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.