Treatise against the fast clock.

Image from Monty Python's "Life of Brian" found on Google

Well the last post sparked a lot of discussion, so I figured now was as good a time as any to drop this bomb. I am not a fan of the fast clock never have been, and probably never will be.  There I said it, I can just picture the wringing of hands from the scale police and the model railroad purists out there.  I do not like the concept of fast clocks, can't you just see someone standing there like John Cleese in a Monty Python film yelling "He said it again!!!!" The fast clock seems to be one of those sacred cows in model railroading that everyone feels obligated to have.

There are several reasons I dont like the fast clock ranging from destroying the realism that we have fought so hard to create, to just plain turning people off to operations.  One bad fast clock experience can make it so that a person new to operations never wants to participate in an ops session again.  Before you scoff at this last statement, let me just say that it has been probably 20 to 25 years since I had an extremely bad experience at an ops session, mostly due to the fast clock and I am just now considering getting into operations again.

 

On another note, I still have zero interest in TTTO ops mostly because of the need for a fast clock and it all stems from that one experience, but we will get to that in a bit.  So whether you call it blasphemy, a manifesto or a treatise, please just bear with me and hear me out.  At the end of the day I will respect your opinion, as long as you aren't trying to proselytize,  so I hope you will respect mine and atleast understand how I got here.

The first item I take issue with in the use of a fast clock is that certain activities dont scale down time wise.  The first of these is comprehension, it takes us just as long to comprehend something in the model world as in the real world. Reading a signal aspect, understanding the dispatchers instructions or reading a switchlist are all things that no matter how hard we try we cant do any faster when on a fast clock.

Going hand and hand with comprehension is writing and speaking. We dont write or talk any faster in the layout room than we normally do, this means that filling out paperwork takes an in inordinately long time in the model world.  Likewise recieving copying and repeating train orders takes an eternity depending on the ratio used for the fast clock. That 3 minute conversation with the dispatcher just cost you 12 minutes on a 4:1 fast clock, almost a quarter hour.

Switching is another activity that takes longer in the model world than the real world.  Except in the most perfectly executed model railroad it is nearly impossible to kick cars. Likewise other moves that crews have utilized to speed up the prototype practice such as the much frowned upon flying switch are not possible as the physics just dont scale down.  Instead we must spot each car exactly were it goes sometimes running the entire length of a yard track. This takes time and all those seconds add up to scale minutes.

My next issue with the fast clock is we all end up being a slave to the fast clock, some more than others.  Some people figure they need the fast clock to make it appear the train covered a greater distance durning an op session. In TTTO ops the clock is king so in order to simulate schedule the layout owner wants to simulate they pick a fast clock ratio based soley on how long the op session will run. If they are simulating 8 hours during a 4 hour session then they use a ratio of 2:1 however if they want to simulate 12 hours in the same time they would use 3:1. I have seen some insane ratios used such as 6:1, if you feel the need to run a 6:1 fast clock then you probably are trying to either fit too much prototype railroad into a tiny layout space, or should have picked a busier prototype.

Running that high fast clock ratio so that you can model the 2 trains that ran on that line in the same op session makes no sense. In fact I find that about as realistic for a "prototype based layout" as adding industries that never existed in order to boost traffic and "enhance" operations.  If you feel you need to run that many trains pick another prototype or freelance, theres nothing wrong with that.  Traffic volume is a componant of what makes a line interesting, and when we artificially create this volume either through changes in number of trains or overly compressing the time between trains it detracts from the ambiance of the modeled area.

I said I would get back to that bad experience so here we go.  I once accompanied my father to the house of another club member for the monthly business meeting, mostly because my dad said there was a completed layout in the basement and after the meeting we would run trains.  I think I would have been 13 or 14 at the time, So after meeting we adjourned to the basement and the owner, who is long since deceased so I dont think I will step on any toes with this story, explained his operating scheme to us and asked for volunteers. There were two jobs, a road job and a yard job, I forget who grabbed the road job but no one wanted the yard job so I.gladly took it. 

In hindsight that should have been the first clue I was about to have a bad day. During this op session I had to classify an entire yard before the road job got there at a set time so that cars could be added to the road job and taken to all points wherever. So as I am going about doing this the layout owner is hovering over me the entire time, and telling me I needed to pick up the pace. So since I cant read the switch list and numbers on the cars any faster naturally I crack open the throttle more. Unbeknownst to me the layout owner had installed a speedometer on the fascia and the second I got above the stated yard speed he started berating me about my speed so I slowed it back down. 

Needless to say the road job came and went and came back after negotiating the reverse loop and I still wasn't done switching the yard so I got berated some more.  Among the other problems with the op session, this guy was such a slave to the fast clock and so focused on it, that he couldn't take the time from watching the fast clock to help a first time operator and the resulting experience turned me off to formal operations for atleast two decades.

Now for the destroying realism part I am sure you have all been waiting for. The final reason I dislike the fast clock is scale speeds which is kind of a pet peeve of mine. We spend so much time getting our trains to run at a realistic speed, this isn't tinplate after all. The problem is scale miles per hour is just that, scale miles per hour. when we adjust the duration of our time units we must also adjust our train speeds accordingly and unless you are running a clock in real time you should be concerned with scale miles per scale hour.  Therefore the faster the clock ratio the faster the trains need to move.  Think about it, back in the analog VHS days (digital formats tend to skip when fast forwarding) when you hit fast forward everything moved faster.  This opinion of mine probably has a lot to do with my being raised in a household of scientists and having to always make sure all units were appropriate and agreeable for any given scenario and having to notate anytime a variable such as time was changed. For the record my father is no fan of the fast clock either. 

I guess it goes back to a point I made in the previous post about rivet counting and these are the rivets I choose to count.  I prefer operating methods that can be done in real time.  If you have a long enough mainline run your operators arent going to care that it only took them 30 minutes to an hour to cover a geographic distance the prototype takes 8 to 12 hours to cover.  with sequential dispatching and track warrents, clearances can be given in real time, likewise CTC does not require a fast clock.  In the end you have to do whats right for you, its your railroad and your journey.

How long is too long?

So whenever I discuss my layout plans it always seems to come back to the same thing. No its not that my minimum 40 inch radius curves are too broad and reducung them could make more layout fit in a smaller space. Nor is it that the #8 turnouts aren't necessary and #6 turnouts would work just fine. The topic that is constantly brought up is that my train length might be on the long side and by decreasing train length I could decrease siding length and fit more layout into a smaller space.  Now I am not saying that these people don't have valid points as I do see where they are coming from. That said it appears I need to layout why I have settled on the train lengths I have.

"What we have here, is failure to communicate"

As the great line from "Cool Hand Luke" states part of the issue may be a breakdown in communication between myself and readers. Also it should be noted that the communication problem encountered here may be of my own doing, after rereading some previous posts I noticed I was using the term average train length. This was a misnomer on my part as in order to be average there would have to be equal number of trains longer and shorter than that length. Standard train length would be another misleading term as I do not plan on having every train be the same length, some will be shorter and on occasion some might be longer.  A more appropriate term would be maximum length for standard trains; anything longer would require special considerations from the dispatcher.

Using the accepted 50 foot car length as my standard I had set this train length at 25 cars plus the appropriate motive power. Having developed a spread sheet that stated the number of locomotives needed based on number of cars and the train length of a 25 car train is approximately 20 feet long. Also since I am modeling the end of the caboose era I needed to figure lengths for trains with and without a caboose.

The helper set length should read 142' scale (1.75' actual) it has since been fixed on the source spreadsheet

So do I really need trains this long and the sidings long enough to handle them? I say yes and here are my big three reasons.

Prototype operations

I consider myself a prototype modeler however I recognize that we must make exceptions and some exceptions are easier to make than others. Some people are rivet counters, where as I dont really worry about some of that stuff as long as it looks passable. I am not adverse to stand in cars on the layout while other people I am good friends with cringe at the thought of this.  Where I draw my line in the sand is train length.  I model the 1970s through 1990s  and during this time frame an average mainline train was around 100 cars. If I was modeling 1950s Colorado narrow gauge then 10 to 12 car trains would be appropriate but in the 1980's that seems short. The Kaiser ore train was exactly 100 cars and employed at minimum two sets of helpers to get over Beaumont Hill.  Now I know I am not going to run 100 car trains and that is my compromise, however I still want the length to feel long. If my train length is too short a large locomotive consist on point with two helper sets would seem like overkill.  When I set my train length I actually used the ore train as my maximum length.  I figured since the ore cars are approximately half the length of a standard car then if I set my train length to 25 standard cars I could run a 50 car ore train or half size.  In this half size train I could accurately reflect operating practices. Instead of placing the swing helpers 40 cars back, they would be 20 cars back which would still leave an accurate 2/3 of the train behind the swing helpers.

Number of locomotives

As stated previously one of the trademarks of Southern Pacific was heavy trains pulled by large locomotive consists.  If there are four locomotives on point then it would look silly to only have 8 cars trailing. This is especially true when you think that the yard switcher would appear to be more powerful than the road locomotives, which is surely not the case.  On my locomotive chart I have set a minimum number of locomtives needed for number of cars. That ratio is one 4 axle locomotive per 5 cars. if a solid 6 axle power consist is available then it is the number of 4 axle locomotives required by train lenght minus one locomotive. In other words three 6 axle locomotives equal four 4 axle locomotives. In a mixed consist the 4 axle rules would apply. There are pictures of trains on this line being pulled by 10 locomotives on point plus rear helpers but the most locomotives I see puting on point of the train would be 6 four axle locomotives and that would be one of those special trains. A standard helper set would be two locomotives although the ore train and some of the beet trains would dictate different arrangements.

Modern Car length

The final reason is for these longer trains is modern car length.  While I set the standard car length at 50 feet, modern TOFC flats, auto racks and passenger cars are rather close to twice that lenght. A 15 car 1981 steam heated Sunset Limited would be close to the length of that 30 car freight train.  Now car length is the second place I do not like to make huge compromises.  In a recent Trainmasters TV episode Joe Fugate suggests shortening a TOFC flatcar in order to make it conform to the layout specs.  I disagree with this move whole heartedly, if I wanted shorter out of proportion cars I would have stuck with O-27 toy trains. The lure of scale length cars and locomotives is what drew me to HO scale in the first place. Naturally the length of passenger trains must be reduced somewhat proportionally to freight trains. Like the ore train I figure I will model passenger trains at half length so that 15 car train would be 6 to 8 cars long.  Another consideration is that in the late 1980's SP began running Sprint trains; these short no more than 20 car TOFC trains ran on priority schedules. I figure the Sprint trains on the layout when the op session is representing those years would be 4 to 5 cars long which is still 8 to 10 standard cars long.

So in the end I am running 10 to 15 car trains its just some of the cars are longer than the standard measurement used to set siding length. So I guess I am happy running a 10 to 15 car train if the cars are the appropriate length.  Once again thanks to all those who poked and prodded as with out comments and discussion this journey could end up being rather boring.

Mid year recap

Well its hard to believe we are halfway through the year already, in fact more than half. I wanted to get to this topic last month but had too many other topics I felt were more important to get out there.  So at 7 months through this year where are we in regards to our goals?  Well I have changed them so many times due to life events that I am no longer sure which ones were active goals and which one have been put on hiatus for the time being. The one goal I am proudest of, and do remember, is my goal for the blog. To date I have managed to publish atleast one blog post a month. Some months have been leaner than others but the minimum monthly post has been accomplished so far.  So instead of setting a bunch of goals that are likely to change with the next curveball life throws at me lets just look at progress made so far.

Layout design

The track plan for the million dollar layout is almost complete and ready to share. Just a few things need to be done to clean up the CAD drawing so it is easier to understand. This may mean that the drawing will show square corners where I intend for rounded ones to be but this is the limitation of using a freeware CAD program.  I have developed some track charts which might come in useful for other purposes later.

Promotion of layout

Promotion of the layout concept has been very good. Although the Facebook page likes appears to have plateaued the blog posts do get considerable attention mostly due to crossposting on Facebook in various groups depending on subject matter of the post.  I appeared on Model Rail Radio for the third time, however my daughter felt the segment had gone on too long and interrupted. The most recent step in promotion is that the YPG Lines now has a logo. While this logo may change over time this is an important step in promoting my layout plan.

Research update

Research has been slow recently, having realized that I know very little about the Phoenix and Gila subs other than what is there today I started looking for information. A SPINS book for the Phoenix Sub was located at the California State Railroad Museum, however although they are from the same year, this book contains less information than the Yuma book and whole portions of the sub seem to be left off. One thing I learned from the SPINS book is that the Palo Verdi Nuclear Plant was rail served. This begs the question just what type of cars/loads does a nuclear power plant recieve/ship? So as of now I am in search of a more detailed SPINS book for the Phoenix sub and any SPINS Book for the Gila sub (preferably 1981). 

Recently I also had the opportunity to visit the SPH&TS archives to do some research.  While this trip was somewhat disappointing I still manged to come away with some useful information about the Phoenix sub in 1981 so the trip wasnt a complete waste.  I also learned recently on Facebook that 1981 was the peak of SP sugar beet opperations and that every subsequent year saw a decline.  This news now firmly cements the layouts main era on 1981 however El Centro staging may need to be revisited as the capacity may need to increase to accurately reflect the number of beet trains to and from the valley.

Fleet update

Recently I decided to go through and organize my rolling stock collection in an attempt to save space.  Much of my rolling stock was still in the boxes from two moves ago (almost 10 years) and these boxes and the packing materials were starting to show their age. I also used this opertunity to sort through scale vehicles and structure kits.  The plan is to acquire Freight Crates from Fast Tracks and get rid of all the kit boxes. This of course means that the cars and locomotives have to be sorted by length so the appropriate freight crates can be acquired.  The rolling stock was sorted into three categories, upgrades and minor repairs, major repairs, and unbuilt kits. I was actually pleasantly surprised at the number of unbuilt kits in my inventory. So as soon as I am done organizing the room my work table is in so that I can get all the kit boxes off of it I plan to start on the upgrading of cars to meet a set of standards I am developing which will include metal wheels and scale Kadee couplers as well as a reweigh. At this time I will also contemplate some additional details and a basic weathering job.  Remember most of these are old blue box kits, so they are filler cars I want them to blend in not call attention to them. After I get done with cars I will probably start tackling locomotives and these will definately get a detail upgrade as well as decoders and lights, the jury is still out on sound however.

Club layout update

From what I hear the Yuma Model Railroaders new layout is coming together nicely and we should be able to run trains soon.  Due to life I havent been able to get to any work sessions since mid July but at that time we had both helixes in and most of the lower level staging yard trackage in.

Revised goals

I am no longer planning to attend the SPH&TS convention this year as the logistics of me getting there were getting too complicated. So I am no longer trying to get a model done for that convention. I am however going to try and get a model done for the 2018 GNRHS convention in my hometown as even if I cant attend my dad as a convention organizer can make sure it gets there.  I am also contemplating attending the NMRA national in Kansas City next year however I think that would be with out models. So right now the priorities are the GN model and upgrading and repairing my fleet of cars and locomotives.  Any layout construction I want to do will need to be at the club as we will need to get that layout finished quickly so that people dont loose interest, and we can possibly have some community events.

Well its time to get back to the journey that is model railroading.