Holding pattern.

So if you haven't noticed the activity on the blog and Facebook page effectively came to a screaching halt this last month.  In fact this could be one of the lightest months for activity since the launch of the Facebook page and revamp of the blog.  While I had anticipated a slow down last month due to being on vacation, I did not anticipate losing almost the whole month.  In fact apparently I cant read a calendar because I scheduled myself another week off just two weeks later.

While some projects continued on, the time I did lose was the time I use to write the blog. While I did get some writing done on a last minute trip to Seattle, I was only able to get one post 95 percent completed during the two flights I took.  Usually I can complete two posts per flight, but the subject matter (layout operations) required more thought than most of my blog posts require. 

It was upon finishing the post after returning to Arizona that I realized that I had intended that post to be the first in a series and that I wanted to post the series without other posts in between. This requires that I sit down and write all the other posts in the series. To give you a sneak peak as to the topic of the series it is an example of operations on the YPG Lines Million Dollar track plan.

The first post was a virtual cab ride eastbound over the layout. This is the post I completed and hopefully the other posts move through the creative process faster. Other topics in the series are a westbound trip, Amtrak #1 and #2 The Sunset Limited, Somerton Branch operations and helper operations on Beaumont Hill. As you can see this is a very in depth topic but I hope it will be worth the wait.

I also recently had some projects land on my work bench and although the test track and car upgrades will be back burnered for a little bit there will be several other projects that we can discuss.

First I have taken on the task of building two structures for the model railroad club and I will discuss these in depth later.  The first kit is the Walthers overhead traveling crane which I am pretty much building per the instructions. The second is the Walthers New River Mining Company which I plan on modifying slightly. The two kits will be combined with a preexisting  Walthers Glacier Sand and Gravel Company and possibly some scratchbuilt structures to make a iron/taconite mine and load out.

Second my order of Freight Crates from Fast Tracks showed up so I will be building these and sharing my experiences and how well they do or dont go together or work for freight car storage. I had planned to upgrade the blue box kit cars that will go in the freight crates as I put them in storage but the upgrade possibly will have to wait for additional parts and resources as currently finishing the structures for the club has top priority.

On the bright side the trip to Washington allowed me to look through my dad's book collection and look at his layout for inspiration. Anyway sometimes on a long journey we have to take a detour to get where we are going, and other times we just have to wait at the flagger for permission to proceed.

Differing schools of thought

Ok this post might stir the pot a little bit this week, as there appear to be some strong opinions when it comes to DCC sound decoders. This is a topic I have wanted to discuss for a while and with ESU Loksound releasing their new sound files recently I felt the topic was timely. That topic is the two schools of thought in regards to sound decoders.

The first school of thought is control the sounds with locomotive control second. The example of this school of thought is ESU Loksound with their drive hold where the operator effectively puts the train on cruise control while they manually manipulate the sounds. The operator can then take the train off drive hold and the motor will go to where the sound is set. In essesnce the operator is controlling the sound and the decoder is reacting to the sound settings. This makes sense for this company as they have put realistic sound as one of the halmarks of their decoder line.

The second school of thought is control the motor and let the electronics figure out the appropriate sounds. This is demonstrated by several manufacturers but I will use Soundtraxx and their Dynamic Digital Exhaust as the example for comparison. I'm not even going to try and delve into the sorcery that Soundtraxx uses to create Dynamic Digital Exhaust but some how the decoder detects grade, load etc.... and attempts to replicate the appropriate sounds.

Differing schools of thought on how a product should operate is not unique to our hobby. The aerospace industry is a prime example of this as Boeing and Airbus have two differing views of who should be the primary controller of the aircraft, the pilot (Boeing) or the computer (Airbus). I am not going to sit here and advocate which airplane I find superior even though growing up in the Seattle area may have made me a bit biased. I bring this up to point out a problem of having two differing schools of thought when it comes to control.  The NTSB even listed it as a contributing factor In the 2013 Asiana Airlines crash at San Francisco International Airport.

In that accident the captain at the controls was an Airbus pilot transitioning to the Boeing 777.  During the final approach he set the autothrottle but did not engage it, an extra step required on Boeing planes following Boeing's school of thought that the pilot should have more control over all phases of flight. By my understanding on an Airbus fully automated landing is the preferred method.

Bringing it back to the world of trains in 1978 Southern Pacific had a runaway on the Cuesta Grade,  on the Coast Line. One of the contributing factors was lack of a standardized  control stand. As I understand it, unlike airline pilots, locomotive engineers are not required to qualify on each model of locomotive they will be operating. Long story short when the engineer thought he was engaging the dynamic brakes he was actually putting the throttle wide open. This wreck led to the development and mandate of a standardized control stand in future locomotives.

Like the examples above the differing schools of thought can lead to incidents on our layouts. An operator unfamiliar with drive hold could forget to take the neccessary steps to regain control of the locomotive before a derailment or collision occured. I know that an unfamiliar throttle caused me to run through a switch and hit another train while I was swapping mainline trains during our clubs operations at the county fair last spring. Thankfully all the  equipment involved was mine and the only irreparable damage was to my pride.

The other issue with differing schools of thought on control is exacerbating the problem of different decoders not playing well with others. If some decoders have drive hold and others do not then,  unless there is some sorcery I am unaware of, they can't exactly be consisted with each other and expected to perform flawlessly.  This means that we either have to group locomotives not only by like manufacturer but by like decoder as well or standardize your decoders.

So if you havent figured it out yet I am in the control the motor camp. I am not saying that Loksound has a bad product, their product is excellent if thats what you are looking for. I especially like the idea of software upgrades versus hardware upgrades and the end user being able to upload sounds. The problem is the more I think about it, drive hold is a deal breaker for me, I do not want to give up motor control even for a nano second. Based on facebook comments it seems like most people or atleast a vocal minority have decided Loksound is the superior product,  however I feel that as far as train control goes it violates the KISS principle.

So rather than have to check operators out on the various decoders and keep track of which loconotives have which decoders I will end up standardizing with another product. I might even decide (and my buddy Shane is probably going to crucify me for this) that running silent makes more sense. I have been doing that for about 30 years why change now?  I remember the days of Onboard and PFM when sound was a novelty. I even had an MRC Sound and Power pack and eventually I just turned the sound off.

Another advantage of running silent is the locomotives are about $100 cheaper and considering other than what I run at the club most of this stuff will sit in its box for a few years and who knows what two competing products with differing schools of thought will be around then?

If I Had a Million Dollars

In a previous life (that's how we refer to our employment etc... prior to our current job at work) I worked in a machine shop. The guy that ran the shop was a huge fan of the Canadian band The Barenaked Ladies. For those who are unfamiliar with the group that brought us the song "One Week" , most likely those who have not been subjected to Canadian radio, as other than Nickelback and The Tragically Hip, The Barenaked Ladies seemed to get the most air time. I think there is a law or something dealing with giving Canadian artists airtime but maybe that's just a rumor started by us bloody Yanks who were forced to listen because no US radio stations, even the ones 30 minutes away, seemed to come in reliably.

Anyway to get back on track, The Barenaked Ladies have a song titled "If I Had $1000000" where the singer goes on and on about what he would do with that much money. The question of what we would do if we had a million dollars has even been used to gauge career satisfaction such as in the movie Office Space. Of course Luis' answer was "Two chicks..." wait this is a family friendly blog, well mostly family friendly.

So one day I asked myself what layout would I build if money was not an issue. Imagine for one minute that like John Hammond in Jurassic Park "We spared no expense" on our empires and cost and space were not an issue. What would we come up with? So I started planning what I dubbed early on as "The Million Dollar Layout". That said I got most the way done with this track plan when more ideas struck, but since I liked this plan I kept it and will start working on 2 other track plans  the 1.5 million and the 2 million dollar track plans.  The main purpose of these plans is to get more practice with XtrackCAD but also so I quit sitting bolt upright in bed with still more layout ideas.

So without further ado I present the track plan for the Million Dollar Layout:

Phase 1

The idea of this layout plan is to always have a functional layout but also be able to continue building for years without losing interest. It is for this reason that Phase 1 is a switching layout based on Yuma Arizona. The layout contains industrial switching as well as branchline running. A temporary reverse loop staging yard on the west end and a loop yard inside the proposed helix to connect to phase 3 allows for mainline trains to operated as well. The original plan was for phase 1 to be built on a raised platform above the floor and for the layout to sit 50 inches above this platform. This would eliminate the need for a duck under as a pit and stairs could be utilized to get under the layout at the crossing of the Colorado River. The primary function of phase 1 is to serve as a switching layout and most of the switching in an op session would occur here. By starting the layout construction here I can accomplish my goal of always having an operating layout as once the main yard area is completed the rest of phase 1 can be completed without disrupting the rest of the layout.

Phase 1 Yuma Area and Somerton Branchline

Phase 2

Phase 2 is the Yuma Subdivision portion of the layout. Some of the hidden trackage of Phase 2 is below the visible layout from Phase 1 and so it might be constructed concurrently with Phase 1 but not made operational until Phase 2.  Construction of Phase 2 would begin at the West Colton Staging area.  This two level staging yard will function similar to the actual west Colton Yard minus the hump and classification tracks and have a separate arrival  (lower level) and departure (upper level) yards. The layout will then progress around the room from staging until it joined and was connected to Phase 1 just railroad west of Araz Siding. The idea being that this connection would be made only after the rest of Phase 2 was ready for operation as it would require the removal of Phase 1's temporary west end staging. In Phase 1 the east end layout staging would be constructed on the mezzanine level with a direct connection to the helix that is being constructed in preparation of Phase 3. This Phase 3 bypass will allow for operations of only Phase 1 and 2 after completion of the layout if participation levels or time dictate.

Phase 2 Lower level staging




Phase 2 Sceniced Level Yuma Subdivision





Phase 2 East End Staging Tucson

Phase 3

The final phase will be the construction of the Tucson Division Phoenix and Gila Subs. While on this track plan the Tucson Division is not given as much attention as the Yuma Sub I feel many of the highlights have been covered. Phase 3 begins at the helix and utilizing a flyover crosses the aisle where it will run down the middle of the stairs to the mezzanine. Operations for this area will be from both sides of the layout until Wellton where the Phoenix and Gila Subs split. Double sided operations will resume on the short run from Picacho, where the subdivisions rejoin, to Tucson.

Phase 3 Tucson Division Phoenix & Gila Subdivisions

So there it is, I appologize that some of the disconects in the drawings such as different tools being used to draw layout edges. As I have stated previously I am still learning the program and perhaps by the time I finish the plan for the 2 million dollar layout I will have it all figured out. Until then lets just sit back and enjoy the journey.

Lessons learned from phase 3

All right time to get back on track and discuss layout design. For those of you that enjoyed the discussion brought on by the last couple posts fear not there are probably plenty more topics I can stir the pot on.  The point of the last post was to start a discussion and I feel that the discussion went well.  So many times in life we have one view point jammed down our throats and this is true of our hobby as well. Opposing views are something ee shouldnt shy away from or censor but rather hear out. Even if the other person is completely wrong we can usually find something positive in their viewpoint, even if it is more evidence that we are correct in our view.

So getting back to the YPG Lines, as stated previously I have finished the track plan for the million dollar layout and am now working on cleaning it up so it can be posted.  This however takes time and as we know hobby time is precious.  The last month has seen the start of the school year and as the spouse of a teacher it means there are many nights where I have to just git er done in terms of the household. Multitasking is not really my thing so getting our kindergartner to do her homework (yes you read that right), dinner on the table, everything prepped for the next day and the kid to bed is exhausting to say the least. Add to that my 50+ hour a week schedule which is working overnight, sometimes on my days off I just dont want to do anything and that includes hobbies. 

I have also been trying to organize the spare bedroom which houses my hobby work area as well as a lot of my gear for work. It also seems to be the defacto storage room when the wife decides to have company, so needless to say there was/is a lot of junk in there. 

Last month was also my 10th wedding anniversary and so what little hobby time I had got devoted to that. No I did not give my wife a train for our anniversary however I did put the woodworking skills I have learned through this hobby to good use. 

Finally writting this blog takes time, I am not complaining but rather offering insight into why it is taking me so long to publish the track plan.

So what lessons did I learn this time around, other than getting clubbed over the head by a few lessons from previous phases that hadn't sunk in.

So with out further ado here, in no particular order, are the lessons learned in the planning of phase 3:

It always looks better in your head

Track plans always look better in your head before they are bogged down by such irritating constraints such as maximum footprint, minimum radius, aisle width etc...  we can come up with some elaborate ideas in our head but until we put them on paper we dont see where they dont work.  

Sometimes putting them on paper isnt enough either, when I was doing track plans with pencil and paper it was easy to cheat and make it fit. Using CAD has definately helped lower the number of times something was made to fit but does not eliminate it.  

I had a very nice idea for how I would utilize the wasted space inside a turnback curve, however when put on paper it took more space than it actually saved. The phase 3 that made the final million dollar plan is much reduced from what I had envisioned, and that has given rise to the 1.5 Million and 2 Million dollar track plans. Stay tuned.

Triple check your clearances especially in aisle

I think last time I said double check your clearances, well I learned that perhaps we need to triple or even quadruple check them. Despite my best efforts I still found areas where my aisle pinchpoints were way too narrow.

Have a good idea of operations before you start

For the most part I just followed the track arrangement Southern Pacific had in place however when planning the few urban areas it would have been nice to have more information on the local operations and industries. I managed to find a 1981 SPINS book for the Phoenix Sub in the collection at the California State Railroad Museum and this yielded a plethora of information that I did not know. 

It also left me with a ton more questions, such as what type of cars service a Nuclear Power Plant and what do they haul?  I am still attempting to locate a SPINS book for the Gila Sub however there is more anecdotal evidence available on this subdivision than the Phoenix Subdivision. Unfortunately the information for Roll AZ and Wellton AZ appear to have been ommited from the Phoenix Sub SPINS book despite all or part of that location being on the Phoenix Sub.

Color code early and often

Finally color code your track plan early and often, most of the clean up work I have to do involves color coding as right now the plan is a bunch of black lines of the same width making it hard for someone unfamiliar with the plan to decifer it.  I am working on making all the lines representing backdrop blue. And using the layout edge tool to mark the edge of the layout instead of the lines I used to mark the aisles for reference while planning. 

The one downside is I have not figured out how to round corners with this tool, so claritys sake for now the corners will be angular with the understanding that they could be rounded during construction.

So those were the lessons learned this time, I am sure there will continue to be new lessons on each step of the journey, but hey that is what makes this fun.

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.