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.

Givens and Druthers Dos

Operational givens and druthers

We talked previously about design givens and druthers I have been employing  on the YPG Lines. This week I want to discuss operational givens and druthers, or how I feel the railroad should run.  There are as many different views on what is required for operations as there are model railroaders (maybe more actually as some people seem to hold multiple opinions and waffle between them). So without further ado lets get to the topic at hand.

Long trains

One of the hallmarks of the Southern Pacific was long heavy trains with gigantic locomotive lash ups. Most people are familiar with these trains lumbering over Donner Pass or creeping around Tehachapi Loop at Walong. These trains were also present on the Sunset Route however, with the exception of a few locations, these trains sprinted across the desert. The ore train was 100 cars albeit 26 footers and the iconic beet trains were atleast that many cars long. Five or six locomotives on the point was not out of the norm especially when running four axle power.  I wanted to capture the flavor of this so I set my average train length to 25 cars although since the cars on the ore train are shorter it will most likely be 50 cars. Some trains will be longer and others shorter and most of the sidings will accept a 25 car train and associated motive power and caboose. For interest a 30 car train could be run requiring either the shorter train to take the siding or for a saw by to occur any time a meet was made.  This along with a couple sidings that would be on the short side would definately keep the dispatcher on their toes.  These trains should have ample length to convey the feeling of long trains while still being managable.  There will be some shorter trains especially when the era is flexed to post 1988 as Sprint Trains began to be utilized for some TOFC traffic. The 20 car Sprint trains will be between 7 and 10 cars long in model form.

Long mainling run

In order to show case these long trains I wanted a long mainline run with measurable distance between actual towns.  Switching is not really my cup of tea so I wanted to keep switching to a reasonable amount and prototypically based. There will be no "switching problems" as most prototypes tried to avoid complicated moves whenever possible, time spent on complicated moves is time not spent moving goods over the road.  While the sidings can be close together I tried to keep actual population centers a fair distance apart.

Convey the remoteness

One of the things that drew me to model this area was the desert scenery. I liked the remoteness of the area and trains sprinting across the desert not having to slow for towns. To convey this I omitted towns before I ommitted sidings from the track plan. Redundant sidings were however eliminated and only those with some form of scenic componant or operational quirk were kept. One thing I like about modeling the desert is there are many areas where you can see both ends of a train at the same time, this means that view blocks are not as important as they are on a traditional layouts. However it also means that the model will have more curvature than the prototype in order to fit in the layout space.

Mountain grade

I have always liked mountain railroading as it is what I grew up watching. it is amazing to see a massive train fighting gravity and clawing for every inch and I feel it is the essence of railroading.  Including a mountain grade has always been important to me. There is a slight grade between Yuma and Tucson amd some small "mountains" but not what I would consider a mountain railroad.  With the addition of Beaumont Hill to the layout I was able to include a mountain grade. Between West Colton and Tucson the railroad climbs to around 2605 feet above sea level at Apex then drops to around 200 feet below sea level at Ferrum before the gradual climb out to Tucson at 2389 feet above sea level. I feel this mix of terrain will greatly enhance the operational feel of the layout.

Helper operations

While I really wanted a mountain grade I felt it would be even cooler if helper operations could be included.  Helper operations on both sides is a bonus and thats what Beaumont Hill offers.  As stated earlier I prefer mainline operations to yard operations and I feel the addition and subtraction of helpers would definately substitute for any percieved lack of operations brought on by the minimal switching on the layout.

Realistic Operations

While this appears at the bottom of the list realistic operations is important to me.  That said I am not instituting TTO ops just for the sake of doing so.  I feel many in the operations community are dismisive and demeaning when talking about track warrant operations even to the point of referring to it as "mother may I?" I feel if you are a prototype modeler and what you are modeling used track warrants during the time frame you model, so should you. Either that or get off your high horse on some other topics.

The subdivisions modeled on the proposed YPG Lines layout used a variety of operating schemes depending on where one was.  I believe the Phoenix Sub used track warrants (along with semaphores), while the Yuma and Gila Subs primarily used CTC, although there were some sections of two main track that were directional running with ABS and a provision for running against the flow of traffic.

I think that by following these guidelines a very enioyable railroad can be constructed.  But most importantly it is a layout I will enjoy constructing and operating and isnt that the bottom line.

Revisiting givens and druthers

A few months ago about the time I started questioning pursuing the AP program I was looking at the layout and had the realization that the area of the layout devoted to Yuma was almost half the foot print of the layout. While I had a fairly faithful recreation of 1981 Yuma the layout was very heavy on switching which is not exactly my favorite part of the hobby. 

I like getting trains over the mainline, as well as watching the trains roll through realistic scenery.  At this point it dawned on me that while I want other people to enjoy my layout, I needed to remember who exactly I was planning this for.

At this point I decided to re-examine my givens and druthers or more importantly what was important to me.  There are really two types of givens and druthers, operational and design elements. Lets look at the design elements first.

1. Broad curves.

I felt setting a minimum radius of 40 inches for mainline and 30 inches in yards and on branchlines was appropriate.

For industrial trackage the radius is a bit more flexinle as I think some of then get down to 18 inches but I tried to stay around 24 inches.  Also the legs of wyes that are mostly cosmetic in nature are tighter than minimum radius.

2 Wide aisles

Like many model railroaders I am not a small person.  So I figured that there needed to be room for someone larger than me in the aisles.  I set a minimum aisle width of 30 inches as that is the width of a standard residential door.  For the most part I think I have been able to stick to this with most aisles being atleast 36 inches (3 feet) wide with several areas being even wider. I tried to make wide spots in the aisle where multiple operators may need to pass one another.  I also have tried to make any access hatches or holes a minimum of 30 inches by 30 inches as well.

3. Layout height

For the most part the layout will have all sceniced portions atleast 50 inches from the floor.  The staging yards will be set at whatever height works best.  There will also be some portions where the layout is higher than 50 inches, but this will only be in mainline segments that do not require switching. I have not decided as of yet but the Yuma area might be lower as well as the yard configuration requires some long reaches.

4. Reach distance and shelf depth

The maximum reach length in the layout should be no more than 30 inches. Any areas that have a longer reach will require additional access. It is for this reason Yuma was designed to be operational from both sides. Most yards will be around 24 inches deep, single track mainline sections will be around 12 inches deep.  Sidings and double track will be around 18 inches deep.

5. Limit duck unders

At 6 foot 3 inches I really dislike duck unders as I have a propensity to ding my dome. There are only a couple locations that would require crossing to the other side of the layout however I have tried to address this in a couple ways. Where possible a raised floor will be utilized under the layout to provide a pit for extra head clearance.

On lesser used portions swing bridges could be utilized.  Although through past experience the more you use a lift out or swing out section the less reliably it stays in alignment. Therefore where this method is utilized, the normal position will need to be open thus dictating use in lower traffic areas such as branch lines and staging.

6 where possible round corners of benchwork

Ok I lied, this last criteria isnt about my wants and needs, probably why its at the bottom.  Rather this is in here to keep Lionel Strang happy and avoid becoming a target of one of his rants (ketchup on the hotdog rant was bad enough, which is funny because I really only eat my hotdogs that way to piss off "purists", so I guess it had its desired effect).

I have always been a proponent of function over fashion or as we dubbed it in college FOF (long story). I do however understand the idea of making something aesthetically pleasing but realize that this criteria is subjective to the viewer. So where feasible I will round the corners of the benchwork, however if a few places have an angle instead of a curve I am not going to lose sleep over it.

Well I have gone on long enough for today on this topic. I will continue this journey with a discussion of operational givens and druthers in a future post. 

Recently I have been trying to organize my hobby workspace and all my trains in the hope that I can get back to some tangible model railroading. I have also been trying to make it to atleast one work session a week on the club layout, so if the posts stay shorter just know it is in hope of getting to use hobby time for actual modeling. But hey its just another side trip on this journey.

Lessons learned from Phase 2

One might think that after learning all those lessons on phase 1 that there would be very few lessons that could be learned in subsequent phases.  This might be true if the phases were identical in form and function, but phase 1 was a branchline and switching theme and phase 2 is a mainline running theme. Phase 2 and three are very similar so there will hopefully not be as many lessons learned.
 

That said I am a firm believer in the idea that if you aren't learning something you are doing it wrong.  I have often said the day I think I know everything about my job and there is nothing to learn is the day I need to retire. The same is true for the hobby as when there is nothing to learn the challenge is gone and the challenge is half the fun.  So lets not look at these lessons as mistakes but rather teachable moments. When I am tasked with training a new coworker one of the first things I tell them is do not be afraid to make a mistake, it is only a f@#* up if you fail to learn from it. So lets get to the lessons I learned on this phase of planning.

1. Start at the end/beginning

For this track plan I started on phase 1 which is effectively the middle of the track plan. This meant that decisions were made early on that negatively effected both phase 2 and phase 3. For example a turnback curve being placed that made an area of phase 2 almost impossible without wasting a ton of space. I somewhat remedied this in the second iteration of this track plan which was created when I transferred the drawings to the CAD program as I started at the west end and worked east. On one of the alternative plans that is in the future I think I am going to lay out the staging yards at both ends then work from one end to connect them.

2. Know your staging requirements

When I started this I did not know how big the staging yards would need to be. While I had a rough idea, when I started actually looking I realized that I needed twice as many tracks on the west end than I originally thought. This left me trying shoehorn the tracks in while still maintaining standards. I got around this with a split level staging yard using the top level for departures and the bottom for recieving. Of course this means that there must be an operator to move trains from one level to the other during an op session but thats a small sacrifice.

3. Think vertically

This applies to the staging but also to one turnback curve. If you utilize grades properly you can tuck things under another level. This is especially true if the lower area will be unsceniced. This thought also applies to the use of a mezzanine for phase 3 as this allowed for more freedom and space for the design of phase three. However this also means one needs to think of vertical clearances but that is more of a concern for phase 3. A longer mainline run and more staging was achieved by thinking vertically and looking where levels could overlap.

4. Watch your aisle width

I think this is rather self explanatory and no matter how many times you tell yourself to stick to a standard width, the temptation to cheat will always be there. But also double check your aisles at multiple points especially between turnback curves.  I had to re-layout some curves when I went to draw the fascia or backdrop due to clearances being tighter than planned.

Hopefully the list of lessons learned in phase 3 will be smaller but having already started the planning I somehow doubt that will be the case. Till the next stop enjoy the journey.

Water tanks



Figuring out when a picture was taken is a fine art. While there is no magic bullet to find the exact day month or year unless it happens to be somewhere in the photo, you can usually get close using several different points.

The first is fashion, what are the people wearing, how is their hair cut etc... a picture of Seattle in the 1990's would probably show young adults wearing flannels and the men having longer hair, where as the same picture in the sixties the men would have the "Bobby Kennedy" look (think Willem Dafoe in Mississippi Burning). Fashion can usually give you an idea of the decade.

The second is vehicles, what is the newest vehicle in the picture. Now remember the new models usually come out in the summer or fall, so it is possible for a 1980 Honda Civic to be present in a late 1979 scene.

The final item is structures, what is and isnt there in a photo or how something is painted, can give you a good time frame on when it was taken.  However since structures can be demolished it is important to use multiple factors when dating a photo.

So how does this tie in with the title water tanks you ask? Anyone who has driven through Yuma on Interstate 8 knows that on the hill above 16th street sit three 3000 gallon water tanks.  When I moved to Yuma in 2008 these tanks were light blue with a desert mural painted in typical southwest colors. A few weeks ago I was driving by and noticed they were working on the tanks. A few days later they painted one tank tan and a week or so after that they painted the second tank tan. Now only one tank remains with the mural.

So why is this important, well according to the city the tanks are refurbished and repainted approximately every 15 to 20 years. Now the interesting thing about these tanks specifically is that they have worn several different paint schemes over the years, making it fairly easy to use the tanks to date pictures taken in the yard.

From my research it apears that two tanks were constructed on that hill sometime in the 1950's ( my notes say 1955).  I say this because they are present in aerial photos of the area prior to the construction of the Dieselville Yard. However in aerial photos from 1941 and 1953 the tanks are noticeably absent.  The tanks appear light in color but since the photos are all black and white I do not know if they are white or not. I have encountered a picture of black widow F units in decent repair, where the tanks say "Yuma" but there is no date on the photo. also I have encountered a photo looking south from 16th street prior to Dieselville construction and the tanks say "Yuma".

Photos from the 1970's and early 1980's show that the tanks were white in color with "YUMA" written on them in black. Again not all of the photos are in color but in the ones that are the tanks appear white. This may have been the color scheme all along however once again prior to the 1970's most the photos I have encountered were black and white.

In 1984 the tanks were painted "water blue" but retained the "YUMA" written in black.

In a Google Earth image from May 1994 the tanks once again appear to be a light color such as white or tan however in aerial photos where I know the tanks are blue it is hard to tell so the color could still be blue.  A June 1996 image from Google Earth shows that the third tank had been constructed some time between then and May of 1994.

According to the Yuma Sun (local news paper) the mural was painted on the tanks in 1999.

Which brings us to the current year where the tanks are in the process of being painted tan. The city states there are no plans to repaint the mural at this time although the city logo might be painted on them.  So we will just have to see what the next refurbishment brings in the way of water tank decor.

As for the ramifications for my planned layout, in all but the last two years of my floating era there were only 2 tanks. For the early years they were white and for late 1980's they were blue. This type of tank is simple enough to make, using pvc pipe of the correct diameter, so I am thinking of making two sets of tanks one white and one blue and have them be interchangable. And since we are already tweaking some infrastructure for ease of era flexibility in my world that third tank may not get built. It was only around for maybe a year in my era, but that is a decision for another day. The big question is, where will this journey take me next.