Searching for the Sacred Sheet

It is interesting to analyze the keyword search activity that brings visitors to my website. Each Fall for the last few years, the percentage of searches including some variation on the words "HO 4X8 layout track plan" increases significantly. This percentage is substantial throughout the year, perhaps 20% of all searches that lead visitors to my web pages.

But in the Fall, this percentage grows. For September, it was 38% -- and if the past holds true, it will grow to 45% or more into the Winter. As a point of reference, just 8% of searches in September included variations on "shelf layout" and 7% contained variations on "switching layout".

Since most of those "4X8"-related searches lead visitors to my argument against the traditional "sacred sheet" HO 4X8 layout, one might wonder if these searchers leave frustrated. But rather than a "bounce-off" (the web marketer's term for a one-and-done visit that lingers only briefly on a single page), many of these visitors seem to spend some time on that page. And more than half look deeper into the site.

I draw two conclusions from these data points. First, the idea of the HO 4X8, for its many demonstrable faults, is deeply rooted in the prospective model railroader's mind. Decades of magazine articles and layout books devoted to the good ol' HO 4X8 have created the perception that it is the ideal beginner's layout. Of course, this is far from true, but it shows how powerful that notion has become.

[I assume that many of these searchers are folks who are beginning in the hobby or returning to it after an absence, since the percentage increases so noticeably leading into the year-end holidays.]

But secondly, there is also a strong interest in alternatives to the HO 4X8 layout, if those are presented on equal footing with the sacred sheet. One can see this in how deeply many of these "4X8" searchers go into my site.

The decades-old fascination with the HO 4X8 sacred sheet is strong -- many are drawn to it like moths to a flame. The commercial press recognizes this and has catered to that interest (or pandered to it, depending on one's perspective). But a large part of the attraction of the HO 4X8 is due to the perception of its suitability that is created by the commercial publications' past over-promotion. I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether the resultant cycle is virtuous or vicious.

I hope that my small effort to educate folks on the alternatives helps at least some find a path that better suits their needs than the one-size-fits-few HO 4X8. In the same floor space, alternative layout footprints usually offer broader radii, better access, more engaging operations, and improved scenic opportunities. I'm glad to be playing a small part in telling that story.

In Name Only

I repeatedly make the mistake of wading into discussions of Timetable and Train Order on Internet forums. TT&TO is certainly the flavor of the month in model operations right now. Many are attracted to it because of the publicity from some well-known modelers who are TT&TO enthusiasts.

That's fine, except that folks are now going through all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify naming whatever compromised and bastardized version of the operating rules they adopt "TT&TO".

Some of these schemes are little more than sequence timetables that are set up to extend as trains run late. Others are Track Warrant Control in disguise … having none of the flavor of individual crew decision-making that so typify TT&TO.

But folks are obsessed with the Timetable and Train Order "badge of honor" -- so they call these weird hybrids "TT&TO" and are hyper-defensive toward any thoughtful consideration of what they are planning (or viable alternatives). No matter how much they corrupt the concept, they fight fiercely to keep the TT&TO moniker.

Bottom line, there are some circumstances of layout infrastructure, crew desires and capabilities, desired train densities, etc. that just don't work well with TT&TO in the model environment. But instead of facing that reality, these folks cling to the cachet of TT&TO -- even if in name only. Oftentimes, it seems to me they would be better off with another method of train control, even if slightly anachronistic for the modeled period, to more smoothly handle the high traffic volumes folks tend to run on model railroads. But no, it's TT&TO sine qua non.

I enjoy operating on TT&TO layouts (if the infrastructure and concept can support it) -- I've even helped set up TT&TO sessions on some layouts. So I've got nothing against TT&TO in principle. But it does bug me when people delude themselves and others with their ersatz schemes by labeling them "TT&TO". Choosing a train control method as a status-seeking exercise is a mistake, in my opinion.

Looking Back: the Ventura County Ry.

Things have been pretty hectic at LayoutVison Intergalactic HQ recently, so I haven't had time for a lot of blog posts. But I did finally put up another of my "might have been" layouts.

This one was based on the Ventura County Railway, which interchanges with the UP (formerly Southern Pacific) in Oxnard, CA. I lived nearby in Southern California at the time and it would have been a neat N scale switching layout in the oversized finished garage of the house I owned there (1989-1990 or so).


Click here for more on this track plan in my Layout Design Gallery

Bruce Morden wrote a great article on the Ventura County Railway in Layout Design Journal #26, Spring 2001, published by the Layout Design SIG. I reworked my design in 2001 for the article and looking at it again now confirms that it would have been an interesting layout to build and run, even if I would make a few changes if designing it today.

Slim Rails in Stages

It is great to see another of my custom layout designs published in the commercial press. The latest article in Model Railroad Hobbyist October, 2009 (issue #4) describes an HOn3 layout based on S.P's famous narrow gauge Keeler Branch (former Carson and Colorado). The track plan had to be designed in stages, since the room could only be occupied a bit at a time. Model Railroad Hobbyist is always free to download here.


For a better view of this track plan, the full description of the track plan and operations, and great photos of the real-life railroad, download Model Railroad Hobbyist magazine, October 2009 (issue #4).

The article is thoroughly illustrated through the generosity of railroad historian and author Joe Dale Morris. Mr. Morris has recently published an extensive history of the last decades of the real-life line, Southern Pacific's Slim Rails in the Sunset: 1940-1960 (Southern Pacific Historical and Technical Society, 2008). The book is currently sold out at the publisher, but copies may be available at dealers. Hopefully the SPH&TS will reprint this title.

Unfortunately, I completed the design quite a while before Mr. Morris' book was available, it would have helped with some nagging questions. He is truly an expert on the topic.

The Laws Railroad Museum and Historic Site in Laws, CA has preserved some of the equipment and buildings of the S.P. narrow gauge, and also generously made photography available.
The approval to publish photos of long-gone railroad scenes is sometimes very difficult to obtain. But when the copyright holders are as generous as they were in this case, it wonderfully enhances the final product.

With Scenery, no Less

I've heard from a few folks over the years that they are building one of my published plans from an article or the website. My own small N scale switching layout has been done a couple of times in different scales.

Ben Earp sent along a photo of his recently completed version. Different era and locale, but it was fun to see what his version looks like. Modeling and photo by Ben Earp.


If any blog readers have ever built one of my published track plans or used a segment of one of my designs as a portion of your layout, I'd enjoy seeing a photo and reading how it turned out.

Power Failure

Why is there such a lack of decent-running affordable steam for Southern Pacific and Santa Fe in HO and N, yet the parade of Big Boys, 4-12-2s, and other oddball rarities (a Triplex?!) goes on and on? This question came up recently from one of my custom layout design clients. The neat transition-era California central valley HO layout we designed for him will lack decent SP and ATSF steam models appropriate for the layout's size and concept.

The conspiracy theorists (who are massively over-represented on model railroad forums) blame sinister plots dreamt up by evil marketers to force-feed us monster engines. But my technology marketing experience tells me that it's rare that marketing makes people buy something they absolutely don't want. I think the answer is simpler, but unfortunately still not hopeful for those looking to buy small-to-medium sized engines (especially of western oil-burning prototypes).

Let's take all the folks willing to buy a typical SP-style oil-burning 2‑8‑0, for example, in HO or N scale. Sure, there are plenty of SP modelers who would jump at one, but there's probably not a large general interest in the broader market. Just too plebeian for the masses.

SP 2‑8‑0 #2562 at West Oakland in 1954. Tom Gray photo from the Tom Dill collection. This locomotive is preserved and on display at the Arizona Railway Museum in Chandler, AZ. More locomotive info and photos here.

On the other hand, a Big Boy appeals to many more than just the UP modelers. I've seen these monstrosities running on generic 5X9s, Maine Central layouts, everywhere. (And looking silly in the process, but that's just me.) And of course, thousands of Big Boys reside in boxes or on shelves because modelers just had to have one, but it won't run on the tight curves of their HO 4X8 (or they don't have a layout at all).

Our hobby seems to be intrigued by the biggest, the fastest, the most powerful. The manufacturers build these big engines (and multiple releases and competing models of them) because they do sell. More's the pity, but it seems to be the case.

So if I'm a manufacturer, which market segment will I go after: the badly-needed offering for a smaller segment; or the "me too" Big Boy that has a chance at a small piece of a larger segment? The flashy rarities seem the safer bet in our upside-down modeling world, where the mass market does not have an interest or understanding of the realism gained by modeling typicality. But I wonder if that's really true?

If just one myopic model railroad product manager would instead consider the actual trends in the hobby, they would see that the interest in accuracy in modeling rosters is growing. And this is especially true among those building operating layouts – which by their nature usually need more than one of a particular locomotive type.

No, there aren't as many modelers overall as in the "gotta have a Big Boy" segment, but there are fewer competitors. And each of the operating modelers would probably buy multiple copies of the mid-sized to smaller steam locomotives needed to fill out an operating roster.

Why do I believe this? Because modelers buy the diesel equivalents in very large numbers. SP 2‑8‑0 Consolidations were the GP-7s of their day -- and Geeps are popular year-in and year-out because of their usefulness on a variety of layouts. Yes, the odd (literally) DD40AX will sell, but tens of thousands more modelers buy Geeps.

So whaddaya say, model railroad manufacturers? How about one decent oil burning western prototype small-to-midsize loco?

No, I'm not holding my breath.

"Prototype designs are easier" -- Baloney!

One of the oft-repeated truisms about model railroad track planning is: "It's easier to adapt a prototype design than to freelance one". But I can tell you, that ain't always true!

I'm working on a few different designs right now. Some are fairly strictly prototype-based, others very freelanced. And the freelanced ones are a little easier. Here's what I mean:

In one design, for example, the real-life branch upon which the layout is based fits reasonably well into the somewhat challenging available space. And there's a terrific long stretch where a yard would fit so perfectly.

Unfortunately, it's not at all close to the relative location where the actual yard was located in real life. And no amount of contortion and contrivance magically transform the real-life branch. The design is working out OK in the end, but it's been a lot of work (most of it enjoyable).

On one of the freelanced projects, by contrast, I can move the yard to the best spot in the space relative to the room, to staging, and to other desired features. Because I have seen enough segments of real-life railroads and learned about how they work, I have a good foundation of knowledge for making the judgments about plausible locations for the various elements.

And that's the key -- for a neophyte without some background knowledge, freelance designs are more difficult to get right. So in that light, maybe the "Prototype is Easier" conventional wisdom is correct much of the time.

Programming note: Now that Fall is nearly here and readers' thoughts are turning back to model railroading, I'll be publishing blog updates more often again.



One of my favorite audio streams lately has been Texas Hellkitten Radio on Live365. The stream's motto of "… a little rockabilly, a little surf, a little blues …" is certainly accurate. It's interesting to hear nuggets from the past alongside more polished modern music that pays homage to those pioneers. And then there's the Psychobilly and Voodoobilly you just don't often hear that often anywhere. (OK, sometimes with good reason.) But overall, a fun trip to a Texas honkytonk -- without the smoke and the unnervingly sticky floor.

Talking Track Warrants

It was a pleasure to join the guys on the Model Railcast Show for another podcast (Show #76). While the primary topic was my recent article in the OpSIG's Dispatcher's Office magazine on Track Warrants and other operating forms, we also talked a bit about my bias toward layout designs that tell a story and a few other odds and ends.

Examples of Track Warrants and related forms from the Dispatcher's Office article are on my website.

The New 102

Kalmbach's recent publication of 102 Realistic Track Plans has much to recommend it. The track plans are generally much more practical than the chestnuts found in the 1950s‑era 101 Track Plans for Model Railroaders, since many of them reflect layouts that have actually been built. Beyond the track plans, the additional planning tips that have been included are useful and reasonably up-to-date (although there's no mention of model railroad CAD).

Because of this, 102 Realistic Track Plans will likely be much more helpful to most aspiring layout builders than 101 Track Plans. Many of the plans include more-current ideas such as prototype inspiration, staging, interchange, and larger industries (my Four Cornerstones) – so they are more likely to get a newbie started out on the right foot.

The track plans are selected from designs published in Model Railroader, Model Railroad Planning, and Great Model Railroads in roughly the last ten years. It may be that this coincides with the change to digital creation of track plan art at Kalmbach. Each plan is accompanied by a brief information box with the original publication citation and some new comments by an MR Editor.

One of my designs is included, the N scale 4X8 Houston Port Terminal Railway track plan from MRP 2002. This design has been republished in multiple places by Kalmbach, I guess because of the 4X8 "sacred sheet" format. From an author's standpoint, I think the ideas in the Alameda Belt Line (MRP 2005) or Santa Maria Valley (MRP 2004) layouts are more engaging, but that's just my opinion.

Interestingly, 102 Realistic Track Plans is published as part of the "How to Build Realistic Layouts" series, rather than as a stand-alone book like 101 Track Plans. Perhaps the thought is to publish these more often, which would be welcome.

For future versions, there are a number of changes I would strongly suggest. The first is better attention to detail: there are some unfortunate cut-and-paste typos that are very confusing if one has not seen the original MR article.

Much more importantly, I wish that Kalmbach had been wiling to use the new text as a way to highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of some of these plans. A number of the plans have flaws that would likely cause significant problems, such as too-sharp s‑curves on grades, an over-reliance on switchback industry spurs, and impossibly tight clearances for subterranean hidden tracks.

I understand that this is a tricky line to walk: too much criticism of a published design casts a bad light on the original planner (and on MR for including it). But the opportunity to provide more insight into the design process, trade-offs, and compromises is tremendous.

This new publication would also have been a chance to make use of some of the all‑new sections to highlight ideas that newbies find difficult to grasp but are nonetheless very important, such as staging -- but I recognize that there's only so much space that can be given over to expository text in a "track plan" book.

But those criticisms aside, 102 Realistic Track Plans lives up to its title in most respects. And it's a huge improvement over 101 Track Plans, in my opinion. I look forward to more of these. And I sincerely hope that Kalmbach will take advantage of future such publications to provide some background and instruction to readers through deeper discussions of re-published plans.

And while we're at it, might it not be time to re‑title the next printing of 101 Track Plans to alert readers to the realities (good and bad) of its content?

Design and Ops in Tulsa Sep. 25-27

Dave Salamon and the Indian Nations Division of the NMRA in Tulsa, OK are planning a weekend of clinics, layout tours, and operating sessions in conjunction with the Layout Design SIG and Operations SIG. It looks like it will be a great event, with well-known clinicians such as Paul Dolkos, Chuck Hitchcock, Keith Jordan, Marty McGuirk, and Andy Sperandeo.

There's a registration discount before August 25th, so visit the Meet website for more information.