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.


Click here for a better view of this this track plan. For 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 again available from the SPH&TS site or at dealers.

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?

Fixin' What Ain't Broke

When I was a young and enthusiastic first-time manager, one of my employees was an older gentleman originally from the Southern part of the US. After I described a complex new procedure we were going to put in place, he left the room muttering under his breath, "Fixin' what ain't broke …". As it turned out, he was absolutely right – the "old" way worked fine and my shiny new idea added nothing but complexity.

I often think of this when I read about people suggesting complex changes to the 4-cycle car-card-and-waybill (CC&WB) system. As regular readers of this blog and my articles in the Operation SIG's Dispatcher's Office (July 2007) know, I'm a big fan of the tried and true CC&WB. They are self-correcting, easy to get started and maintain, and they are used on so many layouts that most visiting operators know how to use them.

And yet, folks feel compelled to add more and more complications: three (or even four!) car card boxes for each industry, extra tags for cars that are still being loaded or unloaded, extra tags for cars that are off-spot, convoluted routing detail, etc., etc. Hey, if this seems like fun, knock yourself out! But the basic destination-based information on each cycle of the waybill can actually provide all of the car-routing sophistication needed with just one box per industry and reasonably complete information on the train instructions.

Not to say that there aren't some simple tweaks to the traditional system that can add interest. Bad Order, Icing, and Clean Out tags, for example, are simple to add but can enhance operating realism. And we should always be open to new ideas that provide a benefit in terms of easing reset overhead or improving the operator experience.

I find that many of the CC&WB permutations are suggested on Internet forums by theorists. They've rarely operated with CC&WB and have certainly never set up a session using the system, but they've got a lot of ideas for radical changes that are "needed". Maybe so. But "fixin' what ain't broke" might not be necessary when the basic system works so well.

Going Global

The Internet is an amazing thing. It's now possible to have one's attitude (and ancestry) questioned on forums all around the world! Before the Internet, it required people to actually have met me to form those kinds of opinions. Now that's progress!

I find it a lot of fun, actually …

Why I've Stopped Offering Advice

It's tremendously difficult for me not to try to help when someone posts to an Internet forum yet another mindless oval with an unworkable yard or a spaghetti-filled blob that should be called the Ragu Northern. But I've had to stop.

As the old joke goes, "Never try to teach a dog to sing. The results are poor, and it seems to annoy the dog." My endless exhortations for folks to step away from the CAD, learn some layout design principles, and develop a concept and vision for their layout before designing a track plan generally fall on deaf ears. (OK, there was one success recently, but it's the exception that proves the rule).

Instead, people just keep cranking out the CAD revisions – each new plan as infested with flaws as the last. Although the flaws often do mutate from revision to revision.

And what's worse, these neophyte designers often become understandably defensive about their precious track plan, no matter how hackneyed, impractical, or inaccessible. And then the forum chorus starts chanting, "Just build it, it'll be fine – it's your plan, do what you like" … talk about the blind leading the partially-sighted!

Anyway, finally, it's enough. As my wife often reminds me about other matters, "Byron, it's only 'help' if the other person wants it." So true.

Oh, I'll probably make an occasional exception for comments about published plans – not so much pride-of-poster-ownership there. Or I might suggest some better-thought-out plans for the same space from which the help-seeker might hope to learn. That way, I can perhaps accommodate my desire to be helpful without aggravating the help-seekers (and myself) so much in the process. We'll see ...

Update 18 July: Based on notes from a couple of you, I guess the forgoing could have been clearer -- especially the title. I'm still posting occasionally on Internet forums and offering general layout design and operations suggestions. What I've decided to stop providing is comments on the specific details of a poster-provided plan. And I'm still offering custom layout design services to those who are interested, of course.

Thanks for reading!

Alcos in the Alcove

There can be a lot of funny little nooks and crannies in houses. One of my layout design clients had a 5-foot-wide alcove where had set up a 24" deep plywood shelf. The original thought was to build an HO diorama in the space. But when the OK came for another adjoining shelf, the idea of an L-shaped switching layout took form.

The resulting design had to incorporate some specific kits and suggest a granger motif, so some challenging compromises and trade-offs were necessary. The resulting design is featured in the most recent edition of Model Railroad Hobbyist magazine (Q3 2009), always available for free download at the MRH homepage. You can also see the HO shelf switching layout track plan in my Layout Design Gallery.