Dynamo article in LDJ-47

It's hot from the printer's - go get it! (and join the LDSIG so that it shows up in the mail like magic every few months.)

• Planning the Newcastle-Fassifern Railway with LDEs
• Improving a Classic John Armstrong Plan in N Scale
• The Continuous Model Railroad: More Railroad than your Room Can Hold
• Proto-Freelance Midwest NYC Layout Inspired by Published Plans
• Weighing the Scales: Experienced Multi-Scale Modelers Discuss Pros and Cons
• Benchwork and Fascia Ideas from LDSIG Tours

 … and more!

Download a free sampler of pages from this issue.

Erie Dynamos in N Scale Part Deux

For the first part of the Continuous Model Railroad, see Erie DYNAMOS layout in N Scale

Applications (continued)

So let's apply the dynamo principle to the Erie Railroad. First we need to gather the prototype's track charts. We need the charts to know what the track alignments are in order to figure out our module requirements and configuration. The first chart on the Erie's east end is the Jersey City to Carlton, NJ that includes the large Croxton Yard complex. This covers the first 9 miles of the eastern end of the line.

The black blob is Croxton Yard between Jersey City to the right and Carlton, NJ on the left..

The next section takes us from milepost 10 at Passaic Park to Hohokus and mile 22, but we are only going to be able to make it to Paterson, NJ at mile 15 in the first session. Now we can look at the track arrangements and match that up to our stable of standard modules.

Part of the track charts for our journey to Chicago from Jersey City.

The classic model railroad problem is that we model railroaders want to fit 900 miles of railroad into 400 s.f. and Dynamos allows one to do that, just not all at the same time.

The space that I have to work with is a living room that measures about 16' x 20' which is convenient for a standard 2'x4' (or 1'-6"x 4' since this is N scale) module with 4' aisles. Included in each session will be staging modules at each end, so those will pretty much be set and all we have to do is fill in between. The corner and aisle turnback modules also end up being fixed for all intents and purposes since this is the best way of filling this particular size room in a traditional "E" configuration of modules. This means that all that will change from one session to the next are the 18 intermediate modules.

Our stable of standard abstracted Operational Design Elements modules

Module identification

The first session on the Continuous Model Railroad includes only modules "A" through "I" since we haven't hit the 4 track main line, yet, which starts at "WJ" tower at Ridgewood, NJ. In addition to the fixed requirements of staging (2 "H"s and 2 "G"s) and corners (6 "A" modules) we will need these quantities:"B" 2,"C" 1,"D" 4,"E" 4,"F" 2,and "I" 2. I would build the staging modules "H" on wheels to make getting ready for the next session a snap!

Session 1

How the sessions break down moving East to west. In retrospect, I might do the sequence starting in Chicago and moving west because there is a greater flow of loads moving East to NY. I could, of course, easily do this the second time around.

The next session sees only minor changes to the overall set up, only the names of the towns are changed. (This could be accomplished through a nice sign pocket on each module that allows for quick re-naming between sessions.) Session 2 will move us from Paterson to Suffern.


There are only six modules that need changing in this session. Shown with the red dots in the next figure, the major change is the addition of another yard at Allendale between Paterson and Suffern. Now sharp Erie railroaders will be cringing at this point, because I have been showing a two track main line in places where there should be four between Rutherford and Suffern. I honestly don't remember why I didn't do this when I originally presented this idea at the Tulsa LD/OpSig event a couple of years ago, but I can perform some post-rationalization at this point and say that it didn't make financial sense to build so many four track main line modules to only use in this session as almost all of the Erie was not four track main, or maybe I simply messed up.

Only a few changes are necessary for the second session.

Operations

It is now a matter of getting out our employee schedule to start working up our operating scheme for the sessions.

The part of the schedule that corresponds to the Session 1 area on the system map.

The Westbound schedule from Jersey City to Port Jervis that includes what we need to know for operations in the first few sessions.

Almost all of the trains run daily, so it doesn't really matter what part of the week simulate. I would choose a particular day to start off with, though, so that we could keep a consistent timeline going as we move across the country to make the experience more relevant. A little research will tell us what these trains are and what the normal consist would be. Moving westbound, a lot of the trains will contain empties moving back into the heartland where goods consumed on the East Coast are manufactured or grown.

So what gets interesting is how you set up the sessions. There are several possibilities, of course, and it depends on what you are looking to get out of the experience in order to determine how to craft the operating scheme. If one were interested in a particular train, one could operate a very slow clock and model only a couple of hours in each session so as to follow this train from end to end.

The Erie Limited, train No.1, for example, departs Jersey City at 9:30 AM each day, so operating the schedule from 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM the first session would see this train move from East to West and arrive at Patterson. In order for the next session to be properly aligned in time, No.1 would start at Paterson and the session would again start at 9:00 AM, because No.1 moves through Paterson only a few minutes after leaving Jersey City. In fact, since it makes no stops, No.1 is scheduled to depart Goshen, which would end up in our 4th session, at only 10:49. This means that the first FOUR sessions we hold are all modeling operations between 9:00 and 11:00 AM on one day.

During this time, however, all sorts of other activities are happening with locals, through and way freights doing their work. Since we are shifting our focus from East to West, we would see the same locals operate in the same direction each session. This would happen with the eastbound traffic as well with their entrance to the layout occurring a few minutes earlier each session until they no longer show up within the time frame set by our following of the train of our interest, No.1.

What is fascinating about operating the Continuous Model Railroad in this manner is that the trains operating during a given session would largely remain the same from one session to the next, as would the time. Differences would be small and mainly consist of when the train moved through the layout. The larger difference would be seen in the shifting of the towns from one session to the next, almost as if they were standing still and the layout were moving underneath them.

Another way to organize the operating scheme would be to model an entire day before moving on. This would place emphasis on the location rather than a selected train. This scheme would allow for an appreciation of the rhythm of the place, rather than the experience of the train. The understanding, then, of the whole trip from New Jersey to Illinois would be more about the patterns of the entire Erie Railroad. Appreciation is gained of busy commuting trains punctuated by a named passenger train or express freight and how this is mapped onto a daily pattern of traffic on the railroad.

By following a train across country as in the first example, the appreciation is centered on the experience of movement, not on the experience of place.The constant is the train - everyone will be focused on when the train is present in relation to the location. Time then becomes the measuring stick. It is as if we see the train as a second hand passing each city which is a number on the clock face.

Shifting the focus around by modeling an entire daily cycle in one location, the reference is switched from following a sweeping second hand of a clock to a static orientation based on where you are and gaze upon the face of the clock where a particular number is being passed by the clock hands. The same schedule and operations routine of a prototype railroad can then be experienced and understood in two completely different ways using the same layout space. 

Different understandings of a railroad

This is the crux of the whole idea of the Continuous Model Railroad: through the abstraction of space (the transformation of track arrangements into dynamo ODEs) and the ability to swap them around interchangeably (the Dynamos modular system), we are able to bring focus onto the temporal component of railroad operations, and because of that, experience railroading in a completely different mode than we are accustomed.

This shifts our perspective from the current practice of representing an entire railroad through a single specific instance to understanding each location of a railroad in relation to how the entire railroad operated. This effectively reverses the adage that we can understand the whole world through a single grain of sand to understanding each grain of sand by looking at the entire world. A microcosm representing the universal or the universe explaining the microcosm? The flexibility of Dynamos sets up a duality where you have a choice between the two, but you should really try both for the most complete understanding of the operations of your chosen railroad.

Module construction

I have been working on developing a lightweight modular system for a while now, but I don't have an ultimate proposal as of yet. A recent NMRA Magazine article described an aluminum angle and Masonite method that is similar to my thoughts. I've been looking at aluminum shapes, but I have not decided on the skin component. I've looked at honeycomb cardboard, Gator board and regular building insulation foam among other materials. I am leaning towards Gator board at the moment.

The other part to consider is what the modules will sit on. There are several examples out there from Freemo, Ntrak, and other module systems. My priorities include lightweight, ease of set up and tear down, and finally storage space required.

I would use standard code 80 track with manual switches. No need to complicate anything for modeling realism that might compromise operations. No layout is fun if you have derailments or power problems, so the simpler the better in this case.

Proof of concept

I guess the next thing for me to do is to actually try this. We all have good ideas, but do they mean much if we don't try them? I believe it would prove to be a worthy distraction from the Port of New York layout, but I don't think this will translate into HO, so I can't use any of the equipment I already have. I'm not sure I can justify this divergence of funds. I've only got a handful of N scale equipment at the moment, but maybe I could simply lease what I need. This is what the prototype would do...

If you are interested in hearing more about this, I have a slideshow of the presentation I made at the Tulsa convention.

More on the Continuous Model Railroad as it develops...

Erie DYNAMOS layout in N scale

Erie New York Division in N Scale

I've taken a stab at developing my Dynamos idea for the Erie Railroad from Jersey City to Chicago milepost by milepost. This first layout uses some standard modules developed from looking at the track arrangement charts for the Erie arranged to replicate the operating characteristics of the railroad instead of the physical characteristics of actual places. The first layout models the operations between MP 0 and MP 16.

An article I am working on explains further:

How to Model More Railroad than Your Room Can Hold

A layout design methodology for dynamic operating schemes

Terms: 
 Dynamos: DYNamic Abstracted Modular Operating System, Dynamo: DYNamic Abstracted MOdule

ODE: Operational Design Element. A typologically identifiable portion of a model railroad layout that is linked to the operation of the layout. A section of a model railroad that has a discrete (or particular combination of) operating elements such as an interchange, siding, yard (or separate yard element), passenger station, industry spur or spot. Can also be used for type of landmark or scenery element such as a bridge, tunnel, cut, roadway or other part of the natural or built environment that affects operations.

History
The hobby of model railroading has continually advanced in the areas of craft, manufacturing and technology since modeling became distinguishable from simple toy train activities in the early part of the twentieth century. For some hobbyists, the reason for modeling itself also has continued to evolve over the course of the last 100 years from simply being a quest for more accurate models and better looking scenery to modeling the railroad operations and prototype practices as more than a model of a railroad to more of a simulation of a railroad. ¹

Layout planning has very directly been affected by this evolution in approach to the hobby. Most recently, forward-thinking ideas of David Barrow and Tony Koester have had a great influence on those of us who are striving for clarity, realism and operations-oriented model railroading. Two of those ideas, the domino benchwork construction and planning method of David Barrow and the Layout Design Element, or LDE, of Tony Koester have both shaped current discourse of layout planners and are particularly interested in the simulation, or game of model railroading.

If one were to combine the layout planning methods of domino construction and an abstracted form of Layout Design Elements, it would result in a dynamically flexible and effective system for modeling the operations of an entire railroad by allowing for continual reconfiguration of domino sections from one operating session to the next. Combining modified ideas of domino construction and LDEs results in a flexible and effective method for modeling the operations of an entire railroad by allowing for rearrangement and reuse of domino sections from one operating session to the next.

David Barrow used the term “domino” for a benchwork construction method in an article for Model Railroader magazine in 1995 and gives credit for the term to Bruce Goehmann who wrote about “domino” planning for traction layouts in a MR article in October, 1985. [Diagram XX] Related to Swiss architect Le Corbusier’s Maison-Domino, a basic building prototype for mass production housing with free-standing pillars and rigid floors that privileged modularity and clarity in architectural form and construction, the effect of domino planning on model railroading has been significant in that it reinforces the around-the-room, or shelf style layout that is sincere (the train moves through each scene only once maintaining the same direction).

In his own layout evolution, David has most fully taken advantage of the domino method of construction in a way very closely aligned with Le Corbusier’s emphasis on modularity through the re-use of benchwork modules in new track configurations as well as an organizational method during the re-design of new representations iterations of Santa Fe track and operations around Lubbock, Texas. (see MR XXX 2009)

What I take from the domino method is the ability to rearrange standard modules in the manner of NTrak or FreeMo in a home layout setting with a standardize dimensional relationship (such as the convenient 2’x4’ module Barrow frequently uses). In addition, Barrow, among others like Mike O'Brien and Tom Pearson, have been a part of a larger discussion about minimal model railroading (to the ire of many modelers who have said to Barrow, "that isn't model railroading"). The idea that photographs of a place or industry can be used instead of modeling a structure or scenery in three dimensions suffices for the purposes of modeling operations.

Bare plywood and Code 100 rail aren't even noticed if one is really involved in the operations aspects of a layout. David has tested this on us operators by replacing code 83 rail with code 100 rail on a section of mainline and then asking us if we noticed in the post-op debriefing session. Nobody did, because we were all intent on what we were doing with our trains and couldn't care less about the rail size. This changes, of course, when there is no operation happening and one is only railfanning. This boils down to which master you would like to serve: operation modeling or physical modeling.

The idea of Tony Koester’s LDE or Layout Design Element is to represent a prototype location as closely as possible in a modeled portion of the layout. [Diagram XX] His definition in his own words is,

a visually and operationally recognizable model of a specific prototype location, such as a yard, junction, industry, engine terminal, and so on. A scene that comprises elements of several familiar scenes or reminds one of a general region or type of railroad is not an LDE. It has to reflect the visual and operational characteristics of one actual location. The name can be changed, or even the structures (to some degree), but the physical layout cannot other than by the judicious use of selective compression. ^{2 email to author, dated XX/XX/XX}

Operational Design Element
Generated from a series of conversations with Tom Pearson, an extension of the idea of an LDE could be an ODE, or Operation Design Element. Instead of striving to be an exact duplication of a prototype situation like the LDE, an ODE is an abstracted representation of a particular typology of a railroad’s operational situation (be it prototypical or free-lanced). An ODE is not necessarily directly representative of a specific prototype's location and situation, but it would be based on the practices of a particular railroad such as roadbed sections, color of ballast, signaling, sidings, etc.

Furthermore, it is a section of a model railroad that has a discrete (or particular combination of multiple) operating elements such as an interchange, siding, yard (or yard element), passenger station, industry spur or spot. The term can also be used for an identifiable type of landmark or scenery element such as a bridge, tunnel, cut, roadway or other part of the natural or built environment that affects operations. [Diagram XX]

Mark of a Dynamos layout design

Dynamos

What the combination of the ODE and the domino method makes possible is the ability to design a dynamic layout, or a layout that can be re-configured to meet a host of different operating possibilities. By using a standard position for track placement between modules like the FreeMo and Ntrak modular standards, one can create several LOEs using the same dimension domino module and reconfigure their arrangement to create different operating layouts without the need to relay track. This system is called the Dynamic Abstracted Modular Operating System, or DyNAMOS method of layout design.

There are several possibilities for taking advantage of the flexibility of dynamos. My own impetus for developing this idea comes from grappling with the necessity of “selective compression” in layouts juxtaposed with the desire to model an entire class one railroad, in my case, the Erie Railroad from New York City to Chicago. [Erie Schematic Map] With the re-combination of a set of dynammos that model a variety of typical main line situations of the Erie, one could model the entire length of the Erie by rearranging modules between operating sessions. Over the course of an extended period of time, it is possible to model the operations of the Erie’s flagship freight The Flying Saucer from Croxton Yard in New Jersey to Chicago over the entirety of the Erie main line all in a relatively small amount of square footage.

The “selective compression” of space becomes “selective sectioning” of space that is dynamically recombined across time to create an otherwise unmodelable scope of a large railroad system. In terms of operation, one could think of this as The Flying Saucer’s standing still as the layout moves beneath it since the train moves across the layout each session in the same direction. [Diagram XX]
One could also model different eras of the same portion of a railroad by merely dropping in the appropriate track arrangement for the given era. The double tracking of a section of the UP line in Cheyenne, Wyoming that took place in 19XX could be switched out to see how it affects operations or to match the modern equipment you have recently purchased.

The dynamos system could also facilitate modeling different railroads altogether. If one were interested in operations in New Jersey, for instance, one could model a multitude of railroads that connected to each other. If you were to take the area around the Erie operations in Croxton, New Jersey, there are several Erie branches and other railroads that connect o the yard. The Northern, Greenville Lake and Weehawken branches originate from Croxton, and along with the railroads of the DL&W, PRR, Northern, Susquehenna, NYCentral, NYO&W, LV, etc. there are plenty of tentacles that radiate from Croxton Yard to keep modeling new operations for many years while still remaining in the same immediate area. [Diagram XX]

Application
To make such a system manageable, one would need to use quick-disconnect cabling for power and DCC systems, a standard accessory arrangement for lighting, signaling, etc. and a construction method that allows for temporary, yet secure, placement of benchwork modules. One might look to the system under development by Ian Rice ³ that is attempting to standardize infrastructure arrangements, in his case so that one can reuse modules for completely new scenes and track arrangements. We would want a system that merely connected in a consistent and easily unplugable manner, and ideally would stack for convenient storage.

Construction out of lightweight materials would also be desirable for ease in handling. Metal and plastic structural systems could be used along with foam and other methods already employed by modular modelers.

For track configurations, one would need to generate a set of standard arrangements that were typical of a particular (or generic) railroad. A set might include:

A Corner
B Double track main line (with crossover)
C Double track main line xtra (with crossover)
D Main line with working siding
E Yard throat
F Yard Body
G Staging ladder
H Staging body
I Interchange
J Quadruple track main line end
K Quadruple track main line body
L Quadruple track main line body with industries
M Quadruple track main line with interchange 1

N Quadruple track main line with interchange 2
O Quadruple track yard throat
P Quadruple track Yard body
Q ?
R ?
S ?

Potential Conflicts

To keep the number of total dynamos relatively contained, one would need to make concessions on a few track arrangement issues. Whether a diverging route came off of the far or near side of the main, turnout orientation (trailing or facing), etc. An optimal number of modules would have to be arrived at considering storage space, concessions required, etc.
I'll update as this idea progresses. [See part 2]

References
1

2

3 Rice, Iain, Layout Design Haynes Publishing:Sparkford, UK, 2010, p 52.