Freelance 2014-2

[faraway]

There are a lot of possibilities but I have to admit that some of them look really bad on my layout (I tested it!).
- Center beams and well cars are far to long for my curves. They look absolute lousy. I wasted my money and bought some of each.
- My "yard" was just reduced from 4 to 3 tracks and i am very happy with it. 4 tracks looked to dense to me.
- I do not like layouts loaded with tracks up to the operational optimum. I would certainly remove some more tracks if possible (no, it's not )
- Transfer jobs stress the yard to it's limits. It looks far to crowded and switching in a 101% loaded yard is no fun anymore.
- A track from the hatch to the rear corner often conflicts with an open hatch (I did open the hatch ones with an engines in operation hock: )
- Dual use of tracks as "main line" and "industry lead" depending on the operation is not what I like.

Anyhow I will proceed with two suggestions
- Move from boxcars to covered hoppers and tank cars
- Mix and match industries not close to each other at the prototype

First thing I have started is to replace the left end (temporary) industry with oil loading facility and some oil tanks. That will bring tank cars into the daily operation. Cornerstone kits look similar to some installations way down at Alameda.

Open items are
- A tiny track plan modification to get a crossing included
- Get a prototypical industry in the center background served by covered hoppers
- Rebuild the none rail served commercial area at the right end with prototypical industry

[jwb]

Well, it's your layout -- but I'm curious when you say " A track from the hatch to the rear corner often conflicts with an open hatch (I did open the hatch ones with an engines in operation". It seems to me that you have exactly the same problem if you do something with the corner or if you don't, since you say you already ran a loco through the gap. Why not set up an electrical interlock no matter what you do, if you've already had the problem? Then you would in fact get a little more use out of the space without crowding in tracks.

[faraway]

....Why not set up an electrical interlock ....

It is, it is But the hatch must be closed and protected for a short time only when a train runs around the east side. There is no switching at that side.
An engine was on the hatch for switching purposes. I did a break (the engine was still on the hatch), my wife called me for some urgent matter, I ....... you know the rest of the story.
But I will make use of that area with the upcoming oil industry.

[jwb]

But why not simply have a full electrical interlock -- microswitch on one or both hatches connected to a relay. Microswitch not closed due to hatch being open at any time, relay unlatches and cuts off power to the whole layout. One evening job, wouldn't it be? What you're saying is that no matter what you do on, near, past, or whatever, one of the hatches, you don't have effective protection. That would be a separate issue from what you did in any corner.

[faraway]

But why not simply have a full electrical interlock -- microswitch on one or both hatches connected to a relay. Microswitch not closed due to hatch being open at any time, relay unlatches and cuts off power to the whole layout. One evening job, wouldn't it be? What you're saying is that no matter what you do on, near, past, or whatever, one of the hatches, you don't have effective protection. That would be a separate issue from what you did in any corner.

Sorry, I did not explain it correctly.
The hatch and the connecting tracks are protected by a switch. No engine can run on the hatch if it is open. That is fine for trains running over the hatch.
The situation changes if I use the tracks on the hatch while switching. I may stop an engine on the hatch, do something else, and forget the engine on the hatch when my wife calls me. I grab the hatch to get out of the room, lift is quickly and the engine becomes an airplane.
To protect that situation the hatch should be mechanically locked when the track on the hatch is occupied.
Anyhow, the hatch and the door is normally all time open and I leave and enter the room frequently. A closed hatch is very inconvenient. I close it only if a train runs at the east side for less than a minute.

[jwb]

Anyhow, the hatch and the door is normally all time open and I leave and enter the room frequently. A closed hatch is very inconvenient. I close it only if a train runs at the east side for less than a minute.

OK, that explains more -- but I hate to sound like a broken record here, but you've got a very prototypical situation, a track that's in more or less marginal use. I'm not sure if I have it right, but you're saying that most runs to staging go over the west end of the layout (toward the windows, as I understand it). That's great, they could very well shove onto your industrial area in one direction, pull in the other, very prototypical.

But that's one more reason to treat that curved tail track heading toward the open door as dual-use, most of the time an industry, only now and then a through running track. There are two advantages, one, you get an extra spot, two, you have the "railfan" interest of seeing something different now and then. It's your layout, but I wonder if you're basically leaving play value on the counter here.

A way to safeguard it might be to have the electrical interlock remove power from that piece of curved track when the bridge plate is up. Then it can only be an unpowered siding track.

[faraway]

I appreciate the discussion of the last days about possibilities how to improve a more prototypical operation on my layout. It may sound strange but it was the end of a search going on since some month. It was my intention to find an area suitable to be shrunk into a small layout fitting on the south side of my room. I meant "shrunk" like it is done on some of the ISL on rmweb or like Lance did it with a section of tracks in Florida. I did not find such area and John's very helpful suggestions how to compose an prototypical operation from a broader area in the LA basin made my mind up.
I go back to the name of this thread "Freelance". Neither a specific area in the rust belt (e.g. Cermak Rd) nor in SoCal (e.g. Vernon) will be used as a prototype. I will intentional be abstract and arbitrary picking single elements (e.g. structures) I like and that might be of use on my fictional layout. I will try do avoid elements to specific and limiting the scope of a freelance layout like palm trees. That will also permit the use of a wide selection of engines, railcars from various railroads as long as they match for a specific operating session.

I am back to FREELANCE 2014-2 an unspecific ISL

[jonte]

It's obvious from your threads, Reinhard, that you put a lot of thought into your work, and from your photos I can see this always pays dividends.

What ever you decide, I know I shall enjoy the results

Best wishes,

Jonte

[Rscott417]

What ever you decide, I know I shall enjoy the results

Best wishes,

Jonte

I agree, whenever you talk about remodeling your layout I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Can't wait to see some photos of your progress.
Also when jwb posted the photo of the Pacific Harbor Line engine I've been looking up photos and info ever since. Not so much the railroad and trackage but their locomotives. It's the first I've ever seen or heard of that line and they have one sharp looking paint job. I have absolutely no use for one but I'd like to figure out how to transform a GP38 into a MP20GP or MP20b-3 or whatever it is.

[faraway]

I will take a break and play instead of continuous remodeling in search of an appropriate prototype. May be some small tinkering but nothing serious.

Freelance permits switching with my green friend

[Mike Kieran]

A lot of us make the mistake of putting down too much track trains that are too long. A small switching layout with 2 industries can be satisfying. For example, you could have a food processor and a manufacturing company with a plethora of car types being used. You just don't have to use all of the cars at once. A small 3 track yard with 4-6 cars being switched would work wonderfully.

[jwb]

Well, I was never arguing only in favor of the Vernon-and-nearby area; as I said, there are other areas, like Chicago or East St Louis, that are just as varied in the post-2005 time period (Epoche VII now?). However, several things strike me about building any model. If you're focused on a single prototype, like Jack Burgess trying to model every significant detail of the Yosemite Valley, that's one thing. Most of us aren't like that. Interests change. In fact, if you've been in the hobby into middle age, you've got the problem of what to do with the "up to date" models you got 20 years ago that are now scrapped, painted for merged railroads, etc. A few guys, like Allen McClelland, would sell them off. Why? I got them for a reason, why should I not want to keep them?

In addition, trying to model an exact scene, or a whole railroad, just doesn't work. If you go to Google Street View, that's already out of date, and if you go to the same area next week, they'll have torn down the most interesting building. You can't capture anything exactly. You can't model a whole railroad, it takes billions in capital and thousands of employees to make it work. You have to make artistic decisions, which means you have to add your own preferences. There are many times when guys like Lance Mindheim make them very arbitrary -- a session can't be longer than 45 minutes. You can only have 50% of the area be track. So forth. That's good for Lance, but he's full of it if he thinks that works for me.

Here's what I think in general:
-- push the limits.
-- find ways to add variety.
-- budget your effort to make an overall product.
-- make full use of all resources (time, energy, money, space, research opportunities).

Push the limits -- heck, add as much track as you think you can get away with. A railroad yard has a lot of track, as do important junctions, as do large industrial areas. Mountain passes have track looping around, back on itself, over itself. Add spots wherever you can, for instance, on a dual-use track, main in one session, spur in another, especially where something like a lifting panel is involved. Use things like crossings as scenic features.

Add variety -- different kinds of trains, uses for different kinds of freight cars, excuses for different road names. Mike Kieran is advocating less-is-more, though I would challenge Mike to actually build a layout, either the ones he plans or some other way, just build a layout. Theory is great for theoreticians. Put track down and find ways to maximize its use. There are times and locations on the prototype where there's lots of variety: early Conrail, early BN, early Guilford, early Amtrak; Los Angeles, Chicago, East St Louis, Potomac Yard, White River Jct, etc. This is another area where Lance Mindheim keeps telling people to impose arbitrary limits -- there's lots more to railroading, even in a fairly small space, than just a GP switching a car or two.

Budget your effort -- why spend all that time tearing down and rebuilding?

Make full use of all resources -- as one example, you have four corners in your room, but as far as I can see, you use only two of them for scenery, leaving trackwork aside. That might go into the question of budgeting effort. I'm puzzled that you aren't looking into operational opportunities your plan provides as it exists -- again, arbitrary limits. It's sometimes frustrating to watch.

[faraway]

Well, I am simply happy switching a hand full of cars on few tracks. In my case main, runaround and four stub tracks. I do not like layouts full with tracks. My esthetic limit is reached much earlier than the physical limit of the layout. I love "empty" layouts with a few tracks only. I did remove ten switches over the last years from my layout. That is just a personal preference and taste

That fact that you prefer a very different layout and your kindly explanation of your vision was extrem helpful to me. It gave me an excellent opportunity to shape my preferences while reading your text. I do not mean this ironical. It is really very helpful to me to get introduced to a very different point of view to make up my mind.

[Rscott417]

Reinhard I enjoy watching everything you post and always look forward to your progress with every project but I 100% agree with jwb. Everyone is different and enjoy different types of layouts but when I posted my layout on here all I kept hearing was to minimize my plan and that my current plan wouldn't work which I definitely respected everyone's opinion and took certain points into consideration but it seemed everyone's idea of less is more was better than mine. I ended up building it how I wanted and even with no scenery had a great time switching up to 15 cars on 5 sidings instead of 8 on 2 sidings. I see where both sides are coming from but personally agree with jwb, whatever you decide I will certainly keep watch on your work.

[Mike Kieran]

I'm not pushing a minimalist agenda. What I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be a spaghetti bowl of track where overcrowding can hamper operations. It just appeared to me that Reinhard was looking to remove track because of this.