Okay this is now part 3 of 5

Great

This has been great and I have enjoyed all of the parts. I rate it 5 stars for the entire series. As a suggestion for future content on operations oriented articles, how about suggestions or even full plans for operations on smaller modules? With TOMA and small areas for living spaces, it seems to me that more modelers will be restricted in area for their empires and will want to operate the well detailed modules that are all they have room for.

Survey vs. how to

If you use the concept of "operations" being the organized movements of the trains, the cars and the crew itself, I'm not sure that after four articles a novice reader would have an idea how to set up any one of those on his layout.  It depends on what the goal is and what the reader wants from the articles.  They are nice articles about operations, but they don't describe how to do it.

Its like Jim Six's article is a nice survey of NYC engines, but Greg Baker's article tells you exactly how to make grass tufts.  So far the ops articles have been more along the lines of Six's article than Baker's.  You know that there is operation and that people do it, but the readers still don't know how to actually "do" operations.

Reminds of how to write a software manual

@dave1905 - Your point reminds me of the different ways you can write software manuals.

The most common way that’s used is what I call the “encyclopedia reference” approach. Basically you start out with component/feature A and go all the way through every component feature until you get to component/feature Z. That approach can be useful if you know exactly the component/feature you’re looking for, but it comes up dry if you simply want to know how to do a given task with the software.

The more useful way to write the manual for the typical user is what I call the “cookbook” style. In the cookbook manual style, you take a given task and describe how to do it (give the recipe) with the software. All the user now does is look up the specific task they need to do and follow the steps, most likely touching on several component/features that in the reference method will be all over the manual in different places.

So it sounds to me the type of article we need write is a cookbook style. Here’s the task you need to do, and here’s the steps to do it. One very interesting way to do this would be to take a small layout track plan and develop the lightweight ops for it from beginning to end. Once we have the ops plan in place, then do an op session to see how it all works in practice.

FURTHER THOUGHTS
Unfortunately, it’s much easier to take the reference approach rather than the cookbook approach when writing, but the cookbook approach is more useful as a reference. Programmers especially are notorious for taking the reference approach, proudly enumerating every great feature they built page after page after page. But if you’re new to the topic or product, a long feature enumeration gives you very little idea where to actually start!

To write the cookbook style takes approaching the problem differently ... where do you start? What tasks are you trying to accomplish? What nuances am I likely to miss along the way? Taking the cookbook approach can be extremely helpful to the newbie, and that’s why Youtube videos are so popular — they often take the cookbook approach — here’s this task we need to do, now how do we do it?

  "You know that there is

I think potential operators should be expected invest some of their time in learning how real railroads and trains work. Seems that they should have some interest and appetite for the subject before deciding they are going to become operators by reading an article in the modeling press. The amount of info needed really depends on the kind/extent of model operations one wants to mimic. I just like to recreate what I've seen trains doing over the years so I don't need to know about waybills, union rules, etc. beyond the extent that they affect the view I see when out watching trains( much like someone who trades by charts and doesn't bother with stocks/commodities fundamentals as they all show up in the charts eventually). If I wanted a different operating experience I'd  study  up on the parts of railroading I don't know but wouldn't expect or desire  to learn the stuff from a modeling article. The farther one gets from the source the less accurate the info will be. We've all seen the results of layouts modeled from other layouts instead of their supposed prototype. ...DaveB

Cookbook

If you are actually interested in a "how to do it" type article, I will finish the article proposal I submitted a year ago that was more of a cookbook concept.  It was conceived as a two part article covering 4 methods of beginner operations, two non-car specific and two car specific.

If its not something MRH is interested in that's probably where the articles will end up, as a series of videos on my You Tube channel.

Dave, you're on

Okay, Dave, you're on. Go ahead and do the two-parter cookbook style.

Do expect me to be very particular on making sure the two parts hit the mark. In other words, expect it to come back with revisions requested. But I won't know what those revisions will need to be until I see your submission.

Also, let's talk about doing some videos as well. Now that TMTV is embracing virtually produced content, let's talk about what some ops how-to videos you do might look like.

What do you think of the series as a whole so far?

I give up. It's underwhelming and doesn't deliver what it promised.

Operating one's trains realistically isn't hard, and not a "heavy" or "light" choice. It just is, or you might as well either be building a diorama or a slot-car track.

Types of operation (CTC, TWC/ABS, DTC, TT/TO) aren't hard to grasp either if one is willing to try to learn. 

Yes, so how about a submission?

Yes, I can see how the series misses the mark in some ways. We're learning and I have more ideas on how to tackle this topic in the future.

Do be aware no article (or article series) is perfect. I do challenge those who feel an article misses the mark to apply their expertise to the problem and do an article that shows the rest of us how it should be done.

I'm serious. If you think a given topic can be done better, then write up your better treatment.

It's a tempting proposition,

It's a tempting proposition, really. But I really also doubt I could fly any higher compared to what Dave Husman will offer.

Part 3 or part 4?

It says right there in the title “Part 3”.  And January was part 2.

Anyway, I feel this series somehow misses the mark.  I think there may be a bigger vision behind it, but the articles don’t seem to be revealing it.

How to teach ops

I don't think that there is one definitive way to teach ops although it's not unreasonable to try.  Once I attended an ops session I was hooked but a long way from knowing how to set up my own.  Lots of ops sessions later and after learning all I could off the internet it finally clicked for me.  I think we all would like something that would bring interested people up to speed but that is a difficult task.  Everyone has different learning rates and that's the problem.  I think we should make a depository of helpful articles and references in one location.   Some great resources are out there like the Gateway NMRA website with lots of articles about setting up operations and also waybills and car routing. Another good article about setting up CC&WB was from Mark Frysztacki's PRR Northern Division website, it's not on web anymore but is available from the wayback machine's website. Just some thoughts.

I’m a part ahead, sorry

Ops reply

All the ops articles are great. I have rated them 5 stars. Looking forward to the last of 5 and also more in the future. Thank you for the articles and the magazine.

How about...

Dear MRHers,

Here's a wild suggestion, 

How about an article about Ops which actually support/serve the layout theme and overall (visual) presentation,
(IE the theme and layout design comes first,
particularly in the context of "modelling a prototype location from verified visual reference")

instead of Ops on Layouts-designed-for-Ops, with any passing resemblance to a given prototype location or theme being purely co-incidental?
(IE we have been told numerous times that

"...for the "Ops or nothing" operator, literally a mass-assemblage of track-on-plank modules,
with a folded cardboard sign saying 'Industry X HERE' is enough,
as long as the trains run reliably and are moved with a purpose and "wider railroad context" awareness...",

which immediately says to many "right, so Ops Layouts = barely Plywood Pacific, ... Pass")

The recent revelation of "3 types of Ops",
with "Type 3" being "focus on the realtime-moves and actions of the crew, right-there in-the-field, as-it-happens" 
also resonates as it speaks to actual in-modelled-scene relevance, which can be directly applied in context...

...I'm going to say it one time, and I'm not taking it back,
when the "the lights go up" and the "Op Session" narative starts on my apartment-sized small/micro layout,
I Don't Care Why or How the train "appeared onscene" in the marshalled-order the consist is in,

(In this moment, what happened half-a-subdivision-away is flat-out irrelevant,

both "in wider context,
unless I actually want to waste the precious 20 realtime minutes I have to "run a train" musing about 'why is it so?'",

and in the tangible 12"1/' physical-reality context of my "too limited for Real Ops" 8' x 1' HO scale switching plank layout)

I Only Care about "...the Industry Foreman who's about to (metaphorically) hand me and the Conductor the "car spot list" for today's switching, and then the challenge of addressing myself to said switching task..."
(IE literally Just Like a Real Prototype Train Crew, which after-all, is what Ops is meant to be recreating, yes?)

...and if there's room for a "offstage track-on-plank" extension to facilitate a nice "the lights go down, as our train and it's crew roll off into the distance" end to the narative/session, then that's gravy...

If the "story" of the layout/scene comes first,
then lets talk about how "Ops for the rest of us" can fit into that story...
(not the other way round)

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

T-Plans

The nice thing to realize about transportation plans is there is no one right or wrong answer.   They change all the time, being tweaked and adjusted, new trains are added, some services are dropped.  So if something isn't working try something else, real railroads do all the time.  The longest I ever saw a train go without its transportation plan be changed was two years, on most trains something gets tweaked about once every month or every other month.  If a train A runs from A to M and the railroad changes the running time by an hour then that means all the trains that train A connects with at M have to have their T-plans adjusted to reflect the new connection.  If that changes a time that a train B at M that runs M to Z, then all the trains at Z that train B connects with may need their T-plans adjusted.  A significant change to one train can cascade to tweaks to 10-20 or more trains downline.

The formula I use for figuring out T-plans on a model railroad is the number of cars that all the locals will spot on an average session, plus the amount of overhead,  plus interchange traffic (if not counted in the local business.)   At minimum the through freights and interchange have to feed at least the number of cars the locals will spot per session.  If I at Wilmington, want to spot 6 cars in one switching area and 12 cars in the others, plus originate 1 local with 8 cars, that means between all the interchanges and terminating through freights I need to feed 26 cars into Wilmington.  If I figure about 1/3 of the cars from interchange (totally arbitrary number that I think "feels" right) that means the through freights have to carry about 15 cars into Wilmington.  Assuming a through freight on my layout has about 10 cars in it, that means I need to yard about 2 through freights per session to keep Wilmington in cars. 

That means I will have room for about 5 overhead cars (going to interchange) per session on the through freights.  Any additional through freights I want to run will add to the aggregate number of overhead/interchange cars.  If I run 3 through freights per session, then I can move 30 cars, 15 of which will be local business and 15 will be interchange, since I have twice as much room on the B&O than I do on the PRR interchange, that means I will have 10 B&O and 5 PRR.

As far as scheduling the trains, I actually don't schedule the trains as much as I schedule the operators.  With only a handful of operators (2 or 3 road crews) I schedule slots for the operators, then add the passenger trains, the locals, the two schedule through freights and fit the rest of the through freights (extras) in whatever slots are available.  That may not be prototypical, but it makes sure the session runs smoothly.

Maybe, maybe not

Not necessarily.  Depends on your focus.  If you are focused on recreating the "crew", that's one thing.  If you are focused on recreating the "train", that's another thing.  If you are focused on recreating the "railroad", that's another.

Having been involved in real operations, I'm not as interested in recreating EXACTLY what a crew does, because one, that is too much like work, two it involves a lot of really unfun stuff like waiting for stuff to happen, and three the physics doesn't scale so you really CAN'T operate like the prototype with a model (even with a proto throttle).  So I am fine with backing up a level and not worrying about the exact actions of the crew.

If you want to try and go for the crew level operations, go for the gusto, more power to you.  But don't assume that is the ultimate goal of "operations" or that is what everybody wants.

Refined focus

Dear Dave,

One key element of designing and building small/micro and exhibition layouts (that are more than just "artistic flights of fancy") is the ability to hone and distil down to an incredibly-focussed degree the "key elements" of the scene being presented...

...which means, in terms of "Ops following the theme", yes, absolutely, honing down to an (incredibly narrow?) "crew experience" ops-headspace is entirely in-keeping with the scope and overall presentation the layout narrative requires...

Happy Modelling,

Prof Klyzlr

survey of different types of ops

i'd be interested in reading about the different types of ops.    i assume each can be lightweight or as heavy handed as desired

of course there are waybill freights.   some on a schedule, with cards, switch lists, odd/even # depending on day.  waybill freights may need to work around other trains,  ...

our club just runs trains between staging. they are handed out as engineers become available.   the leave when the engineer is ready and cleared.     i assume they could be scheduled.   they could follow TT&TO with meets, ...

passenger train ops, ...

i've seen trains from staging coming into a yard where cars are switch and trains later leave, ...

???

micro vs macro ops

single train and single operator to multiple person crew multi scheduled trains

TT&TO, CTC, ...

any combination of the above, ...

i assume there are other types of ops and each can be done in a number of ways.

obviously some of the things i've said may not make sense, that's why i'd like to read such an article

Nuance not nuisance

I agree with the Professor and Dave H. on many levels. I do like small or micro layouts that allow me, as an operator, to hone down the nuance of the job I was handed. ( on screen, lights up, showtime!) If my train has to weigh cars and there is a track scale, I’m going to do that. I KNOW the car doesn’t actually weight 100 tons but I appreciate what the crew has to go through on a daily basis to complete their task. 
 

I am also familiar with Dave’s assessment of not wanting to get to that level because as he said, real railroading as a crew is a lot of boredom. There are so many ways to peel this onion. 
 

I look forward to Dave’s well written article, as well as anything the Professor puts out into cyberspace. If you can get people to believe they are running in the streets of Brooklyn at 3 AM and trying to switch industries while the local constables are busting up a Rave party, I’m all in with that. 
 

This hobby has always valued the layout that looks better over the operating ones. Operation people have had to form a SIG just so we can indulge in our passion without scorn. There is no scenery SIG. I don’t like the plywood pacific with a Ritz cracker box factory stereotype either. That’s getting old. Operation has a lot to do with the planting of your layout. Yes, I said planting, not planning. Operators use the scenery to put you in the time and place. They build in nuances and avoid the nuisance of creating something just to create it. The cement plant, next to the scrap yard, next to Gruesome Casket. All because they have boxcars, a gondola and a covered hopper. 
 

I want to operate as they did in the early 1900’s on Dave’s layout. Looking forward to any and all operations articles. 

My definition of operations...

A reason for my model railroad to exist after I've had the fun of building it.

How simple or complex my system of doing that becomes remains to be seen but after reading this and many other articles, I still don't get why people want to make it as complicated as some do.

Cracker box

I don't mind the cracker box mindset in the short term, but even then it starts to feel like when I was running my Lionel O27 set when I was kid and making structures out of cardboard.

Temporarily, I can understand (as all layouts are Plywood Pacifics for a short while at the least), but I know too many layouts that never get past that stage. Maybe I'm a snob in this regard but trains of out of the box equipment running on bare plywood and maybe it never changes into anything else?
Pass.

That's why I only ever had two op sessions on my own layout when it was just wood, because I wanted to see what others would come up for an operating scheme (they both came up with the same concept, something very different than what I'd come up with, and their idea is what I run today). After that, I had no more formal op sessions until I had something looking like scenery down. It looked like what I now refer to as a "green desert" without trees and such, but at least it wasn't plywood. For me, the layout had to look like a scale rendition of some place (even if only in my imagination) instead of weathered equipment running on plywood.

Now, all that said, I've never understood those who really want you into their layout. I've known a few really good guys with great layouts who went so deep into the details, you almost forget you were even running trains sometimes.

Watching other operators on the layout in those cases, I saw they were doing the same thing I was; focusing just on getting the trains where they should go and putting the cars where the cards/lists tell them. I've never understood why people put the contents of the car on a car card and made such a big deal about the 'story' behind the car and it's load. In real life, a crew isn't going to care what's in it, as they have to get it from A to B by a certain time and that's someone else's job to figure out for the contents.

It doesn't put me into the layout concept, it's just another layer of stuff I'm going to look around for what seems to be the 'important' ideas of getting those cars where they're supposed to go.

  "I don't mind the cracker

If you make the temporary structures scale size they are a great planning tool to help refine sight lines and see what needs to be detailed and what will not show . A lot of layouts never get beyond this stage due to owners available time, moving to a new house, or passing away. I don't think many folks aim for the plywoood pacific for ever .....DaveB 

I don't like temporary that stretches out long term