Scarpia, your images don't work

Scarpia, 

The links you're using to get to your images are behind your private login so they won't display directly here for anybody but you. You either need to find a public link or upload the images here into your image library space here on our site.

Thanks Joe

I had forgotten that I have blocks set up for non-authorized sites. They should be working now.

Merry Christmas!

Train length?

Yes, I should have noted it

Yes, I should have noted it was HO. For the traction, that's about perfect, actually, as the trains were 1-3 cars at most. I'll take a look at extending the sidings on the CV's main line.

Thanks for the input.

Steep grades and so on

Looks to me you'll have very steep grades coming out of and going into staging in the area of the main yard at the plan's bottom.  And if the track passes under the turnout pit, you'll have extreme (impractical) grades.  Also, the yard tracks are far from the layout edge (presuming the layout is operated from the room's center) making access difficult, especially if one has to reach over the turntable and roundhouse. 

I also don't see the need for two crossovers within the passing track (or is it the house track?) at the town at the top of the plan.  The one to the right could have some use, but the reason for the left crossover is not evident.  In most small-town situations, the passing siding is on the side of the main track opposite the depot, with the house track on the depot's side.  If you follow that "rule," I'd suggest making the passing track the longer of the two and not place the crossover in front of the depot unless you enjoy lawsuits from passengers tripping over the turnouts' frogs and points.

I'm not sure what the intent of your track/operational schematic/scheme is.  Is the main town (with yard and turntable) the site of a branchline junction with the mainline?   Your intended operational scheme can have significant impact on the design and utility of the yard.   Is there a reason you eschew industry in that town?  If it is such a junction, I don't see the need for so many classification tracks.

I don't see the need for the two passing tracks between the major and secondary towns on the main deck level.  The distances between them are short.  I'd recommend a single, somewhat longer passing siding.  Or is your intent to have very high intensity traffic consisting of many short trains?

Mark, Thanks for your time.

Mark,

Thanks for your time.

I'll try to address your points in turn.

The grades on the bottom I was figuring for 3% - I know that's high for most folks, but they are hidden, and as long as the trains I'm planning on pulling (at this time, no more than 20 cars depending on the era I'm running at the time), I thought they'd be ok.  I hadn't thought about the operation of the yard; I was more concerned on getting the maximum radius I could on the main line. I'll have to give that some serious thought. 

Per the town on top, that's based on a prototype map - almost exact.  I kind of wanted to keep it as it was, as that's the interchange with the traction railroad.

I don't really have an operational scheme - I haven't been in the hobby long enough to really know, more than on a conceptual basis. I'm presuming on this I'll be operating along 99% of the time, and the only thing I know I'd like to do is represent the passanger train that comes from the South (the lower yard), all the way up through (stopping to intechange with the traction) the top where i can sit on  the hidden reverse loop until it's time to head south.

I would also like to model the interchange between the Boston & Maine and the CV that shared that lower area, and work up freights to go north. South bounds will be possible, but more of a though freight, broken apart again in the lower yard.  The real yards are double ended in that town (White River Jct), I don't have the space to make mine that way.

any industries here that I'm going to put in are going to be small - 2-3 car jobs, nothing dominant. This line was for a long time simply a way for the Canadian National to reach the NE US markets, so a lot of traffic didn't start or end here.

The mainline has aways been a single track with long passing sidings; maybe I'll cut one and add length to the other. 

I hope this helps make more sense of this madness. I'm going to look again at moving the lower town around again.

The biggest problem I see in

The biggest problem I see in the lower town is that you don't have an acceptable arrival track.  Your arrival track should be long enough to hold your longest train and still have a way to get the locos out from behind the train, unless you expect a switcher or some other loco to pull the train out of the way.  Even in that case, you need be able to get the switcher clear of the back of the train to be able to make the pull.

I would suggest that you eliminate the passing siding that runs onto the removable section, lengthen the other siding a bit, and then lengthen the passing siding below the roundhouse so that it extends onto the removable section instead.  I would also look at lengthening the yard tracks; they are all rather short.  Why don't you run the yard along the wall towards the post?  If you are concerned about getting the B&M track under the yard, you can move the interchange over to the right corner more so it can drop down sooner.

The one thing that any layout can't have enough of is length.  Even if you run short trains, it looks better if the sidings and yard tracks are longer than they need to be.

"I don't really have an

"I don't really have an operational scheme - I haven't been in the hobby long enough to really know, more than on a conceptual basis," say Scarpia

Scarpia,

You'll end up happier if you know what your operational scheme is before settling on the plan.   If not, it will only be an act of your guardian angel that your track plan will meet your needs, but I'd hope your guardian concentrates instead on life and death issues as mine does.

It is critical to have train assembly/disassembly tracks and passing sidings consistent with your expected train lengths.  It would also be convenient if yard classification tracks were similarly lengthed, but that's less critical.

You need to reexamine the main town/yard area.  Those steep grades approaching the town from staging reduce the passing/assembly trains' lengths. 

I'm working on a new plan of

I'm working on a new plan of the lower town (White River Jct), I hope to have something new to post tomorrow, based on input from both Jurgan and yourself.

So here's the million dollar question - how do I devleop an operational scheme, without knowing what the hell it is, or for that matter what I want it to be?

"Operational scheme" pretty

"Operational scheme" pretty much refers to the primary purpose/customer base served by your railroad, and how it goes about getting the job done.

Remember, prototype railroads are for-profit businesses, so they try to make things as efficient as possible. This includes laying out the track in ways that speed the process of picking-up and setting-out cars, minimize the need for any redundant moves, and keep the various trains from getting in each others' way.   Modelers like us might enjoy spending a lot of time by ourselves shuffling a few cars around, but it does get old after awhile - and becomes a major headache once you start having guest operators over and they have to wait for each other to get their tasks done.  The more we think like prototype railroad execs in designing our layouts, the more long-term satisfaction we're going to get.

There are some excellent books available that discuss this subject, I would recommend reading them before making a final decision on your track plan.

Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong

Realistic Model Railroad Operation by Tony Koester

BTW - before I read either of those books above, I figured I'd always stick with lone-wolf operation to "keep things simple".  But after reading them, applying what they taught me and actually hosting my first op session, I can't imagine ever going back to lone wolf mode!

My advice so far has just

My advice so far has just been from a practical, funtional point of view, not related to making it prototypical.  If you really want to make it work like the real CV did there are a couple of other points worth making.

The most important point is that the CV was a bridge line.  Its main function was to get Canadian National into the New York City market.  So it was a through route, and the main trains would run from Montreal to Bridgeport Ct and back.  If you want to be able to simulate any of that, you should be looking at a way of making your White River Jct a double ended yard like the prototype so you can run trains through the yard and into staging.  

Maybe if you reduced the size of your existing peninsula and instead built along that wall to the post and put in a lobe there so you turn the mainline around and head into hidden trackage?  You could have the yard along that wall then and put a ladder on each end.  The B&M could stay where it is and have a longer run before it had to get down low enough to turn around under the lobe beneath the CV mainline where it's making its turn.  You wouldn't need to have the arrival track extend onto the removable section anymore, because your passing track could be along the mainline beside the yard, and most trains would be continuing into staging anyway.  Locals would be made up in the yard and run up to Waterbury and back, perhaps.  

You might have to eliminate the reverse loop for the B&M in your peninsula, but it would likely be possible to have the same function beneath Waterbury somewhere.  It would also be worth adding some more capacity to the staging yard under Waterbury since you would have the option of running a lot more traffic as a bridge route.  I would recommend through staging, with double ended tracks, so you could have trains orbiting around the mainline and through the staging yard if you desire.

Wow, great question! (Long post follows)

Hey, that's a great question (and makes me think it would make a great article for MRH ... any volunteers - we pay upon acceptance, you know).

THE BASIC IDEA

Without an operating scheme for your layout, a track plan is just lines on paper - and any lines are as good as another without such a scheme.

Here's the basic idea:

1. Real railroads exist to transport goods and people - and they form trains to get the job done efficiently.

2. Look at your industries - what is your layout shipping, and from where to where?

3. If you expect to run passenger trains, where are the people traveling - from where to where?

4. Put in the simplest terms, real railroads have two basic types of trains: locals and through trains.

5. Figure out what trains you will need to run to get the job done, and you will have your operating plan.

If you have a prototype you're modeling, some research into what trains they ran will make developing an operating plan much easier. That's why freelancing is so much harder - you have to make things up, and if you don't know real railroading, you're stuck.

AN EXAMPLE

Let's look at an example: my own HO Siskiyou Line.

The prototype basically runs from a connection with the SP main in Eugene, Oregon to Medford, Oregon - and then south over the Siskiyous to connect back up with the SP main at Black Butte, California. For my modeling, I focused on the Eugene to Medford section.

Empty cars come onto the Siskiyou Line to be loaded with lumber at one of the many lumber mills along the line. Loaded cars could be going either direction, since both ends connect back with the SP main. However, since I'm modeling the northern end of the line on my layout (Dillard to Goshen), most loaded cars will head back to Eugene.

There are exceptions (like the various Farmers Coops along the line - they get loaded cars and send back empties), but focusing on the lumber traffic covers 90% of the movements.

Roseburg is a major mid-point yard on the Siskiyou Line, so it stands to reason that it would be a terminus for some trains. Think hub and spoke - send trains with cars bound for towns around Roseburg and then the Roseburg yardmaster can make up locals to distribute the cars to the actual industries.

And that's just what the prototype did - they created two through trains - one to run from Eugene to Roseburg, and the other to run from Roseburg to Eugene. The prototype called these trains the Seagull. One's the Seagull East, the other is the Seagull West.

The prototype also has cars that need to go to the southern end of the Siskiyou Line (Medford) and get resorted into trains, so they created two more trains to run between Eugene and Medford - since they travelled most of the distance of the Siskiyou Line, the prototype calls these two trains the Siskiyou Line East and the Siskiyou Line West.

Since the Coos Bay coast branch connects up at Roseburg on my layout, we'll next need two through trains to go between Eugene and Coos Bay. The prototype calls the branchline trains "Haulers", so we'll have two more trains - the Coos Bay Haulers.

THE THROUGH TRAINS

Let's look at what we have so far from the perspective of the Roseburg yardmaster.

We have six through trains:

• Seagull East
• Seagull West
• Siskiyou Line East
• Siskiyou Line West
• Coos Bay Hauler East
• Coos Bay Hauler West

Two of these trains - the Seagulls, only go as far as Roseburg. The Seagull West runs from Eugene to Roseburg, so it stops in Roseburg. The Seagull East departs from Roseburg, so the Roseburg yardmaster must build it.

The other 4 trains simply run through Roseburg. Occassionally, these trains may have cars for Roseburg or pick up cars leaving Roseburg. But most of the time they simply pass through Roseburg.

NEXT - DETERMINE THE LOCALS

Okay, once cars reach Roseburg, then what? There are towns north of Roseburg (Oakland and Sutherlin) and there are towns south of Roseburg (Dillard and Riddle). We need local freights out of Roseburg to serve the industries in these towns.

The prototype calls locals "Turns" since most often they run to an area, switch it, then turn around and return.

Oakland and Sutherlin's industries are few enough in number that one Turn can service them, so the prototype runs the Oakland Turn.

Dillard has a huge mill, so a single turn is needed just for Dillard. Thus we have the "Dole Turn" named for the railroad named location just south of Dillard where the train actually turns.

And finally, Riddle's industries need served, so the prototype has one more local called appropriately enough, the "Riddle Turn".

SUMMARY

As you can see, just thinking through what industries your railroad serves, and apply the hub-and-spoke philosophy like the prototype, you can build a realistic operating scheme for your layout.

Once you have an operating scheme in mind, suddenly those track lines have a purpose! Once you know how long you want your typical train to be, now you know how many trains you will be running and will know how many cars you need to plan for in the yard.

You also know roughly what the yardmaster will be doing with his time and what trains they need to be building or sorting.

Each local end point will need a runaround track so the power can swap ends with the cars and return.

This isn't everything that needs to go into an operating plan. We didn't consider passenger operations for instance. There's also a type of train we didn't consider - the "sweeper". A sweeper runs from point A to point B and either drops off or picks up cars all along the way. It's essentially a local that only runs one direction and does not turn.

At any rate, this should give you a rough idea what an operating plan is all about.

"Why" more important than "where"

I believe that Ken is absolutely right. One of the downsides of the wide availability of free CAD programs is that it moves the focus to "where" tracks should be placed way too soon in the planning process. The vast majority of track plans I see posted on the Internet show little thought as to the "why" of layout planning.

Copying a prototype track configuration is not at all a bad thing, but if we don't understand why it operated the way it did or if we don't intend to operate it the same way, the resulting layout won't be as successful and engaging as it could be. The hobby's focus on Layout Design Elements is positive, but plunking down LDEs without understanding how they will enhance your own layout experience is no guarantee of success. Due to the constraints of space, the real-life configuration may not work as well for a layout as would a modification that reflects the realities of space, time, and budget.

Unfortunately, building a foundation of knowledge about the prototype and layout design principles takes time -– time that many seem not to wish to invest in their rush to get something into CAD and onto the Internet. Ken's book recommendations are excellent and time spent with them will pay dividends down the road.

My advice (that I fully recognize that nobody ever takes) would be to step away from the CAD for a while, gain a bit more background on layout design principles, then think about how you want your layout to operate. If you plan to use staging, for example, where is the traffic coming from before it reaches your visible layout ... what will the trains' work be on the visible layout ... where do those trains go after finishing their work. The pattern that works best for you might be the prototypical pattern, but then again, some other operating pattern might be more interesting as a layout. And that alternative operating pattern might require a different physical plant (track plan).

Best of luck with your layout.

Edit -- Joe posted while I was writing and his comments are also right on target in terms of thinking through an operating plan. That operating plan will have many implications for the track plan, of course.

The CV was a bridge line

 primarily between Montreal and Boston. The CV's southern division went to New London, Connecticut and didn't go anywhere near Bridgeport. 

Instead of showing track plans why don't you start by sharing a list of your givens and druthers?? That would help you narrow your focus and also let us give you more reasonable advice that will truly meet your needs.   

Based on a track plan drawing, which is all I really have to go with - I will say that although the MME is interesting in it's own right, I wouldn't dedicate so much of the layout to it. Instead, I'd change Waterbury to Montpelier Junction and model a CV branchline (like the Barre branch) where you have the MME.  Then I'd move Waterbury to where you have White River Junction, and not try to model WRJ at all.  

OR simply model White River Junction and not model the other locations. 

WRJ is a very complex four-way junction: one the CV line that went north to Canada, the second the CV shared with the B&M to Brattleboro, the third was the B&M line to Boston, and the fourth was a B&M line (also used by the CP) to Woodsville. 

I have a some CV prototype information and would be happy to answer any specific questions you might have. 

Marty

re: Bridgeport

Sorry, my mistake.  Even as I wrote it something was telling me it didn't sound right.  One of the beauties of a forum is the chance to put your foot in your mouth on a national stage.  Thanks for straightening me out.

Apparently in Deep Water here.....

Wow, my head is swimming. Before reading these great replys, i spent a couple of hours with Armstong's Book, and the Jones series on the CV (specifically volume 2, that has a map of the WRJ yard), and came up  with this.

I find the givens & druther's exercise a very difficult challange, as, simply put, I want it all! It's my hobby, so why give anything up! 

Realistically, I would like

to be able to run period passanger trains (up until Amtrak), using CV, CN, GTW, and B&M equipment (per the prototype).

to be able to run large period (20-30 cars) through freights (one reason I've been collecting the 50' newsprint cars on eBay)

to have operations in full steam, transition, and full diesel eras.

to be based in the Vermont area that I'm personally familiar with (which makes the previous one easier, as, well, things around here didn't change that much after the big flood until the highway came in).

Now, to reconsider my options.

Thank you Gentlemen.

Cheers!

14 pounds of sugar in a ten-pound sack

Wow! That's a lot of traffic for the space you are talking about. Not sure how well that would work out in the space you are considering.

Still, good information on which to build. But there are some even more fundamental questions to be asked and answered. These questions are related to your personal preferences. And the answers will be used (by you) to prioritize among competing interests in designing the layout. Are you more interested in seeing that parade of trains pass as you observe trackside? Or in replicating the activities of particular job roles? How important is local switching vs. through trains? Etc., etc.

The challenge you have is the same as everyone has: everything we like won't fit in our available space. The only way (in my opinion) to make those trade-offs is to do it based on your personal preferences. And that only comes from (again, in my experience) time spent visiting and operating on other layouts and time spent studying Armstrong and other references.

Especially since you have some time before the space for this layout will be available, I would strongly suggest that you not spend another minute on CAD for now. Instead, hie thee over to the Operations SIG website and join up, if you haven't already. Once a member, you can use their "Callboard" service to connect with operating layouts in your area or within a reasonable drive. The OpSIG also sponsors guest operating sessions in conjunction with NMRA meets in a number of places. Participating in a few operating sessions will give you a real feeling for your own preferences in operation and will be a huge help in making the necessary, if unpleasant, trade-offs.

Byron
Model RR Blog

an aside...

So what we really need in the hobby is a design application that starts off asking questions about the model railroad that you want to operate (Joe's LDA process). i.e. Era (car length & power in feet)? Scale (car length in actual inches)? How many trains simultaneously (# of passing sidings, # tracks, lengths of main sections)? How long is the longest train (siding length)? How many station stops, industries, yard(s) capacity/type, etc... This generates a linear vector file with all proportional siding lengths & named station points (based on accepted design principles).

Now you turn to your RR CAD software and enter minimum radii, easement values, to-edge distances, minimum lengths between station points, etc., which imports this vector file and allows you to "pour" it into your room outline like a strand of spaghetti; drag a little here & there, stretch/shrink the run between stations, flip a siding, fold a loop over, etc. You check clearances with your "aisle-gauges" (plan views of people) and determine your benchwork edges. Then you can start construction knowing that the design will be close to optimal for your intended purpose.

Further refinements could include: a) resizable shaded areas representing necessary space for structures (user defined) that automatically relocate with their associated siding/yard/station as these elements are dragged into position.b) Yards that automatically add/delete tracks on a by-capacity basis as they are stretched/resized. c) Yards that allow assignment of entity IDs (A/D track, switch lead, escape track, caboose track, RIP track, etc.) so that re-sizing of yard does not delete/resize these entities inappropriately. d) Sufficient configurability/layering to deal with end user modifications made to the original vector file (change managment w/ notation). e) And so on...

The integrated approach should be able to deal with back annotation (add or remove station/yard/siding/etc. OR change era/scale/# trains/etc. in either CAD or "question" file and have appropriate updates occur in the opposite file) & visually highlight violations of minimum radii/lengths/capacity values you've entered, and so on...

It bears more thought and discussion. Each of the various CAD packages out there have some of the elements suggested, but none incorporate all ideas or functionality. There may be ways of linking a variety of exisiting applications through custom pre/post processors...

Automated layout design?

Not very likely, IMHO.

First off just to keep things straight, Layout Design Analysis was developed by Dr. Roy Dohn decades ago. Joe has brought it back into the public eye. (OK, full disclaimer, I'm a known LDA skeptic/grouch).

In my opinion, using LDA values as the basis for designing a layout would be like expecting to know how to play football from a book of NFL stats. From a set of LDA values, I could design three or four (or more) different layouts that would look and work very differently.

I've designed several dozen layouts for myself, for clients, and for publication. There's a lot more to it than siding lengths and staging capacities. Those give you the "words" without the "music". Developing a concept and a vision for a layout takes into account factors from operating style to scenery preference to room space to era to prototype, etc., etc., etc. I ask design clients to consider a whole bunch of questions in developing their vision for a layout. (I don't expect anyone to answer all of the questions, but it helps them explore all of their preferences and interests)

As far as model railroad CAD being used for this process, it's hard to imagine. If I could just get "rubber-banding" (being able to move one component and have its attached tracks adjust), it would save me hundreds of hours a year. And the logic to do even that is seemingly impossible.

Bottom line, my opinion is that layout design is not a field that lends itself to reduction to mathematical formulae. The joy, challenge, and reward in design is marrying the aesthetic and the practical in a way that meets a particular person's needs and vision. So I say, don't fight it -- embrace the messy, iterative, and yes, artistic elements of layout design.

Byron
Model RR Blog

Listen to Byron ...

And I say: Listen to Byron. He knows his stuff!

The LDA process (invented by Roy Dohn - just updated by me) is very coarse and merely an approximation. The stats give you a rough idea of what your design may do, and that's all.

If you're less experienced in the hobby, the LDA stats can give you some insights. But once you've got some layout design and serious operation experience under your belt, you can often just *look* at a track plan and intuition will tell you most of what the LDA analysis will tell you.

While I find an LDA analysis more useful than Byron might, I do agree with him that things like LDA are oversold as some sort of layout design silver bullet. Like anything, statistics can be misused - and people can put too much faith in them.

Useful to check your work

Joe said:
While I find an LDA analysis more useful than Byron might, I do agree with him that things like LDA are oversold as some sort of layout design silver bullet. Like anything, statistics can be misused - and people can put too much faith in them.

And that's one of my main points -- how the statistics are used. I actually use a train length measurement (what master designer Don Mitchell and others call "lineals") as a rough check to be sure that I haven't broken anything as I make major revisions to a design. But that's double-checking other work, it's not the basis for the design (and certainly not as a rating of design "goodness").

I prefer using train length, rather than the capacity in cars, because if my typical train length is twelve feet, there's a big operational difference between four 12-foot sidings and one 48-foot siding (or twelve 4-foot sidings). It's helpful to count the number of train-length sidings and compare it against staging capacity and the desired frequency of trains, for example.

Byron
Model RR Blog

tool use

I realise that Joe was not the inventor of LDA; I was thinking only of the recent Model Railcast. I readily admit that not every data point of the LDA process would be easily translated or useful to the CAD process. There are many intuitive areas which require insight by the end user/designer. I am positing that a good trackplan based on best practices could be generated from a computer assisted, methodical approach - not necessarily a heartless mechanical or fully automated one. The user still has input; the idea is to let the computer monitor/manage the tedious bits.

"From a set of LDA values, I could design three or four (or more) different layouts that would look and work very differently"

Of course. However, if you've decided your east-to-west stations A, B, C, D, E, and F will each have a specific arrangement of trackage of n car capacity, the linear schematic will be identical regardless of which way it's actually built on the benchwork. Having this data string generated for you should speed up the development/sketch process. Control points for stretch/shrink mainline between stations would be included in the vector file.

"I ask design clients to consider a whole bunch of questions in developing their vision for a layout."

Naturally. You still have to develop your own dataset in order to begin the design process. You don't call it LDA because you ask a different set of questions and your methodology differs. The computer questionnarie would have to ask a subset of both approaches and would likely have to note other details to address issues that human beings deal with intuitively.

"If I could just get "rubber-banding" (being able to move one component and have its attached tracks adjust), it would save me hundreds of hours a year."

That echoes my point about automatic adjustment. Associated entities follow their master control points. I can already do similar tasks in other CAD packages. I can define (for instance) a minimum volume or wall thickness and drag points on the entity while the computer maintains the necessary values. It warns me if I create a condition where the "rule set" is violated. Constraints like minimum radius/easement length would prevent you from manipulating an element into a violated condition - but you could edit each instance as an exception should you desire. Programs like XTrakCAD already have some of these value-based radii/length features.

"So I say, don't fight it -- embrace the messy, iterative, and yes, artistic elements of layout design."

Dealing with these elements all at once is often what keeps beginner and intermediate modellers from developing a workable layout on their own. Using tools to assist with the design process is already happening; tracing templates, 2D CAD, moving full-sized track pieces around on the floor, napkin doodles, bull sessions, etc. Having a piece of software that really helps you create the design is what I'm after; not something that designs the railroad without any input from me. Just to clarify, I wasn't speaking of a Model RR CAD package; there are many other CAD packages out there which have parametric control of entities. Adding these extra features to a model RR package, or adding a model RR specifc sub-section to a more powerful commercial package is more in line with my thoughts.

I am certainly not trying to take away from (or replace) what you do, Byron. It isn't going to happen with just a piece of software (How about "Byron in a Box" for the name of it if there is anything ever written, though?). The average modeller still wants to be able to come up with a decent, sensible track plan and he/she might forget or misinterpret important details/concepts as they juggle their thoughts and iterate their design. Like other areas of endeavour, a well built tool can assist the creative process, but it can't replace it.

Real Estate Acquisition

Well the good news is through some shrewd business dealings, I was able to "acquire" another 3 feet along the right hand side of the layout area.  That makes the space 19 X 17 (instead of 16 X 17 and naturally means a whole new game plan.

Bryon, I think your advice is sound. I need to get out and operate to see how this stuff works in person. I'm with you 100% on that. I'll join that group this week.

However, I'm not going to stop messing about with the CAD programs - first up, it's fun. It's fun to dream, and plan. Secondly, I can't imagine that making and ignoring a thousand plans will make my final one worse - it would seem just the opposite. What I will do is not post every new plan up here to annoy folks; I'll simply put them on my site. I think it may be useful for a new hobbyist in a few years to be able to look at my original ideas, and how they've changed over time before construction; that progression should be educational in its own right.

I have to admit that while I understand the operational scheme concept, at this point it still seems kind of ridiculous, as odds are I will be the only one operating. That, and the fact that it is going to easily take me 10 years to complete whatever I build, the day when I can host operating sessions seems a long, long, way off. But I think the premise is sound - if the final design can accomidate the big job, than it can easily handle me messin' about with a couple of trains.

Cheers! Best wishes for the New Year!