among the people in my are

among the people in my area not the most popular operating system.  Grand size layout,  too far away.

http://www.desertops.org/layouts/up-wyoming-division/

Glad it works for them

I applaud the author for his accomplishments in getting such a large layout to this state of completion and finding an ops method that works for him. For an operating method that claims "no paperwork", there seem to be a number of forms, three-ring binders full of paper, etc.

There are a number of prototype (and model) operating concepts that are incorrectly combined or otherwise muddled in the text. It works for the author, that's great ... but in an article intended for a wider audience there is a lot to potentially confuse others.

In my own experience setting up ops on multiple layouts, Track Warrants or Direct Traffic Control are comprehended pretty rapidly, even by newbies. Setting out trains to "work it out for themselves" with other crews on the layout seems only possible on a very large layout, well beyond what most folks can accommodate in their space -- or for only a small number of trains per session.

The author's criticisms of car-cards-and-waybills are pretty stock and not borne out by experience. Again, the author's layout still seems to depend on paperwork for car movement, just different paper.

Once more, I'll stress that it is working for the author and his crew -- and that makes it a success for them. And labeling the fascia with information to orient and inform operators is a great idea in any ops scheme.

Personally, I think that the dozens (maybe hundreds) of newcomers to ops who have learned the basics at layouts where I've helped develop ops plans were better-equipped to build on that experience elsewhere because they've learned (slightly) more prototypical concepts for train movement, car-forwarding, etc. These techniques need not be any more onerous than what the author describes, but most do require a dispatcher of some sort.

Even-simpler schemes I've helped develop based on a sequence timetable (mostly) eliminate the need for a dispatcher.

Bottom line, the author's methods feel idiosyncratic to me and I'd (personally) prefer to use more common techniques in a simple way to build skills in operators with potentially broader application. So it's terrific that these techniques work for them, but aren't (in my opinion) a great example for emulation.

Just my opinion, YMMV

Byron - Exactly

From operators in my area,  You have to learn a new system that is more complex from the normal operating system used on every other operating layout in the entire area.  He makes it a point to say he knows nothing about operations and then makes up a new system that is more complex and makes absolutely no sense. 

All he needed to do was ask people from the local opsig group and they could and would of gladly helped him set up a very easy operating system that would be totally understandable by every other operator in the US.  

What keeps people coming is the size of the layout it is massive,  People are willing to Drive 4 to 5 hours round trip from the valley to Cornville, AZ just for the spectacle of such a huge and massive layout full of Big Boys, massively long trains and more. 

If you are new to operations ask a local opsig member or operator to come and help you set up operations on your layout.

Just because you have the money to buy a F-35A raptor and take off, does not mean you can fly it,  Maybe it might be a good idea to talk to a Cessna pilot 1st who has been flying for 30 years and ask them how how to navigate back to the airport to land.  

Impressive, but unlikely to be duplicated even in part

While the article was entertaining, I can't see it as being applicable to more than maybe 1 in 10,000 modelers.  Isn't the typical home layout footprint about 400-600 square feet and unable to accommodate more than a half dozen or so operators?  I'd be far more appreciative of articles on setting up and operating a more manageable model railroad, and in operating sessions that aren't weekend marathons.  I couldn't fit even 3 dozen people inside my entire house, much less around my railroad.

I don't think the paperwork described in the article is much simpler than traditional car-card operations or switchlists, especially given the ease with which switchlists can be generated in a basic word processor on a computer and saved for later use.  You begin with a list of available rolling stock, a list of industries or destinations and associated car spots, and that's what gets copied to the car cards and waybills or switchlists. 

The idea of adding graphics and labels to the fascia to help orient a guest to where things are and go on the layout is very useful.

Janet N.

Very interesting article, but

Very interesting article, but the headline was a bit misleading.  It was more like the "lighter end of heavy" ops.

I enjoy seeing different approaches to operations.  Personally, I will never make the time to build a basement empire, but those that do expose many problems and practices that are useful for any railroad.

This probably isn't going to be all that applicable to a small, switching layout, but interesting for following the thought process if nothing else.

gs

Look for the core innovations

Lightweight vs heavyweight

A lot of this discussion is really manufactured because people don't understand how the prototype works and what's really happening.

For example, main track authority.  There are three conceptual systems:  TT&TO, Rule 251 and pretty much everything else.

TT&TO :  The movements of the trains are planned out ahead and the instructions issued at infrequent intervals, trains always have all the authority to complete the entire trip, the crews have autonomy to decide how to execute those instructions.

Rule 251:  The train gets and OK to start and then runs on its track at will.  Dispatcher just tweaks stuff.

Everything else :  The dispatcher gives the train incremental authority in small frequent chunks.

Really the difference between "mother may I", CTC, DTC, TWC is very small in concept and flow, just in how the authority is conveyed (verbal, paper, signal) and how big the chunks of authority are (next signal, fixed block, arbitrary size).

Sometimes people will go to extraordinary lengths to reinvent the wheel.  People find it hard to believe that sometimes the simplest and easiest way to do things is the way the prototype does things.

Reinventing the wheel seldom an improvement

+1

"it’s long and rather wordy"

Isn't that what you'd expect if you pay by the page?   Perhaps you could pay by the page times the useful content per page ratio :> )  I'll have to go back and try to finish this article , I started on it last night but got tired waiting for the pace to pick  up so stopped about half way in . I did enjoy the stories about frozen switches on the Rock Island though. ......DaveB

Waybills...

I never understand the complaint that waybills become repetitive. You know they're not glued to the car card, right?  You can remove a waybill and replace it with a completely different waybill.  No repetition required. 

Randy

All achievable with existing best practices

With no disrespect meant to the publisher or the author, Joe's points didn't seem (to me) to be the thrust of the article. But they are good points, all easily achieved within existing best practices that would build operator knowledge for future ops on other layouts rather than in a reinvent-the-wheel idiosyncratic dead end (sorry if too harsh).

We've been doing this for years on Rick Fortin's 4th District ATSF layout as well as others I've worked on. Dozens of other layouts take the same approach. A few short instructions on the back of a 5"X7" clipboard is the overall direction that the crew needs. Note that much of this is "atmosphere" to help communicate the purpose of the train and could be left off in the beginning.

Contrast this with the complicated 8½"X11" form from the article.

See train instructions example above. Alternately, a simple sequence timetable can be used. Excerpt below. And really, is it that hard to check a couple of boxes on a track warrant form? Newbies at Rick's learn it in five minutes.

... This is the overall form for the layout owner. Each individual operator receives a simple instruction sheet like the one above for the PBX.

Yes, for early sessions one could just define the entire layout to be within Yard Limits. Easy, and reflects a prototype practice.

That seems in conflict with some of your other points, but sure, could be done. Not that it was mentioned in the article that I saw.

I think that already happens on every operating layout of which I am aware.

I personally think accomplishing these goals within the context of prototype or best-practices model techniques is a better approach than creating a one-of solution.

Bake in ops info into the train names

From the article ...

Here are the train designations or types we run on my layout. This list “encodes” the superiority of each train into the train name used on the Wyoming Division. This list runs from highest superiority to the lowest:

• “Passenger”
   
• “Special” as in “PFE Special”
   
• “Forwarder” same superiority as a Special, but more of a through freight with a broader mix of different car types, e.g., box cars + tank cars + gondolas, and so on.
   
• “Manifest” a through freight with five or six head-end cars to be switched en route. Thus, a manifest often yields to most other trains when stopped to do their setouts and pickups.
   
• “Local” a local freight that runs daily out and back to do pickups and setouts along a set route (Cheyenne to Green River and back – also Ogden to Green River and back).
   
• “Drag” or “Extra” as in a coal drag – a low priority freight or an unplanned freight formed to clear a place of excess cars. All three designations (local, drag, extra) are equivalent in superiority – that is, they form the bottom of the list.

For freights, I find the “coded” names to be an easy-to-remember hierarchy, making life simpler for you and your operators. Again, remember that you and your operators only work on the railroad a small fraction of the hours real railroaders work. 

From someone who has never wanted to participate in ops

and having heard other's bad experiences (being reprimanded for not following all the rules to a "t" etc) I found the article enlightening. I realize what I might gather from this "light" article would not be applicable to "real" ops but at least "light" sounds like fun. Fun is what I never seem to find in real ops articles. Far from it. Maybe I get a good nap out of it but that's about it. I know, I know (notice how I didn't say it 3 times? I've had enough of pundits and the new 3 repitition method of communicating) ops is great and it should reflect the prototype. Fine enough. Paperwork.....I see only the last four letters of that word. 

On a related note, I did have one good experience on an ops oriented layout. I was shown how to do a mine run on Paul Krentz's (sp?) Pocahontas layout. He gave me a real simple job, stayed by my side, no paperwork, beautiful layout to distract me when I needed it and he is a kind man and didn't even get close to being frustrated at my ignorance. His trains ran like silk.  Silk with mass. I had the only train on the layout so no other trains were in danger.........I'm sure that factored in. So I get it. Under the right circumstances it can be a lot of fun....thank you Paul for that.

Back to the article at hand.

I enjoyed the article and applaud the author's approach to sharing the hobby with others.

Perfect

Perfect, when can I expect the next article on how to refine these ideas into something even better?

More than anything, I'm looking to provoke some discussion and some follow-up articles exploring other / better ways to accomplish this goal.

Like many things, the first rattle out of the box is often crude and half-baked. If you see better ways, then by all means, put them into an article and send it in!

I'd love to publish another article in a few months entitled, "Another approach to lightweight ops" that has a compare and contrast to this article.

1. No rule book. Boil any

The purpose of rules is to create a shared understanding of how to do things.  Some concepts are global and not location specific.  Hold the "no rule book" thought.  When somebody makes up their own invention, then they have to share the concepts of how that invention works, thus creating "rules".  Even worse is when people adopt a prototype naming convention for a created system.  Then you have all the people WITH a common understanding thinking things worked one way, but in reality it works completely differently.  JMRI Operations randomly assigned various processes to the track naming convention and it confused the heck out of me because the actions really don't have any prototype basis.  Until I "unlearned" what the tracks did and learned to substitute the JMRI specific definitions for tracks, I had the hardest time figuring out how to make it work.

Timetable and train order is perfect for that.  Train crews do zero writing with TT&TO.

I thought you said "no rules"?  Rules are instructions.

Track warrants only deal with main track authority and how to proceed (same with train orders).  All the stuff about pick ups and set outs, and other stuff like that have nothing to do with track warrants or train orders.  Back to the confusing an existing, common understanding with something one off.

It can be done but on a single track railroad, you have to have the understanding before you leave the last safe place.  "...with some simple guidelines for coordination", there ya go creating more rules that have to be written down.

Without any instructions (rules) to tell you what that means, superiority is meaningless. Once again, an example of those "global" rules that don't work well as a fascia sign.

Once again, TT&TO is perfect for that.  All the instructions are delivered to the crews in writing. All they have to do is read and execute them.

Old wives' tale

I've operated on many layouts and have never seen this happen. I've seen the opposite dozens and dozens of times, where experienced folks help the newcomers -- just as you yourself experienced.

Folks who choose to operate purposefully under some set of guidelines and rules are also having a lot of fun. Why else would they do it again and again?

Old wive's tales

I am not an old wife nor were the people that informed me of their experiences

I do believe your statement:

"Folks who choose to operate purposefully under some set of guidelines and rules are also having a lot of fun. Why else would they do it again and again?"

Well said. Touche'

I hate to say it, "I agree with Dave" - Disgusting

"Sometimes people will go to extraordinary lengths to reinvent the wheel.  People find it hard to believe that sometimes the simplest and easiest way to do things is the way the prototype does things."

True.

You basically have a person that does not understand how a railroad workers and make up his own new rules do to his misunderstanding, how a railroad operates.

One operator pointed out  "At least the Hot Rod Lincoln Runs and Drives like a real car, but the cornville layout is like getting in to drive a car and the gas pedal is to the left of the brake pedal and the clutch is in the back seat, but you need to get outside and open the hood to change gears.  It has all the right parts but it as if the person was never shown what a car looks like or ever driven one."  

   [Do not recall his full exact quote so shortened it down and took out the colorful language]

Most layouts in our area and that in includes this layout in Cornville, AZ.  Almost all run a mother may I system or DTC type system at best.   This layout is so large that people are begging for it to become a True dispatcher TT&TO.  People are begging and wanting to be a dispatchers etc.  Arizona is not like the middle of the US with access to 30 some railroads with in an hours circle.

Opsig people have asked to help make it into a great operators railroad etc.  but he has his own idea what operations is or should be,  that is fine.  The sad part is most people go to see it,  say they have done it and not go back,  they are flabbergasted and confused with the extra complexity of his light ops system.  Nothing wrong with the layout,  it is massive and impressive beyond belief.   Comparing operations to a similar sized size operating layout like the San diego layout.   One is Pro league the other is not,  add all that needs to be done is let someone coach him just a little accept the help of more knowledge folks.

Verbal

Naw, the guidelines get delivered verbally ... so nothing is written down. Like this:

"Okay, if you encounter another train, you guys work it out to get past each other. Just make sure the superior train gets the preference."

Then post a list of superiority train names along the fascia every train length or so. That is written down, but it's a simple train name list. As the layout owner you make one list then print out many copies and tape it to the layout fascia as needed.

That's the rule book.

Avoiding re-invention

I've already written on many of these ideas in multiple articles for the OpSIG's Dispatcher's Office. (As have many others)

Sometime maybe I'll have time to re-write some of those. Ideally it would be in the context of setting up operations on someone's layout, and I don't have one of those projects in the queue right now.

In the meantime, there's a simple example of the train movements and interactions in starting ops on a basic layout on my website.

I also have the slides and notes from the clinic  A Quick and Easy Start for Operations on my clinics page. But this is admittedly not very digestible for complete novices without the verbal presentation and the slide animations.

So maybe someday, Joe!

TT&TO

TT&TO and lightweight ops

I went through this article basically as a proofreader, but I did pick up on some of it. I tend to recoil at TT&TO terms ("superiority" can give me hives) so I did notice the similarities there. I think the differences were not  having to wait for the dispatcher/operator to write out the authorization forms (Form D?) and no actual timetable.

He has an advantage in having a lot of double-track - I know that single-track layouts would need a lot of sidings to avoid cornfield meets. 

Frankly, I think I was spoiled (and this is not sucking up!) on Joe's Siskiyou Line, the first layout I participated in ops on - the only paperwork I had to deal with was a Track Warrant form and a stack of car card/waybills (I've noticed that layout owners/clubs are getting smarter about those and keeping them together with something other than a big binder clip). At the time Charlie Comstock's layout was the same (he's gone to TT&TO, which I wish I could attend often enough to get the hang of) and the Clacko Club uses essentially the same method as Joe, with some useful tweaks to the car card system (like "off spot" cards). 

If Joe had a rulebook, I've never seen it, beyond the occasional reminder that max speed is 25mph.  

TT&TO entire secret sauce. is do not leave before your time.

I think it is size of the layout,  my layout and the ones I operate on are in the 300sqft to 500sqft range,  not including the LDRR that layout is large but still does not have the space need to run  TT&TO.  

So it really serves no purpose on most layouts when distance between towns is 8' to 12' feet.  I can look over 8 feet and see if a track is open or not aka light ops.  I would love to give TT&TO a try on a large layout,  I have run and practiced on my own and if you can read a bus schedule you can do simple TT&TO.

Do not leave a station before your time,  let the dispatcher know where you are and if are late you will get a new time and departure time.  It sounds od, but the key to TT&TO is do not leave before your time, is the entire secret sauce.

The problem with TT&TO

is not with the system, it's with it's baggage. And with the fact that the guy with the throttle is responsible. 

The baggage is all the rules. What's superior, where it's superior, how many minutes to this or that? When the OpSig had to put out a book (19 East... I understand it's very good, I have not seen a copy myself) on how to do it, that raises a newbie's eyebrows. And yeah, at a lot of this stuff, frankly I am still a newbie. 

The responsibility part is this: with CTC or any track warrant scheme, the dispatcher tells the guy with the throttle how far he can go, and what to do when he gets there. No sweat - you can't get into trouble unless you go to far or take the main instead of the siding. With TT&TO, you are responsible for getting your own train down the track, trying to figure out how long it might take you to get to the next siding, and will anybody else be there first?

With Track Warrants the only time I cared about the clock, fast or otherwise, was when I acknowledged a warrant. With TT&TO I've actually got to understand how fast that clock is going - and after years of digital, I hate trying to read the little analog fast clocks that seem to be the norm on layouts. If I don't have a "feel" for the layout and how long it will take me to get from point A to point B to point C (etc...), and I rarely have the opportunity to run often enough on a layout to get that feel, I'm going to be stressing out unless I'm driving the most superior train on the layout. 

And then there are the things like, if a superior train is behind time... he can be up to 12 hours behind, but I've got to sit in this siding until he ever arrives. And if he's late, what is that going to do to all the other trains on the schedule? I'm here to run trains, not try and figure out how to run the whole railroad... 

There are some who, either through long practice or instinct, can figure out how to run the whole railroad and to whom this stuff has become second nature. I envy them that - and am a bit frustrated that they don't seem to understand I don't get to work with it often enough to become one of them.