Title misleading

Nothing there explaining author's ideas on "Ops for the rest of us." An overly long introduction for the next four parts. 

What would you have us do?

My but we’re impatient. What would you have us do, make the magazine twice its size and make it a month late because you can’t wait?

Whats that they say, “You get what you pay for” ... how about double your money back? (Wink)

"Ted" is me

I made that exact "mistake" the first or second time I ever "operated" on a layout big enough to actually have meets. And, yes, I was told about it. You do need to cut newbies some slack and provide guidance, not just harsh criticism. 

Ops

Real crews in the bad old days of full crews and timetable operation took literally years to learn their jobs, absorb the rule book, and move up to positions of responsibility.  They worked under the direct supervision of experienced people.  Now modelers expect -- or are expected -- to listen to a half-hour briefing and then go ripping out on the mainline.  It can take a half-dozen model operating sessions just to get comfortable with what a railroad is doing, and the language and protocols being used.  It will not happen overnight.

Your reply was about what I

Your reply was about what I expected.

Still, I thought I'd point it out. It's a bit like a cooking mag touting a great fettucini recipe, but then showing six ways to make other Italian entrees first.

Am looking forward to the rest of the series though.

Tone

I was put off but the tone of the article seeming to be more about why "heavyweight operations" was bad and less about why "lightweight operations" was good and what it was.  It seemed the point of the "Ted" story was to perpetuate the stereotype that people who like more detailed operations are A-holes, which has not been my experience.  Even the title cast things in an "us vs. them" light.

Maybe the next article will stick to explaining what lightweight operations is and less on why other operations are bad.

The why question

The article attempts to explain the MRH survey results and why more folks don't like heavyweight ops as much. If the reasons why heavyweight ops is less popular makes it "bad" then that's adding a value judgement to the "why" question.

Two main reasons: too much like the day job (lots of paperwork and processes) and too much pressure (lots of things to juggle and getting chewed out if you mess up).

Is ops that feels like the day job always "bad" ... ? Maybe, maybe not.

Is high pressure always "bad" ... ? Maybe, maybe not.

The main point of the article as I see it is if you are curious about ops but have avoided it for the reasons given, then follow the series ... you may be in for a pleasant surprise.

Same here

I got the same tone from the article as Mr. Husman.  Basically the idea that "most of us aren't smart enough or give a (stuff) enough to get good at ops, so why bother?"  An attitude that generally closes your mind to learning.   He does mention the idea that operations is a type of role playing game, an idea I've been pushing for over 20 years now.  And at first I got quite a lot of pushback to that, especially from older modelers who grew up on Frank Ellison's "operations is a play" analogy.  (It isn't.)

I don't expect him to cover any new ground in the subsequent articles, but I'll still read them.

Scott Chatfield

Anybody notice...

Anybody else notice how happy the "heavyweight operations" guy, Pierre, looks?  

And how angry the lightweight operations guy, Bruce, looks?  

The evidence is right there in the photos. 

Heavyweight operations is fun and will put a smile on your face. 

Lightweight operations is disappointing and will make you angry.  

Randy

Chewed out

I have also been chewed out by people using "lightweight operations".  Being chewed out is a function of not meeting the owner's expectations or the operator being careless, and the personality of the owner.  Any or all of those can be on any layout with any operating system.

The entire article could have been boiled down to two or three paragraphs explaining the results of the survey and how whatever "lightweight ops" is, addresses those concerns.  After reading an entire article I still couldn't tell you what "lightweight ops" is.

Hoping the next article will be less editorial and more how to.

Useful article

I'm ready to start formally designing my layout.  This generalized introduction to ops is great as I'm sure the subsequent parts of the series will be.  For me, it serves as a necessary and desirable guide to determine the scope and features of my layout, and my purchases.  The article seemed, IMO, as more of an encouragement to those uninitiated in ops to give it some consideration and not be intimidated, rather than an admonishment of those who delve deep into ops and have similar expectations of fellow operators.

I liked the article - looking forward to the rest!

Thanks!

Variety

One of the things not really discussed is that operations has two different aspects, the movement of the trains and the movement of the cars.  The systems used for either are generally, totally independent of each other and each aspect can be as easy or complex as the modeler wants.  You can have both be very casual or both be very intricate or any combination in between.   

I have operated on layouts where the train operation was very formal and controlled, but the car forwarding wasn't even addressed and I have operated on layouts that had a very intricate switch list and waybill system but the train movements were all visual with no formal control of any kind.  

The cool thing is any of those combinations of systems can be made to work.  Whatever the desire of the owner is. 

The first big decision with regard to moving cars is whether the operators will be moving specific cars, identified by car initial and number.  There are several ways to operate without worrying about individual car initials, that work more with the number of cars switched or the type of car.  If the desire is to more specific cars then there is another group of options.

As far as moving trains, a lot of the complexity is dependent on the size and track configuration of the layout, and the number of trains.    A train or two operating in areas pretty much to them selves or in a small area with be much different than a lot of trains operating on single track design where trains have to get past each other frequently and both of those will be different than trains operating on multiple main tracks.  A lot of the decisions will revolve around communications, how does the train communicate with other trains and with a dispatcher or person coordinating the train movements.  Verbal, written, radio, signals, hollering?  Once again, there are several options along those lines.

One of the issues is that very few of the systems are building blocks for other systems.  There may be levels of complexity within each system but when you change from one method to another method, a lot of the paraphernalia associated with one system will not be transferable to the other one.  The information underlying the different methods will (cars, industries, commodities, etc), but the stuff the operators handle or interact with will be different.

Deja vu all over again

The May 2020 issue had an article called "Lightweight Operations" which got a lot of flak in the comments. This seems to be going the same way. One comment in the in the previous article thread said "Sounds like ops articles are a lose / lose proposition." Apparently, yes.

Ops Articles

Not necessarily.  MR does a monthly column on operations and has done so for quite a while.  Its is very well written.  The Op Sig puts out a quarterly journal and has done so for decades.  The "Operating Road Show" a traveling layout that trained people on TT&TO operations at train shows was very popular.  MRH has published articles that have been wins for operations.

The article on "Lightweight operations" was unfortunate because the car forwarding system used was actually a very good system for a beginners and would be something that would fall into the category of "lightweight operations".  However the "lightweight operations" article was buried in a story about a HUGE layout and that overwhelmed the ops story.  Had the article been broken into two articles, one focused entirely on just the car forwarding system process, and one a layout tour of a really big layout, the ops article would have been way more successful.

The current article has made some value judgements which created a tone that some would find confrontational.

On the other hand, Mark Juett and I wrote operations articles published in MRH that were:

• Focused solely on the processes
• Didn't make value judgements
• Were accurate

Both articles were well received and generated no controversy.  Ops articles can be a "win".  There are lots of articles on many subjects that get critical comments in the forums.  Operations is tied very closely to the fundamental concepts that the owner has about their layout.  Value judgements on operations can have a much stronger response than other subjects.

I have a question

Who's spectacular looking layout is that we see with Pierre Lamontagne?

Cheers,

Anthony

Layout in the Background

Pierre Lamontagne is photographed during an ops session on Bill Scobie's Rio Grande Southern.  This is a basement filling Sn3 layout that fairly accurately captures the trackage of the RGS at places along the route between Ridgeway and Rico.   It features hand laid trackage and spectacular scenery - it is a joy to operate on.

Doug Matheson

Manotick ON

Thanks Doug

A quick google, and voila there's video. What a beautiful layout.

Anthony

Bad link, other feedback

The link to the youtube video on page 12 of the article is malformed: “https://%20https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OU9c2_t6o4”

I had the same reactions voiced above... from the title I wasn’t expecting just an intro to future articles.  But it does sound like the series will be good, I look forward to the rest of the parts.

I also thought this intro article after starting out pretty nicely went a little too far as painting heavyweight ops as high pressure and filled with nasty nit pickers.  That’s not my experience, from what I’ve seen the nasty jerks can crop up in any level of ops, and so can the nice and helpful people.

And like Randy I was struck by choice the pictures - the heavyweight ops guy is clearly happy and enjoying himself, the others not so much.  Not much you can do about that I understand, it just makes for a stark contrast with the text of the intro article.

heavyweight ops?

are those the guys who spend too much time in the train room so end up not able to get thru the door? :> )

Maybe terms like basic and advanced would have a better connotation? ....DaveB

Heavyweight ops?

Why I have nominal 45" aisles.  

Lightweight Article

IIRC it also misused or misunderstood several concepts and/or terms which doesn't help with having a consistent discussion framework.

Simplifying things is great. Using accepted (and standardized) terms that you don't understand to describe something that is *not that* is just going to muddle things, especially for the newbie or "casual" operators this is supposed to appeal to that are already finding the subject area intimidating or confusing.

Words and terms mean things, especially in a technical sort of discussion. Redefining terms to mean something other than what they mean doesn't help.

Imagine you go to a WW2

Imagine you go to a WW2 re-enactment (yes, there are such things) for the first time. You have your uniform, helmet, rifle and you've read several books on the subject.

But you get there and then you're told you're going to write operations orders and dig latrines all weekend. And everyone looks at you like you're a moron when you tell them you've never even heard of a properly formatted Army operations order, let alone know how to write one.

This is what op sessions can (and sometimes do) feel like to people walking in.

I'm glad you wrote this, because there are times I wonder of MRH is so buzz-word-centric I miss the points. There are several times I've read some point made here over and over and I just don't get it.

I try to read the OpSig magazines when I find them and have bought both of the books they put out. And here's the thing here: I'm college educated, have an IQ well in excess of 140, a former US Army officer and eat plaintiff attorneys for lunch in my day job. I also am a real-life brakeman at a local tourist RR...

...yet, I have no idea what the [bleep] people are saying on lots of these op-related articles.

I've run on layouts that are 'heavy' ops for sure. Tons of forms, a dispatcher is telling me what's what at every turn, and I'm left thinking I'm the only person on the layout with no clue about anything. It's why I often sign on for passenger runs on big layouts, as they usually give the least issues and you're on the move all the time.

But in the middle of long sessions, I usually hear someone make comments along the same lines. I'm hardly the only one who doesn't 'get' it.

Heck, when I'm running real trains, I wanna keep as clear as I can from the paperwork. There are some layouts I haven't returned from a single op session for, because it just feels like more work than the real thing.

Ops

If you have never operated with TT&TO, starting off dispatching or being an operator is not a good idea.

Because railroads were spread out organizations they had to have some form of standardized communication to keep everybody on the same page.  That's what the various forms of train orders and documents do.  There are variations between railroads, but the vast majority of the basics are the same.  They are a "code" or a "language" used give movement instructions.

That's actually one on the advantages of learning prototype systems and operations.  Its portable.  If I understand train orders then I can be dropped in any TT&TO layout an I will more or less have understanding of  what is happening with the trains.  If you give me a switch list based on a prototype list, I can probably figure out what to do.  If I understand track warrants, I can operate on any track warrant layout.  The big things I will have to overcome in all of those situations is geography, where things are on the layout.  In the same vein some of the "standard" model railroad things such as CC&WB are pretty portable.

On the other hand if I cook up a completely unique system that's only used on my layout, then I have to explain the whole thing, nobody can "bring" experience.

Back in 1979 as a railroad management trainee I went to rules class and they taught us the 1968 UCOR.  Guess what, a lot of it didn't make a lick of sense.  UNTIL I actually saw it in action, then things made sense and the parts started to fit into place.  A lot of railroad rules make sense only in context.  If you don't know the context, they don't make sense, if you understand the context they do.  Unfortunately getting context takes time.

Past History

It should be noted that John Swanson wrote a series of articles back in 1987-88 of Prototype Modeler titled "Go With The (Traffic) Flow". He described how to make a card system and apply it to a operating session in a prototypical matter. It helped that John worked for a railroad in real life. Can't wait to read more of the upcoming article.

Mike Zettle

Modeling the Illinois Central's Amboy District in 1955.