You could put a small padlock

You could put a small padlock through that lanyard hole in the faceplate of the Protothrottle.  Then put a convenient loop to hang the open padlock near each switch.

That might be an easy one-handed way to open the lock and hang it on the hook. A little odd, but then so is uncoupling a car with a giant stick!

You could also hang the key from the same place.  Just don't get tangled in all of the stuff hanging off your throttle.

gs

Switch locks

My turnout controls consist of wood dowels passing from a DPDT switch under the layout and extending through the fascia.  All are oriented so that they're pushed in when the turnout's lined for the through route and pulled out to line it for diverging, exposing a portion of the dowel that's red (on mainline turnouts) or yellow (all others) so operators can tell at a glance if any turnouts in a town are lined against them.

Because the controls are pulled out to line the turnout for the diverging route, simply drilling a hole in the dowel to allow a small padlock shank to pass through wouldn't work.  Also, because many of the dowels pass through the fascia at an angle, or at a point where the fascia is curved, adding some sort of collar around the opening to enable locking wouldn't work either.  However, a recent trip to a local home improvement store to scout out hardware options resulted in what I feel is the perfect solution:  Small screw eyes such as those shown below, $0.69/package.

With one screw eye passing horizontally through the dowel aligned with another that's screwed into the fascia, a small luggage padlock can be inserted, preventing the turnout from being thrown.  I found these padlocks on Amazon for $9.95 for a package of 10. 

Here's a pic of everything in place for the West Siding Switch (labeled "WSS") at Hillis:

Note that the padlock isn't actually locked.  The shank is simply aligned with the hole in the body to give the appearance of being locked.  This idea was what really sold me on the use of switch locks, as it makes them much less cumbersome when operating solo, and also keeps crews from having to fumble with keys, forgetting to return them after a session, etc.  Just hanging the locks in place, unlocked, still provides the operator the feeling of taking that extra step before a turnout can be thrown, without the hassle of putting down my throttle, paperwork, uncoupling pick, etc. every time when I'm operating alone.  (Also note that I later changed my mind on this approach after finding that it was actually fun to add the activity of unlocking and locking the switches.)

To line the turnout for Hillis siding, you just swing the padlock open and lift it out...

...then pull the turnout control to line the switch, hanging the lock on the fascia until the turnout is restored.

 Also note that, just like on the prototype, only the mainline turnouts outside of yard limits get Transportation Dept. locks used by train crews.  The Pocket track here on the left (labeled "PKT") diverges from a secondary track, so no lock is necessary.  For my entire 125' mainline, the only switch locks that train crews generally have to think about are seven that have Transportation locks.

So that covers the locking of turnouts through which train crew will generally operate.  However, the final reason that I mentioned above for switch locks was to "prevent crews from operating on trackage that, on the 1:1 IAIS, is controlled by the Engineering (MOW) or Mechanical departments (diesel house/carmen)".  This keeps my HO scale crews from becoming confused and using tracks where, for example, MOW ties down their equipment, or where the diesel or car shop crews are performing service or repairs.  On the IAIS, switch locks for the Engineering Dept. carry yellow tags, while those for Mechanical carry blue.  Here's a James McNab photo of an IAIS Engineering Dept. tag on the Grimes Line's Pharma Tech spur:

I recreated those for the layout using card stock from Hobby Lobby, cut to 11/16" wide by 1-1/2" long.  Here's an Engineering Dept. lock on the McClelland Elevator spur, used exclusively by MOW now.  Note that, unlike the Transportation Dept. locks controlled by train crews mentioned previously, the Engineering and Mechanical locks on my layout are truly locked.  If crews encounter a need to access one of those tracks (e.g. moving MOW equipment, spotting to the RIP, etc.), they have to contact the Roadmaster or enginehouse foreman, respectively, to be let in.

Finally, here's a shot showing Mechanical Dept. locks (blue tags) on the Runaround and Back Lead switches at Council Bluffs, protecting two of the three entry points into tracks controlled by enginehouse and car shop crews.  The third is out of view in the distance.

Very interesting

Great thoughts

I am doing something similar on my just started layout of the L&N/SBD/CSX Etowah Old line. However, I am intending to have the locks locked and operating crews will get a key with a LARGE acrylic fob. That, hopefully, will prevent them from going walk-about. The key fobs will come from a company on Ebay that makes custom key fobs. As they don't seem to have a set-up fee, I am planning to have the logo of the CSX heritage railroads on 8-10 fobs. As my layout will become quite large eventually I will need up to 30 locks for mainline switches. I have found you can by packages of like keyed locks on Ebay too, even 40 at roughly $1 per lock.

Coincidently, I  use similar switch throws as in the picture but instead of the two eye rings I use an electrical outlet cover from Home Depot. These have a place for a lock. My non-mainline switches are finger operated,

Stefan Bartelski

Blue Ridge Line - HO scale layout of the L&N Etowah Old Line and Georgia Marble Railroad in the fall of 1986

Member of Country RRoads Modular http://www.crr-modular.com

Thank you

Thanks Vince and Stefan.

Stefan, do you operate your layout on your own in between formal op sessions?  If so, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on doing so with the locks.

May be a step too far,?

This arrangement look great but I have really some reserve about it.

I like operations and definitively, I really like it.

Ops are relaxing and are very pleasant because we meet fellows modelers or good friends.

But I feel there are limits which I don't ask to go over.

Some people didn't run any train on their layout except with a operation theme even between ops session if they are alone, because they want to stay in the prototypical jail at any time, not for me

Locking turnouts like here, even if it's prototypical,  I'm sorry but don't feel and understand the necessity for a modeling use.

And there are numerous things I read on forums which people impose for their operating theme,  for which I can't understand the necessity,  the purpose and the benefits for an ops session anyway in a model fashion.

This is in the air, many people which are designing layout for ops, impose more and more rigid rules, which must be close as possible as the prototype, too far I beleive. 

Our trains remains a model with all the compromise  necessary, so I firmly beleive ops need also include some compromise.

Operations is serious already by all the rules it impose to the operators just for a good operating session and the consistency of it

But not too much is needed; this must stay a play game which is not asking to be serious as the real thing.

I feel the real thing is not relaxing because there are so much rules and somewhere our liberty is enclosed in a sort of a jail rules which enclose us in stress.

So it's may be sad to bring too much real things and heavy rules in our modeling scheme and here ops

Really these heavy rules are not necessary for the success of a ops session.

I feel some liberty in our game is a benefit and is more relaxing for the operators; too much rules and you can lost the charm of it.

I'm sure our game  didn't suffer and don't lost his serious side with simple rules and liberty.

Just my opinion, of course.

Locked open?

I've been thinking along similar lines, where a padlock would be used but left in the open position. I know it could be construed as a waste of a padlock but I was thinking along the lines of blocking up the opening on a padlock so it couldn't be 'accidently' locked, as most cheap padlocks cannot be locked in the open position.

Both realistic and flexible

Joe, thanks for sharing such a simple and prototypical solution.  Your solution is very flexible.  If you want to operate your layout by yourself, you can leave all the non-MOW or non-mech department locks unlocked.  When in op session, all locks can be locked.  This is a grat solution to 'add work' on a small shelf layout.  

Recently, I added a Boulder Creek Engineering weigh station to do the same thing - add work to a new operating position I created in an industrial area.

i have learned much from your layout.  Your are gifted with the ability to dream, plan, build, photograph, and write.  

Michael

Excellent way to copy of the

Excellent way to copy of the prototype!  I think it might be a fun addition on crew type layout. My only thought is that I instantly saw my job!  Lock Out/ Tag Out is a daily part of my job at a power plant. Its an absolute rule with zero tolerance for mistakes, just as the railroads policy, so I would rather not. My thought is you enjoy it, do it!  Your work is excellent and I enjoy everything you share, keep it coming!

James

I don't get it

I was just going to pass this thread by and not comment but then I saw Marc's comment and I decided to chime in. Far be it for me to to be too critical of what others enjoy because there are certainly quirky things in my modeling philosophy but I just don't get this at all. Too much like work. Personally I would not want to operate on a pike set up in this way, it would be a turn off, but to each their own. Just an opinion that along with five bucks will buy you a Starbucks coffee. I will say that if it's what you want, it's a very resourceful idea so compliments on that.

Switch locks

Marc and Michael T., I appreciate your concerns, and I'll be the first to admit that my layout's not for everyone.  I don't mean for this to sound unwelcoming to my guests, because I love having friends here, but I built the layout primarily for my own enjoyment.  This is a time machine for me, recreating a very enjoyable time of railfanning, so I tend to operate quite a bit by myself in between formal sessions. 

For me, I've found that I like these kinds of touches that put me in the mindset of the prototype crews.  Far from being "jail", they make the hobby more fun for me, just as I've found that restricting myself to only the equipment, customers, and tracks that were active on my prototype increases my enjoyment.  The pace of my prototype was very relaxed and low-key, like a branch line with bigger power, and I've tried hard to replicate that feeling on the layout.

I've been blessed by a number of local friends who seem to share my enjoyment for that approach and are willing to operate here, and I don't think any of them would ever describe the experience as anything resembling stressful.  In fact, I sometimes joke with new operators that, if you're stressed out while operating this layout, you're doing it wrong. 

Brian, FYI, I just checked those padlocks I purchased (linked above), and at least those I tested can be locked in the open position if you choose.

Michael24, thanks very much for your encouragement.  Very kind of you!  And yes, you're absolutely right about the flexibility of this approach.  I haven't decided yet if I'll lock the Transportation locks during formal sessions with two-man crews, but I went with this plan in part because that option would remain open to me.

Common ground

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. My pike is the polar opposite of yours, in many ways, with a fictional, somewhat humorous and whimsical history. My romantic vision of what might have been in a time I wasn't even thought of yet. I am now at a place where I'm enjoying it immensely, more than I ever have because of great confidence in my concept and vision as well as in the modeling abilities I've built over the years. We come at it from completely different angles but both of us are having fun and that's what it's all about.

I was hopeful that you would understand and take my comment in the right way and you did, so it's all good!

The Philosophy of Restriction

Nice work Joe!

I think you'll ultimately find that having the locks will not be a hindrance, but will unlock (pun intended) the next level of prototype operation on the West End.

Real railroads lock everything, so I can see this scheme being extended beyond turnouts to gates, derails, and the like. It's just one more thing that brings you and your operators into the world of railroads.

Locks worked well on the Grimes Line. I'm planning on using the same approach on The Hills Line, and was happy to find out how many restrictive devices are in place on the prototype, allowing me to lock it all up.

Best,
James

Slowing down operations

Kudos for you Joe for seeking out alternative ways to slow down the operation. One of my pet peeves is seeing a beautifully constructed layout with prototypically weathered equipment racing around and destroying the illusion. 

Living in a large metropolitan area, dealing with traffic jams and the headaches that go along with the daily commute back and forth from work it seems like everyone is always in a rat race. I’ve operated on layouts where people are in a frenzied hurry to see how many industries they can get switched in a record amount of time. Not my cup of tea.

For me, I want to relax and enjoy Operations. I try to think what my Conductor would be doing. Moves would be planned with the least amount of walking and work which would include trying to avoid long shove moves and extra switching moves requiring more hand brakes.

On my Seaboard Central to help slow operations down and add an extra layer of realism seldom modeled, I’ve added operating derails. My good friend Tom Klimoski uses them on his Georgia Nottheastern and after operating on his layout, I knew I had to get some for mine. Tom also has operating chain link fence gates and an operating roll up door on a couple of his industries. These details not only add realism, but a whole lot of extra fun! And more importantly, it slows the operation down without the operator realizing it. Reminds me of getting exercise while actually playing something fun. 

Below is a shot of one of my kitbashed Alexander Scale Models derails. The hardest part is drilling the hole through the soft metal castings. You’ve got to have a lot of patience. But when it’s done, you’ll love the payoff.

Tim G

Light not quite dawning on Marblehead(*) yet...

This “marblehead” can sort of imagine that there might be light, but it hasn’t dawned yet 

The physical lock on the push/pull rod seems like a pretty nice simulation of the real thing- with a second hole you could lock it in either position, and it’s pretty analogous to the prototype.

Lance Mindheim wrote up a different approach to switch locks a few years ago:  https://lancemindheim.com/2012/04/locks/

He also employs a number of other devices to slow the pace of operations, including modelling fussees at grade crossings, gates, brake tests, etc.

I don’t quite see the appeal.  But the fact that the guys who seem to be doing those sorts of things (Joe, James, Lance) are the very guys whose layouts and approaches to operation I otherwise greatly admire makes me think I must be missing something.  The thing that stopped me from trying the idea out on my last layout was there was no obvious way to do it using caboose ground throws.  My still-in-planning new layout will either be finger flicked points or caboose ground throws, and I’m not going to change that on the off chance that I might discover I like switch locks.

Any thoughts on how you might implement switch locks without seeming too contrived with caboose ground throws?

(* There’s a saying here in the Boston area - “Light dawns on Marblehead”.  A colorful local place knowledge equivalent of “duh, now I get it.”  Marblehead is an eastern point of land close to Boston, and gets the dawn light first.)

Switch Restriction Options

With any locking setup for turnouts, there are ultimately two options:

1) Prevent the switch stand device (in whatever form it takes) from moving
or
2) Prevent the points themselves from moving

Joe has implemented the first version by physically locking his push-pull rods in place. If you want to throw the switch stand to move the points, you unlock the switch stand. It's a perfect model of the prototype process.

On my former IAIS Grimes Line layout, I used ME turnouts and their finger-flick points. When I added locks to the layout I developed a method that shoved a piece of piano wire into the switch rod so that it could not be physically moved without unlocking the wire. Details of my process were covered in the December 2013 edition of MRH.

WIth CI ground throws, you can use either method. A simple start would be to fabricate some "shephard's crooks" out of wire that hold down the lever on one side. When you want to unlock the switch, you swing the crook out of the way using your finger or a uncoupling pick, then throw the points. When done, you lock the switch by swinging the crook back over the lever.

If nothing else, that method only requires some piano wire and doesn't have to be a permanent setup until you're sure if you like or want switch locks.

James

Switch restrictions

Sure is nice that it’s so easy to download and read back issues of MRH - nice detailed article.

I like the crook idea to try out the concept with ground throws, and having read your article I imagine a version with less commitment to try out the concept might be to push a round headed pin through a little hole in the switch rod.  Wouldn’t hold up forever, but probably long enough to find out if I like the idea enough to install a more permanent approach.

I was already sold on the idea of working derails and gates, not sure if the locks will take it too far or not but thanks for the ideas on how to find out!

One really nice thing about

One really nice thing about the idea of the locks and derails etc is the way they can be used or not depending on the crew, or mood of the layout owner. There seems to be lots of talk regarding how to slow down operations and make it less stressful. One way is to eliminate fast clocks and run in real time. The key to that would be to model much less distance so one does not need to travel at warp speed to hit the next point on the schedule.

Many of the things used in operations can be added or subtracted at will which really makes the sessions very configurable for the group involved. This flexibility is a great option for hobbyists.

The folks this does not help are the ones that like to operate by getting lots of trains over a mainline on time. Think of the guys modeling Horseshoe Curve on the Pennsy during the years where lots of trains were run and they were weaved past each other. One reason CTC was not installed was the lack of the ability for the system to do the job better than a string of tower operators. There was a nice article I read regarding this from some where. So if a bunch of guys are trying to mimic an operation of that sort slowing things down would not be something they desired, since they seem to be involved in a strategy game involving quick decisions and actions.

My tastes tend to run more to the idea of delivering and picking up from the customer rather than blasting a bunch of trains past each other on the main so I would be picking a small section of line with lots of switching for my favorite type of ops. As to fooling with locks and derails, at this point I am not much interested but could change that view later. It is a very nice option to have and it looks like it is easy to add later if one desires. Sounds like a win win for everyone.

Slowing operation

I have developed a simple operating scheme for my pike. I'm a one man band so it's very laid back and easy going. I do "brake test", taking slack out of the couplers, but there's really no need for me to slow myself down. That being said, just because I don't get the attraction here doesn't mean it doesn't interest me in a way. Obviously, I'm reading the thread. I like to "see how the other half lives" and I try to keep an open mind. For example, I very much liked the article on the fusee's Ken mentioned. I saw it a few years back. My little railroad is well before that time but I might could see myself doing something with HO scale lanterns eventually. We have tiny LED's so that might be possible. Always open to ideas from anyone, anywhere.

I’m all for slowing

I’m all for slowing operations on my layout because it is very small and for anybody else that enjoys it.  I know Lance Mindheim has also used valves where turning the handle approximated turning a brake wheel.  I use “three step” and brakeman walk time when I do my operations.

More to come

I can understand that James.  I've heard from some professional railroaders who've (nicely) expressed concern over some of the things I do as "feeling too much like work".  On the other hand, about 80% of my regular crews on the layout are railroad employees.  In my most recent session, I had three guys from UP HQ (including at least two who started out in train service) and a conductor from the IAIS.  Granted, I didn't have the padlocks in place yet at the time, but did have "virtual locks":  Blue flags on the enginehouse tracks that restricted movement on many tracks, as well as tags on the turnout controls for those tracks that are locked out by Engineering.  The three UP guys have been here multiple times, so they knew what to expect, and I'm grateful that they still came back.

Maybe it's a left brain/right brain thing?  I don't know, but I totally understand anyone not being interested if this reminds them of their 9-5 job.  I work in software support, and the last thing I want during my hobby time is anything that feels like work or has tight time constraints. 

Ken, James M., and Tim, thanks for your encouragement.  As for derails and gate locks, those are on the way as well.  I've been mulling all this over since reading Lance Mindheim's blog, including the entry that Ken linked above, seven years ago.  Had a few email exchanges with friends at the IAIS to find out more on the details concerning my portion of the railroad, but I kept dropping the idea in favor of more pressing projects.  As mentioned earlier, I was opposed to locks at first since I thought they'd be a hassle when operating solo, but I never had any objections to the idea of gate locks and derails - just never got around to them.  I only have one gate lock to add (as soon as I build the gate!) at an anhydrous ammonia transload in Council Bluffs, but 5 derails like the one in Tim's photo above, plus a high-stand derail.

Anyway, things all kind of aligned over the last few weeks:  James McNab encouraged me about his experiences with locks when operating solo, an IAIS engineer buddy of mine reached out and answered a few remaining questions on locks, and a couple other IAIS friends provided more info about lock tags and such.  (Are you seeing the theme here about friendly IAIS employees?)  I still plan to experiment with actually locking the regular switch locks when operating on my own, and I still have some concerns that the ProtoThrottle, paperwork, uncoupling pick, and pen might be a handful when I need two hands to unlock a switch, but I'm willing to try it.  Perhaps it's time to start wearing those carpenter aprons again while operating?

By the way Tim, I couldn't agree more.  Operations are worthy of being modeled accurately just as much as our favorite locomotive or structure.

I like the application, good

I like the application, good job. I too have similar features. I have a time delay switch that I built from an in-expensive amazon board. I have it set up for a 10 min delay at a switch leading from the main to a quarry branch. I have had positive comments about it from my regulars and a Dixie Rail crew. I also incorporated a derail on a loading track. I plan to add several more of these derails to slow things down a little but also to make crews think about things a little more. 

Slowing ops, fast clocks

The thing that got me started on slowing operations some years ago was fine tuning locos and cranking up the momentum a bit.  That leads pretty quickly to being annoyed that you can’t kiss the couplers at 2-3 smph and make a good hitch, so pretty soon you find yourself tuning up all your couplers.  Etc.  It’s addictive, and running and coupling slower gives you much more of the feel of the prototype.  I’m intrigued by the car overweighting concept I’ve seen recently, which should help with slow speed coupling too.  If I’m operating somewhere with a loco that jerks into motion at 5-10 smph, or has contact problems at slow speed, I find myself scooting around switching, concentrating on the puzzle aspect without really enjoying the simulation of the prototype aspect.

With regard to fast clocks I only have experience with a fast clock on one railroad that doesn’t take it all that seriously.  The owner has a set of analog (i.e. with hands) clocks all controlled from a central piece of electronics, with a multi-position switch on the dispatcher’s board to stop the clocks, or run at several different rates.  A dispatcher who keeps his eye on what’s going on on the layout can subtly help keep the pressure off by slowing down or stopping the clock if things go wrong, or speeding the clock up if things have gone unexpectedly well and it looks like people are going to be standing around twiddling their thumbs waiting for departure times.  I’ve never been able to make up my mind wether adding the fast clock to that particular railroad made an overall improvement.

Almost seems like all this

Almost seems like all this would suit itself to larger layouts with multiple operating crews but then Joe talks about operating by himself and Rick chimed in with his experience operating a spare bedroom room sized layout. Maybe a bit counter intuitive? Or maybe I'm all wet, wouldn't be the first time. It took me awhile to wrap my head around operation of a small one man pike ( yes "pike", read my recent blog post) like mine as every article seemed to be geared toward the big ones but finally some nice gent e-mailed me with a description of a simple scheme I adapted and augmented for my own use.

As an aside, I was just privately criticized for using the word "pike"!