New "Operations" book by Opsig

[GaryHinshaw]

Manual is probably a better moniker than book.

Nyuk nyuk. You know I know what it is and can explain it ad nauseum, but at the moment I'm curious if others have observed the same issue.

Do you have a screen shot you could share, as a sample?

[C855B]

A manual? I dunno... it seems to be written as an analytical narrative. I'm OK with that and am trying to read it that way. Maybe I shouldn't? :shoulder-shrug:

Anyway, I scanned a page and started to contemplate marking up all sorts of things, but that would be one designer nitpicking another's work, and that's not right or fair. I think there's a single major cause to the (or, rather, my) reading fatigue issue, the typeface, Souvenir. As the Wikipedia article explains, it's an old design that became popular in the 1970s. It's good for small blocks of text such as advertising copy. However, for continuous academic texts on a crowded page it's not well-balanced proportionally and causes the eye extra work. The biggest "sin", if you will, is the broad setwidth (width-to-height ratio), and this throws things off.

Funny (to me) is that as stated in the article, it became popular for textbooks, but what the article didn't say is these were mostly elementary-grade books, with lots of whitespace, short lines and exaggerated line spacing, which mitigate the character proportion issues. Times New Roman, for example, may be clichéd from over-use these days, but it was expressly designed for readability, with balanced proportions and contrast (the typographic sense of "contrast").

To a lesser extent there are IMO other design issues with the book that contribute to the reading fatigue, all having to do with not enough whitespace. The pages are dense typographically, so the eyes need a little relief from the heavy lifting of Souvenir. There are many text faces that will tolerate dense copy, they just chose an otherwise attractive and popular face that doesn't work well with dense copy.

[Cajonpassfan]

Mike, interesting perspective. I don't find the typeface odd, but then again, I don't know anything about typography and defer to your expertise. However, I think at its core, the "problem" with this book is that its 300 pages are literally packed with layers and layers of information, and there's only so much one can absorb in one sitting (particularly in chapters that are not of top interest). I find myself jumping back and forth, setting it down, and picking it up a few days later, and getting my money's worth... but recognize this is not everyone's cup of tea...
Otto K.

[Cajonpassfan]

As an aside (I'm allowed to hijack my own thread, right?), no book will compare to getting invited to "operate" on other people's railroads. Nothing like trying different approaches to get a feel for what works and what doesn't for you as an individual with your specific and unique interests. I've been fortunate enough to get to run on some amazing layouts (and some not so amazing) and I always learn a LOT. There are just so many ways to do this and so much to designing and building something that truly "works". In that regard, the book is useful if only to lay out things to consider, and there are a lot of them, including the human side of things.

I spent the whole day yesterday running again (yes they do invite me back sometimes ) on a friend's railroad in the high desert. It's a beautiful 1500 sq.ft. partial double decker, and it takes 20 plus knowledgeable people to run a full ops. I've done it, and it can be exhausting. Yesterday, we had in informal session with about ten guys, and I had a blast...much more relaxed, but still challenging, much less crowded, fewer ops-stopping errors, great atmosphere.
It's a 300 mile round trip in 100 degree heat, but I'm ready to go back! Happy pic below to prove it

Fun stuff, Otto K.

[GaryHinshaw]

Cool.  Is that 1500 sq.ft. of N scale?

[Rossford Yard]

Otto makes  good point on how real ops on a big layout can be exhausting, even intimidating to most.  I got the book, am skimming it by importance of chapters to my little layout, and enjoying it.  However, clearly written by the guys (as you would expect) who really take ops seriously.

I am fortunate to get invited regularly to three different area ops sessions, including Coldrivers great N scale layout, Ole Melhouse (with articles in current NSR and OPSig, also in N, and a huge HO layout.  I am an experienced operator, have gone on some Ops related field trips, etc.  However, ranked by simplicity, its Ole, Coldriver, HO.  Ranking as my favorites, Ole and Coldriver, a tie.  Huge HO layout distant third.  If I ranked the atmosphere in the layout room, it would match my favorites ranking, and they do cover that in the last chapter.

There is nothing wrong with complicated and huge op schemes and layouts. I just happen to find shorter run times and simpler schemes more to my liking.  I could be wrong, but I guess more than half of those who op would feel the same.

Short point, I think my favorite ops article was in the MR ops book, called something like "getting started simply."  I haven't read the whole book, but haven't found too much in that vein so far (some allusions to it)  MRR Ops needs the skiing equivalent to bunny slopes.......

[Cajonpassfan]

Cool.  Is that 1500 sq.ft. of N scale?

Gosh, no, Gary, this particular layout is HO. But I find that with well done layouts and ops schemes, people tend to forget scale and get into the game...
Otto

[sp org div]

A book like this needs to be read before you ever start building your pike. Full of ideas and ways to operate a RR, one will be hard pressed to take an existing layout and try to conform it after the fact (I suppose the injections of Chap 1 and 2). One cant emphasize enough how important it is to design a smooth working yard (Design Sigs edition on yard design was invaluable here). I started my layout before ever imagining how fun more advanced ops can be. Fortunately as it has grown I have been able to make the best of it, but still have some things I would do different if at the beginning again (in that bigger space). Simple things on proposed signaling layouts... like including fouling points in your OS sections are a common oversight!  I have run on numerous layouts here in SoCal, and they were more than useful for ideas incorporated into my RR as it grew. Multiple perspectives from both reading books like this, and participating in various ops sessions are instrumental in getting good results. Looking forward to seeing more than just the table of contents (thanks for the preview Otto).
Jeff
http://espeeoregondivision.blogspot.com/?m=0

[Cajonpassfan]

Lol Jeff, looking forward to your ops next Sunday! Can't wait to see your progress, your railroad is gorgeous, but  it's been a while since I was able to come. But no, I'm not running the "live" beet train....
Yes, I hope you do like the book, the only obvious omission is a chapter on beer....
I'll make sure to bring some...
Otto

[sp org div]

Thats funny.
Ya, missing the most important chapter on post ops...
I'm glad we both have our priorities straight (will have plenty of IPA here already)!
Lets get your Cajon Div in high gear already...
Looking forward to more good times.
Jeff

[Rossford Yard]

A book like this needs to be read before you ever start building your pike. Full of ideas and ways to operate a RR, one will be hard pressed to take an existing layout and try to conform it after the fact (I suppose the injections of Chap 1 and 2).

Jeff
http://espeeoregondivision.blogspot.com/?m=0

Yes, I perhaps didn't recognize my own bias in my last post, presuming everyone has (like me) read every book and magazine on layout design prior to reading the ops book.  Having read John Armstrong since I was 10, I think I know the basics of yard design, but do see several that miss the basics, like having a switch lead, main (usually) on the outside, across from the engine terminal, an AD track (or 3) with close connection to the classification ladder, etc.

It is difficult to retro a layout to a good yard, at least not without a lot of pain. 

I was actually spending some of yesterday trying to op my little switching layout (8 x 17 U shaped) based on the Kingsbury Branch.  I did find a few items I may have missed in layout of passing tracks, etc.  But, I tried to get it all on paper and in my head first, so most is all right.  Time will tell, of course.