PRR/Conrail Juniata Division Engineering Report

[eric220]

Lee, although I have a great deal of respect for your opinions and talent, in this case I respectfully disagree with you. I would say that a successful layout is one that brings its owner enjoyment.  The more enjoyment per pound of railroad, the better.

I forget whether it was here or on another forum that there was a discussion of what gets modeled in various parts of the world. Here in the US, we usually strive to recreate the freight operations. The discussion above about the yard version of this extension tends to reinforce the idea that we consider this "normal" or the goal to strive for. In that context, a freight yard is a must. The yard is such a pivotal point in the functioning of the American freight railroad that without it, the layout seems incomplete. Contrast that with England, where the "normal" thing to do is to try to recreate the experience of being a tower operator.  In other parts of the world, creating a virtual railfanning experience is the holy grail of the model railroad experience.

I think this layout needs to fall into a "different strokes for different folks" category. If the staging yard represents off-layout destinations, what's wrong with the division yard being one of them? As Dave V mentioned, Doug Nelson has done a wonderful job creating a railfanning layout. There's no yard, but you can sit back and watch different trains roll through gorgeous scenery. There's a little bit of industry trackage to work if he gets the itch to switch, but that's not the focus of the layout. I for one would love to see the expansion to the JD support that kind of model railroad.

[chicken45]

Lee, although I have a great deal of respect for your opinions and talent, in this case I respectfully disagree with you. I would say that a successful layout is one that brings its owner enjoyment.  The more enjoyment per pound of railroad, the better.

I forget whether it was here or on another forum that there was a discussion of what gets modeled in various parts of the world. Here in the US, we usually strive to recreate the freight operations. The discussion above about the yard version of this extension tends to reinforce the idea that we consider this "normal" or the goal to strive for. In that context, a freight yard is a must. The yard is such a pivotal point in the functioning of the American freight railroad that without it, the layout seems incomplete. Contrast that with England, where the "normal" thing to do is to try to recreate the experience of being a tower operator.  In other parts of the world, creating a virtual railfanning experience is the holy grail of the model railroad experience.

I think this layout needs to fall into a "different strokes for different folks" category. If the staging yard represents off-layout destinations, what's wrong with the division yard being one of them? As Dave V mentioned, Doug Nelson has done a wonderful job creating a railfanning layout. There's no yard, but you can sit back and watch different trains roll through gorgeous scenery. There's a little bit of industry trackage to work if he gets the itch to switch, but that's not the focus of the layout. I for one would love to see the expansion to the JD support that kind of model railroad.

Yeah, I'm sure Lee knows all that, but I think he's trying to get Dave to try something new. And hey, he might even like it.

[eric220]

Point taken. I was all about a roundy-round layout when I began designing mine, but I've ended up with an ops-centric plan after getting the experience of operating a few times. In the end, it's all about what Dave V wants out of his railroad. The only point that I'm trying to make is that the idea of a layout optimized for for railfanning is just as legitimate as one optimized for freight ops. Just because all the other kids are doing it doesn't mean there's no other way to go.

[Dave V]

The other thing is that I'm a lone wolf...  How often would I really have the crew to put a yard through its paces?

"Trying to get Dave to try something new."  Well, I appreciate the sentiment, but this isn't broccoli.  It's a substantial investment of time, space, and money.  I have in fact tried operating the JD with car cards and waybills and train sequences and I can tell you I found it confusing and not especially fun.

That plan just looks too congested with track to me.

EDIT:  However, I try never to be completely closed-minded.  So Lee, you gave me a nice rundown on what could be done with that layout.  But it doesn't feel Pennsy.  In that mix has to be at least one Blue Ribbon passenger train and one mail/express (headed by a K4, of course!), all through.  See, I chose the Middle Division for sentimental reasons, but from an operational perspective, it was a two-way conveyor belt for people and stuff coming from other parts of the system.  By Pennsy standards there wasn't a whole lot of online traffic.  OTOH, it was anchored at one end by the largest freight classification yard in the world and almost as big of one on the other end.  I would expect everything coming into Enola besides the locals to be pre-blocked in blocks bigger than this yard's plan could even handle.

I've tried to convince myself at various times since 2006 when the JD was born that perhaps I should abandon the Middle Division for any number of other, more suitable Pennsy lines and modify the layout accordingly.  Doing so would obviate the biggest compromise (compressing a 4-track main into 2) as well as give me a more manageable traffic flow to replicate.  However, sentiment trumps sense every time, and my first passion is still the rail between Enola and Altoona.

[wm3798]

I dig the railfanning aspect of the JD.  It's probably the most you could really expect from an HCD oval design, really, and you've executed supremely well.

The design with the yard, though, is delightfully "model railroady" to borrow a clause from Ed's Law, and in my mind, helps bring some purpose to those trains you like to watch whiz around the loop.

Sure it's not on the scale of the Middle Division, but fer cripes sake, it's a door layout!  I also don't think that being a lone wolf precludes you from running a switch list now and then.  I'd spend many enjoyable hours running my layout by myself (another of my requirements to keep the layout from getting overwhelming)

I'm not suggesting that my idea of an ideal layout is or should be yours... the first words of my post were "in my opinion".

I just liked what I saw in the DKS track plan, and it shall be filed away for future reference...  The small yard could become Hanover, and the JD could become the WM east sub...

Lee

[eric220]

I just liked what I saw in the DKS track plan, and it shall be filed away for future reference...  The small yard could become Hanover, and the JD could become the WM east sub...

That could be most hawt.

[Dave V]

Absolutely, Lee...  I can easily see you hit that trackplan out of the park (unlike the softball at Newport ).

You are also right on the money with the Middle Division on a door comment...that's something I've struggled with since the layout's inception.  Recreating the 120-ish trains a day that graced the Middle Division in its heyday is obviously a non-starter.  So, say I pick an 8-hour trick with 40 trains.  Still a no-go on a door.  Divide by 2?  Now 20.  That's still an a$$hat-load of staging.  Divide by 2 again?  10 trains?  Maybe, but now I've lost any hope of representing the proper ratio of consists.

Besides, all that seems like work to me.  Sure, even now I can walk downstairs an do a switch list.  The thing is, I admire operations and I love the idea of them...it's the application thereof where I lose the bubble.  You've heard me bellyache for years about the operational limitations of the JD.  You know what?  I've begun to realize the problem is me, not necessarily the layout.  I've lacked the vision and the understanding to develop a real operating plan.

My real model railroading joy is to crouch down to rail-level and watch my Pennsy resurrection roll by as if I were a railfan in 1956.  However, I recognize that my interests and insights might change, so I want to ensure any trackplan I go with has at least some operating potential.  I think the Huntingdon one does.

[wm3798]

Geez Dave, you make it sound like your layout should be all about YOU.

...and at least I got a hit at Newport... 


WHIFF!

Lee

[Dave V]

LOL...  Sounds like I need to ditch Huntingdon and model Newport, complete with the Hard Hat and an a$$hat softball game with an N scale Lee blowing out his knee running to first...   

[wm3798]

You'll need to put a sound decoder in my N scale knee!  >>PAFF!!<<  followed by a string of obscenities!

[Dave V]

You'll need to put a sound decoder in my N scale knee!  >>PAFF!!<<  followed by a string of obscenities!

Trust me...any time I'm in the train room there is no shortage of obscenities!

[jpec]

This is a great thread to read, no matter how many pages it is. It's following the design, construction and the re-evaluation and the fortitude to say "this isn't working" and make changes. Progress on a model railroad isn't always measured in terms of visual progress; sometimes nothing gets done but talk - asking others for their opinions and weighing those options. Model Railroader can knock out a layout in what seems a short period but it takes them the good part of a year to do with a team; this is one man's effort to build a layout that meets his expectations all the while having to spar with that 800 lb gorilla called life. I've been involved in building a basement sized N scale PRR Middle Division layout for the last 5 years and I'd say it's only 50% complete.  We still have trackwork to complete along with finishing the scenery. If that were chronicled on The Railwire, it might be up to 300 pages by now. Even though someone might knock out a layout in a 30 page thread; the longer ones are just as good plus give more insight over the long run.

Jeff

[Chris333]

I found the first post (-11,485) from 2006



 

[glakedylan]

I for one, Dr. Vollmer, think you bring out the best in model railroading
in the way you engage others and apply your creativity in skill and
ability to share your efforts here. I think your commitment to modelling
the PRR and how you have done so in the JD and Enola both inspire and
empower others to take on such projects.
I am amazed by your accomplishments and think you have been a major
influence in N Scale modelling and for those interested in HCD and PRR
railroads.
we share some of the same passions and unfortunately for us both, the
same health issues.
your work is very appreciated!
Dr. Gary L Lake Dillensnyder

P.S. We are Penn State!

[Dave V]

Thanks Gary!

You know what, I think today might be more of a G scale day than an N scale one...!