WM Western Lines Engineering Report

[Bob Bufkin]

I got a bunch stashed away but putting those on is not one of my favority things to do. 

[wm3798]

This crew has a Smart Phone...



Chief

[wm3798]

Okay, so we compress time with a fast clock, but how do we compress distance?  Usually it's an arbitrary factor based on the amount of space we have available.  i.e., distance is more compressed on my layout than on Eric's, simply because he has a bigger room.  Or is it?  Eric might be modeling 500 or more miles, while I'm modeling less than 200.  So how does distance relate to how we operate our trains?

Considering that our distances are the most substantially compressed dimension, using typical train length in lieu of scale miles could do the trick!

So, since a prototypical train can easily stretch out to a mile in length, it makes sense to take my typical train length of about 25 to 30 cars in N scale and use that as my benchmark "mile." This translates to about 1,000 feet, or 75" actual.  Thus, I can compress my "mile" to 1,000 scale feet, and set my mileposts accordingly...  This will help me determine where to put signals, whistle posts, and all manner of scenic and operational elements, including safe distance between trains...

Does this make any sense at all?  Or should I just go fix myself another drink?

Discuss.
Lee

[Zox]

Considering that our distances are the most substantially compressed dimension, using typical train length in lieu of scale miles could do the trick!

So, since a prototypical train can easily stretch out to a mile in length, it makes sense to take my typical train length of about 25 to 30 cars in N scale and use that as my benchmark "mile." This translates to about 1,000 feet, or 75" actual.  Thus, I can compress my "mile" to 1,000 scale feet, and set my mileposts accordingly...  This will help me determine where to put signals, whistle posts, and all manner of scenic and operational elements, including safe distance between trains..

This sounds like an excellent starting point--much better than just winging it--especially in terms of "operational elements" as you suggest. For example, an electrical block shorter than a train can be useful for DC control, but modeled blocks (for signals and operations) need to be able to at least contain an entire train, plus however much is needed for good visual effect between trains.

I suspect, though, that in order to get a useful length of mainline additional compression will be required. Even one-fifth of scaled real-world geography is still a lot of real estate.

[Scottl]

This is interesting.  My sense is that distance and time scale effects compound rather than are independent.  So the compression of space we have to fit our trains to a reasonable size (say 25 cars) is one kind of scaling, but the shorter lengths of distance between stations is another (2 scale miles instead of 25 miles).  It all sounds an awful lot like work figuring it out 

[pwnj]

Yeah.  This is where I was going to make good use of staging (or at least visually blocked) trackage, so I could stop or slow down a train, rather than have it be so obviously roundy-round.  Somehow though I'm thankful I switched to an urban harbor switching layout.  Cramped trackage and scenery is prototypical so I don't have to worry about it.

[John]

Does this make any sense at all?  Or should I just go fix myself another drink?

Yes

[MVW]

Bruce Chubb's old book "How to Operate Your Model Railroad" had a handy dandy table that provided this info. Wish I could find my copy. 

From memory, believe it or not, using an 8:1 fast clock translated into 3 feet per mile.

[davefoxx]

From memory, believe it or not, using an 8:1 fast clock translated into 3 feet per mile.

In my experience on Eric's NKP layout, which uses a 4:1 fast clock that we installed this fall, the fast clock works great to compensate for the compressed mileage for the operators on the road.  In the yard, however, switching and blocking doesn't translate to a fast clock as well, unless you're classifying cars at ludicrous speed... when nobody's looking, of course. 

Father Time

[seusscaboose]

speaking of the fast clock...  Lee, are you planning on using one?

[wm3798]

Jury's still out on that.  I want to experiment with the distance compression and see if it nets any payoff.  Given the much shorter distances available on my layout, I'm concerned about the fast clock/yard switching issue.

I'm concerned that strict adherence to the clock will create a kind of limbo out on the main lines.

Lee

[MichaelWinicki]

In my experience on Eric's NKP layout, which uses a 4:1 fast clock that we installed this fall, the fast clock works great to compensate for the compressed mileage for the operators on the road.  In the yard, however, switching and blocking doesn't translate to a fast clock as well, unless you're classifying cars at ludicrous speed... when nobody's looking, of course. 

Father Time

Good point about using a fast clock in conjunction with a yard.  I hadn't thought of that challenge.

[pwnj]

Isn't there a ludicrous setting on those DCC boards?

[eric220]

One potential problem that I could see with compressing distance would be speed.  If you compress distance at a rate of ~5:1, the speed of your trains will go up 5x.  Put another way, at a given speed, a train can cover 5 times as many miles in an hour.  This would seem to exacerbate the issue of trains that are usually already too fast.

[Bob Bufkin]

Funny thing, I had a brand new WM RS-3 show up in one of the yards today.  Seems to have been misrouted for some reason.  Anyhow, it's now headed for the proper railroad.