A few years ago, as I planned my HO scale switching layout, I asked fellow Pacific Southern member Roger Thomas about possibly physically interchanging cars between our layouts, once mine was built. He agreed.
Unfortunately, that plan has stalled for personal reasons, as I was not able to build that layout, due to certain events in my personal life. However, I did not give up on the idea.
It grew out of a suggestion someone made on an online forum, when I asked something about how many cars one needs to be able to replicate traffic flow convincingly. The person's reasoning was that by doing so, one gets access to a larger pool of cars, thus further enhancing the realism.
I also recalled an article I read in Model Railroader about one modeler in Wapakoneta, Ohio, who practiced this, citing a figure of 1,500 cars interchanged per session at the high end, with his operators. I tracked him down to ask him some questions about the process, as well as points to consider. I followed up with a phone call in which he promised to reply to my letter. I'm still waiting.
I don't recall all the points I raised in my letter, but they were legitimate issues. One that comes to mind has to do with what protocols, if any, exist for when one person's car on a host layout is damaged. Relatively minor issues, such as coupler repair or replacement, or truck work, would be handled by the host modeler on whose layout the damage occurred, but what is the protocol in the event the "guest" car takes a dive off the layout and sustains severe damage? The real railroads already have a set of such protocols, so it would be logical to pattern the modelers' one after that.
Another was car forwarding, or more specifically, compatibility between different car-forwarding systems. Roger uses a home-brewed car card system that was probably based on something in the hobby press; I hadn't decided on a system. In that case, how would one convey the routing or destination information? The simplest method is to enclose a sheet of paper with the relevant information, either handwritten or computer-generated. (Of course, this can lead to the question of what to do with the CC&WB for cars that are "in process," in that the cars have not cycled through their waybills.)
Another question is more practical: if a "visiting" car has the same reporting marks as a "home" car, what does one do? My initial solution, other than to maintain a large database, is to give the "guest" car priority in handling to minimize the time away from its owner. However, this also means one has to locate the duplicate "home" car and remove it from the layout for the duration the visiting car is on that layout.
The whole idea proved really intriguing to me the more I thought about it. Imagine expanding the group beyond the initial two modelers. The pool of cars grows dramatically, with all sorts of increased opportunities for traffic destinations. This truly excited me, for several reasons; I've already named one.
Unfortunately, that plan has stalled for personal reasons, as I was not able to build that layout, due to certain events in my personal life. However, I did not give up on the idea.
It grew out of a suggestion someone made on an online forum, when I asked something about how many cars one needs to be able to replicate traffic flow convincingly. The person's reasoning was that by doing so, one gets access to a larger pool of cars, thus further enhancing the realism.
I also recalled an article I read in Model Railroader about one modeler in Wapakoneta, Ohio, who practiced this, citing a figure of 1,500 cars interchanged per session at the high end, with his operators. I tracked him down to ask him some questions about the process, as well as points to consider. I followed up with a phone call in which he promised to reply to my letter. I'm still waiting.
I don't recall all the points I raised in my letter, but they were legitimate issues. One that comes to mind has to do with what protocols, if any, exist for when one person's car on a host layout is damaged. Relatively minor issues, such as coupler repair or replacement, or truck work, would be handled by the host modeler on whose layout the damage occurred, but what is the protocol in the event the "guest" car takes a dive off the layout and sustains severe damage? The real railroads already have a set of such protocols, so it would be logical to pattern the modelers' one after that.
Another was car forwarding, or more specifically, compatibility between different car-forwarding systems. Roger uses a home-brewed car card system that was probably based on something in the hobby press; I hadn't decided on a system. In that case, how would one convey the routing or destination information? The simplest method is to enclose a sheet of paper with the relevant information, either handwritten or computer-generated. (Of course, this can lead to the question of what to do with the CC&WB for cars that are "in process," in that the cars have not cycled through their waybills.)
Another question is more practical: if a "visiting" car has the same reporting marks as a "home" car, what does one do? My initial solution, other than to maintain a large database, is to give the "guest" car priority in handling to minimize the time away from its owner. However, this also means one has to locate the duplicate "home" car and remove it from the layout for the duration the visiting car is on that layout.
The whole idea proved really intriguing to me the more I thought about it. Imagine expanding the group beyond the initial two modelers. The pool of cars grows dramatically, with all sorts of increased opportunities for traffic destinations. This truly excited me, for several reasons; I've already named one.
Another is how it can potentially benefit participating modelers. All of a sudden, a modeler with a large fleet of, say, grain cars, has a place to send them other than to a hidden yard or storage, and cars have a greater territory over which to roam.
It also alters the whole "paired industries" concept. Under this, a shipper and receiver (consignee) are found on the same layout, such as a lumber mill and lumber yard, coal mine and power plant, etc. Yet this isn't necessarily realistic or practical, depending on the size of the layout, so extending the paired-industries concept over two or more layouts further enhances the realism.
I'll give you an example, again based on my planned switching layout.
At one point, I envisioned a plastics molding company on an extension of my layout, called Torben Plastics. That's great, but what does it make? Well, Roger has an automobile plant on his layout, and Torben could be a supplier, supplying the various plastic items found in today's automobiles, whether it's dashboards, door panels, head- and taillight assemblies, or whatever. It receives both empty auto parts boxcars and loaded covered hoppers. The cars are switched out based on the car cards and waybills, and ultimately interchanged back to Roger. The boxcars go to his auto plant, and the covered hoppers "elsewhere," to be "reloaded" to repeat the process. In the meantime, more cars are interchanged to my layout for distribution to my consignees. And, depending on the routing, one's cars might have to roll over two or three layouts to get to their ultimate destinations on another member's layout.
It means one's cars could potentially be out for a protracted period, but at the same time, that same modeler will have an influx of cars from other members of his group.
I also got to thinking about other practical matters that are found in this concept, such as physically swapping cars. How would this be accomplished: in person? Via mail?
The former is pretty easy, whereas to ship the models, one must worry about packing them to prevent damage. Sending them requires a sturdy container, preferably reusable, packing material, and so forth.
The idea is not without precedent, as modelers have interchanged cars over the years. Some have been informal exchanges, whereas others have been more structured. The National Model Railroad Association (NMRA) has/had such a car exchange for some time, though I don't know much about it. German modeler Wolfgang Dudler, who owns the Westport Terminal (at http://www.westportterminal.de), participated in an informal one that concentrates on private roads, with photographs of these cars shared with their owners.
I'll give you an example, again based on my planned switching layout.
At one point, I envisioned a plastics molding company on an extension of my layout, called Torben Plastics. That's great, but what does it make? Well, Roger has an automobile plant on his layout, and Torben could be a supplier, supplying the various plastic items found in today's automobiles, whether it's dashboards, door panels, head- and taillight assemblies, or whatever. It receives both empty auto parts boxcars and loaded covered hoppers. The cars are switched out based on the car cards and waybills, and ultimately interchanged back to Roger. The boxcars go to his auto plant, and the covered hoppers "elsewhere," to be "reloaded" to repeat the process. In the meantime, more cars are interchanged to my layout for distribution to my consignees. And, depending on the routing, one's cars might have to roll over two or three layouts to get to their ultimate destinations on another member's layout.
It means one's cars could potentially be out for a protracted period, but at the same time, that same modeler will have an influx of cars from other members of his group.
I also got to thinking about other practical matters that are found in this concept, such as physically swapping cars. How would this be accomplished: in person? Via mail?
The former is pretty easy, whereas to ship the models, one must worry about packing them to prevent damage. Sending them requires a sturdy container, preferably reusable, packing material, and so forth.
The idea is not without precedent, as modelers have interchanged cars over the years. Some have been informal exchanges, whereas others have been more structured. The National Model Railroad Association (NMRA) has/had such a car exchange for some time, though I don't know much about it. German modeler Wolfgang Dudler, who owns the Westport Terminal (at http://www.westportterminal.de), participated in an informal one that concentrates on private roads, with photographs of these cars shared with their owners.
Way back in the mid-1990s, I found a group on America Online (AOL) that discussed this, and I received a newsletter. The group's acronym was TRAIN, though I don't recall what it stood for, and the first two issues were emails. The third issue was sent out as a PDF attachment. Alas, the third issue was the group's final newsletter, as the person behind the effort was killed in a construction accident. Prior to this person's death, another member had begun work on a computer program that would help match up members with whom to interchange cars, taking into account one's scale.
There is also the matter of frequency. An imbalance will arise if one of the modelers operates his layout monthly, and another does it weekly. That imbalance will create a backlog, especially if the weekly-operating modeler - whom I'll call "John" - has the monthly-operator ("Bob") as his interchange partner. The problem affects both, but in unique ways.
For "Bob," that means he'll have a veritable flood of cars being interchanged to him. Then, when he gets to operating his layout, he'll have a large quantity of cars to handle, both coming to him and going out to his "connections."
For "John," it's worse, I suppose, because his outbound cars will quickly drain his supply as he waits for "Bob" to send him more cars. And, he will also have to suffer a substantial influx of cars coming to him from "Bob."
The nice thing, though, is that such ebbs and flows tend to balance out over time. However, they still exist when dealing with only two modelers.
One solution is for the two modelers to reach a middle ground, such as operating biweekly, to help smooth out such imbalances.
Another is to introduce a third modeler, "Tom," who could probably function as a "relief valve" of sorts when these kinds of situations present themselves. "Tom" and "John" could interchange between themselves when "Bob" isn't operating, under the premise those cars have "run" over "Bob's" layout, and while it works as a solution, it also means cars on "Bob's" layout that are due to interchange to either "Tom" or "John" won't be picked up and forwarded to either layout.
I also figure some kind of industry directory would be helpful, perhaps something patterned after a prototype guide, to help the modelers plan where to forward cars as part of their operations. It should also have restrictions, such as not being able to handle cars beyond a certain length, what offloading and loading equipment might be present, etc., all as appropriate.
So what do you think? Comments are enabled, so feel free to share your thoughts.
There is also the matter of frequency. An imbalance will arise if one of the modelers operates his layout monthly, and another does it weekly. That imbalance will create a backlog, especially if the weekly-operating modeler - whom I'll call "John" - has the monthly-operator ("Bob") as his interchange partner. The problem affects both, but in unique ways.
For "Bob," that means he'll have a veritable flood of cars being interchanged to him. Then, when he gets to operating his layout, he'll have a large quantity of cars to handle, both coming to him and going out to his "connections."
For "John," it's worse, I suppose, because his outbound cars will quickly drain his supply as he waits for "Bob" to send him more cars. And, he will also have to suffer a substantial influx of cars coming to him from "Bob."
The nice thing, though, is that such ebbs and flows tend to balance out over time. However, they still exist when dealing with only two modelers.
One solution is for the two modelers to reach a middle ground, such as operating biweekly, to help smooth out such imbalances.
Another is to introduce a third modeler, "Tom," who could probably function as a "relief valve" of sorts when these kinds of situations present themselves. "Tom" and "John" could interchange between themselves when "Bob" isn't operating, under the premise those cars have "run" over "Bob's" layout, and while it works as a solution, it also means cars on "Bob's" layout that are due to interchange to either "Tom" or "John" won't be picked up and forwarded to either layout.
I also figure some kind of industry directory would be helpful, perhaps something patterned after a prototype guide, to help the modelers plan where to forward cars as part of their operations. It should also have restrictions, such as not being able to handle cars beyond a certain length, what offloading and loading equipment might be present, etc., all as appropriate.
So what do you think? Comments are enabled, so feel free to share your thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment