Introduction and background

One thing that initially surprised me when I first re-joined the hobby of railway modelling as an adult was the variety of ways in which people seem to enjoy the hobby and thus the enormous variation that there is in terms of people's preferences as to how to build and operate layouts. In retrospect, I probably should not have been surprised given the popularity of the hobby and the inherent variability among humans as to their preferences.

However, what I have also learnt is that my preferences, described more fully below, are somewhat in a minority so far as other railway modellers are concerned. A consequence of this is that I often find layouts that I see at exhibitions somewhat unfulfilling operationally. This is not a criticism of the people who build or operate the layouts, who either have or are catering to others who have quite different tastes in operations. I do not want to be one of those people who gets in the way of other people having fun because it does not match my preferences. It also does not mean that I do not get any enjoyment out of watching layouts that do not fit this paradigm at all; just that they are less fulfilling for my personal preferences than they might be if they were to fulfil this paradigm.

I should note that I have also posted this on the MERG and DEMU forums, but post this here as there may be people here interested in this who are not users of the other forums.

Purpose

Thus, I start this thread in the hope of finding others who share the same broad preferences so far as operations are concerned, and perhaps to prompt others who had not thought about this sort of way of operating a model railway to consider it, a subset of whom might find this to their liking even though they had not considered it previously. If enough people who share these preferences can be found, we can perhaps find or create more opportunities to indulge these preferences more than currently can readily be found, as discussed in more detail below.

Nomenclature

I have chosen to give the distinct paradigm for operating layouts that I describe a specific name, the Real Operations Paradigm, because giving it such a name will make it easier for different people who enjoy broadly the same things quickly to communicate that they share this set of preferences, and will also make it easier to distinguish it from other things that are superficially similar, but subtly different (such as the sort of operations often favoured by large U. S. model railroads, which often involve distance and time compression in a way that is incompatible with this paradigm). I represent the name in capital case and with the definite article to make clear that I refer to the very specific concept that I set out below, and not just anything that can plausibly be described as a real operations paradigm.

The paradigm

A guiding principle of the paradigm is that the level of operational realism should be at least equal to the level of realism in the depiction of the trains themselves in good quality modern ready to run models.

In more detail, layouts operated in accordance with the Real Operations Paradigm have the following features.

• The layout is either a depiction of a real railway location, or a depiction of a fictional location with a clear and plausible explanation as to how this fits into the real railway network as it existed at the relevant time.
•   The layout may be set in a version of reality with counterfactual geography so long as that counterfactual geography is plausible and fits in specifically with the real geography of the relevant part of the world.
• If modelling a real location, the track plan is the actual track plan of the location in question. The precise geometry is less important than the correct overall distances and overall plan: a guiding principle is that any move possible in reality is possible on the layout, any move impossible in reality is impossible on the layout, and all moves should take the same amount of time on the layout running at scale speed as they do in reality.
  
• If modelling a fictional location, the track plan is plausible and follows the practices prevailing at the relevant times.
• If modelling a real location with modifications (e.g. compression), the name is altered to indicate that this is not a faithful depiction of the real location and what is depicted should remain plausible and in accordance with practice at the relevant time.
• Trains are run at a scale speed that is accurate having regard to the maximum speed of the train in question, an accurate representation of any acceleration or deceleration applicable to the parts of its operations that occur within the area being modelled, and any applicable line speed limit.
• Line speed limits are given for all lines which would in reality in this period and location have had speed limits and those limits are either the line limits of the real lines if modelling a real location or else are plausible given the track geometry, signal spacing and type and other features applicable to the era and location in question.
• The relationship between speed, distance and time is constant and accurate in the scenic section, with speed and distance being scaled in accordance with the scale ratio of the modelling scale (e.g. 1:76, 1:87, 1:148,etc.) and time being not scaled.
• The layout is set in a specific and narrow period of time and does not contain items that would in reality never have been present at the same time as each other. This does not preclude a multi-guise layout (i.e., one that can be set in different eras) so long as the layout is plausible in appearance for the full range of those eras and only one narrow time period is depicted in each operating session.
• The layout is set in a specific season and the scenery and timetable both match that season insofar as either of those things vary with season in the location and period depicted.
• Services work to a timetable, operated in real time (i.e., one minute passing in reality equals one minute passing on the layout's timetable). There may be acceleration of dead time (i.e., a long period in which no operations at all happen, e.g. overnight) but only by distinctly marking the beginning and end of that period of acceleration (e.g. by dimming and raising the layout lights).
• If modelling a real location, the timetable is the working timetable applicable to that location for a specific time, or a plausible alternative working timetable based on a plausible counterfactual scenario, all the consequences of which scenario are depicted in the layout so far as they would be manifest.
• If modelling a fictional location, the timetable is closely based on working timetables for the relevant area and service pattern as possible given any relevant plausible counterfactuals.
• Trains are of an accurate formation and length for the era and location depicted and for the specific services on which they are running.
• There is an appropriate variety of trains so that the same exact rolling stock does not form multiple successive services heading in the same direction.
• Each item of rolling stock has a unique identity that is consistent with the location, time period and service(s) on which it runs.
• There is fully functional signalling (insofar as the railway depicted would have signalling), operated in accordance with the rules for signalling applicable at the time period in which the layout is set.
• The signal spacing is calibrated with reference to the applicable line speed limit.
• The layout has a plausible representation of signalling beyond the scenic boundaries of the layout insofar as it affects signalling within those boundaries.
• If the layout is not fully automated, human operators have a specific and limited role that reflects a real life railway practices and those roles are not combined (e.g. signaller or driver, but not both), with the exception of any operators dealing only with fiddle/staging yards.

There are a number of other features that, while not essential to the Real Operations Paradigm, would ideally be present in a layout following the paradigm. A number of these things are more difficult to implement or less fundamental.

• A system for displaying the in-layout time to operators and/or viewers/observers of the layout.
• Layout lighting with a day/night cycle that matches the time on the layout and the time of year on which the layout is set.
• Where applicable, passenger information based on the timetable being operated, e.g., station announcements, destination indicators, etc. These may be integrated into the model where technology allows or be free-standing (e.g. a public facing destination display in a much larger scale than the layout itself, but kept up to date with movements on the layout).
• Plausible random, quasi-random or semi-random delays, cancellations and other disruptions to the timetable, preferably based on reliability statistics or other such information for the relevant place and time.
• Skeuomorphic interfaces for operator roles, especially signalling (e.g., a lever frame and bell instruments with correctly coloured and numbered levers, a working NX panel, etc.).
• If applicable, signals numbered on the layout in accordance with a plausible signalling scheme affecting the area depicted by the layout, those numbers being reflected in the numbers given to the signals on any signalling panel, diagram, etc..
• A virtual extension depicting a part of the railway network beyond that modelled, train movements on which are modelled and are reflected in the reality of what occurs on the scenic part of the layout. This virtual extension may be fully virtual (as in the video), semi-virtual, in which non-scenic parts of the layout represent (perhaps with compression of distances and concomitant reduction in speed) areas beyond the scenic section, or both.
• If any items are sound fitted, the volumes are of such a level that it is not possible simultaneously to hear items farther apart from one another than would be possible to hear in reality, and sound events (e.g. horns, whistles) are triggered at operationally appropriate times and not otherwise.
• If carriages have lighting, that lighting is turned on and off as operationally appropriate (e.g., on when in service, off when in a carriage siding).
• Coupling/uncoupling, if required for the operation of the layout, is automated and does not require encroachment of human hands into the scenic section.
• Remote operation over the internet, especially of signalling, is possible.

Layouts that follow the paradigm will probably as a result tend to, but will not necessarily, have the following features.

• They will tend to depict main line or other intensively operated locations: a realistic timetable running in real time on a country branch-line would result in very scant operation.
• They will tend to be on the larger side, as a very small layout is less likely to have sufficient operating potential to make this form of operation interesting, although there may be exceptions to this (e.g. a cramped urban station).
• They will tend either to be computer automated, have a large team of operators or both.
• They will tend to have large and operationally flexible fiddle/staging yards to enable a wide variety of realistic train movements within the confines of a realistic timetable.
• They will tend to use DCC rather than DC for operation as this is likely to allow for more operational flexibility and is easier to automate.
  
• They will tend to be in the smaller scales (N, 00, H0) as it is likely to be difficult to model a sufficiently intensively worked location in a larger scale without more space than most people have available to them.
• They will tend to have a number of very similar items of rolling stock differing only in identity (e.g., a number of the same class of EMU in the same livery differing only in number).
• They will tend to favour either operation or (relatively) long-term, considered observation rather than the sort of brief casual observation typical in model railway exhibitions.

Common interest

I should be very interested in knowing whether there are any others who are interested in modelling in accordance with the Real Operations Paradigm. It would be splendid if, one day, there might be sufficient people with a shared interest in this paradigm to allow for collaboration on projects, joint operating sessions or meetings.

ROP layouts may in many cases not suit exhibitions well, as there are likely to be many times when no trains are running for minutes at a time (unless one is modelling London Bridge in the rush hour or something similar). That means that it may be difficult for those of us who like layouts of this paradigm to see other such layouts in operation unless we happen to know others in our local area who share the same interest.

Two possible solutions to this are: (1) virtual/remote operating sessions; and (2) meetups. A virtual operating session is an operating session of a layout, probably a fixed home layout, in which some or all of the operators operate and view the layout over the internet. I have already tested this with a layout that I have under construction at present, using TrainController and its SmartHand system, and it seems to work well for at least the basic test that I ran at the time (especially as the signalling interface is based on the British Rail IECC style interface that uses a computer in any event). The idea is that operators would connect to the layout using a browser with a login to be able to access the signalling, and would then connect to the layout's owner in the operating session with Zoom or similar, which would facilitate both social interaction and viewing the trains on the layout.

As for meetups, one might do something that is perhaps part way between something like a Fremo meeting and a small exhibition, where people interested in ROP modelling hire a venue, bring a small number of ROP layouts and operate them. Unlike a conventional exhibition, one would envisage guest operation of the layouts to be routine, as well as spending a considerably longer time observing any given layout than is normal at an exhibition. One might even have places for people to sit down to watch the layouts.

If anyone is interested in this sort of activity, I should be very interested to know.

Hi,

An interesting set of criteria there.

This one is where I'm out, so to speak 

QuoteServices work to a timetable, operated in real time (i.e., one minute passing in reality equals one minute passing on the layout's timetable). There may be acceleration of dead time (i.e., a long period in which no operations at all happen, e.g. overnight) but only by distinctly marking the beginning and end of that period of acceleration (e.g. by dimming and raising the layout lights).

There's far too much "dead time" in real railway operations to maintain my interest if I were to replicate that in a model. I think that at an exhibition people want to see models in view as often as possible, particularly on large layouts which may have a lot of rolling stock in storage yards.

Even, at home, I'd much rather my trains be on the move as much as possible, regardless of how prototypically accurate that is.

Regards,

John P

Wow.

I'm not surprised you can't find many layouts to entertain you. I'm not quite sure where to start. So you may not use the unaltered name of a prototypical location unless it's a slavish, inch perfect recreation...? For me if somewhere evokes the feeling of a place it's a success. Banbury is a good example of this which springs to mind.

I like playing with toy trains. I like certain elements; such as accurate rakes of stock, nice track and working signals, but I can enjoy layouts that don't employ those. Working to an accurate timetable is really dull to me. I like stuff to be happening. I couldn't really give a damn about entirely unique stock numbers unless it's super obvious (ie multiple 'unique' locos), I much prefer the actual composition to be accurate.

But each to their own.

Quote from: jpendle on October 02, 2022, 10:49:04 PM
Hi,

An interesting set of criteria there.

This one is where I'm out, so to speak 

QuoteServices work to a timetable, operated in real time (i.e., one minute passing in reality equals one minute passing on the layout's timetable). There may be acceleration of dead time (i.e., a long period in which no operations at all happen, e.g. overnight) but only by distinctly marking the beginning and end of that period of acceleration (e.g. by dimming and raising the layout lights).

There's far too much "dead time" in real railway operations to maintain my interest if I were to replicate that in a model. I think that at an exhibition people want to see models in view as often as possible, particularly on large layouts which may have a lot of rolling stock in storage yards.

Even, at home, I'd much rather my trains be on the move as much as possible, regardless of how prototypically accurate that is.

And I suspect that this is the much more common set of preferences, which is why I find it difficult to find layouts that strongly appeal to my preferences. I do not mind the dead time so long as I know that something interesting will be coming at a reasonably predictable time in the reasonably near future - and things happening off-layout (announcements about delays, activity in a virtual extension, etc.) is also interesting.

Of course, waiting four hours for the next train on a sleepy branch-line to appear (or even half an hour for the next train on a secondary line) is not fun even to me, which is why layouts built to this paradigm are likely to be of intensively worked locations; this is one of the reasons that I was so pleased when RevolutioN Trains announced the N gauge 1938 stock: the London Underground is a perfect setting for a location where a real timetable run in real time remains interesting.

Quote from: njee20 on October 02, 2022, 11:01:27 PM
Wow.

I'm not surprised you can't find many layouts to entertain you. I'm not quite sure where to start. So you may not use the unaltered name of a prototypical location unless it's a slavish, inch perfect recreation...? For me if somewhere evokes the feeling of a place it's a success. Banbury is a good example of this which springs to mind.

People can do what they like with their layouts: I am not trying to tell people what to do. I have seen Banbury, and it is a lovely layout and does nicely capture the feel of Banbury. I suppose that there is an uncertain boundary between de minimis alteration and that which affects operations: from an operational perspective, the question would be: can one do anything operationally in the real Banbury (in the relevant era) that one cannot do on the model (or vice versa), or does doing it on the model at scale speeds take significantly longer or shorter, because of the compression/alternation? If not, then the modifications are probably de minimis. If so, then they are probably not strictly within this paradigm - but I should emphasise that this does not make it a bad layout. It would just not fit this very particular paradigm that is reflective of my particular preferences.

Quote
I like playing with toy trains. I like certain elements; such as accurate rakes of stock, nice track and working signals, but I can enjoy layouts that don't employ those. Working to an accurate timetable is really dull to me. I like stuff to be happening. I couldn't really give a damn about entirely unique stock numbers unless it's super obvious (ie multiple 'unique' locos), I much prefer the actual composition to be accurate.

Indeed - I suspect that this is the more common set of preferences, which is much more compatible with how layouts tend to be built and operated at exhibitions than this paradigm.

QuoteBut each to their own.

Absolutely!

Are there any layouts of real locations which fit this paradigm? I can't think of a single one. Indeed yours aside (I presume) I can't think of any layouts full stop.

Quote from: njee20 on October 02, 2022, 11:29:20 PM
Are there any layouts of real locations which fit this paradigm? I can't think of a single one. Indeed yours aside (I presume) I can't think of any layouts full stop.

I am not aware of any other than mine (whether of real locations or not) - that is one reason that I started the thread: to find others who have a like interest.

Interesting. I have only one layout that I can think of that I consider the holy grail of this sort of thing - the layout I first encountered as a teenager.

That's the late Peter Denny's Buckingham Branch Lines, which has had a huge influence on my approach to this hobby.

I'm guessing my Clapham Junction layout doesn't qualify then. 

Anyway, for what its worth, here's the Waterloo - Guildford via Epsom:

Quote from: jamespetts on October 03, 2022, 12:33:04 AM

Quote from: njee20 on October 02, 2022, 11:29:20 PM
Are there any layouts of real locations which fit this paradigm? I can't think of a single one. Indeed yours aside (I presume) I can't think of any layouts full stop.

I am not aware of any other than mine (whether of real locations or not) - that is one reason that I started the thread: to find others who have a like interest.

I can't imagine there would be any other layouts that fit the bill. I think of Banbury and Santa Barbara from the same builder as being fine examples of how to build a model of a real location. In my view it is almost impossible to build a 100% accurate model of a real location but it is possible to build a 90% accurate model which appeals to almost everyone.

I'm pretty strict with what I run on my layout even at home but you have to have some slack and of course there is an element of you can never be sure something is incorrect. For instance you might assume that you would never see London Midland steam locos in the West Country but you would be wrong. A few Stanier pacifics helped out on the WR when the Kings were having their bogies strengthened in the 1950s and a Jubilee worked a freight as far as Newton Abbot in 1963. There has also been one working of a Pullman set along the sea wall. I have emulated this - a friend brought his Pullman round and we gave it a run. I've told him he can't bring it again because there was only just that one working of a Pullman train in the area. 

Hi James,

I model a country branch line, a very simple 'one engine in steam' light railway (GWR Blagdon Station approx 1925)
My intention is very much to run it in a realistic way according to the real timetable.
The focus is quite different than yours I think. What I want to achieve is that running it puts you in the place of the loco crew. The loco has to stop in front of a turnout, someone walks to the point lever and throws the points, climbs back on the footplate heading for the next action.
It is DCC controlled but last week I removed the accessory decoder and replaced it by switches on the layout fascia to represent the ground frame and point levers. I even included a facing point 'lever' (switch). I have to walk with the train to operate it. The whole 2,5m 
I will not separate moves by dimming the light or something like that but simply pause for a while. Not too long because I am operating it and that's what I enjoy doing.
On my second (very small) layout I will announce trains with bell codes sounding from the signal box. On Blagdon there is no signal box so it is not possible there.

Maybe your set of 'rules' is a bit too restrictive and as you said only valid for large automated layouts. I also think it only works for very busy suburban stations. We live near a mainline junction station but running trains according to the real timetable would be quite boring I think.
Would it be possible for someone not knowing the prototype location and timetable to judge if this is prototypical operation or just running trains in a realistic way?

But I still like your efforts and very much agree that running a layout like the real thing can be very rewarding.

Jan

I like that. You have assumed a role, and even modified your layout to include hand switches.

Good stuff. 

If you are demanding that level of authenticity, how can you accept the compromise of a steam loco being propelled by an electric motor? Surely for true authentic operation, you will want to replicate the 3 hours prep to set the fire and build up steam before it can move    
For true authenticity DCC is most certainly is out of the question other than for the most recent models - there are no microchips in the authentic pre-1980s loco... 

I was ruminating on this last night, I can't help but think it's just far too restrictive to be feasible. Is there a reason you've not posted it on RMWeb, as I suspect that's a more likely source of people who may be interested.

I can't quite reconcile the idea that a total work of fiction complies, but a real location must not have any material compression or it does not. To me the idea of an entirely fictitious busy mainline station is always going to rank below a real location shrunk by 30% in the realism stakes. Particularly as your own layout is basically Oxford, but not, so that you can run different trains. It feels a bit like you're trying to make 'rules' that describe your own layout, and exclude all others on the grounds of trivialities.

Quote from: PLD on October 03, 2022, 07:54:32 AM
If you are demanding that level of authenticity, how can you accept the compromise of a steam loco being propelled by an electric motor? Surely for true authentic operation, you will want to replicate the 3 hours prep to set the fire and build up steam before it can move    
For true authenticity DCC is most certainly is out of the question other than for the most recent models - there are no microchips in the authentic pre-1980s loco... 

Oh no! Now you convinced me to build a live steam n gauge GWR 517 class 

I'm modelling / going to model 3 layouts.
1 in real life had 6 or 8 trains a day each way + the odd military train.. Which is one of the reasons, I'll be modelling 29th May 1940 probably the busiest day in it's life.. The Unshrunk station will be a true scale of around 2000ft long..

2, is very loosely based on the Kyle line, often not more than 4 trains a day..

3 a farm railway.. A train out and back in a day would be busy..

An observation.. If you exhibit model railways and nothing moves, the majority of viewers do.. Away from your railway.

So 2 and 3 which are meant for exhibitions, will have many more trains than in real life, their exhibition timetables, will have just a few seconds stop before something is on the move again..

On both I'm planning something like a 15 -20 minute timetable, before it repeats. Trains will be slow, near scale speeds... and that will allow less trains to be run in a time period.. No screaming expresses powering through..

1 the home railway? I'm more interested in accuracy, getting the train make up right, at the scale speeds. SO there will not be that many running, and I can have a cup of coffee between trains..