an alternative operating concept for model railways using dummy clocks instead of "fast time"

Be the clock's master, not vice versa !

Purpose

The procedures described herein serve a dual purpose: To spare operators' stress in an activity supposed to offer leisure and overcome manpower shortages that are otherwise prohibitive for proper operating sessions.

The aforementioned stress arises from timekeeping efforts during complex/complicated operations, well documented by a renowned rail modelling author. Mr. Henderson proposes a real time alternative.

We will go one step further and reverse things completely: we will stop being dependent on any clock -fast or slow-. Instead, the "clocks" will be dummy and only advance (manually by the acting dispatcher), once all movements foreseen for the time interval in question are completed.

This is not something unusual in the world of simulations. It resembles a "turn-based" in place of a time-based concept, popular e.g. in wargaming.

Principles

Organizing crew work by artificial time segments

The basic tool to assist the coordinator is the layout's established timetable in the form of a string diagram. It helps to define the -simulated- time segments by which movements shall take place (comprising mainline runs, yard shunting, anything), as well as the sequence of these movements. Undoubtedly, the most important "milestones" (not mileposts!) separating these time segments or "turns" are the scheduled arrival and departure times at stations, especially when the relative position of 2 or more trains changes (i.e. trains crossing or overtaking each other, particularly on single-track routes).
The layout has to be equipped with 2 dummy clocks (for example inexensive wall clocks with their batteries removed) handled by the coordinator and displaying the current time segment (say 12:24 to 13:04, since it is the period between 2 consequent train meets). Every participant checks his/her copy of the string diagram for the movements he/she has to accomplish during this period. These movements may include taking 1 or more trains to the milepost they should reach by 13:04, or assembling a freight in a marshalling yard, or servicing-preparing certain locomotives, whatever. When everyone has reported completing their assigned duties -including the accompanying paperwork-, the coordinator can forward the clocks to the limits of the next time segment (turn).

It's obvious from this procedure that almost any layout can be operated by as few as 1 person, who would undertake the sequential completion of all required movements. The method thus may deduct a bit of visual realism, since trains supposed to move simultaneously will not do so in practice, but on the other hand it is better than not operating at all due to lack of manpower. As a matter of fact, I have the feeling that the operating concept in discussion is not particularly convenient for the simulation of incidents and emergency situations. It looks more suitable for reproducing a normal operating day without any significant timetable violations.

Rulebook modifications arising from the proposed operating concept

The very concept of "time" changes radically in this operating method. As a logical consequence of the suggested "time manipulations," a careful examination of the traffic handling Rulebook is necessary in order to rephrase it accordingly. Let's take for example a layout's regulations based on the USA prototype GCOR (General Code of Operating Rules). Rule No. 1.48 (Time) e.g. specifies that:

Original phrasing	Suggested modification
While on duty, crew members must have a watch. Other employees must have access to a watch or clock. The watch or clock must: Be in good working condition and reliable. Display hours, minutes, and seconds. Not vary from the correct time by more than 30 seconds. Be compared with the time source designated in special instructions.	During operating sessions, participants must observe the clock(s) displayed by the Operations Coordinator

Considerable such modifications seem necessary in order to provide sufficient operating instructions to interested modellers.

Influence on layout design

Since actual running time becomes unimportant, considerable space may be saved by limiting station intervals to an absolute minimum (i.e. 1 maximum train length between 2 consecutive distant signals, regardless whether such signals are actually installed or not). Besides, time-lengthening tricks such as concealed "delay yards" and conveniently long tunnels are no longer necessary. Last but not least, the ability to run with reduced manpower can spare considerable space that would be reserved for the comfortable presence of a larger operating team. The smaller scales, where more operational interest can be squeezed anywhere, but not the necessary operating workforce, may benefit especially from the concept.

Summarizing significant features of this proposal

• It constitutes a quite relaxed way to run model railways, as fun should be.
• It reduces the necessary operating manpower to a minimum.
• Intervals of low overall activity (off-peak) will pass quickly, since very few moves have to be performed before the dummy clock advances.
• Shunting cannot "delay" operations, since the dummy clock will not advance unless all switching scheduled for each turn is complete, no matter how leisurly the pace.
• It is a suitable way for training novice railroaders on operating regulations, since they will focus on doing things properly by the book instead of racing against a conventional clock. After gaining sufficient skills, they may participate in conventionally timed operations too.
• It can save valuable layout space
• The method can be used to calibrate a manageable fast time ratio for every layout/ timetable pattern by measuring the real time required for a stress-free operating cycle.

Formulating a case study to demonstrate the concept

We shall describe a hypothetical operating session according to the proposed concept.

ALCOMANIA	BELLAVISTA	CORNMART	DOBROSTO	ELTWEIDEN	FAUCK

I chose a hypothetical arrangement of 6 distinct, consecutive stations and relatively dense traffic, featuring an adequate variety of movements for our demo. These stations are located along a route, as unsophisticated as it can be: unsignalled single track with manual turnouts, supposedly regulated by a dispatcher via radio communication (most probably simulated through shouting to stationmasters and trainmen in the layout room!). All stations are thought to be of typical, mediocre configurations, possessing passing sidings with commuter platforms for both directions, freight runaround tracks, several industrial spurs and are named in alphabetical order to facilitate guest / inexperienced operators, as is the case with several published trackplans representing fictional locations. They are not concepted so large, as to require duty separation between stationmaster(s) and yardmaster(s). Passenger trains carry the suffix "P" and are represented by blue lines, while goods trains carry the suffix "G" and are represented by black lines. "Up" trains (to the direction of mileage) are Odd-numbered, while "Down" trains (against the direction of mileage) are Even-numbered. Assumingly, passenger services are operated with multiple units (to avoid describing their reversal at terminals). A fully manned conventional operation under this timetable would require up to 10 persons: 3 train operators (since up to 3 trains may be on the move simultaneously), 6 local stationmasters and a central dispatcher. Quite formidable for most but the largest clubs, right? Under our proposal this may be reduced to any size, down to 1 person(!), admitting that task duration will increase significantly as available workforce decreases. We analyze herein a 2-hour segment of the daily timetable from 15:00 to 17:00 hours. Procedures will not differ significantly regardless whether this layout represents a standalone system or it is connected to the outside world by fiddle yards at one or both ends.

1. The initial segment -or "round"- is defined between 15:00 and 15:20, when the first train meet takes place at ELTWEIDEN. The 2 dummy clocks display respectively these indications. Actions to be taken at this interval are:
   • The ELTWEIDEN stationmaster sets the switches for the meet between 101P and 102P
   • The crew of 101P proceeds from ALCOMANIA all the way to ELTWEIDEN making all intermediate stops as timetabled
   • The crew of 102P starts from FAUCK down to ELTWEIDEN
   • The dispatcher, upon receipt of completion reports for all the above, advances the dummy clocks to display the next time segment
2. The second segment is defined between 15:20 and 15:30, when the next train meet takes place at CORNMART. Actions for this interval are:
   • The CORNMART stationmaster sets the switches for the meet between 201G and 102P
   • The crew of 102P proceeds from ELTWEIDEN to CORNMART, making the intermediate stop for passengers.
   • The crew of local goods train 201G advances from ALCOMANIA to CORNMART
   • The dispatcher advances the dummy clocks
3. The third and most enjoyable segment is defined between 15:30 and 16:30
   • The crew of 102P proceeds from CORNMART to ALCOMANIA not forgetting the intermediate stop for passengers.
   • The crew of 201G switches the local industries at CORNMART. Then, it proceeds to DOBROSTO, when it also switches the local industries and other freight facilities as per the issued waybills.
   • Upon completion of these switching moves, the stationmaster of DOBROSTO notifies the adjacent stations that his/her main track is clear and they can request to send trains in.
   • Train 104P proceeds to DOBROSTO to meet 201G
   • The dispatcher advances the dummy clocks

Hopefully, the above scenario demonstrates adequately the philosophy of operations planning under this concepts and provides enough hints about timetable manipulations to fit actions into the agreed "turns"/time intervals. Please note that several secondary / routine / self-evident actions are omitted from our description for simplicity (such as track clearance confirmations between adjacent station masters preceding scheduled train meets).

Note:

Further elaboration is required to examine how this principle can be applied to large complex layouts representing multiple interlinked subdivision, requiring more than one string diagram to describe their timetables.