09-29-2010, 10:49 PM
Ed, your posting is very interesting. I understand a run around is something that that is very much avoided rather than a standard. Beside the cost of installation and maintenance of the extra spur and turnouts the operation time (and therefor cost) are so high they justify a lot of more economic alternatives. Options like presorting, engine in the middle, shoving platform, reduced speed are preferred by the prototype over run around.
When I voted for the run around version some days ago it was my assumption a run around would be at least a 50% standard. I am now learning a run around is an exception and not a standard. As an exception it is one more of the curiosity we model railroaders like to and/or have to inject into our layouts. While we have no chance but to dramatical shorten tracks, compress space, run around on US layouts like castles on German layout should be very carefully placed.
The prototype has much fewer of them than we place on our layouts. Is that the right message?
ps. What is "ISL planing"?
When I voted for the run around version some days ago it was my assumption a run around would be at least a 50% standard. I am now learning a run around is an exception and not a standard. As an exception it is one more of the curiosity we model railroaders like to and/or have to inject into our layouts. While we have no chance but to dramatical shorten tracks, compress space, run around on US layouts like castles on German layout should be very carefully placed.
The prototype has much fewer of them than we place on our layouts. Is that the right message?
ps. What is "ISL planing"?
Reinhard