02-28-2010, 05:26 PM
Here's the latest iterations, all in one image.
The first is Stein's plan that I re-drew in CadRail and is the same one posted earlier. Of the variations of this plan that Larry and Stein discussed, I still prefer the original. This doesn't include some of the scenic recomendations that Stein recommended yet.
The second is simply a redraw of Shortliner's with #6 turnouts and sized to the dimensions that I have available. Because of the lack of shelf depth and those relatively wide turnouts, it doesn't have quite the same "turn right to go left" feel for the one spur that Stein has a penchant for.
The challenge with this and the next two is that I would have to hand-lay the crossovers with no jig to guide me. That's a minus for getting started quickly, but a plus from a challenge / new opportunity standpoint.
The third feels a little busy. My thinking was this: Stein has made a good point about disguising or hiding the fact that the "main" doesn't go anywhere. Shortliner's puts the interchange track right up front, so I experimented with ways to hide it, in this case with another turnout and spur in front of it. It required that I make a concession on space; on this end, the layout is 2" wider than my original spec (a little over 9"). I mitigated the intrusion into my workbench by limiting the width increase to one side.
In addition, all the track on this end is not running parallel with the shelf, for interest's sake.
The fourth is a variation on the theme above, though with the main swinging toward the edge then back toward the back enough so that some type of building can disguise the exit. The other big change on this one is that I brought the right / left spur into the new land area so that I could cross over the main at a sharper angle. The concessions to doing this were losing slightly more workspace area and and it cut the length of the track servicing the business on the other side of the crossober approximately in half. The track on the backside of the crossover is just over 7" deep - doesn't leave much room for error, and decreases operational possibilities that a spur that could hold two cars would provide.
My apologies for not providing place names - that makes discussing this quite a bit more difficult!
Is the runaround of sufficient length on these? I haven't spent a lot of time mentally running switching scenarios through this. Thoughts?
The first is Stein's plan that I re-drew in CadRail and is the same one posted earlier. Of the variations of this plan that Larry and Stein discussed, I still prefer the original. This doesn't include some of the scenic recomendations that Stein recommended yet.
The second is simply a redraw of Shortliner's with #6 turnouts and sized to the dimensions that I have available. Because of the lack of shelf depth and those relatively wide turnouts, it doesn't have quite the same "turn right to go left" feel for the one spur that Stein has a penchant for.
The challenge with this and the next two is that I would have to hand-lay the crossovers with no jig to guide me. That's a minus for getting started quickly, but a plus from a challenge / new opportunity standpoint.
The third feels a little busy. My thinking was this: Stein has made a good point about disguising or hiding the fact that the "main" doesn't go anywhere. Shortliner's puts the interchange track right up front, so I experimented with ways to hide it, in this case with another turnout and spur in front of it. It required that I make a concession on space; on this end, the layout is 2" wider than my original spec (a little over 9"). I mitigated the intrusion into my workbench by limiting the width increase to one side.
In addition, all the track on this end is not running parallel with the shelf, for interest's sake.
The fourth is a variation on the theme above, though with the main swinging toward the edge then back toward the back enough so that some type of building can disguise the exit. The other big change on this one is that I brought the right / left spur into the new land area so that I could cross over the main at a sharper angle. The concessions to doing this were losing slightly more workspace area and and it cut the length of the track servicing the business on the other side of the crossober approximately in half. The track on the backside of the crossover is just over 7" deep - doesn't leave much room for error, and decreases operational possibilities that a spur that could hold two cars would provide.
My apologies for not providing place names - that makes discussing this quite a bit more difficult!
Is the runaround of sufficient length on these? I haven't spent a lot of time mentally running switching scenarios through this. Thoughts?
Matt Goodman
Columbus, Ohio
Columbus, Ohio