03-16-2011, 12:21 AM
Well, I'm late to the conversation, but I couldn't not add as you were recently a big help on some questions I had.
Of the first three, I like #2 for three reasons: the flow away from the table that the extra depth allows you to do more convincingly, lack of a doubleslip, which I think are interesting, but seem too complex for this type of layout and last, the longer runaround tail on the right compared to design #1. #3 is out of the running due to the lack of a runaround.
So that all said, the newest design is very good for the depth; nice length runaround tails on both ends, and a little flow to the trackwork.
Another 2" of depth would make that same plan even better (but doesn't it always?
)
Of the first three, I like #2 for three reasons: the flow away from the table that the extra depth allows you to do more convincingly, lack of a doubleslip, which I think are interesting, but seem too complex for this type of layout and last, the longer runaround tail on the right compared to design #1. #3 is out of the running due to the lack of a runaround.
So that all said, the newest design is very good for the depth; nice length runaround tails on both ends, and a little flow to the trackwork.
Another 2" of depth would make that same plan even better (but doesn't it always?
)
Matt Goodman
Columbus, Ohio
Columbus, Ohio