Freelance 2011

[dave_long]

Hi Reinhard
Have you seen the new Cobalt turnout motors from DCC concepts ~(Austrailia) they're a new unit based on a similar design to the tortoise but smaller and IMO better in most ways than the tortoise, it also switches off at the end of the throw as opposed to just stalling.

Not much use really if you live in the US but in Europe they might be worth a look, not sure about Euro suppliers but they're sold by quite a few UK shops, I know where probably not the best country to buy from.

http://www.dccconcepts.com/index_files/C..._motor.htm

Dave

[MrBill]

That's some major re-alignment. Looks great! Is there an overall track plan of your layout posted here somewhere?

[Gary S]

Reinhard, that is some nice work and your photos are nice too. Good to see you back at the layout. I like the use of the three-way turn-out that will make the yard more compact.

[jonte]

You made short work of that, Reinhard, well done!

Good luck with the '3 way' ; I'm sure you'll have better luck with Peco than I did (and, no doubt, the 'know how' to circumnavigate any potential problems!)

Good to hear from you again.

Jonte

[faraway]

Dave, I did continue to use my older switch machines. The new Tortoise will be used when I replace all machines. I do not like to mix them. The very new one you mention look good.

MrBill, Gary, thanks for the friendly words.

Jonte, the 3-way works fine at initial testing (5 minutes) with an Athern SW1500. We will see how the story proceeds...

I am glad I changed my mind and do the redesign in increments. Only one day was enough to get the basic track work done. It would be somewhat better if it had been done from scratch but the saved effort and time of not so much preferred work is a big bonus to me.
I will stop the work now and do testing for some time until I proceed. I want to know if my idea of a small yard (like LAJ A yard) to feed industry on a small ISL works over some time.

I will draw a (simplified) track layout in the near future as I need to discuss two alternatives here.

[faraway]

Here we go with a hand drawn track map.



The tracks 1,2,3 are the new classification tracks. They are served from track 4. Track 5 is the main track.
Track 6 is an industry lead used to serve the industry at tracks 7 - 13.
At the moment is track 6 connected to the main track (5) on both sides. It might be used as another siding/run around for track 5 and the current layout permits to serve 7-9 from the left side and 11-13 from the right side.. That is not my intention but a leftover from the old layout design.
Question:
How about disconnection track 6 at the right side from track 5 and remove the turnout? The right part of track 6 will be used as a lead track to reach tracks 10 - 13. The left side will be the one and only connection to the main track.


Remark: The industry and the detailed track plan of the tracks 7 - 13 will be changed in further steps as I build new industry.

[jonte]

Hi Reinhard.

Glad to hear that you've had some early results with the '3 way'; I'm sure that any faults would have been immediately apparent.

Not sure whether I'm qualified to advise with your query regarding keeping or scrapping the right hand side feed to line #6 from #5, but either/or looks fine to me: keeping it means that you keep the extra runround facility intact, and with goods yards/marshalling yards, you can't have enough of them

Scrapping it makes operation a little more interesting as the loco will have to switch ends depending whether you're switching the sidings to the left or right hand side, which means an extra visit to the remaining runround loop on this side. Only concern here is whether the extra 'moves' would be considered prototypical as time is money, so perhaps there's a case for keeping it afterall. Incidentally, the truncated line between numbers 5 and 6 will form what is known in the UK as a 'head shunt' (think I'm right in saying this :?: ).

Finally, If I might be so bold to suggest, Reinhard, and it's only my humble opinion (bearing in mind I still don't really know what I'm talking about ) that the 'kick back' siding #10 could be considered unprototypical again due to the extra time involved in switching it. Perhaps it should face in the same directions as either groups 7 - 9 or 11 - 13 inclusive? Having said that, there's a prototype for everything.....................

Jonte

[faraway]

Jonte, thanks for the feedback.

My idea to have a prototypical operation with a disconnected track 5 and 6 at the right side is to put the burden on the classification yard to group the cars and put the engine at the "right" end to serve the kick back industry. The local should not do a run around.

My draft thoughts about the future industry is as follows:
Tracks 7,8,9 are ok. They are relative long and will persist. May be moved one or two inch when new industry buildings will be set.
Track 10 will not survive in that form. A radical solution would be to connect it directly to track 6
Tracks 11,12,13 are to much and to short. With a vanished track 10 a turnout might get closer to track 6 and form two new longer tracks 11 and 12.

[jonte]

Jonte, thanks for the feedback.

My idea to have a prototypical operation with a disconnected track 5 and 6 at the right side is to put the burden on the classification yard to group the cars and put the engine at the "right" end to serve the kick back industry. The local should not do a run around.

My draft thoughts about the future industry is as follows:
Tracks 7,8,9 are ok. They are relative long and will persist. May be moved one or two inch when new industry buildings will be set.
Track 10 will not survive in that form. A radical solution would be to connect it directly to track 6
Tracks 11,12,13 are to much and to short. With a vanished track 10 a turnout might get closer to track 6 and form two new longer tracks 11 and 12.

Aahh....yes, I see.

Sounds like you've solved it, Reinhard. All seems very plausible.

Best wishes,

Jonte.

[faraway]

After 24 hours staring at the modified layout a severe problem becomes visible.

Six parallel tracks look like a track collection and there is no indication of the very different use of track 5 and 6. They all look the same.
I plan to fix that by
a. removing tracks 7, 10 and 13 to get space between track 6 and the industry for a street
b. put track 6 into that street (street running).
c. discontinue track 6 at the right end. It sole purpose is access to industry tracks 8 and 9 and be a lead for tracks 11 and 12.
d. I have to think about different ballast, gravel for tracks 1 -3 to break the boring collection of tracks.

ps. I am sorry to give up on track 7. It is very long and a nice interims storage. However, the new yard tracks 1 - 3 are a better solution.

[jonte]

After 24 hours staring at the modified layout a severe problem becomes visible.

Six parallel tracks look like a track collection and there is no indication of the very different use of track 5 and 6. They all look the same.
I plan to fix that by
a. removing tracks 7, 10 and 13 to get space between track 6 and the industry for a street
b. put track 6 into that street (street running).
c. discontinue track 6 at the right end. It sole purpose is access to industry tracks 8 and 9 and be a lead for tracks 11 and 12.
d. I have to think about different ballast, gravel for tracks 1 -3 to break the boring collection of tracks.

ps. I am sorry to give up on track 7. It is very long and a nice interims storage. However, the new yard tracks 1 - 3 are a better solution.

Hi Reinhard

I think the old adage rings true here....."less is more", as they say.

It's a shame and also disappointing when a well contrived idea has to be shelved to the benefit of the whole picture, but I suspect it's for the best.

By the way..............love the pencil sketch approach....nice to see I'm not alone here

Best wishes,

Jonte.

[MrBill]

A true model railroader! No analysis paralysis here. Nor fear of change. I went back trough "In the South" and saw that the plan had been pretty much posted already, but this newest study is most inspiring. Very cool ongoing project.

[faraway]

bye bye little stub track... I shot the photo to demonstrate why a tracks needs to have a certain length to hold two 50-60' boxcars plus todays standard switching power used (e.g. Genset + GP15 = 16.5"!). The old track was designed for 40' cars with a single Sx or SWx engine and did not permit the new planned street.



And the track that could be reached badly has been removed too. I like to convert the track plan from a switching puzzle into an ISL

[faraway]

All basic track work has been completed

Track 7 has been removed. The residual ballast and ties will be done tomorrow with a vacuum after soaking with water. Today is a public holiday in Germany and the old robust vacuum is to noisy. I need to remove lots of well glued sand to get an even base for the planned road.


And finally track 6 (the old mainline) has been disconnected from the new mainline and is a lead track only.

[faraway]

Yesterdays rail painting was a nice and relaxing job. Todays job is cleanup of all the mess.
Did you know that those who put all the ballast and sand on the layout are those who have to remove all of the ballast and sand from the layout....


However, after that dirty work I end up with a nice and clean track layout ready for the long road and lots of new ballast...



ps. can we call it a track plan too