Messages From ldsig

 


----------------------------

#2518 Sep 14 1:51 PM

Ken Leaver is doing some final design work on his railroad

and suddenly wondered whether the map convention of

"north" being "up" translates to potential confusion on a

bi-level layout if the north end of his railroad is on the lower

(down) level. I started to say "don't worry about it" but then

decided to post his concern here to see if there are diverging

opinions.

Tony



----------------------------

#2522 Sep 14 2:51 PM

Don't worry about it. You don't really need to be close.

I think consistency is more important. East is always to one side or the other.

I don't like where east is to the right on one track and to the left on the

track close to it. It's confusing.

Check out the Cascade line where "railroad east" and geographical east match for

about 3 miles. The rest of the run is mostly north or west.

Several of us were down that way over Labor day. The dispatchers are calling

the trains running from Black Butte to Klamath Falls "northbound" and the same

train from Klamath Falls to Eugene "eastbound."

Terry Roberts

In the Pacific NW where we are having our usual September weather





From: "J Anthony Koester" jkoester@...>



Ken Leaver is doing some final design work on his railroad

and suddenly wondered whether the map convention of

"north" being "up" translates to potential confusion on a

bi-level layout if the north end of his railroad is on the lower

(down) level. I started to say "don't worry about it" but then

decided to post his concern here to see if there are diverging

opinions.

Tony



----------------------------

#2524 Sep 14 3:09 PM

and suddenly wondered whether the map convention of

>"north" being "up" translates to potential confusion on a

>bi-level layout if the north end of his railroad is on the lower

>(down) level.

If the ruling grades on the line in question are such that the "uphill"

section is on the south end of things, or some other modelled topographic

feature makes the directional orientation work right, then the focus on the

model will make it work.

If there's nothing *modelled* on the layout that gives the directional

clues needed, then operators might fall back to some sort of "default"

orientation (left is west, etc).

david d zuhn

starting the Hiawatha Switching District in st. paul, minnesota







----------------------------

#2525 Sep 14 3:12 PM

Upper level is west of lower level on my Dixon, Jerome & Hancock.

At least I didn't use too many packets with this bit of trivia. Tony only

asked about N-S railroads, but I replied anyway. He's review my design.

Doug Hughes



----------------------------

#2529 Sep 14 4:04 PM

Ken Leaver is doing some final design work on his railroad

> and suddenly wondered whether the map convention of

> "north" being "up" translates to potential confusion on a

> bi-level layout if the north end of his railroad is on the lower

> (down) level. I started to say "don't worry about it" but then

> decided to post his concern here to see if there are diverging

> opinions.

>

> Tony

Will south be his superior direction, giving priority to uphill trains?

That would help, I think.

Linda Sand



----------------------------

#2531 Sep 14 5:08 PM

There is always a prototype for most every thing. On the EJ&E Railway The

main line starts from Gary, In. & goes a little west then turns due south.

At Griffith, IN it turns due west. Just past Brisbane, IL. the main lines

turns north and into Joliet yard. As the main line leaves Joliet, IL. the

main lines goes north west, and at about Plainfield, IL. it turns north

east into Waukegan, IL. The railroad is labeled a east / west railroad

according to timetable.

John DePauw

-----Original Message-----

From: Terry_Roberts@... Terry_Roberts@...>

To: ldsig@onelist.com ldsig@onelist.com>

Date: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 9:52 AM

Subject: Re: [ldsig] Is north "up" on bi-levels?

>From: Terry_Roberts@...

>

>

>

>Don't worry about it. You don't really need to be close.

>

>I think consistency is more important. East is always to one side or theother. >I don't like where east is to the right on one track and to the left on the

>track close to it. It's confusing.

>

>Check out the Cascade line where "railroad east" and geographical eastmatch for >about 3 miles. The rest of the run is mostly north or west.

>

>Several of us were down that way over Labor day. The dispatchers arecalling >the trains running from Black Butte to Klamath Falls "northbound" and thesame >train from Klamath Falls to Eugene "eastbound."

>

>Terry Roberts

>In the Pacific NW where we are having our usual September weather

>

>

>

>

>

>

>From: "J Anthony Koester" jkoester@...>

>

>

>

>Ken Leaver is doing some final design work on his railroad

>and suddenly wondered whether the map convention of

>"north" being "up" translates to potential confusion on a

>bi-level layout if the north end of his railroad is on the lower

>(down) level. I started to say "don't worry about it" but then

>decided to post his concern here to see if there are diverging

>opinions.

>

>Tony

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

---------------

>

>Show your ONElist SPIRIT!

>a href=" ---Links-Are-Forbidden--- ">Click Here/a>

>With a new ONElist SHIRT available through our website.

>

---------------







----------------------------

#2533 Sep 14 6:11 PM

From: "J Anthony Koester" jkoester@...>

>

> Ken Leaver is doing some final design work on his railroad

> and suddenly wondered whether the map convention of

> "north" being "up" translates to potential confusion on a

> bi-level layout if the north end of his railroad is on the lower

> (down) level. I started to say "don't worry about it" but then

> decided to post his concern here to see if there are diverging

> opinions.

>

> Tony

It would seem to me that upper deck vs lower deck would be tied more

to the prevailing grade of the section being represented, than on the

direction of the compass. There are countless examples of locations

where "north" is down-grade. I would be more inclined to be confused

by having a seaport on the upper deck and mountains on the lower.

I think that it is far more important that N-S (or E-W) be clearly labeled

on track diagrams, either in an employees timetable or better - directly on

the fascia beneath each town, and for crews to be clearly told (in train

briefs, etc.) in which direction their train was initially headed.

Dick

--

***____ __I_|HH|_ Dick Lord, Current Technology

Y___|[]| ,~~~__ | x x | rhl@... DCC user NMRA >{|___|__|_|_____|_|_______| ---Links-Are-Forbidden--- /oo--@-@ oo oo oo oo HO B&M/MEC Mt. div. in progress.



----------------------------

#2534 Sep 14 7:53 PM

Hi All, >

> From: "J Anthony Koester" jkoester@...>

>

> Ken Leaver is doing some final design work on his railroad

> and suddenly wondered whether the map convention of

> "north" being "up" translates to potential confusion on a

> bi-level layout if the north end of his railroad is on the lower

> (down) level. I started to say "don't worry about it" but then

> decided to post his concern here to see if there are diverging

> opinions.

>

> Tony

>

Actually on bi-/multi-level layouts, I hadn't noticed, as I was more

interested in whether I was traveling in a certain railroad direction,

ie: railroad north or railroad west. The thing that confuses me

sometimes is when the railroad direction changes between levels.

On the Cajon Pass layout I operate on up here, the owner has three

levels of track. On each level, the north and south tracks "swap"

places. In other words, the north track starts out closer to the aisle

on the 3rd level, changes to the track away from the aisle on the 2nd

level and then returns to the aisle on the 1st level. It's a good thing

he has lots of little orientation signs posted on the fascia.

Jeff (DS, 102 requesting wrok time on the...dang, which track is it?)

Childs







----------------------------

#2536 Sep 14 11:41 PM

At 09:51 AM 9/14/99 -0400, J Anthony Koester wrote: >...potential confusion on a

>bi-level layout if the north end of his railroad is on the lower

>(down) level.

If it makes geographic sense to have the north end lower, then I see no

problem. I'm not sure that "north is up" is relevant here, because you're

standing "sideways" (facing east or west) as you look at the track. What

counts is the terrain.

Mike

------

Mike Dodd - Montpelier, VA

Modeling Virginian Railway, 1957

---Links-Are-Forbidden--- m



----------------------------

#2539 Sep 15 3:28 AM

As long as the railroad heads north and south, a consistent association

between left being south and right being north (or the other way around)

will present no problems. If you flip the l-s r-n relationship, look

out. Some people will adjust fine and others will have a significant

period of adjustment. Having someone in the hole working the yard that

has done nothing but work the main may take some adjustment for some

people. NASA has done considerable research into the direction

association problem. Specifically, the operator for the mechanical arm

on the shuttle. Fortunately, your problem is less severe.



----------------------------

#2599 Sep 16 2:09 PM

Thanks, everyone, for the feedback to Ken Leaver on the

"up is north" question. I'll relay your remarks to him.

FYI, we're sending everyone home at noon Thursday

due to "Himicane" Floyd approaching. It's like a

car wash out there, and the center is still well southeast

of here.

Tony (maybe modeling car ferries soon) the K.


S
e
n
i
o
r
T
u
b
e
.
o
r
g