Messages From ldsig

 


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

#20277 Jan 17, 2001

Hello again,

---Links-Are-Forbidden--- updated with my latest and greatest, lets hope anyway.

thanks again,

mark stephens



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

#20289 Jan 17, 2001

At 07:39 PM 1/16/2001 -0500, Mark Stephens wrote: > ---Links-Are-Forbidden--- updated with my latest and greatest, lets hope anyway.

The main through Dresser is good.

I like the industries on the RHS being off the siding, very prototypical.

The third track around into Dresser will tend to join the two scenes,

though, and make the railroad seem smaller. Joining the siding back

onto the main where the crossover is, and peeling it off again in

Dresser will separate the scenes.

In Dresser, drilling the LH industry track requires the use of the

RH industry track, which means pulling the RH track to serve the LH.

Better to put the second turnout back in. You have the same situation

on the RH side, and in North Fork, but these are outside of the main

town. Also, it would be better to have something different here, so

all three don't switch the same way.

With the grades you show, a downgrade on the branch would give you

clearance for a staging yard at the end of the branch under the North

Fork mine and tipple.

Note the length of the RH industry track in NF does not require pulling

it to serve the 2 LH tracks, unlike the similar situation in Dresser.

What are the two buildings map south of the NF mine and tipple? I

assume the track past them is to service them, while the track which

comes off the mine yard lead is the drill track. These would be

unlikely to be connected as shown. The track in front of the buildings

would be a stub, as would the drill track.

Having all the mine leads off the siding is nice; same as in the other

location above: very prototypical.

I don't understand the location of the crossovers on the main. I

would think these would be spread at least the length of power caboose

beyond the siding switches, to allow main line trains to pass coal

hoppers left on the main during switching of the mine. The nearest LH

crossover is way back at the map east end of Dresser, and there is no

RH between the mine siding switch and staging. I would think this:

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

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

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

would be more likely than this:

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

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

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

Also, if you moved the LH crossover around the corner a ways, you could

use the main to drill the mine, gain drill length, lose the other drill

track, and separate the scenes more. This would also add some interest

on the main behind North Fork.

Why the two dead-end staging tracks, instead of making them all through?

There's room.

Hope my well-intentioned meanderings haven't lost their welcome yet!

Rich Weyand | _______ ___,---. --- _______:_ |Rich Weyand

Weyand Associates| |_N_&_W_| |_N_&_W_| |__|________|_ |TracTronics

Forensic Examiner| ooo ooo ~ ooo ooo ~ oOOOO- OOOO=o\ |Model RR Electronics

weyand@... | ---Links-Are-Forbidden--- |weyand@...







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

#20290 Jan 17, 2001

Hi,

From: "Rich Weyand" weyand@...> >

> With the grades you show, a downgrade on the branch would give you

> clearance for a staging yard at the end of the branch under the North

> Fork mine and tipple.

I haven't given up on additional staging yet, I forgot to mention that in the

plan. THere is a lot of wasted space behind the mine that I can use. > What are the two buildings map south of the NF mine and tipple? I

> assume the track past them is to service them, while the track which

> comes off the mine yard lead is the drill track. These would be

> unlikely to be connected as shown. The track in front of the buildings

> would be a stub, as would the drill track.

I figured these were service areas for bad cars and for the switching

equipment that the mine operated. I guess the switch is unneeded, I was

thinking something about running around a set of cars, but there is no need

for this. >

> I don't understand the location of the crossovers on the main. I

> would think these would be spread at least the length of power caboose

> beyond the siding switches, to allow main line trains to pass coal

Yea, I am out of room because the curves are eased from 15" to straight, so

the switches are located as soon as possible. I will try to rework this ...

with a change in drills this might work out just fine. >

> Also, if you moved the LH crossover around the corner a ways, you could

> use the main to drill the mine, gain drill length, lose the other drill

> track, and separate the scenes more. This would also add some interest

> on the main behind North Fork.

I thought I was seperating scenes by providing an seperate drill? I like this

idea, but I thought it would be wrong to foul the main while working the mine. >

> Why the two dead-end staging tracks, instead of making them all through?

> There's room.

Hmmm, I guess I haven't finalized that area yet. I wanted to fit a 15 car

coal train on the staging tracks and the only way I had room was to remove the

second set of switches. I was also thinking about running staging around the

RH corner a ways to give me just a bit more room. >

> Hope my well-intentioned meanderings haven't lost their welcome yet!

No Way! All ideas considered. I wish I could move the RH side out as you

suggested but I have this darn water meter and shutoff valve in the way that

would catch people even if I moved the table out 2 feet from the wall.

thanks!

mark stephens

---Links-Are-Forbidden--- r







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

#20291 Jan 17, 2001

Mark Stephens wrote: > No Way! All ideas considered. I wish I could move the RH side out as you

> suggested but I have this darn water meter and shutoff valve in the waythat > would catch people even if I moved the table out 2 feet from the wall.

Mark,

I haven't been following this thread in detail but have you considers

moving

the water meter? This is one of those obstacles that can be relocated, and

if

it significantly improves the plan, the expense of the move can be

justified.

Don Burn



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

#20295 Jan 17, 2001

Well,

It is located where the water comes in from the outside, just passed the

shutoff and pressure regulator. I don't think I am at the point where I can

justify that expense :) Maybe for my next layout ....

mark stephens

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

From: "Don Burn" burn@...>

>

> I haven't been following this thread in detail but have you considers

> moving

> the water meter? This is one of those obstacles that can be relocated, and

> if

> it significantly improves the plan, the expense of the move can be

> justified.

>

> Don Burn

>

>

>

>

>

>



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

#20301 Jan 17, 2001

At 08:54 AM 1/17/2001 -0500, Don Burn wrote: > I haven't been following this thread in detail but have you considers moving

>the water meter? This is one of those obstacles that can be relocated, and if

>it significantly improves the plan, the expense of the move can be

>justified.

Ooo, there's a point. I mooved Charlie Vlk's water heater in about

an hour of pipe swearing -- er, sweating. My water heaters took

considerably longer to move....

Rich Weyand | _______ ___,---. --- _______:_ |Rich Weyand

Weyand Associates| |_N_&_W_| |_N_&_W_| |__|________|_ |TracTronics

Forensic Examiner| ooo ooo ~ ooo ooo ~ oOOOO- OOOO=o\ |Model RR Electronics

weyand@... | ---Links-Are-Forbidden--- |weyand@...







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

#20302 Jan 17, 2001

At 09:37 AM 1/17/2001 -0500, Mark Stephens wrote: >It is located where the water comes in from the outside, just passed the

>shutoff and pressure regulator. I don't think I am at the point where I can

>justify that expense :) Maybe for my next layout ....

If you have a buddy who's handy with a blow torch and a pipe cutter,

it doesn't have to cost a cent, though you might have to trade favors.



Rich Weyand | _______ ___,---. --- _______:_ |Rich Weyand

Weyand Associates| |_N_&_W_| |_N_&_W_| |__|________|_ |TracTronics

Forensic Examiner| ooo ooo ~ ooo ooo ~ oOOOO- OOOO=o\ |Model RR Electronics

weyand@... | ---Links-Are-Forbidden--- |weyand@...



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

#20304 Jan 17, 2001

RE water valve,

Perhaps you could just raise the valve up on the pipe, so the handle was

up high, maybe jsut above eye

level. I did this with an electrical box in my Calif. Basement (garage).

Don't know about the legal/code

ramifications, but then the valve hande would just be peeping out above a

segment of backdrop.

These would seem simple, but then I'm not there either (g)

JonC.............SP Inyo Sub.

Mojave to Battle Mountain over Montgomery Pass

Serving the Owens Valley and the Potash Industry



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

#20311 Jan 17, 2001

At 08:48 AM 1/17/2001 -0500, Mark Stephens wrote: >I haven't given up on additional staging yet, I forgot to mention that in the

>plan. THere is a lot of wasted space behind the mine that I can use.

I just uploaded a revision from playing with the plan. I added staging

under the mine area, moved the crossovers to allow using the main as

a drill track for the mine, removed the mine drill track and the extra

runaround, added a crossover in Dresser, removed the 'third main' between

Dresser and the RH industries, moved the crossover for the RH industries

to the prototypical location, and rearranged the storage track ladders.

With the storage track ladders, I arranged them so each track peels off

the main. Unprototypical for a yard, but as storage it gives you a

greater difference between your longest and shortest track. This is

real handy in staging unless all your trains will be about the same

length. I would probably add another two tracks to storage along the

same concept, adding the track inside the others. It will be shorter,

but do not underestimate the importance of short staging tracks. I

added a very short staging track to Malcolm Alberry's plan and gained

back a long staging track that would have been wasted by an RDC.

Rich Weyand | _______ ___,---. --- _______:_ |Rich Weyand

Weyand Associates| |_N_&_W_| |_N_&_W_| |__|________|_ |TracTronics

Forensic Examiner| ooo ooo ~ ooo ooo ~ oOOOO- OOOO=o\ |Model RR Electronics

weyand@... | ---Links-Are-Forbidden--- |weyand@...







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

#20330 Jan 17, 2001

Howdy,

I have updated ---Links-Are-Forbidden--- with the latest plan. I have

made most of the changes Rich suggested except for bringing the passenger

switch around to the right to give the train more room to sit off the

mainline. Does this carry the scene around? Would it be ok for the passenger

train to foul the inner maintrack? Any additional comments would be

appreciated, I think I am ready to buy my 2250" of track :) I think thats 3

miles 1:1.

Oh, and I haven't move the water meter, I can get no internal support for that

little venture.

mark stephens

From: "Rich Weyand" weyand@...> > I just uploaded a revision from playing with the plan. I added staging

> under the mine area, moved the crossovers to allow using the main as

> ....



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

#20333 Jan 18, 2001

At 06:50 PM 1/17/2001 -0500, Mark Stephens wrote: >I have updated ---Links-Are-Forbidden--- with the latest plan. I have

>made most of the changes Rich suggested except for bringing the passenger

>switch around to the right to give the train more room to sit off the

>mainline. Does this carry the scene around? Would it be ok for the passenger

>train to foul the inner maintrack?

Don't forget the NF branch. With a passenger train long

enough to hang out on the main, what the prototype would

probably do for a long stop is pull the train in the clear,

using the NF branch to give enough length. When departing,

the train backs up to get behind the crossover first. For

a short stop or a less busy main, the passenger train

probably wouldn't bother, the dispatcher would route around,

using convenient crossovers.

Rich Weyand | _______ ___,---. --- _______:_ |Rich Weyand

Weyand Associates| |_N_&_W_| |_N_&_W_| |__|________|_ |TracTronics

Forensic Examiner| ooo ooo ~ ooo ooo ~ oOOOO- OOOO=o\ |Model RR Electronics

weyand@... | ---Links-Are-Forbidden--- |weyand@...







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

#20338 Jan 18, 2001

Rich wrote: >Don't forget the NF branch. With a passenger train long

>enough to hang out on the main, what the prototype would

>probably do for a long stop is pull the train in the clear,

>using the NF branch to give enough length. When departing,

>the train backs up to get behind the crossover first. For

>a short stop or a less busy main, the passenger train

>probably wouldn't bother, the dispatcher would route around,

>using convenient crossovers.

This is a little discussed item in layout design. Sometimes it is good to

leave some 'problem' areas that require special handling than to design

every nuance out of a plan. I don't mean leave a serious situation that is

just a pain to work around every session, but areas that need a bit of

finesse to do well. Places like an industrial zone where there are some

areas that require a spacer car to reach in and switch, or a passenger

train that needs the Pullmans pulled for service and return.

The scenario you describe is of that ilk, not always a problem and not

enough of a problem for special crossovers to be added just to solve it.

Sounds good to me!

Cheers,

Rick

--

Rick Blanchard

rick@...

Espanola, New Mexico



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

#20340 Jan 18, 2001

Mark Stephens wrote: > >I have updated ---Links-Are-Forbidden--- with the latest plan....

Double check your druthers to make sure you are planning 4 axle diesel

power or shorter wheelbase steam and shorty cars. Fifteen inches is a very

tight radius in N scale, and while it will work, larger equipment will

possibly complain going around those curves or look a bit toylike. One of

the nice things about N is the use of broader curves on an average sized

layout. I don't know where your tightest curves are, bit it looks like most

of the trackage can be eased out to 20" min at the ends and corners and not

affect the design adversely. I'd run some tests with flextrack and a

typical train before committing totally to those radii. If it is going to

be a long coal drag of 50 cars or so, see how it behaves before nailing

down the track.

For a comparison, on a large club sized layout (SDSONS in SDMRRM), the main

has a min radius of 30" and the branchline a min of 24".

Looking at your backyard forest, I wonder how long it will be until you

start in on a largescale layout out there...

Cheers,

Rick

--

Rick Blanchard

rick@...

Espanola, New Mexico







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

#20342 Jan 18, 2001

From: "Rick Blanchard" rick@...> > Double check your druthers to make sure you are planning 4 axle diesel

> power or shorter wheelbase steam and shorty cars. Fifteen inches is a very

> tight radius in N scale, and while it will work, larger equipment will

> possibly complain going around those curves or look a bit toylike. One of

Track Planning for Realistic Operations says 14" is conventional and can take

most equipment with easements. Is this incorrect? I have easements on all

curves, and all are 15" min except some sidings have 12". I was planning 4

axle diesel, but hoping to run some passenger service smoothly. >

> Looking at your backyard forest, I wonder how long it will be until you

> start in on a largescale layout out there...

>

I've seen the prices on that scale (G?) at Davis Trains in Milford OH. No

thanks, but if I win the lottery look out. :) Of course, I don't play the

lottery ....

mark stephens

---Links-Are-Forbidden--- r



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

#20346 Jan 18, 2001

At 07:54 PM 1/17/2001 -0700, Rick Blanchard wrote: >Double check your druthers to make sure you are planning 4 axle diesel

>power or shorter wheelbase steam and shorty cars. Fifteen inches is a very

>tight radius in N scale, and while it will work, larger equipment will

>possibly complain going around those curves or look a bit toylike.

Mmm. I will disagree with this one a bit. 15" in N scale is comparable

to 28" in HO, not exactly tight. I have 14 and 15.5 in the helix, and

15.5 and 17 in the turnabouts in the main room, so my tightest *uphill*

radius is 15.5. No problems, but you do want those cars weighted

properly. 4-axle, 6-axle, Mallets, and long wheelbase 4-8-4s have no

problems. The tighter radius in the mine area is a different issue.

The Mallets won't like that, but the 4-axle and even 6-axle power should

have no problems.

Rich Weyand | _______ ___,---. --- _______:_ |Rich Weyand

Weyand Associates| |_N_&_W_| |_N_&_W_| |__|________|_ |TracTronics

Forensic Examiner| ooo ooo ~ ooo ooo ~ oOOOO- OOOO=o\ |Model RR Electronics

weyand@... | ---Links-Are-Forbidden--- |weyand@...







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

#20349 Jan 18, 2001

Mark,

I've run 4 axle diesels on an eased 12" curve with shorter trains (10-12

cars), but if you have long coal drags the curve might give you problems.

If you can do a temporary setup and test a typical train you may be much

happier or at least proceed with confidence. Physics doesn't scale too well

and a tight curve is going to affect what you can run. If you can sneak

another inch here and there go for it. The 14" curve Armstrong has there

may have been the equivalent of HO scaled down. It seems tighter than it

needs to be. Atlas makes track down to 9 1/2"r and I've run a Challenger on

it but it didn't like it real well and looked weird. What I'd do for the

places like the right side of Dresser is to expand that inner radius until

it is within 6" of the turnouts, and whatever that radius is, use it. Same

in other areas. I don't know the lengths of your passenger cars. The 60

footers would be fine. The 85 footers would operate ok but you'd have to

decide how they look. >Track Planning for Realistic Operations says 14" is conventional and can take

>most equipment with easements. Is this incorrect? I have easements on all

>curves, and all are 15" min except some sidings have 12". I was planning 4

>axle diesel, but hoping to run some passenger service smoothly.

>I've seen the prices on that scale (G?) at Davis Trains in Milford OH. No

>thanks, but if I win the lottery look out. :) Of course, I don't play the

>lottery ....

True enough. The thing that is infectious is if you enjoy being outside and

working in the earth, and wander off to narrow gauge operations where you

don't need 300 cars to populate the layout, maybe just 15, the total cost

can be kept down. It is still the realm of scratchbuilding and hand laying

track, and all that craziness and fun. Then again, your wife and child are

right out there with you, and that is another treat.

Cheers,

Rick

--

Rick Blanchard

rick@...

Espanola, New Mexico







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

#20356 Jan 18, 2001

On 1/17/2001 8:06 PM,Mark Stephens wrote: > Track Planning for Realistic Operations says 14" is conventional and can take

> most equipment with easements. Is this incorrect? I have easements on all

> curves, and all are 15" min except some sidings have 12". I was planning 4

> axle diesel, but hoping to run some passenger service smoothly.

Due to space limitations, I must run my Kato E-8 and Daylight set on a 9"

radius sectional track curve, including a 30 degree crossing. I have tested

at full speed forward and at least half speed in reverse with no operating

problems.

Of course, the doors are supposed to be locked and passengers are reminded

not to travel between cars during trips through this trackage.

Dan

--Recipe for an American renaissance: eat in diners, ride trains, shop on

Main Street, put a porch on your house, live downtown.


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