highpeak Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Here's my 'Performance Review' of my weekend. Something normally associated with work, but what the hell. (And just for fun, I'm definitely not advocating this as normal practice) Project Plan, and completions against target Paint and decal a pair of GATX tank cars - complete, plus achieved stretch goal (weathered one car) Patch and renumber a pair of ATSF GP38s - complete, plus achieved one stretch goal (weathered one GP38) and one additional unscheduled task (patched and renumbered GP50) Paint a bunch of industrial buildings - partially complete. One building primer only. assemble one or both Cement Plant buildings - barely started re-jig the tracks in various places - not completely happy with a couple of locations - not started time on task: around 7 hours total resources: several pints of tea and coffee. One curry. One bar of chocolate. start time: 09.00 completion time: 22.00 elapsed time: 13 hours wasted time: 6 hours 46.15% ineffective ToT rating C+ Since I didn't start the weekend with a MoSCoW plan in place, and only had one day not two, it's amazing I got as much done as I did. Doc, you seem to be working awfully hard at this railroad thing, maybe you should find a nice hobby where you can relax a bit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted October 28, 2014 Author Share Posted October 28, 2014 Oh dear. Lifted all the track this evening, went all a bit Coachmann. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Oh dear. Lifted all the track this evening, went all a bit Coachmann. Uh-oh!! Dare one ask why?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
highpeak Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Wait a minute, you can't just rip up the rails like that! Where were the notices of intent to abandon? What will the STB say? Is the line to be rail-banked? Inquiring minds want to know! http://www.stb.dot.gov/stb/docs/Abandonments%20and%20Alternatives1.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinw62 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Oh dear. Lifted all the track this evening, went all a bit Coachmann. Yikes! Sounds drastic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold roundhouse Posted October 29, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 29, 2014 Another shortline abandoned!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 A few reasons. Mainly, it just didn't look railroady enough. I'm a bit stuck really, as I suspect I'm still trying to fit too much track in. Also, two of the turnouts had become defective. Once I had lifted it and turned them over, I could see that one of the wires linking the closure rail to the rail beyond the frog had come adrift. No way to fix it, so I shall have to bodge it. Once I'd lifted them, I just got the urge to keep going. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) Another candidate for the serial layout builders club - I'm having very serious thoughts about my build too - that Shilshole Yard idea (dead simple!) is calling me! I can see it being used anywhere in USA, for any of the (Too Many) RRs I have locos for, and just doing interchange transfers with any cars and traffic that appeals, all industries/interchange connection being off layout Edited October 29, 2014 by shortliner 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
switcher 1 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 I'm with you there, if it don't 'feel' right, then it ain't right. (I had a nice little I.S.L. on a board, but it didn't do it for me, so rethink time.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielB Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Jack - that Shilshole Yard info you found inspired my new track plan, you can see it in my thread. But yeah, I totally agree - if it aint right, don't do it. I've ripped up 3 layouts now before getting to the stage I'm at. When it's right, it'll just click. For the space you have - less is definitely more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Current thought is the twin-track yard (with a possible turnout off the loop feeding a loading platform at one end), with a road crossing at each end, feeding a two or 3 track sector plate at each end. could provide enough switching and storage to give reasonable amount of operation in the space I have available 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Leave the track up and fit some cyclists. Rails-to-Trails! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) I had thought about that, Tim, but I think it is rather more than I want to pay - particularly as I'd need several sets, and crossing baseboard joins will be a problem! Edited October 29, 2014 by shortliner Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted November 7, 2014 Author Share Posted November 7, 2014 I managed to spend a couple of hours in the shed this afternoon. I am making slow but steady progress with the Walthers Ready Mix plant, but I really need to invest in some up-to-date glue like Mr Cement S. I also attacked the track again, and by close of play had reduced the formerly fully functional pike to this. I might actually start rebuilding instead of dismantling over the weekend... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeHohn Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Here's an equation for model rail satisfaction: R = L / (S + T + U) where: R = how railroady things look L = average length of sidings S = number of turnouts T = number of three-way turnouts U = number of fancy non-prototypical trackwork spots 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 If you want to look (US) railroady. . . The main takes the straight route of the turnouts. Straight is shortest (and far less cost) way between two points, and for laying tracks, sidings and spurs. Curves are for those few rare situations where there was an immovable obstacle before the railroad got there, or the land drops away. Fundamentally, the land the right of way was laid on, along with the yards etc., was often donated or very low cost. Hence slips, 3 ways, etc. were rarely needed, except for city station throats. Compared to the UK, it's a big, spacious, country. Andy 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted November 7, 2014 Author Share Posted November 7, 2014 No slips, 3 ways curved or any other tricky track on my pike.... just plain jane #8s. I'm set to simplify the yard this weekend, and relay the industry tracks to give fewer longer spurs. I also want to get a curved spur into a General Mills site like Vernon, Ca. The other end of the industrial district will have the ready mix plant and the cement silos. Ideally my shed would be twice as wide and three times as long.... I wouldn't have a much bigger railroad, but I would spread out what I did have. Mojo somewhat returned after watching a bunch of LAJ vids on youtube. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeHohn Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I obviously spent too much time today reading a paper about optimizing a fleet of driverless on-demand cars in cities. Encountered some math symbols I was not taught in school. Interesting nevertheless. Anyway, Andy is right about the main route through a turnout was usually the straight path. In those situations where the main route was the diverging path, track engineers had a way of tucking the diverging route point into the stock rail to 'protect it.' If I recall, there would be a little kink worked in, basically a subtle curve in the 'straight' stock rail before the diverging point to transition into the curve. Hard to describe. Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted November 8, 2014 Author Share Posted November 8, 2014 (edited) Here's an equation for model rail satisfaction: R = L / (S + T + U) where: R = how railroady things look L = average length of sidings S = number of turnouts T = number of three-way turnouts U = number of fancy non-prototypical trackwork spots This reminds me of Tony Koester's Second Corollary of Model Railroading. 'The number of staging tracks you actually need, N, is determined by the equation 2n+ 1 = N where n is the number of staging tracks you initially thought you would need.' I feel actual pain when I see the main route take the curved leg of a turnout! on a plan or layout It's such an obvious model railroad trick. I know there are examples on the prototype, but they look wrong too! Current thinking is this... or this.... but I'm open to suggestions. Edited November 8, 2014 by Dr Gerbil-Fritters Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 I obviously spent too much time today reading a paper about optimizing a fleet of driverless on-demand cars in cities. Encountered some math symbols I was not taught in school. Interesting nevertheless. Anyway, Andy is right about the main route through a turnout was usually the straight path. In those situations where the main route was the diverging path, track engineers had a way of tucking the diverging route point into the stock rail to 'protect it.' If I recall, there would be a little kink worked in, basically a subtle curve in the 'straight' stock rail before the diverging point to transition into the curve. Hard to describe. Mike It has more to do with the serious speed restriction imposed on the the diverging route of all US regular (non-high speed) turnouts. You'd reduce the "main" speed limit to a near crawl (5 mph?) if you run it through the diverging route. Andy 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted November 10, 2014 Author Share Posted November 10, 2014 I managed a couple of hours in the shed over the weekend, and got the Ready Mix plant finished ready for spraying. I also tinkered about with the track to see if I could work out what was bugging me about the previous version. It seems to hinge on my dislike of a large amount of prime real estate given over to staging tracks, but also needing to have staging tracks as I want to be able to get rolling stock 'off stage'. I can't accept a train sitting in front of me as having been delivered by another railroad for some reason... Anyway, it occurred to me that I could shove the staging out of the way AND extend the length of run by almost 50%. I've mocked this up in actual track (should have taken some pictures) and it does seem to work quite well - the real benefit is the whole extra run along the bottom of the plan for more industries, plus an impressive sized General Mills plant. I am working away from home for the next three days, so if it still looks ok when I get back then next weekend I shall go ahead and start nailing the track down again. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNER4479 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I like it because you now have either a run-round loop or a place where two trains can pass (well that's how I would use it anyway!). Should add to the operational possibilities and thus interest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I like it because you now have either a run-round loop or a place where two trains can pass (well that's how I would use it anyway!). Should add to the operational possibilities and thus interest. Only non-railroad possible problem I can see, is having a large number of your delicate and valuable trains default to sitting on the doorway lifting section, when not in use. That will get old very quickly, apart from the increased risk of accidents and inconvenience if having to exit at short notice. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I was wondering if there was/is a way of fitting the staging on a cart/mobile peninsula so that it can be moved for entrance/exit purposes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gary H Posted November 10, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 10, 2014 If I can offer another alternative to the lift out section- don't have one! I use a duck under and after having it for the last 8 years, it really is no big deal to 'duck under'. Even at the corner of the layout where its probably 3 feet wide. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now