Didn't get to really do an indepth look but saw huge train collection in there. nice issue from what I did see thou
Life's hard, even harder if your stupid John Wayne
http://rtssite.shutterfly.com/
Mine is here also.
Celebrating 18 years on the CTT Forum.
Buckeye Riveter......... OTTS Charter Member, a Roseyville Raider and a member of the CTT Forum since 2004..
Jelloway Creek, OH - ELV 1,100 - Home of the Baltimore, Ohio & Wabash RR
TCA 09-64284
Got mine yesterday!!!!
laz57
I got mine yesterday,
Check out page 30.......
Autographed copies are available.
My moment in the sun is over...
Jon
Wife had mine on the counter when I arrived today. Just getting into it now. Jon, regarding your moment in the sun, I know with your talents, you'll have many more.
Dennis
TCA#09-63805
Blueberryhill RR I got mine yesterday, Check out page 30....... Autographed copies are available.
Read that last night and never pay attention to who sent it in
I find it amusing that the magazine refers to a layout that's 11x23 feet as "compact." (p.62) I guess their reality and mine are different.
Also, I wish they would get out of the annoying habit of referring to the common return wire(s) as "ground." (p.57) Poor terminology, that.
Pete
"You can’t study the darkness by flooding it with light." - Edward Abbey -
USPS brought mine today. Just leafed through it, looking at the pictures.
" Also, I wish they would get out of the annoying habit of referring to the common return wire(s) as "ground." (p.57) Poor terminology, that."
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but it's my understanding that there are different types of grounds.This would be referred to as a circuit ground as opposed to an earth ground. Yes, it's a common return but calling it a ground is not incorrect.
Lionel has been using this terminology forever. Here's an excerpt from a Greenberg reprint of Lionel's service manual:
Circuits With Common Ground
In model railroading there are numerous occasions when it is desirable to apply different voltages to accessories or track components which are connected or are in contact with the outside rails of the track system and thus have a common electrical ground. ...
To prevent short circuit condition in all such cases it is important to select transformer circuits which also have a common ground.
mine arrived fri. 1/22. I really like the Lionel display articles.
Hot and ground though wrong has long been used as an easy way to relate center from outer rail and I doubt that it will ever change. Heck thats the terms that most of us use.
"IT's GOOD TO BE THE KING",by Mel Brooks
Charter Member- Tardis Train Crew (TTC) - Detroit3railers- Detroit Historical society Glancy Modular trains- Charter member BTTS
I'm usually the one that complains about some non-standard terminology; and I make a point of avoiding using the term "ground" for "common", which is the strictly correct word.
However, I would cut some slack for this substitution. Here's why: We build electrically-powered model railroads. The running rails of a prototype electrical railroad are in fact almost always grounded. So our outside rails are in a sense models of grounded rails and could be called that in the same way that we call every model that we have by the name of its prototype. Sometimes, as on my layout, they are actually grounded. (I have advised this in the past, to get the same kind of protection against electrical shock that grounded appliances provide.) Furthermore, the ANSI standard for electrical schematics calls for the frame of a vehicle to be considered to be ground. And are not our trains truly vehicles, no matter how small?
Bob Nelson
Good afternoon all,
Congrats on page 30! I would like to direct your attention to page 43. Is that Don B.'s neighbor entering the Tardis? Must have been before she put on weight.
Keep on training,
Mike C. from Indiana
Finally got my issue today. CONGRATS to Buckeye on his tip. If I say your name 3 times fast I wind up saying FRANCO HARRIS.
Got mine yesterday and the wife had it in my chair when I got home. Started going threw it and as usual another great issue. Thanks
Thanks
Wyatt
Southern Serves The South
TCA 01-53554
You're not alone Pete.
In conversations I've had in the past with reps from Lionel, K-Line and the TCA there's a concsensus a large number of folks in the hobby still have what is called the 'tabletop" layout meaning the typical 4'x8' piece of plywood with possibly a half-sheet extension.
The majority have a medium layout the size of two 4'x'8 sheets of plywood.
Then there's the large layout of anything more than two sheets of plywood.
Small would be some cut down variation of a 4'x8' sheet of plywood and compact would be something along the size of a hollow core door or smaller.
In an unscientific poll done in June '06 by another website, 84% of the respondents have a layout SMALLER than two sheets of plywood - which verified everything any rep had ever said to me on this subject. An 11'x23' layout would take NINE sheets of plywood. So I would certainly call that a very large layout.
But from every survey I have ever seen, the vast majority of folks in the hobby prefer Lionel, do not use any digital control system, still use tubular track, have small layouts and run tradtionally sized trains. Though you would never guess that from reading the train magazines and other train forums.
brianel, Agent 027
"Praise the Lord. I may not have everything I desire, but the Lord has come through for what I need."
An 11 x 23-foot layout would take 8 sheets of plywood, not 9. The layout in the March issue whose outside dimensions are 11 x 23 1/2 took less than 4 1/2 sheets.
Thank you Bob, but I did figure that out.
BUT lumber yards generally don't make the habbit of selling partial sheets of 4'x8' plywood. It is possible that someone (depending on their frame work) could use the leftover 1'x4' and the 1'x8' pieces, thus buying 8 sheets of plywood as you suggest. I just figured it was far more likely someone would want to work with larger pieces of plywood, thus requiring less framing work, and therefore you would buy nine sheets of plywood.
And I'm not sure, but isn't plywood or some sort of chip board sold in a 5'x9' size? In that case, they could have bought only 6 sheets, utilizing the cut sections.
Either way, it's still a big layout.
lionelsoni An 11 x 23-foot layout would take 8 sheets of plywood, not 9. The layout in the March issue whose outside dimensions are 11 x 23 1/2 took less than 4 1/2 sheets.
Is an 11 x 23-foot layout bigger than a 16 x 16, which you can build it out of 8 uncut sheets, because you choose to build the 11 x 23 out of 9 sheets? The point Brianel was making was that 11 x 23 was large. It is the same size whether you make it out of 8 sheets or 9. You can't claim that a layout is any bigger just because you wasted 35 square feet of plywood building it, even if there is a good reason for the waste.
In any case, the imaginary 11 x 23, 253-square-foot layout, however you cut its imaginary plywood, has about twice the area of the actual layout that inspired this whole exercise.
I agree but the point I was making was that brianel was correct with 9 it just if you feel like cutting the 9 to make it and have whole/semi whole sheets or have whole/semi whole and bunch of small pieces at one end
brianel027 I find it amusing that the magazine refers to a layout that's 11x23 feet as "compact." (p.62) I guess their reality and mine are different. You're not alone Pete...
You're not alone Pete...
We already have a thread devoted to those of you who are seeing the word compact as a synonym for small. In this context its meaning is dense as in:
dense
solid
sacked in
compressed
condensed
squashed
squeezed together
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/167699.aspx?PageIndex=3
DennisB I know I think I was the first to say that they probably ment as compact in the stuff on it in the space given not in size
Actually, Lionelsoni was the first then you. Some people will only see what they want to see. We may as well talk to the wall. Whatever!
It doesn't matter, of course; but I found a way to make the hypothetical 11x23 table from 8 4x8 sheets with only 7 cuts and reasonably big pieces:
---------------------------------------------| | | | || 4x8 | 4x5 | 4x5 | 4x5 || | | | ||---------------------------------------------|| 3x4 | 3x4 | 3x4 | 3x4 | 3x4 | 3x3 || | | | | | ||---------------------------------------------|| | | | || 4x8 | 4x5 | 4x5 | 4x5 || | | | | ---------------------------------------------
Well, here's a good case in point of waiting to actually see the magazine. Just got it and I see the layout in discussion is NOT a solid 11'x23' but rather those are over-all dimensions. Go figure. Still a big layout in my thinking, but nothing like a solid 11'x23.' End of discussion for me.
Still looks like a good issue and I'll enjoy it in the weeks to come.
Thats why bob and I said its compact in content and not in size
In the photo showing the Lionel Rotary Coal Tipple there is what has to be a Walther's HO Scale Coal Conveyor, but there is no mention of the coal conveyor in the caption or the article. Was it a temporary item until the full O Scale Operating Coal Conveyor is to be constructed and installed.
If someone is operating full O Scale equipment it would be best to have an around the wall, 2' to 3' deep, model railroad that is in a room between 12' x 12' or 12' x 18'. At that size the freight trains can actually take a trip and move out of view.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Andrew Falconer In the photo showing the Lionel Rotary Coal Tipple there is what has to be a Walther's HO Scale Coal Conveyor, but there is no mention of the coal conveyor in the caption or the article. Was it a temporary item until the full O Scale Operating Coal Conveyor is to be constructed and installed. Andrew
I seriously doubt that it's temporary. Many modelers mix HO with O scale.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month