Layout Critique - UP-BNSF Meet at Rosenberg in N-scale

 Well, Jimmy - you have sure picked an interesting prototype location.

 You design seems is a little too big for a quick n' easy critique, apart from the obvious comment that turnouts sketched in by hand the way you have sketched them in will deceive you when it comes to how much you can fit into an area.

 I'd recommend using a ruler to draw thin pencil help lines when drawing turnouts - like 7 units ahead for each unit to the side for a #7 turnout, and using a compass to draw curve radius help lines.

 What kind of train lengths are you envisioning here ?  Remember that a cut of just ten 50' cars takes about 37" (3 feet) in 1:160 scale, while a cut of ten 89' cars takes about 66" (5' 6"). 

 Good luck with your design!

 Smile,
 Stein

steinjr wrote:

Well, Jimmy - you have sure picked an interesting prototype location. JL: Yes, Tower 17 junction was a beautiful site esp when you look westward. Trains from San Antonio and from Searly/Temple criss-crossing at the junction is breath-taking. Plus, averagely 50-70 trains per day at that junction will keep any dispatcher busy. I might need 2 dispatchers.  You design seems is a little too big for a quick n' easy critique, apart from the obvious comment that turnouts sketched in by hand the way you have sketched them in will deceive you when it comes to how much you can fit into an area. JL: I agree and my apology to you and the rest. I want to get a feel of the layout. And, perhaps some quick comments on what to watch out for. I'd recommend using a ruler to draw thin pencil help lines when drawing turnouts - like 7 units ahead for each unit to the side for a #7 turnout, and using a compass to draw curve radius help lines. JL: Good tips. Thks What kind of train lengths are you envisioning here ?  Remember that a cut of just ten 50' cars takes about 37" (3 feet) in 1:160 scale, while a cut of ten 89' cars takes about 66" (5' 6"). JL: I am modelling modern era freight and passenger. Yes, I am expecting up to 89' cars. I will consider this. And long coal and rock drags from Galveston subdivision.  Good luck with your design! JL: Takk!   Smile,  Stein

 Here is a rough sketch of some of the key elements of your plan, so you can get a rough idea of what might fit:

 What I have done is essensially to try to fit what I assume would be pretty tight, but probably doable curves for 89' equipment in N scale (13* radius - about the equivalent of 13 x 1.83 = 24" radius in H0 scale).

 The equivalent of what in H0 would be wide (30-32" radius) curves should in N scale be some-where around 16-17" radius curves.

 For a consist of two engines and twenty 89' cars, you would need layout staging tracks, yard tracks and passing sidings of about 20 x 89 (foot) x 12 (inches/foot) / 160 (scale factor) = 133" (11 feet) for the cars, plus a bit for the engines - say train lengths of about 12 feet for a ballpark figure.

Stein

What you be the ideal height for the double deck layout? How many inches from floor to the base of the upper deck and from floor to base of lower deck?

My height is 175cm and shrinking as I age. Typically Malaysians are about 165-170cm.

Where would you recommend as an alternative location for Tower 17 if I want to lengthen the trackage from Tower 17 to Virginia Point while allowing UP Glidden to meet UP Galveston at the scenic divider?

Thks

Jimmy

jimmylow wrote:

Where would you recommend as an alternative location for Tower 17 if I want to lengthen the trackage from Tower 17 to Virginia Point while allowing UP Glidden to meet UP Galveston at the scenic divider?

 The orange line is the BNSF Galveston sub from Searle (Staging) to Rosenberg to Algoa to Virginia Point to BNSF West Yard in Galveston (visible end of line)

 The blue line is UP Glidden sub going from San Antonio (staging) to Houston ("sorta staging"), crossing the BNSF Galveston sub at Rosenberg. 

 The green line is the UP Galveston sub from Houston ("sorta staging") by way of Virginia Point to Galveston (visible end of line).

 You are trying to model four scenes from two major railroads, with long trains, in a medium sized room. The scenes are:  

 - Tower 17/Rosenberg (where BNSF Galveston sub crossing UP Glidden Sub)
 - Algoa (indistry switching for the BNSF)
 - Virginia Point (BNSF Galveston and UP Galveston share a causeway across the bay) and
 - Galveston - where you have one BNSF yard and one UP yard.

 Sorry, but I think you are just trying to cover way too much for one small to medium sized layout, especially when you also want fairly long trains.

 One key problems is that you don't have enough run length for UP trains between Rosenberg and Virginia Point and that the end of the line at Galveston is too short.

  The same UP train will be blocking both locations at the same time, and won't fit into the yard at Galveston.

 You need a way of increasing run length between Rosenberg and Virginia Pt (for both RRs) and a way of representing Galveston by staging - preferably the same staging that represents Searles and San Antonio ....

 Here is an idea - how about if you

 1) focused on two main scenes and one railroad ? The railroad is BNSF, the main scenes are Rosenberg, and Virginia Point.

 Reasoning - what you want to model seems to be essensially dispatching chokepoints. You could possibly also model one passing siding somewhere along the stretch Rosenberg - Virginia point. 

 Be advised that Rosenberg and Virginia Point is no more than about two train lengths apart (on the BNSF) and one train length apart (on the UP) - we are talking _slow_ passing through the scenes here.

 2) Put hidding staging behind a low, removable backdrop on level 2 that represents Houston 

 3) Let lower level staging represent Galveston, in addition to Searles and San Antonio ?  

 Conceptually, something like this: 

  have not tried to optimize anything - this is just a conceptual thingie - which may or may not work.

 Critical point, _if_ you want to Virginia Point and merging traffic onto the causeway (right hand helix down to staging) - is how long UP trains you can fit into the Houston staging area on the second level. 

 Be warned that it may be a pain to deal with stuff that derails at Houston, and trains will derail there sooner or later. But if you can keep the front edge of the visible layout (BNSF Galveston) close to the backdrop, and you have a chair or some kind of stepladder thingy - it might be doable.

 It might be preferable to have the Virginia pt junction represented in staging as well, and just representing it operationally for BNSF by having trains wait to enter the helix on the right end of the layout.

 Anyone else see other good options here ?  

  Stein

Instead of trying to model half of the lines in Houston, I'd suggest picking one aspect and run with it. Perhaps even a part of one aspect. It's nice to think about doing something so large but with limited space the compromises will get so great you won't have any fun with it. Now if you had a huge warehouse to use that would be a different story.

I live on the north side of Houston about 10 minutes away from Lloyd yard in Spring. I'd love to model many aspects around here but practicality would dictate that I only pick a section a few miles long. This is assuming I even do model this location. I'd include the wye in Spring, the cement plant west of it, parts of the yard south of the wye, the auto facilities south of the yard and maybe a couple of random industries here and there. We are only talking about an area that is a few real miles long yet there is alot to include that takes up space very quickly.

There is a gentleman here who is modelling Galveston and the island aspect alone takes up a whole room. I suggest picking a smaller area and then having fun with it.

fredswain wrote:

Instead of trying to model half of the lines in Houston, I'd suggest picking one aspect and run with it. Perhaps even a part of one aspect. It's nice to think about doing something so large but with limited space the compromises will get so great you won't have any fun with it. Now if you had a huge warehouse to use that would be a different story. Jimmy: Fred, my intention was not to model Houston. The idea was to model section of UP Glidden east of Tower 17 and the line to Houston should disappear into the horizon; hence, the scenery divider. Neither was I planning to model UP Galveston from Houston to Virginia Point. With the scenery divider, viewers will only see one side unless he is standing at the tip of the peninsula (Algoa). I do agree with you to model one aspect. That's why I close Tower 17 junction and the main run to Galveston. I can consider doing double deck and then a better run of the UP Glidden and Glaveston. Still open to suggestions. I live on the north side of Houston about 10 minutes away from Lloyd yard in Spring. I'd love to model many aspects around here but practicality would dictate that I only pick a section a few miles long. This is assuming I even do model this location. I'd include the wye in Spring, the cement plant west of it, parts of the yard south of the wye, the auto facilities south of the yard and maybe a couple of random industries here and there. We are only talking about an area that is a few real miles long yet there is alot to include that takes up space very quickly. There is a gentleman here who is modelling Galveston and the island aspect alone takes up a whole room. I suggest picking a smaller area and then having fun with it.

No problem, Fred.

Stein was just trying to capture the key points from my Prototype Research notes. But in essence, 2 focal points are Tower 17 Rosenberg and Galveston Island (scaled down version).

Your comments still welcomed.

 Spent a little time looking at the Rosenberg area at http://maps.live.com.

 Direct link to area just west of crossing: http://tinyurl.com/6kgj4p 

 You see interchange tracks between the two RRs - the UP has a some extra storage tracks of some kind just west of Tower 17. 

 Tower and actual crossing: http://tinyurl.com/576caz

 Fairly typical scene east of tower: http://tinyurl.com/5wl3aj BNSF double track mainline at bottow, separated from UP single track mainline by a little grass, some bushes and some trees.

 http://tinyurl.com/68kezo - point where the BNSF mainline narrows to single track again, and curves away south of Houston, while the UP Glidden continues northeast towards Houston:

 http://tinyurl.com/5rvea3 - BNSF Galveston sub passing Houston Southwest Airport.

 http://tinyurl.com/5wmqod - first significant online industry I've seen on the BNSF Galveston sub this far - just NW of Alvin.

 http://tinyurl.com/6f4hyf - second  industry NW of Alvin - an oil refinery, it looks like ?

 http://tinyurl.com/5ztqrh - faily big industry on the western edge of Alvin.

 http://tinyurl.com/5737t7 - wye junction at Alvin,

 http://tinyurl.com/6zt9p3 - wye junction at Algoa

 IMO - not a whole lot of interesting landscapes or industries from Rosenberg down the BNSF sub towards Virginia Point.

 http://tinyurl.com/6kx7dc - overview of Galveston Island

 Don't have time to check the UP Glidden sub from Rosenberg towards Houston (or Galveston Island) in detail right now - but this far it looks like it is the junction at Rosenberg that is the most modelgenic aspect - not the mainline run from Rosenberg to Virginia Point.

 Smile,
 Stein

steinjr wrote:

Spent a little time looking at the Rosenberg area at http://maps.live.com.  Direct link to area just west of crossing: http://tinyurl.com/6kgj4p   You see interchange tracks between the two RRs - the UP has a some extra storage tracks of some kind just west of Tower 17.   Tower and actual crossing: http://tinyurl.com/576caz    Fairly typical scene east of tower: http://tinyurl.com/5wl3aj BNSF double track mainline at bottow, separated from UP single track mainline by a little grass, some bushes and some trees.  http://tinyurl.com/68kezo - point where the BNSF mainline narrows to single track again, and curves away south of Houston, while the UP Glidden continues northeast towards Houston:  http://tinyurl.com/5rvea3 - BNSF Galveston sub passing Houston Southwest Airport.  http://tinyurl.com/5wmqod - first significant online industry I've seen on the BNSF Galveston sub this far - just NW of Alvin.  http://tinyurl.com/6f4hyf - second  industry NW of Alvin - an oil refinery, it looks like ?  http://tinyurl.com/5ztqrh - faily big industry on the western edge of Alvin.  http://tinyurl.com/5737t7 - wye junction at Alvin,  http://tinyurl.com/6zt9p3 - wye junction at Algoa  IMO - not a whole lot of interesting landscapes or industries from Rosenberg down the BNSF sub towards Virginia Point.  http://tinyurl.com/6kx7dc - overview of Galveston Island     Don't have time to check the UP Glidden sub from Rosenberg towards Houston (or Galveston Island) in detail right now - but this far it looks like it is the junction at Rosenberg that is the most modelgenic aspect - not the mainline run from Rosenberg to Virginia Point.  Smile,  Stein

Wow! You are even more excited than me in this Rosenberg Meet project. Takk!

Can I apppoint you as one of my project consultants? :) This is the first time I am doing a layout. While it may be too much to chew for a newbie like me, I will go slow and with everyone's support, I want Rosenberg to come alive again in N-scale.

fredswain wrote:

One thing you might want to consider when it comes to modelling where BNSF and UP cross is the ballast. I can tell whose line it is just by looking at the color of the balast. BNSF has a pinker ballast due to high levels of Feldspar in it while UP's is more gray/white. I cross each line on my way to work and they each intersect although not at grade very near by here. The difference in ballast color is obvious.

Fred, this is VERY important piece of info. Thank you. I will check out Woodland Scenic for the right color.

As I develop the plan and choose the materials, pls keep an eye on them so that if I go off tangent from the real Rosenberg, you can pull me back :)

Stein
Since you done lots of research on my layout and have a pretty good idea what I want, here's my challenge for you, if you want to take it (this message will not self-destruct)

a. For the given space 10.5ft x 7ft, show me tha track work for a double decker. I will take away the lower deck staging yard and make full use of it. There will still be staging yard but smaller.

b. If you have the whole room to work on (I will need to negotiate with the other "land owner", how you will design my Rosenberg Meet?

Thks.

This challenge is open to others too. So help yourself :)

jimmylow wrote:

Stein Since you done lots of research on my layout and have a pretty good idea what I want, here's my challenge for you, if you want to take it (this message will not self-destruct) a. For the given space 10.5ft x 7ft, show me tha track work for a double decker. I will take away the lower deck staging yard and make full use of it. There will still be staging yard but smaller. b. If you have the whole room to work on (I will need to negotiate with the other "land owner", how you will design my Rosenberg Meet? Thks. This challenge is open to others too. So help yourself :)

 Sorry - no can do. My design instincts are not necessarily utterly horrible for one layer H0 scale, fairly flat layouts, and I can do general research and provide general type critique for a N scale layout too.

 But I just don't have enough experience with N scale and inclines/multi-deck layouts to do usable room size designs in N scale.

 Better see if you can find someone else to help you design your layout. Might be a good idea to check out some of the pros if you would like a ready to build design - like Lance Mindheim or Byron Henderson.

 Smile,
 Stein

jimmylow wrote:

fredswain wrote: One thing you might want to consider when it comes to modelling where BNSF and UP cross is the ballast. I can tell whose line it is just by looking at the color of the balast. BNSF has a pinker ballast due to high levels of Feldspar in it while UP's is more gray/white. I cross each line on my way to work and they each intersect although not at grade very near by here. The difference in ballast color is obvious. Fred, this is VERY important piece of info. Thank you. I will check out Woodland Scenic for the right color. As I develop the plan and choose the materials, pls keep an eye on them so that if I go off tangent from the real Rosenberg, you can pull me back :)

Although Rosenberg is a bit of a drive from here and I never have a reason to go down there, I'd be willing to make a special "railfan" trip sometime if there are ever any pictures that you'd like taken of any certain areas.

I'll try to take some close up pictures of each type of ballast for you but I'm not sure how well the differences will turn up in pictures. One way to find out I guess. It is very obvious in person.

Here's a picture of an HO scale ballast which is pretty close from what I can tell. It's the bottom track. It is from Az Rock and Mineral. Woodland Scenics doesn't have anything even close to BNSF's color. For N scale it's part # is 1171.

http://www.rrscenery.com/1172combo.html

Their UP ballast looks nothing like the UP ballast here. The standard Woodland Scenics fine Gray Blend ballast would probably be fine.

If you want to get the UP into the picture you are leaving out the part where the UP actually operates over the BNSF, from Alvin to Algoa.  Here's a thought:

 Green = BNSF

Blue = UP/MP

Red = SP

Lt. Blue = backdrops

Dave H.

dehusman wrote:

If you want to get the UP into the picture you are leaving out the part where the UP actually operates over the BNSF, from Alvin to Algoa.  Here's a thought:  Green = BNSF Blue = UP/MP Red = SP Lt. Blue = backdrops Dave H.

Thks Dehusman. The light blue backdrops - upper left and right - seem to block the views of those tracks, unless they are intended to be so. I would only like to capture the main lines while junctions to other subdivisions will be be a dead-end tracks.

Now that I have the other real estate to work with, I can incorporate some of your suggestions.

 Thks

Jimmy

Cross-posting at TrainBoard.com

http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?t=100515

Feel free to comment.

jimmylow wrote:

Cross-posting at TrainBoard.com http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?t=100515 Feel free to comment.

 Took me a while to realize that the new plan of course was at the end of that thread. Here is a link directly to Kenneth Anthony's latest suggestion:

 Looks nice. Staging cassettes looks like they are are about 5 1/2 feet long - call it 65" or so - long enough for a consist of 13-14 50 foot N scale cars and a couple of engines. Hmmm - on page 4 he writes "4 foot long boards". That would be about 48" - roughly ten 50 foot cars and one engine ?  

 15" radius curve in upper right hand corner of room (Richmond). 

 Good discussion of how Anthony arrived at the design on page 4 of your trainboard thread: http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?t=100515&page=4 - more prototype pics and discussion on page 3 and page 2.

 Looks good to me - it won't allow you to run quite as long trains as you originally envisioned, but it should be well within doable.

 Only potensial challenge is the roll-away section for the Rosenberg area (left end of top wall) - room is 11 feet wide, if I remember correctly - storage cabinets on the left is probably about 18" deep - leaving about 9 1/2 feet along the upper wall for the layout. Removeble section on wheels look about 5 feet long and between 2 and 3 feet deep.

 Guess you would have enough room to wheel it out (down) and then rotate it into the pit area on the right side of the room when you need to access the storage cabinets - which hopefully will be fairly infrequently. 

 The Algoa staging cassette might be pushing things a little too much access wise - but it is easy enough to rip out again if it doesn't work out.

 Altogether - my hat off to Mr Anthony for a skilful comprimize design that preserves the flavor you were looking for.

 Hopefully, you won't get in trouble with the powers that be in Kalmbach for linking to a "competing" web forum.

 Smile,
 Stein

I am back in action.

I took another look at all the plans and comments and come out with this track plan using XTrkCAD. Feel free to comment.

You can also comment directly in my blog - http://rosenberg-meet.blogspot.com/2009/02/layout-critique-2-open-for-comments.html

 Thanks

Jimmy Low

That could work just fine. If it weren't for Galveston, not having a loop track, you could run a train continuously which could be nice from time to time. You can't always have an operating session. Sometimes it's just nice to watch them run. You could change this though. Tracks used to run all of the place in Galveston. You could actually find a way to sneak a connecting loop in there by adding a simple industry with a through track. It wouldn't appear to be a loop aestetically. You could even have doors on each end of the building that are slightly staggered where the track makes a small jog inside the building.

The important thing is that you capture the feel of the place rather than the actual track layout. This could still be believable. As I said, tracks used to run all over the place there in many different directions. It's hard to tell that today though. That alternative is that you could make a wye at Virginia Point which actually wouldn't look out the ordinary as there is a wye only a couple of miles from there which on your layout would only be about a foot or so away! It's all modelers creative license! This would give you that ability to run a train in a continuous loop from time to time. I think you might be happy with that as now you have options. Even from an operating sense.

FWIW: Although I've lived in Houston for over 30 years, I finally had a chance to get down to Rosenberg for the very first time yesterday. I wasn't there more than 30 minutes and saw 3 trains go through. It was right before sun down and I didn't have a camera with me. I actually had no plans to go there. I was just nearby in Sugarland and thought I'd stop by. I really want to go back though.

If you look at those aerial pictures in MSN maps, in the bird's eye view you can see the tower where it is today, which is by the museum east of the diamond. However if you look straight down on the diamond from the aerial view, the tower is still in it's old location at the diamond. This way you can see it's correct orientation for when you want to model it.

Actually another suggestion I have which could give you more operational options would be a modification to the BNSF line just west of the junction. You have it curving back around and going under the UP line and then joining them together at the Temple/San Antonio area of the layout. Instead of visually having the line go under the UP line, how about having it go sub table level down into hidden staging? It would be very easy to do through the use of scenery blocks in that corner. You could use trees to hide it. It would be easy to pretend this is just another way off into the rest of the world. This would also make it easy to add one more industry up to that small branch line that you have terminating early. It could dead end in a scenery block as well.

You could have the line reappear down in the San Antonio area through another scenery block. This way instead of trying to merge Temple and San Antonio, which are nowhere near each other, you could just pick one. I'd suggest San Antonio as it has a turntable and station. The hidden staging could contain either BNSF or UP (or both) trains and they could originate or terminate either in SA or going into Rosenberg. You could even run a passenger train from SA to Galveston!!! It really opens up some options. Of course since the line actually connects through staging, this still gives you that option of continuous running as I stated in the first response.

I feel these things could really open up tons of options for you. You'd have a layout that models where you want it. It could work for freight through trains with the help of hidden staging. It could work with local freight on both the UP and BNSF and even interchange between them. You could even continuously run of you wanted too. Heck, add a roundhouse in Galveston too. It had 3 of them at once! There's be almost nothing you couldn't do on that layout.

fredswain

That could work just fine. If it weren't for Galveston, not having a loop track, you could run a train continuously which could be nice from time to time. You can't always have an operating session. Sometimes it's just nice to watch them run. You could change this though. Tracks used to run all of the place in Galveston. You could actually find a way to sneak a connecting loop in there by adding a simple industry with a through track. It wouldn't appear to be a loop aestetically. You could even have doors on each end of the building that are slightly staggered where the track makes a small jog inside the building.

[Jimmy]: Fred, I agree with you. I would like to see them run too especially when I will be the one spending most of my time with the layout. I am figuring how to put a loop there without being too obvious. After all, the real Galveston is stub. In model, some compromise can be done. Thanks for your idea of hiding the loop with an industry.

The important thing is that you capture the feel of the place rather than the actual track layout. This could still be believable. As I said, tracks used to run all over the place there in many different directions. It's hard to tell that today though.

[Jimmy]: That's the struggle I am having today - replica or realism. You are right to say capturing the feel is more important.

That alternative is that you could make a wye at Virginia Point which actually wouldn't look out the ordinary as there is a wye only a couple of miles from there which on your layout would only be about a foot or so away! It's all modelers creative license! This would give you that ability to run a train in a continuous loop from time to time. I think you might be happy with that as now you have options. Even from an operating sense.

[Jimmy]: A wye at Virginia Point? Let me check that out.

FWIW: Although I've lived in Houston for over 30 years, I finally had a chance to get down to Rosenberg for the very first time yesterday. I wasn't there more than 30 minutes and saw 3 trains go through. It was right before sun down and I didn't have a camera with me. I actually had no plans to go there. I was just nearby in Sugarland and thought I'd stop by. I really want to go back though.

[Jimmy]: Yes, someone reported 77 trains over a 24-hour period back in January 2004. Very interesting location. That's why I want to spend more time modelling that junction accurately as well as figuring how the trains can run continously between BNSF Galveston sub (North to South) and UP Glidden sub (West to East)

If you look at those aerial pictures in MSN maps, in the bird's eye view you can see the tower where it is today, which is by the museum east of the diamond. However if you look straight down on the diamond from the aerial view, the tower is still in it's old location at the diamond. This way you can see it's correct orientation for when you want to model it.

[Jimmy]: I googled and zoomed that diamond. As to how to position it on my layout, I am working that on XtrxCAD. It is helpful as I have been reorientating that junction and positioning at different locations.

 

Thanks for your comments, Fred

fredswain

Actually another suggestion I have which could give you more operational options would be a modification to the BNSF line just west of the junction. You have it curving back around and going under the UP line and then joining them together at the Temple/San Antonio area of the layout. Instead of visually having the line go under the UP line, how about having it go sub table level down into hidden staging? It would be very easy to do through the use of scenery blocks in that corner. You could use trees to hide it. It would be easy to pretend this is just another way off into the rest of the world. This would also make it easy to add one more industry up to that small branch line that you have terminating early. It could dead end in a scenery block as well.

[Jimmy]: Good point there. My initial plan was to have a hidden staging. I will bring back this idea to the drawing board. I was also thinking for the train to just disappear below the upper deck level, say 3 inches, and then reappear at San Antonio.

You could have the line reappear down in the San Antonio area through another scenery block. This way instead of trying to merge Temple and San Antonio, which are nowhere near each other, you could just pick one.

[Jimmy]: I can try this. Yes, Temple and San Antonio is nowhere near each other I would pick San Antonio as it will allow me to run Amtrak Sunset Limited from LA to New Orleans via San Antonio - Rosenberg - Houston

I'd suggest San Antonio as it has a turntable and station. The hidden staging could contain either BNSF or UP (or both) trains and they could originate or terminate either in SA or going into Rosenberg. You could even run a passenger train from SA to Galveston!!! It really opens up some options. Of course since the line actually connects through staging, this still gives you that option of continuous running as I stated in the first response.

[Jimmy]: Thanks for this suggestion. 

I feel these things could really open up tons of options for you. You'd have a layout that models where you want it. It could work for freight through trains with the help of hidden staging. It could work with local freight on both the UP and BNSF and even interchange between them. You could even continuously run of you wanted too. Heck, add a roundhouse in Galveston too. It had 3 of them at once! There's be almost nothing you couldn't do on that layout.

[Jimmy]: Thanks Fred. Let me get to work and adjust my track plan accordingly.