As Requested, a 10 x 12 decompression session

[SpaceMouse]

Hi guys,

Well, this contest could have gone smoother, but worked out well in the end. A couple of things I learned from this.

1) Post the consequences of not following the contest parameters,

2) Get everyone to identify their scale when they submit. I'd say about half did not and obviously, I got one wrong.  

3) Have a standard method of submitting layouts and a method of confirming that I got them so that you know I did. This was perhaps the biggest issue for me as standardizing the submissions took more time than actually getting them up on the site.

Now at least one person wanted to discuss each of the submissions, would that something that would be useful?  

[marknewton]

I reckon it would. I'm about to head out the door and pilot the crew of the Canberra oil train over to Robbo, but when I get back I'd like to continue the discussion.

All the best for now,

Mark.

[C&O Fan]

Snip

Now at least one person wanted to discuss each of the submissions, would that something that would be useful?  

I think a discussion PRIOR to voting would be very useful

It would allow the designers a chance to say why they did what they did and may

change the voting outcome

I'd worry much less about it becoming a popularity contest and more about

following the rules

[BlueHillsCPR]

Hi guys,

Well, this contest could have gone smoother, but worked out well in the end. A couple of things I learned from this.

1) Post the consequences of not following the contest parameters,

One would think most people could figure that out...contest rules.  While I have not participated I think I still get the point.

 

2) Get everyone to identify their scale when they submit. I'd say about half did not and obviously, I got one wrong.

Probably easiest to add this to the rules.  No scale identified...disqualified.

 

3) Have a standard method of submitting layouts and a method of confirming that I got them so that you know I did. This was perhaps the biggest issue for me as standardizing the submissions took more time than actually getting them up on the site.

Now at least one person wanted to discuss each of the submissions, would that something that would be useful?  

I voted on one of these contests once.  Since then I have not because "to me" it is a lot of fooling around to vote and I'm just not that motivated to vote on anything.  If voting could be simplified I would vote more often. Just my

[vsmith]

Thanks Chip, like Mark I would like to continue discussion, things I noticed on the entries but didnt want to talk about till after the vote.

I'll try to type up and post a critique this evening. later Vic

[selector]

I did not participate, but even had I, I think it best if I just follow along here and try to make sense of everyone's input.  May help to educate me.

-Crandell

[SpaceMouse]

I did not participate, but even had I, I think it best if I just follow along here and try to make sense of everyone's input.  May help to educate me.

-Crandell

Give a guy a badge and a gun...

[IRONROOSTER]

I find it interesting none of the top 4 plans got half the votes even when adding up 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.  And 15 of the 38 voters had something other than one of the top 4 as their favorite.  We seem to be a diverse lot in our preferences.

Enjoy

Paul 

[steinjr]

 Okay - I am going to start the ball running by collating comments on the first of the contest layouts - Appalachian Central.

 Layout: http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/12x10/10x12ContestEntry01.html

 (Right click and chose "open in new window" in your browser to see linked contents and this post at the same time).

 Submitter description: "This plan is based heavily on Model Railroader's project railroad "The Appalachian Central" which was published in the January and February 2000 issues. I took that plan and increased the minimum radius, double tracked the main, and switched the staging around. I also swapped out some of the industries.

There is no prototype for this layout, but it is based on CSX's coal operations in the Tennessee/Kentucky U.S.A. area. Modern 6 axel locos are used to haul coal on the mainline, while smaller 4 axel locos are used on the branch line."

[Track plan database, subscribers only: http://www.trains.com/mrr/objects/pdf/ra0100-a.pdf ] 

Voting results: Overall: 14 points, no 7 out of 16, voted best N-scale by 4 voters

Comments offered during voting:

 Appalachian Central - while it follows its theme and design criteria it seems extremely simple for an n-scale 10x12.   The center parts of the L (where the coal mine is) is going to be hard to reach for operation & repair.   The town at the top is a way cool design.

The Appalachian Central was a very nice modification of the original.

 My own comments - it shares with most island type layouts the disadvantage that you need space around it to operate it, and that space cannot really be used for much else.

 I like the staging here - more elaborate than the original - there are five tracks that go into staging - two double mains, and the "upland line" next to the slack loader. At the top of the layout outermost main at top goes into one of two single ended staging tracks, while the innermost main can either go into a single ended staging track or run through staging, for continuous run.  Upload track goes into a three single ended staging tracks. At the bottom it seems like both mainline tracks can either be used for runthrough or for staging a single train.

 Layout apparently has reach issues - long tunnel with curve and incline from upper left hand corner of upland area (by scenic divider on left) , under the central part of layout (under divider, under mine tracks and out under bridges below mine), and mine tracks are quite a bit in from edge - more so than in the original Appalachian Central layout from MR 2000.

 Three sets of crossovers (four if you count in staging), two mainlines, two scenes creates a layout that ought to be good for railfanning/trainwatching.

 Any other comments that should be offered on this layout during the debrief/deconstruction phase ? Or comments on the comments ?

Grin,
Stein

 

[Texas Zepher]

I voted on one of these contests once.  Since then I have not because "to me" it is a lot of fooling around to vote ....  If voting could be simplified I would vote more often.

I got the impression that I spent more time evaluating the layouts before  casting my vote than some of the entrants did on their submissions.

I find it interesting none of the top 4 plans got half the votes even when adding up 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.  And 15 of the 38 voters had something other than one of the top 4 as their favorite.  We seem to be a diverse lot in our preferences

This is a symptom of several things.  1. Not enough voters to get a statistically significant sample across all modelers.   I still puzzel about this considering all the people who frequent this forum.  Perhaps the comment above has something to do with it.  Much easier to just cast 1 vote for 1 layout.
2.  Having everything so loosy goosey in the rules makes voting comparing the proverbial apples and oranges.  The rules need to be much tighter so it doesn't take 8 years to evaluate and judge the entries.    Something like here is the space available, here is the era, here is the theme, here is the scale - designers provide the concept.   Eliminating those variables leaves only one for the author to be creative with and one for judge to consider.
3.  The sillyness of some of the posts in both the preliminary, the entry, and the voting drives a lot of people away.   I think they write off the whole thing as a silly waste of time.

[Texas Zepher]

Appalachian Central.

Any other comments that should be offered on this layout during the debrief/deconstruction phase ? Or comments on the comments ?

I didn't offer more comments because I did not have the time to look up the original so that I could see how much of the design was this authors and how much is from the original.

[steinjr]

 Layout: http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/12x10/10x12ContestEntry02.html

 (Right click link above in your web browser, select "open in new window" if you want to see both layout plan and this post at the same time - does not necessarily work in all browsers)

 Submitted description of layout:

I believe that N-scale is superb for Big scenery and long trains. The Altoona and Johnstown is a railfan layout that runs the PRR mainline through Horseshoe Curve.

Visually, there is a single level, but the towns at the base level are 16" below the mountain ridge mainline. With the dual main, and the helices consuming 55 feet of track each, 6 trains can run simultaneously, three in each direction, without looking over-crowded or worry of contact between trains.

Both yards are meant to be staging. The Johnstown American shops can store brand spanking new unit trains without looking out of place. The Altoona Yard can be worked, but as there are few industries, the engine service area and the Johnstown shops, Altoona is de facto staging as well. In Johnstown the PRR mainline divides across the Conamaugh River with the Main to Pittsburgh heading on the west side and the Conamaugh Branch running along the shops and heading north. The bridge across the river to the right is a famous stone arch bridge and should be duplicated.

The layout is set up for the Norfolk Southern, but you can run the Pennsy, Penn Central, or Conrail. If you run the older lines, the Johnstown American Shops would be the Bethlehem Steel Freight Car Division .

The areas without vegetation are meant to be urban areas and both the prototype shop and yard are in urban areas. So these areas, although not drawn should be streets and structures.

The separation between levels is close in some places, but the prototype in the area of Horseshoe curve is steep as well. Still, in the city areas, buildings can be used as flats and pushed against the hillsides and combined with rock, vegetation and retaining walls to achieve a natural effect.

 Voting results: Overall 43 points, no 3/4 of 16, 13 voters thought this was best N scale layout

 Comments offered on this layout during voting:

 

Altoona & Johnson - I would have used one of the "blobs" for horseshoe curve proper.  Railroad car manufacturer is a way cool industry for a MR.  I know this scenery from riding through this on Amtrak.

N-scale: Altoona & Johnstown   just Awesome for railfanning!! a few altertions and could have excellent operation possibilities as well in 10 x 12!!!

Altoona and Johnstown - who can resist THE Horseshoe Curve - complete with visitors' center and funicular.  Could be backdated to steam (turntable at Altoona) or be equally at home with CR or NS.

Altoona & Jonestown (N #2). Modeling mainline operation in a bedroom with[out] it looking like a spaghetti bowl, even in N scale, is a tough job, and he tackled that hurdle nicely.

 Anyone who has other comments they would like to offer on this layout ?

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[SpaceMouse]

I don't have the 2000 MR, but I had a couple issues with the Appalachian Central. Like Stein said, there were extreme reach issues and in fact a good portion of the layout was virtually hidden. I think that because the walls were not drawn in, this was not readily apparent.

The Altoona and Johnstown was a little bit of a risk for me because I favor operational layouts with lots of action. Moving the Horseshoe Curve to the lower right corner would have allowed me to bring in Gallizan Tunnel and the Junction on the other side. Probably a good move, but then it would have taken center stage and I like the curve in that position. Still, I hurried to get it done and I as I was finishing, saw what TZ pointed out. It was simply too late to play with.  

There are many improvements i could have made. It was in essence a first draft and has the flaws of a rushed layout.

[steinjr]

Layout: http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/12x10/10x12ContestEntry03.html

Submitter's description of layout:

Theme is diesel era on a short line sandwiched between two class 1s. This line is similar to the Adrian and Blissfield RR in SE Michigan. The Snover and Port Fuller RR connects two class ones with bridge traffic beween Snover and Port Fuller, about 10 miles apart.

The railroad serves customers on the line with lumber, sand, manufactured goods and other commodities such as grain and fuels. Bridge traffic comes from interchange tracks in Snover with the class 1 RR.

Typical operations would be a yard switcher switching out the interchange from the morning set out and making up the train for Port Fuller and towns along the way. All trailing point sidings will be switched as needed enroute. On the Port Fuller turn the train will exchange cars in the staging yard and prepare for the afternoon trip back to Snover, and again switching all trailing point spurs enroute to Snover.

The Snover Yard job will switch out any industries in Snover as needed. This is a purely point to point layout with no continous run options. Two operators could fit into a session at a time, but not much more than that. All curves are a minimum of 24.5" on the main line. All turnouts at #5 except in Snover Yard where indicated where #6 TOs are present.

 Voting result: Overall 46 points (no 3 out of 16), but was withdrawn by submitter because layout accidentally had been made oversize (12x12 instead of 10x12), due to a misunderstanding. Also - layout was incorrectly labelled an N scale layout by Chip, but was really a H0 scale layout.

 Some of the comments offered during voting:

Snover & Port Fuller - DQ for being too large HOWEVER, it certainly looks like this is HO scale.  The turnouts are almost 9" long, the track centers on parallel track is 2".  I believe if this was done using 6.25" long #6 turnouts, and making the parallel track on 1.25" centers, reduce the radius of the curves to 15" or so and it would easily fit into the given space.  Why is the staging yard double ended on a point-to-point operating scheme?  Seems a lot more could be fit with stub ended yards.  Maybe make one run around for use when making up the trains before the operating session.

I felt the Snover & Plover gave a nice balance of scenery opportunities plus staging.

The Snover and Port Fuller is an nice plan despite the fact that it uses 20% more space than the guidelines calls for.

Since I just noticed that the one I submitted is my 12 x 12, remove it since I did not make the adjustments to the room size. I had just designed that basic layout for a co-worker to fit a 12x 12 area and forgot about the 12 x 10 or 10 x 12 room size. As the creator of the track plan, scap the submission and let the best one win, with in the guidlines of the rules supplied.

 But leaving apart the question of overall size of layout, which has been debated to death - what did you like and not like about the Snover and Port Fuller layout ? Any suggestions to original submitter (and the rest of us) about things that could be improved or tweaked, if you think of this as a 12x12 H0 scale layout ?

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[marknewton]

My own comments - it shares with most island type layouts the disadvantage that you need space around it to operate it, and that space cannot really be used for much else.

Stein, I'm with you 100% on that. I liked the actual track arrangement of this layout. I wonder how well it would work if it was redesigned as an around-the-walls/shelf layout?

Cheers,

Mark.

[marknewton]

I thought this entry maintained a good balance between track/structures and scenery. Although many N-scalers tout the idea of trains "overwhelmed by the landscape" as a virtue of their scale, not all that many seem to practice what they preach.

Mark.

[marknewton]

I think this one has some potential, but at the same time it's the one I'd personally make the most changes to. It's a layout that would appeal more to an operator than a modelbuilder like me, so perhaps I'm not the best one to offer a critique?

Mark.

[exPalaceDog]

One item that would concern the Old Dog is the placement of helix/es, if used.

Consider the West Virginia Southern.

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/12x10/10x12ContestEntry05.html

It would seem to the Old Mutt that a helix is NOT a critter that one would want to bury in the back corner of the room where it is difficult reach when problems occur.

With a 20" radius, it would be difficult to crawl under the layout, then stand up inside the helix , and have much room to work. That's assuming the framing is to the outside of the helix.

If the framing is inside the helix, there is very limited aisle space around the helix.

Have fun

 

[exPalaceDog]

 

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/12x10/10x12ContestEntry12.html

First, the Dog must point out that this layout includes area where there may be access problems.Some of the track appears to be five or six feet from the aisle.

Second, perhaps this layout tries to do too much, just having one station, say Corry might give better results.

Third, and more important (to the Old Dog), this layout leads to a basic question. If one models a real town on a real railroad, how close to the prototype should one attempt to get. The Dog has seen layouts where one can recognize the building in the town. Consider Chip's Indiana Branch project.

The first point in regard to Corry, is it was and is a two railroad town. The Erie and Pennsy ROW's cut through the center of town side by side. In fact, they cross at grade at MS Tower east of town.

The second point in regard to the Pennsy, is that there are two lines, the Chautauqua Branch merges with the P and E west of town, then splits off again west of the Union passenger station (1923). It would appear that any Chautauqua Branch passenger train would have ahd to back in or out of the station.

An additional item would be the selection of era. By moving back to say 1920, the Climax Locomotive Company could be added to the mix. A geared engine company should be a interesting industry.

Have fun

 

 

[vsmith]

Critique, ...finally, took a while to compose this...

N scale:

Appalachian Central

Overall a very nice compact layout, at first I was concerned that as depicted there didn't appear to be enough walk around space for the layout. This was due to the fact that the layout is depicted independent of the actual room making it confusing to look at. I was confusing the sheet edge with the room edge, but after reading the description I determined it was small enough to fit in the center of the room with walkaround space on each side.

As for the track plan it has a nice combination of yard and mainline, the dividers break the layout into three distinct areas, though I personally would have modeled the staging area as a detailed urban rail yard.

If I had one caveat, it's that given the space available, I would have preferred to stretch the layout along the three available walls as I personally dislike having to walk around a layout placed in the middle of a room, plus it effectively eliminates any other uses or activities inside the room.

Altoona & Johnstown

This is the N layout I voted for, I really like the idea of really long trains around a historical place. I guess it would be like doing the Tehachapi loop for us westerners. The layout still includes some yards and industry for operations although N rarely lends itself well to operations IMHO. It's the scope of this layout that wins.

Snover & Port Fuller

Another very nice track plan, and point to point to boot. Its an operations layout, but I feel it would lend itself better to HO rather than N, plus the fact that its 12' x 12' and not the 10' x 12' posted in the rules.

The "rules" were skeletal at best, 10 x 12 and one door, to not accommodate one or the other or both, with out any explanation of mitigating reasons, led me to not vote for this one.

Southern Railways

Oh where to start? First off, to NOT show the extent of benchwork limits me to believe this is just track laid on the floor. What I thought initially was the yard on the far side of the layout against what should be a wall, is a pair of passing sidings, leaving the staging area as the only "yard" and why is access only one direction, why not a Y for trains going in both directions?

West Virginia Southern

Basically a big Oval , only on two levels, with a big helix tossed in, it just didn't excite me. The Helix looks like a large waste of space, it combined with the diagonal leg of the layout eats up over half the room in itself. How are the two levels distinguished? How is it all supported? Which side of the lower level is meant to be looked at? Is there a backdrop down there? Do you look all the way thru? How do you operate it, from the inside?, from the outside? With a double level, how hard is it to duck under in reality? Again too many questions, not enough development for me to consider it. The sparse presentation doesn't help explain some of the hard practicalities of layout design. No attempt at scenery also loses points in my book.

River Valley

Was this the one that was designed as HO but labeled N? It looks like an HO layout.

While primarily being a larger, more elaborate 4x8 with a roll off staging area. Overall it's really a nice compact little layout design, I like that the trains enter from a branch line, that it has a long continuous twice around loop with some industry sidings. It doesn't eat up the entire room so other functions like a workbench can be accommodated.

If I have any comment it would be why is a roll-off staging needed? For one thing I doubt the rolling cart would clear the corner at the lower left side. Why not leave the staging attached, expand it a bit with more sidings and just use a handheld carrying cassette to move any trains about?

At the same time I would move the layout a few inches to the left and increase the walkway width on that right side, 18 inches may look good on paper but in reality its very tight, tighten up the access aisle at the upper left side as that is not primary circulation space and increase the access long that right hand side which will get much more use in comparison.

HO Layouts.

Christmas Special

Where is the door? Door location was not optional if I remember. If the door is in the place its supposed to be, that's a door removed off its hinges and a diagonal duck-under.

This one on first site, I thought was an urban traction design, and as such I thought Oh this is nice, then I saw it was a traditional line? Oh well, if modeled as a heavily Urban line constrained and surrounded by buildings this could be very interesting, I wasn't sure if that was the designers intent. It looks from reading the industries that its not urban but semi-rural, which makes me ask why is there so much straight track? Never seen that in rural areas, urban yes, but not in the countryside. I think an opportunity was missed here.

If this is intended to have a Christmas tree set into the open circle, just how high is this layout? To have an effective duck under the layout should be no lower than 50-60", remember duck under, not crawl under. I don't see how there's any vertical room left for a tree, unless it's a Charlie Brown tree.

Big Fork & Diehl

I liked this one a lot, a return loop out and back again layout, not a true point to point as it has the ability to loop around and head back to the coal mines, but that's a nice feature to me, I also like the Y. There's a lot I liked about this plan, if I had any criticism its that there is no attempt at scenery, that really hurts as we have no idea what structures are planned for, or how the scenery will interplay with the track plan, after all scenery is half the total layout, but the track plan did impress me.

Buffalo & Susquehanna

Another very nice track plan, lots of action, and like the B F D (Ha-ha! ) another return loop out and back again layout. This one edged out the BFD in my voting based on the fact that an attempt at scenery in the form of structures so we know what all the business's look like.

Lower Susquehanna Works

Designers note here, black lines on a dark grey background, not the best choice, as is red lettering or track on dark grey background.

I had a very hard time reading whats occurring on the lower level as I cannot makeout or read most of where it occurs!

While it might be a very interesting plan I had a hard time reading parts of it.

Kintetsu Utsube lines

[stilson4283]

I got the impression that I spent more time evaluating the layouts before  casting my vote than some of the entrants did on their submissions.

I think that is the problem with having an open contest like this.  You do get some people that are newer and might not understand some of the finer points of layout planning and might just put something together. 

Also the timing of the contest also limited some of the time contestants could spend on it.  I know I had what I felt was a good deal of time to work on my plan (the Buffalo and Susquehanna) but still wanted more time to fine tune that plan.   

I would not want to do a layout critique before the contest because I don't know how some people would take the criticism.  I would think that you would greatly narrow the pool of submissions to those that can take the time defending/changing their plan.  Especially with the timing of this one I would think that would be difficult.

Chris 

Lancaster, CA

[exPalaceDog]

Critique, ...finally, took a while to compose this...

Port Erie Belt Line

Interesting, but while it's a very intricate switching plan I was a little disappointed that yet again no attempt at scenery or structures was made nor was in my opinion a real world attempt to model the industrial sidings the car would be delivered to, in the end to me though its really a very elaborate inglenook switching puzzle, more an abstract intellectual game than real world modeling. It's still very interesting as such.

So...what's next?

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/12x10/10x12ContestEntry13.html

It was intended that the structure would be modeled as "flats" along the back of the layout. The industries involved were list on each "structure".

The docks for the RR Car Barges would be slight lower then the rest of the level with a wall of piles along the side.

Otherwise, the scenery would simply normal ballest and may some blacktop or brick roads along the team tracks.

The main ideal was to show a space saving method for moving cars between levels in a multi-level layout.

Have fun

 

 

 

[IRONROOSTER]

The nice thing about the Appalachian Central is that it avoids all the problems of the around the wall layout.  Positioning it so that the lower leg is next to the wall leaves ample operating space in front of the two visible portions of the layout while maintaining adequate access to the staging area.  With a little care in construction this layout could easily breakdown into 3 pieces for moving and reuse especially in rooms with windows and closets. Placing it on wheels would allow it to used in a family room where it can be pulled out into the room for operating sessions and then rolled into a corner when using ther room for other purposes.

The layout's design of a double track oval, long branch line, and double use of the staging area make this a winner.

Enjoy

Paul 

[C&O Fan]

Altoona & Johnstown

This is the N layout I voted for, I really like the idea of really long trains around a historical place. I guess it would be like doing the Tehachapi loop for us westerners. The layout still includes some yards and industry for operations although N rarely lends itself well to operations IMHO. It's the scope of this layout that wins.

Twin Peaks

OK this one has some serious reach issues. I had a hard time determining what levels the tracks were on. I really feel there are some serious reach and access issues going on here, namely having track elements against the wall with large bulky scenery elements in the way. The small yard at the bottom has switches blocked by the large bridge and Mt Helix. The yard on the right side has similar issues. If a train derails on the track in the lower right corner how do you access it? That entire lower right corner might need to be rethought, just a might bit big. I look at that lower right corner at Mt Helix and can't help picturing Richard Dreyfuss's monster Devils Tower model from Close Encounters.  Maybe that's not a bad thing but the whole issue of access really needs to be rethought here.

If you look closely both of these layouts have the same reach issues !

It's amazing how much they look alike in size and shape

Infact most of the larger layouts had reach issues

But reach issues aren't a big deal for me

http://www.reacher.com/

There are other more important things like isle space

and overall operations that flow smoothly and make sense !

[steinjr]

Progressive Rail

I like this one a lot also; it's the only one that addresses other functions in room. Like Port Erie it's a switching puzzle but unlike Port Erie this one addresses its industrial spurs as real places, not abstract concepts. Real buildings make the difference. The one serious thing I see missing is a runaround passing siding, without such, I don't see any way to move cars from one side to the other without trapping the engine or the car.

 Actually, not having a runaround was quite deliberate. An earlier version of my design had a runaround:

 

 But then I learned more about my prototype. If you reread the description of the layout on Chip's page, you will see that the prototype did their switching in an interesting way : they used two switcher engines - one handling cars from the east end of the cut of cars, one handling cars from the west end of the cut of cars.

 Using two engines to switch an area without a runaround might not be typical, but in this case it is prototypical

 Btw - here is a link to a description of handling incoming cars from interchange on an earlier version of the layout plan: http://home.online.no/~steinjr/trains/modelling/progressive/interchange/

 And this is what the layout plan I am actually building based on this idea looks like (room is 11 1/2 by 6 1/2 foot):  

 And finally - a link to a web page describing the evolution of the track plan: 

http://home.online.no/~steinjr/trains/modelling/progressive/index.html

 Grin,
 Stein

[SpaceMouse]

Dang Stein, you have some big operators in your part of the world.

[stebbycentral]

River Valley

Was this the one that was designed as HO but labeled N? It looks like an HO layout.

I appreciate the comments.  To answer two of your questions:  This was an N scale layout from the start.  I have always wanted to build a N layout using HO dimensions just to get the benefit of the long sweeping curves which I think would be visually very interesting.  Plus you end up with gentler grades.  Unfortunately I have never had the space to put my theories into practice.

At the same time I would move the layout a few inches to the left and increase the walkway width on that right side, 18 inches may look good on paper but in reality its very tight, tighten up the access aisle at the upper left side as that is not primary circulation space and increase the access long that right hand side which will get much more use in comparison.

Point taken.  And in fact I did think of that, but not until after I had already submitted my contest entry.  At that time it was too much trouble to redo it.

[SpaceMouse]

Terry,

You are quite right about reach issues on the Altoona and Johnstown, and with isle space as well. With all the hoopla over the 12 x 12 mistake, which I could understand, I had accidentally drawn my plan in an 10 x 11 room. I could stretch my Isle out and I could conform the benchwork a little better to the track to get the reach problem areas manageable. That extra foot would have made quite a difference.

But because I was out of time, I just left it.

 

Erie and Philadelphia and Progressive.

These were both nice designs but I felt they simply did not make use of the space. Both would have been more appropriate for a shelf layout contest.  

[SpaceMouse]

Next design ideas?

2 x 4 module with dual track as per standard.

2 x 8 shelf layout

40 x 40

any other?

I have a problem with the 40 x 40 simply because it will take a long time to do well and it is unlikely that many people have that kind of space--but I am not closed to the idea.

The 2 x 4 module is semi-intriguing to me because I've fantasized about joining a module club.

The 2 x 8 shelf is the most practical in terms of what people ask about.  

 

 

 

[steinjr]

Dang Stein, you have some big operators in your part of the world.

 It's them horns on our helmets - we get our horns tangled with each other if you don't allow 30" diameter for each of us

 Grin,
 Stein, the viking