[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposal for standard industry modules
Edward Weltens wrote:
> I really like this idea, but would like it more if we did the sidings
> off the existing industry modules Steve and Adrian built . We don't
> have to introduce any additional switches into the main tracks that way.
>
True.
However, the industry modules are now becoming an engine yard! :) It
still can be extended past the transfer table module and Y, not not on
the turntable side (we wouldn't want through-traffic using the turntable
IMO). But the problem also is that it takes up too much room now. So
adding to it is exceeding our usual length. We're already at 5 modules
of length...
Having additional modules with the turnout of track 4 would allow adding
these industries around the layout anywhere where we have a single
module with this turnout.
Anyway, this is just food for thought. Its not clear to me how many
folks would build a 2x2 module in this mannor. Our
membership/participation level is low and many folks just wanna run
trains in a loop...which is fun too!
Stevo.
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: scott a smiley <sc.smiley@juno.com>
> To: ttat-members@aoot.com
> Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 10:28:30 PM
> Subject: Re: proposal for standard industry modules
>
> For short sidings as proposed and with new track, the switch could
> provide sufficient track 4 power to the track and accessory without
> additional wiring. Any power drain would be done by the guy running on
> track 4 so it probably would not be a problem since would not be running
> when operating the accessory. Regardless, each switch module would need
> a switch on the center rail after the switch so the power could be turned
> off on the siding.
>
> I have many years of practice with a siding module. I have used it
> (rarely it seems) with some success and some problems. I have often
> not taken the time to hook it up fully though.
>
> I like the idea of additional sidings and small ones would be easy to
> carry by the owner.
>
> The track 4 tracks at the bridge track connections needs to be standard
> pins.
>
> Unfortunately, I have seen one engine hit the floor off of my switch and
> have seen other engines decide to take the 45 degree cross over too. So
> things do happen. WE would need to make sure that a switch is not
> turned after set up.
>
>
>
> Modifications to the tracks need to be approved by the board, as well as
> the ad on sidings.
>
> Scott
>
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 09:42:14 -0500 Steve Wise <swise@aoot.com> writes:
> > Ira Schneider wrote:
> > > Steve,
> > >
> > > This is an interesting idea.
> > >
> > > However, of course, I have some concerns:
> > >
> > > 1. Why O-54 turnouts, as opposed to O-72 or some other radius?
> >
> > To make it all fit nicely. O54 is fine for pushing freight cars in.
> >
> > But we could try O72. I just thought O54 was big enough for almost
> > all
> > freight cars and switcher type engines.
> >
> > >
> > > 2. RCS track has very flimsy connector pins. I don't know if they
> > are good for
> > > connecting moveable moduels. (Of course, you are probably
> > using them
> > > for your turntable and transfer table modules.)
> >
> > They work for our engine facility. They are flimsy, but the owner
> > of
> > the industry module will have to deal with that. In the pictures I
> >
> > sent, then O54 curve piece would be the "bridge track"...
> >
> > >
> > > 3. I am concerned that we will have turnouts going nowhere if we
> > include the
> > > ABCD modules in a layout and don't have interior modules
> > connected to them.
> > > There is the danger of a train running off the layout (i.e.
> > the turnout gets
> > > switched accidentally and we don't notice it until an engine
> > sails off
> > > into space.
> >
> > We could put a bumper on it when not hooked up. But yes, we have to
> >
> > worry about such things if we're going to do something other than
> > let
> > our trains run in a loop.
> >
> > >
> > > 4. It appears the scheme you are proposing uses a section of RCS
> > or
> > > Gargraves curved track to connect between the turnout and the
> > industry
> > > module. Again, I would be concerned about the connections.
> > >
> >
> > We're doing ok with our engine facility modules that have been
> > running
> > for a few years now. I've replaced maybe 2 pins so far.
> >
> > > 5. Where will you get power for the track on the industrial
> > modules? Right
> > > now, there is no provision for a power take-off from the main
> > modules.
> > > If you are using an independent power supply, that is an
> > additional
> > > requirement for every industry module. If you want to use
> > mainline 4
> > > power, we need some way to provide it (like the take-offs I
> > built for
> > > the accessory modules). Also, if you are proposing that each
> > industry
> > > module uses an independent transformer, we have to be able to
> > supply
> > > AC power to them. We only have a limited number of extension
> > cords.
> > > Also, the transformers would have to be phased properly so
> > they don't
> > > interfere with our main transformers when the train crosses
> > between the
> > > blocks.
> >
> > I guess we could build a harness to tap into the main line power.
> > Just
> > like the ones you built. Maybe the club could also provide one for
> > each
> > main line module that has the industry turnout. Although if the
> > switch
> > turnout side is powered from the main, then the track leading into
> > the
> > industry would have track 4 power. So simple industries don't need
> >
> > anything more than that.
> >
> > I think we should seriously consider this to add more interest in
> > our
> > layout. From what I've seen, folks really like watching the engines
> > go
> > in and out of the transfer table and turn table. I think they would
> >
> > also dig watching trains cut out one or to freight cards and push
> > them
> > into an industry. Just think of the possible wrecks! :-)
> >
> > Steve.
> >
> >
> > ------
> > TTAT members reflector.
> >
> >
> ------
> TTAT members reflector.
>