Re: proposal for standard industry modules

[scott a smiley <sc.smiley@juno.com>]

The extension of the Steve's siding is interesting.  Members could build
a module that had the extension and siding by making a 2x3 module and
putting it perpendicular to the main siding.    My RR tack program does
not want to run on my new Vista computer so I can not do a fancy picture
like Steve.

the length is an issue so maybe even a corner to turn the siding interior
and then build more turn outs.  Actually when we get the new corners
built, we could use an old corner to get the siding around the corner.

Scott

 
 
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:04:36 -0500 Steve Wise <swise@aoot.com> writes:
> 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.
> > 
> 
> ------
> TTAT members reflector.
> 
>