Ira,
Thanks for the diagram. However, you totally misunderstood what I was talking about. We were not planning on putting the crossover on the yard throat modules. We were meaning inside the yard. We thought of this because many times members have wanted to be able to simply move a train over to track 2 to allow someone else to run on track 1. This was simply an idea that we had and I was asking for your input in order to see how you thought it would impact the layout. After talking to Ricky about the modules you were working on, I told Bill what you were doing and he said "well maybe we don't need to build them If you were also building some." But you know, who says we can't have more than one set of crossovers? All we wanted was to see your diagram to understand your design. You did NOT have to go off in a tirade about Bill's "attitude towards the club layout". Quite frankly, I'm concerned about your attitude. It is the club's layout, not YOURS! Now you have pissed off my friend and I frankly don't blame him. He did not deserve the things you said about him and I for one would rather see you leave the club than him. I personally think you meant to send it to him to rile him up.
You said everyone was perfectly happy with the old corners. So, who did you ask? The old corners were just that, old. Jim Smiley and Bob Howard built those back in 92. They served us well but they were worn out and coming apart. Many members received cuts and bruises in handling them. The 45's were Ricky's and my idea. I talked about it ever since Ed built the first large corners and Craig, Ricky, and Adrian read an article in O Gauge Railroading on other modular clubs and saw them using 45's in thier layouts. The 45's benefit the entire layout with their broader curves especially in an L-shape and now even an S shape. No one said anything negative about them except YOU!!! All Bill did was to provide the support to have them built. We did not cram the 45's down the board's throat. We presented a plan to the board which was approved and built them in time to be used for the WGH in SA. We spent 4 full weekends and had a great time. Something you seem incapable of having! The first objective was to retire the original club corners and make it safe for the articulated engines to run. Using the old corners and the transition modules in an L shaped layout caused many engines to work harder than they really should have to negotiate 54" curves. We never wanted to retire the 4 newer corners because we understood that sometimes we have space constraints.
The passageway module has been on the backburner ever since Ricky and I observed the one on the Houston tinplate layout at a Houston GATS show some 5+ years ago. Many other members including Bob Stetner saw it as well and expressed interest in building it. Emails went out discussing the idea and NO ONE said anything negative about it except you. Ricky found some pics of a few walkthru modules and started the ball rolling. NOT BILL!!! A Passageway module will benefit the club tremendously and help in recruiting new members. And who cares if we have to stop trains for a few minutes to allow someone to pass thru! We don't operate, we just run trains. Many times all the trains are no where near the duckunder as it is. We need more things, ie crossovers, sidings, etc to be able to call ourselves operators. If when stopped due to the passageway module being opened we all would go thru the sounds options and start our trains up again it would make it more interesting to the public.
Everybody else except YOU have been supportive of more 45's. All Bill did was to purchase the necessary track to make sure we would have it when we got around to building them. No one complained when you purchased the track to build the yard throats. No one complained when you built the switching modules. They were well received by all.
Standards of scenery only pertained to modules that looked shaby in comparison to more highly scenicked modules, ie repainting to a standard color to match other unscenicked modules. We already have the paint!
Rebuilding the yard only pertained to the interior yard sections. NOT the yard throats!
That's where we were going to put the crossovers as we rebuilt them. It did not require any rebuilding of the control box. Quite frankly, I'm embarrased by the unciteliness of the yard sections compared to the yard ends. Aren't you? The only reason we didn't replace the track before was because we needed to replace the old trailer. So, I went and purchased the track myself because it was out of production. And until LIONEL sees fit to start making it again, we should buy every piece we can find since you don't want to use Atlas, Gargraves, or anything other than tubular track.
As to the plexiglas to all modules. Have you ever had a $500.00 to a $2000.00 engine fall to the floor? Or a $50.00 to $400.00 car fall? I guess not since you don't run on track 1. Well, I have, as well as some other members. Also, I have observed derailments from kids putting their hands out and touching the trains. What if your camera car took a dive!
Even if it was a $5.00 car, I wouldn't want to see it fall!!!! It's not just for the expensive trains, but for all trains on track 1! Derailments on interior tracks have also caused trains to fall off of the layout from track 1 as well. Plexiglass would stop that from happening.
Everyone of these ideas benefits the club in my estimation! If not functionally, then astheticly. Looks are important in the public eye. If we just set up for fun, and not for show, then it wouldn't matter how trashy the layout looked. When I tell people about the layout, the first thing they ask is do you have mountains? I tell them no, but we are planning to have some. Then, I tell them about the other scenery we do have. I have always enjoyed your carnival and tell people about it when promoting our layout. It reminds me of summer's spent in PA working at Knoebel's Grove Amusement Park in Elysburg, PA. Asthetics is just as important as how well it operates!!!! Its time we dress up the stage for the trains and appeal to the public on both asthetics and action.
I'm glad that Bill has taken it upon himself to try and improve the appearance of not just the track, but also the scenery, the interior skirting, and anything else that will enhance the club in the public eye. You certainly don't seem to be interested in doing anything but shoot down any attempt by anyone to better the club. Public interest is key in obtaining a permenant space. We need more members to step up to the plate! Myself included. If it hadn't been for Jim Smiley's driving force, we would all still just be running around the Xmas tree. All of these projects have been kicked around in conversation by many members over the years and Bill was simply trying to take the bull by the horns and replace talk with action and get them done.
Bill has not tried to ramrod any of these projects out of any personal motives, ie "Bill's new toy". He has not asked for any compensation for any of the projects that we have done. No one has been more generous with tools, materials, work space, and equipment. He and I had already acquired the track needed to finish the original objective and build a full circle of 45 degree modules. He has only the Club's best interest at heart. If you can't see and accept that, then I feel sorry for you. You're a mean one, Mr Grinch!!!!
I hope I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Rick Dolifka
PS. I know for a fact that your unfriendly attitude has cost us members.
PPS. HOW COULD YOU???? Do you even know how to apologize? Frankly, I don't think so. All you had to say was that you were sorry. But NOOOOO!!! You had to bring up the 45's again. We could have cut back on the footprint of the 45's but that would not have allowed us to do the S-curves properly. We all knew they would be larger. It's not my fault that you couldn't see it. The reliable operation far outweighed the larger size conflict. Of which only you were concerned with! They were designed to allow running trains without fear of hitting or damadging other trains on adjacent tracks. This was apparent from the first L-shaped layout we built. Now, the only trains we have to be concerned about are the 21 inch passenger cars. If we could have fixed that, believe me we would have. So what if most of the members only run small trains. They still benefit from the larger curves by having a longer run. Are you saying big locos and large scale trains are not welcome on OUR layout? If so, then maybe I should stop bringing my reefers or quit coming entirely. Or maybe I should just take the 45's back and you won't ever have to deal with them again. Is that what you want?
Have you polled the entire membership as to the benefits to the club that the 45's have made? Again, this was not Bill's idea, it was mine and you have yet to chastise me about it. I think you have been against Bill's "Gung Ho" attitude from day one. We have never been negative about any of the improvements you have made to the club. However, your negativity within the last year has far outweighed any positives that you could ever hope to accomplish in the rest of my lifetime! Am I pissed off? You bet I am!!!! You have run off my best friend and I don't like it one bit!!!!!!! I am going to make sure that the club membership knows about this and your credibilty as an officer and member in GOOD standing will be in serious jeopardy! If the board does not vote you off, I will see to it that you will never serve on the board again. So help me GOD!
-----Original Message-----
From: Ira Schneider <
ira_schneider@iname.com>
To:
rbd1949@aol.com <
rbd1949@aol.com>
Cc: Bill Lohman <
844bill@gmail.com>; Scott A. Smiley <
sc.smiley@juno.com>
Sent: Thu, Dec 17, 2009 12:25 am
Subject: Re: 3 way switch module
Hi Rick,
I have attached two files for you.
One is the diagram of the pair of BCD switch modules (so far, I only built one
of them)
with additional turnouts between tracks A and B. The second diagram is the
switching yard transition module with turnouts added between tracks A and B.
I don't like the idea of adding the turnouts to the switching yard module. One
of the
main problems is modifying the control box to accomodate the additional
switches.
According to the wiring diagram, there are eight positions available on the plug
which connects the box to the yard module. However, I would really hate trying
to add new switches to the control box to control the new turnouts. I would
much
rather add the turnouts to the BCD switch module.
Also, we are not "rebuilding" the switching yard. We are merely reinstalling
the turnouts
we removed. In order to add new turnouts we would have to find some more cork
which is the same thickness as the cork I used to elevate the Ross Custom
Switches
turnouts to the same height as the K-Line track. I used up all of the cork I
originally
ordered for that purpose. We would also have to add switches to the control box
(as I described above), which would not be easy.
Adding the new turnouts to the existing BCD switch module won't be easy either,
but I will handle that problem. I have the turnouts and RCS bases (which
elevates
the turnouts to the same level as Lionel or K-Line track). I have to replace
the
control box (since there are no unused wires in the cable) but I was thinking of
doing that anyhow since I don't like the way it turned out. Also, the BCD
switch
module is not critical to the operation of the layout like the switching yard.
Ira
--Original Message Text---
From: rbd1949@aol.com
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:29:16 -0500
Ira, I was trying to explain to Bill about what you are trying to do by adding
a crossover between trk 1 and trk 2. Do you have a diagram?
If so, could you email it to us? We were thinking about building a pair of
crossovers in the yard between trk 1 and trk 2 mainlines. We
thought we could do this when we rebuild the yard sections. What are your
thoughts on doing this?
Rick
Ira