Proto-lanced Pennsy: The West Slope

[Bsklarski]

OK I can see the point in doing that now. Is saving money on switches a concern? I can see getting rid of at least one cross over. Unless you would like it there for visual effect?

[DKS]

Also, what's the radii? 11.5 and 13?

My version has the minimums at about 12 and 13.5. The acid test will be the connections to the curved turnouts in Eric's version.

I'm also not real keen on Eric's version from an operational standpoint. It may offer some streamlined roundy-rounds, but if you ever expand the layout off to the left, operation could be awkward. That said, I do like moving the lower corner siding from the right end to the left.

Then again, I'm not a big ops guy, so take my observations with a grain of salt.

[eric220]

My tweak was an attempt to correct the only major problem that I saw with DKS's plan, namely that if you follow track 2 westbound, you wind up on track 3 or 4.  Just to be clear, here's the way that I'm referring to the tracks, per the PRR plans at MG.



As for the radii, I'm still getting used to AnyRail, and I haven't figured out how to easily slide a turnout up and down a curve to optimize the radius, so I placed them somewhat arbitrarily.  I also haven't figured out how to make the software show me the radius of a curve, beyond adjusting the "alert on too sharp curves" up and down.   In this version, it appears that track 3 comes of at about 11.25", and track 4 at about 10.5".  Those are both very short stretches, and then the curve loosens up to about 15".  Someone more familiar with the software could probably smooth those out a lot more than I can.

[eric220]

Looks like it can be done with 12" minimums... Barely.

[chicken45]

OK I can see the point in doing that now. Is saving money on switches a concern? I can see getting rid of at least one cross over. Unless you would like it there for visual effect?

Oh no, it was just commentary on my part. I'll put the money that I would have thrown away on an Aerotrain towards turnouts 

[DKS]

My tweak was an attempt to correct the only major problem that I saw with DKS's plan, namely that if you follow track 2 westbound, you wind up on track 3 or 4.

I guess, not being an SPF, I'm not seeing a problem with this. And for roundy-round purposes, it's not like you can't get back on track 2... I mean... with $200 worth of crossovers? Not enough options? 

[eric220]

I guess, not being an SPF, I'm not seeing a problem with this. And for roundy-round purposes, it's not like you can't get back on track 2... I mean... with $200 worth of crossovers? Not enough options? 

I guess it's an extension of my aversion to running a mainline through a diverging turnout.  I just don't like the idea of forcing every westbound train coming through MG to change tracks.

[DKS]

I guess it's an extension of my aversion to running a mainline through a diverging turnout.  I just don't like the idea of forcing every westbound train coming through MG to change tracks.

Park a bunch of MOW equipment on tracks 3 and 4 near the tunnels. Surely it had to have happened in real life at some point in time...

I also haven't figured out how to make the software show me the radius of a curve, beyond adjusting the "alert on too sharp curves" up and down.

You can't, and it would be a programmatic nightmare to do, since the radius at any point along a piece of flex will vary. So, indeed, changing the alert is the only practical way of determining radius.

Exception: if you shape a piece of flex into a perfect arc (right-click, Curved flex), you can see the radius on the status bar on the bottom when you hover over the section of track. However, the instant you change its geometry (which is as simple as just touching one of the control points), the radius display will disappear, since it's no longer a perfect arc.

[Chris333]

Only thing I can add to all of this would be to draw that 4 track side of the layout fullsize and throw some trains on it to make sure it all looks right. Just seems like a lot on paper.

[eric220]

I'm also not real keen on Eric's version from an operational standpoint. It may offer some streamlined roundy-rounds, but if you ever expand the layout off to the left, operation could be awkward.

Streamlining the roundy-round was my goal.  As for ops if the layout is expanded, they should be exactly the same with either version.  In both versions westbound trains have to go from track 2 to track 4,



And eastbound trains have to go from track 3 to track 1 through MG.



The only real difference in the expanded version is that in your version, eastbounds have the option of crossing to track 2 instead of track 1.  Given that in either case eastbounds block westbound traffic through MG, I don't see any appreciable difference in ops.

[chicken45]

Park a bunch of MOW equipment on tracks 3 and 4 near the tunnels. Surely it had to have happened in real life at some point in time...

I don't know about MOW equipment (which I have a ton of), but I do remember reading somewhere that they ended up storing a lot of cars on the mainline outside the tunnels, or SF, or Benny, or whatever that quarter mile section was called 

I'm also at the point in my life where I can say that I don't plan on expanding, I plan on building "the big one." If I were to put on another door, it would be for staging or possibly a yard (unlikely). Also, it may be conceptually awkward to expand through Allegheny and Gallitzin because of geographical locations. I'd have to rework that entire side to make it make sense, and if I were to do that, it won't be on HCD and I won't have to compromise on size limitations, y'know?

But hey, this is all spitballing and great discussion again. This is why I came here. And John threatened to run NYC if I didn't

[Lemosteam]

Blasphemer!

[VonRyan]

I guess, not being an SPF, I'm not seeing a problem with this. And for roundy-round purposes, it's not like you can't get back on track 2... I mean... with $200 worth of crossovers? Not enough options? 

They're just supposed to look good, who ever said anything about actually using them? 

[DKS]

The only real difference in the expanded version is that in your version, eastbounds have the option of crossing to track 2 instead of track 1.  Given that in either case eastbounds block westbound traffic through MG, I don't see any appreciable difference in ops.

As I said,

I'm not a big ops guy, so take my observations with a grain of salt.

I don't know about MOW equipment (which I have a ton of), but I do remember reading somewhere that they ended up storing a lot of cars on the mainline outside the tunnels, or SF, or Benny, or whatever that quarter mile section was called

I wasn't suggesting the tracks be represented as storage, but instead simulate work being done on the tunnels, forcing traffic to temporarily divert through Portage tunnel.

Here is Eric's version with a minimum radius of 12" throughout.

[kelticsylk]

As I said,

I wasn't suggesting the tracks be represented as storage, but instead simulate work being done on the tunnels, forcing traffic to temporarily divert through Portage tunnel.

Here is Eric's version with a minimum radius of 12" throughout.

David,
I love the idea of rerouting the traffic because of the work on tunnels. Makes perfect sense and gives a reason to display MOW other than parking them on an old track at the yard.