We've had a few things come up that have prevented me from making too much progress, but I've made some progress despite these issues. I've been working on a few models, and I've been slowly preparing the basement for the new layout.
I've also been able to do some research, visiting the New Britain Industrial Museum. While I didn't expect to find too much information about the railroad, it was a worthwhile visit. In the hallway by the entrance (it's on the second floor of the IIET building in New Britain) is a huge painting of Russell Erwin around 1910. It's beautiful, and actually cleared up a few things as well.
There are several birds-eye aerial photos with the relavent buildings highlighted in the displays for most of the different factories. While these photos are all from 1955 or shortly after, they were still quite helpful. In them, the urban renewal had already begun, turning some areas into parking lots. But it's before any work started on Route 72.
The displays themselves are collections of many of the things that the factories produced over the years. But probably the biggest asset were the two individuals working that day. One had worked at Landers, Frary and Clark, and the other at North & Judd.
Their knowledge of the history and factories was fantastic, and they were able to relate it in a personal way that only somebody who lived it could. They didn't have too much information about the railroad, other than general memories, but I was able to confirm a few things.
What was a surprise to me though will be an important addition to the layout. Somebody had once asked about a steam engine that serviced Stanley Works. Based on the research I had done (up until my visit) I had thought it was replaced by the 44-tonners.
It wasn't. Stanley Works owned their own HK Porter "fireless" 40-ton steam locomotive (more recent information indicates it may be a 28-ton locomotive1/25/2011). There was no firebox, it was charged with steam daily from the factory boilers. But they recall it moving rolled steel from the Stanley Works complex (they rolled it onsite) to the Stanley Tool (aka Stanley Rule & Level) next to the station. Once of the aerial photos showed at least 15 freight cars on the first two sidings to the complex, in addition to quite a few in what was left of the Myrtle Street yard. This was in 1955 or later, so this little steamer had plenty of work to do. Later research leads me to believe it was retired in 1969.
I don't know if the Stanley Works locomotive used the Myrtle Street yard, and I also think that the small yard where the engine servicing facilities used to be may have also been used as a small storage yard. Even if the Stanley Works engine did not operate in those two yards, I'm guessing the 44-tonner did little work within the Stanley Works itself. So I'll probably have the 44-tonner working the American Hardware buildings, in addition to the Commerical Street yard, and the Stanley Works locomotive will shuffle around the cars in the Stanley Works complex. The New Hartford local (HDX-5) will work the east end of the city. By the 1959 freight schedule, HDX-5 dropped off cars in the morning, and picked up cars on the way back in the afternoon.
It also means that in order to fit this operation into the layout, I will probably have to model a little more of the Stanley Works than I was planning...
But that will have to all wait for at least another week, because this weekend is the Amherst Model Railroad show in Springfield. I actually have a small budget this year (as opposed to no budget) but I'm not quite sure how much I'll spend, and on what...
Feel free to say 'Hi' if you see me.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Plans for the New Year
Well, the layout hasn't been built yet...I'm about 80% done with preparing the basement for the new layout. In the meantime, I've built a few models as well. I'll be posting updates and pictures soon. Santa was very good to me (and my birthday is in November) so I'll have a number of updates over the next month on my modeling tools and techniques too.
But the primary focus will be on getting the layout built as soon as possible. My current goal is to complete the last necessary work in the basement this week. Then I'll be able to tear down the old layout, and if I'm lucky, build both decks by the end of the month. I'm hoping to build the lower deck in one weekend, and lay the staging tracks over the course of a week or two in the evenings. Once that's completed I can build the upper deck. Since I'll be handlaying that track on the upper deck it may take a bit longer to complete. I'm also not sure when I'll tackle the helices, particularly the Hartford-side since I'm still deciding how I will handle the Berlin branch staging.
The next goal is to have the layout operational (probably no scenicking at all, though, other than ballast and roads perhaps) by the New England Proto Meet, since it's less than a mile from my house. That way I can host a layout tour, although this year the 'tour' would focus on design and construction. Early test operating sessions can begin as soon as the trackwork is laid, although it probably won't be entirely New Haven because I'll have to borrow some equipment.
I also plan to have some completed models this year to take to the meet as well.
Updates (as I'm sure you've noticed) have been less frequent due to the fact that I'm now working a 5-day-a-week job. This could ultimately work to my advantage because it will force me to plan a little better and be more disciplined with my efforts. This includes updates to the site in addition to progress on the layout.
So, look for new content soon. There have been a few changes already. Mostly updating existing pages (which unfortunately I've found do not appear in the Recent Posts link, only new pages do). I'm working on one significant addition to the site, though, that I think will be very cool. I'm not ready to announce the specifics yet, but I think it will be a great addition.
But the primary focus will be on getting the layout built as soon as possible. My current goal is to complete the last necessary work in the basement this week. Then I'll be able to tear down the old layout, and if I'm lucky, build both decks by the end of the month. I'm hoping to build the lower deck in one weekend, and lay the staging tracks over the course of a week or two in the evenings. Once that's completed I can build the upper deck. Since I'll be handlaying that track on the upper deck it may take a bit longer to complete. I'm also not sure when I'll tackle the helices, particularly the Hartford-side since I'm still deciding how I will handle the Berlin branch staging.
The next goal is to have the layout operational (probably no scenicking at all, though, other than ballast and roads perhaps) by the New England Proto Meet, since it's less than a mile from my house. That way I can host a layout tour, although this year the 'tour' would focus on design and construction. Early test operating sessions can begin as soon as the trackwork is laid, although it probably won't be entirely New Haven because I'll have to borrow some equipment.
I also plan to have some completed models this year to take to the meet as well.
Updates (as I'm sure you've noticed) have been less frequent due to the fact that I'm now working a 5-day-a-week job. This could ultimately work to my advantage because it will force me to plan a little better and be more disciplined with my efforts. This includes updates to the site in addition to progress on the layout.
So, look for new content soon. There have been a few changes already. Mostly updating existing pages (which unfortunately I've found do not appear in the Recent Posts link, only new pages do). I'm working on one significant addition to the site, though, that I think will be very cool. I'm not ready to announce the specifics yet, but I think it will be a great addition.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Goals and Waffling
After spending the better part of the year not getting very far on the construction of the layout (for a variety of reasons) I'm considering the options again. There are always lots of decisions to make on what to model and I find that indecision is directly affected by the ratio of planning to doing.
I'm now to the point where I want to get the basic layout up by the end of the year. When planning a layout, even a small one, it's sometimes easy to forget how much this entails. So what and I really trying to accomplish?
1. Prepare the layout room.
I have to complete moving the doors, patching the walls, and removing the old layout. The moving the doors project itself may also include fixing a crack in the floor of the utility room, and tiling the utility room and closet. There is a small amount of electrical work (moving switches) as well. In theory this is a one-weekend project if all goes well. (The rooms aren't that large). I'll need to determine how much lumber I'll salvage from the old layout as well.
2. Build the benchwork.
This will probably be done in stages, with the lower benchwork (staging) built first, all staging track laid, and then the upper benchwork built. Before any work on the upper deck is done (including trackwork) I need to cove the corners and paint sky. I don't have a table saw, or a chop saw so I'll have to call on some friends to help move this along.
3. Build the helixes.
I have to complete the two decks first, then connect them with the helix. The exact approach to staging for the Berlin line is as yet undecided. I could feed it into the closet, which would probably allow better access to the track, or loop it into the helix and include a couple of staging tracks on the main staging deck. This would be more complicated to build, but would keep all of the staging in one place (and allow longer staging for the Berlin line). This also requires access to a table saw.
4. Lay track.
This is pretty straightforward at this point. Most likely I would complete all of the mainline (including turnouts) before laying the sidings to allow testing and operation.
That in and of itself is a lot to do in a few months. I work pretty quickly when things are organized, so it's feasible, but I'm not sure how probable. The focus next year would be...what?
If I have a mainline built, I'll want some trains to run. The locomotives I have with decoders are all locomotives that won't be used in the future because they don't meet my modeling standards any more. So I'll need to get a decoder installed in at least one locomotive, and I should start from the beginning with sound so I don't have to go back and do it again. Then I'll need some rolling stock.
So I'm back to waffling. Proto:87? I've got a test set of wheels and they look great. After comparing with a code:88 wheels I found that the tread is the same, it's the flanges that are different between the two. It's noticeable, when side-by-side, but not so important once you're running trains. Plus, if I go with proto:87 I'll have to change out wheelsets on the locomotives, and I have to hand lay (or modify) turnouts for the staging area. That would delay the layout further.
So I'm back to working with fine scale HO specs. I can live with that.
Then there's the rolling stock. While I'm enjoying working with the resin kits, my skills and supplies make them slow going. Simpler standards then will make it easier to populate the layout more quickly, and probably be less expensive as well. The problem is that there is no really good resource to verify the accuracy of the many kits and RTR models on the market. From an operational standpoint, how much does this matter? That is my primary goal, get this running so I can start some operations. For photographs I can populate the foreground subjects with the more accurate and detailed cars.
I'll still stick with companies that are generally respected for fairly accurate models. I'll also try to verify specific cars in the ORER. But to run even a small operating session I'll need a lot of cars. So I'll have to populate it with a mix of useable cars. Since these will be among the first on the layout, they will also be among the first to retire.
So I'm back to an HO-scale rather than proto:87 model, and with looser overall standards for the models. Keeping the overall goal in mind (get operations running as soon as possible) helps to make decisions. Scenery will have to wait until the trackwork is done, and a decent amount of rolling stock (freight and passenger) will be the focus for next year.
But first, I've got to get that benchwork done!
Update Jan 25, 2011 - Wow...am I slow. October 2008 and I was talking about laying track in a few months?!? I'm hoping for next month!
I'm now to the point where I want to get the basic layout up by the end of the year. When planning a layout, even a small one, it's sometimes easy to forget how much this entails. So what and I really trying to accomplish?
1. Prepare the layout room.
I have to complete moving the doors, patching the walls, and removing the old layout. The moving the doors project itself may also include fixing a crack in the floor of the utility room, and tiling the utility room and closet. There is a small amount of electrical work (moving switches) as well. In theory this is a one-weekend project if all goes well. (The rooms aren't that large). I'll need to determine how much lumber I'll salvage from the old layout as well.
2. Build the benchwork.
This will probably be done in stages, with the lower benchwork (staging) built first, all staging track laid, and then the upper benchwork built. Before any work on the upper deck is done (including trackwork) I need to cove the corners and paint sky. I don't have a table saw, or a chop saw so I'll have to call on some friends to help move this along.
3. Build the helixes.
I have to complete the two decks first, then connect them with the helix. The exact approach to staging for the Berlin line is as yet undecided. I could feed it into the closet, which would probably allow better access to the track, or loop it into the helix and include a couple of staging tracks on the main staging deck. This would be more complicated to build, but would keep all of the staging in one place (and allow longer staging for the Berlin line). This also requires access to a table saw.
4. Lay track.
This is pretty straightforward at this point. Most likely I would complete all of the mainline (including turnouts) before laying the sidings to allow testing and operation.
That in and of itself is a lot to do in a few months. I work pretty quickly when things are organized, so it's feasible, but I'm not sure how probable. The focus next year would be...what?
If I have a mainline built, I'll want some trains to run. The locomotives I have with decoders are all locomotives that won't be used in the future because they don't meet my modeling standards any more. So I'll need to get a decoder installed in at least one locomotive, and I should start from the beginning with sound so I don't have to go back and do it again. Then I'll need some rolling stock.
So I'm back to waffling. Proto:87? I've got a test set of wheels and they look great. After comparing with a code:88 wheels I found that the tread is the same, it's the flanges that are different between the two. It's noticeable, when side-by-side, but not so important once you're running trains. Plus, if I go with proto:87 I'll have to change out wheelsets on the locomotives, and I have to hand lay (or modify) turnouts for the staging area. That would delay the layout further.
So I'm back to working with fine scale HO specs. I can live with that.
Then there's the rolling stock. While I'm enjoying working with the resin kits, my skills and supplies make them slow going. Simpler standards then will make it easier to populate the layout more quickly, and probably be less expensive as well. The problem is that there is no really good resource to verify the accuracy of the many kits and RTR models on the market. From an operational standpoint, how much does this matter? That is my primary goal, get this running so I can start some operations. For photographs I can populate the foreground subjects with the more accurate and detailed cars.
I'll still stick with companies that are generally respected for fairly accurate models. I'll also try to verify specific cars in the ORER. But to run even a small operating session I'll need a lot of cars. So I'll have to populate it with a mix of useable cars. Since these will be among the first on the layout, they will also be among the first to retire.
So I'm back to an HO-scale rather than proto:87 model, and with looser overall standards for the models. Keeping the overall goal in mind (get operations running as soon as possible) helps to make decisions. Scenery will have to wait until the trackwork is done, and a decent amount of rolling stock (freight and passenger) will be the focus for next year.
But first, I've got to get that benchwork done!
Update Jan 25, 2011 - Wow...am I slow. October 2008 and I was talking about laying track in a few months?!? I'm hoping for next month!
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Back from Vacation
We spent about 10 days visiting family so there hasn't been much to update here. Most of what I've been working on is developing a wish list of foreign roster cars (preparing for birthday/Christmas...). All too often I find myself at a hobby shop looking at kits and I have no idea which would be appropriate for my layout, nor which are the better kits in regards to accuracy so I don't have to make too many changes.
In fact, I found myself in that scenario recently. I picked up a Branchline Blueprint-series reefer. I'm finding that I'll have enough local traffic to warrant a few reefers, not to mention a block of them on the front of the Maybrook-Hartford (OA) freights.
In addition, I'm using the kit as another step in my experimentation with standards for the layout. The Branchline kits have a lot of detail, including pretty complete underframe detailing. Unlike the Intermountain or Red Caboose kits though, they consist of separate parts, and aren't on the narrow vertical plane of the other kits. So out of the box they look pretty good.
The downside of the Branchline kits is that the brake levers are two pieces that glue into either side of the center sill, instead of a single piece that passes all the way through. Aside from not being prototypically correct, I think that this makes the parts weaker and more susceptible to damage.
In the end I replaced some of the piping with wire, and used some of the plastic piping that is already attached to the parts. I'll have to paint it, which is another disadvantage to replacing the parts. The plastic parts can also be more detailed (pipe fittings, etc). Once painted I don't think the difference will be noticeable.
Another potential reason for replacing the plastic piping is durability. But I'm using brass wire and half of a turnbuckle for a clevis along with the brake lever form the kit (which requires cutting off the plastic wire and scraping off the cast on clevis). In the end I'm using three parts with joints which very well could be weaker than the original part.
So like the bracket grabs, I may start using the kit parts first, and repairing them with wire if necessary. This will help get cars on the track quicker (when there is a track). I may still use standard parts for the more visible items (air hoses, power brakes, etc.) but while the underframe will be visible, it will rarely be in a position for close inspection. This does depend on the kit, though. I prefer that there is a little more separation between the brake piping, it looks more prototypical when viewing a car on the track.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Branchline Reefers
Comment posted 9/17/2008
Randy,
Glad you got around to actually BUILDING one of the reefer kits. ;>) (So many collect dust!)
Found your comment about the durability of the brake rods interesting though... First, unless you model the O&W (God forbid!) and most of your rolling stock ends up upside down, the gap in the brake rods is not visbisle. FWIW, based on my experience with.... ummm... a few of these kits (!) the weak spot is not in the brake gear but rather the stirrup steps (in particular the CENTER setep) which, when handled by earnest operators uncoupling or re-railing these cars often fall victem to a cry of "oops..."! In fairness, this is a common problem, not only with ours but also I-M and Red Caboose reefers. The best solution is probably to replace the steps with modified A-Line U-shaped steps, insterted into holes drilled in the original mounting points and then bent outwards slightly to match the prototype. In fact, although I have yet to replace a brake pipe, I suspect that next time you are over you will be hard pressed to find ANY reefer on my layout that still has its full compliment of steps! (Must see about buying those A-Line parts in bulk......)
Bill Schneider
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Durability, etc.
Comment posted 9/18/2008
Thanks for the comment, Bill. Yes, it's true that you'll never notice the gap in the brake levers except when you are photographing the underframe and such.
The stirrups and the air hoses will definitely be the most susceptible to damage once I have the layout built. Until then, though, they are subject to the fat fingers of the modeler, and the brake gear was in place before I started messing around with wheels and stuff. Also, I had decided to assemble the bulk of the underframe before fitting it to the rest of the car, and it was a bit tighter fit than I remembered from the test fit.
Initially, I intended to use A-Line steps for all of my models, as well as replacing the brake gear with wire and "standard" brake gear. This model however has made me rethink that approach, especially in regards to time and money. So I now plan on building the kits much more frequently with the provided parts, unless
1) I really don't like the look of the parts, or;
2) I have some information about them being prototypically inaccurate.
In a sense it's kind of funny, because I always thought that the write-ups of F&C kits were odd because everybody seems to throw out the green wire they supply with...more wire.
In regards to durability altogether, I'm hoping that since the Sergent couplers don't require as much handling to uncouple that there will be less wear-and-tear on the cars themselves.
In any event, reading my initial commentary, "downside" was a bit stronger than my intention. I just found them a little fiddly in the assembly. Of course, this is from a modeler who still hasn't completed 10 models yet...
Randy
In fact, I found myself in that scenario recently. I picked up a Branchline Blueprint-series reefer. I'm finding that I'll have enough local traffic to warrant a few reefers, not to mention a block of them on the front of the Maybrook-Hartford (OA) freights.
In addition, I'm using the kit as another step in my experimentation with standards for the layout. The Branchline kits have a lot of detail, including pretty complete underframe detailing. Unlike the Intermountain or Red Caboose kits though, they consist of separate parts, and aren't on the narrow vertical plane of the other kits. So out of the box they look pretty good.
The downside of the Branchline kits is that the brake levers are two pieces that glue into either side of the center sill, instead of a single piece that passes all the way through. Aside from not being prototypically correct, I think that this makes the parts weaker and more susceptible to damage.
In the end I replaced some of the piping with wire, and used some of the plastic piping that is already attached to the parts. I'll have to paint it, which is another disadvantage to replacing the parts. The plastic parts can also be more detailed (pipe fittings, etc). Once painted I don't think the difference will be noticeable.
Another potential reason for replacing the plastic piping is durability. But I'm using brass wire and half of a turnbuckle for a clevis along with the brake lever form the kit (which requires cutting off the plastic wire and scraping off the cast on clevis). In the end I'm using three parts with joints which very well could be weaker than the original part.
So like the bracket grabs, I may start using the kit parts first, and repairing them with wire if necessary. This will help get cars on the track quicker (when there is a track). I may still use standard parts for the more visible items (air hoses, power brakes, etc.) but while the underframe will be visible, it will rarely be in a position for close inspection. This does depend on the kit, though. I prefer that there is a little more separation between the brake piping, it looks more prototypical when viewing a car on the track.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Branchline Reefers
Comment posted 9/17/2008
Randy,
Glad you got around to actually BUILDING one of the reefer kits. ;>) (So many collect dust!)
Found your comment about the durability of the brake rods interesting though... First, unless you model the O&W (God forbid!) and most of your rolling stock ends up upside down, the gap in the brake rods is not visbisle. FWIW, based on my experience with.... ummm... a few of these kits (!) the weak spot is not in the brake gear but rather the stirrup steps (in particular the CENTER setep) which, when handled by earnest operators uncoupling or re-railing these cars often fall victem to a cry of "oops..."! In fairness, this is a common problem, not only with ours but also I-M and Red Caboose reefers. The best solution is probably to replace the steps with modified A-Line U-shaped steps, insterted into holes drilled in the original mounting points and then bent outwards slightly to match the prototype. In fact, although I have yet to replace a brake pipe, I suspect that next time you are over you will be hard pressed to find ANY reefer on my layout that still has its full compliment of steps! (Must see about buying those A-Line parts in bulk......)
Bill Schneider
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Durability, etc.
Comment posted 9/18/2008
Thanks for the comment, Bill. Yes, it's true that you'll never notice the gap in the brake levers except when you are photographing the underframe and such.
The stirrups and the air hoses will definitely be the most susceptible to damage once I have the layout built. Until then, though, they are subject to the fat fingers of the modeler, and the brake gear was in place before I started messing around with wheels and stuff. Also, I had decided to assemble the bulk of the underframe before fitting it to the rest of the car, and it was a bit tighter fit than I remembered from the test fit.
Initially, I intended to use A-Line steps for all of my models, as well as replacing the brake gear with wire and "standard" brake gear. This model however has made me rethink that approach, especially in regards to time and money. So I now plan on building the kits much more frequently with the provided parts, unless
1) I really don't like the look of the parts, or;
2) I have some information about them being prototypically inaccurate.
In a sense it's kind of funny, because I always thought that the write-ups of F&C kits were odd because everybody seems to throw out the green wire they supply with...more wire.
In regards to durability altogether, I'm hoping that since the Sergent couplers don't require as much handling to uncouple that there will be less wear-and-tear on the cars themselves.
In any event, reading my initial commentary, "downside" was a bit stronger than my intention. I just found them a little fiddly in the assembly. Of course, this is from a modeler who still hasn't completed 10 models yet...
Randy
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Compressing the Prototype
Compressing a prototype plan to one manageble in a model is affected by many different things, starting with the design concept itself. What are you trying to model? Modeling the mainline of an entire division will require far more compression than modeling just a few towns. If you are including a major interchange yard, you will undoubtably have to simplify things to make maintenance and operation possible.
Since I've chosen to model the operations of one small city I have the opportunity to build a layout with a minimum of compression, even in a relatively small room. But it will still require some work to make it fit the space.
The first major change is compression by omission: The Berlin line will not be modeled. While I would like to include it, having three extensions to the layout will not fit easily in the space. In addition, it includes a fairly extensive yard which would also require a lot of space. I have considered including a second deck to model it, but the distance required to run between the two decks would be about the same distance between the station and the Whiting Street yard. So I wouldn't be able to model much more than the yard anyway.
The next issue is a question of how much I need to compress the rest of the layout. The entire arcade and station area, including the Mechanical Department facilities, should fit along hte 20' wall with no compression. If modeled to scale it's about 11.5 feet long.
The eastbound track is about half-a-mile, or 30' in HO scale. The westbound track is about 3/4 of a mile, or 45 feet. I'll have somewhere between 20-25' on each side of the station area to work with so some compression will be necessary. Additional compression will be required due to introducing the necessary curves to make it fit the room.
So the first thing I'm going to do is reduce all track lengths by 13%. Why 13%? Because in HO scale 1 real foot = 87 scale feet. Instead on this layout 1 real foot = 100 scale feet. This will have a minor effect on the design of the layout, only a reduction of 1/2 a 40' car per 100' scale feet of track.
I will make some additional space by reducing some of the longer tracks slightly, particularly where there are no industries with sidings.
I haven't finalized the plan, and the distances at this point are still rough estimates. But I should be able to include all of the industries between East Main Street and Curtis Street, with only two exceptions. The first is likely the Landers, Frary and Clark factory across from the station. I am considering some sort of hidden track, but switching will be very difficult in that event.
The other exceptions will be some of the tracks in the P&F Corbin division of the American Hardware Corporation on Myrtle Street, and portions of the Stanley Works complex, specifically the area past Buritt Street.
I am trying to determine what impact this will have on operations, since eliminating tracks, particularly of major industries, also changes the nature of operations. Most likely I will address this issue the most common way, there simply won't be cars for those industries.
Since I've chosen to model the operations of one small city I have the opportunity to build a layout with a minimum of compression, even in a relatively small room. But it will still require some work to make it fit the space.
The first major change is compression by omission: The Berlin line will not be modeled. While I would like to include it, having three extensions to the layout will not fit easily in the space. In addition, it includes a fairly extensive yard which would also require a lot of space. I have considered including a second deck to model it, but the distance required to run between the two decks would be about the same distance between the station and the Whiting Street yard. So I wouldn't be able to model much more than the yard anyway.
The next issue is a question of how much I need to compress the rest of the layout. The entire arcade and station area, including the Mechanical Department facilities, should fit along hte 20' wall with no compression. If modeled to scale it's about 11.5 feet long.
The eastbound track is about half-a-mile, or 30' in HO scale. The westbound track is about 3/4 of a mile, or 45 feet. I'll have somewhere between 20-25' on each side of the station area to work with so some compression will be necessary. Additional compression will be required due to introducing the necessary curves to make it fit the room.
So the first thing I'm going to do is reduce all track lengths by 13%. Why 13%? Because in HO scale 1 real foot = 87 scale feet. Instead on this layout 1 real foot = 100 scale feet. This will have a minor effect on the design of the layout, only a reduction of 1/2 a 40' car per 100' scale feet of track.
I will make some additional space by reducing some of the longer tracks slightly, particularly where there are no industries with sidings.
I haven't finalized the plan, and the distances at this point are still rough estimates. But I should be able to include all of the industries between East Main Street and Curtis Street, with only two exceptions. The first is likely the Landers, Frary and Clark factory across from the station. I am considering some sort of hidden track, but switching will be very difficult in that event.
The other exceptions will be some of the tracks in the P&F Corbin division of the American Hardware Corporation on Myrtle Street, and portions of the Stanley Works complex, specifically the area past Buritt Street.
I am trying to determine what impact this will have on operations, since eliminating tracks, particularly of major industries, also changes the nature of operations. Most likely I will address this issue the most common way, there simply won't be cars for those industries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)