Slip Switch Track



Terry, better do what Mark insists, he is tired of you humiliating him in public. He wants you to take it private. I know you have nothing to hide, But Mark obviously does not want to be shown up in public.
--
Will
N Scale - Credit Valley Railway
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@CreditValley.Railway wrote:
> Terry, better do what Mark insists, he is tired of you humiliating > him in public.
I am tired of wasting time responding to his inane drivel. The humiliation is all his.
> He wants you to take it private. I know you have nothing to hide,
Terry has quite a lot to hide, as it happens. Ask him why his employer closely monitors his internet usage these days.
> But Mark obviously does not want to be shown up in public.
Mark obviously doesn't want to participate any more in Terry's self-aggrandizing bullshit. If he was genuinely interested in discussing information or ideas he could quite happily do so via e-mail or telephone, as do many others. As for seeing my layouts, he lives quite close to me, and has an open invitation to visit me at any time he cares to. End of story.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark, I would love to see your layout. Anyone who thinks John Allen's work was not that good and intimated that he can do better. I would love to see the layout. I live in Canada, 200 miles north of Toronto. Where abouts do you live?
--
Will
N Scale - Credit Valley Railway
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

he
BTW, my coreect email address can be found on my webpage.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@CreditValley.Railway wrote:
> Mark, I would love to see your layout.
> Anyone who thinks John Allen's work was not that good and intimated > that he can do better.
Do you seriously maintain that I alone, of all the rail modellers in the world, am the only one who reckons the G&D is overrated? Of course I can do better. Anyone can, even you, by simply observing reality and reproducing what they observe in miniature.
Which Allen manifestly DID NOT DO.
Allen's layout was a caricature, a cartoon in 3-D, the embodiment of his fantasy world, it was many things, but it was not a great model railroad.
> I would love to see the layout. I live in Canada, 200 miles north of > Toronto. Where abouts do you live?
Sydney, Australia. Pack your bags if you wish.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Post or send your address, someone my wife works with expects to be in Sydney for about a month, sometime in August or September, and will no doubt have a weekend available to stop by. They thoroughly enjoyed our, just getting started, track on foam layout. They'll undoubtedly be extremely impressed by your layout.
Paul
--
Working the Rockie Road of the G&PX

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Paul, it is NOT a good idea to post your adress on an open forum like this. As to emails, with the assortment of email search bots on usenet, I would suggest that addresses be emailed to the recipient. and that email address be written in a form that can be understood, but not simply cut and pasted. Otherwise you open up your email to all sorts of SPAM.
for instance, my email can be retrieved from my homepage. or I would say it is
bill (underscore) annand (at) muskokacomutes (dot) com
The above can be understood by any reader, but a searchbot will overlook it as it is not in correct email format.
--
Will
N Scale - Credit Valley Railway
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I presumed that Mark was bright enough to NOT do something as stupid as you are assuming.
Paul
--
Working the Rockie Road of the G&PX

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
which is blocked.

I never presume anything when it comes to usenet. Some users only know how to get here, read and post. You would be surpised at some of the things people have done. A while ago, one fellow was in the middle of a flame war with three other people and he posted his phone number and wanted the others to phone him.
So I never presume anything and always feel it is better to warn someone and have them say "I know that". Than it is to have someone do something dumb and pay for it.
--
Will
N Scale - Credit Valley Railway
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ok! *8-D
Paul
--
Working the Rockie Road of the G&PX

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

>

And it doesn't take much of a regexp or pcre to figure it out either. Paul
--
Working the Rockie Road of the G&PX

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Newton wrote:

You may well be thinking of a "model railway" as an inanimate object. John Allen took his model into the dimension of operation as well as just a visual representation of a railway. Those of us who have built more than one model railway have almost certainly built one that failed to achieve what we set out for it to be in one sense or another. Allen's layouts were presented to us as fulfilling the original requirements and in doing so encouraged many of us to dream bigger dreams and to build better layouts. Allen also told us why previous layouts didn't give the satisfaction they might have and thereby allowed us to avoid some of the pitfalls he discovered. If John Allen were alive today, I'm sure he would be taking full advantage of the vastly better models that are available over the counter and the Gorre and Daphetid would have gone through another half dozen metamorphoses.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gregory Procter wrote:
> You may well be thinking of a "model railway" as an inanimate object.
No, I am not thinking anything of the sort. I am thinking of a model railway as being a representation of reality in miniature. I am thinking that Allen's layout was an animate fantasy object. Why is that such a contentious statement? Am I the only person to see past the hype?
> John Allen took his model into the dimension of operation as well as > just a visual representation of a railway.
It was a visual representation of a fantasy railway.
Operationally, it was no more realistic. An article about operations on the G&D that appeared in an early 60s issue of MR confirms that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Newton wrote:

Can any "model railway" be anything more than a fantasy?
The best that could possibly be achieved would be a short section of railway track with suitable trains passing a point at representative moments.
If one's model did accurately portray a section of actual railway at an instant in history it would take a vast amount of space and be operationally as boring as hell. I suggest that any model railway we construct is in fact a fantasy to a large degree. Mine certainly is, in spite of having a defined prototype location, time period and all rolling stock present being correct to that prototype.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gregory Procter wrote: > > Can any "model railway" be anything more than a fantasy?
Yes. You're just being deliberately obtuse in your interpretation of the word "fantasy". Allen's railroad was completely implausible, and like no real railway that ever was. A fantasy, in other words.
> The best that could possibly be achieved would be a short section of > railway track with suitable trains passing a point at representative > moments.
Nonsense. You're confusing your inability to imagine how it may be done with the idea that it can't be done. And it can be, and has been done many, many times.
> If one's model did accurately portray a section of actual railway at > an instant in history it would take a vast amount of space
More nonsense. The size of the model would be entirely dependent on the prototype, a smallish location would give a smallish model.
> and be operationally as boring as hell.
An entirely subjective opinion, again it would depend on the prototype, and the preferred operation style of the builder.
> I suggest that any model railway we construct is in fact a fantasy to > a large degree.
Fantasy, as in fantastic, or fantasy as in a product of one's imagination?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Newton wrote:

It looked like a few bits of New Zealand.

I think you're confusing your imagination with some ability you haven't got.

Any location is going to relate to the length of the train being run and almost any railway is going to be in the business of moving people or goods considerable distances. A small station on a main line is going to be much the same length as a major station on the same line.

Sure, but the prototype of my layout runs 6 trains per day (3 out and back)

That would depend upon one's imaginative abilities.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gregory Procter wrote:
>>> Can any "model railway" be anything more than a fantasy? >> >> Yes. You're just being deliberately obtuse in your interpretation >> of the word "fantasy". Allen's railroad was completely implausible, >> and like no real railway that ever was. A fantasy, in other words.
> It looked like a few bits of New Zealand.
Really? Which bits of New Zealand feature five separate levels of track strung along the sides of a near vertical-sided chasm??? The bits of New Zealand which were designed and built by Disney??? In truth, it looks nothing like any bits of anywhere.
>>> The best that could possibly be achieved would be a short section >>> of railway track with suitable trains passing a point at >>> representative moments.
>> Nonsense. You're confusing your inability to imagine how it may be >> done with the idea that it can't be done. And it can be, and has >> been done many, many times. > > I think you're confusing your imagination with some ability you > haven't got.
Eh? Could you repeat this sentence in English, please?
>>> If one's model did accurately portray a section of actual railway >>> at an instant in history it would take a vast amount of space
>> More nonsense. The size of the model would be entirely dependent on >> the prototype, a smallish location would give a smallish model.
> Any location is going to relate to the length of the train being run > and almost any railway is going to be in the business of moving > people or goods considerable distances.
Still more nonsense. With the stroke of a keyboard you dismiss the many railways that only move people or goods short distances, or run short trains. You also ignore the many instances where, for example, a crossing loop is considerably shorter than the longest trains that use it. Or there is a car-length halt on a main line. I would have thought you'd be less parochial, and more observant than that.
> A small station on a main line is going to be much the same length as > a major station on the same line.
Complete and utter nonsense. I can walk out my front door and stand on a station that is just long enough to accomodate an eight-car suburban EMU. There are no loops or sidings, just two platforms and plain track. Two stations away in the up direction is a branch junction station, which is at least twice as long as my local station. Two stations away in the down direction is a station that is the terminus for suburban electric services on our line. It is twice as long again. Your statement makes no sense, unless you narrow your definition to mean only the platforms, and even these vary in length.
>>> and be operationally as boring as hell.
>> An entirely subjective opinion, again it would depend on the >> prototype, and the preferred operation style of the builder.
> Sure, but the prototype of my layout runs 6 trains per day (3 out and > back)
Yes, what is your point?
>>> I suggest that any model railway we construct is in fact a >>> fantasy to a large degree.
>> Fantasy, as in fantastic, or fantasy as in a product of one's >> imagination?
> That would depend upon one's imaginative abilities.
In other words, you have no sensible answer.
Why don't we simply agree to disagree on this subject? Obviously, the G&D appeals to you. That's great, terrific, more power to your elbow.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Newton wrote:

I could find you three levels and quite a few spots where tracks run along the sides of near vertical chasms. Disney probably got a lot of his ideas from NZ terrain. cf Lord of the Rings.

Just read it more slowly and carefully, it makes full sense.

Can you give examples of grade one railways that have routes of under one mile? Can you give examples of railways that _only_ run short trains?

You used "trains" rather than "train" - care to explain how two trains longer than the crossing loop can pass? (I know the answer but your model layout is going to be tied up for a long period!)

A car length halt isn't going to make an exciting operating layout!

That's a halt, not a station.

Try narrowing my definition to the lengths of tracks between throat turnouts.

Should I limit my operating sessions to 5 minutes each at 7am, 12:30pm and 6pm - boring!

John Allen had more imagination than I do and I probably top several other people in that category. Where do _you_ draw the line between "fantastic" and "a product of one's imagination". For example, the slopes of the gorge on my model are steepened by about 33%-50% over the prototype but they are about 10% of the height, the clearances and the road are narrowed. The result is recognisable as a model of the prototype.

OK, we disagree! :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gregory Procter wrote:

Bullshit. I've seen enough of NZ to know there's nothing remotely like the terrain that Allen modelled there. And as for LOTR, how much of what you see ISN'T special effects? (For that matter, how much of what you see is even remotely watchable?)

Nah. It doesn't.

A grade one railway is?

You're joking, aren't you? Any suburban commuter operation, for a start.

Me too. But I don't care how long it takes. That's the kind of operation I like. And the kind of operation which is prototypical, particular if the crossing loops locally have not been lenghtened to handle the traffic.

Well, that comes down to your subjective opinion. I have no idea what you personally reagrd as exciting.

No, it's a station. It and a few hundred others hereabouts all have the same characteristics, and nobody for a split second considers them to be halts.

Makes no difference. The distance between turnouts at the throat will vary widely as well. As you are well aware.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Newton wrote:

Raurimu spiral. (North Island main Trunk) Otira Gorge. (SI West Coast line) Manawatu Gorge. (NI)

In LOTR the special effects were the additions of habitation to existing scenery.

Ewww- sour grapes!

Hmmm, we found the limitations of your cognitive abilities so soon and so easily!

Sorry, I thought that was a normal US term - main line.

You can find a suburban commuter operation of the order of length of the average model railway scaled up??? Why would they bother to build it, most people could walk that far to work.

Yeah, and you probably spent many happy hours watching your grandmother crochet doilies for the sideboard. ;-) If you block the main line with two trains for half an hour then nothing else can run, which gets very boring for the rest of the operators.

Depends what you're modelling - it's pretty certain you're not modelling that ultra-short suburban commuter line.

Moving your passenger train forward two coach lengths at a time so everyone on board gets a turn at the platform doesn't do it!

Of course!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.