I had to remove a section of O scale flex track. The nail nippers were incapable of making the cut and I accidentally pulled some to the rail out of the cast in spikes. Arrg. I was able to fix the damaged track with CAA.
Next I started extending the terrain formers from the bridge site toward the tunnel. As I laid it out, I began to think that I have the tunnel recessed too far into the hill. The two pictures below show the original design with the deep cut, and a revised design where the tunnel portal is moved forward creating a more shallow cut. The more I think about it the shallow cut looks better. Instead of moving the tunnel forward, I could cut the slope of the hill and stick with the original portal location with a shallow cut but further back. But the idea is this is a steep ridge that caused the creek to make a sharp turn, so the steep hill works better for that. I have a few days to decide as I have to spike the rail before I finish the formers.
I used my Festool Rotex 90 with 60 grit coarse paper to reshape the hill under the trestle to remove the deep holes for some of the sills. The dust extractor really cuts down on the mess. It is a great way to shape foam terrain.
ANOTHER EXPANSION?
The big draw back is the very reduced crew lounge. The location of Burnside's Wharf is also an issue. Option A has it in the office space accessed by a section of hidden track, which can be access from below if necessary. Option B has it on the wall above my work bench and accessed by a removable section. That is an interesting use of that space, but I would lose the overhead clearance I need for my 3D printer. So I would probably move the 3D printer work station under the peninsula and place it on castors so I can roll it out when I need it.
What does the decision matrix say? Burnside Plan A is tied with the current Plan in sum of ratings. Burnside Plan B is a close second but loses points for the removable section that can result in a duck under during operations, while Burnside Plan A has a bit more hidden track. The current plan wins on Sum of Ratings weighted by Priority due to the crew lounge priority but only by on point.
Locating Burnside Wharf in the office is both good and bad. Crews switching Burnside wharf will interfere with the dispatcher. But the longer run to Burnside Wharf captures the prototype better.
Aquia Yard limits would extend all the way around the new peninsula to the switch to Burnside Wharf. That is where the telegraph station is now, so that works.
 |
| Decision Matrix for the expanded plan versus current plan |
Now to convince Alicia (and myself) that this is good idea.
Sounds like your motivation for the extension is a desire to do more modelling, rather than simply making the finished railroad a better representation of the prototype or improving its operation.
ReplyDeleteIf that is the case then the question is whether the extension will satisfy the desire to continue modelling or still leave you wanting more because at some point you will run out of space!
Decisions, decisions!!??
ReplyDeleteDeep cut maybe more dramatic? What would a civil engineer of the era think of the deep vs the shallower cut? What would he be most concerned about? A lot of rock and dirt to move. What would be more expedient? Did the tunnel exist before the war? If so would it effect it's construction and location of the portal?
Burnside A for me. I have always liked the longer run time with similar previous versions. Putting Burnside in the office may cause a little congestion if there happen to be two trains operating in the AQ area at the same time. Might provide some company for the dispatcher from time to time as he/she waits for OS messages.
Look forward to helping if you go with it.
Hi Bernie, first, I think the shallow cut is better as the less work the engineers, soldiers, workers, horses, mules, etc... have to accomplish during the war to get the railroad up and running the more realistic it is. That is dependent of course on whether the tunnel was there before the war and I do not know that offhand.
ReplyDeleteYour second question is much more complicated but I would vote for the current plan as it fills the spaces very nicely, is very well designed, and has great operational and scenic potential. The newest plan takes up a great deal more space and there will be less room for operators much less visitors, and your layout draws a crowd. Also, at some point you just run out of room and that is not the end of the layout, just the beginning of a new journey.
You like to build stuff so maybe in "the future" you could build some new modules in various scales of different prototypes to keep yourself occupied. That gives you the option to go in all sorts of directions which might make you happiest and leave open the largest number of options. Just some ideas...
Alicia is lobbying for smaller projects and no expansion. Modules are a possibility. Meanwhile, still lots of work at Aquia Landing.
DeleteDoes your reasoning for the footprint of the current version of Falmouth still apply? As I recall, the main reason you opted NOT to include a peninsula into the crew lounge area was to allow space for optional uses such as commercial and non-Aquia Line modeling projects, and game table set ups. If those are no longer considerations then I like the new plan - otherwise accept the fact that the space you have is the space you have...
ReplyDeleteAlicia did open pandoras box when she offered the dining room for gaming. So that isn't as much of a concern. But I probably like doing varied projects more than using up all the basement. So we'll see how it goes in a few years.
DeleteDon't forget about future maintenance of the HVAC and water heater. It looks like a peninsula into the middle of the room would have to be removed in order to replace the HVAC.
ReplyDeleteIntertesting point. We just had a brand new HVAC system installed this spring. The new layout design doesn't interfere with access to the closet very much. There is also a second door to the closet for access to the water heater and other pumps etc.
Delete