# Looking for input on trackplan change



## craigcoffman (Jan 2, 2008)

Here's my current trackplan... 








Here's the change I'm thinking of: 








The idea is this: Originally the outside track at the bottom of the graphic was just a siding, then grew longer, & now that it is complete through the bottom half of the loop, I'm thinking of it as more of a Main Line #2. 
If I change the switches as indicated, (the one at mid left from a left, to a right, & the one at mid top from a left to a right, then clockwise direction trains automatically take the bottom outside main when reaching the 3 oclock position, while counterclockwise trains will stay on the bottom inside main when reaching the 9 oclock positions. Likewise, the siding at the top of the graphic would ensure automatic routing of trains (clockwise to the outside, counter-clockwise to the inner). I didn't make this change before because I was so used to using the sidings as parking spots that I didn't want to "lose" them. Now however, I have the three stub tracks shown to the lower left & the farthest outside 4 track runs to inside storage. 

Thoughts? 
Note: I've exagerated the curve in the track at top center... this curve is there on account of an existing tree. In actuality, the track would be straighter after the proposed change. There may also be a new crossover at the 7 to 8 oclock position (bottom left, allowing outside to inside crossovers), though with the proposed change, the need for that crossover is lessened. 
-- 
craig


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

No picture displayed for me!!


----------



## williameverett (Jun 3, 2008)

No picture?


----------



## craigcoffman (Jan 2, 2008)

I had taken down the web-server that was serving up these images as I was getting no replies anyway. i've now edited them to reflect the actual situation better & make the proposed change clearer. 

Still looking for input. Is my post not clear?


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

I assume you are running batteries or live steam? For track power, you have an electrical nightmare.


----------



## craigcoffman (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm pretty much 100% battery now, though up until recently I was fixed polarity fixed voltage track power. I'm surprised you don't remember the relay based auto-reverser I came up with to solve the reversing section!!! BTW, sorry I never replied to you auto-reverser thread Todd, I started tracing it out & then got distracted. Still need another eye/review? 

-- 
craig


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

I recall. " border=0> If memory serves, you used a constant voltage on the rails and it used a bunch of 24 volt relays. 

No, the reverse loop concept was finalized and appears to work fine, at least on paper to trained eyes.


----------



## craigcoffman (Jan 2, 2008)

Bump 

Come on people, I'm just looking for some opinions, good or bad on the proposed change. Is the idea behind the change not clear? 

-- 
craig


----------



## MarkLewis (Jan 2, 2008)

Still can't see the pictures, Craig. 



Mark


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

The images are gone again, but as I remember them, the changes appeared to be minimal and minor... almost inconsequential... maybe if you explained the reason for the change you might get some reasoned comments.


----------



## craigcoffman (Jan 2, 2008)

Ooops. Web server died. Images should be available.


----------



## craigcoffman (Jan 2, 2008)

Ah, & I did. The reason is basically this: To make clock-wise & counter-clockwise trains use opposite tracks where double track exists... thus making passes more automatic, BUT at the cost of eliminating use of the sidings/double tracks for parking purposes. 

-- 
craig


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

To my mind the only change is the "normal" setting of the switches. In reality there is no difference in the two plans.


----------



## MarkLewis (Jan 2, 2008)

Operationally, the two plans are identical. 

Mark


----------

