Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,251 Posts
... Before construction commenced I began to have doubts about the desirability of having 60-70 year old locomotives ascending and descending a gradient with each circuit of the layout, so I redrew it without the gradients and bridges...
If some did come along at a reasonable price, you could alternatively go for the totally un-Dubloesque* scenario of a two level layout with the bridge sections deployed to enable one line to cross another (or road and/or river and/or canal) with no need for gradients.

*What with my knowledge being limited and all, was there ever a two (or more!) separate level(s) layout ever used in H-D's publicity? I don't recall six digit man pointing enthusiastically at such a thing...
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,251 Posts
I should mention, as it's not at first obvious from the plans, that the raised section on the smaller of the two is simply an oval of track which is at a constant height and unconnected to the lower track...
Which we might add has the appearance of not having been fully thought through. Surely more (girder) bridges required to take it across the low level tracks into the station, and over the loco siding buffer stops and the like? (Perhaps that's why it never got constructed, six digit man wasn't given all the necessary pieces. ;))
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,251 Posts
...I seem to remember at the onset of DCC , reading somewhere that it cut down on all the wiring of a conventional DC layout. Not quite sure what was meant by that ...
It surely does, if the layout wiring scheme is well designed. But it is only a reduction, not an elimination.

Major difficulty is that there is no track system designed to fully integrate with DCC. This means that if motor actuated points are to be used a completely separate wiring scheme is required to each point motor. It doesn't have to be like this, but no track manufacturer has made the necessary development leap AFAIK...
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top