Here is a plan of mine

The right two boards contain the industries, the tracks from the lowest are a passenger storage track (the outer main when it was a double track module), the mainline, yard lead, bulk handling, team track and warehouse tracks.
I agree, 11th Avenue has been a double track through module, single track terminal and once another adaptor board is built single track through. It even works at two heights!Gloriousnse wrote:By categorising them you risk not defining what it *can* do, but defining what it *can't* to - and i'd suggest there are very few modules out there that can *only* be used in one scenario.
HiGloriousnse wrote: i'd oppose the idea of 'categorising' modules, surely a major point is their flexibilty in use.
I agree with that, but still think it would only rarely be the case that a module would be full-on 'wrong' if it later was used in a different scenario...PeterLJ wrote:Firstly a builder must have a clear idea of what he is building, what setting, ambiance even he is trying to capture. He must categorise before he even starts.
I agree it's better to have like *looking* ones together, but again most should be capable of being used in different scenarios.Secondly at a show like modules need to be set up with compatible ones (both scenic and operationally)
I strongly disagree there, the operations on a given module *may* need to be secondary to the operational needs for the *whole* railway.Thirdly different types of modules demand a different operational perspective.
I don't see how using somebodys module in an unintended way is 'restricting their imagination' - you could argue it's expanding it!By saying a module must be flexible is putting a restriction on the builders imagination.
creating that greater whole might mean that modules will not always be used in the way the builder first imagined or that modules which are scenically different may be placed together. At a NMRA meet having different scenes together may not be a major problem but at a public show it might be more of a concern so some way to construct more coherent stretches of railway might be needed.I strongly disagree there, the operations on a given module *may* need to be secondary to the operational needs for the *whole* railway.
The intention is to use the modules to build a working railway, to end up with a whole greater than the sum - not to just end up with a collection of modules that must do their own thing in only the way their builder intended.
geofftiller wrote:Hi Mike
You're quite right, I can't easily put up 12 feet of railway at home, there is one place way I could just about do it but it is just so impractical. At the moment two of the boards are up on the bottom landing but I can't leave the third up as it blocks the stairs. Once construction and lots of gluing is finished it would be possible to put in the lounge, decent carpets prevents that any earlier!
You did spot a mistake in my initial plans, I hadn't noticed the lead off the RH end of the run round would be too short when in 9' mode. The paper industry would be lost in 9' mode. When I did the second version of the Alsip area plan (without the run round) I tried moving the turnout to get a longer set of spurs for the paper plant, it would be a compromise I would not really want but might be willing to live with.
Your idea of using that lead in 9' mode is interesting, I had intended to have a road running down the middle of the module from a junction in the right all the way towards the paper industry, reflecting the extensive roads in the industrial area as trucks are as, if not more prevalent then trains. I'm thinking something like this http://goo.gl/maps/Tvk0F. except I would have the main track running on one side of the road and the industry lead crossing the junction to run on the other side of the road. In the first plan I showed the industry lead on the same side of the road as the main track, but I prefer the separation between main track and industry lead. A further alternative would be for it to run down the middle of the road but that seems less realistic in a modern environment.
I am not sure If I could fit In a viable rail served industry building between the paper plant lead and the warehouse spur, however your mention of a team track makes me wonder if simply widening the road at that point and the placing of some temporary details might make for a reasonable team track which reverts to being the paper plant lead when the extra board is fitted.
It is very Mindheim in style but having been doing this research of Chicago industrial areas I think that approach, with fewer longer spurs, looks much more prototypical for those modern industrial areas than a dense set of sidings and spurs. Placing multiple car spots on each track, where possible should help. I am not sure about the run round but as I commented in response to Brian earlier I am leaning towards doing without it.
The industries have been suggested in part because of those in the Alsip area and in part due to the collection of freight cars I own. I have have a dozen plastic pellet cars and bunch of box cars for general merchandise and due to me interest in the paper industry I've got kaolin cars, a couple of chemical cars, covered hoppers for some of the additives and paper service boxcars. The plastics plant couldn't really support different car types but, as you comment, the warehouse should be suitable for boxcars and/or reefers and could be three (or hopefully four) different customers. I'd hope to arrange the paper plant to have a couple of car spots on each track with at least one of them having specific unloading spots for kaolin and/or chemicals to keep the switch crew on their toes.
I'll make a mod to my last plan to move the paper plant turnout back onto the fourth board.