Skip to main content

Reply to "New Layout Feedback/Recomendations"

The outer loop is already O80 and the switches are #4's, so I'm not sure I follow the suggestion.

Here are some examples of elevations:
The 1st has a 7" rise in the "L" and lower loop.
The 2nd has a 7" rise in the "L" and around the left side loop with the crossover moved to the lower right.
I wanted to try to split the crossover, but even separated, they only fit along the top and the right side IF you change from #4's to O72s. Even then, the grade along the right side is 4% with a 4" rise, so I don't think it's worth it.
The 3rd shows a combination of the 1st with the changes to the inside loop, though I did make some minor adjustments to the reversing loop.

I'd have a hard time giving up the inside loop, but it is on the expensive side. I just like the options it provides for multiple routes and variety. However, if you do get rid of it, you might consider using the space and money for some storage, one thing that is completely missing. Of course, the storage can be added to any version.

One thing to note is that with access all around the table, elevating the outside loop obstructs visibility to some degree. Also, given that it's an"L", the assumption is the operator would generally be inside the "L" section and not walking around the perimeter except to deal with problems.

Walnut 2018-01-10-3a3d-dazWalnut 2018-01-10-3b3d-dazWalnut 2018-01-10-3c3d-dazWalnut 2018-01-10-4-3d-daz

 

Attachments

Last edited by DoubleDAZ

OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
800-980-OGRR (6477)
www.ogaugerr.com

×
×
×
×
×