02-13-2011, 03:58 PM
Gary,
The change makes sense, and it's great that you could make it so easily. I was rereading the last couple pages and came across this again:
You know, why not? I know you wrote it somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it's really possible if you work carefully and methodically, to make this a reality on any layout. This may be more easily accomplished on a smaller layout with fewer chances for derailments, smaller number of rolling stock, etc. but is not out of the question for a layout of your size.
Consider some public layouts built by custom model railroad companies. Aren't they made to do just that - operate flawlessly all the time? They wouldn't be in business long if their product didn't work well. Why not our layouts too?
Glad to see you working on the layout again.
Galen
The change makes sense, and it's great that you could make it so easily. I was rereading the last couple pages and came across this again:
Quote:...theoretically, the only place that trains will be handled is at the interchanges between operating sessions. All uncoupling will be done with magnets and will work perfectly, there will be no derailments, no unwanted uncouplings, and the locos will never stall.
You know, why not? I know you wrote it somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it's really possible if you work carefully and methodically, to make this a reality on any layout. This may be more easily accomplished on a smaller layout with fewer chances for derailments, smaller number of rolling stock, etc. but is not out of the question for a layout of your size.
Consider some public layouts built by custom model railroad companies. Aren't they made to do just that - operate flawlessly all the time? They wouldn't be in business long if their product didn't work well. Why not our layouts too?
Glad to see you working on the layout again.
Galen
I may not be a rivet counter, but I sure do like rivets!