Requested Track Changes

[cnwfan]

Hello,

If a maintenance release is planned for the route, I would like to propose the following track changes.

In Waterton, convert the yard so it can be switched from the west end. This would eliminate the stub tracks. In conjunction, add an unsignaled tail track along the inside of the main track. This would tie into the west switch at Waterton, basically converting it to a cross over. This change would allow switching operations at both ends of the yard without having to tie up the main track for yard work. An alternative would be to tie the west end of the yard to the Waterton Yd A/D W track, and use the main line as a tail track for the yard.

Also in Waterton, add a cross over prior to the RWA Waterton Platform track to the double track main. This would essentially create another leg of the wye.

On the branch to Johnsson Quarry and Atlantic Grain, add a long double ended siding just after the switch to Johnsson Quarry. This would allow eastbound trains to run around their consists and shove the necessary cars to either Johnsson Quarry or Atlantic Grain. Currently the branch is really setup for westbound trains only, unless both tracks at Atlantic Grain are empty, in which case you can use the pocket track and cross over as an engine escape track.

At Johnsson Quarry, add a stub spur (about 4 or 5 cars in length) before the quarry to aid in switching out loads and empties. Current configuration requires a trip back to the Johnsson Quarry switch to swap loads and empties.

At the NS wye, add a double ended siding to the inside of the wye. This would allow for interchange traffic between road trains and locals based out of Riverside.

Anyways, these are just suggestions. Thanks!

[buzz456]

I think what is being suggested here is for members to do the changes not for the creators to do things. They are pretty much done with their work.

[thecanadianrail]

I think what is being suggested here is for members to do the changes not for the creators to do things. They are pretty much done with their work.

True, although I do like some of the things he has mentioned and I might do some of these modifications to my copy of the route, especially the change to the west end of the yard.

[buzz456]

If you do it would be nice if you share. We could have multiple versions of the route.

[ricksan]

the [route] creators...are pretty much done with their work.

That's right. Speaking only for myself, I have no plans to further develop the RW&A. It was conceived as a six-month project and it was executed within that time frame. It is serving its intended purpose: to support this web site; to fill what we perceived to be a gap in the catalog of RWTS routes; and for all of us to have some fun.

With regard to Waterton Yard, understand that the stub-track arrangement of the classification tracks is quite prototypical for a short line like this and it works perfectly well within the larger context of the yard design, all of which is described at length in the User Manual. Nevertheless, as we have said, you are welcome to modify the RW&A to your heart's content.

Be aware, though, of potential unintended consequences. I have added some cautionary words to the introductory post to point these out.

[Chacal]

Fo the love of God make sure any change you do doesn't break existing scenarios.
Adding track is probably OK, adding crossovers between tracks too.
Removing track is probably not a good idea.

If you do make a clone of the route, make sure it is named very clearly and differently so there is no possible confusion as to which scenarios apply to which route. I hope we can avoid situations like the one with MCSA (old), MCSA (new) and MCSA in the 1920s.

[artimrj]

You can't really make a new route and distribute it. You would have to package the modified files and distribute them. So it would have to be the same name and folder and all that, I believe. Not sure if that would work with a clone. Making sure you do not ruin what is already done should be a must. Simple things can kill a scenario, simple like splitting a piece of track and then welding it back where a consist is sitting in a scenario. That one is not going to work any more.

[cnwfan]

Thank you for the feedback everyone, although I didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest. My intent was strictly to express some wish list items should the route have a subsequent release. I understand I can make the track changes on my own, and I'm completely capable of doing that. However, having track changes included in an "official release" means all community members have the same version in which scenarios can be developed. It also means that track change submissions from multiple members are merged into a common version, thus members don't have to worry about having Rick's track changes and not Bob's changes, or if installing Bob's changes will overwrite Rick's changes. Anyways, just my thoughts. I'll leave the hornet's nest alone now... or until another idea pops into my head.

[wacampbell]

I do think its best that any future releases of the RW&A be compatible with past scenarios just to avoid confusion etc. and there are probably ways to add track, new industries, etc that won't break compatibility.


But, I don't think there is an urgent need to rearrange track just for simpler operations. Many prototype roads, especially shortlines, have less than ideal track arrangements and are forced to find work arounds to get the job done. Over the years, they merge with other roads, pull up track, etc and end up with a track layout that works, but usually isn't the most efficient. Changing track is expensive and they'll make do with what they have for many years. For us sim operators, its sometimes these peculiar operational restrictions that bring character and interest to a railroad operation and make for the more interesting scenarios.

[buzz456]

I personally have found the stub yard kind of intriguing what with the turntable and the wye being right there. It just makes for more shuffling before you can take off on whatever run you are going to do. I am far from getting at all board with the variety of things you can do here. Once again tip of the hat to the route inventors for the clever intrigue of the RWA.

[artimrj]

Thank you for the feedback everyone, although I didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest. My intent was strictly to express some wish list items should the route have a subsequent release. I understand I can make the track changes on my own, and I'm completely capable of doing that. However, having track changes included in an "official release" means all community members have the same version in which scenarios can be developed. It also means that track change submissions from multiple members are merged into a common version, thus members don't have to worry about having Rick's track changes and not Bob's changes, or if installing Bob's changes will overwrite Rick's changes. Anyways, just my thoughts. I'll leave the hornet's nest alone now... or until another idea pops into my head.

Hardly a hornet's nest. We encourage all of this modifying. We can always work together on things. I would like to add some other towns in the loop going round and try to play some eye tricks like with a model railroad and mirrors to keep the "mainline" out there still. After working on some scenarios and driving other's it is getting to be along drive at 30 MPH from one places to another even though it is only 13 miles. Another siding or two along the way would break it up more. Even if it was just some house track for co-ops.

So please don't think you are causing trouble, your not, keep your ideas coming and we may be able to do some things more to it.