Perhaps like me you overlooked the ad that Micro Engineering had in MR about their new yard ladder system. Their website (which seems last updated in 2014) is silent about it but it looks like a most interesting way to address the long standing challenge of getting the most yard for your space. All the turnouts are #5s but each is of a different geometry so that they fit together. I will be interested to see a more complete report or product review that shows how the entire system works.
Walthers has this photo which shows part of the system of all #5 turnouts in HO:
https://www.walthers.com/cd-83-5e-to-lst-ladder-r
Dave Nelson
A great idea. Some in HOn3 hope this is extended to that line also.
The frog # is new and complements the #6 turnouts ME has had available. But keep in mind that one can always hack a turnout to make it fit better. It can feel painful cutting up a brand new turnout at first, but the basic technique of trimmng the diverging routes is a real help. Be very cautious about hacking anything off the points end, though, as it's way easy to ruin things there where it's most fragile.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
dknelson Perhaps like me you overlooked the ad that Micro Engineering had in MR about their new yard ladder system. Their website (which seems last updated in 2014) is silent about it but it looks like a most interesting way to address the long standing challenge of getting the most yard for your space. All the turnouts are #5s but each is of a different geometry so that they fit together. I will be interested to see a more complete report or product review that shows how the entire system works. Walthers has this photo which shows part of the system of all #5 turnouts in HO: https://www.walthers.com/cd-83-5e-to-lst-ladder-r Dave Nelson
That product is a very good idea. Any yard can benefit from saving space.
And even longish locos and cars are supposed to travel slowly through yard's, so #5 frogs should not be unrealistic for a ladder in many situations.
- Douglas
Well, it looks interesting.
It appears from the pictures and the ad in the October MR that #5a is a standard #5 turnout and can be used independently or in a ladder like any other standard turnout.
The others seem to be designed to be used together. But with curved diverging legs, they may not mix well with standard #5's.
Unfortunately, the pdf's mentioned in the ad do not appear to be anywhere on the web site at this time.
Paul
This looks like a really great development. Let's hope these Code 83 offerings are followed by the same thing in Code 70.
Tom
Finally!!! ME needed to expand their switch offerings for some time now. Glad to see this product on the market.
Mike - RE cutting up switches: "the first cut is the deepest"
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
I just spoke to the folks at Micro Engineering and it seems that all of the information, prices, templates, etc. in .PDF form were lost in a major IT failure a couple of weeks ago and they are still trying to recover from the incident. Meanwhile, they will (at the moment at least) respond to an email to service@microengineering.com requesting the Ladder Track information.
Cheers, Geoff
Here's the instructions for the #5 a-; b- c-; and D & E
[edit1]
Old links fail; 404 error!
Look here for the instructions and .pdf templates.
http://www.crusaderrail.com/mec.html
You need a C to start the ladder, then any number of Ds in the middle and finish up with an E.
Here's templates for the C - D - and E.
[edit 2] old links moved or disabled?
http://www.crusaderrail.com/pubs/mec_temp_14-712.pdf
http://www.crusaderrail.com/pubs/mec_temp_14-714.pdf
A is a plain #5 turnout with a straight diverging route and B has a curved diverging route.
The above links came from a fellow on another forum.
These came along a little too late for my use but it is a great idea!
Regards, Ed
I love the fact that ME is including turnout detail sets with the turnouts. That is something the other mfrs. should pick up on.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Okay folks, per my post of 11/10 above I printed out the ME templates and went to work to try and apply the Ladder Track System to my layout expansion yard design. My design is for a through yard of a main and 5 sidings with a lader at both ends. With a fixed spacing of 2 3/16" centers between tracks this works out to a yard width of about 14" or so to fit in my 16" wide benchwork width in the yard area. Now, using the templates, I laid out the ladders using a 5b, 5c, 5d, 5d and a 5e turnout which resulted in a ladder length of about 40" (i.e. - distance from the point end of the first 5b to the end of the curve beyond the 5e where all sidings are running parallel). Do this at both ends and I've used up a whole lot of scarce train room real estate. So next I tried to use the ME turnouts in a compound ladder configuration. Long story short, I ended up with a 5b, 5b, 5b, 5b, 5b arrangement which gave me a ladder length of just a tad more than 31", a gain of almost 9" at each end of the yard which I can really better use to store trains. Out of curiosity I tried the same compound ladder configuration with templates for Atlas #4 turnouts and came up with about the same answer, 30". Keep in mind the ME turnouts have the geometry of a #5 and really look better.
Meanwhile, my next challenge is to select a switch motor. A fellow MR has pointed me to the Tam Valley Depot products which I am completely unfamiliar with. So if anyone has any tips in this regard I'd certainly like your input. The original part of my layout (8 yrs old) uses Atlas Snap type under-layout switch machines but I'd like to move into the 21st century. Thanks.
PECO C83 #5s are also fairly space-efficient, although perhaps not quite as much as the curved-diverging-leg MicroEngineering ladder system parts. (And neither are quite as space-efficent as PECO Code 75 "Mediums") Some might quibble with the appearance of the curved diverging leg on the ME yard ladder components and the PECO C75 parts, although for many it's not an issue.
Note that the Atlas Customline "#4s" are actually #4½, so they are not that much sharper than a true #5 frog.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Could you use these to build a narrow crossover?
cuyamaSome might quibble with the appearance of the curved diverging leg on the ME yard ladder components and the PECO C75 parts, although for many it's not an issue.
I built in code 100. I started my yard with a 3-way Peco medium, with onlu one track on the right side, and the rest on the left.
It seems to me that if you couldrevamp enought on your lead to start this way, but two or three tracks to one side and as many as desired on the other, you could save a lot of space.
I then used peco switch machines (under the track) with a capacitor discharge circuit and a diode matrix to control the routing. Diodes are now cheap enough you could use one in each wire so that the current only passes one way, and no thinking required to set it up.
The diode matrix was explained in an old MR issue under the heading of DISTANCE SWITCHING.
Only my nickels worth.
Many19 I printed them out as indicated by the sheet in 8.5x11 and they are not to scale. Any idea why? Thank you
I wouldn't know why you are having problems with scaling of your printer output, Many19. When you get your printer settings dialog box up, look in custom settings and see if there is a box checked that is constraining the output to a fixed size.
I looked for, and found, new links to the ME instructions and templates. See above.
Good Luck, Ed
Okay - per my posts above of 11/10 and 11/21/16 I have proceeded to construct a yard in a compund ladder configuration with a main and 5 sidings using 10 of the appropriate ME turnouts discussed above. Prior to installation I examined all of the turnouts which appeared relatively well constructed and removed the springs as I ended up powering them with servos and a Tam-Valley driver. Once completed I started systematically testing the yard and all of the associated trackwork before moving on to scenery.
Then the bugs began to show up. The main problem is, even when using plenty of torque from the servos to move the points, either closed or thrown, the points just don't seem to close tightly enough to the stock rails to prevent problems. After some tinkering I got them to operate reliably enough to prevent derailments but I am left with a lot of "clanking" noise mainly from locomotive trucks as they enter the points. The closure is just not smooth and I am not sure how much filing I can do to get the burrs to go away and a smooth fit. Its almost as though the throw rod is not letting the point rails move enough limiting their range of motion. (??) Secondly, one of the turnouts has the entire point rail assembly about 1/32" below the adjacent stock rails so that a truck has to abruptly "drop", or "climb" depending on the direction of passage, as it passes through the turnout causing other parts of the truck to catch or hang.
Not sure what is going on. Could use some experiential advice on how to proceed. Tearing out and replacing these turnouts is goingto be a mess. Bottom line is no joy using this ME product.
mrnimbleCould use some experiential advice on how to proceed. Tearing out and replacing these turnouts is goingto be a mess.
.
I am sorry to hear you are having problems.
I have stated before in several posts, I would GLADLY pay extra and give up detail on trackwork in exchange for a rugged, flawless, durable track system. I have built many layouts, and track problems are always coming around again and again.
My dream would be if Kadee would produce a quality line of track. It makes sense, and I have full confidence in their ability to put out a quality product.
Making super detailed, but light duty track components does not fit my needs. It looks like my last layout will again be all Shinohara, unless in the next two years something better comes along.
Ah Kato... Why is the HO scale unitack selection not quite complete?
-Kevin
Living the dream.
SeeYou190I have stated before in several posts, I would GLADLY pay extra and give up detail on trackwork in exchange for a rugged, flawless, durable track system.
Have you looked at the new(ish) PECO Code 83?
Preparation of the roadbed, or just the surface on which the turnouts are mounted, is very important. It has to be dead flat. Also, no ballast grains anywhere near the points rails and the throwbar where those two items have to move laterally.
Turnouts that have uneven surfaces below them can have binding in the throwing mechanism, and also can have the points lift, or lift unevenly. The low points you mention sounds like a defect of some kind, but why that should appear in an ME turnout is beyond me. I'd expect many others to be complaining of the same issue. Even so, it may actually be a defect, say in the throwbar.
I have often solved such matters with shims. You'd be surprised at how well a troublesome turnout behaves with a single layer of clear packaging plastic slid under the throwbar to help it both slide and stay at the correct elevation.
mrnimbleThe main problem is, even when using plenty of torque from the servos to move the points, either closed or thrown, the points just don't seem to close tightly enough to the stock rails to prevent problems.
How do the servos work? Does the power to them shut off after it goes through its stroke? Or does the power continue to be applied like a Tortoise?
cuyamaHave you looked at the new(ish) PECO Code 83?
This is what I would most like to see, please forgive my poor computer drawing skills:
The ties are extra deep. This gives strength, and it does not matter because once the ballast is in place you cannot tell how thick the ties are.
The rail has two webs. One to sit on top the tie, but another imbedded into the tie that actually holds the rail in place. The spike heads are just there for looks, and they perform no function. This would be a very rugged tie and rail section.
Rail joiners would be difficult, but that can be overcome.
I would like to have a line of turnouts just as rugged.
This design is similar to how Peco produced their original line of code 55 N scale track about 25 years ago. That was rugged track.
SeeYou190This design is similar to how Peco produced their original line of code 55 N scale track about 25 years ago. That was rugged track.
PECO C55 is still made the same way. The original intent was to allow the molded spike heads to be smaller inside the rail -- necessary with the "pizza cutter" flanges common at the time.
And just how rough do you intend to be on the track? I think PECO Code 83 would hold up at least as well or better than Shinohara. Have you looked at the PECO C83?
Firstly, in addressing the first problem of unacceptable performance of actual turnout operation: I spent 2 days going back through all (18) turnouts refining and tuning the servos to apply more torque (pressure) to the points so they are solid tight tight tight against the stock rails which is accomplished using CV values in the Tam-Valley programmable servo driver boards. This also required quite a bit filing and burnishing each point baby butt smooth but it worked. I tinkered until testing with locos was 100%. The same with some of my most sensitive rolling stock which required additional filing and smoothing. Finally all okay. My point is (no pun intended), for me, these turnouts required far more than a reasonable amount of fiddling to make operational than I was accustomed to on my original layout - all Atlas code 100 track and turnouts - glue 'em down, drill a hole, install an under table switch motor and boom, you're done. Never looked back.
Secondly, as to the problem with the "sunken" point rails after installation. On really detailed inspection (this turnout was located - guess where - the most unaccesable place in the hidden yard) I found that it was not the point rails causing the problem but the diverging stock rail had pulled up from the pseudo plastic spikes on the ties and couldn't be repaired in place as the spike heads had been ruined as the rail pulled loose. I don't see how this happened on installation and could have possible been defective from the get go. Nevertheless, I am ordering a replacement and hope to get that installed over the weekend. Thanks everyone for your considerations.
This is a new and exciting development for me as I have used ME #6 and their track for most of my layout and the lack of other geometries has hampered my designs. I'd like to know which ones should be used for a crossover with 2-2.5 inch track separation and a picture showing how the various pieces fit together would be helpful. Can you use a b as a standard turnout to save some room? Again, this changes some thinking for me.
I've yet to have any sort of issue with any brand of track - it is after all part of a model and not a toy to treat roughly. I would like to see what the shippers did to that one order of peco flex I got though, pretty much every rail was torn off every tie strip (5 pieces of track). Seller replaced it all, replacements came through completely undamaged. Must have used the gorilla from the old Samsonite luggage commercials on the first one.
And some of the other posts in this thread remind me I made the right decision to use Peco 83 on my new layout. There is a HUGE variety of turnout sizes and other specialty pieces.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.