People,
I'm new on this forum and i'm dutch, so forgive me for any langauge mistakes
I am starting a N-scale railroad and i have set my mind on the UP in the steam-era.
First i had in mind to model a certain part of the continental-railroad, namely the part between Cheyenne and Laramie, but considering the room i had for it i narrowed it down to a certain place that i found when i was following the track with google-earth.
Evanston was the place that cought my interest, it has still a roundhouse sstanding there and the yard is still regonizable enough and i found an old photo on the net with the complete yard in the steam-era.
I had to narrow the yard down to a certain size (app 2,5m in length and 1m in width) so i could place bends with a radius of 0,5m radius on either sides to make a loop (i connect these behind the background) with the yard in the middle. (the total space i have is app: l3,5 x w2m)
So would you please look at the lay-out of the yard and tell me your oppinion and are there any problems with using double slip turn-outs
Use this link to image Evanston yard layout (sorry, it will not open in a new window)
Hello. I took a look at your diagram, and I hope you won't be disappointed if I offer this opinion. I don't see that you will be able to do much switching with a yard lead that only allows backing in to stub tracks. You need a proper ladder if such a thing is still doable in your space (with your scale and the dimensions you list, it should be easily done).
Secondly, I don't see anything inherently wrong with your use of the double slips, and if you get ones in your scale of qood quality, you will enjoy their use. However, you would benefit from a mid-range crossover or runaround capability along your lead between those double-slips at the extremes of the yard. Your switchers will have to travel all along those tracks to get around to the other end as you have it. Better to have an intermediate run-around for the shorter cuts.
I know nothing at all about the prototype yard you mention, so it could be that what I am suggesting departs from the real one.
Good luck with your planning and development.
selector wrote: Hello. I took a look at your diagram, and I hope you won't be disappointed if I offer this opinion. I don't see that you will be able to do much switching with a yard lead that only allows backing in to stub tracks. You need a proper ladder if such a thing is still doable in your space (with your scale and the dimensions you list, it should be easily done).
you are right about the ladder, on the old photo of the yard on the far end is one, on the photo of today on the left, but with the dimensions i'm using i can't place it.
However if i replace the stub tracks with the ladder it will problebly work fine.(but i liked the odd stubs)
selector wrote: Secondly, I don't see anything inherently wrong with your use of the double slips, and if you get ones in your scale of qood quality, you will enjoy their use. However, you would benefit from a mid-range crossover or runaround capability along your lead between those double-slips at the extremes of the yard. Your switchers will have to travel all along those tracks to get around to the other end as you have it. Better to have an intermediate run-around for the shorter cuts.I know nothing at all about the prototype yard you mention, so it could be that what I am suggesting departs from the real one.Good luck with your planning and development.
I'm using peco code 55, they have double and single slip turn-outs perhaps the last one is even an better choice (so the engines can't crossover)
The mid-range crossover is a good suggestion, i will make the change.