"Salt Lake Route" Thoughts & Questions

[Paulus Jas]

hi Dad,

Kato sells a transition piece; probably Dick Christianson put them in the tunnels.

You could do so much more in a small room going around the walls at the prize of a drop in. You only have to place the Sievers modules in an other way.

 Paul  

[nik_n_dad]

Thanks for the reply. We're using Sievers benchwork, so while we may have originally thought about an "around the walls" layout, we can reconfigure it to fit most any style. The layout is for my son and I. He's the "main train guy" between the two of us. I had thought about going the flextrack route, but had to be honest with myself. We're building the layout for my son and I to "play with", mixing his preferences and desires with mine. Doing a layout in unitrack allows me to get it built before he discovers cars, girls, etc, leaving me alone with the trains ;-) My interest in the details on the MR article layout is to understand better how the author is blending the double-track concrete \ super elevated pieces with the standard single track pieces. I thought about a drop-in vs a duck-under, and again, went the easy route. Besides, it keeps the riff-raff out of the operating pit ;-)

[Paulus Jas]

hi Mike and Nik,

You would like to build a nice looking layout. But taylored for unattended running during shows. For a home layout not the best choice; e.g. no interchange, no staging. Above that an island type layout is a space hog; wether it is a 4x8 or a 4x10.

Did you read this?         http://www.layoutvision.com/id28.html ; this is a link to an awesome webside by Byron Henderson (Cuyama on this forum); he is an outstanding professional model railroad designer and on this forum very helpful.

In a small room you could do so much more. If you want to explore some alternatives, you are welcome.

BTW figuring out the track you need is not all that difficult; getting your feet wet in working with flextrack either. Making good benchwork is the most time consuming job; my guess.

I allready had a mixed feeling, but after reading the other thread you started i am not that happy anymore. Why bother about the quantities of the project railroad when you are going for an around the room version anyhow? Doesn't make any sence.

Consider a drop-in in stead of a duck-under. And by getting your feet wet with flextrack, you can also apply easements. Another of your problems solved.

 

Marry Christmas

Paul

[tomikawaTT]

Being a wagering man, I'd give odds that the February issue will have both table and track material lists, that being normal for MR's project layouts.

If Kato does what they did when the HO Unitrak layout was published, they'll come out with a 'bundle' containing all the parts needed for the published track plan.  In the meantime, you might want to contact KatoUSA for current prices and availability of their whole line of N scale track products.

My own take is opposite yours - but sixty-plus years of tracklaying experience (and an ingrained desire to take the least expensive route) drives my preferences.  My way isn't the only way, or even the best way, for anyone not wearing my boots.

Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - on flex, with hand-laid specialwork)

[nik_n_dad]

Nik & I are trying to get our new\bigger layout built over the holiday break. After much wrangling, we've decided to once again go with Kato unitrack vs Atlas flextrack for many reasons. We really like some of the things in this month's MR on the "Salt Lake Route" layout. Has anyone seen or figured out the track plan based on the required Kato pieces? Is there a way to get this from MR (sooner than later)? Any help is appreciated. Mike (and Nik)