hon30critter My apologies for not fully understanding maxman's sense of humour. I guess my skin is too thin.
My apologies for not fully understanding maxman's sense of humour. I guess my skin is too thin.
Dave,
I have been playing this forum game since I was a freshman in college in 1977, and I have seen over and over, countless times, people who post stuff and expect the readers to some how magically "tune-in" to their brand of humor, and then wonder why readers get confused or bent. Eventually emoticons were invented to help posters give hint to the readers that they intended their post to be taken a certain way.
The onus is on the poster to help make it obvious that they are making a joke or humor but yet it still happens every day that readers aren't getting the subtle joke that is being foisted. *shrugs*
Some 40 years after I started reading computer forums, I still don't always "get" the humor in posts, although I'm better at than I was many years ago. History continues to repeat it'self eh?
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Okay, if you're going to go there, there is also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cYgyqA_7BM
I guess I need to watch out for you "youts".
rrinkerhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAct7Ynxty8
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAct7Ynxty8
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
BigDaddyI haven't commented on this thread, because I have nothing constructive to say, but like a lot of people, you never know what you might learn.
I have indeed learned a lot from this thread, and that knowledge has had a huge influence on the decisions that the layout design committee has made.
BigDaddyWell that's too bad.
My apologies for not fully understanding maxman's sense of humour. I guess my skin is too thin. I'm a little sensitive to what I misinturpreted as criticism having gotten myself into the position of being responsible for the new layout's design. To put it in different words, I'm very concerned that my plan will will not have any major flaws and that it can be built as designed. That is stressing me a bit (actually a lot).
maxmanNow when you become president of the organization and start complaining about all the stuff that will go on (if you remember I mentioned that), then I hope you remember that I also said that I would say "I told you so".
Actually, another member of the club and I will be putting out names forward as a team to become the President and Vice President in the near future. The elections will be held on October 10th. Neither of us cares who takes which title, but we do want to work as a team to improve the club in several ways. Neither one of us wants to take the task on alone.
We are fully aware of all of the stuff that may/will go on and we have both said that we will deal with the challenges together. Neither of us are the really patient kind, so we will have to work at biting our tongues.
hon30critterI have the feeling that I am being mocked here.
C'mon, now. You know that's not the case at all. If it was then I wouldn't have mentioned the PRR loco or put that little laughing guy at the end.
Now when you become president of the organization and start complaining about all the stuff that will go on (if you remember I mentioned that), then I hope you remember that I also said that I would say "I told you so". Maybe that might be a little mocking mixed in with a lot of sympathy.
hon30critterI have the feeling that I am being mocked here
Well that's too bad. I haven't commented on this thread, because I have nothing constructive to say, but like a lot of people, you never know what you might learn.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
maxmanZat so? What was it you said on page one? Someone said: "What equipment are you planning to run that requires #8? Yes, things may look better with an 8, but sometimes you gotta compromise." And you said: "We made the commitment that any locomotive or rolling stock should be able to run without problems. We haven't a clue if a member will show up with a 4-8-8-4 or the longest 6 axle diesel with a string of 89' container cars................." And you further said: "................(not trying to shut you down - just stating what appears to be a simple fact)." Every Pennsy S2 6-8-6 derailment will now be on your head.
Well, it should be no suprize that compromises have to be made when building a model railroad. We set out with lofty goals but the realities of the space that we have available have forced us to reduce our standards. The first one to go was the 36" minimum radius. Now we have to eliminate Atlas #8s because of their length. Not the end of the world.
I would point out that the Peco version of the plan does have #8s on the mainline. That is one of the reasons that we are leaning towards Peco. We don't have the quote yet for Atlas but we do know what the Pecos will cost. The price difference will have to be significant for Atlas to win.
I have the feeling that I am being mocked here. I guess that is my fault for openly discussing the whole design process. Given the history of the forums I should have realized that some people just can't resist.
hon30critterAfter some more time on 3rd PlanIt I have an all Atlas Code 83 plan using #6s throughout plus 4 curved turnouts.
Zat so? What was it you said on page one?
Someone said: "What equipment are you planning to run that requires #8? Yes, things may look better with an 8, but sometimes you gotta compromise."
And you said: "We made the commitment that any locomotive or rolling stock should be able to run without problems. We haven't a clue if a member will show up with a 4-8-8-4 or the longest 6 axle diesel with a string of 89' container cars................."
And you further said: "................(not trying to shut you down - just stating what appears to be a simple fact)."
Every Pennsy S2 6-8-6 derailment will now be on your head.
After some more time on 3rd PlanIt I have an all Atlas Code 83 plan using #6s throughout plus 4 curved turnouts. Hopefully the Atlas curved turnouts will be available by the time we start laying track.
I also have an all Peco Code 83 plan using both #6s and #8s plus three curved turnouts.
I think I'm going to take a bit of a rest from 3rd PlanIt!
hon30critter Last night I reworked one end of the yard to use #6 Atlas turnouts and it came out fine. The yard still has lots of space. However, I spent quite some time trying to use Atlas #6s in the ladder at the other end of the yard and I couldn't get it to work. I haven't given up. I'll just have to do the ladder differently.
Last night I reworked one end of the yard to use #6 Atlas turnouts and it came out fine. The yard still has lots of space. However, I spent quite some time trying to use Atlas #6s in the ladder at the other end of the yard and I couldn't get it to work. I haven't given up. I'll just have to do the ladder differently.
Rich
Alton Junction
OK, I have been able to redraw the parts of the yard and the service area that were still using Peco #5s. The #5s have been replaced with Atlas #6s.
At this point the only Peco turnouts that we would have to use would be Code 83 curved units, and Atlas is supposed to be releasing their Code 83 curved turnouts this fall.
The design committee will now have to choose between using (almost) all Atlas or all Peco. It will be interesting to see the price difference.
I would definitely use somebody's #6's in an engine service area, because yoou never know what sort of power someone will want to run. #5's shoould handle pretty much anything in plastic but there are plenty of not even monster brass steamers that won;t go through a turn that relatively tight, whereas the #6's radius exceeds any I've ever heard of (some of those many-driver monsters need 40-42" minimum!).
As for the Peco flex - I find it easy to curve, much easier than ME (I got a few pieces of ME to try, too). To straighten it out, bounce it on the tie ends (stand it on edge and drop it from a few inches up) to get it back in alignment. Or use a straight edge, or, I have some Ribbon Rail tools that will do the job. As for the ends on a curve - I don;t see the difference from Atlas or any other flex track? Just cut the ties off, trim the ends with a rail nipper, clean with a file, and connect them together. Save the cutoff ties, sand them down, and fill in the missing ones prior to ballasting. The result of curving it is just like any other flex, one rail will protrude past the other. The rails do slide, just not as freely as the sliding side on Atlas. But unlike Atlas, BOTH sides can slide. So no worrying about which rail to put on the outside of the curve, with Peco they are both the same. If you think the Peco is too stiff, don't even bother with ME. The ONLY way to curve ME is to gradually work along it, forming the curve.
The engine service area also uses Peco #5s and I tried to put Atlas #6s in there without moving any of the tracks. I couldn't get it to work but, again, revising the whole service area track plan would probably solve that.
ATLANTIC CENTRALDave, I'm pretty sure the Atlas #4 has a frog angle of 12.5 degrees, it is actually a #4-1/2.......even though they call it a #4.
Hi Sheldon:
I was going by what the 'Properties' window in 3rd PlanIt said about the Atlas #4 turnouts so my numbers could be wrong. I'll look into it somemore but I doubt that we will use #4s anywhere on the layout.
richhotrain rrinker And I really liek the Peco flex track, it's got finer detail than the Atlas, plus it's slightly stiffer than Atlas but not so tight that it's hard to form smooth curves like ME. During the prolonged, and infamous, Atlas track shortage, I started using Peco flex track, but I cannot figure that stuff out. I love the way that Atlas flex track springs back to shape, but Peco is tough to straight back once you bend it. And I struggle with Peco flex track trying to match up the ends of the rails. It is all a big mystery to me when it comes to Peco flex track. Rich
rrinker
And I really liek the Peco flex track, it's got finer detail than the Atlas, plus it's slightly stiffer than Atlas but not so tight that it's hard to form smooth curves like ME.
During the prolonged, and infamous, Atlas track shortage, I started using Peco flex track, but I cannot figure that stuff out. I love the way that Atlas flex track springs back to shape, but Peco is tough to straight back once you bend it. And I struggle with Peco flex track trying to match up the ends of the rails. It is all a big mystery to me when it comes to Peco flex track.
Rich, you aren't the only one I've heard who dislikes Peco flex track. I even know a Brit who hated it - I think he didn't like the tie spacings commenting it was wrong or not prototypical. He is a Brit who lives here in northern Virginia and has been part of a modular group called Potomac Module Crew but was modeling the Northern Pacific. I was kind of surprised being that's his "home town" brand - Peco being make in the UK.
I know some complain about springy track but I love it, it can be formed into a very smooth flowing curve exactly because of that springy nature and with much ease. The stiff kind you have to massage it over and over and over, it takes alot of faffing around to get it smooth. Sure I can do it. I've got some Walthers/Shinohara code 70 flex and used it in my yard. It takes 4 times as long to get it shaped right. With Atlas springy flex, it's fast and easy.
But, for my next layout I'm giving serious thought to Micro Engineering but thats stiff track too. *sigh*
rrinker And I really liek the Peco flex track, it's got finer detail than the Atlas, plus it's slightly stiffer than Atlas but not so tight that it's hard to form smooth curves like ME.
For either a quicky switching layout or my full basement plan? I'm goign Peco Code 83 all the way this time. Peco for the big layout because of the variety of options vs Atlas for turnout sizes, including curved. And I really liek the Peco flex track, it's got finer detail than the Atlas, plus it's slightly stiffer than Atlas but not so tight that it's hard to form smooth curves like ME. For the quick small layout, Peco because I already have 3 #5's and a wye I picked up a few years ago as samples, along with half a dozen sections of flex (and another half dozen, well, pairs of rails and tie strip, because what arrived was completely demolished in shipping. Vendor sent a replacement order that came through just fine. And it was well packaged, too - they seriously had to be using the package as a baseball bat to destroy the flex like that.
Randy, what size and brand turnouts would you use?
richhotrain rrinker I really need to take these #5's I have, and half dozen sections of Peco flex, and built a little switching layout and see which way works best. Do it! Rich
rrinker I really need to take these #5's I have, and half dozen sections of Peco flex, and built a little switching layout and see which way works best.
I really need to take these #5's I have, and half dozen sections of Peco flex, and built a little switching layout and see which way works best.
Do it!
I'll start my own thread, but I just realized after I posted that I have ready made benchwork for a small ISL type layout - the 2 narrow sections from my old layout. Just strip track and roadbed (actually, strip off the foam entirely), and cut the 2x4 piece of plywood into 2 strips of 1x4, instant 1x8 ISL. But my focus now really needs to be on removing everything from the basement, not building a layout. Plus I'd need more than 4 turnouts.
Now, while I am confident a #5 will handle anything I intend to run (a 60 foot passenger car is the longest car, and has no business in the freight yard, and the furthest in my big 4-8-4's should go are the AD tracks and loco service, which are #6, but they should also negotiate a #5), I did plan my whole ayrd with #6's after all. The whole thing, except for a few cosmetic crossovers using #8's, is #6 since at least in the model world they will handle anything. I'm not really constrained by yard space since I have a whole wall to work with, and even with #6's, the shortest yard track still holds the longest train I intend to run on a regular basis. That limitation is more because of the overall size of the layout and not determined by the yard size.
trainnut1250 rrinker It's not strictly necessary because if you power the frog, then the whole internal structure from frog to points is powered via that frog power wire - it does NOT rely on point to stock rail contact. This is specifically mentioned in relation to Frog Juicers, but should apply to any method of powering the frog. --Randy If you aren't using the frog juicer, this wiring arrangement can cause a short as the points will move slower than the switch changing the polarity will, leaving the point in contact with the wrong polarity before it moves. This is especailly true if you use stall motors to throw the turnouts. There are ways around this but it can cause a problem if you use DPDT to throw the turnout and change the frog polarity, a common arrangement on many layouts. Guy
rrinker It's not strictly necessary because if you power the frog, then the whole internal structure from frog to points is powered via that frog power wire - it does NOT rely on point to stock rail contact. This is specifically mentioned in relation to Frog Juicers, but should apply to any method of powering the frog. --Randy
It's not strictly necessary because if you power the frog, then the whole internal structure from frog to points is powered via that frog power wire - it does NOT rely on point to stock rail contact. This is specifically mentioned in relation to Frog Juicers, but should apply to any method of powering the frog.
If you aren't using the frog juicer, this wiring arrangement can cause a short as the points will move slower than the switch changing the polarity will, leaving the point in contact with the wrong polarity before it moves. This is especailly true if you use stall motors to throw the turnouts. There are ways around this but it can cause a problem if you use DPDT to throw the turnout and change the frog polarity, a common arrangement on many layouts.
Guy
Well, depends on the switch mechanism I suppose. I'm using servos and my own controller, which I'm designing to kill the power completely, move the points, change the polarity, and reapply power. There's at least one commercial one that does this as well. There's also a commonly published method to alter a Tortoise to have the internal contacts only make a connection near the ends of the throw. This was a common issue on the older non-DCC friendly Walthers turnouts. As long as the Tortoise was well-aligned it was fine but one of the nice things about them and similar style mechanisms is they don't have to be dead on lined up to work well.
No 6 for me too in yards.
And here is the thing for a club. You don't want to limit what can run in the yard so #6 should handle long cars well, such as TOFC flat cars, autoracks, passenger cars etc.
I have to agree with Rich on this point. #6 all the way for yards. It is not my layout (or my business for that matter) but isn't the club trying to present an accurate portrayal of railroading as it truly was/is? I would prefer the larger turnouts and by extension, the smaller yard capacity, because of the appearance of reality. Just my thoughts.
Old Fat Robert
ATLANTIC CENTRAL It is this simple fact that make #6 turnouts nearly "universal" for our modeling, they are big enough to work well and look realistic. Sheldon
It is this simple fact that make #6 turnouts nearly "universal" for our modeling, they are big enough to work well and look realistic.
Sheldon
Yep - Dave you should be good with just about anything through a no 6.
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
Randy and Rich,
I agree completely, I would not use Atlas #4 (4.5) or any #5 for a yard. I do use them for industrial trackage.
The point people miss is that as turnout number increases, closure radius increases exponetially, making a #6 much "bigger" than a #5.
The Atlas 4's are a bit tight, but everything I have went through them no problem, other than my big 4-8-4's. And even they could make it with the drawbar in the furthest spot and going very slow. A ##5 has a closure rail radius of 26" which should support anythign that would actually need to negotiate a yard ladder. Those Atlas #4's really are a #4.5 frog angle, but that is a radius of about 22", which is probably too small. #6's are way out there for a yard space, little gain for a lot of space used.
hon30critter The Peco #5s would seem to be the best choice whether we use Peco or Atlas for the rest of the layout.. Dave
The Peco #5s would seem to be the best choice whether we use Peco or Atlas for the rest of the layout..
At one time, I used Atlas #4 turnouts for my yards and spurs but eventually sold them all off. They are just to tight for uninterrupted reliability. But, that's just me.