Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

straight sections in yard ladder

2308 views
57 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2017
  • From: Southern Florida Gulf Coast
  • 9,618 posts
Posted by SeeYou190 on Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:19 PM

Sheldon, Douglas:

Please, you are dealing with someone that has openly anounced to the forum that he is never wrong, and he knows everything.

He has also previously stated that he does not think these forums should be a place to find factual information.

It does not matter how many times you point out the facts, this will just make you want to bang your head against the wall.

I saved this quote from one of Spike's earlier arguments in another thread:

Lastspikemike
pointing out facts to the contrary doesn't prove me wrong

Take the diverging route before this gets carried away.

Bang Head   Bang Head   Bang Head   Bang Head   Bang Head   

-Kevin

Wink Happily modeling my STRATTON & GILLETTE RAILROAD. A Class A line located in a personal fantasy world of semi-plausible nonsense on Tuesday, August 3rd, 1954.

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 3,800 posts
Posted by Doughless on Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:21 PM

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

Douglas,

Actually they do make both 18" radius and 22" radius code 83 snap switches.

Items 0540 thru 0543 - maunal and remote 18" radius code 83 snap switches

Items 0544 thru 0547 - maunal and remote 22" radius code 83 snap switches

Sheldon

 

Okay.  That was not the main point of course.  The point is that implying that snap switches are compared to frogged turnouts based on embedded radius is missing the mark. 

- Douglas

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 9,638 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:24 PM

Doughless

 

 
ATLANTIC CENTRAL

Douglas,

Actually they do make both 18" radius and 22" radius code 83 snap switches.

Items 0540 thru 0543 - maunal and remote 18" radius code 83 snap switches

Items 0544 thru 0547 - maunal and remote 22" radius code 83 snap switches

Sheldon

 

 

 

Okay.  That was not the main point of course.  The point is that implying that snap switches are compared to frogged turnouts based on embedded radius is missing the mark. 

 

I know, you and I know what is going on here......

I just wanted to clear that up before Mike makes even more out of it.

Sheldon

    

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 3,800 posts
Posted by Doughless on Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:25 PM

SeeYou190

Sheldon, Douglas:

Please, you are dealing with someone that has openly anounced to the forum that he is never wrong, and he knows everything.

He has also previously stated that he does not think these forums should be a place to find factual information.

It does not matter how many times you point out the facts, this will just make you want to bang your head against the wall.

Take the diverging route before this gets carried away.

Bang Head   Bang Head   Bang Head   Bang Head   Bang Head   

-Kevin

 

Its not about Mike or changing an opinion.

I wanted the opportunity to point out that generally the turnouts with frog #s have different geometries than turnouts with names.  Because they are designed to have different purposes.

Not meaning that anybody can't force one to do the other if they wanted to.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    January 2017
  • From: Southern Florida Gulf Coast
  • 9,618 posts
Posted by SeeYou190 on Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:27 PM

Doughless
I wanted the opportunity to point out that generally the turnouts with frog #s have different geometries than turnouts with names.  Because they are designed to have different purposes.

And you, as usual, are absolutely 100% correct. 

I am just getting very worn-down from someone who seems to have an endless need to agitate the discussions.

Sorry Douglas.

I am going to tap-out of this discussion thread.

-Kevin

Wink Happily modeling my STRATTON & GILLETTE RAILROAD. A Class A line located in a personal fantasy world of semi-plausible nonsense on Tuesday, August 3rd, 1954.

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 9,638 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:28 PM

SeeYou190

Sheldon, Douglas:

Please, you are dealing with someone that has openly anounced to the forum that he is never wrong, and he knows everything.

He has also previously stated that he does not think these forums should be a place to find factual information.

It does not matter how many times you point out the facts, this will just make you want to bang your head against the wall.

I saved this quote from one of Spike's earlier arguments in another thread:

 

 
Lastspikemike
pointing out facts to the contrary doesn't prove me wrong

 

Take the diverging route before this gets carried away.

Bang Head   Bang Head   Bang Head   Bang Head   Bang Head   

-Kevin

 

Kevin, it's OK, if I have the time, and the right mood, I will play. 

If not, no response from me, no stress for me either way.

You may notice that while I sometimes post a lot, other times I am radio silent.

Sheldon

    

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 9,638 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:31 PM

Douglas,

Thanks for posting pictures of what I could not link to easily this afternoon.

I am very device challenged using my Samsung tablet......

Sheldon

    

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 3,800 posts
Posted by Doughless on Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:35 PM

SeeYou190

 

 
Doughless
I wanted the opportunity to point out that generally the turnouts with frog #s have different geometries than turnouts with names.  Because they are designed to have different purposes.

 

And you, as usual, are absolutely 100% correct. 

I am just getting very worn-down from someone who seems to have an endless need to agitate the discussions.

Sorry Douglas.

I am going to tap-out of this discussion thread.

-Kevin

 

No apologies.  I usually try to slant my comments to the less experienced lurker, and quote others as a way to do that.  My comments tend to be impersonal a little too much probably.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    June 2020
  • 801 posts
Posted by Lastspikemike on Friday, October 2, 2020 8:12 AM

Doughless

While the yard ladder would be compressed relative to the ladder made with Custom Line frog numbered switches, the snap switch's curved diverging route would make the S curve shown in RioGrande's post more severe. 

As they would if they were used to make a crossover. 

 

The OP is already committed to using curved diverging route small radius Peco turnouts. The truism about layouts is achieving the largest minimum radius you can, whenever you can.

Using numbered frog turnouts makes this harder to achieve precisely because the frog angles are straight. 

My intent is to redirect this thread back to answering the original question.  There is no value to recommending changing to numbered frog turnouts. If you did try this in the same space you would make the S curve problem worse than if you used snapswitch geometry. It is useful to consider using numbered frog or larger radius turnouts instead of inserting a straight connector of any length.

The Peco turnout being used is already larger radius than the largest radius snapswitch. 

The question is can the S curve be moderated by inserting a straight section between the mainline turnout and the first opposite hand yard turnout in the ladder. Using a numbered frog turnout or a larger radius Peco medium turnout for the mainline, and if there's room for that first ladder turnout also, may produce a better easing of the S curve than simply inserting a straight between the tighter radius Peco small radius turnouts. 

That was the direction I was trying to take this discussion.  

Alyth Yard

Canada

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 9,638 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Friday, October 2, 2020 9:19 AM

Lastspikemike

 

 
Doughless

While the yard ladder would be compressed relative to the ladder made with Custom Line frog numbered switches, the snap switch's curved diverging route would make the S curve shown in RioGrande's post more severe. 

As they would if they were used to make a crossover. 

 

 

 

The OP is already committed to using curved diverging route small radius Peco turnouts. The truism about layouts is achieving the largest minimum radius you can, whenever you can.

Using numbered frog turnouts makes this harder to achieve precisely because the frog angles are straight. 

My intent is to redirect this thread back to answering the original question.  There is no value to recommending changing to numbered frog turnouts. If you did try this in the same space you would make the S curve problem worse than if you used snapswitch geometry. It is useful to consider using numbered frog or larger radius turnouts instead of inserting a straight connector of any length.

The Peco turnout being used is already larger radius than the largest radius snapswitch. 

The question is can the S curve be moderated by inserting a straight section between the mainline turnout and the first opposite hand yard turnout in the ladder. Using a numbered frog turnout or a larger radius Peco medium turnout for the mainline, and if there's room for that first ladder turnout also, may produce a better easing of the S curve than simply inserting a straight between the tighter radius Peco small radius turnouts. 

That was the direction I was trying to take this discussion.  

 

So why not just say that in the first place rather than dance around?

I know you think you can "steer" people like you are in a court room, but it does not seem to be working all that well here.

And, you are not the forum police, it is not your job to keep us on point. Conversations go where they go.

And, it is possible that given enough information the OP will reconsider his whole approach?

You would deny him that information on the basis of staying on topic?

Sheldon

    

  • Member since
    February 2020
  • 46 posts
Posted by Llenroc fan on Friday, October 2, 2020 10:18 AM

As the original poster I apologize for stirring up such a controversy.  I only wanted some advice re: recommended practices and got far more information than I needed or can use.

Thanks for the replies though.

  • Member since
    June 2007
  • 7,868 posts
Posted by riogrande5761 on Friday, October 2, 2020 10:22 AM

Llenroc fan

As the original poster I apologize for stirring up such a controversy.  I only wanted some advice re: recommended practices and got far more information than I needed or can use.

Thanks for the replies though. 

No need to apologize.  Your questions aren't to blame.  Unfortunately there are vagaries to some forum topics.

SeeYou190
I am just getting very worn-down from someone who seems to have an endless need to agitate the discussions.

Sorry Douglas. I am going to tap-out of this discussion thread. -Kevin

I think you have the right idea.  I found this interesting and may relate:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experimentations/201908/what-makes-internet-trolls-tick

 

Rio Grande.  The Action Road  - Focus 1977-1983

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 3,800 posts
Posted by Doughless on Friday, October 2, 2020 11:28 AM

Lastspikemike

 

 
Doughless

While the yard ladder would be compressed relative to the ladder made with Custom Line frog numbered switches, the snap switch's curved diverging route would make the S curve shown in RioGrande's post more severe. 

As they would if they were used to make a crossover. 

 

 

 

The OP is already committed to using curved diverging route small radius Peco turnouts. The truism about layouts is achieving the largest minimum radius you can, whenever you can.

Using numbered frog turnouts makes this harder to achieve precisely because the frog angles are straight. 

My intent is to redirect this thread back to answering the original question.  There is no value to recommending changing to numbered frog turnouts. If you did try this in the same space you would make the S curve problem worse than if you used snapswitch geometry. It is useful to consider using numbered frog or larger radius turnouts instead of inserting a straight connector of any length.

The Peco turnout being used is already larger radius than the largest radius snapswitch. 

The question is can the S curve be moderated by inserting a straight section between the mainline turnout and the first opposite hand yard turnout in the ladder. Using a numbered frog turnout or a larger radius Peco medium turnout for the mainline, and if there's room for that first ladder turnout also, may produce a better easing of the S curve than simply inserting a straight between the tighter radius Peco small radius turnouts. 

That was the direction I was trying to take this discussion.  

 

No big deal here Mike.  I don't get offended on forums since I think most folks try to be educational.

I wasn't adhering to the topic of solving the OP's issue per se.  I was commenting on the notion that implied there was a good comparison between Atlas Snap Switches and Atlas frog numbered switches when they are not really comparable. 

Sure, a person can compare anything to anything if they want, but I think there is confusion when comparing the radius of Snap Switches to turnouts with frog numbers because I think that when building yard ladders, passing sidings, and crossovers, the geometry of the turnout is just as important as the sharpness of the diverging angle.

That was my only point, and I think the point some others were making.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    June 2020
  • 801 posts
Posted by Lastspikemike on Friday, October 2, 2020 2:26 PM

Doughless

 

 
Lastspikemike

 

 
Doughless

While the yard ladder would be compressed relative to the ladder made with Custom Line frog numbered switches, the snap switch's curved diverging route would make the S curve shown in RioGrande's post more severe. 

As they would if they were used to make a crossover. 

 

 

 

The OP is already committed to using curved diverging route small radius Peco turnouts. The truism about layouts is achieving the largest minimum radius you can, whenever you can.

Using numbered frog turnouts makes this harder to achieve precisely because the frog angles are straight. 

My intent is to redirect this thread back to answering the original question.  There is no value to recommending changing to numbered frog turnouts. If you did try this in the same space you would make the S curve problem worse than if you used snapswitch geometry. It is useful to consider using numbered frog or larger radius turnouts instead of inserting a straight connector of any length.

The Peco turnout being used is already larger radius than the largest radius snapswitch. 

The question is can the S curve be moderated by inserting a straight section between the mainline turnout and the first opposite hand yard turnout in the ladder. Using a numbered frog turnout or a larger radius Peco medium turnout for the mainline, and if there's room for that first ladder turnout also, may produce a better easing of the S curve than simply inserting a straight between the tighter radius Peco small radius turnouts. 

That was the direction I was trying to take this discussion.  

 

 

 

No big deal here Mike.  I don't get offended on forums since I think most folks try to be educational.

I wasn't adhering to the topic of solving the OP's issue per se.  I was commenting on the notion that implied there was a good comparison between Atlas Snap Switches and Atlas frog numbered switches when they are not really comparable. 

Sure, a person can compare anything to anything if they want, but I think there is confusion when comparing the radius of Snap Switches to turnouts with frog numbers because I think that when building yard ladders, passing sidings, and crossovers, the geometry of the turnout is just as important as the sharpness of the diverging angle.

That was my only point, and I think the point some others were making.

 

I agree, not a big deal. I certainly took no offence and did not intend to offend.

I point out that divergence of views is very useful to the OP. While confirming agreement with something that works is also useful the primary reason for posting to a forum like this is to add to, contradict or express a different opinion.

All of us saying the same thing would not be as useful.

After all these are just conversations.  

Of interest to the secondary discussion about frog numbered v  snap switches I noticed today that ME ladder yard sets of #5 turnouts use curved diverging routes for each of the four different styles of turnout but then they fit straight #5 frogs to all of them. The straight diverging route #5a normal sized turnout uses the exact same frog.

Alyth Yard

Canada

  • Member since
    June 2020
  • 801 posts
Posted by Lastspikemike on Friday, October 2, 2020 2:33 PM

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

 

 
Lastspikemike

 

 
Doughless

While the yard ladder would be compressed relative to the ladder made with Custom Line frog numbered switches, the snap switch's curved diverging route would make the S curve shown in RioGrande's post more severe. 

As they would if they were used to make a crossover. 

 

 

 

The OP is already committed to using curved diverging route small radius Peco turnouts. The truism about layouts is achieving the largest minimum radius you can, whenever you can.

Using numbered frog turnouts makes this harder to achieve precisely because the frog angles are straight. 

My intent is to redirect this thread back to answering the original question.  There is no value to recommending changing to numbered frog turnouts. If you did try this in the same space you would make the S curve problem worse than if you used snapswitch geometry. It is useful to consider using numbered frog or larger radius turnouts instead of inserting a straight connector of any length.

The Peco turnout being used is already larger radius than the largest radius snapswitch. 

The question is can the S curve be moderated by inserting a straight section between the mainline turnout and the first opposite hand yard turnout in the ladder. Using a numbered frog turnout or a larger radius Peco medium turnout for the mainline, and if there's room for that first ladder turnout also, may produce a better easing of the S curve than simply inserting a straight between the tighter radius Peco small radius turnouts. 

That was the direction I was trying to take this discussion.  

 

 

 

So why not just say that in the first place rather than dance around?

I know you think you can "steer" people like you are in a court room, but it does not seem to be working all that well here.

And, you are not the forum police, it is not your job to keep us on point. Conversations go where they go.

And, it is possible that given enough information the OP will reconsider his whole approach?

You would deny him that information on the basis of staying on topic?

Sheldon

 

 

?????? Trust me, were I to use any of my court room techniques you would not be in doubt about that. I mean, I secure acquittals for people accused of serious crimes even after they have pled guilty, twice.

I was returning my posts to the topic at hand. I'm not steering or policing anybody.

Alyth Yard

Canada

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 3,800 posts
Posted by Doughless on Friday, October 2, 2020 2:54 PM

Lastspikemike
Of interest to the secondary discussion about frog numbered v  snap switches I noticed today that ME ladder yard sets of #5 turnouts use curved diverging routes for each of the four different styles of turnout but then they fit straight #5 frogs to all of them. The straight diverging route #5a normal sized turnout uses the exact same frog.

I assume ME designed the ladder system to be compatible with the other turnout. 

The ladder system is specifically designed to be a yard ladder, which is different than Atlas or Peco where the different turnouts have different purposes and we try to build a ladder from them.  Its really hard to mix in Snap Switches with Custom Line switches or think of them as any way being substitutable.  Something to keep in mind when planning a layout.

I don't think there is an issue with building a ladder out of curved diverging route turnouts.  It's how the first turnout of the "main" is handled.  If that one is curved and immediately heads into a snap switch in the opposite direction, that S curve can be a big problem.  If there is a sufficient straight track in between, then no problem.  And if the switcher locos are short enough, no problem.

In terms of appearance, those snap switches are pretty sharp, and I would want only 0-4-0, 0-6-0's or diesel switchers to use a yard made with that sharp of turnouts, but that's a matter of personal taste.  I'm thinking like a wharf scene or something really compact is where I would use them, not open in countryside.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    June 2020
  • 801 posts
Posted by Lastspikemike on Friday, October 2, 2020 3:03 PM

22" is very sharp nowadays. We used two of these "large" radius snapswitches instead of custom line #6 in two specific places on our layout. I'm thinking of realigning the track to accommodate these #6 instead for the reas discussed here and elsewhere on this forum.

I forget whether we bought the snapswitches by mistake thinking they were the same as the custom line or because of what we thought were space limitations which probably are not really there.

 

Alyth Yard

Canada

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 3,800 posts
Posted by Doughless on Friday, October 2, 2020 3:15 PM

As a contemporary modeler, I've acquired some SD40-2s to use as roadswitchers.  Its a very long locomotive by my standards.  Since road switchers also might use a yard ladder from time to time, I'm making my ladder out of #8 Peco turnouts.  That makes for a long ladder.  Fortunately, its not much of a yard.  Three tracks.

I think #6 frogs are very suitable for just about anything on our layouts.  Its just that long locos diverge using the compact Peco #6's a little more abruptly than the smoother and longer Atlas #6's.  But I've got the space for the 8's so I'll use them.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    June 2020
  • 801 posts
Posted by Lastspikemike on Saturday, October 3, 2020 9:19 AM

SD 40-2 will run through a Peco #5 yard ladder. We also run a couple of Athearn AC4400 through them. They look awkward but they don't derail.

Our AC 4400 will run through Atlas 22" snapswitches but annoyingly they scrape their ploughs over the top of the Atlas switch motors, throwing the switch unless we clip the pin off the motor. 

We have not yet tried the AC 4400 through our few 18" snapswitches on sidings but the SD 40-2 will pass through at switching speeds.

Alyth Yard

Canada

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 9,638 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Saturday, October 3, 2020 9:30 AM

My Bachmann Spectrum USRA Heavy 4-8-2's will not reliably go through an Atlas Custom Line #4, which is really a straight frog #4.5 by actual frog angle.

Never tried them through a #5 from anybody.

My only turnouts smaller than Custom Line #6's are in industrial areas were only small switchers go, surely not in a main yard were mainline power has to arrive and depart.

I don't own any big modern diesels, but I would see them as a problem with #4's and #5's as well.

My roster is 50% steam, most of it medium sized, 2-8-2's, 2-8-0's, 4-8-2's and few 4-8-4's and small driver 2-10-2's. Even my big steam is pretty wheel base friendly, 2-8-8-0's, 2-6-6-2's, 2-6-6-4's.

But turnouts less than #6 are not visually or functionally desirable even for my conservative roster (no UP big boys, or 2-12-4's, etc).

My largest diesels are SD9's, not much of an issue.

Sheldon

    

  • Member since
    June 2020
  • 801 posts
Posted by Lastspikemike on Saturday, October 3, 2020 10:39 AM

I'm not sure this is posted anywhere else on this forum but it is important to note that all Peco Code 100 turnouts use a 12 degree frog angle so numbered frogs are not applicable to Peco Code 100. That corresponds to about a 4.5 frog.

The substitution radius is accommodated in the point, closure and diverging rails.

Alyth Yard

Canada

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 9,638 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Saturday, October 3, 2020 10:48 AM

Lastspikemike

I'm not sure this is posted anywhere else on this forum but it is important to note that all Peco Code 100 turnouts use a 12 degree frog angle so numbered frogs are not applicable to Peco Code 100. That corresponds to about a 4.5 frog.

The substitution radius is accommodated in the point, closure and diverging rails.

 

Over the years it has been posted many times, but finding that info is another story.

Sheldon

 

    

  • Member since
    June 2020
  • 801 posts
Posted by Lastspikemike on Saturday, October 3, 2020 11:04 AM

Well, if you search all the forums for Peco Code 100 frog angle it will lead you to this thread right away.....

I refrain from commenting on whether that would be useful or not.

Alyth Yard

Canada

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 9,638 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Saturday, October 3, 2020 11:20 AM

Lastspikemike

Well, if you search all the forums for Peco Code 100 frog angle it will lead you to this thread right away.....

I refrain from commenting on whether that would be useful or not.

 

Nice to know the search function is working again.........

    

  • Member since
    June 2020
  • 801 posts
Posted by Lastspikemike on Monday, October 12, 2020 2:15 PM

I set up a ME Code 70 #5 yard ladder and my Walthers heavyweight rolls freely through the S bend at the first turnout pair. Next is the push test with two cars coupled.

Alyth Yard

Canada

  • Member since
    June 2007
  • 7,868 posts
Posted by riogrande5761 on Monday, October 12, 2020 2:19 PM

Lastspikemike

I set up a ME Code 70 #5 yard ladder and my Walthers heavyweight rolls freely through the S bend at the first turnout pair. Next is the push test with two cars coupled.

I'd think a single car wouldn't be much of a problem.  But mulitple long passenger cars, that's a better test.

Rio Grande.  The Action Road  - Focus 1977-1983

  • Member since
    June 2020
  • 801 posts
Posted by Lastspikemike on Monday, October 12, 2020 2:28 PM

riogrande5761

 

 
Lastspikemike

I set up a ME Code 70 #5 yard ladder and my Walthers heavyweight rolls freely through the S bend at the first turnout pair. Next is the push test with two cars coupled.

 

I'd think a single car wouldn't be much of a problem.  But mulitple long passenger cars, that's a better test.

 

Absolutely, and pushed by a locomotive. I am progressively testing in the process of layout design. Two coupled cars pushed by finger on the coupler does not derail.   

We built one layout already with a 24" minimum radius that somehow in a few places got reduced to a 22" minimum. Walthers really means 24" minimum.   This time around I'm not making that mistake again.

If 24" curves don't work I'll design to 26" and so on.

Now I know what I want to run I can design accordingly. 

Alyth Yard

Canada

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 9,638 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Monday, October 12, 2020 2:54 PM

Lastspikemike

 

 
riogrande5761

 

 
Lastspikemike

I set up a ME Code 70 #5 yard ladder and my Walthers heavyweight rolls freely through the S bend at the first turnout pair. Next is the push test with two cars coupled.

 

I'd think a single car wouldn't be much of a problem.  But mulitple long passenger cars, that's a better test.

 

 

 

Absolutely, and pushed by a locomotive. I am progressively testing in the process of layout design. 

We built one layout already with a 24" minimum radius that somehow in a few places got reduced to a 22" minimum.  This time around I'm not doing that. 

If 24" curves don't work I'll design to 26" and so on.

Now I know what I want to run I can design accordingly. 

 

I don't know how much space you have, but I would never even consider running full length passenger cars on anything less that 36" radius. I know lots of people get by with 28" or 30", but I would not find that acceptable for me.

24" radius, no way I would do that.

Full length passenger cars look silly to me squeaking around such curves with extended couplers and gaps between the diaphragms. Seems to defeat the purpose of having an accurate scale model in the first place if you are going to run them around curves that make them look like toys.

Not to mention operational reliability.............

Sheldon

    

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!