Experience with hidden staging?

[rrinker]

85' passenger cars? Then you DEFINITELY want #6's everywhere. I'm lucky - 'shorty' cars actually ARE correct for my prototype, although I'm not much of a passenger operator anyway.

--Randy

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: #4 turnouts in hidden staging? Yooouuuu'llll beee soorrrryy.

The key to remember in hidden staging is KISS, "keep it simple stupid". Make your ladders as simple as possible, no complex switching arrangements. You won't have to worry operating virtually any equipment through a #6 switch, pulling or pushing. #4 switches can be hazardous to longer wheel base engines and longer cuts of cars.

I agree with this statement. On my last layout I had some seriously hidden staging. Everything that could go wrong over 10 years... did.

I have just completed my staging area and hidden track work for my new layout. Over 300' feet of Atlas code 100 (theres a cleaning chore) and Peco switches. There are no buried switches, no sharp radii all switches are no.6, no S curves etc...

The Atlas code 100 is super smooth. I can back a 25 car train up the helix, around curves and through turnouts with nary a bobble. Big articulateds have no problem. I see no reason to spend the extra bucks on code 83 for track that no one is going to see. On the visible track I am spending the bucks on ME codes 83, 70 and 55.

My two cents,

[rrinker]

Well, I am definitely NOT using the Code 100. I dug out a couple of Atlas Custom-Line code 100 #4's I have and was doing some testing tonight. To the point - Atlas Code 100 is NOT as well constructed as their Code 83. Over the code 100 - bounces and wobbles. SAME car over the code 83 - nice and smooth. ANd that's not taking into account the obvious appearance differences - the spike detail and so forth is VERY coarse on the code 100, acceptable ont he code 83.
I still don't see how I can possibly fit in #6's though, only if I cut the number of staging tracks. And I already am pushing it with only 6 in each direction.

--Randy

[SteelMonsters]

Access is a must. Derails and other problems happen no matter what. Open staging is the easiest to access followed closely by a fold up fasica or drape. You could use a skew in fasica board but I wouldn't with staging. I've seen them used for tunnels for last resort problems. I would never fully enclose any track with turnouts, crossovers or other trackage that are derailment prone.

The harder to access an area, the more problematic the area will be. I use larger turnouts for two reasons. First of all, they are less aggressive and locos and rolling stock can negotiate the curve with ease. In addition to that, the frog angle is less making the transition from the wheels rolling on the wing rail to the frog smoother. Secondly, it looks more realistic. That doesn't matter in hidden staging though.

Code 100 is easier to make and atlas track is low detail so it's cheap and the way to go. To improve reliavility, throw in many atlas rerailers. If it's staging, who carse what they look like.

There are several techniques that can be applied to squeeze more trackage into a small space using large turnouts. I couldn't tell you what I would do unless I know what kind of an area you are looking at for staging, capacity for each track, number of tracks needed, and any special requirements. There are a few ways you can get away with cheating. If you have a tight spot at the end and want the turnouts to branch out quickly, you can squeeze the track together tightly as long as only one train will be using the throat. Another thing that can be done is to cut the track back close to the frog and put the next turnout there. Using curved turnouts can reduce space used also.

[CharlieBedard]

Hmm. Looks like I should stick with those #6s...

BTW, the question about my "65'" passenger cars. I went back to recheck and found that, indeed, the Budd RPO car is actually 63', but my other cars are, indeed, in the 85' class. All the more reason toi stay with the #6s I guess[:)]!

Charlie

[freeway3]

I'm in the trackwork stage of building my layout, and also use code 83 all over (Atlas flex), and have a mixture of #4 & #6 turnouts (Walthers). Obviously, gentler is better, but we all have to live with the space we have...

I have found in test running equipment so far (BLI E6 6-axle & 2-6-6-4 being the largest, w/ 40' cars), that my equipment negotiates the #4's just fine, of course after some fussing over the alignment & shimming the height to match the Atlas track. No matter how much care you take, the inevitable will happen occasionally, though, even with the #6's So as long as you have good access, I wouldn't hesitate to use #4's.

Off topic, but you mentioned 65' passenger cars - who makes these?

Ed

[dehusman]

#4 turnouts in hidden staging? Yooouuuu'llll beee soorrrryy.

The key to remember in hidden staging is KISS, "keep it simple stupid". Make your ladders as simple as possible, no complex switching arrangements. You won't have to worry operating virtually any equipment through a #6 switch, pulling or pushing. #4 switches can be hazardous to longer wheel base engines and longer cuts of cars.

For hidden staging you want it to be bullet proof. You want it to work every time under every condition. You might get by with #4 switches, but you know it will work with #6s.

Dave H.

[rrinker]

I've gotten far enough on my layout to have one loop operable, all using ATlas Code 83 track and turnouts. I can run anything around there with some equipment capable of 'warp speed' and no derailments, so I can't say anything bad about the Atlas track.
As I progress around the room, I will be adding a staging yard below the current section. It won't be hidden, but will require ducking under some bench work to get to - the part you have to duck under is 48" off the floor. I am planning to use Atlas Code 100 track components for the yard, since it's not part of the sceniced portion of the layout, and the code 100 components are a lot cheaper and more forgiving. I'm not totally sure on that, as the only thing that usually is cheaper is the flex track, the Atlas #4's are the same price in 83 or 100. Might be easier to use the same stuff everywhere, avoids having to solder and file a neat transition joint between the two sizes of rail.

--Randy

[CharlieBedard]

Thanks for all the replies so far.

To answer a couple points that were raised, I am already using a compound ladder. The hidden yard is at one end wall of the layout room and the ladder needs to curve around the corner. Even with a 24" radius curve it's a little tight. That's why I was thinking about making the ladder using #4s or, even the Peco #5s which, I recall are a little "shorter than the Shinohara/Walther's #6 turnouts that I am designing with.

As to access, this particular yard has about 7" of vertical clearance for access. However, to be able to work on the yard for maintenance, or to make working underneath the area above the yard easier, I designed the staging yard to be lowered about 2 feet giving me over 2.5 feet of working space.

I plan to use code 83 flex track from Walther's although the price on the Atlas track is a lot less. I don't know why that is as I have looked at the flextrack from both manufacturers and cannot see why there is such a large price difference. Perhaps those of you who have used the track can tell me the differences. Past layouts have used code 70 which was not as forgiving operationally, so this layout will move "up" to code 83.

And, I am curious about the comment from "foxtrackin" that says he/she would avoid hidden #4s. Is that because of experience or just gerneral nervousness (such as I have)?

Charlie

[foxtrackin]

I use code 100 track and have no problems with derailments using 24" radius curves. The larger radius curves are more a realistic looking curve but in hidden staging shouldnt make any difference. I have some no 4 turnouts as well but i would not recommend using them in hidden staging.

[rrinker]

For the equipment you plan to run, a #4 and 24" radius should be fine. You won' be moving fast in the staging areas, which also helps negotiate tighter curves. You didn't say what kind of track you are using - Atlas #4 turnouts are actually a bit gentler, at #4 1/2. Peco and some others make a #5 which is smack dab in the middle.

--Randy

[johncolley]

Hidden could mean a drape or false front panel, it doesn't mean inaccessible. But for reliability I would use #6's or higher and compound the ladder. And what kind of equipment will you be running? Modern 85'rs and longer auto racks, spine cars, and passenger equipment call for #8's

[ericboone]

While you generally want to keep the switch points easy to access in hidden staging, have you considered using a compound ladder?
I do think using #4 turnouts should be fine. They just do not look so great for longer passenger cars and larger steamers, but in hidden staging, who cares?

[CharlieBedard]

I am completing the design of my HO layout and, not surprisingly, have a few places that are tight for space. The layout minimum radius is 30" and minimum turnout size is #6. The era is steam/diesel transition with 40' freight cars and "short" 65' passenger cars.

The tight spots are the 2 hidden staging yards. One is a double ended yard which is currently planned using #6 turnouts. The throats are longer than I would like and I am considering using #4 turnouts instead.

My old standby, (the late) John Armstrong's track planning book, recommends using #4s with 24" radius curves as "conventional" curves. I'm thinking that, since the 30" minimum radius is primarily for looks rather than operation that using #4s with 24" radius in the hidden areas should run just fine. I am using code 83 rail everywhere.

My question is whether any of you have experience with hidden yards and the reliability of #4 turnouts with 24" curves. Any problems? Should I use them to free up some space? And should I consider code 100 rail in the hidden areas for improved reliability?

Thanks for your comments.