So far, I've not come up with anything I like better than the "4 curved turnouts and a crossing" KISS layout I posted earlier...well, at least nothing that I like better that would fit...LOL. Anyway, I took a Unitrack inventory, and after setting aside the track necessary to build that layout, I had quite a bit of Unitrack left over. This lead to the idea of a small practice/test-bed layout.
Over the weekend, I took the spare track and laid out a simple twice-around with a single spur on the diningroom table. What I came up with is basically a Unitrack sampler...sample curves of every radii from 11" to 28.25", a crossing, a turn out, an uncoupler track, and a siding that could easily be switched to Peco code 55 for practice mating the two types of track. With the addition of a slab of foam, a couple cheap Atlas bridges, and WS Incline starter set I'll have a layout I can practice all the techniques needed for what ever "formal" layout I end up building...and give me something that I can see for myself how rollingstock X looks going around curve radius Y...or if it will play nicely backing through trackage Z.
A side effect of this little weekend experiment is that for the first time in 12+ years I got to actually run trains! WoooHooo!
Reality...an interesting concept with no successful applications, that should always be accompanied by a "Do not try this at home" warning.
Hundreds of years from now, it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove...But the world may be different because I did something so bafflingly crazy that my ruins become a tourist attraction.
"Oooh...ahhhh...that's how this all starts...but then there's running...and screaming..."
I've got it all wired in and hooked up, it works good for what I'm using it for but I have another bad side effect that I'm not sure what I'll do about it yet. It almost makes me want to switch to DCC but my n-scale loco's just can't fit the decoders (topic for another day though).
My problem is that I was using this doubleslip to save some space simliar to what you are trying to do. However in my use it is between my two mainlines, so what this doubleslip has done is connect power to both mains from one powersource. I've wired my control panel to compensate for this but with the doubleslip in, I'll never have a choice but to use one power source.
It is hard to explain without a pic and I'm on the road for a week. I'll try to post a pic later (next week) to better explain my issue.
Jason-Train wrote: Zandoz wrote:Where did you get the double slip from?http://www.reynolds.com/http://reynaulds.com/s_results.asp?search=slip&submit=submit&curpage=2Roco - 22246In total I think it was about 50.00 USD once shipping and stuff was done. I'll agree they aren't cheap but if you look at using normal turnouts, with each atlas remote turnout being around 17.00, I didn't feel it was unreasonable and was the cheapest place I could find n-scale double-slips that are shipping from within the US and not from Canada.The site itself isn't setup very well as you can only find the item above via a search and can not find it via the menus. It took about two weeks from order completion to me getting the item in. All in all it was a pleasent experience just the web site isn't very good IMHO.
Zandoz wrote:Where did you get the double slip from?
http://www.reynolds.com/
http://reynaulds.com/s_results.asp?search=slip&submit=submit&curpage=2
Roco - 22246
In total I think it was about 50.00 USD once shipping and stuff was done. I'll agree they aren't cheap but if you look at using normal turnouts, with each atlas remote turnout being around 17.00, I didn't feel it was unreasonable and was the cheapest place I could find n-scale double-slips that are shipping from within the US and not from Canada.
The site itself isn't setup very well as you can only find the item above via a search and can not find it via the menus. It took about two weeks from order completion to me getting the item in. All in all it was a pleasent experience just the web site isn't very good IMHO.
Thanks for the links. It looks like a good source of European stuff.
R. T. POTEET wrote:I looked back over your past posts but could not isolate the previous post referenced in this current one but I am going to WAG that you are working with N-Scale; it really doesn't matter since this response concerns benchwork but, depending on what scale you are working with. it will determine how much benchwork you are going to need at a minimum.Your post leads me to believe that it is your intention to use the dining room table as a platform on which to lay your layout when you are operating it. This is, in my humble opinion, an open invitation for disaster. In the first place putting this up and taking it down is going to be a two-man job; in addition no matter how hard you try to avoid it you will get a certain measure of torque on your benchwork every time to take it down and put it up. This can be avoided but it is going to require a heavy structure to do it.I have what I think is a better way, one which I have advocated before but which I will repeat here. My idea - and this is not new and Ian Rice talked about it in one of his more recent Kalmbach books - is to suspend and store your platform in an A-Frame mechanism. Unless something drastically changes in my life my next/future layout will be done in a slightly modified way which I will explain a bit later.Now, I am assuming that you have a standard ceiling height of at least 96 inches and I will work with that figure; have your local building supply center cut a piece of ½ inch plywood to a length which will leave six inches at the top and six inches at the bottom. I will assume this to be 84 inches. Build your A-Frame mechanism from two bys and make it about 48 inches off the floor. Pivot this 4 by 7 platform at the apex of this A-Frame; a pipe makes an excellent pivot. You need to get a heavy duty one but they do make brackets such as are used to suspend shower curtain bars and these will work for suspending this pivot pipe. Mount casters on the bottom to allow this mechanism to be wheeled about either into or from its storage site.The arms of your frame need to be about 49 inches apart, a distance which will allow the platform to move freely and which can be suspended over this dining room table if that is the only place where you have room for a layout. You can even use some blocks placed on the table to hold the layout in place and keep it from tipping backwards or forward during operation. Use felt or cork pads to keep from scarring the tabletop.You are going to need some sort of cross bracing on your mechanism to hold the A-Frame arms 49 inches apart. The topmost can be permanently affixed; the bottom one must be removable to allow your platform to slide above the table. Use the items used to lock bedframes in position - this is a "close but no cigar" situation. ALL SCENERY ITEMS MUST BE PERMENANTLY AFFIXED TO THE PLATFORM AND ALL ROLLING STOCK MUST BE REMOVED PRIOR TO MOVING THE PLATFORM FROM A HORIZONTAL TO A VERTICAL ORIENTATION!!!! But then, that had to be a truism with your original idea.Okay, what am I going to do differently? I am going to set up a vertical two by and use gussets at floor level to hold this vertical piece in position.; casters will be mounted to blocks affixed to the bottom of my gussets. Other items of suxpension will be substantially the same.Just throwing this out as an alternate suggestion.
Yes, I will be working in N scale. Benchwork is not an issue for me...I've got that covered. When in it's use/working on position,the dining room table is my only option...no other space...it's there or nowhere...period. The layout is going to be small, relatively light, and on the torque issue, it will be based on well constructed torsion box(s). For storage, it will be eventually set up so that by sliding it over the edge of the table, it will fasten to a rolling tressle cart via several heavy hinge pins along the rotational axis. The design is intended for one person to store, and move around the house, even from a seated position in a wheeled chair (a must for me). My 74" maximum length is such that when in the vertical position on the cart, it will roll through the shortest door opening in the house, with one inch to spare. I built the prototype for this table/tressle cart system over 20 years ago, and is still in use, and able to be folded and moved by a now 80 year old woman. I have a 2nd generation of this system in storage, but it is only 4x5, and the tressle is too low for my current needs...it was used for years for temporary/trial-n-error HO play. I've been designing and building everything from simple benches to whole homes for 30 or so years...this is no biggie.
The only thing that worries me now about the benchwork is how to transport 4x8 sheets in a PT Cruiser, since I no longer have a truck...LOL.
My issue is the track plan. I need something simple for a first formal layout with actual terrain, scenery and such...with little or no more investment over the several hundred worth of Unitrack I have now to get the main loop running...that fits my small 48x74 max dimensions...and has curves broad enough for the long passenger cars....and the other givens & druthers I mentioned earlier. Given all the qualifications, I know it's not going to be much more than an embelished simple oval, but in the back of my mind I keep thinking there is some trick I've missed to get something more.
ezmike wrote:Can this program be used with Lionel "O" gauge tubular track? I don't see it listed in the track files, unless I'm missing something.
I would think there is a tubular Track library. I used it to layout a 3 rail Hi-rail with Gargraves and Gargraves Phantom line was in the library of Track. You may want to ask up on the CTT or OGR forums. Dave
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
I haven't actually wired it yet in yet and probably won't have time until this weekend but I'll update this thread as I get time to work on it.
This was a 15 degree double-slip and nearly matches perfectly the 15 degree atlas snap track crossover. I did test it forward and back but because, for now, I've got it isolated I've not thrown any loco's across it, just the rolling stock. I've got a 4-8-4 that is my most track sensitive loco, I'll let you know how it goes, hopefully sooner than later :).
When I first updated this thread I hadn't look closely enough at the instructions but they do have english sections, it goes german, english, french, in every paragraph of the instructions I was expecting an entire english "section" not portions of paragraphs (not a big deal either way though).
I realize this is a bit old now but I wanted to pass along that I had ordered and now received in a Roco double-slip n-scale switch that will be placed on my main line.
The testing so far has been very good and it matchs code 80 track perfectly. Couple downsides, the ties are brown where code 80 is black (it does have nail holes though). I got the motorized turnout and there is a 1 cm cube on the end of the wires (two electric selonoid type actuations). It has some special solder points to make the frog "hot" (or I'm guessing anyway). I've not wired it yet and the instructions are in German but they appear to be simple enough to follow.
Just thought I'd pass the info along as it seems doubleslip n-scales are less than easy to find and this Roco one seems very nice. Hopefully I'll have the same experience once I move it to my layout. The testing has consisted of using several rolling stock that are prone to de-railments that seem to pass the turnout without de-railing :)
SpaceMouse wrote: Zandoz wrote: Is the configuration with the curved turnouts likely to be exceedingly problematic?It's only money. The cost of doing it your way: 1 double slip, 4 curved turnouts, 6 switch machines--maybe $400. If it were me, I would put down the keyboard for a while and think and wait for an ah-ha moment in the shower or something. There are a million ways to build a layout and they don't have to be the most expensive one just because you designed yourself into a corner.You have only one chance to plan your layout without having to rip things out. For the record, I'm not of the "just do it" mindset. Personally, I'm now 20 complete revisions and 4 months into my layout design. I'm not really putting off building, in fact, I've built the room and started the backdrop. I've got until the backdrop is finished before I start. But if there is one thing that bothers me, I'm not going to let a few pixels cause me to compromise.
Zandoz wrote: Is the configuration with the curved turnouts likely to be exceedingly problematic?
It's only money. The cost of doing it your way: 1 double slip, 4 curved turnouts, 6 switch machines--maybe $400.
If it were me, I would put down the keyboard for a while and think and wait for an ah-ha moment in the shower or something. There are a million ways to build a layout and they don't have to be the most expensive one just because you designed yourself into a corner.
You have only one chance to plan your layout without having to rip things out.
For the record, I'm not of the "just do it" mindset. Personally, I'm now 20 complete revisions and 4 months into my layout design. I'm not really putting off building, in fact, I've built the room and started the backdrop. I've got until the backdrop is finished before I start. But if there is one thing that bothers me, I'm not going to let a few pixels cause me to compromise.
I really was not a fan of "just do it" either...and a big believer in the inspirational power of showers. After a career as a systems analyst, I have an overwhelming tendancy to over analyse and plan to excess. But after three months of planning, without sacrificing the pseudo-eased 15" minimum radius so the passenger cars don't look too bad, all I come up with for my little postage-stamp space is an oval....just varying levels of convolutedness. I've tried taking the usual prescribed breaks...even took a no Xtrkcad week outside enjoying the beginning of spring and listening to the ball games. Now, no real progress, combined with "are you going to do something with this stuff" looks and comments from the family, and the repeated "Just do something" advice, my planning gene is growing weary.
Something I have to keep in mind is that this is going to be a one multi-tasking impared operator, two cab DC show, on a no matter what I do very small layout. The realistic chances of me being able to handle controlling more than two trains is pretty near zero. Also, being a first layout, if I end up butchering it, a KISS layout will be a less expensive butchering. Actually, even with the cost of the 4 separate turnouts and a crossover, this theme would be less costly than a lot of the other plans I've come up with, and not really give me that much less.
I'm not going to give up on trying to come up with alternatives...or trying to refine this plan. I'm still probably a month away from starting to build my fixed size benchwork (long train unrelated story)...and longer still before laying track. But unless a problematic reason comes up, so far, this is the first plan that I've come up with that I didn't have the overwhelming urge to delete.
One other pluss for a KISS "Just do it" layout...I'll have enough Unitrack left over to get a good start on another layout on the 4x5 portable table I have. Maybe something less ovalish but with smaller radii curves. For some reason I've always been drawn to that thrice-around Lake District plan fom 101 Track Plans. Or if I do decide I like switching, I have space for an 8x9 bookshelf U shaped set up. <shrug>
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
It's amazing to me the wide range of prices for the same things...a quick check of one supplier:
Peco Code 55 Electro-frog Double Cross-over $95.99
Peco Code 55 Electro-frog Curved Right or Left Hand Turnout $18.38 x 4 = $73.56
Peco Code 55 Electro-frog Short Crossing $14.39
N scale Peco Code 55 Electro-frog Double Slip Turnout $57.59
It looks to me, but I really have no idea, that the double crossovers would require 4 switch machines, where the double slip would only require 2. Right? Wrong?
So far, I'm really liking the four curved turnout double crossover more than the double slip...maneuvers on the staging side will not foul the main...and with my tiny monthly train budget from here on out, I can get the main legs sooner, and be able to complete my main loop sooner.
The big question now is will the curved turnout double crossover (or any double crossover for that matter) likely be nore or less problematic, both on the main legs and for sawing back and forth on the staging legs, than the simpler and cheaper double slip?
I double-slip - $35
4 curved - 4 X $29 = $116
6 Tortoise - 6 X 15 = $90
Total - $241, plus shipping.
I just looked at the list of Xtrkcad parameter files and did not see one that seems to be Lional related.
SpaceMouse wrote: That's the general idea, but I think XtraCAD has one of these. Look in Peco.Also I'd lose the atlas switches going into the yard. Once you figure out that you like switching around in the yard, you're going to want to make it look pretty. If cost is a factor, go with ground throws. After running ops sessions on different layouts, they are the easiest to use and most reliable--as well as cheapest.
That's the general idea, but I think XtraCAD has one of these. Look in Peco.
Also I'd lose the atlas switches going into the yard. Once you figure out that you like switching around in the yard, you're going to want to make it look pretty. If cost is a factor, go with ground throws.
After running ops sessions on different layouts, they are the easiest to use and most reliable--as well as cheapest.
There is a very nice double crossover in Unitrack, and I've heard nothing but good about them. The problem with all the straight line double cross overs is that they are just too long...and the only place I could remotely put one is where the bridges across the back are, and I don't want to lose those. Actually, one of the previously rejected plans I came up with...a double track main with the Kato double cross over at the front...was rejected because of the double S-curves it created (one in the cross over and one between the crossover and the adjacent curve). Putting enough straight between the crossover and adjacent curve ended up overhanging my space. Is the configuration with the curved turnouts likely to be exceedingly problematic?
There are a few reasons I went with the Atlas remote turnouts back there...inconvienant access for ground throws (along that back side will be dining room chair storage when the layout is set up for operation), and surface mount switch machines making changes/replacement easy, and cost compared to other powered turnouts. For the most part, they will be hidden behind the solid and tree view breaks.
SpaceMouse wrote:Okay, I finally get what you are trying to do. But, the double slip is not the right piece of track, if you want to do what you want and use the yard as a viable yard with switching and not foul the main. You need a double crossover. Same amount of space, but keeps the yard lead separate from the main.
Is this what you are talking about?
Well, not quite the same space...it took some squeezing of things to the front of the layout...but it gained double duty as a passing track. Keeping that left staging leg straight and dead-ended left it too short for the Mini Chief consist. Curving it gave me the needed length, but by then it was so close to the team track siding it just made sense to me to connect them. The worst part for me was losing some depth between the truss bridge and the view block. The 5 turnouts and a crossing will end up costing more on a tight budget, but since I can break that up over time, I think I'll manage. An OK trade I guess.
Any other ideas?
SpaceMouse wrote: Zandoz wrote:If I'm envisioning what you are saying correctly, that would leave trains traveling in one direction having to back out onto the main....and the other having to back in. What I was going for with the double slip was not having to back into or out of the scene, and the "sawing" being off stage so to speak. <shrug> Trains back up all the time and "saw." The PRR backed two miles to get into Pittsburgh Passenger Station.
Zandoz wrote:If I'm envisioning what you are saying correctly, that would leave trains traveling in one direction having to back out onto the main....and the other having to back in. What I was going for with the double slip was not having to back into or out of the scene, and the "sawing" being off stage so to speak. <shrug>
Trains back up all the time and "saw." The PRR backed two miles to get into Pittsburgh Passenger Station.
I know...and on a larger layout it would not be an issue for me...but with what little stage I have, backing a train onto the little loop gets the tail end of the train almost to where it would be going in the forward direction....to me making it look excessively toy-like. I know...probably a screwy hang-up on my part, but that's where this warped mind is right now.
Jason-Train wrote: Zandoz wrote: The reason for going with the Peco 55 is that I've found no other sources for N double slips of other brands (except a discontinued Model Power that appeared to be a much higher angle unit). That is why I included a link with 4 different in production manufacturers of n scale doubleslips http://reynaulds.com/s_results.asp?search=slip&submit=submit&curpage=2
Zandoz wrote: The reason for going with the Peco 55 is that I've found no other sources for N double slips of other brands (except a discontinued Model Power that appeared to be a much higher angle unit).
The reason for going with the Peco 55 is that I've found no other sources for N double slips of other brands (except a discontinued Model Power that appeared to be a much higher angle unit).
That is why I included a link with 4 different in production manufacturers of n scale doubleslips
Thanks for the link! I took a quick look and it appears at least Fleischmann and Trix might be possible alternative sources for double slips and/or curved turnouts. With a very quick search I was able to find out the degree of the Trix DSs, but only found "R4" for the curvature radii. I've run into these R numbers before (on the Model Power DSs and curved turnouts I mentioned) and had no luck finding what those R numbers translate to in MM, IN, or frog numbers. Any way, I will be doing more research on those.