i'm planning an expansion to my HO 14' x 3 ' industrial layout and would like hear comments / reviews on the ME Laddder System. I currently have 18 Peco Code 100 insulfrog turnouts and use Tortise switch controls combined with Caboose hand throws. I would like to transistion over to Code 83 flex track for the expansion which will include long storage & staging yard, but i'm not sure on the best switch machines to use for this ME turnout system because i don't know if the ME switches have a builit in springs like the Peco switches?
Bayway Terminal NJ
Thye Micro-Engineering Ladder System is very effective in fitting a five track yard in a space where you could normally only get four. It saves a lot of cutting, and everything works/fits very well.
The one I am familiar with was powered by Tortoise Switch Machines.
Be aware... this is a trade-off. You get more tracks, but you cannot get your fingers in there easily, and seeing car reporting marks becomes more difficult.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
The ME ladder system developes a ladder with a 16.2 degree angle (sharper than even #4 turnouts, but uses 11.42 degree #5 frogs.
The turnouts are shorter than standard #5's, and they curve after the frog, as many prototype yards do.
They deliver a yard track spacing of 2.1" as recommended by the NMRA.
Personally I have always spaced all my parallel tracks at 2" centers, yards, mainlines, even curves with the 36" and above radius I use.
So, the ME system does pack the ladder in a smaller space, but still at the risk of some larger equipment, especially steam lococs, not liking the tight closure rail radius of these compact #5 turnouts.
If you locos are small, it is likely a good system. If you need for mainline steam power to enter any yard track, maybe not so much.
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRALThey deliver a yard track spacing of 2.1" as recommended by the NMRA. Personally I have always spaced all my parallel tracks at 2" centers, yards, mainlines, even curves
Wow, 2 inches is tight. I usually space my tracks at 2 3/8" or 2 1/2" centers.
I just mocked it up with some freight cars on my work surface grid. I need a more relaxed spacing.
SeeYou190 ATLANTIC CENTRAL They deliver a yard track spacing of 2.1" as recommended by the NMRA. Personally I have always spaced all my parallel tracks at 2" centers, yards, mainlines, even curves Wow, 2 inches is tight. I usually space my tracks at 2 3/8" or 2 1/2" centers. I just mocked it up with some freight cars on my work surface grid. I need a more relaxed spacing. -Kevin
ATLANTIC CENTRAL They deliver a yard track spacing of 2.1" as recommended by the NMRA. Personally I have always spaced all my parallel tracks at 2" centers, yards, mainlines, even curves
2" is still wider than most prototype parallel trackage, and is the defacto standard in the industry going back to the 40's.
Atlas track, TruScale track, Campbell Scale Models bridges, Walthers bridges and crossovers, Sinohara crossovers, Central Valley bridges, and many more have 2" centers for yard ladders and double track items.
Yes, I need one portion of track at 2" center for my Shinohara double crossover. I just prefer wider spacing where fingers need to go, especially in the yards.
If I remember correctly, Walther/Shinohara "5 turnouts result in a 2 3/8" spacing without trimming the turnouts.
Simply my preference.
ATLANTIC CENTRALThey deliver a yard track spacing of 2.1" as recommended by the NMRA.
2.1" is a former NMRA recommendation.
The current recommendation (NMRA RP-7.2) varies by the era of your layout. For HO:
Old Time: 1 21/32"
Classic: 1 25/32"
Modern: 1 15/16"
These are minimums.
Paul
IRONROOSTER ATLANTIC CENTRAL They deliver a yard track spacing of 2.1" as recommended by the NMRA. 2.1" is a former NMRA recommendation. The current recommendation (NMRA RP-7.2) varies by the era of your layout. For HO: Old Time: 1 21/32" Classic: 1 25/32" Modern: 1 15/16" These are minimums. Paul
ATLANTIC CENTRAL They deliver a yard track spacing of 2.1" as recommended by the NMRA.
Yes, another in the long list of minor revisions over the last few years.
2" is a nice round number, easy to work with. Great for straight track. It is generally too close for curves, unless you get into extremely large curves - I know from experience that full length passenger cars will not work at 32" radius with 2" centers, it needs to be widened. Maybe 40" radius curves will work with 2" centers.
But for straight parallel tracks - 2" looks good and there should be no clearance problems unless you have a shifted load on a flar car, but then the prototype has the same issue - just another reason they tell you to keep your head and arms inside the car at all times.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinker 2" is a nice round number, easy to work with. Great for straight track. It is generally too close for curves, unless you get into extremely large curves - I know from experience that full length passenger cars will not work at 32" radius with 2" centers, it needs to be widened. Maybe 40" radius curves will work with 2" centers. But for straight parallel tracks - 2" looks good and there should be no clearance problems unless you have a shifted load on a flar car, but then the prototype has the same issue - just another reason they tell you to keep your head and arms inside the car at all times. --Randy
My minimum radius is 36" and I have never had problems with 2" track centers, even with long passenger cars. I do aso use easements.
Thanks all for the info, i currently have 2'' spacing for the most part in both of the opposite-end yards and outside lead & by-pass tracks. Also glad to hear i can use tortoise machines for the expanison and that ME switches have springs. I only run diesels on the layout, rolling stock consist of 40'-53 ' intermodel cars and steel mill cars of all sorts. The expansion area will have a graduated 32" radius single lead track coming off one end of the shelf layout eventually connecting to a WYE switch, with a long single track leading into to the ME ladder system. I haven't yet decided on where the other WYE lead track will end up? Bayway Terminal NJ
How about the track layout as shown in the attached photos? The minimum effective length will be longer. However, it has no geometrical beauty and requires advanced surveying techniques to lay railroad tracks. This place is near Shin-Osaka Station on the Shinkansen and is the Miyahara Passenger Car Yard. See also my blog post.
Google Map
Postscript: Of course, the total number of cars detained will be reduced.
Lastspikemike Sometimes we forget that the biggest space consumer for any yard is the tail track, or whatever it's officially called. Long sidings require an equally long tail track at the throat.
Sometimes we forget that the biggest space consumer for any yard is the tail track, or whatever it's officially called. Long sidings require an equally long tail track at the throat.
My balloon track does double dutie for that. My yard works quite well. I have two A/D tracks at the far end and pull the cars into the balloon track and then push them onto the ladder. I have no idea where it falls on the prototypically correct scale but it works for the small space I have. Sacrifices don't you know. I will be moving the ladder tracks closer together at some point as I have no need to get my fingers in there.
For a long time I have been meaning to invite some critical thinking on what I have before the cement sets.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
I had planned to look at the ME Ladder system for a future layout change. However I will be running long Autoracks and Superliner equipment through this yard. Sounds like this longer eguipment will not fare well with the tight turnouts. Is it the turnout angle? They seem to do well with a std #5 turnout, at low speeds anyway.
danno54Sounds like this longer eguipment will not fare well with the tight turnouts. Is it the turnout angle? They seem to do well with a std #5 turnout, at low speeds anyway.
This sounds like the kind of question that someone with actual experience with the Micro-Engineering yard ladder system will need to answer.
The frog angle of the MR #5 Yard Ladder is apparently the same, but there might be an S-Curve situation created by the curved geometry that would cause issues with your auto racks.
The photos you provided are very simlar to what i'm planning for the expansion of my 14' x 3' shelf layout. In particular I like the elevated singel-track radius and the engine house inside the double-track loop, but i will need longer multiple storage tracks & marshalling yard for all the rolling stock, this being i will most likley haveto nix the ME Ladder system due the smaller size switches. I'm thinking of no less than #8 or #10 size turnouts coming off a single main line to a WYE switch / if possible? Luckly i have the distance length to work with.
The photos you provided are very simlar to what i'm planning for the expansion of my 14' x 3' shelf layout. In particular I like the elevated singel-track radius and the engine house inside the double-track loop, but i will need long multiple & adjacent storage tracks with by-pass tracks for yard storage & staging for rolling stock, this being i will most likley have to nix the ME Ladder system due the small size switches. I'm thinking of no less than #8 or #10 size turnouts coming off a single main line to a WYE switch / if possible? Luckly i have the distance length to work with otherwise i may have to consider a verticle helix . Bayway Terminal NJ