Ideas for a "scenic" HO shelf switching layout

[Mike in Kingsville]

First of all- hang in there- it will get better eventually. I went through a spell in the early 90's working for a company that filed Chapter 11- it put a squeeze on hobby expenses- but caused me to learn how to scratchbuild.

A recent issue of Model Railroader featured a layout that was large scale built in a 2x4' space. It refers to a site:

http://www.carendt.com/

They feature small but detailed layouts and track plans. It has inspired me enough that I am considering a larger scale small footprint layout in the future.

mike

[Anonymous]

 As my "government" has put up a ban on all transportation related capital investment, all I can do is revv up my PC and do a bit of track planning.

This is Bob Smaus´ charismatic "Port of Los Angeles" layout converted to Peco and Atlas track and made a little longer than the original 6 feet - just for those of  you who collect track plans for small shelf-type layouts. MR ran a series on this layout starting Dec 1990.

No, guys, this one is not for me - I have "found" my dream layout.

 

[steinjr]

 No longer all that relevant for Ulrich's layout (since he has come up with an excellent design that meets his goals), but since this thread already has quite a few shelf layout plans - here is a link to a British web site that has quite a few small British switching layout plans:

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=24472

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[odave]

The boatnerd site was mentioned above, but here's a link to their tug specific images. 

http://www.boatnerd.com/pictures/tug/

 These may give you an idea of what you'd see around Milwaukee or other Great Lakes ports.

[Anonymous]

 A Dutch company named "Artitec" makes boat models that look more like canal or river tugs to me.

Could this one go for a US prototype canal tug?

[markpierce]

The mention of barges reminds me of The Battle of the River Plate, version 2007.  In this case a cruise ship rammed a barge in the Montevideo harbor channel while not taking evasive action or giving warning signals, so it seemed a "deliberate" act of "war."  Losses included several SUVs and containers knocked off the barge and sinking to the bottom of the channel.  The errant cruise ship didn't come away unscathed as evidenced by this picture of the repair of the deep dent in the ship's bow.

 

The passengers renamed the Norwegian Dream to the Norwegian Nighmare.  Both the ship and its captain have been disposed of.

Mark

 

[WSOR 3801]

marcimmeker

I noticed that the tugboat you are thinking of is more of the coastal harbor kind instead of the river kind. I don't have links so you have to check yourself but it seems on the Mississippi the are called towboats and are distinctly different. Don't know what is used in Milwaukee's harbor though and it has no direct link to the canals and major rivers. You may want to check into that.

 

This link should help with the kinds of boats in the Great Lakes: http://www.boatnerd.com/ 

There is a connection from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River, through the Chicago area.  Not sure on size of the ships, though.  

 

[Anonymous]

 Thanks, Fred, that info is most helpful!

I think I better stay the NMRA way. I´ll check with Proto87Stores with respect to the replacement of the CV points.

Mark, your remarks are more than welcomed! I am a bit of a lone wolf in my region, not by own choice though. None of my MR buddies share my interest to model US prototype, so this forum is a way to compensate the lack of direct communication in my neighborhood.  German model railroading is very much different, it is stikll highly dominated by Marklin and the like. Scratch building is the exception and not the rule, and most rolling stock is r-t-r. Weathering is a no no (given the cost of a steamer being up to 1000 bucks, that´s understandable). So my idea of building a pure switching layout US-style, with prototype operation is not really understood.

 And I like your "imagineering approach - that word pretty much describes what is going on in my head, when I start to draw a track plan...

[fwright]

Sir Madog

Fred - thanks for your comments on handlaying track. I have checked Fast Track´s home page and made up my mind - this will not be the way I will go. Checked also on CVT and Proto87, the latter one providing ready-made turnouts now. Could be a way, just in case my hand does not improve further. What I do not understand yet, is, whether Proto87 will accept RP25 wheels. I always thought it to be finescale, that required intensive rebuilding of all locos and rolling stock (which I am not prepared to do). Am I wrong?

Camaro - great picture. That is, what I intend to do, but no idea on the load, maybe gravel.... I ckecked Walthers and they have resin kits for barges, which look very close to the ones on your picture. I am not happy with the tug, though. Walthers has one with a 12" x 4" "footprint", which I find a little bit to big, although it is the one depicted in my latest track plan. Will keep on searching.

Stein, also thanks for the links - very inspiring pictures as well.

The track and switch issue is the most important for me- - if  I am able to scratch up some extra funds, I will order a test kit from CVT. Fred, the kit includes a frog, should I replace that with a Proto87 one?

Have a good day?

The major differences between Proto87 and NMRA are:

- RP25 (NMRA) wheelsets have a tread width almost double that of scale (Proto87).  The wider tread width allows wider flangeways at turnouts that most commercial (and Fast Tracks) feature without wheel drop at the frogs.  More importantly, the wider treads allow more gauge widening on curves without the wheel falling between the rails.  The gauge widening allows operation on much smaller minimum radius.  Proto87 track has to have gauge widening limited because of the narrow tread width, and hence has higher minimum radii for locomotives and rolling stock - on the order of 25% higher.

-ME flex track will run both P87 and NMRA wheels.  Atlas flex track, which is usually gauged wider for sharper curves, may have problems with P87 wheels.

- Turnouts have to be built to one spec or the other.  P87 wheels will not go through NMRA turnouts and vice versa.

Proto87 wheel sets are available for most rolling stock, and some diesels.  The remaining issue is equalization.  Many modern model diesels - even with 6 wheel trucks - have enough vertical flex or slop that the axles are effectively equalized.  Soft sprung trucks also are already equalized.  Rigid frame freight trucks with their short wheel base often do well enough with something like the EZ riders to give a 3 point suspension.  FWIW, working equalization improves tracking of NMRA-spec rolling stock, too.

Depending on actual model locomotives being used, a P87 layout similar to the one you are planning is quite doable.  However, nothing off the shelf will work on it without at least wheel set substitution, and neither will any friends' equipment.

There is a workable compromise that works even better with handlaid track and turnouts.  Use the code 88 wheels where you can on HO rolling stock where it shows.  Some trucks are available with code 88 wheel sets from the get-go (I have bought Tahoe Model Works trucks so fitted).  You will end up with a mixture of code 110 (normal HO) and code 88 wheels.  Both will work on NMRA-spec turnouts.  But the code 88 wheels may suffer wheel drop at NMRA frogs that have the wider flangeways, especially on higher number frogs.

By hand laying your turnouts, you can adjust the track gauge and flangeways to the minimum NMRA spec.  This provides 0.040" flangeways instead of the typical 0.050", and prevents wheel drop with code 88 wheels - wheel tread width should be at least double the flangeway width for proper support through frogs.

Bottom line:  P87 is an all or nothing approach to prototype modeling.  Wheel sets and turnout specs must match - NMRA wheels with NMRA turnouts, P87 wheels with P87 turnouts.  Keep your NMRA frog on the CV turnout kits unless making the switch to P87.  The parts least liked on CV turnouts are the stamped points.  Proto87 Stores sells points that will fit.  A forum member named Greg (handle Deadhead Greg, IIRC) has more experience using CV and Proto87 Stores components than I do.  Maybe he will chime in.

hope this answers the questions

Fred W

[mcfunkeymonkey]

Looks good!
I guess I'd be a little concerned about getting too caught up on a boat. (or a particular model / make).
Think of the scene elements, and you can (almost) always find a way to fill it.
(Unless yr goal is to model a specific prototype as close as you can).

Like I said, I think in terms of scenes like mini-dioramas, and you have at least 8:

 

 that 8th is more open space, but I'd argue is probably one of the most important spaces, in terms of how the layout comes together as a whole (so the whole DOESN'T look like 7 mini-dioramas).

the 9th would be the backdrop, the 10th would be sound, etc.

1st priority, to me, is to imagineer yourself operating this layout: the train pulling in, breaking up the cars, shunting them off to their proper spots, collecting, reassembling, etc.
Will that be "work" (in a good way)?
Then you need to make sure that each siding has enough spaces for the cars and engine to perform their duties.
Does the layout work as a whole to yr operational satisfaction?

THEN, imagineer each scene.  What structures, details will you need for each, and do you want to scratchbuild or purchase the elements necessary for each?  Do you just want a structure for business at the place, or is there a specific facility your want to model and will enjoy crafting it as such?

This will change from scene to scene within yr layout.

For example, on mine, while I want to enjoy operations soon, I also want to handlay turnouts, which will take time, so operations will have to wait while I do that.  For structures, some factories (like back against walls) I can put in place relatively quickly with modular stuff from catalogues, others like dockside structures, coal dumps and the turntable, I KNOW I want to spend the time to scratchbuild, and so mentally calculate that into the FUN of building the layout.

The patience will pay off.

I know you know all this: I'm just expressing my thought process for your consideration.  I think you've already got yrself a layout that is very flexible in terms of construction, with many different areas you can focus on, so you'll be excited to work constantly (it's not like you have to wait to build a bleeping-bleep helix before anything else can move forward).

Long story short: don't worry about specific tugs.  Start building!  Get a piece of plywood and some track and physically lay it out.  Play!
Sorry if I'm rambling: we're at the same place, empire-wise, so much of this is to get my own mind in order & my own rear-end going.

Cheers!
--Mark

[MStLfan]

Good morning Ulrich,

Once again I was chased out of bed by a pile driver that started merrily banging away at 7 am (like it has done for the last month and me being on sick leave, grr...) not even 50 meters from my home. So I checked the latest messages in this thread. I noticed that the tugboat you are thinking of is more of the coastal harbor kind instead of the river kind. I don't have links so you have to check yourself but it seems on the Mississippi the are called towboats and are distinctly different. Don't know what is used in Milwaukee's harbor though and it has no direct link to the canals and major rivers. You may want to check into that.

Also, have you thought about Dutch manufacturer Artitec? They may have a tug that is smaller and you can rework that to look North American.

@Steinjr: thanks for the links to the pictures from Minnesota (great resource!), I wonder how many modellers ended up with fingers tingling in anticipation of wanting to model that barge terminal...

greetings

[Anonymous]

 Hi again, Mark,

took a close look to the Seaort tug - I like, although it is a little expensive. Anyway, this tug allows me to move the barges and the tug back to their original position, which I also like a lot more. Just added that to my plan:

 

Tug and barges now have the right dimension - looks ok to me!

[mcfunkeymonkey]

I am a late bird, but it's still early here (10pm) in California.  I think the forum is in Kalmbach time (2 hours earlier, depending on which scale you model), and the East Coast is an hour earlier than that.  So NY, Boston, etc. are at 1am right now.

It confuses me too (hey, China has the same time zone for 5 zone's worth of land).

The ME is a good way to go.  I'd go as low as you can go: it'll look fabulous and its not like yr going to have 80-car trains blitzing through.  If you do decide later to try yr hand at handlaying turnouts, fastracks has all the stuff to go with ME rail (and you do not need a jig! & that's the most expensive thing).

The beauty of this layout is in 1. the satisfying switching ops you'll be able to do (having different types of barges will help, as well as think of having removeable / interchangable industries, like Barbara Brunette does in her Wasup Dock Co. layout in MR March 2009) & 2. the construction of detailed scenes at various places around layout that has something the eye catches on, then rests, taking in the scope of the scene (which you dictate), and then joyfully explores the details of each.

The trick is to create a flowing balance of them all so the layout is not just a mess of "scene splotches".

I think this has great potential for being a very satisfying layout for many years to come.  Enjoy!

Cheers,
Mark

[Anonymous]

 Hi Mark,

either you are a late bird, or I am a really early bird - it is zeroing on 7 o´clock in the morning here.

Thanks for the links - the Seaport stuff is really good looking (and the tug slighly smaller than the one from Walthers), but close to 100 bucks (plus shipping + tax and duty, so that is about 180 bucks!) - it will have to wait for a while... 

Lance Mindheim uses ME turnouts and track - and that´s pretty good looking, too. We´ll see...

[mcfunkeymonkey]

Tug:
Seaport Model works have groovy kits, but expensive:
http://seaportmodelworks.com/index.php?cPath=23_24

there's this frieght barge:
http://www.bonanzle.com/booths/HarborLightModels/items/Ho_Scale_Railroad_Harbor_Canal_Freight_Barge_Built_Up

and Sylvan has a whole bunch of groovy stuff:
http://www.isp.on.ca/sylvan/homarinecontents.htm

I say get the block of wood & whittle!
(just make sure you're sitting on your doorstoop, leaning back in old chair, one eye squinting, pipe in mouth, humming a sea shanty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_Sailor )

Personally, I perfer the barge on the left side (original position).  So what if it takes up most the canal.  That's what barges are for!  Just keep it low (or removeable), so there's a dip in forward presence between the chair factory and the siding/building far right. (you don't want a "wall" up front right blocking most of the action in the middle.

As for trackwork: whatever will allow you to lay the most bulletproof trackwork possible, because the operations side of this layout will be as fun as getting root canal work while attending an insurance seminar while listening to the home shopping network on yr ipod while getting nagged by your better half if the trackwork isn't smooth. not only smooth but the curves & angles right & at proper place to allow the best un/coupling.

So while we all fantasize about laying
track
by hand:
you should go with what you can work with best to make sure your operations work smoothly & be a "smooth operator" [start elevator muzak here].

Painting & Balasting does wonders to whatever track you choose.

It's looking groovy!  Keep rolling!
--Mark

[Anonymous]

 Good Morning, Guys,

now we have entered the dtailing stage - great!

Fred - thanks for your comments on handlaying track. I have checked Fast Track´s home page and made up my mind - this will not be the way I will go. Checked also on CVT and Proto87, the latter one providing ready-made turnouts now. Could be a way, just in case my hand does not improve further. What I do not understand yet, is, whether Proto87 will accept RP25 wheels. I always thought it to be finescale, that required intensive rebuilding of all locos and rolling stock (which I am not prepared to do). Am I wrong?

Camaro - great picture. That is, what I intend to do, but no idea on the load, maybe gravel.... I ckecked Walthers and they have resin kits for barges, which look very close to the ones on your picture. I am not happy with the tug, though. Walthers has one with a 12" x 4" "footprint", which I find a little bit to big, although it is the one depicted in my latest track plan. Will keep on searching.

Stein, also thanks for the links - very inspiring pictures as well.

The track and switch issue is the most important for me- - if  I am able to scratch up some extra funds, I will order a test kit from CVT. Fred, the kit includes a frog, should I replace that with a Proto87 one?

Have a good day?

[camaro]

Stein,

Thank you for the tutorial on posting. Yes, it should have 35th and and 65th.  I don't know where I came up with that.  I was referring to the last plan in the string. As for someone who has lived on the Great Lakes my entire life, I have seen pretty much everything that can be carried on a barge.  He is a link to the Miami River and rather large barge with crushed stone.

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTSN&cp=n90ch189byzq&style=b&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&scene=35174899&encType=1

 

 

Larry

[steinjr]

camaro

I personally like this plan.  What will the barge(s) have on it?  I am considering a barge and canal on my version of Lance's layout, however I will probably restrict it's size to about 12".  We have barges setting in the bay with clamshell cranes that are about the same scale size.  I would think a short round around could be incorporated into the removable cassette that would cross 65th street.  This would allow a loco to get ahead or behind a series of cars for various moves.

 

 If you hit "reply"  instead of "quick reply" and then quote enough of the post you are responding to, it would be possible for others to see which one of the many plans in this thread you refer to when you say "this plan".

 It could have been the latest plan, but there doesn't seem to be a street labelled "65th street" that is crossed by tracks on that plan - there is a street named "35th Avenue" which is an overpass over the tracks, and this plan already has a runaround, so it is probably not that one.

 Suggest you find the post you want to comment on and hit "reply", and then "quote", so people can tell what you are responding to.

 As for Barge sizes - I scratch built an H0 scale 1950s Mississippi towed coal barge a while back - after some experimentation, I ended up selectively compressing it to 4" wide and 12" long (29 scale feet by 87 scale feet).

 A ratio of 3:1 length to width worked out for me esthetically, even though these babies really can get quite a bit bigger, especially for a more modern layout - modern coal barges are often about 200 feet long by 35 feet long (ie a width to length ratio of almost 1:6).

 These things could carry quite a few different things - here are some Minneapolis prototype pics from the 1930s - 1970s:

 http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=102086

 http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=81148

 http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=81513

 http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=77011

 http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=179994

 http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=97361

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[camaro]

Ulrich, 

I personally like this plan.  What will the barge(s) have on it?  I am considering a barge and canal on my version of Lance's layout, however I will probably restrict it's size to about 12".  We have barges setting in the bay with clamshell cranes that are about the same scale size.  I would think a short round around could be incorporated into the removable cassette that would cross 65th street.  This would allow a loco to get ahead or behind a series of cars for various moves.

 

Larry

 

[fwright]

 

Sir Madog

Had an argument with SWMBO about the additional space requirement and I lost it, well nearly  Found a compromise by moving tug and barge to the other embankment.

About handlaying the track. With a layout that small, it should be a feasonable undertaking, once my hand is ok. I don´t want to go all the way to Proto87, but a lot of detail is, what I would like to capture - also in terms of track. The  - feeling can only come from details, not from size or any "spectacular" thing. Is handlaying track producing better results than using already well made track (and turnouts) from makers like ME or Central Valley? Never laid any track by hand before... AND I cannot just run down to my local LHS to check on ME track or CVT track,a as there is only one mailorder source here in Germany...

I recommended against traditional handlaid track in your case for several reasons:

- For representing latter 20th Century North American prototype, the overly large spike heads every 5th tie, intermixed PC board ties, and lack of tie plates are not as realistic as CVT or ME track.  My understanding is that Sir Madog is after a highly detailed shelf layout, including the track.  The CVT tie strips and ME track have tie plate detail and smaller than normal spike heads molded in.  While you can buy tie plates and scale size spikes, individually applying all this detail is a very time consuming process.

- The CV turnout kits have the same tie plate and spike detail as their tie strips and ME flex track.  Proto87 Stores sells detailed frogs and points in both P87 and NMRA spec.

- Fast Tracks jigs and kits are expensive for a layout of 8 turnouts - especially if all turnouts are not the same frog #.

That said, track handlaid with wood ties in place on the layout will have a "flow" and graceful looks that will be difficult to duplicate with any other method.  And it's not too large a layout that scale spikes (P87 Stores) every tie would be impractical.  But the tie plate detail would still be missing unless the OP took the extra time to add them.

Finally, all the components I have mentioned are available at places that are used to shipping overseas.

my thoughts, your choices

Fred W 

[johnjpeebles]

 I'm constructing a similar shelf layout in N Scale, and I chose to go with hand laid track (FastTracks) for a couple of reasons: I think it looks much better, and I figured it would prolong the construction process and give me more of a challenge.

 I'm a below-average modeler, and even worse with tools, etc.  I found the Fast Tracks system to be remarkably well done, and the instructions and videos are unbeatable.  The best I've ever seen.  I can now construct a great looking Code 55 turnout in about 40 minutes, and it's a great feeling of accomplishment.  The mechanics aren't very difficult, and the fixtures make working with the details a lot easier.

For smaller layouts, and really any visible trackage, I'd strongly recommend giving it a try.  Worst case,  you're out a couple hundred bucks, or basically one or two locos, and I'm sure you could resell the fixtures on ebay without issue.

[Anonymous]

Had an argument with SWMBO about the additional space requirement and I lost it, well nearly  Found a compromise by moving tug and barge to the other embankment. Now I need only 2little inches more...

Here is the amended version:

 

About handlaying the track. With a layout that small, it should be a feasonable undertaking, once my hand is ok. I don´t want to go all the way to Proto87, but a lot of detail is, what I would like to capture - also in terms of track. The  - feeling can only come from details, not from size or any "spectacular" thing. Is handlaying track producing better results than using already well made track (and turnouts) from makers like ME or Central Valley? Never laid any track by hand before... AND I cannot just run down to my local LHS to check on ME track or CVT track,a as there is only one mailorder source here in Germany...

 

[Doughless]

Sir Madog

 ... Did some investigation into the sizes of tugs and barges - guess what? They are much BIGGER than I thought. Either I just let the canal be a canal without anything floating on it or I have to negiotate some more inches with SWMBO.

I made a drawing - just in case 

 

How about flopping the general locations of the canal and Milw Term Warehousing?  It seems like there is more space for the canal in the center of the layout.  Flopping them would kind of make the barge a focal point of the layout and the taller building moved farther right would help to frame the whole scene.

[fwright]

Sir Madog

<snipped to save bandwidth>

Some additional remarks:

Era will be late 80´s or early 90´s - so structures will be a mix of old time brick buildings and these corrugated steel things you see nowadays. The types of industries are not yet fixed, so they might change. I know I have to do this before I start buying rolling stock...

Just my understanding - code 83 (132lb) rail would be on the heavy side for this type of trackage.  I would lean towards code 70 with possibly code 55 on some spurs or keep code 70 and use code 83 on the runaround and leads to staging.

The "Sentry Chair and Table Manuf. " will be in any case a 1-story building, so I can reach the turnouts, which will, offcause, be manually operated. While typing this, I think, I will change into a warehouse... 

Rather than change the layout for turnout throw access, bring the throws for those turnouts to the front of the fascia.  Use a slide switch in the linkage to provide latching and power the frogs.

Barge and tug need to be resized - I still have to make up my mind on what type and make I will use.

It's very common for a large modern barge to take up nearly half - sometimes more - of a canal, especially a stub end of a canal like this.  Miami canals are indeed quite narrow, and it is difficult to get a barge past another. 

To my knowledge, railroads tried to avoid single or double slip switches as much as possible, not only for reasons of cost. I may be wrong here, but the reason why I removed it was availability and look. Peco Code 83 track has no double slip available, yet, the code 75 material has "European" tie arrangement, ME has none available, only Atlas, which is hard to get where I live.

The decisions which track to use needs to be made as well - I might even start to handlay the track (providing that the tremor in my right hand is gone). Does anyone have experience with building Fast Track switches - it looks so easy in their videos.

Normally, I am an advocate of handlaid track.  In your particular case, not so much.  My recommendation would be Central Valley tie strips with code 70 rail, or Micro-Engineering code 70 flex track.  Turnouts are much more problematic, especially in code 70.  Fast Tracks is a good solution for 1st time hand layers - the hand-holding through the videos tools and jigs is very good.  Central Valley turnout kits are another option with more detail - but make or buy your own points (and possibly new frogs if you like Proto87 Stores offerings better).  In any case, be prepared to substitute commercially made turnouts if the tremor acts up at all.  ME makes code 70 turnouts, but only in a #6 size.  There are several custom turnout builders at surprisingly reasonable prices - Railway Engineering, Litco, and Cream City Turnouts all come to mind.

Whether you make your own via Fast Tracks or have your turnouts made, don't hesitate to cut the turnout back to very close to the frog and the points to fit into your track plan.  Cutting back turnouts will likely be essential if you use Peco or Atlas code 83 - the things come with quite long extensions.

Edited to add that I recommend powered frogs for small switching layouts.  The short trains, slow speeds, and smaller locomotives all benefit from not having to bridge dead frogs.

hope this helps - it looks like the beginning of a very exciting project

Fred W

[Anonymous]

 ... Did some investigation into the sizes of tugs and barges - guess what? They are much BIGGER than I thought. Either I just let the canal be a canal without anything floating on it or I have to negiotate some more inches with SWMBO.

I made a drawing - just in case 

 

[Anonymous]

 Wow,

I am overwhelmed by the comments on my now "nearly finished" design - lotsa food for thought, again.

Some additional remarks:

Era will be late 80´s or early 90´s - so structures will be a mix of old time brick buildings and these corrugated steel things you see nowadays. The types of industries are not yet fixed, so they might change. I know I have to do this before I start buying rolling stock...

The "Sentry Chair and Table Manuf. " will be in any case a 1-story building, so I can reach the turnouts, which will, offcause, be manually operated. While typing this, I think, I will change into a warehouse... 

Barge and tug need to be resized - I still have to make up my mind on what type and make I will use.

I am also insecure about the grain elevator. The sheer size of it (height) makes it an LDE of it´s own and adds "structure" to an otherwise fairly flat layout,  but I am not sure wheteher this is not a bit too much. Once I start building the layout I will make a mock-up of it to check.

To my knowledge, railroads tried to avoid single or double slip switches as much as possible, not only for reasons of cost. I may be wrong here, but the reason why I removed it was availability and look. Peco Code 83 track has no double slip available, yet, the code 75 material has "European" tie arrangement, ME has none available, only Atlas, which is hard to get where I live.

The decisions which track to use needs to be made as well - I might even start to handlay the track (providing that the tremor in my right hand is gone). Does anyone have experience with building Fast Track switches - it looks so easy in their videos.

You see, there is a lot to do before I can start to build. The next step is to print a 1:5 version of the track plan and build a cardboard mock-up.

 

 

[Annonymous]

selector

I am happy to see this resolved for Ulrich's sake.  I must admit, though...I am disappointed that the double-slip switch had to go.  For me, it would be an important part of any small layout.

 

I agree with you Crandell. I would rather see a single slip though, that would be a nice touch and something we don't see every day, I don't see the need for a double slip there.

Svein

 

[steinjr]

 

marcimmeker

Sir Madog

 ... you mean like this? 

Looks more elegant to me!

Like it!

Yes, that is almost exactly what I meant. If you are short half a carlength on the runaround you could push the right crossover even more to the right (around the 350 mark) and change the canalside righthand switch for a lefthand (mirroring the left crossover) and locate it at the curve to the canalside spur.

 Good idea. Also - I would double check the size of your barge - it might be the correct right size, but looks a little on the small side to me compared with the size of 40' boxcars.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[selector]

I am happy to see this resolved for Ulrich's sake.  I must admit, though...I am disappointed that the double-slip switch had to go.  For me, it would be an important part of any small layout.

-Crandell