The last few days, in another thread,some of you may have seen my whining about not being able to come up with a layout for my small space that I was happy with. A lot of the advice that followed boiled down to just start with a simple oval and just do something...anything...to break the analytical deadlock I'm in. Towards that end, I went back to the Xtrkcad drawing board and tried to follow the KISS principal but still get as many of my druthers as possible. KISS is probably a good rule for me now, seeing this will be my first actual layout.
Givens:
Druthers:
What I came up with is below....as suggested, a simple oval with a couple spurs and a run-around. Keeping the KISS principal in mind, I kind of like it...more so than a lot of the multitude of more complex follies I've come up with and dismissed. Also, it keeps the needed additional financial investmentnecessary to get something running to a minimum...a biggie right now, and likely in the forseeable future.
There is one big problem that has me worried...the Peco code 55 double slip switch with 2 legs on the main, colored red in the pic. Am I gonna regret it? Is there some less problematic solution that will fit in my little space but still give no backing into the main from staging?
Another question is, keeping KISS in mind, what can I do with that limited access empty corner in the upper left?
Any advice/criticism on my points in question...or any aspect of the plan...will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, everyone.
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..."
Partner, you could have built a layout in the amount of time in that post...
sounds like you know what you're doing, now unplug your monitor and get busy. I expect to see something on Sunday photos...
fifedog wrote: Partner, you could have built a layout in the amount of time in that post...sounds like you know what you're doing, now unplug your monitor and get busy. I expect to see something on Sunday photos...
LOL...Actually the biggest part of it...the givens and druthers were cut-n-pasted...this ole arthritic troll types no more than he has to...LOL
BTW...if I unplug the monitor...the big screen on split screen...I may get linched by the wrestling fans here before the first track gets laid
This does not fit your givens and druthers. It is not designed for Kato Unitrack, but for a 3 x 4' space in N, Midwestern plains protytype, and it would be best with access on the two long sides of the layout and one end.
Designed for two or possibly three trains...through freight, peddler freight and short passenger train. Same double ended track is scenically treated as one end of a passing track going under highway overpass on town side of layout, and as part of a small out-in-the-country yard on the other side.
Still may give you some ideas.
Is kato unitrack more a code 80 than 55 for n-scale though? (not sure myself). There are a couple other manufacturers that make it I've found, roco and fleischman make one, and if I recall piko does as well (funny you brought up, a n-scale doubleslip, I was about to make a post about this, http://reynaulds.com/s_results.asp?search=slip&submit=submit&curpage=2).
The only other option that comes to mind to replace the doubleslip would be two turnouts butted upto one another such that the spurs are part of the main line (hope I'm using my terminology right). I doubt this would be proper though and would require some rethinking on that section of the layout.
An interesting little layout. Apparently, like most of the small layout plans I've run across, to fit in that small of a space the curves are tight. I tried reproducing it in Xtrkcad with pseudo eased 15" minimum on the main loop, and I ended up with a 5x6 footprint. My 4 foot short dimension is already pushed 6" beyond what I'd ideally want for the space I have. Adding another foot on that is just too far beyond what I have to work with.
One thing that did really catch my eye was the truss bridge on a curve. Is there such a beast? with a 15" minimum Radius?
I am keeping a copy of the plan...If I have enough left over smaller radius Unitrack, I may take a shot at a variation of that on a 4x5 folding table on a cart that I have.
Jason-Train wrote: Is kato unitrack more a code 80 than 55 for n-scale though? (not sure myself). There are a couple other manufacturers that make it I've found, roco and fleischman make one, and if I recall piko does as well (funny you brought up, a n-scale doubleslip, I was about to make a post about this, http://reynaulds.com/s_results.asp?search=slip&submit=submit&curpage=2).The only other option that comes to mind to replace the doubleslip would be two turnouts butted upto one another such that the spurs are part of the main line (hope I'm using my terminology right). I doubt this would be proper though and would require some rethinking on that section of the layout.
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). I've been told that Peco 55 mates well with Unitrack 80. I'm also planning on using it for the spurs also.
I've tried pairs of points-to-points turnouts...even Peco's curved turnouts...and every attempt has blown out the dimensions I have to work with, or makes the staging pocket on the left too short to hold my Mini Chief consist...what I have in that plan is pretty much the minimum for them to fit.
selector wrote:I love double-slips, but I wouldn't use one out there. Why not just flip the yard and make its throat come off the other side of the oval...with appropriate changes elsewhere on that side of the layout...river course, etc?
Unless I misunderstand, you're basically talking mirror imaging the plan. Right? I do have access back there where I have it....just an inconvienant for me squeeze around the table. Am I missing anything in what you are proposing other than getting the slip more accessible?
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Zandoz wrote: selector wrote:I love double-slips, but I wouldn't use one out there. Why not just flip the yard and make its throat come off the other side of the oval...with appropriate changes elsewhere on that side of the layout...river course, etc?Unless I misunderstand, you're basically talking mirror imaging the plan. Right? I do have access back there where I have it....just an inconvienant for me squeeze around the table. Am I missing anything in what you are proposing other than getting the slip more accessible?
What I mean is mirror only the yard and its current throat to where the double slip is currently shown. That would obviate your double-slip (sob!) {never thought I would try to talk someone out of a double-slip!!!}. To access that blue trackage you have curving down at extreme left, since you are not mirroring the rest of the trackplan, simply use a #6 curved, although a W/S #7.5 should do there, too. Either way, you still keep your cool fantasy bridge at upper right.
[later] - Mouse's point is that all that is in blue at left seems to be a lead to your yard, but you have it kissing the main at the double-slip...if I understand his observation. It is not clear to me what that extreme descending blue track is coming off the double-slip, but if you do what I suggest, you eliminate that congested area. Simply use a curved turnout.
Would you describe to me what that extreme left hand track is all about?
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
http://reynaulds.com/s_results.asp?search=slip&submit=submit&curpage=2
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 just looked at the list of Xtrkcad parameter files and did not see one that seems to be Lional related.
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 double-slip - $35
4 curved - 4 X $29 = $116
6 Tortoise - 6 X 15 = $90
Total - $241, plus shipping.
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?
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.
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>
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 :)