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: 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?
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?
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
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..."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.