Mike Kieran Wrote:And let's not forget my newest obsession, the Kendallville Terminal Railway. The caboose is on blocks in their yard.

SEE?! Unballasted track IS realistic! :-)

Koos

Justinmiller171 Wrote:Here is the design I have been toying with

I like the feel of it. I'd be tempted to make the transload track look like the old main, with a removed diamond at the bottom, and maybe even the decrepit remains of an interlocking tower.

odave Wrote:I like the feel of it. I'd be tempted to make the transload track look like the old main, with a removed diamond at the bottom, and maybe even the decrepit remains of an interlocking tower.

I plan on doing just that, I plan on modeling an abandoned interlocking tower with boarded up windows etc...

Not bad, a lot of space for scenery, trains won''t get cluttered into oblivion.

I just calculated the price of all the track I need for the layout, Comes out to $83.15+Shipping. I should be able to get the track fairly soon.

BTW, does anybody know what happened to Jack Hill? He hasn't posted anything on his blog since January, and since I am basing my layout off of his it would be nice to see some updates to his layout.

Justinmiller171 Wrote:BTW, does anybody know what happened to Jack Hill? He hasn't posted anything on his blog since January, and since I am basing my layout off of his it would be nice to see some updates to his layout.

Been wondering that myself, but can only assume that his railroad career is cutting in to his modeling and blog updating time. I do hope that everything is okay with Jack.

Good news! I almost have enough money to get all of the track I need, I expect to get it by the end of the month (probably sooner), I should be getting the foam shortly after.

FCIN Wrote:I do hope that everything is okay with Jack.

Yeah, he hasn't posted anything in half a year, he is either busy with work, got bored of the blog, or had been abducted by aliens :?

torikoos Wrote:

Mike Kieran Wrote:And let's not forget my newest obsession, the Kendallville Terminal Railway. The caboose is on blocks in their yard.

SEE?! Unballasted track IS realistic! :-)

Koos

I won't feel so bad about my track being 100% scenicked when I put it down.

Not sure when that photo was taken on the KTR, but in the last year or two, both tracks in to the Kraft plant were dug up and relaid. This may explain the lack of ballast on the "main" in the photo.

The caboose "office" is a nice feature of this little operation and would be an interesting subject for an ISL based on segment of track being operated as a short line, such as the KTR.

I actually starting modeling the KTR several years ago after visiting the line, but gave up on it as I at the time I couldn't get my hands on enough corn syrup tank cars and Airslide covered hoppers to be able to model the operations. Not only that, but just the single industry (not counting the now and then shipment of road salt) just didn't appeal very much to me. A condensed version of the KTR will fit nicely on an 18in X 16ft shelf layout.

Turns out that I will need more flex-track than I thought, I have also been thinking that since I want reliability over looks I have been considering getting Peco code 100 turnouts, this will be cheaper since I have plenty of code 100 flex-track, and it will be more reliable.

I could also just get Micro Engineering code 83 turnouts since I still have some atlas code 83 track, it mostly depends on which ones operate better.

Justinmiller171 Wrote:...I have been considering getting Peco code 100 turnouts

The code 100 is a good choice Justin. Not only cheaper in the long run, but the difference between code 100 and code 83 is minimal. Once you paint and ballast the track, it's hard to tell the difference. Of course the code 100 Atlas track is not as detailed as Micro-Engineering, but were I that concerned about the look of the track, then I'd be using code 70.

I stayed with code 100 as I had acquired several boxes of Atlas code 100 flex track and quite a few Peco turnouts over the past few years. I would recommend getting the Peco insul-frogs as you'll have a lot less wiring issues and they are very reliable. Also go with what Peco calls their large radius turnouts, although the medium radius turnouts are just great too and look fine.

Peco has made some changes to the design of their turnouts in so far as they no longer have that raised section where the built in spring is located and also I've noticed they no longer have the extra contacts on the point rails. But after using both the "revised" medium and large radius turnouts, I've had no issues with stalling. I especially like the fact that you don't need to use ground throws with the Peco turnouts and love the way they snap when you align them and how well they keep contact.

Hi Justin,

I would concur with Ed regarding Peco Code 100. I used this on my Palmetto Spur layout (see my CSX Palmetto Spur thread)

This track is more robust that Code 83 and when painted and weathered looks good. It is also very reliable, I simply rely on the

contacts and have had no problems.(most forums recommend wiring in polarity switches, but I'm afraid this is beyond me )

I used medium radius for Palmetto with live frogs. It's not too complicated, you have to use 2 insulating rail joiners at the frog vee.

However, as ED says, with modern locos fitted with pick-ups on all wheels, insulfrogs should be fine.


regards,

Mal

I have heard that Peco code 100 turnouts aren't NMRA compliant, Is there anything I need to do to make sure they run well?

The only thing I did to my Peco turnouts was lay them down, and let the trains ride through them. Not a SINGLE instance of them causing ANY sort of problem.
But then, I only have 40+ turnouts....If I were to have twice that, maybe one would give me trouble....

NMRA compliant..?? I would ask the NMRA to change their specs to fit the characteristics of Peco turnouts....