+- (https://bigbluetrains.com)
+-- Forum: Branchline (https://bigbluetrains.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=45)
+--- Forum: Layouts (https://bigbluetrains.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=46)
+--- Thread: First HO Layout Critique (/showthread.php?tid=6593)
Pages:
1
2
Re: First HO Layout Critique - Brakie - 01-09-2014
GEC,Judging by the photo it looks like you got more filing to do..That inner rail looks like it higher then the outside rail.Seen that before and its a pain to fix.
BTW.I have built ISLs using nothing but snap switches and it works.
Re: First HO Layout Critique - sailormatlac - 01-09-2014
GEC: The 2-10-2 was a Bachmann QJ chinese locomotive (in fact, two of them coupled together), but they have a blind middle driver IIRC. I also tried a True Line U-2-g on our 18" returning loop... and it kind of worked, but it didn't like the small radius PECO turnout and #4 wye!!! Definitely not recommended!!! But I trust you with your impressive fleet of passenger rolling stock. You're really pushing it to the limit!
A few years ago, I thought I would never need large radius and higher # turnouts (4-axles diesel, small steamer, 40ft cars)... such wrong long term planning! My new standards are #8 and min. radius at 36" with #6 where needed (yard, some industries). Probably overkill, I know!
I agree, snap-switches are unreliable. Some will last, some not. We had to replace many of them over the time, the same problem as yours.
Matt
Re: First HO Layout Critique - lajry - 01-09-2014
little65
Overall you plan is a good one but 1iIt seems you plan has alot of mainline trackage. So spots for more industries & the yard tracks suffer. Are you planning to run two different RRs & both use the same yard? You could do just as well w/ only one mainline & the other RR using your RR's tracks w/ "trackage rights". Use the space saved for a larger yard that also has engine service, rip track/car shop & caboose/shoving platform spur depending on your era. Also if any sides of your layout are against walls put building flats against those for more switching. And you won't need a switch back if both tracks cross each other. Plus it will give you more room for industries on each spur.
Re: First HO Layout Critique - little65 - 01-10-2014
sailormatlac Wrote:IMPROVING A CODE 83 PECO TURNOUT:
About the Code 83 turnout: If you know the PECO Code 100 turnouts well, they have small bulges (or pins) on each side of the throwbar that help to operate them with your fingers. The Code 83 turnouts lack these pins making them hard and frustrating to operate (it was our main concern about them when we decided to redo the track). However, they have a hole on each side of the throwbar where code 100 have the pins. Two weeks ago, I found out I could glue small bits of styrene rod into these holes to replicate the pins of a Code 100 turnout. That way, you get the best of both worlds in term of look and operability. Wish I had pictures of that. Hope I'm clear enough! Looks better than a huge operating switchstand.
Matt, thank you for the quick tutorial! It does make sense, and that sounds like a good idea to modify any turnouts that can be worked that way.
Quote:Overall you plan is a good one but 1iIt seems you plan has alot of mainline trackage. So spots for more industries & the yard tracks suffer.
Andy, thank you for the compliment, critique, and ideas. I had considered doing some of the things you mentioned. I am one of the few people who enjoy just watching the trains run as well as operating. I find the sound of the wheels rolling along just as cathardic as music. So I had to sacrifice some of the original yard size and operating areas to have two trains that can always be going... It was a tough choice to be honest. But this layout is attached to the walls all the way around, so I may try to add some industries as you suggested. As for the car shop and shoving platform spur, I am looking to put that on the spur closest to the inside of the room at the top of the drawing.
Re: First HO Layout Critique - Green_Elite_Cab - 01-10-2014
Brakie Wrote:GEC,Judging by the photo it looks like you got more filing to do..That inner rail looks like it higher then the outside rail.Seen that before and its a pain to fix.
BTW.I have built ISLs using nothing but snap switches and it works.
Its an old photo from 2011, but you're probably right. I spent a lot of time adjusting that switch but its still not perfect.
It operates better than it did, but there are a few cars that refuse to run reliably through it. I suspect it may be an issue with the car more than the switch but i can't find anything wrong with the car.
sailormatlac Wrote:GEC: The 2-10-2 was a Bachmann QJ chinese locomotive (in fact, two of them coupled together), but they have a blind middle driver IIRC. I also tried a True Line U-2-g on our 18" returning loop... and it kind of worked, but it didn't like the small radius PECO turnout and #4 wye!!! Definitely not recommended!!! But I trust you with your impressive fleet of passenger rolling stock. You're really pushing it to the limit!
A few years ago, I thought I would never need large radius and higher # turnouts (4-axles diesel, small steamer, 40ft cars)... such wrong long term planning! My new standards are #8 and min. radius at 36" with #6 where needed (yard, some industries). Probably overkill, I know!
I agree, snap-switches are unreliable. Some will last, some not. We had to replace many of them over the time, the same problem as yours.
Matt
Matt, I'm definitely going to build to those standards when I get space for a larger layout! My Pennsy J1 also has a blind center driver, but the wheel base must be that much longer.
When it comes the passenger trains, the only things that seem to run well are some of my Silverliners, some of my Arrows, and my NJT (but not SEPTA) Comet II cars. I've gotten some of the Budd and Pullman cars to go around unreliably, and we're talking about 22" curves!
I have some GEM brass Silverliner IIs that can handle the 18" curves despite being 85' cars, and the smaller MUs (MP54s, Reading Green cars, etc) and make it around.
Re: First HO Layout Critique - kamerad47 - 01-10-2014
Have you tried the KD # 451 kit for the passenger cars ????? That's part of the reason why I got those Bachmann 89 ' multi deck cars they have a swing bracket connected to the couplers !! I 'll try to take some pic 's to show you. I run 22" curves no problem!!!!!
Re: First HO Layout Critique - Green_Elite_Cab - 01-12-2014
kamerad47 Wrote:Have you tried the KD # 451 kit for the passenger cars ????? That's part of the reason why I got those Bachmann 89 ' multi deck cars they have a swing bracket connected to the couplers !! I 'll try to take some pic 's to show you. I run 22" curves no problem!!!!!
Its not so much the couplers as it is the underbody detail interfering with truck swivel. On my NJ Transit Comet II cars, they also have the swinging couplers, but they are trouble, since occasionally, the plates that hold the couplers in loosen up too much.
Re: First HO Layout Critique - kamerad47 - 01-13-2014
Here is a couple of pic's of the swing couplers on the the Bachmann car !!! Have you tried the KD #451 ?????