MikeHohn Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 As a friend of mine would say, the new arrangement "looks more railroady." 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted June 26, 2014 Author Share Posted June 26, 2014 I like the simple bit at the bottom of the plan! You could cut back even more, and go for an empty McNab... Good catch, Simon. I actually have that stashed away in my folder of 'influences'! The best bit about cutting back the overly complex yard is that I now have a bunch of turnouts spare that I can use to complete the rest of the layout - I only need to buy some more plain track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted June 29, 2014 Author Share Posted June 29, 2014 Once I had rearranged the yard, I had fun painting the tracks, weathering and decalling some freight cars and generally fiddling about. I'm still not completely satisfied with the yard tracks.... bit more tinkering I think. I need some more plain track to finish up the other side of the shed, then it's on to building industries! One thing is for sure, I don't need any more locomotives.... I have far too many, and not many of them suited to yard service. I have no idea how that happened! 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Once I had rearranged the yard, I had fun painting the tracks, weathering and decalling some freight cars and generally fiddling about. I'm still not completely satisfied with the yard tracks.... bit more tinkering I think. yard 08.jpg Does the tilted car sitting on the frog have code 88 wheels? Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted June 30, 2014 Author Share Posted June 30, 2014 I don't think so. It's a second hand P2K 4427 PS-2CD running on whatever it shipped with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gary H Posted June 30, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) In those last few pictures, are those switches number 8's? Its just an idol thought I had but would you save any space and get a little more siding length by using number 6's? It may make no real difference but as I say, it was just a thought. I reckon using number 6's on each end of that loop would get you another 40 foot car. Edited June 30, 2014 by Gary H Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted June 30, 2014 Author Share Posted June 30, 2014 They are #8s. I have a couple of tweaks in mind, but it will all have to wait for a couple of weeks. I have some #6s in a box somewhere in the shed.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gary H Posted June 30, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 30, 2014 Simon Dunkley, on 30 Jun 2014 - 18:29, said: Please remain with number 8s. They look superb, and are worth losing a little bit of siding length over. Leave the #6s in the shed, where possible... In the name of aesthetics, you are right but #6's don't look to offensive in my eye's. Certainly not as nasty as a "small radius" Peco settrack effort. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) One way of understanding and comparing the aesthetics of the #6 vs #8 is to run a pair of coupled longer passenger cars with diaphragms over a #6 crossover and then a #8 crossover. Andy Edited June 30, 2014 by Andy Reichert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) I don't think so. It's a second hand P2K 4427 PS-2CD running on whatever it shipped with. You might want to check and fix what is causing the tilt. The aesthetics of even a slow moving train of cars doing that in sequence isn't usually appealing. Andy Edited June 30, 2014 by Andy Reichert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gary H Posted June 30, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 30, 2014 Andy Reichert, on 30 Jun 2014 - 19:22, said: One way of understanding and comparing the aesthetics of the #6 vs #8 is to run a pair of coupled longer passenger cars with diaphragms over a #6 crossover and then a #8 crossover. Andy Well yeah, if your going to start on 80 foot passenger cars then the choice is obvious but on a predominantly freight RR with 40 and 50 foot freight cars then a #6 is quite acceptable! Anyway, moving on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Well yeah, if your going to start on 80 foot passenger cars then the choice is obvious but on a predominantly freight RR with 40 and 50 foot freight cars then a #6 is quite acceptable! Anyway, moving on. I didn't know we were talking about historical model railroads. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gary H Posted June 30, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 30, 2014 Andy Reichert, on 30 Jun 2014 - 20:02, said: I didn't know we were talking about historical model railroads. Andy I thought it was a tourist railroad! Taxi! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeHohn Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I am thinking now about how you are going to operate on your layout. I assume you will have a track dedicated to interchange with the outside world. Perhaps the one that runs under the overpass? For some reason--maybe the 'locomotive service' arrow that points to nothing on the new plan--I am reminded of a short line in the northeast that stores its locomotive in a a building on one of its customer's property. Meanwhile, the number 8s look great. Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 You might want to check and fix what is causing the tilt. The aesthetics of even a slow moving train of cars doing that in sequence isn't usually appealing. Andy It isn't...??!!?? Some of us live for that rock'n'roll effect..!!! In fact I'm not even sure which "tilted" car you're on about. If it's the pic I think it is, then it looks to me like the whole car is just riding a bit higher than the identical one in front of it, & enlarging the photo suggests to me that the truck isn't actually on the frog. ...but I could be wrong of course... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) It's foreshortened - it's a telephoto shot from standing outside the shed! The turnout that feeds the yard tracks sits on the centre line of the shed, giving a lead slightly longer than the longest yard track so I can pull a whole cut of cars. Currently I have rearranged the tracks to this arrangement... shed01g.jpg Almost a full Mindheim! Looking at your trackplan, I was trying to think what it reminded me of (probably because it runs around your shed!) I have finally remembered - it is one of my favorites https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGBhD4hF9ymfhQEwXeE5NWA/videos Edited July 1, 2014 by shortliner Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 Jack, you are a very perceptive fellow. One of my favourites too! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 You might want to check and fix what is causing the tilt. The aesthetics of even a slow moving train of cars doing that in sequence isn't usually appealing. Andy You should watch a GO commuter train coming into Toronto some day - 3-4' of displacement at the top of the car and the whole train does it in sequence over some of the track sections. Adrian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 It isn't...??!!?? Some of us live for that rock'n'roll effect..!!! In fact I'm not even sure which "tilted" car you're on about. If it's the pic I think it is, then it looks to me like the whole car is just riding a bit higher than the identical one in front of it, & enlarging the photo suggests to me that the truck isn't actually on the frog. ...but I could be wrong of course... I like "swayin' to the music" myself. But it's usually better if it's deliberate, planned and controlled slowly in a model, and not just an unintended and not understood random derailment zone. For commercial RTR track placed on a new flat surface, that's not a good sign that everything is OK. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 No wobbles, no derailments, no bumping over frogs. For some reason the two P2K hoppers 'sit' slightly differently. I'll investigate later, no time at the moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alastairb Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 No wobbles, no derailments, no bumping over frogs. For some reason the two P2K hoppers 'sit' slightly differently. I'll investigate later, no time at the moment. Perhaps one of the freight cars has a loose truck screw, causing the body to "flop" slightly to one side, and there's nothing wrong with the track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 That might be the case. Normally I have one truck screwed quite tight, so it will swivel but not rock, and the other a touch looser so it will rock slightly. I've also weighted all my cars to 170g and cut the tails off the KDs. Any car that still has tails clearly hasn't been through the shops Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold roundhouse Posted July 1, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 1, 2014 Just had to do that with one of my boxcars as it wobbled a bit when switching on the layout this evening. Alls fine now with it. Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gary H Posted July 2, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 2, 2014 Dr Gerbil-Fritters, on 01 Jul 2014 - 23:37, said: That might be the case. Normally I have one truck screwed quite tight, so it will swivel but not rock, and the other a touch looser so it will rock slightly. I've also weighted all my cars to 170g and cut the tails off the KDs. Any car that still has tails clearly hasn't been through the shops Talking of couplers, has anyone used Sergent's or those 'magnalock' brake lines?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted July 13, 2014 Author Share Posted July 13, 2014 A big day in the ongoing saga of my little pike. I cobbled together a couple of wires to my ancient (40 years old!) H&M Duette, and turned the rotary knob for the first time in over a decade.... of course it worked, built to last those things! Oddly enough, the honour of first locomotive to move on my little slice of south-western USA was QJ6266. I figured a 2-10-2 should sort out any knots in the track work. To my surprise, everything worked first time, despite my plastering the rails with weathering. Next trains were worked by GP38-2 #3520, very impressive fly wheel enhanced performance, and SY0540 and JS8057. I've simplified the yard still further. I may be on the verge of dispensing with a runround entirely! It was great to finally see stuff actually moving. I had a blast just blocking cars for thirty minutes... Looking forward to moving on from the yard over the next couple of weeks when my track arrives. 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now