squeaky Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I'm working on building another layout and will probably dismantle the current one and re-use the bits that I can. I like the look of this plan on the left, which I got from somewhere else on this forum, I think it was Rob who posted it, apologies for not crediting the correct person. I then flipped it so that it fits in my room in the space I have available. I have most of the track but I wanted to use a better looking Code 83 crossover, can anyone recommend one that looks similar to a Peco code 83 but is much shorter, I thought maybe a single slip would be good. On my last layout I used a Peco code 75 short crossing but it does have quite different sleeper spacing. The depot building is going to be a Walthers 933-2970 Railroad shop kit and I will re-use the ADM grain elevator for the flour mill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Scottish Modeller Posted April 23, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 23, 2012 Hi Squeeky, Ref to Peco Crossing... If it's just the sleeper spacings Cut the webs underneath and move or remove sleepers that way. If you want a shorter crossing - you can cut it back with care. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 To my untrained eyes, single slips and 3-ways don't look right on American layouts, I suppose I've not seen enough of them on prototypes to convince me they were a regular design feature. Interlaced spurs with an acute crossing were, which I see you've used- another option for disguising this could be to pave over that section of track as Chris has done on CTU Spur Alaska. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Atlas do a c83 45deg crossing that might work better than the Peco there - can't comment on looks tho. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
squeaky Posted April 25, 2012 Author Share Posted April 25, 2012 Phil, it's not just the sleeper spacing, I've had a look at the Code 75 crossing that I have on the current layout and the sleepers are also a different size. I'm currently watching an Atlas/Roco Code 83 single slip on the Bay, this may do the trick but I've never used Atlas track before so I don't know how DCC freindly it will be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 One word... Shinohara Available in code 70 and 80. Through retailers and eBay. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Scottish Modeller Posted April 26, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 26, 2012 Hi Ashley, Love the word... Problem is can only find Code 100 on eBay at present and the recent past. I'd like a mix of Code 70 and Code 100 - good old Mainline vs siding arguement! Thanks One word... Shinohara Available in code 70 and 80. Through retailers and eBay. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_long Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 Hi Ashley, Love the word... Problem is can only find Code 100 on eBay at present and the recent past. I'd like a mix of Code 70 and Code 100 - good old Mainline vs siding arguement! Thanks Phil Scalelink are the UK importers of Shinohara. see here code 70/83/100 (Only 83 is dcc ready) http://www.scalelink.co.uk/acatalog/index.html hth Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
squeaky Posted April 29, 2012 Author Share Posted April 29, 2012 Well i've gone an bought an Atlas/Roco single slip, not sure how DCC freindly it is going to be, I suspect not very much as it is quite old... Does anyone know?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
squeaky Posted May 8, 2012 Author Share Posted May 8, 2012 Here are a couple of pictures of the boards that I have built for this layout, i'm not sure about the curved area as the curves are going to be quite tight, the track setta in the picture is an 18 inch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northpoint Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 To my untrained eyes, single slips and 3-ways don't look right on American layouts, I suppose I've not seen enough of them on prototypes to convince me they were a regular design feature. I agree with you, Andy. Whilst single/double slips are good space savers, I do feel for prototypical accuracy they are not as widely used in the US (with the exception of major city passenger terminals) as they are here in Europe - take many French or German small station layouts and you can almost guarantee a double slip or two! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I think I have posted this in an earlier version of RMweb -Just to prove there are exception to the rule, put this into Google Maps or Bing maps Vine St, Columbia, SC 2920133.970699 -81.028679 where you will discover an industrial park runnuing north-east/south-west, with railserved buildings on each side of two spur tracks, all fed via 3-way switches that are partially inset in roadways! If you follow the tracks, from the tail that feeds these spurs, northwards, there is a very large plant on the west side of the tail and, if you follow the track through the right-angle, a yard. The spur tracks would make a perfect prototype for a double inglenook. The little streetview man in google give a ggod view of them Double-slips seem to be mainly used to access platforms at major passenger terminals as Nick says Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 .... Whilst single/double slips are good space savers, I do feel for prototypical accuracy they are not as widely used in the US (with the exception of major city passenger terminals) as they are here in Europe ... Never mind Slip Points - I've even seen layout trackplans in US magazines where they've labeled the curved switches (points) as they seem to be something out of the ordinary..??!!?? Are the majority of switches in the US what we would call 'straight'..? Thinking about it, in Lance Mindheim's books, I haven't seen any plans which use curved switches... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Terminus "throats" maybe. I have found that as soon as I say something doesn't exist over here then a picture of one pops up! It's a big old country... I have seen three way points around Ford's "Rouge" plant but cannot find the photos or remember if they were old or recent.. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Never mind Slip Points - I've even seen layout trackplans in US magazines where they've labeled the curved switches (points) as they seem to be something out of the ordinary..??!!?? Are the majority of switches in the US what we would call 'straight'..? Thinking about it, in Lance Mindheim's books, I haven't seen any plans which use curved switches... In a word, yes. The majority of US switches are straight. And there is a tangent through the points and frog. As with everything I'm sure people can come up with exceptions. But for every exception there are a couple thousand switches that are straight. The approach to the car barn on the Iowa Traction Railroad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 The approach to the car barn on the Iowa Traction Railroad. Small world, I was thinking of the very same location earlier- I'm not sure in this case but alot of other Interurbans reused trackwork from other locations, hence the peculiar arrangement. Here is another from my own prototype: I think in most cases you can go with the old modellers view that if it looks right, it'll do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
squeaky Posted May 16, 2012 Author Share Posted May 16, 2012 I'm not so sure about the single slip, it takes up more space than a code 75 crossing as you can see in the photo. I've also laid the curved track but I'm not sure if it looks ok or not, what do you think, the track nearest just looks to tight?? The switch on the nearest track is a Code 83 curved one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Squeaky - It looks bad because it is being exaggerated by the shallownes of the curved turnout it is running into - you really need something with a curve radius about that of a code 100 setrack one - but you are not going to get one of those in code 75! I think you are going to be stuck for a shorter slip too - you might end up having to build both yourself - or changing the track-plan. Sorry, me old! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
squeaky Posted May 16, 2012 Author Share Posted May 16, 2012 New track plan me thinks, back to the drawing board. Jack you are right about the curved switch it's just not very well curved!! I like the Peco code 83 track and i'd like a plan with a crossing in it, so maybe i need to incorporate a code 83 crossing but thats 12 inches long! Or maybe a 90 degree crossing. Jack you're good with US track plans, got any more? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Need to have a thunk - freight or passenger? Steam or diesel? Can you do a list of givens & druthers? ie "must haves" and "would likes" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
long island jack Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Squeaky Have a look at this. all track is code 83 except,code 75 short crossing,i've used Hornby r609 set- track curves to give you a idea of the radius, size is 96" x 48" x15" hope this will give you some help and ideas Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 In a word, yes. The majority of US switches are straight. And there is a tangent through the points and frog. As with everything I'm sure people can come up with exceptions. But for every exception there are a couple thousand switches that are straight. The approach to the car barn on the Iowa Traction Railroad. Here's some exceptions http://binged.it/MnLrB7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
squeaky Posted May 17, 2012 Author Share Posted May 17, 2012 Jack What I would like is Diesel, Modern ie 1995 onwards, it would be freight. I have a Walthers railroad shop 933-2970, I'd like to incorporate that, but an engine house of some description, 2 or 3 road. I would like a couple of industries, one of them would be related to corn delivery as I have a few hopper cars. I also have Walthers 933-2975 Corn Storage Silos & Elevators Kit and 933-2974 Corn Unloading & Storage Sheds Kit, I know the board isn't big enough to incorporate all of these as they are rather large, but I could use a cut down version of the Corn Unloading building. Ray Thanks for that plan, that is the sort of thing i'm interested in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
long island jack Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Squeaky If you modeling modern 1995-?, there will be a lot more 60ft+ freight cars,think you would be better with 22" radius as your minimum, big freight cars don't look right on 18" radius,plus you'll get a lot more reliable running. Just a thought Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 If you modeling modern 1995-?, there will be a lot more 60ft+ freight cars,think you would be better with 22" radius as your minimum, big freight cars don't look right on 18" radius,plus you'll get a lot more reliable running. Broadly true, but you can reduce that by picking industries carefully, industries based on corn syrup, cement and aggregates could see you getting away with using mostly 40'-ish cars to the present day for example. Most grain cars are in the 55' range though but corn often seems to move in larger 4 bay cars as well which are 60' and over...OTOH longer covered hoppers don't look/work quite so bad on sharp curves as they have no more end overhang than a shorter car - the ones where it starts getting mechanically difficult are things like longer boxcars, flats, reefers, centerbeams and so on which have a decent end overhang. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.