Before spending money, I need to determine cost effectiveness.
In 101 Track Plans, Plan 56, Dayton and Northern has a yard at Dayton. Question is, would it be worth going with the ladder track system of ME or staying with plan as is? Any significant gain in yard capacity as related to cost, etc?
Thanks.
That particular yard is laid out a bit unusually, like the feather on an arrow, so you wouldn’t get any benefit from most of the components of the ME system. The “Lead Ladder” 5c is especially compact, so that could be helpful in some spots elsewhere on the layout. But in general, most turnouts will work fine in that yard arrangement since you’ll need to space the yard tracks at least 2” track-center-to-track-center anyway. The ME system is intended for a more traditional yard ladder.
On the plus side, that is one of the more “buildable” designs in 101 Track Plans, with no unreasonable grades and less reliance on handlaid-to-fit turnouts. I’d increase the spacing on the outer curves to at least 2¼” rather than 2” to avoid side-swiping of longer equipment.
Edit: Oops, I typed too soon. Note that the spurs to Newcastle in the upper right (especially) and the coal yard at upper left would require handlaid-to-fit turnouts as drawn to fit into the circular curves. With a re-layout, you could use commercial curved turnouts there, but you’d need a little larger space or to reduce the curve radii of the end curves a bit to make the commercial parts fit.
Byron
For those who don’t have the book handy, here’s a thumbnail from the Trainplayer site.
The ME 5b is 2" shorter at the points end than the otherwise almost identical standard 5a.
The 5c is another 2" shorter at the heel end.
All of the 5b,c,d and e turnouts use slightly curved diverging tracks.
A four track ME ladder yard is just under 42" long from the points end of the 5b to the points end of an end 5bl My current design has a head track at each side of the yard so is a mirror image.
Two 5b LH, and one each of the 5c,d and e RH. Gives you three dead end sidings and two parallel “main lines”. 42" long from each entry turnout, each of which is a double ended siding with eventually a connection or two to parallel mainlines which are to run along each side of the yard. The double ended sidings will then double as passing sidings if not occupied by sorting cars for trains.
According to the MicroEngineering documents and visual appearance, I believe that only the 5b has a truly curved diverging leg.
When considering the specific yard layout that the Original Poster is asking about, none of the MicroEngineering Ladder System features add value.
Well, I’m actually looking at them. They’re curved diverging routes.
You assemble them and it’s pretty plain. Until you assemble them, or use the templates, you might think that the 5c is “more compact” but it isn’t actually because it only works when attached to a 5d or 5e. What ME did was design a compact ladder yard, using curves in the diverging routes (as Peco does) and very short points entry straights. Then they they placed the cuts to separate the units in unconventional places. I think ME did the maths and decided their system worked better than the competing alternatives. My initial impression is that ME is correct.
We also built a ladder yard with slightly unconventional alignment and very tight straight track centres using Peco #5 turnouts. They produce a fairly compact ladder also but measuring that would not help the OP because we put odd curves in to squeeze the track centres on the long straights down to 1.5" in places, no room for finger switching. We also did the same at the siding exits to allow the switcher or road locomotive to escape from its train and either switch a different siding or trundle off to the engine yard. Our sidings are about 12’ long as a result. We have four of those sidings in 8" of table width, approximately. In the other 16" of the 24" plywood width we have three main lines, one of which is complete with two passing sidings, one on each side, and the engine yard access track which can store six locomotives in three electrically isolated blocks waiting for their turn at the turntable (
I believe that 5c turnouts work fine by themselves. As do the 5a and 5b. The other two have the extraneous bit of track attached.
Exactly. And for the specific yard on the OP’s desired track plan, they don’t help.
The 5c only works in the chain with the 5d or the 5e. It is useless as an ordinary turnout. It has no inside rails leading out from the heel of the frog.
You have to begin the actual ladder chain with at least a 5c. Usually attached to a 5b but a 5a works also.
Then using as many 5d as you wish to extend the chain until you have enough sidings and then you need a 5e to end the chain. You have to end the chain with a 5e.
The 5b is almost identical to a 5a and can be used as an ordinary turnout.
You can turn a 5b into a 5c if you need to.
Not following your “exactly” remark. If the OP hasn’t bought any turnouts then the decision on the plan has also not been made so who knows? Maybe the ME ladder will work.
Assuming I correctly understand what “feather” means (and now I notice the diagram I am sure I do) the same space saving is available using the ME ladder track. It matters not which way you orient the turnouts you save a bit of space. The same amount of space, it’s just geometry.
Since the yard tracks must be 2" apart anyway, the space-saving features of the ME Ladder System don’t come into play. PECO Code 83 #5s (as well as Code 75/100 Mediums) work exactly the same in this specific instance. Even notoriously space-inefficient Walthers C83 #5s work the same with a slight trim at the points end – same for the Atlas “#4” (actually a #4½ frog).
I’m unsure why this “dog with a bone” intransigence is interfering with the accuracy of this information. Bear in mind I have the ACTUAL ME ladder track yard set up on 18"x 96" of foam laid out on my basement floor, all connected, with two heavyweight passenger cars, Walthers mainline 24" radius minimum required. I am old but I am neither blind nor particularly stupid. I can, and just have, compared the ACTUAL geometry of the ME ladder track turnouts to their standard 5a. For greater certainty, I ACTUALLY overlaid the one onto the other. Guess what? I am absolutely, incontrovertibly right. You may reliably infer that you are wrong. Completely wrong.
I am certain the ME 5a and 5b use different diverging route geometry. The 5c,d and e are identical diverging route geometry to the 5b. That’s where the 3/16" tighter siding spacing comes from. ME ladder track does not give you 2" track centres, they are 1 13/16" not 2". It is claimed you can achieve up to 30% more yard capacity using ME ladder track, presumably over using straight diverging route #5 turnouts.
I’m pretty sure Peco Code 83 cannot work “exactly the same” as ME ladder track. Peco Code 83 uses straight frogs and diverging routes. ME use straight frogs and curved diverging routes. The difference is in the angle of the line of turnouts relative to the sidings. Again, I refer you to the geometry.
Atlas snap track turnouts and Peco Code 100 would give you similar effects to ME for the same reason, curved diverging routes.
Using straight frog, straight diverging route turnouts will use more space.
The space saving isn’t much either way but it’s there and it matters not which way you orient the yard tracks relative to the mainline turnout.
This is what ME claims and surely you realize that somebody would have proved them wrong about their claims long before now, if they were to be.
There’s a reason I keep talking about the specific unusual arrangement of the yard in this track plan versus the typical yard ladder you are describing in (seemingly) endless repetition. If/when you understand that, you’ll comprehend what I am saying.
Original Poster, contact me by private message or through my website if you need additional information.
This seems to be very important you and some others here.
Maybe your above assertion should be put on your grave stone it is so important to you to be “right”.
This reminds me my late uncle Mac used to have big fishing boat with a framed plaque with the follow statement:
“I once thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken”
Anyway, say your piece and be done. No need to make claims about correctness like a narssicist. There are plenty here who have their own opinions and will decide for themselves and defensive statement will make little difference. Common sense.
Byron, I don’t think the link took me to the correct page.
Or just get it tattooed on a very conspicuous body area, the forehead or chin will do. If it is added it to the forum signature line there is no need to keep typing it over and over.
-Kevin
I somehow managed to stumble on what I think Byroin meant to post. Then I lost it. Now I found it again:
http://www.trainplayer.com/Site3/FeaturePages/101_gallery.html
It was this, or a similar looking one, I wanted to build back in the day. If I had my copy of the book handy I’d know for sure which one. I was still in the phase where any layout had to be a big oval, the concept of switching hadn’t caught on with me yet. I was still used to the 4x8 + a little extra we set up for the holidays, though this was after my Dad passed away and I was tryuing to do it myself. If not this plan, then it was another, that was 6x10, as this was what I measured to be the biggest island type layout I could fit in my toom with access on all 4 sides (I WAS thinking about how I would get to the side along the wall, at least). My Mom nixed the idea though, not sure why - after the dormer was added on the back of the house, my room was HUGE and putting up a 6x10 layout wouldn’t have impacted room for my bed, desk, dresser, etc. in the least. I ended up settling for a 4x8 and made up my own plan instead of using one from 101 Track Plans. I probably wouldn;t have been able to pull off my idea for the 6x10 - which had 2 concentric ovals. At one end, I was going to have the two tracks at different elevations, with two mountins in each corner and a river pass between them. One line would be in a tunnel the whole length, the other would have had 2 short tunnels and a bridge spanning the deep river gorge between them. Not sure I can pull off such scenery today, 45 years later.
–Randy
Without trying to sort out the conversation above…
And without an analysis of the track plan in question, a few facts about the geometry of the ME ladder track system.
All the frog angles are #5, 11.421 degrees. The frog is a straight frog.
BUT, the diverging routes of the “b” and “e”, and the prior turnout diverging route extension on the “e” and “d” are curved AFTER the frog for a total diverging angle of 16.2 degrees.
The special turnouts allow the turnouts to have the points very close to the previous frog, keeping the 2-1/16" spacing of the resulting diverging tracks.
Many prototype yards are actually built this way. It is easy to hand lay model yard with this kind of geometry. It is not easy to do with standard mass produced turnouts because it is hard to trim them that close to the points and frog, that is why ME developed this system.
The closure rail radius is slightly less than NMRA Recommended Practice, which sugests that the overall length from points to frog has been compressed ever so slightly as well to squeeze them into this geometry.
This is still a much better turnout geometry than the Atlas 22" radius snap switch or the PECO code 100 streamline small turnout.
I repeat, the actual frog area of the ME ladder system is straight. They are straight frogs with all the curving happening before and after the frog for a total diverging angle of 16.2 degrees. That is different from a continious curve turnout.
If you stack up ME #5d turnouts, you will get a diverging route spacing of 2-1/16", the #5e is intended to be the end of that chain.
If you stack up #5c turnouts, the diverging routes will be closer, not the planned use. The #5c is intended to only be used as the second turnout in the ladder on the end of a #5b that starts the ladder.
There are those who will say curved frog turnouts work just fine, I will not contest that view.
I prefer
Sighs wearily.
It is if no importance to me what anyone thinks about whether I am correct or not.
I am.
Thanks anyway.
We now have two posts saying the same thing about the ME ladder track system.
They are a proper #5 frog with curved diverging rails. That’s how they reduce the required space.
Use of curved diverging track turnouts will always shorten the space required to create the pair of routes no matter what the layout does.
Specifically, using the ME ladder track to build the Plan 56 with the so called “feather” pattern yard will save the same space as building it with the supposedly “normal” yard orientation. The only difference is the orientation of the initial turnout to the yard. Net result will be longer sidings by the amount of space saved using the shorter ladder system turnouts.
That’s the geometry.
The ME yard ladder saves space increasing the angle of the ladder relative to the body tracks.
Examples:
Atlas #4 (#4.5) - 12.5 degrees
ME, Walthers or PECO 83 #5 - 11 degrees
Atlas/Walthers/PECO 83 #6 - 9.5 degrees
ME #5 ladder system - 16.2 degrees
So this allows a #5 ladder that is shorter in length when measured parallel to the body tracks.
If the ladder is parallel to the mainline and the body tracks all shoot of at the frog angle, the ME system will make them shoot off more dramaticly, which may require more space (more width parallel to the main) to get the same lenght yard tracks.
Given a long enough ladder, even in that situation, the ME system would eventually save enough length for an additional body track, assuming that body track had room to extend out.
The ME system would change the proportions of the yard, which may or may not add capacity depending on the shape of the space. It is possible that the result might be more tracks, but shorter tracks.
Sheldon
There is a ‘trick’ which is in Track Planning for Realistic Operation and possibly repeated in one of the yard design books, possibly Andy Sperandeo’s, of using #6 turnouts on a steeper #5 angle to get more yard int he same space while using the larger turnouts.
My yard will have a mix - I’m not sure what’s objectionable about a #5 in 1950’s era yard, other than Atlas doesn;t make any [:D] . Everything in the freight yard that’s appropriate will easily run reliably over a #5, given that the same equipment has run reliably over the Atlas 4 1/2. The A/D tracks and turnouts intot he loco service area will be #6 to handle the larger locos, but I will not be using a 4-8-4 as a yard switcher where it would have to negotiate a #5.
Right or wrong on the gepmetry of the ME ladder system, this thread was about the application in a specific plan, a plan dating from the days where the plans were drawn with no regard for a specific track brand or geometry, because it was expected that the track would be handlaid to fit. As such, any perceived benefit of the ME system is not going to apply without a redesign of the plan. You can’t just drop Atlas, or Peco 83 numbered or Peco 100 small, medium, or large turnouts in there, either.
–Randy
In my particular case, I want the flexibility of using any open track as an arrival or departure track.
My yard ladders will be pinwheel compound ladders which done correctly are compact even with #6’s.
Several locos in the existing fleet have shown to be unreliable on #4.5 or #5 turnouts. My large fleet of Spectrum USRA heavy Mountains in particular. Others simply don’t look
First, the turnouts in this yard as it appears in “101 Track Plans” are #6’s not #5’s.
Using standard #5’s will result in a sharper angle of the yard tracks towards the open center and roundhouse. This will result in some if not all the yard tracks being shorter. Using the ME ladder system, the angle will be even sharper resulting in all the yard tracks being even shorter.
I strongly recommend using #6’s. In the event you wish to try the ME ladder track system, you will need (left to right) one #5c, two #5d, and one #5e. Because of the unusual orientation of the yard ladder you will not need a #5b. Note that #5a is not part of the ladder system, it is a standard #5.
As the above discussion has shown, it is very difficult to describe the system with words alone. Even ME’s documentation could use diagrams and more explanation.
The benefit of the system (for a normal yard) is directly dependent on the number of yard tracks. The first track in the yard (closest to the mainline/drill track) has the least benefit, each subsequent track has a greater benefit and the last track has the most benefit. All of the benefit is in the ladder part of the yard, length of the yard beyond the ladder area makes no difference in the amount of benefit.
ME claims “up to a 30% increase in usable yard area for a given layout space”. But they provide no particulars in how they arrived at this figure.
Because their system uses a slighted wider track spacing then the minimu