I am not sure if anyone on this forum has build this layout before or knows anything about it. The bill of materials calls for:
2 sets
23-015
15mm - 50mm (1/2" - 2") Single Track Incline Pier Set
2 sets
23-017
50mm (2") Single Track Pier Set
Does anyone know which set is used for the viaduct sets and which one(s) are used to incline from the ground level track to the viaduct level? I have never used viaduct track before and have no clue how I am going to do this. I guess one set (dont know which of the above) is going to be used to get the track up to the bridge…
Whole thing looks simple enough. You’ll use the incline sets to raise and lower the track, and the other sets will support the viaducts. You didn’t say, but I’m guessing this is N scale. I haven’t built this design, nor have I worked with Unitrack, but judging by the quality of the Kato products I have worked with, the whole thing should go together pretty easily.
If all else fails, read and follow the instructions. If there are no instructions, follow the blueprint… er, uh, trackplan.
I suspect 23-015 is the incline set leading up to and down and away from 23-017. and I also suspect that the numbers in the black squares in the track plan, NOT the part numbers, are somehow coded to the pier sets. That looks like a nifty layout, which could be adaptd to make a nice single track mainline with some additional sidings and maybe another yard.
You could substitute the curve entering the yard with another #6 RH turnout, then branch off that. I see potential for 3-4 more yard tracks if you need/want them. They could also branch off to an engine servicing facility or shop.
My layout planning skills are rather limited. But, there are any number of other people on this board that would probably be a wealth of information along these lines. My guess is that a single track up and over the overpass is where I would start.
It appears to me that the 23-015 (the first one on the list) is the incline set. This layout is obviously all done with Kato’s modular track, with the ballast base. Keep in mind, your scenery has to give these tressle piers a “purpose”. In other words, there should be some contour in the scenery (canyon, large gulley or a body of water) over which the tracks have to traverse. So, too, the inclined set should be going up and/or down the hill or mountain on your layout. All of these scenic features are what make this “stage” on which your trains run an interesting one.
Another tip: this layout could likely be done more cheaply using either code 100 or code 83 flex track and commercially made turnouts. If you are a beginner, however, you may want to stick with the plan as shown, just to get your feet wet in the hobby. You’ll have enough to do, just planning and building scenery, structures and other details.
I also presumed it to be N scale. I do believe, however, it would be cheaper using flextrack and Atlas components than it would Kato. Although, Kato is probably better quality.
I see no reason it couldn’t be built in HO scale, though it would have to be tweaked a bit to make it work.
It would be cheaper, but, while I have no experience with KATO unitrack, everything I have read in terms of testimonials suggests that it is at the cadillac level.
I have spent over 1K on track for this layout from KATO. However, I feel it will be for the best since working with PECO flex track (which I did for my 4x4 starter layout) required a lot of work. I will eventually go to flex track in my third layout (Amen) but for now I wanted to eliminate any issues with track laying.
One thing I can say from experience is that the ATLAS turnouts are the worse piece of track I have ever seen. I have 4 in my 4x4 layout and have replaced each of them atleast once… some… more than twice and they STILL dont work. I even tried them without nailing them to the layout but here are the issues:
the gap between the rails is so narrow that my loco’s/cars end up derailing. I have to manually use a screwdriver to increase the gap.
the electronic switching mechanism is a hit and miss. works less than 50% of the time.
Note: the above observations are on brand new turnouts, straight from the box, without any nailing down (that could cause damage by my own hands etc.)
I dont know what other peoples experience has been with ATLAS turnouts but I will never ever use them again.
Ok, so I started building my table for the layout (Yes its N-Scale…sorry for not specifying earlier) and now it is 12 x 6 as opposed to the original 9 x 6. so that gives me an extra 3 feet to do some… hmm… yard work? anyone have any ideas around that? I was planning to extend it out from the LEFT side to make another Yard.
I suspect you could work up a great yard in N scale on the left with an arrival and departure track and all sorts of car storage, but you might have to move that crossover as a result.
My recommended reading is The 10 Commandments of Yard Design at http://www.housatonicrr.com/yard_des.html. Although I don’t agree that all the items listed are mandatory in a model yard, it is a great overview of how a yard is designed to provide efficient throughput of trains. And, after reading and digesting, you can decide which elements you can tolerate not having or not fully implementing with sound reasoning and understanding the impact on your operation.
The first thing I’d do with your extra space is expand all the curves up one Unitrack radius. As is, the majority of the curves are 11"r on the inside track and 12-3/8"r on the outside of the curves…that 11"r will really cut into what you can run, especially in the viaduct sections. Also, where the curved viaduct sections connect to the bridge, you want those curves a broad as possible. You can, go with the 12-3/8"r on the inside and the 13-3/4" on the outside for most of the curves without seriously messing with the plan allignment.
Since you have the added length, I’d expand the squarish section of the plan (the left loop) in both directions, and move that double crossover down to the front stretch, with at least a 7-5/16" straight on either side of it. As drawn, the plan has some potentially problematic double S curve situations with the double crossover immediatly coming out of a curve. This also give a bit more room for longer yard tracks in the interior of the loop.
See below for an example of the plan modified as noted, with additional yard and siding possibilities.
Edited to add: Also the expanded curves, expanded squarish loop section, and pushing the start of your incline back to the top of the squarish loop will decrease your grade from over 3% to very slightly more than 2%…a big improvement.
Wow. I dont know what to say. This is so very nice of you. I really really love what you have done and will go this route. What I like most about it is the extra yard space. That is exactly what I wanted.
Well thank you very much for taking the time to do this for me. it is MUCH appreciated
I played with the plan a bit more, and moved the start of the incline from the right side of the squarish loop, to the top “back stretch” of the squarish loop. This change decreases the grade from +3% to very slightly over 2%. That will be a big plus.
Do you have, or can you get XtrkCad? If so, I can send you the .xtc file whick will make it a lot easier to figure out the changes I made and the track pieces you will need.
Also, if it were me, and I did not already have the viaduct track, I would replace a lot of that viaduct track with less expensive regular track put on Woodland Scenics Inclines and risers. Less expensive overall, a more consistant grade, and possibly more scenic options.
Let me know if there are any changes you would like me to attempt…I love to play with XtrkCad, and I have a lot of time to fill…LOL
