Author Topic: atlas code 55 questions  (Read 1393 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

JDouglasFisher

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • Respect: 0
atlas code 55 questions
« on: October 04, 2008, 03:11:44 AM »
0
Folks,

have some simple questions for you...

1.) 10" radius curved sections. Does 4 axle equipment travel this sharp radi easily, or is it a bit too tight?

2.) #5 switches (turnouts). How much can you trim these down? I looked at an image of one in the package and it seems I can take about 1" off the bottom near the points. Not much at the frog end though.

thanks,

Joe.

(remember, I'm used to HO scale, so this is a new adventure for me..)

pedro

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 310
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +45
Re: atlas code 55 questions
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2008, 11:25:50 AM »
0
Hi Joe.

4-axle engines in a 10" radius will function, but won't look as good as a larger radius. Go bigger if you can.

Yes, you can trim the #5 switches right up to within a few ties of the points. You can also curve that long approach if needed by carefully cutting away the plastic between the ties on one side and bending it like flex track.

Pete D.


JDouglasFisher

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • Respect: 0
Re: atlas code 55 questions
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2008, 11:41:21 AM »
0
Curving the switch..

Really?

I used to "tweak" my ho scale switches at times, but I though that N scale was a little fragile.. That really works in that scale too without danger to messing with the points?


I was also thinking straight from the tangent, 15" radi leading into a 12.5" radi. I really like easements into curves myself.

Joe.

davefoxx

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 8505
  • Gender: Male
  • "I like trains!"
  • Respect: +1899
Re: atlas code 55 questions
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2008, 12:22:17 PM »
0
Curving the switch..

Really?

I used to "tweak" my ho scale switches at times, but I though that N scale was a little fragile.. That really works in that scale too without danger to messing with the points?


I was also thinking straight from the tangent, 15" radi leading into a 12.5" radi. I really like easements into curves myself.

Joe.

Nope, they're actually rugged enough that I don't hesitate to "rough 'em up a bit" when circumstances dictate such.

For example, if you look close, you can see where I altered the curved side of a wye to better fit the radius of the curve when I cut this switch in.



And here's the fully installed wye (at right center) and you can see the curve of the mainline flows right through the wye now:


Also, with regard to cutting the tail off of the #5 switches, as stated in a previous post by Pete D., you can cut that down to one or two ties, but, be forewarned, you must keep those one or two ties to keep the track in gauge between the points and the piece of track that joins to the switch.  I made that mistake once. . . once.

Hope this helps,
Dave Foxx

General Counsel to the Laurel Valley Ry.
Member: ACL/SAL Historical Society
A Proud HOer

wm3798

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 13207
  • Gender: Male
  • I like models. She likes antiques. Perfect!
  • Respect: +1408
    • Western Maryland Railway Western Lines
Re: atlas code 55 questions
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2008, 12:35:42 PM »
0
If you're trimming the point end of the switch for a ladder situation, I recommend powering the frogs.  When you tighten them up, you end up with spacing where both trucks end up on either a point rail and a frog, or two frogs.  If they're not live, you'll end up stalling with some locomotives.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets

Lee Weldon www.wmrywesternlines.net

davefoxx

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 8505
  • Gender: Male
  • "I like trains!"
  • Respect: +1899
Re: atlas code 55 questions
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2008, 02:20:35 PM »
0
Oh so true, Lee.  In fact, it seems that four-axle locomotives seem to land right on the frog and the points of the same #5 switch, which is what led me to power the frogs of all of the switches on my layout.

Dave

General Counsel to the Laurel Valley Ry.
Member: ACL/SAL Historical Society
A Proud HOer

JDouglasFisher

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • Respect: 0
Re: atlas code 55 questions
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2008, 11:55:07 PM »
0
Heres an Idea I have been working on..

One involves modeling the east end of the Maine Central between Mattawamkeag and Vanceboro.

In the late 50's up to 1960'ish this was a unique piece of railroad being owned by the MEC with trackage rights granted to Canadian Pacific.

Besides colorful diesels, Steam still occasioned the rails going back and forth between Montreal and New Brunswick, Canada, so it could be a lot of fun to model.

Looking at val maps and track charts however, there isn't much to choose from, most is just passing sidings.

So I picked two intermediate spots inbetween that I felt could be somewhat represented in N scale on a door, only I ran into a problem.

Looking at the image below, you'll see what I mean. The red line indicates trackage that I need in order to complete Kingman, but Atlas RTS won't let me do it reasonably..

Its a 36 x 80 inch door, just for reference, #5 turnouts throughout, and 10" radius curves.

Perhaps I need a bigger space?

Just some thoughts.


Besides, I'm also working on a design for a shelf layout that focuses on Lewiston Lower, in the Lewiston vicinity.

But for continuous run with some minor switching, and great picture taking opportunity, this was 'keag - Vancoboro segment was what caught my eye.






Just some Post Script Notes.

If you run the layout from Kingman ME, counter clockwise to Wytipolock, ME, its actually correct according to the maps, all sidings and runarounds face the proper way.

Wytipolock I believe was a pulpwood loadout (I'm waiting on confirmation)

Kingman had a team track for public delivery and a spur, plus 2 runarounds and a station.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2008, 12:05:59 AM by JDouglasFisher »