Kato Unitrack VS Handlayed CD40

[davidmbedard]

Goodbye must not be goodbye anymore.  Oh well.  I've seen David M. Bedard's work before both on A-Board and trains.com...  Clearly an asset to the 'Wire.  Thanks, David, for reminding us why we come here: to be challenged.

You remember my work?  Coming from you, that makes my day.

I have been playing in HO for many years but have recently returned to N scale.

There are 4 things in N scale I wanted to address in my modeling.

1.  Wheel tread width.....fixed with Fox Valley wheel-sets.  Makes your turnout dimensions to be more honest.
2.  Coupler size (some Z scale possibilities but still have to rely on MTs for now)
3.  The scale of the track.  I have had much success in hand-laying turnouts and track.
4.  Body mounted couplers.  Everything I run has body mounted couplers or modified with 1050 sets....so far. 

Anyways, I am rambling on. 

Dave, you could elaborate on "Sand-less Grout".  What is it and how would you apply it?

In terms of my handlayed track work, what else do you fellas think need to be done?  Unfortunately, the ties I am using are the only ones available at this point.  Yes, they are fat, but when viewed from a normal vantage (read 1'), they do look good.

I think the ballast color is wrong.  It needs to be a bit lighter.

David B

[Dave V]

David,

I think Ed K can elaborate on the sand-less grout.  He's been eying it for the Northern Central.  The deal is it doesn't have the translucent particles in it that scream "sand" versus scale size rock.

Oh, and I hear you on body-mounting.  Yesterday I was doing a long backup move to pick up a cabin in my yard (poor yard design, I know), and in going through all those darned switches, I kept putting cars on the ground because of the torque on the truck-mounts.  You can tell right away what's a function of bad trackwork versus the accordion you get when you're backing 18 cars and the truck-mounts are causing the trouble.  The trackwork itself is darned-near impeccable.

[davidmbedard]

What turnouts are you using?  I suspect that the side to side torque from backing up truck mounted couplers is forcing the flange towards the point of the frog.  I would look at the gauge between the gard/stock rail and shim as necessary. 

David B

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Unsanded grout. It's the *****.

http://www.lowes.com:80/pd_45017-73069-1622-0408-2_0__

It's great for landscaping, but not for ballasting though, as it's almost powder.

Take a look at this: http://conrail1285.com/news.asp?storyid=73 I used the unsanded grout for the cinder fill. It's PERFECT for this application, but ballast? Not so much.

I'm tempted to try the sanded stuff though, I remember Dan Crowley seemed to really like it.

[wm3798]

...Dan Crowley!  Wonder whatever happened to him? ???

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I don't know, but I sure miss him. He was good. Hopefully not another casualty of the dumbing down of the Atlas forum.

[conrail98]

Unsanded grout. It's the *****.

http://www.lowes.com:80/pd_45017-73069-1622-0408-2_0__

It's great for landscaping, but not for ballasting though, as it's almost powder.

Take a look at this: http://conrail1285.com/news.asp?storyid=73 I used the unsanded grout for the cinder fill. It's PERFECT for this application, but ballast? Not so much.

I'm tempted to try the sanded stuff though, I remember Dan Crowley seemed to really like it.

Yes, sanded is what some of the guys around here use for their ballast. A little wash and it looks good,

Phil

[wazzou]

...Dan Crowley!  Wonder whatever happened to him? ???

I seem to recall he was getting involved more and more with RC cars.  His website was still active last I looked.

[MichaelWinicki]

David,

I think Ed K can elaborate on the sand-less grout.  He's been eying it for the Northern Central.  The deal is it doesn't have the translucent particles in it that scream "sand" versus scale size rock.

Oh, and I hear you on body-mounting.  Yesterday I was doing a long backup move to pick up a cabin in my yard (poor yard design, I know), and in going through all those darned switches, I kept putting cars on the ground because of the torque on the truck-mounts.  You can tell right away what's a function of bad trackwork versus the accordion you get when you're backing 18 cars and the truck-mounts are causing the trouble.  The trackwork itself is darned-near impeccable.

Hey Dave two things to check, wheel gauge and car weights. 

I know your yard is Atlas code 55, which is what I use.  If your wheelsets are even just a smidge too narrow the potential to put cars on the ground while doing a backup through code 55 switches increases– a lot!

Secondly some cars come through very light in the fanny... Just something to consider.

[Dave V]

What turnouts are you using?  I suspect that the side to side torque from backing up truck mounted couplers is forcing the flange towards the point of the frog.  I would look at the gauge between the gard/stock rail and shim as necessary.  

David B

Atlas code 55 #5s, primarily.  For short trains they're no problem, but backing a full freight through them sometimes causes headaches.

Oddly enough, it's primarily the ones with FVM wheelsets I put on the ground.

[DrifterNL]

OK, This thread really makes me want to try hand laying some track, even if it is a small test section to see how it goes.
Thanks for posting the pictures / your work and keep it coming!

[MichaelWinicki]

Atlas code 55 #5s, primarily.  For short trains they're no problem, but backing a full freight through them sometimes causes headaches.

Oddly enough, it's primarily the ones with FVM wheelsets I put on the ground.

Put the NMRA gauge on those FVM wheelsets and you'll get a surprise. 

[davidmbedard]

I cant believe the idiots on the A forums........

David B

[sundowner]

Yeah, kind of like comparing handlaid C40 track to unitrack. ;D

[ednadolski]

For short trains they're no problem, but backing a full freight through them sometimes causes headaches.

Ah, now we can extend the discussion to include the truck-mount vs. body-mount couplers debate  ;D ;D ;D

Ed