Author Topic: NKP-ish  (Read 11389 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

nickelplate759

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1398
  • Respect: +146
NKP-ish
« on: July 17, 2016, 05:42:39 PM »
0
I'm starting an NKP-themed (but not particularly prototypical) layout in a space roughly 10x9.   I'm "finishing" up the track plan, and am looking for advice on one area.
These three pictures show three versions of a junction.  The junction is highlighted with a red oval in all illustrations
In these illustrations, a branch enters (from a tunnel) from the upper left of the junction, and exits lower right, along with the lead to the engine servicing area.
Trains off the main enter from the upper right.  An industrial area is directly above it.
The yard lead is lower left.

In the first version, the junction is built around a double slip switch, like this:
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

In the second, the junction is built with a crossing and four switches, like this:
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

The third is like the second, but the the switch for the industrial area is off the branch.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Trackage in this plan is mostly Atlas code 55 where visible (the double slip is Peco), and Micro Engineering where hidden (not in the junction, of course).

Which of these three do you think is preferable, and why?

George
George

NKPH&TS #3628

I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

MichaelWinicki

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2024
  • Respect: +136
Re: NKP-ish
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2016, 06:00:58 PM »
0
I'd vote for number 3 George...

I think the trackwork for 2 or 3 is much more interesting than for #1, which should result in some nice photo-ops of that area.

I like the industrial trackage lead coming off of the branch as opposed to the main... But that's just me.  I could live with #2 also.

pdx1955

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 435
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +173
Re: NKP-ish
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2016, 06:23:16 PM »
0
The prototype would want the simplest track layout possible to do the job and that is pic #1. I think double-slips look good in junctions and yard throats as they give that "big-city" railroady feel. The other two plans have the same movements but a lot more track is needed - I think it looks cluttered. The wiring/gaps etc would probably be easier with the double slip than with all the extra switches - a double slip is only two switches put together while this is four.
Peter

"No one ever died because of a bad question, but bad assumptions can kill"

seusscaboose

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1940
  • Respect: +137
Re: NKP-ish
« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2016, 07:56:40 PM »
0
I gotta agree with the previous comment...  NKP would've kept it simple... and the double slips remind me of a Terminal
"I have a train full of basements"

NKPH&TS #3589


Inspiration at:
http://nkphts.org/modelersnotebook

nickelplate759

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1398
  • Respect: +146
Re: NKP-ish
« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2016, 09:45:28 PM »
0
I agree that the double-slip looks simpler (functionally, of course, it's exactly as complex).  My concern would be that a double-slip is generally only used where absolutely necessary, because it a high-maintenance piece of trackwork.

I'm torn - which is why I'm asking for others' opinions.

George
George

NKPH&TS #3628

I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

nkalanaga

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 6557
  • Respect: +274
Re: NKP-ish
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2016, 12:35:36 AM »
0
George, I'm with you.  I'd avoid the double slip, as most American railroads only used them in terminals, where space was at an absolute premium.

I'd go with #3, simply because I'd like to have the industry on the branch, to keep the mainline clear for through trains.  However, in this case, the main would be blocked anyway, so #2 wouldn't be any worse, operationally.  My decision there would probably be based on which turnouts I had on hand.
N Kalanaga
Be well

Ed Kapuscinski

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 18015
  • Has a degree in American History & Culture.
  • Respect: +2233
    • Conrail 1285
Re: NKP-ish
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2016, 03:17:25 PM »
0
Avoid the double slip, probably the tunnel too. Did NKP have many of them?

nickelplate759

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1398
  • Respect: +146
Re: NKP-ish
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2016, 03:39:14 PM »
0
I was wondering if anyone would call me on the tunnel(s).   NKP had almost none ([Edit]I thought I knew of at least one, along the Missississippi, but on reflection that's an IC tunnel).   

They did have plenty of underpasses though, so they won't look like tunnels - more likely some kind of underpass or disappearing behind a building.


George
« Last Edit: July 19, 2016, 12:44:57 PM by nickelplate759 »
George

NKPH&TS #3628

I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

Ed Kapuscinski

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 18015
  • Has a degree in American History & Culture.
  • Respect: +2233
    • Conrail 1285
Re: NKP-ish
« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2016, 11:42:46 AM »
0
Excellent. I was hoping that was the outcome! lol.

Then again, the NKP layout I operate on has lots of tunnels...

seusscaboose

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1940
  • Respect: +137
Re: NKP-ish
« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2016, 12:20:32 PM »
0
Hell to the Yeah!

and it has kick-a$$ grades too!

 :ashat:



I think the Key to this layout is going to be the engine facility... NKP's were pretty standard...   Frankfort looked like Bellevue which looked like (fill in the blank).

Get the roundhouse and coaling tower right...  and you're off to a good start.
"I have a train full of basements"

NKPH&TS #3589


Inspiration at:
http://nkphts.org/modelersnotebook

John

  • Administrator
  • Crew
  • *****
  • Posts: 10838
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +511
Re: NKP-ish
« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2016, 05:14:44 PM »
0
Excellent. I was hoping that was the outcome! lol.

Then again, the NKP layout I operate on has lots of tunnels...

That's because in that alternate reality they Chessied the WM :)


seusscaboose

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1940
  • Respect: +137
Re: NKP-ish
« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2016, 05:56:05 PM »
0
Oh My

 :trollface:
"I have a train full of basements"

NKPH&TS #3589


Inspiration at:
http://nkphts.org/modelersnotebook

nickelplate759

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1398
  • Respect: +146
Re: NKP-ish
« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2016, 09:38:45 AM »
0
...
I think the Key to this layout is going to be the engine facility... NKP's were pretty standard...   Frankfort looked like Bellevue which looked like (fill in the blank).

Get the roundhouse and coaling tower right...  and you're off to a good start.

I note that Walthers offers a nearly  perfect (for NKP) concrete cylindrical coaling tower in HO - wish they did it in N!
I'll have to figure out how to build one when the time comes.

George
George

NKPH&TS #3628

I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

seusscaboose

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1940
  • Respect: +137
Re: NKP-ish
« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2016, 03:29:48 PM »
0
yeah

n scale architect I "kinda" close I suppose...  however... John Colombo and I were discussing the possibility of a Shapeways solution while visiting in Indianapolis recently

the question is... would people buy it and help defer the cost...

"I have a train full of basements"

NKPH&TS #3589


Inspiration at:
http://nkphts.org/modelersnotebook

nickelplate759

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1398
  • Respect: +146
Re: NKP-ish
« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2016, 03:57:53 PM »
0
I was wondering about Shapeways too.  Much of a concrete tower would be easily sandable, so that should help get a good  finish, but even the smaller towers (e.g. Conneaut) might be pretty expensive in FXD, and I don't know how well the hoist etc. would render.   I'd be inclined to suggest making theme separate parts rather than rendering all in once piece, but that probably makes it more expensive.

Anyway, I'd be interested, especially if it were one of the smaller towers with just one track underneath (as opposed to the two in Frankfort).

I've no idea what contributes to the cost of offering something on Shapeways - is it primarily the cost of test prints?  When I worked with John L. on the Pullman car steps (well, he did all the work, I just tested and provided feedback) I spent maybe $25 on test prints, but steps are little!

Regards,
George
George

NKPH&TS #3628

I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.