On my last layout I used flextrack and RTR turnouts where possible. For
those that don't know, most of the layout was Sn3 and the standard gauge was
essentially scenery. At that time, Tomalco made Sn3 track in Code 70 only
(no Code 55 yet), and the only Sn3 RTR turnouts were the Shinohara ones.
This meant I had to hand lay all the dual gauge, any dual gauge turnouts,
crossings, the Code 55 track plus I had a few stub type turnouts. In other
words all the fun stuff. Also about half the Shinohara turnouts were
modified in some way. The Shinohara Sn3 flextrack has tie plate detail,
while the Tomalco does not, so I used the Shinohara for the mainline and the
Tomalco for yards and sidings.
When I designed by new layout, I used whatever track work that would work
the best to achieve the layout goals, not what is commercially available.
Thus, my new layout needs to be mostly hand laid. Approximately two-thirds
of the turnouts are dual gauge (both S/Sn3 and Sn3/Sn2), curved, or both.
Parts of the mainlines are dual gauge as are two interchange yards. In
addition there are no Sn2 flextrack or RTR turnout products available,
although I've modified H0n3 track items in the past. Also, I'd like to
simulate rough hewn ties and ties left rounded on the logging branch. As
you can see, it's almost like, why bother with other than hand laying the
track, at least in the none staging yard areas.
At the almost totally nuts end, I do have a location where a triple gauge
(S/Sn3/Sn2) turnout would be appropriate. It's either that or a dual gauge
turnout and two gauge separation turnouts. I did find some pictures of
triple gauge track work, so it does exist on prototype railroads.
The other day, as part of a structure project, I was laying some Code 55
rail on a trestle ore dump (Sn2) using Proto:87 Shops 150% HO spikes (only
110% S!) and compared it to both Tomalco and Shinoharra Sn3 flextrack.
Guess what, IMHO, the hand laid track using these small spikes looked better
than the flextrack. It looks like I'll be using these small spikes instead
of my Kadee spiker, at least for the tracks "up front". I also find that,
despite their size, they are easier to use than the Micro-Engineering micro
size spikes. It looks like I'll be laying track for a longer period of
time.
I am planning to add tie plate detail where appropriate. IMHO, dismissing
hand laid track because of spike size and tie plate detail is not valid in
all cases. It is possible to have the tie plate detail and actually have
smaller spikes using hand laying techniques, but it is more fun. As our
locomotive, rolling stock, and structure models get better, so should our
track. Track is a model also.
I do have some Tomalco Code 83 flextrack to install in my standard gauge
staging yard, so it won't be 100% hand laid.
Dave Heine
Easton, PA
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
