Trenton Transportation Company

[DKS]

Man that's tiny! 

16 x 26 inches. Just a bit larger than a typical placemat. Smaller is possible, but then you're much more limited on rolling stock options, and it starts to put a major squeeze on structures. I think this is about as small as practical and still maintain a statisfying urban industrial feel.

[davefoxx]

16 x 26 inches. Just a bit larger than a typical placemat. Smaller is possible, but then you're much more limited on rolling stock options, and it starts to put a major squeeze on structures. I think this is about as small as practical and still maintain a statisfying urban industrial feel.

Finally!  A layout that even I might be able to complete all of the ballasting.   

[tom mann]

Do you have a list of the track needed?  Do 50' body mounted coupler cars operate on it?

[GaryHinshaw]

My head is spinning.  I was expecting an update on the wintery snow scene and I get verdant greens!  I can't keep up with you micro-layout guys. 

Looks great DKS.

[DKS]

Do you have a list of the track needed?

Unitrack:

20020. Straight 124mm   1
20030. Straight 64mm   2
20070. Straight 45.5mm   4
20101. Curve radius 249mm, angle 15º   4
20171. Curve radius 216mm, angle 15º   3
20172. Curve radius 183mm, angle 45º   8
20174. Curve radius 150mm, angle 45º   7
20220. Left turnout 126mm   3
20221. Right turnout 126mm   2



Note that I did not build the two legs of the switchback as shown; I used longer straight sections cut to length instead of the multiple shorter pieces.

Do 50' body mounted coupler cars operate on it?

Don't know; don't have any 50-footers...

[VonRyan]

I can't tell from the photos, but did you ultimately end up going with Unitrak or did the Tomix work out alright?

The results thus far are quite stunning.


-Cody F.

[DKS]

It's Unitrack (see the post above for what I used). The Tomix track had some fatal issues. The smaller radius I was going to use was too small for the B'mann 44- and 70-tonners, and I wasn't going to modify the mechs. But, ironically, I was glad I was more or less forced to use Unitrack because, while I liked the Tomix Fine Track, I didn't like their switches. The track in general is really nice and has some advantages over Unitrack--including a lower roadbed profile, tighter and more precise track joining, very nicely detailed switch stands and other good points--but the switches themselves suffer from some design faults, most notably poorly-designed switch points that wobble and don't stay in position reliably. I would have preferred using the Tomix track from the standpoint that re-ballasting would have been much easier as the ties are raised higher relative to the cast ballast, as compared to Unitrack, but in the end it was not an option.

I'm also not at all pleased with the re-ballasting I did. I used Minitec ballast, which I'd used for all of my Z scale layouts, and thought it always looked good. The ballast I used on this layout looked perfectly fine when dry, having a relatively uniform color with slight variations. But when bonded, it turned to salt and pepper. Although I had planned all along to make the line weedy and neglected, the lousy ballast color inspired me to go way OTT. I would like to start over, but at this point I honestly don't think it's worth it for a "just for kicks" Unitrack layout. It ain't handlaid Code 40, after all...

[VonRyan]

Well if you still have the Tomix track, I'd be willing to buy it all off of you.

-Cody F.

[lashedup]

This is very cool David. I really like the textures you have going with the overgrown scenery look. I've found that I can get a little more color variation using light and dark chalks here and there on the scenery materials themselves.  I've also sprinkled dirt material over the top and taken a paint brush and worked it in to add some variation and tone down the bright shine look.

You could do the same thing with the ballast to blend it together a bit more. I've used pastels on the ballast to get the darker oil droppings look down the middle as we'll as reddish/rust colored to give that brake dust look on the sides.  Just some thoughts.

I enjoy reading theses and seeing the different track plans you come up with.

- Jamie

[peteski]

DKS - thanks for the naturally-lit photos. The colors are much better!
I'm amazed at the depth of field available from the camera you use. I guess this is due to the small physical diameter of the lens (combined with a stepped down aperture).  It probably borders on pinhole size.

[DKS]

It's one of the reasons I bought that particular camera; it's one of the few pocket cams that offers manual aperture control.

[OldEastRR]

A point to debate: on very tiny layouts, can't passing sidings/runaround tracks be left off? The distance to run back around the whole main loop must be equal to or not much longer than running back and forth down the siding. Using a single ended spur from an industry as adjunct for runaround switching moves produces the same effect, and frees up some space otherwise used by the runaround.
And let's not use the "it's not realistic" argument, considering the premise of a tiny railroad on an oval.

[DKS]

A point to debate: on very tiny layouts, can't passing sidings/runaround tracks be left off? The distance to run back around the whole main loop must be equal to or not much longer than running back and forth down the siding. Using a single ended spur from an industry as adjunct for runaround switching moves produces the same effect, and frees up some space otherwise used by the runaround.
And let's not use the "it's not realistic" argument, considering the premise of a tiny railroad on an oval.

You're right, the runaround is superfluous. That said, three points: first, leaving it off would make the layout approx. 1.5 inches shorter (or add about the same amount of space internally). So, in actuality it doesn't waste all that much space. Second, it can double as a siding, adding to operations variety. And third, I wanted it.

[Kisatchie]

...And third, I wanted it.

Hmm... trump card...

[pwnj]

You're right, the runaround is superfluous. That said, three points: first, leaving it off would make the layout approx. 1.5 inches shorter (or add about the same amount of space internally). So, in actuality it doesn't waste all that much space. Second, it can double as a siding, adding to operations variety. And third, I wanted it.