PRR/Conrail Juniata Division Engineering Report

[wazzou]

Why not combine the robustness of the PECO code 55 turnouts with the looks of ME/Atlas code 55 track?
That's what I did on my last layout and it wasn't difficult and it was quite satisfying, particularly with the positive locking of the TO throws.
It's not what I plan on doing for my next layout but I wouldn't hesitate to.
I just want a little more fine scale look and my only deliberation is handlaid or Atlas TO's.

[Dave V]

Why not combine the robustness of the PECO code 55 turnouts with the looks of ME/Atlas code 55 track?
That's what I did on my last layout and it wasn't difficult and it was quite satisfying, particularly with the positive locking of the TO throws.
It's not what I plan on doing for my next layout but I wouldn't hesitate to.
I just want a little more fine scale look and my only deliberation is handlaid or Atlas TO's.

So how did you get past the obvious difference in tie size/spacing between the Peco turnouts and the Atlas/ME track?  I'd be worried it'd be distracting.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Here's what I'd recommend. Before commuting to a track line for your next layout, do a few "study" pieces. Get some of everything you're interested in and try it out.

I'd say go with one switch and some flex. Build it like you would the layout, and see what lands at the sweet spot of ease of use and appearance.

[wazzou]

So how did you get past the obvious difference in tie size/spacing between the Peco turnouts and the Atlas/ME track?  I'd be worried it'd be distracting.

Initially, on occasions where the TO's and flex connected on plywood sub-roadbed directly, I traced the turnout and with a utility knife, I followed those tracings, cutting deeply enough to penetrate the first ply and then with a sharp chisel, I'd remove that layer to sort of countersink the TO.
Later, I used a router and later still, I deemed it not that worthwhile.
When the connections were on cork or foam, I'd attach the flex as normal with adhesive of choice, save the last 3-4" prior to the turnout connection, allowing a natural vertical easement prior to that connection.
My recollection is that the PECO joiners weren't compatible with the ME, so I simply cut the tops off of the half of the rail joiner that the flex would attach, with a Dremel and soldered the flex to the flat 1/2 of the joiner, whereas the other 1/2 was seated normally and fully on the TO. 
I cannot recall the difference in tie + rail thickness between brands, but once affixed and ballasted, it was not notable either in appearance or operations.
I still have examples of all three if you need me to measure.
***Disclaimer 
I felt comfortable enough with my soldering, that the joint with the flex not positively secured by a joiner wasn't an issue.

[Dave V]

Initially, on occasions where the TO's and flex connected on plywood sub-roadbed directly, I traced the turnout and with a utility knife, I followed those tracings, cutting deeply enough to penetrate the first ply and then with a sharp chisel, I'd remove that layer to sort of countersink the TO.
Later, I used a router and later still, I deemed it not that worthwhile.
When the connections were on cork or foam, I'd attach the flex as normal with adhesive of choice, save the last 3-4" prior to the turnout connection, allowing a natural vertical easement prior to that connection.
My recollection is that the PECO joiners weren't compatible with the ME, so I simply cut the tops off of the half of the rail joiner that the flex would attach, with a Dremel and soldered the flex to the flat 1/2 of the joiner, whereas the other 1/2 was seated normally and fully on the TO. 
I cannot recall the difference in tie + rail thickness between brands, but once affixed and ballasted, it was not notable either in appearance or operations.
I still have examples of all three if you need me to measure.
***Disclaimer 
I felt comfortable enough with my soldering, that the joint with the flex not positively secured by a joiner wasn't an issue.

Wow! Very detailed.  I don't think I was clear in my question.  Atlas/ME code 55 track has smaller US-sized and more closely spaced ties while Peco has the wider, farther spaced ties that we see in code 80 track or Unitrack.  How were you able to use them adjacent to one another without the visible difference in ties causing cognitive dissonance?  Were I modeling a shortline I would simply bury the difference in weeds or cinders but Pennsy in the 50s was very particular about grooming its ballast even with the tie tops.

Here's what I'd recommend. Before commuting to a track line for your next layout, do a few "study" pieces. Get some of everything you're interested in and try it out.

I'd say go with one switch and some flex. Build it like you would the layout, and see what lands at the sweet spot of ease of use and appearance.

Ed keeps speaking wisdom.

[wazzou]

Ah, yeah...sorry.  No help for you on that. 
That's something that you've got to reconcile with and the reason I don't intend to go that way again.

[OldEastRR]

Re: Peco switches, ME track. Well look at it this way -- do you want more for the track to look good, or run good? I've got some photos of Peco switches and ME track (C55) mixed on my Layout Engineering thread just on cork roadbed, no ballast. Cutting away some roadbed to sink the Pecos does a lot to minimize the size of the ties. I think with good painting and a lot of ballast the difference in tie spacing isn't noticeable, especially using the C55 Pecos. The Peco switch ties are not that noticeable if they are surrounded by C55 flex, they're just a couple of inches. Also, using ME switches on spurs, branches and sidings and Pecos only at critical junctions helps hide them.
As for your new plan, how about running the inner double track all the way out to the upper RH curve with the outside double track, but it continues to curve as the outer tracks diverge? It then straightens out to the  current "scenic area" route. You'd have a bit more 4-track main which could duck under an overpass/backdrop before it splits and the electrified main comes out of a tunnel on the other side by itself. And a steep rocky hill to hide the inner tracks curving away. It also splits up the scenes visually. You'd lose the cornfield but there weren't any cornfields built to Pennsy standards anyway. 

[Dave V]

Reliable running has always trumped track appearance for me.  That's part of why I thought no matter what I had to go with code 80 10 years ago when I first built the JD.

Reliable running.  No stalls, stutters, or sound-drop outs.  Nothing kills a roundy-rounder's fun more than any of those 3 (except derailments!).  I'm less worried about those.

Reliable running.

Reliable running.

Definitely reliable running.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

When it comes to stalls, I don't think there's really any difference between brands. They all need to be cleaned.

It all comes down to how fastidious you are with getting power to the rails. A feeder on every length of rail will definitely do that job. Then just make sure to power the frogs of your turnouts, and I think you'll be fine.

[Dave V]

When it comes to stalls, I don't think there's really any difference between brands. They all need to be cleaned.

It all comes down to how fastidious you are with getting power to the rails. A feeder on every length of rail will definitely do that job. Then just make sure to power the frogs of your turnouts, and I think you'll be fine.

The JD had 13 sets of feeders for the original HCD space.  I think the problem is that when I first built it I wasn't very proficient at soldering so the joints and feeders have come loose over the decade.  That plus a myriad of major climate changes causing the door to swell and contract.

In the intervening years I've assembled Alkem signals and installed micro decoders so my soldering skills are hopefully significantly better this go-around. 



I still have a few spots on the Midland, though, that are bugging me in spite of good solder.  I'll be dropping even more feeders for good measure there.

Peco 55 has the powered frogs and locking points that don't need any special wiring or external machine.  Boy does that make them tempting as hell.  Wiring and installing those micro-mini slides for Atlas turnouts is a pain in the a$$.  Not hard, just a pain.

[MichaelWinicki]

Peco 55 has the powered frogs and locking points that don't need any special wiring or external machine.  Boy does that make them tempting as hell.  Wiring and installing those micro-mini slides for Atlas turnouts is a pain in the a$$.  Not hard, just a pain.

The hand-drawn layout you posted didn't have a lot turnouts.

I'd go with hex-frog juicers to power the frogs and caboose throws for the turnout bars... Maybe not quite as bullet-proof as the Peco code 55 design but not far from that.  Caboose industry throws (the regular ones– not those that power the frog) are a snap to install and virtually indestructible.   And I luv hex-frog juicers... just makes powering a frog so darned easy.

[Dave V]

The hand-drawn layout you posted didn't have a lot turnouts.

I'd go with hex-frog juicers to power the frogs and caboose throws for the turnout bars... Maybe not quite as bullet-proof as the Peco code 55 design but not far from that.  Caboose industry throws (the regular ones– not those that power the frog) are a snap to install and virtually indestructible.   And I luv hex-frog juicers... just makes powering a frog so darned easy.

Yeah, well...  I went with Caboose throws for the Atlas code 55 turnouts in the Enola Yard section and @wm3798 Lee's derision from afar still echoes in my train room all these years later!

[Dave V]

Talk to me about Micro Engineering #6 turnouts. I bought a giant lot of code 55 some years ago...much of which went into the CMRy...but contained therein were half a dozen ME #6s.

Pluses?  Minuses?

[MichaelWinicki]

Yeah, well...  I went with Caboose throws for the Atlas code 55 turnouts in the Enola Yard section and @wm3798 Lee's derision from afar still echoes in my train room all these years later!

LOL!

I remember that.

But those CI throws that power the frogs are much larger than the ones that simply move the throw-bar. 

Once weathered I don't think the basic caboose industry throw is all that bad and it can be bashed, crashed and roughly handled without damaging the thing. There's no springy thing that has to be adjusted and quite frankly I think it feels more rail-roady than just flipping a switch or pushing a button.

And the hex-frog juicers are just a magnificent piece of electronics IMO. 

[seusscaboose]

And the hex-frog juicers are just a magnificent piece of electronics IMO.

QFT