PRR Track Plan

[DKS]

Eric, at the risk of repeating myself, I would caution against using #5s, modified or not, in a passenger throat. It's not only a serious aesthetic compromise, but a performance risk as well. As you've seen, others likewise echo the same concerns. Plus, as you've discovered, modified Atlas #5s combined with Peco double-slips make for a troublesome kludge. Rule #1 applies, of course, but this is one of those "don't come running to us when it fails" situations. It may work perfectly fine, but I strongly doubt it, and I don't think it'll look very good, either. You may get the complexity you want, but more important aspects will suffer considerably as a consequence.

Now, if you absolutely gotta have that spaghetti throat, my recommendation would be to go with all Peco Code 55 switches. This way all of the switch angles match, and you can also make use of their scissors crossover. Using the crossover in combination with their their double-slips (plus one wye to keep things nice and smooth), you can use their longest switches and still squash the whole throat down to just a scratch over four feet long--with the added benefit of being angled to lead into the curve, which buys you another whole foot of linear space.*





*This comes with the caveat that I know nothing about their scissors crossovers in terms of their functional reliability.

By the way, you really need to get Anyrail. You can figure out problems like this in minutes, instead of guessing about it with a vector drawing program and planning yourself into a corner. Been there, done that, learned my lesson.

[John]

Eric, I don't think you want to be using #5s in there. I think they're even too tight for industrial work, let alone a passenger terminal. I think you're going to get yourself into trouble trying to move passenger consists through them.

I fully agree .. they are ok in some yard and industrial apps, but I would stick with #7s where possible, especially with long cars

[MichaelWinicki]

Eric, at the risk of repeating myself, I would caution against using #5s, modified or not, in a passenger throat. It's not only a serious aesthetic compromise, but a performance risk as well.

Agreed.

#5's in a passenger yard will look odd.

And Lee makes a very good point about trimming back #5's and using B-B truck locos.   I went through that with my trimmed #5's.

[DKS]

If the Peco scissors crossover isn't viable, here's a nice compact, symmetrical throat using all Peco components as an alternative.

[eric220]

I did not really want to use #5's in the throat, but I thought that I was limited by the slip switches. Once I did the math and realized that there's not much of a difference between matching up the #5 vs. the #7, that part becomes a no-brainer. I'm going to try drawing that one out. Although the Atlas turnouts don't align perfectly with the Peco slips, as I said before, I've already got a #5 butted up against a slip in Altoona. The Pennsylvania Limited (BL + superdome) doesn't even hiccup going forward. I've even backed that train through there without any derailments (well, at least not at that joint... the 9.25" radius curve leading to it was another story).

DKS - I like that second design that you've got there. The biggest hangup that I see there is the tie spacing on the Peco track. I don't mind sneaking in a slip switch here and there, but I don't like the idea of the whole throat having the European spacing. I'll have to think on it. Also, if in the end I do go against everyone's advice, and it doesn't work, I would expect nothing less than some solid "told you so"'s.

I'd love to pick up a copy of AnyRail. Unfortunately, I didn't see a Mac version, so that rules me out.

[DKS]

I'd love to pick up a copy of AnyRail. Unfortunately, I didn't see a Mac version, so that rules me out.

That's why there's PC emulation for MACs.

[eric220]

That's why there's PC emulation for MACs.

Windows on my Mac?!?!?  ::shudders::

[eric220]

If the Peco scissors crossover isn't viable, here's a nice compact, symmetrical throat using all Peco components as an alternative.

The more I look at this one, the more I like it.  I think I'd rather remove the crossover on the right and add a crossover between the middle tracks to the left of the double slips.  I'm trying to draw it myself, but I'm having a hard time.  What # turnouts are those?

[DKS]

I'm trying to draw it myself, but I'm having a hard time.  What # turnouts are those?

The switch #s aren't indicated in Peco's part descriptions. The four to the right are E388Fs and E389Fs; the four in the middle are wyes, E397Fs.

Here are two variations of the redesign you mentioned trying to draw. The first keeps the wyes of the original design; the second replaces them with the Peco long switches.
 

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I don't see the point of the crossover closest to the platforms there.

[DKS]

I don't see the point of the crossover closest to the platforms there.

Inbound and outbound traffic can proceed without waiting for one to pass.

[eric220]

Dang, DKS got post 100 on this thread... I was hoping to get that one.

Anyway, what I had in mind was more like this:



This way, platform tracks 3 and 4 can run simultaneously with tracks 2 and 5.  Although that makes the throat a lot longer, it's still around three feet, which is a major improvement over my original.  One thing I noticed while building this is that tracks 3 and 4 wind up much farther apart than in my original design.  Off hand, I don't remember whether I used actual measurements for the butterfly platforms, or whether I just guessed, so I'm not sure if that increased separation is going to be a problem.  Even if it is, a little curving will cure it.

From the measurements that were available on N Scale supply, the wye is a "medium" turnout.  Their "medium" is a #6.  That makes sense, because a #6 uses a 9.46° frog, which is within half a degree of the 10° slip switches and crossovers.  In fact, I would hazard a guess that they may have fudged it and just used a 10° frog on the "medium" turnout.

[reinhardtjh]

Windows on my Mac?!?!?  ::shudders::

Sometimes a necessary evil.  But I agree.  I've been using the Mac version of XTrkCad.  It works but it takes some getting used to.

  John H. Reinhardt

[DKS]

Dang, DKS got post 100 on this thread... I was hoping to get that one.

Anyway, what I had in mind was more like this:



This way, platform tracks 3 and 4 can run simultaneously with tracks 2 and 5.  Although that makes the throat a lot longer, it's still around three feet, which is a major improvement over my original.  One thing I noticed while building this is that tracks 3 and 4 wind up much farther apart than in my original design.  Off hand, I don't remember whether I used actual measurements for the butterfly platforms, or whether I just guessed, so I'm not sure if that increased separation is going to be a problem.  Even if it is, a little curving will cure it.

From the measurements that were available on N Scale supply, the wye is a "medium" turnout.  Their "medium" is a #6.  That makes sense, because a #6 uses a 9.46° frog, which is within half a degree of the 10° slip switches and crossovers.  In fact, I would hazard a guess that they may have fudged it and just used a 10° frog on the "medium" turnout.

I had a feeling this is what you meant. But how do trains on the outer platform tracks get to the opposite mainlines? The versions I presented in Post 98 allow trains from any platform track to access either mainline. Plus, it's shorter.

[eric220]

I had a feeling this is what you meant. But how do trains on the outer platform tracks get to the opposite mainlines? The versions I presented in Post 98 allow trains from any platform track to access either mainline. Plus, it's shorter.

The answer is that those are not mainlines. The two tracks leading off to the right are still part of the throat. One trainlength away, there is a double crossover just before they rejoin the mainline. Eliminating the scissors crossover on your plan simply means that a train to or from track 1 or 6 must commit to the correct throat lead at the earliest point. Any of the other four tracks can use either lead. when I first started simplifying the plan, I realized that there's not much point in allowing trains from tracks 1 and 6 to cross over at the main body of the throat because it would tie up both leads.