Unitrack painting problem

[Point353]

Yep. All weekend, and with this ugly gap too.

Which module has the track overhanging the end of the base/framework by the specified 1mm?

[robert3985]

Ouch!
Perhaps the transition piece would benefit frim a redesign, allowing the adjacent unijoiner to seat more fully into the piece, therefore eliminating that gap. Of course, the ‘double web’ design of the Peco code 55 rail probably prevents a good unijoiner seating.
  Quite frankly, in our local and regional combined layout setups, we wouldn’t allow a module that creates a gap like that. We routinely run 35-60 modern car (50-60-82’ length) trains, with some 80-100 car trains. Most with fine scale wheelsets.
I’m a little surprised that a gap like that isn’t flagged. Too many possibilities for tracking problems, though including much higher possibilities of ‘humps’ and ‘dips’ at that module interface, in addition to the more obvious wheelsets ‘banging’ into the facing railhead after dropping, even ever so slightly, into that gap.
  I’ll admit, we’re pretty anal about tolerances and super leveling of modules in layouts here in the Southeast, but it certainly pays off in trouble free operations and layout performance.

Being "anal" about leveling and connection tolerances is a GOOD THING. When I was active in Ntrak, a connection like this wouldn't have been allowed either...meaning new connector tracks would have to be cut.  The gross difference between the railhead heights of the inside Peco55 rail and the adjoining Unitrack's railhead (completely disregarding the huge gap) would have been immediately classified as "not permissible...fix it, now."

Generally being "anal" about trackwork in general is a good way to ensure trouble free operations and layout performance no matter what modular standard you're doing, or doing trackwork on your permanent home layout.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Ed Kapuscinski]

@Ed Kapuscinski  … I first saw pics of your ‘dead season’ modeling when I joined TRW a couple years ago, became intrigued, and have found it to be increasingly appealing ever since.

I spent some time admiring your diorama on Saturday, and I was sold … this is the “look” I will strive for if/when my next layout gets underway.  The environs here in southern Ontario goes through just that sort of dead season, from November to early April, so it would be entirely fitting.

Anyway, just wanted to pass along my appreciation for a job well done.  I would have liked to have had a brief chat, but we were never in the same place at the same time (I did, however, have the pleasure of meeting TRW regulars Lee Weldon and Bob Bunge). 

The drive from Toronto to Altoona was beautiful and effortless, and N Scale Weekend surpassed my expectations … it was fun, exciting, stimulating and rewarding, and I genuinely look forward to participating again.  Kudos to all the organizers who delivered a truly worthwhile and memorable experience.

Thanks man!! I'm happy to provide any assistance I can on your journey to Dead Season Nirvana!

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Ouch!
Perhaps the transition piece would benefit frim a redesign, allowing the adjacent unijoiner to seat more fully into the piece, therefore eliminating that gap. Of course, the ‘double web’ design of the Peco code 55 rail probably prevents a good unijoiner seating.
  Quite frankly, in our local and regional combined layout setups, we wouldn’t allow a module that creates a gap like that. We routinely run 35-60 modern car (50-60-82’ length) trains, with some 80-100 car trains. Most with fine scale wheelsets.
I’m a little surprised that a gap like that isn’t flagged. Too many possibilities for tracking problems, though including much higher possibilities of ‘humps’ and ‘dips’ at that module interface, in addition to the more obvious wheelsets ‘banging’ into the facing railhead after dropping, even ever so slightly, into that gap.
  I’ll admit, we’re pretty anal about tolerances and super leveling of modules in layouts here in the Southeast, but it certainly pays off in trouble free operations and layout performance.

I'm not sure if it was like that all weekend. It was the end of the show and things might've gotten bumped.

The issue was that the module my thing was mating up to didn't extend past the end, but mine typically have extra "reach" (because I'm lazy and cut my lumber to 12"). Good thing in this case.

I shared that photo specifically to point out the fact that, even though we may all be concerned about stuff like this, it all still "works" when it does happen.