RD posted:...David I've gone back and re-read your last few posts and the suggestions are so right on its like you are reading my mind. Running the reverse loop around the outside of the upper curve and down the backstretch is a super idea and the extra room needed to do this is well worth the outcome. Also I believe it was you who mentioned making the second level the O elevation and raising the top level and turntable/roundhouse area...another hit as far as I am concerned. I'm still a bit hesitant about all the double-slip switches .. but that can be worked out.. bottom line I love your ideas and the plan you put together if there is a drawback it's the Atlas track.... I would like to see if it could work with Ross turnouts and gargraves flex... from what Ive learned the last few days about flex track it seems like the ticket. What do you think??
RD,
There's no doubt the plan I drew up can be reworked with Ross/GG track. In fact, there are a few places on the plan where I've already used Ross turnouts on curves, since Ross makes O-80 and O-96 turnouts that were easy to insert into the respective O-81 and O-99 curves.
This week is very hectic for me, so I don't think I'll have the time to do any kind of conversion justice. But it should be relatively straightforward. The biggest challenge is gonna be related to the different geometry between the Ross #4 double-slips and the Atlas-O #5 double-slips. If you go Ross, then the turnouts connected to the Ross double-slips will also need to be #4 turnouts. A quick look at things in RR-Track gave me the impression that you'd need 2.25" fitter pieces of track connecting the Ross turnouts with the double-slips in order to maintain 4.5" track spacing. That's all very doable. However, the Ross #4's are noticeably smaller/sharper than the Atlas-O #5 turnouts, which are actually much closer to Ross #6 turnouts in length (according to RR-Track). And trains hitting those #4's coming off the concentric curves could enter somewhat of an undesirable S-curve due to the sharper angle of the #4 turnouts. If Ross made a #6 double-slip to match their #6 turnouts, this wouldn't be as much of an issue. But I guess their thinking was the double-slip usage is limited more for yard track routing rather than out on the mainline.
I placed the double-slip turnouts pretty much wherever I saw them in the original HO plan. I understand your "reluctance" to use them though... hence my cautionary note earlier in this thread. They do provide a dramatic WOW-factor when viewed up close from trackside. However, you REALLY need to ensure your locomotives will track smoothly through the various different routes of trackwork without stalling or shorting. I do recall Atlas-O used the double-slips on their big York demo layout about 10 years ago, and I never saw any problems when I watched trains go through them. But honestly, they weren't using EVERY route available with the double-slips during their demo's.
If you ultimately decide you don't NEED the routing flexibility the double-slips provide, then you could probably get away with using Ross #6 turnouts (where I've used Atlas-O #5's) to provide more basic cross-over functionality between parallel tracks. And those #6's should provide trouble-free performance for all of the equipment you plan to run. Just watch out for center rail power gap issues if you run small locomotives. But that issue can be solved with relays. You just need to decide how much you're gonna lose (operationally speaking) by not allowing trains to easily go directly from track #1 to track #3, or directly from track #2 to track #4 in that area just above the TT in the plan.
Hope that helps.
David
