Yard Throat Layout - Atlas #6 vs Micro Engineering #5 Yard Ladder System

So I used 3rd PlanIt to lay out my new yard either with #6 Atlas Custom Line turnouts or ME #5 Yard Ladder System turnouts.  As it turns out (haha), the ME yard ladder system reduced the yard throat by a whopping 38”!  This for 2 A/D tracks and 5 class tracks.  A whole lot of classification space can be had with an extra 3’.   So the question is if I am getting myself into trouble using the ME system.  I run mostly 50-60’ cars with occasional 75’; era 1980.  I have #6’s on the old part of my layout, and they work just fine.  But again, that extra yard capacity is sure tempting.  Thoughts?


Comments

  1. Kevin StrongMarch 11, 2018 at 10:05 PM

    I'm torn. My old HO line used #6s, and I'm using #6s outside. They look great, no doubt. But definitely they eat up space. My On30 shelf layout uses ME #5s, and they've proven very reliable and smooth for me. My 25 - 30' cars in O scale are on par with your 40 - 60' cars in HO, and my locos are about the same size.

    Knowing how full your storage tracks have a tendency to get, I think I'd opt for the #5s. The extra capacity will be welcomed by your switch crews. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great Northwestern RailwayMarch 21, 2018 at 7:08 AM

      It truly is a significant amount of space. And the more I study it out, those ME #5 Yard System turnouts will do just fine. One of the guys on the layout design SIG pointed me to and MRH video on the ME #5 switches( start at 27:57 for ME):

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKwLEt29brg

      A 89' pig flat was run through a switch with no problems. Nice.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Let’s Configure a Node – The Beauty of LCC (With a bonus section on connecting LCC to PanelPro)

Image
Recall one of the drivers for trying out LCC was to avoid writing detailed code.   Yes, I ~can~ write code.   But it is not my interest or hobby.   As such, anything that can help me translate what is in my head to implementation on a chip somewhere with as little brain damage as possible is quite welcome in my book.   Additionally I did not want the brains of the layout to live in a PC.   There are days when I just want to come down to the basement, flip on the power switch, and run trains.   And… if I am going to go through the trouble of having signals, I want them to come up and operating properly immediately.   Yea, I know I can set up a PC to boot up, execute the right programs and get running on its own.   Sorta.   It’s just one more piece of equipment and step I just don’t care to deal with.        Anyway…. So a big part of my hesitation of leaping into LCC was the angst associated with programming one of these nodes.   I do not have any model rail friends nearb
Read more

Configuring Push-buttons for Turnout Control in LCC (with BONUS section on Adapting JMRI for Feedback)

Image
So ALL the efforts, costs, brain damage and such to get LCC integrated into the layout is paying off in this one new step.  Let me explain. With LCC, each node is essentially its very own stand-alone microprocessor, capable of processing commands INDEPENDENTLY of a central PC or other server.  It just is connected to at the CAN bus, either looking for commands to respond (consumer) to or to issue them (producer).  SO... this addresses one of the goals of integrating LCC into my layout.  Sometimes I like to come down into the layout room and just run trains.  I don't have others with me, and for me, its a great way to unwind.  When I do that, I don't want to have to futz with turning on a PC and getting it going.  Ya, I know, some say it is not that big of a deal.  But if I am only going to be there for 5 or 15 minutes, seems like a hassle to mess with that.  I just want to through the power switch on, have the layout come to life, and run some trains.  Other times, I enjoy ho
Read more

LCC and Wiring Continues

Image
Slower than desired, but better to do it right now than try to fiddle it in later.... In my last staging yard, I never did install feeders.  Instead I just counted on the continuity of the turnouts to carry power to each of the 16 staging tracks.  Bad idea.  ~Most~ stayed powered up over the 10 or so years it operated.  ~Some~ randomly dropped out... necessitating fishing and soldering wires onto tracks with 7" spacing between decks.  Not uber-fun at all. SO... with GNW Phase 3, I promised myself ALL track would have feeders every 6' (one feeder per 2 sticks of flex), plus additional feeders in any other complex areas such as yard throats.  This would also allow me to have every other stick of flex not have to be soldered at the track jointers, allowing for expansion and contraction of the benchwork.  BUT... this comes at a cost.  Instead of 16 single ended tracks, I elected to have a 9-track staging yard, each track capable of holding 3 trains.  (WHY I ever went to 9 tr
Read more