|
Post by boxcarwilly on Jul 20, 2017 9:33:13 GMT -5
Greg:
You are most likely correct in that my interpretation of "floating" is wrong. Yes I have all my Marklin Turnouts supported with thin foam matts but again they are too high to correctly mate with the MTL track. Thus my quest to find the right roadbed material goes on. I did try cardboard but I agree that it will compress over time. I was thinking of using plastic if I can find something in the right thickness, but I'd have to paint it roadbed grey first. Cork roadbed that one can buy off the shelf, is too thick. It's find if you are using track with no roadbed at all, but that's not the case here. It makes sense to support these turnouts but doing it right is the challenge.
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Jul 19, 2017 11:31:52 GMT -5
Greg:
I read an article on Google put out by I believe Zscalehobo about Marklin turnouts and in that article it says that these turnouts are supposed to float which is why there are no nail holes in the ties. Now to me, that means nothing under them to support the turnout which I find contradictory. In as far as support, when I take pieces of MTL track and connect them to both ends of the turnout, and put them on a level surface, the turnout is as you say, floating in the air, being raised by the built in roadbed on the MTL track. If I put cork roadbed under the turnout, it raises the MTL track higher still so there would be a slope at both ends. It's the same thing with everything else I try except the popsicle sticks which are slightly smaller in height then the MTL roadbed which still leaves a gap between the stick and the turnout. I haven't yet been able to find anything that would support these turnouts, and keep them even with the MTL track. I've even tried pieces of cardboard and plastic but still doesn't give me the results I'm looking for. I guess it's the best method of stability. As for the MTL turnouts, many modellers don't like them because of the inherent problem of power transfer across the frog which I've read is a design flaw. OK on the through, not so much on the divergent. I have a combination of new and used MTL turnouts and the new one's give me as much trouble as the used. Some work, some don't. Here's something else I just remembered. I notice that there is a minute difference in height between the Marklin rails and MTL. Joining them together, regardless of which rail joiners you use this difference can affect the performance of engines and cars sometimes. I wonder if this could cause problems with power transfer as well.
Sven:
I've never used under table switch machines simply because of the practicality issue. On my layout, because of the materials used in construction, these devices would not work. Besides my turnouts are already installed and hooked up. In the picture you provided, it looks as if you are using Marklin track on cork roadbed exclusively. I suspect that if that was what I was doing, I might not have these problems as everything would be even. Sadly such is not the case. The only Marklin track I have anywhere on my layout is the turnouts. Everything else is MTL.
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Jul 19, 2017 11:01:38 GMT -5
Yesterday I was experimenting with my AZL engines and heavyweight passenger cars. Now normally I would not run engines typically designed for freight pulling with passenger cars, using only F3's or 7's as it should be, but on my layout, passenger cars are kept on a storage tracks when not in use and the F3's and 7's are, or will be kept on separate tracks or in the roundhouse. They are moved about by the yard engines which is what I'm endeavouring to recreate. Here is what I discovered. When I hooked up a GP38, to a few of the passenger cars, I noticed that the coupler on the 38 was substantially higher. In fact, the passenger coupler was barely hanging on, and when going over some turnouts, they become uncoupled. Out of curiosity I tried my 70's and 75's and the result is the same. Is this supposed to be this way? is there a way to compensate for the height differential? Like I said, I would not normally pull these cars with freight engines, but in my yard, as they do on most railroads, passenger trains are built the same way as freights, using yard engines to move cars to the assembly track so that F3's or 7's can hook up.
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Jul 19, 2017 10:33:07 GMT -5
I am not sure if this subject has been covered previously so I'm going to throw it out for discussion in an attempt to perhaps gain some insight about Marklin turnout functionality.
I have just completed my yard using mostly Marklin remote turnouts. After doing a great deal of testing with my MTL and AZL engines, I'm having a lot of problems with stalling and derailing. There are a few turnouts that are specifically troublesome and now that they are all installed and hooked up, I really don't want to have to rip them out again. I've cleaned these repeatedly as recommended in a few ariticles, and I'm still having problems. I understand that Marklin turnouts are supposed to float, but shouldn't there be some kind of support under them to carry the weight of the engines as they pass over? As they are now, they sag or bend to one side causing a stall. I've tried several methods to support these turnouts, including cork, foam matts, and popsicle sticks, but nothing seem to work satisfactorily. My yard is a ladder type with in and out tracks running on angles at each end and the switches are all connected back to back. I need to have smooth operation in both directions. Here is another problem I'm having. I have MTL track connected to the divergent part of the Marklin turnouts which makes them higher then it would be with Marklin track. This presents it's own problems in as far as connectivity is concerned and transfer of power. This yard is one of two focal points of my entire layout and it has to work flawlessly. It's hard enough to keep the track clean and I have a lot of work still to do in setting up the yard so I don't need problems with these turnouts and I have quite a chunk of change invested in them. I've purchased 14 used Marklin turnouts from various sources and on their own, they work adequately, but in this configuration, I'm having difficulties. So, what do I use for support under the turnouts, how do I keep them from moving out of alignment since they are not supposed to be fastened down, and how do I improve power transfer from the turnouts to the MTL track? Oh, one more thing. I also have MTL turnouts in this yard at out of the way locations and I'm having problems with some of them re, power from the through to the divergent.
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Jul 15, 2017 9:35:45 GMT -5
I don't know. I'm thinking about it.
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Jul 14, 2017 16:28:05 GMT -5
I checked 15 pieces of assorted track from the last lot I purchased and to my surprise more then half that amount didn't have these pins to hold the track to the ties in one end. There were 3 or 4 other pieces that were questionable. I've never run into this problem before. I think it's worth bringing to MTL's attention. This might be a quality control issue or perhaps a manufacturing defect. Anyway, I'm making due with what I've got.
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Jul 13, 2017 9:39:01 GMT -5
Thanks for that Mark. Admittedly, I had not considered that. I'll check it out and report back.
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Jul 12, 2017 12:32:24 GMT -5
Well, I recently purchased several sizes of MTL tracks from my normal dealer. As I started to use it, I noticed that 1. the joiners seem to be a lot tighter then in pass lots, which in and of itself is a good thing I suppose. 2. When attempting to take them apart after putting them together, I'm finding that one of the rails is sliding along the roadbed like the fasteners aren't quite tight enough. c. When I attempt to remove a roadbed joiner, I have to use a pair of pliers to pull it off, normally I could do it with fingers and arm strength. Again this is most likely a good thing as a tighter roadbed joiner ensures the tracks are held together. d. When I attempt to remove a rail joiner to replace with a plastic one to interrupt the electrical current, the rail is again sliding away from the roadbed. This is happening on both sizes of the straight tracks and the 13 degree curves. I never used to encounter this problem so I'm wondering if anyone else has or is this a manufacturing defect from MTL's supplier? I can't speak to any of the other track or turnouts.
|
|
|
Signs
Jul 12, 2017 10:41:46 GMT -5
Post by boxcarwilly on Jul 12, 2017 10:41:46 GMT -5
In addition to printing your own, there are a multitude of print and mechanical signs on the market today, particularly on Ebay. I have been looking at several and found some I think would fit very well in my layout but I'm a long way from any of them. With so many to choose from, you really have to take your time and decide which one's and how many. Placement is also key to decision making.
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Jul 12, 2017 10:21:14 GMT -5
Has anyone been having any problems with MTL track lately?
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Jun 28, 2017 11:18:36 GMT -5
Hey Mark. Yes this is the one. I wasn't really looking for a station with a second floor, but I'll take it because it kinda fits in with my overall theme and I like the length to. All I have to do now is decide what colour to paint it. I am planning on lighting it, but I think I'll stay with the way it goes together. I'm not all that concerned about separating the first and second floors. This should be just the cat's meow or should I say the train' whistle.
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Jun 26, 2017 10:52:46 GMT -5
Good News!!!!
I have found the station that I have been looking for and from the measurements, it will fit where I need it to go. True, I've had to move my passenger track over about 2 inches by putting in a lazy S bend at one end of the approach track, but hey, if it works, what the hell. Now all I have to do is paint, assemble and glue in place, and the best thing about it is, it can be lit. BONUS!!!!! MTL puts it out. I'm excited. The other good thing too is I didn't lose a sorting track in my yard which I feared. DOUBLE BUNUS!!!!
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Jun 26, 2017 10:42:36 GMT -5
The methods by which all of us clean our layouts are as varied as the stars in the sky. I use a combination of a track cleaning car pushed by a loco, and a soft piece of rubber with an alcohol soaked cloth wrapped around it. I also wrap the cloth around my re-railer and use the flat end on the track. In as far as trees, buildings and such, I use a hand vacuum where possible but the danger here is if what your cleaning isn't glued or otherwise fastened down, it can be sucked up along with the dust and debris. I found that out the hard way. I have heard that a soft brush like a paint brush can be quite effective in cleaning things other then track. Generally speaking, I only clean my layout once a year except for the track which I clean before each use. The rest of the time, I keep my layout covered when not in use as it is now. It really depends on your own preference and the amount of dust accumulated.
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Jun 23, 2017 10:39:33 GMT -5
I've never been good at kit bashing. Always end up with a huge mess.
Frank.
Thanks for that suggestion and I have considered that as an option, but it would appear that the actual building as well as the base they sit on, is too wide. If I were to chop some of it off, I would have to loose part of the building furthest away from the platform. I don't think that would work.
Mark,
The workers living quarters would not conform to the theme I'm trying to keep to, however, the Mission Style station which I grew up with as well, would be perfect so long as it didn't have a base incorporated into it. This style is exactly what I need. As I recall, I think I've seen something similar to this style put out by one of the kit manufacturers but I can't remember who is was. I'm going to have to go hunting to see if I can find it.
Thanks for the suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Jun 22, 2017 11:43:13 GMT -5
On this matter, I have run into a problem which is going to require a lot of work to solve. In essence, on the new section of my layout, I'm building a passenger terminal and a freight yard. It's not really a terminal, but more of a train station you'd find in any small or medium sized town on a main line. The problem I'm having is the stations that I have looked at, are all too wide to fit the space I have allotted. If I were to leave my passenger track as it is now, and use any one of a dozen or so train stations, the width of these stations would overlap the tracks or the roadway that parallels the track in this location. This includes a parking lot. I can't move the roadway as it's already in place and complete. So do I move or redesign my passenger terminal track to accommodate the width of the stations, or do I hunt for a station that will fit in the space already allotted? Length is not an issue here as I have planned for a platform that will fit a 10 car passenger train. I have myself to blame for this as I should have taken into account the width of these stations and designed my yard accordingly, but I didn't. So I'm either going to have to install a minor S bend at one end, and thereby lose one track in my yard reducing it from 6 sorting tracks to 5 not including the rip track and main bi-pass. I have created extra work and delay which is why one should always get the dimensions of the structure you want to use and plan your track around it. Not the other way around. Live and learn.
|
|