Quote from: James in FL on April 11, 2020, 02:20:15 PM
It is possible to do as you are asking.
Is there some reason you can't just add wire, rather than having another switch panel?

I'm a complete novice at wiring, and don't have access to soldering equipment. I'm open to suggestions about improving the scheme.

I'm in the midst of planning a 30"x54" N scale layout using Atlas Snap-Track and remote Snap-Switches. I see that the remote switch machines can be strung together for easier access, and I plan on doing so.
However, the wires from the manual to the remote switch machines (and from the machines to the power pack) only run so far... and, as can be seen in the hypothetical plan here, I have two switches on the side opposite where the main switch panel–consisting of said joined-together switch machines–will be located... my question is, it possible to have two separate panels and have them wired to the same AC connection on the power pack?



Main power-pack connections are denoted by thick lines. Green track sections are flextrack/cut to fit.

A long time ago, in a living room far far away... there was a boy named TheHighwayStar who received an Irish Railway train set (#00651) for his birthday. He was overjoyed, and to this still has this train today (albeit in much lesser condition–notably a tender coupler that was once Gorilla-Glued back on in panic!) He has but the loco and coaches today...

Well, that's enough of the third-person referral... in all the back-research I've been doing about this set, I haven't been able to pin down any manufacturing information aside from the product number. Could someone shine some light on this (what I presume is) limited-edition set?

Hate to bump a thread this old, but has Bachmann confirmed/denied that they may have acquired any toolings from Tomy for their N scale line?

I'm in sort of a dilemma here re: my track.

My layout, a small one (3x6 ft.) uses Tomix sectional track with roadbed, except for, thus far, two Atlas Snap-Switches (I don't have any of the Tomix brand switches, but I do have a fair amount of Snap-Track.)
Have done all the usual stuff to try to isolate the main reason why my locos keep stalling and occasionally derailing on these. Rails are clean as a whistle all around. Electrical connections–rail joiners AND power–are all spot-on. Swapped out one with a brand-new SS, same problem. Both locos have no problems running on the rest of the line.
Right now I'm operating the switches manually; I haven't wired the machines yet. I did notice that the points themselves aren't particularly responsive, if that's the right word, when the points are changed.

Should I move on to a different brand of switch, Bachmann's perhaps?

Quote from: DaveGard on May 13, 2019, 12:13:40 AMIt looks to me like you could lengthen your grades... spread them out... a bit more. If you can spread your grades to 9' (108"), bringing you to <2.5%.

9' is about 85% of the length of the inner oval, and about 70% of the outer oval. That would frankly look ridiculous.

QuoteAlso, the NMRA overhead clearance for N-scale is ~1-5/8" (one of the first things you should do is get yourself an NMRA standards gauge). That should clear any N-scale loco and rolling stock. If you make your overpass a bridge (trestle or girder), you could probably get your railhead to railhead vertical distance down to 2-1/8" to 2-1/4" (1-5/8" plus the bridge structure), rather than the 2-1/2" you have in your plans.

QuoteWith some planning, I THINK you should be able to get your grades down to max 2%. My twice around layout is basically the same as yours... but a little larger 9-1/2 ft  x 3-1/2 ft, and I was able to get my grades down to max 1.8%. I run steam, and my small locos, Bachmann 4-6-0 and 2-8-0, can each pull 10-14 40' freight cars around my layout. My Challenger (4-6-6-4) can pull 20-22 40' freights, and my FEF-3 (4-8-4) can pull more than 25 freights (that's all I have).

Perhaps I should have specified that I'll be running HOn30 stock, which naturally require higher clearances than traditional N. I also won't have consists anywhere close to that length, so that's not a concern. (and 9.5x3.5 ft. is nearly twice the square footage I'm working with, so I'm not surprised you were able to ease your grades that much.)

Thank you for your quick response, Maletrain.

Quote from: Maletrain on May 11, 2019, 08:05:10 PM
I am estimating about 48" for the track lengths from the points where you specify zero elevation to the points where you specify 2.5" of elevation.  That makes the grade 100 x (2.5" / 48") = 5.2%.  That is a very steep grade.  Half of that would be a practical, but still steep grade.  3.5% is about the max that most people try to use, and that cuts down on train length quite a bit.

That's what I suspected. I tweaked the plan a bit (click) so the sloped sections were ~67" long and managed to knock it down to a 3.7 percent grade. Still not ideal, of course. They also end up "coming together" each other again, so to speak, at the kitty-corner of the layout when viewed horizontally. Maybe that's not a big deal for others, but to me there's just something about it that seems unnatural.

Quote
Another thing to consider is that the transition from level to sloped needs to not be sharp, or it will cause cars to uncouple and maybe derail on the curve.  You need an easement in the vertical direction to avoid that.

I am aware of this as well. Though I'm not too concerned with derailment (like I mentioned, very small loco and stock), uncoupling occasionally happens even on a flat surface right now. An issue for another time or thread, perhaps.

So I'm in the planning stages of my first layout. I'll have an approx. 3x6 ft. area to work with.
Here's my first draft. (Gridlines are in 6" intervals. All track heights are displayed, and the curved section of the outer oval is elevated at 2.5" above the straight section of the inner oval.)



What I'm mainly concerned with is the circled area; I thought it would be interesting to have a elevated crossover with the double oval, and given my loco and rolling stock–a small tank engine and shorty cars–I'd need about 2.5" of clearance. But I welcome any and all opinions as whether this might be feasible or not for my rolling stock to climb, and if so, how long would the maximum realistic grade on each side be?
The general shape given is what I'm no doubt proceeding with as the basis, and I have no problem with going with a simple "X" crossover instead of the up-and-over. My goal is primarily to maximize running length.