 Joined: 10/03/2019(UTC) Posts: 9 Location: Ohio, Strongsville
|
 MArklin magazine Folge 53 K track.pdf (6,194kb) downloaded 194 time(s).Hello, I am curious if anyone has built the Track plan 53 from Marklin Magazine form 3/2011 using K track and for a digital layout? I am building this track and will be using a CS3 controller with signals in the visible areas. I am not new to building setups, but this is a little more complex due to the multiple layers. This footprint is exactly right for the space I have and has many of the features I wanted. The table is built to the specs in the plans already. The frame is on wheels and moveable to provide rear access. I would also be open to any feedback on the general track plan or any advice anyone might want to provide on this project. I am attaching the pdf of the file Thank you in advance for your guidance. Dave in Ohio
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/02/2006(UTC) Posts: 3,997
|
I don't think you can simply use K-track to match a C-Track layout. Otherwise they would have said C or K.
You would have to adapt the design, perhaps that is your plan...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Joined: 23/07/2014(UTC) Posts: 8,480 Location: ENGLAND, Didcot
|
Originally Posted by: DaleSchultz  I don't think you can simply use K-track to match a C-Track layout. Otherwise they would have said C or K.
You would have to adapt the design, perhaps that is your plan...
There is a K track version further down the PDF.
|
 1 user liked this useful post by kiwiAlan
|
|
|
|
 Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC) Posts: 1,768 Location: Brisbane, Queensland
|
Sounds like you're all set!
Given the smaller size of the layout there is little room for change/improvement. If there is nothing you dislike then best to stick to Marklins plan. |
modelling era IIIa (1951-1955) Germany |
1 user liked this useful post by applor
|
|
|
|
 Joined: 30/08/2002(UTC) Posts: 1,288
|
As you already have started on the framework, I will not go in for a discussion like ”why don’t you consider an around-the-wall layout instead”, or so. I’m weak for dogbone layouts like this, as it limits the circular impression of traffic. There are a lot of hidden areas, and the table is pretty wide (150 cm), I do hope it will be easy to access all areas, but you already indicated this in your post. Also, there will be several pretty steep uphill and downhill sections. Here it is important to have smooth transition from flat areas, especially where there are turnouts involved (which always should be located on flat areas). I have only one question on the layout itself, according to the pic below: I like the parallel look of double-track. Why have they infringed this by suggesting the following solution here?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/03/2019(UTC) Posts: 9 Location: Ohio, Strongsville
|
Thank you for responding, I appreciate the advice about the flatness of the turnouts and agree that it should look more symmetrical. Once I start with the flex track there I am hoping I can work on that.
Just like everyone I would have loved a much larger layout but my space is very limiting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
