Welcome to the forum   
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Share
Options
View
Go to last post in this topic Go to first unread post in this topic
Offline skeeterbuck  
#1 Posted : 08 February 2016 16:52:42(UTC)
skeeterbuck

United States   
Joined: 15/12/2015(UTC)
Posts: 523
Location: Maryland, Baltimore
Note: This post maybe somewhat confusing but my goal is to recreate a C track plan using K track.

My current layout is done in C track. For my next layout, I'm considering using K track instead because of the additional realism it offers. The track plan I'm considering copying is plan #6 from the Marklin C track plan book. Since I already have enough C track available. My thought is to temporaily construct the layout using the C track I have available and mark all the locations of the turnouts and crosings. Then substitute K track turnouts and crossing in the same locations and use K flex track to make all the curves and straight trackage between these locations.

My thought is that it would minimize the amount of track connections. Also am I correct in thinking that you don't use the tracks designed for connecting the feeders (2290) but just solder them directly in place?

For K track users, do you think this is a good plan or recommend a better way to proceed?

Thanks for any and all input.

Chuck
Offline biedmatt  
#2 Posted : 08 February 2016 18:15:17(UTC)
biedmatt

United States   
Joined: 09/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,343
Location: Southwest Ohio
Hi Chuck, Soldering to the steel center rail of K track is okay, but the rails are stainless, I have yet to be successful soldeing to the rails. The nickel-silver rail joiners solder okay.
Matt
Era 3
DB lokos, coaches and freight cars from across Europe
But I do have the obligatory (six) SBB Krocs
ECoS 50200, all FX and MFX decoders replaced with ESU V4s, operated in DCC-RailCom+ with ABC brake control.
With the exception of the passenger wagens with Marklin current conducting couplers, all close couplers have been replaced with Roco 40397.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by biedmatt
Offline skeeterbuck  
#3 Posted : 08 February 2016 18:26:54(UTC)
skeeterbuck

United States   
Joined: 15/12/2015(UTC)
Posts: 523
Location: Maryland, Baltimore
Originally Posted by: biedmatt Go to Quoted Post
Hi Chuck, Soldering to the steel center rail of K track is okay, but the rails are stainless, I have yet to be successful soldeing to the rails. The nickel-silver rail joiners solder okay.


Hi Matt, I didn't know that the rails are stainless. I thought they were nickel silver like US makers (Atlas). So it's the center rail and the rail connector to make the electrical connections.


Thanks!
Chuck
Offline michelvr  
#4 Posted : 08 February 2016 19:17:00(UTC)
michelvr

Canada   
Joined: 06/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,264
Hello Chuck,

For perfect results I use Orthophosphoric acid as the flux and Silver solder to solde to k track. Or you can try a Paste Silver solder flux and silver solder.

Michel
thanks 3 users liked this useful post by michelvr
Offline Mark5  
#5 Posted : 08 February 2016 22:49:30(UTC)
Mark5

Canada   
Joined: 29/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,201
Location: Montreal, Canada
Depending on where the track is, such as in a yard or tunnel, you could try using the older 2100 series track and solder to it, or you could just use extra catenary mounts which will slide under both tracks. If you need only one side connected cut it. The connection is quite tight, of course never as good as soldering. Center rail connector 7504 can be handy too, especially if you are just setting up for tests.

As for a note on your track plan, my view is to keep it flexible. No need to have an exact copy of the track, so using C as a guide is great. You could also a mix of C and K by using a C to K joiner track, or if ambition DIY some C to K joiner track yourself.
- Mark
DB DR FS NS SNCF c. 1955-65, fan of V200, electrics and steam, so hard to narrow down...
...signaling systems, yard traffic and shunting, Sommerfeldt catenary,
and station architecture (esp. stations from 1920-70).
In process: a new modular layout, track planning and drawing benchwork.
Email anytime or chat live: https://discord.gg/jAEKyTWQPQ
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Mark5
Offline baggio  
#6 Posted : 09 February 2016 01:02:31(UTC)
baggio

Canada   
Joined: 21/09/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,718
Location: Toronto
I have a small K track layout and have not had a need to solder anything.

The feeder track is simple to use and that is what I use. For 2 rail, rather than a feeder I use those pin-like connectors on both sides of a straight track, but I don't know if it would work on 3 rail; probably not. I use K track so as to have a dual layout and in that sense it works well so I can run either a Marklin loco or a Piko/Roco/Lima loco.

However, I don't like K track because when you first use brand new tracks they are hard to join and you actually hurt your hands. Scared

Once the tracks are joined, if you take them apart again they are prone to becoming too loose and while this makes them easy to re-connect it also makes them easy to come apart. Also, the overall impression of the layout then is that the layout is not quite straight.

Bottom line: for my money, I would NEVER use K track, unless you want a dual layout, which I do, so I am stuck.

My 2 cents' worth.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by baggio
Offline baggio  
#7 Posted : 09 February 2016 01:07:08(UTC)
baggio

Canada   
Joined: 21/09/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,718
Location: Toronto
Two more things:

1. Once joined, the K tracks are nice and smooth;

2. I don't like the turnouts because they are not loco-friendly; however, I only use three turnouts and one in particular was a pain.

--- By the way, you cannot use all turnouts for a dual layout. One type is not suitable and one is. If anyone is interested to know which, I'll hunt for the catalogue no.

thanks 2 users liked this useful post by baggio
Offline H0  
#8 Posted : 09 February 2016 08:14:02(UTC)
H0


Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 14,603
Location: DE-NW
Slim turnouts are suitable for dual layouts, turnouts with small radii are not.
Regards
Tom
---
"In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS
UserPostedImage
thanks 3 users liked this useful post by H0
Offline PMPeter  
#9 Posted : 09 February 2016 16:54:12(UTC)
PMPeter

Canada   
Joined: 04/04/2013(UTC)
Posts: 1,205
Location: Port Moody, BC
It also depends on whether you plan on having a permanent layout or one that you can change around. If you want to change it occasionally then I would stick with C track. If it is to become a permanent layout I would definitely use K track. I have a mixture of both on my layout and I regret all of the areas where I have C track. It is noisy compared to K, hard to realistically ballast, and very defined in structure since there is no flex track.

I assemble the K track lengths, solder the 3rd rail connections underneath, don't solder the rail joiners, and solder my power feeds to the 3rd rail metal below and to one of the rail joiners (or both if required). This makes for a very solid electrical and mechanical connection.

If I were to start over again I would not use any C track.

My nickels worth since we no longer have pennies.

Cheers
Peter
thanks 5 users liked this useful post by PMPeter
Offline DaleSchultz  
#10 Posted : 10 February 2016 22:11:14(UTC)
DaleSchultz

United States   
Joined: 10/02/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,997
Originally Posted by: skeeterbuck Go to Quoted Post


For K track users, do you think this is a good plan or recommend a better way to proceed?

Thanks for any and all input.

Chuck


well part of the better looks of K-track is that you can easily avoid the small radius curves and turnouts that often make C track layout look toy like!!!

So I would suggest you dont use the same radii.

Also, since K-track give you the opportunity to use flex track, you can get the nice sweeping graduated curves...

so I would say, rather design a track plan from scratch to take full advantage of the K track...

Dale
Intellibox + own software, K-Track
My current layout: https://cabin-layout.mixmox.com
Arrival and Departure signs: https://remotesign.mixmox.com
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by DaleSchultz
Offline DaleSchultz  
#11 Posted : 10 February 2016 22:14:37(UTC)
DaleSchultz

United States   
Joined: 10/02/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,997
and for soldering, you can solder to the underside connectors for the center rail, for the running rail don't even start fooling about with flux paste etc. Simply add regular cheap atlas rail joiners, or solder onto the existing running rail joiners. http://layout.mixmox.com/1/laying-track
Dale
Intellibox + own software, K-Track
My current layout: https://cabin-layout.mixmox.com
Arrival and Departure signs: https://remotesign.mixmox.com
thanks 4 users liked this useful post by DaleSchultz
Offline skeeterbuck  
#12 Posted : 11 February 2016 15:02:11(UTC)
skeeterbuck

United States   
Joined: 15/12/2015(UTC)
Posts: 523
Location: Maryland, Baltimore
Originally Posted by: DaleSchultz Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: skeeterbuck Go to Quoted Post


For K track users, do you think this is a good plan or recommend a better way to proceed?

Thanks for any and all input.

Chuck


well part of the better looks of K-track is that you can easily avoid the small radius curves and turnouts that often make C track layout look toy like!!!

So I would suggest you dont use the same radii.

Also, since K-track give you the opportunity to use flex track, you can get the nice sweeping graduated curves...

so I would say, rather design a track plan from scratch to take full advantage of the K track...



Thanks Dale for the advice, however I don't have much more room that for a 4X8 ft area so even if I use K track I won't be able to have graduated curves.

Chuck
Offline PMPeter  
#13 Posted : 11 February 2016 17:31:16(UTC)
PMPeter

Canada   
Joined: 04/04/2013(UTC)
Posts: 1,205
Location: Port Moody, BC
Even on a 4 x 8 table you will have greater flexibility with K track than C track. C track has fixed geometry, whereas K track offers a lot more small pieces and with the added benefit of flextrack that can be cut to any length and bent to custom radii you would be surprised what can be fit on a 4 x 8 table.

As someone else suggested, do a layout plan with something like SCARM using C Track and then and try duplicating the layout using K track and K flextrack. See which one works out better for you.

Cheers
Peter
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by PMPeter
Offline skeeterbuck  
#14 Posted : 11 February 2016 17:44:25(UTC)
skeeterbuck

United States   
Joined: 15/12/2015(UTC)
Posts: 523
Location: Maryland, Baltimore
Originally Posted by: PMPeter Go to Quoted Post
Even on a 4 x 8 table you will have greater flexibility with K track than C track. C track has fixed geometry, whereas K track offers a lot more small pieces and with the added benefit of flextrack that can be cut to any length and bent to custom radii you would be surprised what can be fit on a 4 x 8 table.

As someone else suggested, do a layout plan with something like SCARM using C Track and then and try duplicating the layout using K track and K flextrack. See which one works out better for you.

Cheers
Peter



Hi Peter,

Great minds think alike! Wink You must have read my mind because I was thinking the same thing. I recently downloaded the SCARM program to try as you suggested.

Chuck
Offline hxmiesa  
#15 Posted : 16 February 2016 21:13:18(UTC)
hxmiesa

Spain   
Joined: 15/12/2005(UTC)
Posts: 3,351
Location: Spain
K-track rails are easily soldered, if you solder the "track-shoes".
Of course it is just a "press" connection to the rail, but I have laid 100´s of meters of K-track with great succes this way.

For the center pukos I remove a little black paint un the underside of the metal, and it solders perfectly. I sometimes also use the embedded copper-tounges at the end of the track-segments, but find the plastic will easily deform that way...

When converting a track-plan from C-track to K-track; Well.. You cant! The geometry is not compatible. In any event a K-track layout will benefit from a re-design, as you can use flexible track and the slim switches are just beautiful and delightful to design with. (Not at all troublesome as are their C-track counterparts!!!)
Best regards
Henrik Hoexbroe ("The Dane In Spain")
http://hoexbroe.tripod.com
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by hxmiesa
Offline BrandonVA  
#16 Posted : 18 February 2016 18:37:35(UTC)
BrandonVA

United States   
Joined: 09/12/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,533
Location: VA
Originally Posted by: hxmiesa Go to Quoted Post

When converting a track-plan from C-track to K-track; Well.. You cant! The geometry is not compatible. In any event a K-track layout will benefit from a re-design, as you can use flexible track and the slim switches are just beautiful and delightful to design with. (Not at all troublesome as are their C-track counterparts!!!)


I agree that the geometry is not the same. However, I have converted a few track plans from C to K, you can't get a 1:1; but if you work at it you can get it pretty close. Typically the K track will take a little less room. I would say that this is also an opportunity to integrate some features that K track has but C does not, such as the 2205 flex track for those curves larger than R5/R9, both on main rails or maybe just for sidings that are little more prototypical and not arrow straight.

Here's a pretty cool 4x8 folded dogbone layout by Dan Sylvester:
UserPostedImage
Source/Additional photos:
http://www.foxvalleydivision.org/railfun2014/layouts/sylvester/sylvesterlayout2014.html

Plan:
MRR-B0311_TP.jpg
Larger version of the plan on page 5 of this PDF:
ldj_41_sampler.pdf (981kb) downloaded 32 time(s).

Granted this isn't a K track plan, but I think a pretty close representation could be made with K since Marklin has geometry to allow for regular functional R1/R2 turnouts and whatnot. Obviously this is an American landscape, but I think this layout could be similar and be a German or similar design as well. The shadow station could be omitted to reduce complexity, either by dropping the siding that goes to it or rerouting it to come around and connect to the other side forming a 2nd independent loop.

-Brandon
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by BrandonVA
Offline Goofy  
#17 Posted : 18 February 2016 19:46:34(UTC)
Goofy


Joined: 12/08/2006(UTC)
Posts: 8,582
It´s an very nice plan layout!
How big is it in centimeters from 4x8 foot?
H0
DCC = Digital Command Control
Offline PMPeter  
#18 Posted : 18 February 2016 19:58:26(UTC)
PMPeter

Canada   
Joined: 04/04/2013(UTC)
Posts: 1,205
Location: Port Moody, BC
Originally Posted by: Goofy Go to Quoted Post
It´s an very nice plan layout!
How big is it in centimeters from 4x8 foot?


1.22 m x 2.44 m
Users browsing this topic
OceanSpiders 2.0
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.

| Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2022, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.935 seconds.