"Clean Sheet" Layout Planning: Which Track System? Caveats..

You said this will be a permanent layout when finished, and I assume the cab forward is conventional control.  What kind of layout do you want long term?  More toy like or post war?   More realistic looking?

Are you looking to build the layout by trail and error, which is why you want track that is easy to take apart/put together?  You may want to look at track planning software.

Dennis, there are folks better qualified than I to offer advice on track. However, congratulations on building something with your grandson. You didn’t mention his age but getting him involved will be a forever great memory for him. Fundamental skills that you encourage with him now will last a lifetime. Don’t hesitate to introduce the elements of design, wiring, landscaping, etc. Keep in mind that it’s always easier, and faster, when an adult does the task. Take lots of pictures.

@Dennis GS-4 N & W No. 611 posted:

My principle considerations are a track system that has various "fixed" radii, and that assembles and comes apart easily.  So, although a grade schooler will be helping me with the layout construction, I also want to be able run a brass, scale-sized, Williams "Crown Edition" SP Cab- Forward on the layout.  This will be a permanent layout for me once finished.

It seems you have somewhat conflicting track requirements.  Track that "assembles and comes apart easily" sounds like maybe Fastrack, but that's not what I'd pick for a permanent layout or for running stuff that may require something other than the rounded profile rails that stuff like Fastrack offers.  If you're wanting to run scale brass locomotives, you need to pay attention to leveling and solidity of the benchwork as well as the track type.  I've found that many brass locomotives seem to be really good at finding very small flaws in your benchwork and trackwork.

I'd personally recommend Ross track and switches.

Jay, thanks for the very thoughtful note -- and the great suggestions!

Ron and John, those are all excellent questions and suggestions, and I appreciate your considered  input!

First some background:  I have a permanent layout in an adjacent room, built with MTH RealTrax, that I originally built decades ago.  Since there were two duck-unders on that layout, I rebuilt the permanent layout about 5 years ago to eliminate the duck-unders.  That also necessitated cutting the outer mainline from 0-72 track, to 0-36 track, at the widest.

Hence, I presently can't run any of my locos that require 0-54 or 0-72 track.  So, goal #1 is to find track that will accommodate  0-72 locomotives.

The original layout in the adjacent room used GarGraves track, which was exceptional, but was not built to accommodate  0-72 locomotives.  Once I purchased one of those gorgeous, "Crown Edition", Williams scale-sized brass locomotives that required 0-72 track, I had to do a rebuild of the entire layout.  Since, I didn't have the time to keep cutting and forming the Gargraves track - which was required at the time - I had to replace the track system completely.   To get the non-derailing feature, I chose Lionel 0 Gauge track for the next rebuild of the original layout in the adjacent room.  

Over time, I became disenchanted with the 0-72 switches, and after reading an excellent article in a toy train magazine, I completely re-built the layout using MTH RealTrax.  I didn't have the time then either to do all of the ballasting, etc., so the RealTrax offered a simpler option to me for my classic "toy" train layout.

As for this project with my grandson, I am comfortable designing the layout using my "T &E Software" -- "trial and error", and, of course, looking at the published track plans that I have acquired over the years.

I mostly need assistance with track that is easy to assemble and disassemble, and that comes in diameters up to 0'72.

Hence for both me and my grandson, I would like a track system that is easy to assemble and  disassemble.  That is goal #2.

Finally, IMHO, RealTrax and tubular track do not satisfy those goals.   Just my opinion.

Thanks again!  

Based upon your stated goals, I would recommend Lionel Fastrack.

BTW, you referenced "radii up to O-72". I suspect that was a typo. Generally speaking, O scale/gauge track is referenced in diameter, not radii, where for example, a full O-72 curve is 72" or 6', in diameter. 

Try wearing thin, mechanic-type gloves when assembling or disassembling track - it's easier on the hands and fingers.

I had enough issues with connectivity with Fastrack over the years that I'll never go back to that option.  I rate dependability as the #1 criteria nowadays.  I still don't fully understand the easy to assemble and disassemble the track issue.  FWIW, I don't find Ross dimensional track to be particularly difficult to assemble and disassemble, but I try to do more assembly than disassembly.  Add to that the fact that Ross has a greater assortment of off-the-shelf switch types, really looks good, and it makes the decision pretty easy in my mind.

As for layout, I recommend AnyRail track planning software, it was the easiest of the bunch I tried to master.  I tried SCARM, RRTrack, XTrackCAD, and finally AnyRail.

@Richie C. posted:

Based upon your stated goals, I would recommend Lionel Fastrack.

BTW, you referenced "radii up to O-72". I suspect that was a typo. Generally speaking, O scale/gauge track is referenced in diameter, not radii, where for example, a full O-72 curve is 72" or 6', in diameter.

Try wearing thin, mechanic-type gloves when assembling or disassembling track - it's easier on the hands and fingers.

Correction noted -- and made!  I'll also try the thin mechanic type gloves, as they sound like an excellent suggestion.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

I had enough issues with connectivity with Fastrack over the years that I'll never go back to that option.  I rate dependability as the #1 criteria nowadays.  I still don't fully understand the easy to assemble and disassemble the track issue.  FWIW, I don't find Ross dimensional track to be particularly difficult to assemble and disassemble, but I try to do more assembly than disassembly.  Add to that the fact that Ross has a greater assortment of off-the-shelf switch types, really looks good, and it makes the decision pretty easy in my mind.

As for layout, I recommend AnyRail track planning software, it was the easiest of the bunch I tried to master.  I tried SCARM, RRTrack, XTrackCAD, and finally AnyRail.

Thanks gunrunnerjohn!  I'll try AnyRail software.  I tried one of the software packages that you mentioned, and it was complicated for a simpler layout..

Dennis

Your 8ft x 8ft size for a 072 track is better suited for 027.  For 072 you will mainly be around the perimeter.  You may be able to use four 072 switches and make an Oval and Figure 8 that will give lots of action allowing reversing in both directions.  My layout is in three sections and portable but uses 027 sectional track making separating the track on disassembly easy.

Have fun planning and building.

Charlie

@Richie C. posted:

Based upon your stated goals, I would recommend Lionel Fastrack.

BTW, you referenced "radii up to O-72". I suspect that was a typo. Generally speaking, O scale/gauge track is referenced in diameter, not radii, where for example, a full O-72 curve is 72" or 6', in diameter.

A little late to the discussion, but -  I think the 2 rail scale modelers would disagree with the diameter versus radius statement. Some of the larger MTH engines with scale wheel sets which can run 2 rail or 3 rail will not navigate 072 diameter curves. This whole 2rail v 3rail and scale v Hi-Rail category had confused me for a couple of years until I finally think I understand it.  Unfortunately when in forum discussions, few add diameter or radius, you have to know the discussion area.   

I came from HO modeling and was frustrated because of the sweeping curves needed for the larger engines and cars - ie: 6 foot diameter. Then I saw "O" could run really big articulated engines on a 6 foot diameter. Magic - double the size and no bigger track curves needed. Then I find out there is semi-scale and scale sized equipment and the compromises made for each. Then even more compromises for hi-rail locos vs scale wheel locos - floating pilots and middle wheels without flanges to say nothing about the real differences in rails and track laying precision needed to run scale v hi-rail wheels. Remembering my HO modeling in the 60s, then the post war 027 Lionel stuff for my sons in the 90s  then reengaging in the 2020s - wow things have sure changed. Very steep learning curve and a terrific hobby.

@Dennis GS-4 N & W No. 611  Does your Williams brass engine have scale or hi-rail wheels. That will make a difference on track selection.

@Choo Choo Charlie posted:

Your 8ft x 8ft size for a 072 track is better suited for 027.  For 072 you will mainly be around the perimeter.  You may be able to use four 072 switches and make an Oval and Figure 8 that will give lots of action allowing reversing in both directions.  My layout is in three sections and portable but uses 027 sectional track making separating the track on disassembly easy.

Apparently, you didn't read one of his requirements.

@Dennis GS-4 N & W No. 611 posted:

So, although a grade schooler will be helping me with the layout construction, I also want to be able run a brass, scale-sized, Williams "Crown Edition" SP Cab- Forward on the layout.  This will be a permanent layout for me once finished.

@ScoutingDad posted:

@Dennis GS-4 N & W No. 611  Does your Williams brass engine have scale or hi-rail wheels. That will make a difference on track selection.

Unless it's different than my brass Williams scale Cab Forward, it's a 3-rail locomotive with pizza cutter wheels.

Dennis,

With an 8X8 that is accessible from all sides, you could do something like this two track design.  Using Ross track and switches, outside loop is O-72, inside is O-54, and with just a tiny jiggle there is no track cutting required.  You could add more track inside the loops.  There are lots of possibilities, but you will really only have one loop where your large engines can run.  Also, if you are willing to do a little bit of cutting straight track, there are other possibilities.

Dennis

If you need a little more size you could use two 5ft x 9ft ping pong size tables.  That would give you a 9ft x 10ft layout, a little bigger, and harder to reach, than the 8ft x 8ft you are working with.

Charlie

Just playing around with this a bit.  Keeping your O-72 loop but going with smaller interior tracks, here it uses O-42 switches and O-31 track to get a reversing loop.  Oh well, need to get back to the taxes.

My $0.02, I hadn't bought track since the mid-80s.  I hadn't join OGR when I restarted in early November last year.  My old O-27 track was all rusty, and I saw fastrack and thought 'Wow, this is cool".  As I gained experience what I liked was the ability to buy (not build) rail sections to activate, say, the switch tower, the milk car, the icing station, the gateman, etc. without the pressure plates.  I hate those things.

Over the last couple of months I purchased enough fastrack to make a complete elongated 8x4 oval with O-31 curves.  Right now it's on carpet (we're tearing it out in a month or so), so that makes it harder for the track.

But in the end I have to say I hate fastrack.  The sections never stay tight (I'm buying 100 half-inch clips for that right now).  Even if they're tight I still have dead zones (I'm also in the process of working on the center rail issue that has been talked about on OGR in the past).  The fastrack operating track section doesn't work very well either.

Perhaps my opinion will change once I have a permanent layout and the track is nailed down.  Right now I'm regretting my fastrack purchases.

I don't know if you want tubular, but I also bought some new tubular from Menards back in November, along with the fastrack.  I use the tubular for my #60 trolley.  It is quite good, but the only problem is that it is much larger than my O-27 track so stuff I have for it (the lockons, the pressure plates, the trestles) don't seem to fit very well.

@ScoutingDad posted:

A little late to the discussion, but -  I think the 2 rail scale modelers would disagree with the diameter versus radius statement. Some of the larger MTH engines with scale wheel sets which can run 2 rail or 3 rail will not navigate 072 diameter curves. This whole 2rail v 3rail and scale v Hi-Rail category had confused me for a couple of years until I finally think I understand it.  Unfortunately when in forum discussions, few add diameter or radius, you have to know the discussion area.   

I came from HO modeling and was frustrated because of the sweeping curves needed for the larger engines and cars - ie: 6 foot diameter. Then I saw "O" could run really big articulated engines on a 6 foot diameter. Magic - double the size and no bigger track curves needed. Then I find out there is semi-scale and scale sized equipment and the compromises made for each. Then even more compromises for hi-rail locos vs scale wheel locos - floating pilots and middle wheels without flanges to say nothing about the real differences in rails and track laying precision needed to run scale v hi-rail wheels. Remembering my HO modeling in the 60s, then the post war 027 Lionel stuff for my sons in the 90s  then reengaging in the 2020s - wow things have sure changed. Very steep learning curve and a terrific hobby.

@Dennis GS-4 N & W No. 611  Does your Williams brass engine have scale or hi-rail wheels. That will make a difference on track selection.

Duly noted, but it was specifically qualified as a "generally speaking" observation rather than an absolute statement and, given that the OP had taken down an MTH Real Trax layout, I was pretty confident he was talking about 3 rail.

There are a lot of great suggestions here!

For right now, for a variety of reasons, I plan to keep the 8' x 8' table configuration.  On an 8' X 8' table,  I won't be able to let the 0-72 locomotives stretch their legs, but getting them off of the display shelves will be a heartening move -- and directionally correct.  I can use the interior of the layout to add more action. And in answer to Ron's earlier question, I would like to add some Postwar accessories that are easily accessible from the sides of the table.  My plan for those is to switch the accessories out over time, so as to get use out of more of them.  

Finally, both of the layouts posted above by Ron are quite intriguing.  Ron, which software program did you use?

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Unless it's different than my brass Williams scale Cab Forward, it's a 3-rail locomotive with pizza cutter wheels.

That is a new one for me. Lobsta Claws and now Pizza Cutter Wheels   LOL  getting hungry just thinking about it. 

@ScoutingDad posted:

That is a new one for me. Lobsta Claws and now Pizza Cutter Wheels   LOL  getting hungry just thinking about it.

Lobster and pizza, what more can you ask!

@CAPPilot posted:

Dennis,

With an 8X8 that is accessible from all sides, you could do something like this two track design.  Using Ross track and switches, outside loop is O-72, inside is O-54, and with just a tiny jiggle there is no track cutting required.  You could add more track inside the loops.  There are lots of possibilities, but you will really only have one loop where your large engines can run.  Also, if you are willing to do a little bit of cutting straight track, there are other possibilities.

Ron,  This configuration looks appealing because the design would allow for two separate trains to operate simultaneously.  As necessitated by the size of the table itself, to operate a train from the outer loop through the switch tracks, the locomotive would have to be limited to one requiring an 0-54 diameter, at most, to operate.  And that is fine.  This design also allows for an easy extension of the table into one of the green areas with additional 0-72 switches.  I was looking for a place to add an 0-72 siding to "park" an 0-72 locomotive, but I don't think this sized table would accommodate that luxury.  Although, there may be enough room if the side track curved off of the straight portion of a switch track that butts up against one of the other 0-72 switches.  Great food for thought, though, and you and John have me re-thinking using an actual track design software program.  Thank you very much.

If I remember correctly, Atlas track is fairly easy to assemble and disassemble and you can build two loops (connected by crossovers (4 switches or just one double crossover) using O84 for the outer loop and O72 for the inner loop.  Of course, the outer loop will only be a huge circle, but you would be able to run your large engine(s) on both loops.

Chuck

@Dennis GS-4 N & W No. 611 posted:

Ron, which software program did you use?

I use RR-Track 5.0, a program some do not like because it is difficult to learn.  When I bought it nearly 20 years ago it was the only one that really worked for O.  Now there are several.  Being very familiar with it, I like the program.

Playing with this track plan is taking my mind off more pressing issues.  Here is a plan with both loops O-72 with O-72 switched between the loops.  There is no room for a normal switch on the inside loop, but you could use Ross's O72/O54 curved switched shown in a couple places.

If you went to 8'X8.5" you could use a normal switch in place of the current 10" sections on the inside loop. 

You could put a switch in each corner like the one in the upper right.  You can put your operating accessories there.

Thanks Ron!  That looks really interesting, and has a number of diverse operating capabilities, particularly for such wide radii, and such a comparatively compressed space.