Curve Radius for 4X16

If your minimum width is 48", you are correct with 042 for your maximum curves.

I'm going to guess that you're using 036 FasTrack now. Those straights on your outer loop answer your question regarding using the same minimum radius on both loops.

GarGraves/Ross is a solid track/switch selection.

Gilly@N&W posted:

If your minimum width is 48", you are correct with 042 for your maximum curves.

I'm going to guess that you're using 036 FasTrack now. Those straights on your outer loop answer your question regarding using the same minimum radius on both loops.

GarGraves/Ross is a solid track/switch selection.

Yes it's 036 fastrack forgot to mention that. Thanks for the help! 

Yes, O42 is the largest loops you can run and no, you can't run 2 loops of that size. You'd have to use O32 for the inner loop. Here's an example using Ross 11° turnouts (#5) with GarGraves O32/O42 track. They result in a center-to-center spacing of 4.25" along the top and 3.75" along the bottom. There are also some places where tracks would need to be custom cut to fit. This is often the case with GarGraves track because the smallest straight they make is 6.2". HTH

DoubleDAZ posted:

Yes, O42 is the largest loops you can run and no, you can't run 2 loops of that size. You'd have to use O32 for the inner loop. Here's an example using Ross 11° turnouts (#5) with GarGraves O32/O42 track. They result in a center-to-center spacing of 4.25" along the top and 3.75" along the bottom. There are also some places where tracks would need to be custom cut to fit. This is often the case with GarGraves track because the smallest straight they make is 6.2". HTH

 

Thanks. 032 Wouldn't be a problem as all of my trains (even the big diesels and passenger cars) can take that curve no problem. 

Matt, you might check out this arrangement at the bottom:  O44 outside (compound O48&O36) with O36 nestled within.    The top shows O42 from FasTrack O36&O48.

Ken-Oscale posted:

Matt, you might check out this arrangement at the bottom:  O44 outside (compound O48&O36) with O36 nestled within.    The top shows O42 from FasTrack O36&O48.

Cool! I didn't think of that. It'll still fit on my layout right? 

Ken, I guess that begs the question as to why Matt wants to switch to Ross/GarGraves. If it's simply to get a loop larger than O36, then your suggestion to make a compound loop by adding some O48 curves is a great way to do it at minimal expense.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Ken, I guess that begs the question as to why Matt wants to switch to Ross/GarGraves. If it's simply to get a loop larger than O36, then your suggestion to make a compound loop by adding some O48 curves is a great way to do it at minimal expense.

Ideally, I like something a bit more realistic than the fastrack which is why I'd go with GG/Ross. However, Ken's suggestion wouldn't be a bad idea if I didn't want to spend the money on a new track system. 

This next design shows O44 again, but on the right side outside route, the O36 is broken up into smaller pieces, which might actually run equipment requiring O42 minimum (you would want to test).   More small sections needed on the right than the left side.

Ken-Oscale posted:

This next design shows O44 again, but on the right side outside route, the O36 is broken up into smaller pieces, which might actually run equipment requiring O42 minimum (you would want to test).   More small sections than the left side.

Cool idea. My goal is to get an N&W J which needs 042 so this would work in a pinch. 

Matt, I can't tell from the photo how you are supporting your decking, but it looks like you might be able to use complete O48 curves by simply adding some extensions on 1 side of your decking. This is FasTrack O36 inside O48. Just something more to consider depending on your goals.

Matt, if you have 4x9, there is room for a connection to make a reverse-loop in one direction, and a couple of spurs (with O48 turnouts).

If you would like O42 minimum everywhere with FasTrack, this might be the start of an idea:  O44(compound) inside with O48 outside.  More work would be needed to make a cross-over between the outer O48 and inner O42, and to delete the O36.  This width is 56", probably would expand to 60" to work in the cross-overs.   Just another idea, let me know if you want me to do more work on this.

Ken-Oscale posted:

If you would like O42 minimum everywhere with FasTrack, this might be the start of an idea:  O44(compound) inside with O48 outside.  More work would be needed to make a cross-over between the outer O48 and inner O42, and to delete the O36.  This width is 56", probably would expand to 60" to work in the cross-overs.   Just another idea, let me know if you want me to do more work on this.

The idea is cool for sure. I'll think on it and let you know. 

Just having fun, and thought I would see what an O42-minimum (compound curves of O44) would look like with two tracks.  The inside route of O44-diameter will likely handle most O42 minimum equipment (need to test).   

Though the outside diameter is about O54, it is unlikely to handle O54-minimum equipment due to the large amount of O48 curvature.

Another experiment for a longer space:

This version is a bit better:  It is 3" shorter in length, but more importantly it uses O72 cross-overs and uses two O72 "Y" tracks, for better overall design standards.   The gentle "S" curves that create the connection between the two loops are now constructed with two O72 half sections.   Still O42 minimum everywhere.

Ken-Oscale posted:

This version is a bit better:  It is 3" shorter in length, but more importantly it uses O72 cross-overs and uses two O72 "Y" tracks, for better overall design standards.   The gentle "S" curves that create the connection between the two loops are now constructed with two O72 half sections.   Still O42 minimum everywhere.

Nice! I like this plan a lot! 

You might want to consider Gargraves flex track.

RJR posted:

You might want to consider Gargraves flex track.

That's an idea. 

One more variation with this FasTrack design, one inch shorter (15'4").   The long angled straight shots cross-country through the crossing in the middle might make for some interesting train watching views.   A few spurs just to show what might be possible.   All turnouts are O72, with four O72 "Y"s.

And with a short yard using O60 turnouts (O72 on the mains).

I put a slight bend in one of the diagonal tracks (with 1/4 O48 7.5-degree sections) which gave room for an additional yard track and allowed the yard to extend 10" or so, for more car storage.   Interesting difference, and interesting visuals with the "bend"!

Here with O72 1/2 sections for the "bend" 12.5-degree curvature.

There is a short yard lead, from the first yard turnout across the diamonds, so that is good, and perhaps three trains: two running the mains, and one switching the yard.

Discussion many years ago lead to a larger width (5 ft/60 inches), which allowed for O54 curves.  Positioned in a 12' 6" X 12' bedroom, including the closet area, bottom of picture.  Outside track O54 curves, Inside track O45.  Atlas track drawing. 

Camera walk around    Click on the underlined phrase for a slideshow. 

4 x 16 layout, one end 12 inches wider, used 042 and 031. Build upper level with end dogbones, have reversing loop and two yards for accessories, added a ceiling loop of 054 radius.  Used k-line and Lionel tubular. Still building

Ken-Oscale posted:

I put a slight bend in one of the diagonal tracks (with 1/4 O48 7.5-degree sections) which gave room for an additional yard track and allowed the yard to extend 10" or so, for more car storage.   Interesting difference, and interesting visuals with the "bend"!

Here with O72 1/2 sections for the "bend" 12.5-degree curvature.

There is a short yard lead, from the first yard turnout across the diamonds, so that is good, and perhaps three trains: two running the mains, and one switching the yard.

So far this has my vote. I agree that bends add to the visual interest. Figure-eights are great!—four reversing loops when inside an oval.

Matt, very glad you are liking this design!   If you decide to build, I will help with a track section list.  I agree, its nice to have a figure-8 as an alternate route to run.

Sometimes I will add an indent along the "front" of a layout to enhance reach and access.   Not a problem for your space, and not much is gained for this design, but it might be more important for other folks.   Anyway, here is an example, it looks kind of "cool", but not everyone's "cup of tea".

For someone who needs the layout to run along a back wall, I would recommend removing two sets of cross-overs (saving some $$), which also makes most of the turnouts reachable from the front.

Ken-Oscale posted:

Matt, very glad you are liking this design!   If you decide to build, I will help with a track section list.  I agree, its nice to have a figure-8 as an alternate route to run.

Ken, to clarify, I am not the same Matt as the original poster, TRAINLOVER9943. :-)

Thanks for clarifying Matt GNO27!

Ken, your help on the forums is amazing. Keep it up. I love your ideas. I’ve never thought of combining multiple radii on a curve to make a different radius. These tricks are great to learn. 

That's the beauty of flexible track.  the curve can be a constantly changing radius.