Skip to main content

Opinions please. Will payback in kind (when I know anything)

I had planned on a dual main line with O 72” Lionel tubular track turns (O on all track )

Would it be a good idea to go 96” ? menards has it on sale, was planning on track work soon

Not sure if I need it, could be bigger is better syndrome I’m pretty sure all rolling stock is rated 72 or under    I have the space but not sure if needed  Would it  work/look better ?

Layout is 16 ft 4 x 14 ft 4   Upper level 14 x 12 approx Also  appreciated any thoughts on spacing track I’ve reviewed NRMA didn’t see straight recommendations.

Awhile ago someone here said 6 inch through turns on center AND 6 inch from edge? Centers? From scenery wall, Edge of board ? That might push it.  Planning on 13 inch wide straight runs more on turns. Any thoughts appreciated.

Steven T

 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Not sure I understand your table shape or track plan. You say the each section has a 4-foot dimension. How do you plan to use O-72 or O-96 track diameter on a table that is only 48 inches wide? Having said that, if you have two tracks next to each other with the same center point and have room for O-96 outside O-72, I think that would be better than O-72 for both curves. You could use O-72 for both curves by inserting some straight sections into the outer track.

MELGAR

Last edited by MELGAR

The bigger the curve, the better your trains will look and operate.  Go with the biggest curves your plan will allow, in every place you can.

A lot of times, you can't go with as big as you want, due to space restrictions of your track plan.  In that case, try working easements into your plan (the real railroads do this on all their curves).  For instance, start into a curve with a piece of O96 curve.  Then for the next piece use the next smaller size, O84 (or whatever).  Then drop down another size, say O72 (or whatever).  Continue on around the curve with O72 pieces, until you get a few pieces away from the end of the curve.  Then finish off the curve with a piece of O84, and lastly a piece of O96.

Easements are probably not as critical with bigger curves as they are with smaller curves.  But trust me, they both look and work REALLY well with ALL curves.

For parallel track spacing, you probably would want 4 1/2" center-to-center minimum on straightaways.  But on curves, you will want to start going wider as the curves get smaller, in order to prevent equipment from side-swiping each other.  Others will have better recommendations on this than I do at this time. 

MELGAR posted:

Not sure I understand your table shape or track plan. You say the each section has a 4-foot dimension. How do you plan to use O-72 or O-96 track diameter on a table that is only 48 inches wide? Having said that, if you have two tracks next to each other with the same center point and have room for O-96 outside O-72, I think that would be better than O-72 for both curves. You could use O-72 for both curves by inserting some straight sections into the outer track.

MELGAR

"Layout is 16 ft 4 x 14 ft 4   Upper level 14 x 12 approx" 

I took this to mean 16' - 4" X 14' - 4" and 14' X 12' as the space dimensions.

Here's an example of a 16'4" x 14'4" layout. The Blue tracks are O72 and and the yellow are O96. The yellow squares are 13", so the separation center to center is about 15" without cutting tracks. You can see there's almost no difference, so there's no reason not to save some money on the O96 unless you plan some kind of different design,like the one in the 2nd photo.

test

test2

Attachments

Images (2)
  • test
  • test2

Add Reply

Post
The Track Planning and Layout Design Forum is sponsored by

AN OGR FORUM CHARTER SPONSOR
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×