Ideas for layout

I’m going with GarGraves, but if I had a lot of Fastrack already, I would use it.  GarGraves and Atlas switches aren’t inexpensive either 

FasTrack is not bad looking, and it performs well.  There have been few problems reported.  By going to another track system like Atlas, Gargraves, or Ross gives you a better choice of radii,  This will allow you to reduce the spacing between adjacent tracks.

Perhaps, if you don't have any O48 curves and switches for the upper level, you could experiment with a different track system.

Jan

Personally, I don't foresee that many problems with the "S" curves, but a lot depends on what rolling stock you run, speed, etc. If you watch a train go through one, you'll see that the front wheel set is being pulled in one direction while the rear wheel set is being pulled in the opposite direction. If the car is too light, it can be pulled off the track. This happens more on longer cars, like passenger cars. It's usually a problem with tight curves, so I figured I'd mention it so someone might offer their experience. One way to minimize the problem is to insert a 5" or 10" straight track. That wouldn't be a problem in the right loop, but will take away from the aisle in the left loop.

When it comes to choosing track, you'll find that Atlas is pretty expensive, even at discounts. GarGraves track will probably be cheaper, but Ross switches aren't exactly cheap either, though they seem to have a reputation for reliability. And you can't always go by individual prices because you can sometimes get package discounts. Still, if you want to compare costs, it's not that hard to create an Excel spreadsheet and enter prices for various brands. Either way, many buy specific brands for more reasons that price, things like local availability, reliability, curve size and switch options, noise, appearance, etc. Since you already have some FasTrack, more might be the best option for you. Then again, if you have to buy all new switches, maybe not. My layout is going in the garage, so I'm more concerned with longevity and reliability during the hot summers than price, etc.

When it comes to the lift out/up section, the tracks don't connect, you have to run jumper wires to power the section. Here's a link to a You Tube video showing the concept. It's HO, but the concept is the same for all gauges.

The main thing is to get the basic design done and then I or someone can convert it to a different brand track to show you the differences. Like Jan said, some brands give you more curve size options. Staying close to the same sizes though won't change much. The biggest change would come from reducing the minimum curve size from O72/O80 to something like Atlas O45/O54. If oyu like this design, I can work on converting it to Atlas and or Gargraves/Ross using the tighter curves.

BTW, I would hope you're seeing the value of software over paper/pencil.

Yes. The software way is the obvious approach in today's world but of course I would not knock those who like the paper and pencil way.  I really do like this design It has all that I was looking for.  Lets do stick with it.  I would like to see the difference between the Atlas and Fastrack to just see the comparison of the two.  Thanks !

I don't knock the old ways either, but I remember how much paper/erasers I went through and that was before we had so many options for different track with different curve sizes. For me it's just easier to see that everything will fit and there will be enough clearance, etc., before track is bought and construction begins.

How about this one that our "Kid's Club" put together last Saturday in the museum's library. Color signifies which line is powered separately so the crossovers required a degree of cooperation between the kids while running their trains. 

I have used Gargraves track & switches on my layouts. It's easier to cut the track to ft & you can have any radius you want. Gargrave turnouts aren't the best made but I can not afford over $100 per turnout for Ross.  

Our club went with Ross pre-made curved track for the curves and found out a problem. When you make a circle or part of it, the individual track pieces are longer then the sum of of the track.  What I mean is that making a curve did not come out as a fluid line,  but more like daisy petals.

If you want ideas for layouts, Google "Gerorge Baustert", he designed hundreds of pencil sketched layouts for Trainplayer. Many of then are small in size. You can download his entire gallery or just look at them on line.  I am using one of his plans for my home layout.

Bill  

ok thanks

Okay, here's the Atlas version and as I said there is not much difference in footprint. There is a difference in the parts lists though, but I don't know what that translates into as far as overall cost. I separated things in Layers, so you can turn various elements on/off. Unfortunately, the 3D view doesn't have an option to only display visible layers.

I played around with O45/O54 and given that these are just ovals there's nothing to be gained by going with tighter curves.

FasTrack Parts List

Atlas Parts List

Thank You so much !  I will look it over and do some thinking  

DoubleDAZ posted:

Okay, here's the Atlas version and as I said there is not much difference in footprint. There is a difference in the parts lists though, but I don't know what that translates into as far as overall cost. I separated things in Layers, so you can turn various elements on/off. Unfortunately, the 3D view doesn't have an option to only display visible layers.

I played around with O45/O54 and given that these are just ovals there's nothing to be gained by going with tighter curves.

FasTrack Parts List

Atlas Parts List

 

Thanks for posting the track list, I really like this layout plan for my new layout,  my only difference is the length of our layout is 24 ft. I should be able to extend the length.  Thanks again for all your work on the plans. Nick T.

t8afao posted:

Thanks for posting the track list, I really like this layout plan for my new layout,  my only difference is the length of our layout is 24 ft. I should be able to extend the length.  Thanks again for all your work on the plans. Nick T.

You're welcome. If you need me to modify the plan, just shoot me an email with what you'd like and I'll see what I can do. No need to add to this thread.

Hi Dave, I have been looking at the Atlas version put on the forum here to me and I was wondering if you could just send the Atlas version with the atlas tracks in the plan as seen  with the atlas parts list   I am thinking of going with the atlas I don't seem to have the atlas version with atlas tracks in the scarm file.  Thank You so much for your help !  

Charles.

Here you go, Atlas track only. If you want me to remove the colors and put things all on 1 layer just let me know. 

Thank You Dave !

Hi Dave,  I have run into a major problem with the new layout plan.  I had been  checking with the measurements on the bench work, and I seemed to have miscalculated  on the back wall ( 216" ) 18 feet , turns out to be it was 192 " or 16 feet instead.  I guess it will cut down on the radius a lot and the top elevated section too.  I cant seem to work it out with the Scarm wont let me add track only take away.  Any verdict on this ?  Thanks.  

The trial version won't let you alter the track other than delete until you get below the 100 threshold. You might be able to do that by deleting the upper level and the yard tracks (not the turnout to the yard though). Even if you do that, I'll still take a look too at what needs to be done to make things fit. That might take some doing given the winding curve along the front and I'm pretty sure the crossover will need to be moved/changed.

I do need to ask though, does the 16' mean the pole is closer to the left or does everything on the right just move 2' to the left? I'll start with the latter, but I do need to know soon.

Ok, here's some ideas. I left the original walls and just moved the baseboard sides to the left.

D

Not seasoned yet posted:

Hi Dave,  I have run into a major problem with the new layout plan.  I had been  checking with the measurements on the bench work, and I seemed to have miscalculated  on the back wall ( 216" ) 18 feet , turns out to be it was 192 " or 16 feet instead.  I guess it will cut down on the radius a lot and the top elevated section too.  I cant seem to work it out with the Scarm wont let me add track only take away.  Any verdict on this ?  Thanks.  

Oops,

Just take away straights, it won't impact the curves.

NSY,

Attached is the resized room and the elevated level has been adjusted. Open it up and confirm the room measurements before we work on the main level. That will take some work to maintain the same elements. Check the desk wall length and that stepped corner.

We should be able to adjust and keep the diameter curves and such.

On S curve's taboo... It means different things in different scales.

   It leads to issues derailing cars while backing up with light cars in smaller scales. It a real taboo there while building.

  O having mostly truck mounted couplers push on a lower plane off the center on gravity so are more stable, even light.  Body mounts are different, higher up and being weighted to nmra code matters more.

In O, an S-curve causes issues with some cars that mechanically guide a coupler's swing as the truck turns, and or if long shanks are fixed solid to the truck.

  The issue is each truck coupler has overhang off center in curves, longer shanks have more overhang...which is why some shanks are articulated... The overhang for opposing curve angles can be 1/2"...so one truck or the other is coming off with fixed shanks.

  Articulated shanks and short shanks usually work in an S-curve. Unless the couplers knuckles are slightly different. Knuckles varied in size a bit over the decades and some actually don't play well with others. The result is having very little movement in left to right swing range before binding, barely turning each truck. These tight fits are just one more thing keep in mind when building a train (like minding weights and lengths to avoid stringlining)  The big offender are the nice detail cast couplers "small knuckle version" (Kline had a clone of one on the semi scale GG-1)

I.e., You really only need enough straight between opposing curves so one truck can be straight (or close to it) while the other truck is angled in a curve.  But because some engines do this too (longer trucks) 4 1/2"-5" is the "safe" rule of thumb. But a short 2-3" piece is often good enough.

Ok the shift ( 2 Feet) needs to come from the left side of the room not the right.  The bottom corner where desk is, is ok  the corner is same just need to take 2 feet away from left but it may make the lift up entrance be gone since the 2 feet would come over to the right side. Carl stated to just take some straights away and it shouldn't effect the curves ?  Thanks All !

Here's another try. I didn't play with the yard until you confirm measurements, especially the pole. And if you want to try to eliminate the "S" curves Adriatic was talking about, there's a version for that too. Note the changes to the green loops.

Ok men I am trying to understand the "S" curve part.  So the loops become tighter ? Causing derailment.   Dave the measurement in the lower corner ls 36" and 30 " toward south wall desk part.  I run all types of cars postwar lionel new lionel and mth.  Using Atlas fir this layout

NSY, if you look at the loops, you'll see that you go from a curve going in one direction directly into a curve going in the opposite direction. This puts strain on the wheel sets and can pull cars off the track. In the 2nd photo above I added some straight pieces to ease that strain. In many cases, it's not really a big deal because you won't be backing through the loop and the length of the train is limited by how many can fit through the curve. Still, most like to avoid them, but it does change the footprint when you add the straights.

Understand it now, Thank you.  So which route do I follow with this  ? for final plan.  

In the S misalignment drags one off on long shanks. Coupler knuckles do not track dead center, look at the center rail to see yourself. Long shanks are way off.

  Guided shanks give a smoother pull characteristic in normal curves, less turning work for the flanges. (its actually the shank helps turning the truck when they are working)

Or binding happens if there is too tight a fit, though not exactly as pictured for binding. The binding can happen this way even in a normal curve when knuckle size varies and fit is too tight, any "funny business" in S  alignment just compounds the issue a new way.

  I'll take a shot of two couplers that dont fit later.  The binding is what makes the pilot mounted couplers  on a GG-1 be a limiting factor in the minimum track radius they can take. I.e. many GG-1s can make an 0-27 curve but they cant do it with a box car in tow unless the box car has an articulated coupler to help the shanks align within the knuckles swing tolorances. There are other things this applies for too.

Adriatic, thanks for the added info I didn't that ! 

Not seasoned yet posted:

Understand it now, Thank you.  So which route do I follow with this  ? for final plan.  

If you're talking about the "S" curves, I'd follow the one with the straights added just to minimize problems. However, I've seen a number of layouts posted here who don't add the straights due to space and either don't have problems or don't mention them. So much depends on what cars you run, how fast, etc. It's really your call. Adding the straights impacts the reach some, but you're not going to be able to reach those back corners no matter what you do.

If you're talking about the 2 photos I posted, let us know is the dimensions are correct. If they are I'll clean things up (I see I missed some of the baseboard) and work on the yard. I can either leave the yard where it is or maybe come of the curve around the post. I can do a couple of versions, but don't want to waste my time if you're opposed to coming around the pole in any way.

FYI, for some engine car combos, this was a definite issue in my S curves in Super O, which is a 36"dia too. Track type won't fix it; they all have the same restrictions.

A very short straight (cleared it up on long shanks, and some guided ones, but not for all the guided ones.

E.g., My Marx El Capitan B unit doesn't like the S. The GG-1 prefers an articulated coupler car head end, even over short shanks, so it gets a special car head end with freely articulated long shank on one end ("mail car" or an extra caboose head end for a loco only runaround (to change directions faster at stub lines...Which was part of the reason for the dual nature of the design ) ...the extra gap isn't really as noticable to me behind the GG's already big gap.

Ok, Dave, I really don't have room behind the pole since the desk is there and the chair so I guess the yard will stay there.  Don't know about fixing the S curves if you can, I don't really run my trains fast although once in a while I get the urge. The bottom layout would run a bit faster but the curves are not an issue right ? .  All the dimensions are the same as before, I just messed up the measurement for the 18' top north wall.   Thanks

Picture won't post here for me anymore today.  Lots of updates lately, it may be days before it acts right again....  I 'll try again later

NSY, the 2nd photo shows both loops without the "S" curves. Compare the 2 versions of the green tracks and you'll see the straight pieces I added. I only added 5.5" pieces to the lower loop and that should work for most cars, but it might be better to add a 10" piece and that's what I'll do. Then you can decide if you want me to change it back.

The composer is playing the "every other post" game with me.

This Super O S-curve (36" dia) has the issue on some guided couplers, but not 2 long shanks .. a 3.5" straight.    A 4.5" would have cleared it up 100%. The 32" O scale S-curve suffers full limits.

the GG-1 fixed coupler on the left is slightly narrower, has a smaller knuckle and smaller pocket than the hopper on the right. This limits side to side motion before binding.(GG is derailed because it does bind here, and a Kline, but Lionel has the same small sized coupler on older locos/cars)

Here the same railed trucks are twisted till the flanges stop them. First, away from each other..Then towards each other.. where they dont align. Any closer will derail one.  (the GG's pilot truck is like an extra long shank from pivot to coupler.)  This is on 0-27 here to better emphasize the overhang differences visually. It will derail in a 36" S.   The hopper has a short shank and still barely reaches center; though on 0-27, its tight anywhere.  And doesnt apply just to a GG-1.

Dont build for what you have, build for what you want in the future

Ok, so here's what I've come up with. There are 2 places where tracks don't join, but I think they're close enough to connect during construction. I'm not too keen on where the upper crossover is, so if someone can suggest another location I'm open to it. I'd also cut custom fitter for several locations and I noted those. The yard can be enlarged slightly by extending the decking all the way to the bottom wall. I know reach in that lower right corner is an issue, but IMHO it's going to be an issue either way, YMMV. I also changed the upper right curve to O54 (vs O45) and could be changed to O72 if you want.

Photo 1 is a simple screen capture.
Photo 2 is a 3D capture.
Photo 3 shows where I added straights to alleviate the "S" curves.
Photo 4 shows where I'd substitute cut tracks to reduce the number of joints.
Photo 5 is the Parts List, but I would buy extra 40" track to cut instead of all of the small fitter tracks.

Consider this modification.  Noticed I forgot the second crossover, but you should get the idea.

Jan

Jan, I can't tell you how many times I thought about offering that configuration, but he seemed set on the winding curves and not going past the pole, so I put it out of my mind and just went with the flow. It would allow the double-crossover to be reinstated along the bottom where I think it belongs and resolves all the reach issues, except for the upper left. The yard also has a more natural flow, though I'd add a turnout for some storage tracks off to the left of the topmost spur, if for nothing more than some engines. I like that you took the time to connect up that upper loop and will probably copy that configuration. If the desk is truly only 2' deep, then there seems to be plenty of room for a chair, etc., as well as space for some storage shelves or something in the lower right corner.

I really appreciate the time and effect put in to this,  I like the idea of going around the pole but I felt there is not enough room for it.  The measurement from the pole to the desk is 41 " Pole to the wall is about 60 " my desk measures out to be 40" long X 18 " deep and then add in a small chair.  Right next to the desk on its right side is the doorway into the room.  I like the flow of the way Jan did and I know Dave you probably had the same idea.  Do you think I would have enough room behind the pole with the desk if configured that way?  I am willing to change up what ever I need to do.  I do have some shelves in lower right corner already.

Thanks All,   Charles,