"Moving up" to 072 curves - pros and cons - any regrets ???

@A. Wells posted:

@Tom Tee - Regarding wall layouts...I dislike wall layouts because they lose that My Rogers' Neighborhood feel that you get with islands and peninsulas.  The lack of depth disrupts my ability to take in the layout as well.

Anthony

I agree, a narrow wall shelf can be a tad sparse as to delivering the RR feeling with the sense of involvement  That is why I have many bulges in my wall mounted layout plus some rather extensive use of large peninsulas.  I prefer being in the middle of the action.

Also Mr. Rogers had the benefit of well placed TV cameras.  Studio sets are much different then what we see on the flat screen.

@laz1957 posted:

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,  Also if your budget allows go with the best track out there too.

I think this holds true with every aspect of our hobby.  Upscale engines, top of the line passenger cars, scale size freight cars.  Somewhere down the line you may get the 'Gee, I can now get that.........'.  If you wait until you have the extra few bucks to buy the best on the first time around you won't have to sell what you first bought to purchase what you really want.  Large diameter track is similar to upscale passenger cars.  It never hurts to buy the best.  John

I’d like a 22 by 17 printout to study please…

Maybe time to clarify the discussion, regarding track diameter and manufacturer, is directed at 3 rail high rail engines and stock. I am finding 3R scale wheels prefer solid rail track with a flat top profile. Even though Ross track has a flatter top profile than most other tubular track, scale wheels tend to jump their 072 curves. I've been toying around with adding a 2R track to my next layout, so, so different than high rail. 072 (036 radius) is about minimum in that case.   

Joe, if you can make room go for it!!  Working on 084 for Standard Gauge

A.wells

My HO comments were that most HO guys only model the railroad right of way and buildings associated with it. Aka structures such as serviced industries and line side details. They leave most of the big city scenes of the layout for your imagination. If you would like a good youtube video explaining this. A gentleman by the name of Arthur Houston has a good video explaining this and more. His grande pacific layout is a great example. His youtube paige is arthurhouston3. He also has great operating layout tours also on his channel.

I agree that equipment looks better on bigger curves.  How equipment looks is one of many criteria in layout design for me.    I have an approximately 14 x 30 ft space.  I have been designing layouts for this space for some time.  The basic layout is around the walls with two reverse loops.  I have tried curves of different radii in different designs.  Done some prototyping on the floor.  Have lots of track at different radii.  Decades ago I had O42 layout, definitely want more than that.

Sometimes going up from O54 to O72 limits operational functionality.  At O54 I have good yard leads (arrival / departure tracks/ drill tracks), I have to lose or modify these too much as I go up to O72.  At O54 I have some long yards that have to be shortened at O72.  Physical access (being able to reach and touch everything) declines at O72.  In my situation I have to make reverse loops, making good use of the inside space varies with the curve radius.  The larger bench work to support O72 reverse loops reduces the options in the overall configuration of the space.  There were some layout constructs that I could make at O54 that were just not possible at O72.  I also have an oblong visible helix and it becomes overwhelming at O72 and there is too much space taken up in the center.

I came to the personal conclusion that O54 was best for me to balance out appearance of equipment with operations and other layout features.  Even so some of my curves are O72, it’s the reverse loops and helix that I’m making O54.  Not yet built so still open to points of view.

I am using tubular, mostly K-line, I dont find derailing issues on any radii, but not running much full scale.

Here's an interesting tidbit.  The recommended radius for most HO freight cars of the 60' variety is 22 inches, which translates into O79.75.

No regrets, just wish I had a larger, dedicated room to work with. As such I have no experience with an around-the-room layout (as much as I would like) but instead just large ovals.

Working with 072 or larger is going to require some planning. For me, it is easier to envision a track plan and then throw together O36 to see how it looks and works than it is for O72. For O72 I often realize that my mind's eye overestimates how much I can do with O72 in a smallish space, which doesn't become evident until I jump into track planning software. If you are working with a relatively small space, you will not have much room for creative track plans and will probably be stuck with a large oval.

Additionally, the space requirements do not leave you with a lot of room for switches to fill the inside with yards or other additional inner tracks, unless you are willing to devote a lot of space to the loop or you use tighter radii on the inside. The different O72 loop floor layouts I have done (between 50 and 80 sqft) have all had O36 yard tracks. I have some O48 track which in many of my plans served as either a full loop encompassing the inner yard or a half-loop serving as a long yard lead, with an O60 and O72 loops forming a double track mainline. Again, because of the space requirements and the limited room I have to devote to a layout, these have all been plain oval loops.

As others have said, as long as you're smart about it, you will absolutely never regret it.

The Pro is that EVERY piece of 3-rail equipment produced to date will negotiate O-72 (36" radius) curves.

The Con is that O-72 curves rapidly consume layout space. The other Con is that O-72 curves require a larger platform, or switching to an "around the walls" layout design. If at all possible, going to something larger (like O-84) gives a better appearance to the equipment when traversing curves, but the space consumption goes up.

By the way, though I prefer around the walls from a viewing standpoint, Tom is on target on the loss of scene depth due to the narrow shelves (you can't really go beyond three feet of depth without access hatches).

@ogaugenut - In regards to your issues with moving from O54 to O72 turnouts.  I had a similar issue with my layout design as my Intermodal Yard had been built entirely around O54 switches.  Those Gunderson Maxi IV's definitely require O72.  If I was to simply have replaced the O54 switches with O72 switches, my layout would then require an airplane hanger.  The solution was to create O72 single slip switches.  While this solution will be painful on the final implementation (I need four total), the space savings and overall appearance will make up for the headache.

Anthony

To offset the lack of scene depth you can go vertical.  Here is an example of toy train excess:

Original plan was for two bridges on two levels but I just got carried away.  Not exactly poor planning more like no firm planning or "how about I try this?" & "Let's try a couple levels of three rail".

I did go deeper than 3' in many locations but the Topside Creeper saves the day.   In one real deep area I installed parallel bars and hand grips on the ceiling to help navigate across the RR.  No duck unders.

@Tom Tee posted:

To offset the lack of scene depth you can go vertical.  Here is an example of toy train excess:

Original plan was for two bridges on two levels but I just got carried away.  Not exactly poor planning more like no firm planning or "how about I try this?" & "Let's try a couple levels of three rail".

I did go deeper than 3' in many locations but the Topside Creeper saves the day.   I one real deep area I installed parallel bars and hand grips on the ceiling to help navigate across the RR.  No duck unders.

I created a topic on going vertical sometime ago.  Didn't get much traction.

I don't much care for flat layouts.  Last time I checked, the Earth isn't flat, albeit I'm sure there are some of you who would disagree.  Even my temporary HO layout has piers.

I planned my layout around 072 plus curves. All mainline track is 072 on the inside curve and 080 on the outside curve. On 3 sections of 072 curve I used the curve of the 072 turnout as the mainline track ( one of the turnouts has a switch stand which has caused problems with a few cars). I used 063 on some siding tracks and 2 042 turnouts on track coming off of siding tracks ( No 6 axle power on these turnouts)

Old picture, need to update.  Use as large of curves that will fit into you area that you have to work with. And No duck unders.      You will thank yourself as you get older and have health issues

@N&W 1218 posted:

My minimum radius is O72. I’ve got Lionel & K-Line tubular track with Ross Switches. I drew my whole layout up on AutoCAD before it was built. 😎 Mine is a double dog bone and the center island is lower so that you can see across it from anywhere in the room. It’s built in a 30’x32’ pole building on the second level.

My first layout was O42 and I don’t regret the change. When we moved I decided to go big or go home. 👊🏻

Hello Kevin,

Very interesting track plan.  Do you have an overhead photo of the layout you can share as it will help me to better understand exactly what you are doing.   Also please include a photo of the roundhouse showing the track lead coming into it.

Thanks!