RR Track vs. Reality

Don't feel bad Ron, the same thing happened to me. As I've gone along, I've had to make adjustments here and there. Stick with it, it'll be worth it in the end . Good luck,

Andy

I had a similar problem, but it was extremely minor when compared to the benefit of the software.

Are there any grades and/or is your table possibly not perfectly dead level?

I have RR-Track and like it, but I don't think it accounts for real-world issues like that, which can make a given piece of track "longer" or "shorter" than it would appear when represented in a 2D top-down perspective like in RR-Track.

On a sufficiently large layout these types of discrepancies could add up, too. Or so it would seem?

Speaking generally, from experience with SCARM, the track design softwares work from a standpoint of everything being "perfect."

Tracks aren't always the exact right length or shape. They don't always fit together perfectly. I've got a layout that SCARM says has enough room in one area to lay down a U-shaped O-27 siding.

My rule of thumb is, if it's "close" in the track design software, it will work in real life.

I think someone posted they had to actually draw out the radius on the curves and follow that to make it come out exactly. They were off in the curves and thought they had everything perfectly fit up if I remember correctly. So apparently you can get off slightly in the curves and not notice it. They also said a track gauge was made to keep even spacing throughout the layout.

I have learned from my years of sectional track in HO, N, and O that they are never perfect. Some are long, some short, and that goes for curves too.  And sometimes the rails in the same piece are not the same length.  I've put two sectional straights together and ended up with not a straight run, but one that makes an angle.

I posted something like that a while ago, so I just posted another thread addressing this topic, here.

Alex

Thanks, Alex

I ordered those exact screws from your build post. That's what I was using in my trials. Thanks for the bit info, will note 5/64, I might have been using a number bit, not sure what I was trying there. I did order some numbered bits from Microfasterers, but I think I already have some 5/64, if I can just read the sizes on them...

Any suggestions on a screw driver for those, I have some pretty small ones that still don't seem to fit real well, will try the 5/64 bit, that could have been making the screws a tad difficult.

I don't use RR track, but from a previous thread that I read, there is a setting for the variance of the tolerance for connections. Perhaps the default is too large.

I use SCARM, which has the default variance set at .079". FasTrack and Atlas sectional layouts I have constructed fit as depicted in the software.

The reality is that reality is different from a computer drawing.  A computer drawing will give you a good general idea of whether or not a layout will fit into any given space.  It is an absolute rarity that a plan fits together perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle.

Remember, in real life, railroad tracks don't fit together perfectly.  They are custom fitted; much like flextrak.  So much for the plans of mice and men! 

A great rule-of-thumb is to understand and accept that computer generated drawings are just that drawings.  Even house plans are modified and arely built exactly to Blueprint.  Too many variables.