Using Fastrack. I want to build a staging segment. I have 4 ft by 20 ft available.

Is this what you're talking about?

I recently started messing with SCARM track planning for my own layout, so let's assume that a little knowledge on my part is dangerous. I used the Lionel 0 Fastrack menu, but have very little actual Fastrack myself. 

The outline is 1220 mm x 6100 mm, roughly 4' x 20' . The bottom set of sidings has 0-31 curves and switches. The upper set uses 0-36 curves and switches. You can see the small gaps here and there; less using the 0-31. The 5" straight at the extreme right allows decent separation between the two rows of sidings, otherwise there's interference. 

There are many SCARM experts out there, so don't take this as gospel from me, merely a thumbnail sketch. You could flip the switch ladders at the left, putting the main lines closer to the center. This would even out your siding lengths. Notice the 0-36 arrangement puts the left side switch on the board joints. (top left) Hope this gives you some ideas.

http://www.scarm.info/index.php

Thanks for looking at it.  The image didnt come across.  I have not loaded the scarm program.   Lets see if the image can come across.  

Exactly.  Now  what radius  is the switch? .    That looks great.   I have a layout with 6 main lines, but no sidings.  It needs to be rebuilt but thats not going to happen.  But I can add this on the back end.   

I see from the first post it is done with 36.  I didnt think those would bring the tracks in close enough. But if this is correct.  Great>> 

Glad the pic worked. The upper half of the track plan is 0-36, the lower half is 0-31, just for showing the fit.

Doug Caron posted:

I see from the first post it is done with 36.  I didnt think those would bring the tracks in close enough. But if this is correct.  Great>> 

Doug, since the other image posted doesn't show, I assume you are talking about the photo I posted. As you noted, everything is O36. If you look closely, you'll see 2 small curved pieces on each end of the innermost sidings. These are the O36 11.25° and 22.5° curves that are needed to match the 33.75° of the turnouts to keep all the sidings parallel. The grid is 12" and the rectangle is 4'x20'. Here's the parts list:

NUMBER  DESCRIPTION
(130)   12014 FasTrack  10 in straight
(4)     12015 FasTrack  O36 45° curve
(3)     12024 FasTrack  5 in straight
(6)     12017 FasTrack  O36 manual switch left
(6)     12018 FasTrack  O36 manual switch right
(4)     12022 FasTrack  O36 22.5° curve
(4)     12023 FasTrack  O36 11.25° curve
(6)     12026 FasTrack  1.75 in straight

Firewood posted:

Glad the pic worked. The upper half of the track plan is 0-36, the lower half is 0-31, just for showing the fit.

I don't think your photo worked because it says "Image Not Found". I think Doug was referring to the photo I posted.

Doug,

Will O36 switches work for you? I worked it up using O72 switches. It cost about 3 feet of siding length to use the large radius switches.

First time using the OGR forum.  Have been building layouts since I was kid.  Amazing the replies you guys sent.  Thanks a bunch.  Doug

Doug,

Sorry about that... I did notice that you had recently joined when I was looking to see if you posted anything about your layout.

Welcome aboard!

I am sure that you'll be able to help someone or offer some sage advice with that experience.

Ok, looks like I'm the only one that can see my pic. Thanks Doubledaz, Carl. That looks great! 

Since others have tried different sized turnouts, I thought I would try using O-60 Turnouts in my RR-Track program.  As Carl mentioned using O-72 turnouts cuts down on your storage track lengths, so does O-60s.  However, I was able to get a 9th track in using O-36 curves for the inside tracks.  The distance between most tracks is 4.5" or greater, but the distance between the two center tracks is only 3.9".  This could be widen to 4.4" if you replace the far right end 4.5" track with a 5" one, but the distance between the outside tracks and the edge of the layout would be a little closer (currently 4" from center rail to edge).

4"+ between storage tracks should be enough for most trains.  You may have to consider engine length (overhang on curve) for tracks 4, 5 and 7 (counting from bottom), but I don't think so if they can negotiate O-36 curves.

Just something else to think about.

Someone please enlighten me. What is the real advantage of giving up storage space by using O72 or O60 turnouts if the return loop is O36? Doesn't a storage yard dictate slower speeds? Does the length of trains dictate larger curves? I guess it would have been nice to know what size curves/turnouts are on the rest of the layout.

I'm going to use O72s for my crossovers, but those are on dual mains and should allow for higher speeds. Right now my design calls for O54 turnouts in the storage yard, but that's only because all the others are O54 and, if I use ScaleTrax, I don't want to use their next smaller size, O31. If I use Atlas, I may see how O36 or O45 would work to increase the space.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Is this what you're talking about?

 

Very, very nice. The only thing I could see adding is a double crossover in the center and tying the left two leads to a Wye. 

DoubleDAZ posted:

Someone please enlighten me. What is the real advantage of giving up storage space by using O72 or O60 turnouts if the return loop is O36? Doesn't a storage yard dictate slower speeds? Does the length of trains dictate larger curves? I guess it would have been nice to know what size curves/turnouts are on the rest of the layout.

Dave,

You are correct in that using O-60 or O-72 turnouts give you less yard track than using O-36.  The issue is he wants to use Fast Track with its set turnout sizes.  Different turnout sizes result in different track spacing and how many total tracks he can get in his 4' space.  For example, FT O-60 and O-72 switches do 22.5 degrees of turn, while the O-36 does 33 3/4 degrees.  Refer to the diagram below.  O-60 turnouts have less track spacing than either the O-72 or O-36, so that is why I used that size.  The difference between O-60/O-72 and O-36 would be even greater if you didn't need the 1 3/8" straight at the end of each leg.

Using O-60 turnouts, he can squeeze in a 9th track but at the expense of shorter yard tracks on 6 of the 8 other tracks.  Anyway, as I said in my original post, this is just something else for him to consider. 

I know that Ron, I've posted similar examples in the past. My question is about the advantage of using larger turnouts, I just don't see any. From my POV, the O36 return loop limits the size of trains that can be run through that area, so I don't see why I'd give up the storage space for larger turnouts. I agree the O60s are another option for Doug to consider, and I wasn't downplaying that suggestion, I'm just asking for my own enlightenment. My storage yard will be for run-through storage where I'll store complete trains, I'll run one in and pull another out, no switching cars around, etc. To me, the size of the turnouts would only matter if I had an engine that required larger curves and it seems to me that the O36 curves needed for the yard to fit in the 48" space makes that moot. I'm just wondering if I'm missing something, like O72s being less trouble, easier on wheels, etc., enough to justify giving up the extra space, that's all.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Someone please enlighten me. What is the real advantage of giving up storage space by using O72 or O60 turnouts if the return loop is O36?

Daz,

Good question. I try to use O72 wherever I can. The first reason is cost. They are close to be the same price no matter the radius. The second reason is operation. Any train traverses an O72 turnout and it looks better. The third reason is possible future layout changes. Typically, to more space and larger radius curves. Lastly is resale. I have observed that O72 turnouts will sell very quickly in the used market compared to other radius.

Thanks to all of you.  Im on the way to Home Depot to start on the addition.  Need to start with the basics.  WOOD>

Thanks, Carl, those are all good points. At my age, I'm not concerned with resale (though my wife might be ) and there's no room to expand, but I decided to try O72 in my yard anyway just to see. I found it increased the width by about 6" and decreased the shortest segment by 20"-21". I could live with those changes if it weren't for the 5"-6" difference in the length of the 2 lead turnouts. Because my yard starts where one of the reversing loop ends, and is locked, changing to O72s would ultimately mean also giving up at least 1 full section or a complete redesign. Fortunately, the change wouldn't affect Doug's yard in the same way, so he just has to decide how much storage he wants/needs.

To me, Doug has only two realistic choices for his space: 1) Use O-36 turnouts to get the longest yard tracks but only 8 total, or 2) use O-60 turnouts to get a 9th track with most of the yard tracks shorter in length.  While Carl's points are good (and he has helped many people with their layout designs), any other turnout size really doesn't make since to me for Doug's situation.

No matter which way Doug goes, he will enjoy the added staging space to park different types of trains to run.

Gilly@N&W posted:

Very, very nice. The only thing I could see adding is a double crossover in the center and tying the left two leads to a Wye. 

Missed this earlier, but that's a good idea, it adds a reversing capability and lets engine run all over the place.

I should add that my example was just to make sure I understood what Doug was asking for, not to push O36 or any particular design, though I do think mine looks the nicest.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Gilly@N&W posted:

Very, very nice. The only thing I could see adding is a double crossover in the center and tying the left two leads to a Wye. 

Missed this earlier, but that's a good idea, it adds a reversing capability and lets engine run all over the place.

I should add that my example was just to make sure I understood what Doug was asking for, not to push O36 or any particular design, though I do think mine looks the nicest.

 

If Doug does not already have reversing tracks on his main layout, this is an excellent idea.  I agree with Dave, his plan is really good.  The only issue is to be effective the track 5th from bottom would need to be kept clear and now used as a through track, losing one staging track.  Depending on Doug's needs, this could be a good tradeoff.

CAPPilot posted:

To me, Doug has only two realistic choices for his space: 1) Use O-36 turnouts to get the longest yard tracks but only 8 total, or 2) use O-60 turnouts to get a 9th track with most of the yard tracks shorter in length.  While Carl's points are good (and he has helped many people with their layout designs), any other turnout size really doesn't make since to me for Doug's situation.

No matter which way Doug goes, he will enjoy the added staging space to park different types of trains to run.

I tend to agree, but I wouldn't use O60 simply because of all the small fitter pieces required for the turnouts and some of the yard tracks. FWIW, here's an O60 version with the crossovers that Gilly mentioned, but without the 9th yard track. Hopefully, Doug will let us know which way he's leaning.

Well I just had to see if you could keep the 9th track as well as have the crossovers for the reversing direction capability.  You can do it, but the FT base edges will be right on the table edge; not good unless there are no walls along the long edges and you have a strong heart.  If Doug likes the idea of crossovers, using Dave's O-36 example would be best.

Depending on Doug's layout's design, Tom's idea of a wye to connect the yard to his mainline could also work to give Doug a reversing loop.  A couple of many possible options below, using wyes but with no crossovers in yard. 

Have fun!

ADDED:  Updated with full wye.

Ron, more good options for Doug the consider. I'd like to see those using paper/pencil come up with these designs as quickly as we did. I posted my version in less than 1.5 hrs and I don't remember when I read the OP. And knowing the specific brand of track would fit. I've completely redrawn my current design over a dozen times using different brand tracks and various sizes of curves/turnouts. I'd have never done that without software. Heck, just dealing with the fitter pieces on the O60 turnouts would have been impossible using paper/pencil. Drawing something 118.5", doesn't mean there are FasTrack pieces that will fit. I had no problem using paper&pencil along with my HJD template back in the day, but getting specific pieces of sectional track to then fit was another challenge when I laid the track. And that was cutting plain old HO track, not FasTrack with plastic roadbed. Oh well, different strokes and all that.

Just a note to all for all the input and  help I received.  Thanks.. I started buying switches on EBay tonite.   Love the new stuff from guys that give up on the layout they thought they wanted to build,. Won a bid on three but lost on two.  There were a few buyers knowing they were being sold way under price.  It was a fun evening.  Im  going to build it using 036 . 

Doug Caron posted:

Just a note to all for all the input and  help I received.  Thanks.. I started buying switches on EBay tonite.   Love the new stuff from guys that give up on the layout they thought they wanted to build,. Won a bid on three but lost on two.  There were a few buyers knowing they were being sold way under price.  It was a fun evening.  Im  going to build it using 036 . 

Glad to hear your yard will be under construction soon.

Doug,

Sounds great.  You can get great bargains both on the auction sites and the Buy and Sell forum here if you look for them.

Quick question.  Does your main layout have reversing loops for both directions?