does anyone know any good track plans for the following spaces
5 by 8
5 by 9
5 by 10
that can accomidate locomotives with centepide tenders and as large as a big boy
Any-thing with 22" radius curves or larger would work. You could take one of the many 4X8 plans and expand it by broadening the curves and adding some more straight track. I would recomend 101 track plans published by Model Railroader, this book has been around since the sixties and is still published. Used copies are avalible on Amazon for as low as $3.
For 5x10 get 26" on the outer loop, and 24" on the inner. You can also fit a siding on the outside, while maintaining a distance of 3" from the center of the track to the table edge.
How much room is there between the track and the edge of the table using 26" on a 5 foot wide table?
26x2=52", 60" wide fro 5ft. That's 4" when centered on the board, but if she chose to add a siding on the outer loop, she can shift the layout in inch to either side, so that there is 3" of clearance from each edge. This is from the center of the track though.
Track radius is measured at the center of the track. Using EZ Track for example, which has a roadbed width of 2", (1" from center of track to edge of roadbed), 26" radius track has a diameter (total width) of 52", again measured to track center. Add 1" on each side of the centerline gives you a total width of 52" plus 2" equals 54".
On a 60" wide table, you will then have 3" of space between the OUTSIDE edge of the road bed and the table edge. Clear space inside the loop would be 52" minus 2" equals 50".
For the 24" inside loop, total outside width is 48" plus 2" equals 50", which will fit inside the larger loop. However, this may create conflicts at the transition from straight to curve on the inside track, as long cars may swing out and hit cars on outside track.
Solution is to add 3" straight pieces in the 26" curves. This makes the outside loop 57" wide, leaving 1-1/2" clearance to table edge. 2" straights would be better, but they are not available except with a crossing.
For the best symmetry on double loop layouts, use 22" with 26", or 18" with 22". Then crossovers and run arounds will fit between the two loops. Otherwise your trains won't be able to switch tracks or have a passing siding.
On a 9' table, there simply isn't enough length to provide a full passing siding or run around, that will accomodate a train with more than 2 or 3 cars. You have to switch tracks, then either back onto the main, or run around to the opposite side to another crossover. This is not realistic operation, but with selective compression you have no choice.
On the modules in my railroad club... we have a center spacing of 4" from the edge. As long as something won't fall off the edge of the layout when it derails(and it will) you'll be fine.
Track radius is measured to the centerline between the rails.
Width of a circle of track is twice radius plus a track bed width.
2R + TBW. HO EZ-Track is very close to 2" wide.
18"x2+2"=38"
22"x2+2"=46"
26"x2+2"=54"
28"x2+2"=58"
A 4' table is 4x12" = 48"
A 5' table is 5x12" = 60"
If I had the room for 5', there would be no choice. My table would be 5' wide. If you like a particular 4x8 layout, you have the option of expanding it.
Ping-pong tables are 5' wide (x 9' long). Used ones from the "thrifties" classifieds are pretty cheap.
Remember that you need room for overhang on curves, so you can't run your track up against a rail, fence or wall. An inch clearance on each side will do.
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Joe Satnik
To illustrate my previous comments on track spacing, crossovers and run arounds, here are a couple pictures of my layout design. It took over a year to design this, because I spent 11 months looking at hundreds of plans that would work on a 4 X 8 table. Take it from someone who's been there, it's a waste of time looking at all those layouts, which are all just variations on a basic theme. The best you can do on a small layout is maximize running, storage, operation efficiency and simplicity.
This design uses 22" outside, 18" inside, on a 4 X 8. If you have a 5 X 9 or longer, then you can use 26" and 22", and expand the straights, which will also lengthen the run arounds. (refer to the second picture) The layout represents a point to point covering a full scale distance of 100 miles, wrapped up into loops to fit the table, and eliminates the need for reverse loops or wyes.
(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh122/Yamparr/Expansion.jpg)
Below the crossovers are doubled up to create run arounds, which are essential to efficient freight yard operatons, yet keeping track switching for passing or meeting sidings.
(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh122/Yamparr/Expansion2.jpg)
Note that on this plan, my final design, I used 18" on both outside and inside loops, and added short straights at the ends of the outside loop. This was done to reduce the "loopiness" effect of the curved ends. All my locos and cars are very short, so 18" works well. You could do the same thing with 22"/ 22" or 24"/24".
Note also the layout is optimized for right hand (counterclockwise) running. This maximizes the run around length near the yard. If you prefer mostly left hand running, reverse the yard. I added the turntable only for steam locomotives to reverse directions, it's not totally necessary for diesels which consist in any orientation.
If the table can be expanded to 10' or even 12', each crossover can be made two way by adding a crossing. With the single crossover, running operation will always be compromised for one direction or the other.
Good Evening All,
I suggest you try to find the book by Iain Rice on small, practical railroad plans.
Bob
kalmbach publishes a Book Title : 101 Model Track Plans for Model Railroads. It has been out for decades and is quite a read.
Quote from: Yampa Bob on August 28, 2008, 10:43:23 PM
To illustrate my previous comments on track spacing, crossovers and run arounds, here are a couple pictures of my layout design. It took over a year to design this, because I spent 11 months looking at hundreds of plans that would work on a 4 X 8 table. Take it from someone who's been there, it's a waste of time looking at all those layouts, which are all just variations on a basic theme. The best you can do on a small layout is maximize running, storage, operation efficiency and simplicity.
This design uses 22" outside, 18" inside, on a 4 X 8. If you have a 5 X 9 or longer, then you can use 26" and 22", and expand the straights, which will also lengthen the run arounds. (refer to the second picture) The layout represents a point to point covering a full scale distance of 100 miles, wrapped up into loops to fit the table, and eliminates the need for reverse loops or wyes.
(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh122/Yamparr/Expansion.jpg)
Below the crossovers are doubled up to create run arounds, which are essential to efficient freight yard operatons, yet keeping track switching for passing or meeting sidings.
(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh122/Yamparr/Expansion2.jpg)
Note that on this plan, my final design, I used 18" on both outside and inside loops, and added short straights at the ends of the outside loop. This was done to reduce the "loopiness" effect of the curved ends. All my locos and cars are very short, so 18" works well. You could do the same thing with 22"/ 22" or 24"/24".
Note also the layout is optimized for right hand (counterclockwise) running. This maximizes the run around length near the yard. If you prefer mostly left hand running, reverse the yard. I added the turntable only for steam locomotives to reverse directions, it's not totally necessary for diesels which consist in any orientation.
If the table can be expanded to 10' or even 12', each crossover can be made two way by adding a crossing. With the single crossover, running operation will always be compromised for one direction or the other.
thanks a lot for taking the time to expand and insert track plans however i dont think my niagara and my big boy/challenger will take on 18 inch curves to well due to the tender
Dear Friends,
Dumb question, but would easements be indicated or not necessary for better ops?
Best Wishes,
Jack
NYCgirl:
I only posted the layout as a pictorial example. If you will read again, I said you could use up to 26" radius curves on a 5 foot wide table to create a similar appearing layout.
Jack:
Easements are always recommended, however there's usually not enough room on small layouts like mine to use them effectively.
What many modelers fail to realize are the low speeds of real railroads in negotiating sharp curves and turnouts. The "speed limit" for a #20 turnout, which has a divergent angle less than 3 degrees, is 45 mph, so you can imagine the real speed for a #4 turnout in HO, on the order of only 2 or 3 scale mph. That's about 2 feet per minute in HO scale.
Dear jsmvmd,
The easiest psuedo-easements using EZ-Track would be:
a 33-1/4"R 18 degree section leading into a 26"R curve, and
a 35-1/2"R 18 degree section leading into a 28"R curve.
I would have to create some dandruff to figure out other radii and combos, which wouldn't be nearly as perfect as the combos above.
Otherwise, flex-track and cork for spiral or bent stick easements.
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Joe Satnik
Easements on model railroads are there just for aesthetic purposes and serve no real function.
If they were required, then how come you can run trains at warp speed on toy train snap track?
Oversized flanges, that's how.
Timothy
Rogertra :
Please explain your comment ( toy train snap track ) . It sounded a bit like an insult.
Don :(
Dear Roger,
In his book "Track Planning for Realistic Operation (3rd Ed.)" pp. 74-75, John Armstrong makes a good case for easements, which help especially in the case of long passenger cars with diaphrams.
"The improvement is so great that operation is better with the sharp but eased curve than with a more gentle curve which springs directly from the straight track."
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Joe Satnik
With my diminished sight, I thoroughly enjoy the "clickety clack" of the rail joints, along with the "singing" of metal on metal. My $4,000+ investment may be small compared to others, but I don't consider my trains "toys".
Any HO locomotive, with RP 25 wheels will take a 15" snap track curve at near warp speed. That is a fact. Once again, the laws of physics come into play.
Transition curves, John Armstrong not withstanding, are there for cosmetic reasons and nothing else.
And snap track is toy train track. That's the market it's aimed at. Sorry if that offends.
I find your comment offensive . I do not consider my layout a toy train layout . I use EZTrack because it suits my needs . Like Bob I am disabled and if I didn' t have EZ track I wouldnt have a model railroad
Don
I think a lot of us old timers think of sectional track as "toylike" because Lionel and American Flyer trains had sectional track.
A local hobby shop here on LI has several operating displays and one features Bachmann NS EZtrack. When I first saw the track I was impressed. Being pre-ballasted, it certainly saves a lot of work.
My concern with any sectional track is that it may be more expensive to use on a large pike.
My general philosophy is to do what makes you happy and ignore the rivet counters.
Just to clarify,
Snap-Track is a trade mark of Atlas, and has no roadbed. Most hobbyists use cork roadbed with it.
From Wiki:
"This prefabricated snap-together track, sometimes called "snap track" — a trade name used by Atlas Model Railroad, which manufactures the track used in many HO scale toy train sets in North America — is normally used only by casual hobbyists or temporary setups. .....(Detailed description of hand laid track for serious layouts).. Another option is so-called flex track, which is compatible with snap track. "
I always thought it was misnamed, as it slides (not snaps) together on its rail connectors. Atlas's Super-Flex track and Snap-Switches (turnouts) are sold on the same pages with Snap-Track.
Easements....
If all your couplers are truck mounted, and the bodies are spaced enough not to touch each other, then I agree, easements are good for cosmetics purposes only.
Body mounted couplers are a different story. Especially close coupled (short shanked) body mounted couplers.
The overhang of the car 'on the curve' may de-rail the car 'on the straight' to the outside.
You may counter "then just get bigger curves". Armstrong's quote above addresses that.
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Joe Satnik
edit: spelling
Dear Joe,
Thanks a million!
The cork and flex track will be my obvious solution to many of life's little problems.
I will be constructing a new HO layout based on many of Atlantic Central's ideas, sometime soon, as soon as I move my digs, and get out of double harness, if you get my drift. Still pulling a wagon, though, with 4 lilttle chillen, the youngest is Joey and a train lover!
Best Wishes,
Jack
I don't know how much space you might be able to allocate over time, but the included link is something I thought you might be interested in. This modeler has a 4x8 at this point and a clear plan for how to expand it in the future to something that fills what seems to be an average size room. Given his NYC focus he does plan for a double track main line in the future, something that adds to the NYC flavor. Of course, if you can allocate enough space, four tracks with Hudsons and Mohawks passing one another a speed on a cold winters night would be ideal, but at least double track lets you have the trains roll non-stop when you want to.
http://home.earthlink.net/~tgstage/index.html
Regards
Joe: If I recall the old Atlas ads, the track was called snap track because it was a "snap" to lay.
When I began in HO the track of choice for "serious" modelers was Atlas flex track: three foot sections of code 100 NS rail on fiber ties. The snap track was expensive to buy if you needed a lot of it.
Joe -
I haven't done any measurements with #5 or #6 turnouts.
I just used the standard turnouts and the 18" radius curves to kind of help out the newbies getting started with EZ Track.
do superelevated curves help with larger locos and i understand what you mean YampaBob
Aesthetic purposes -
Adding scenery, detailing equipment, counting rivets, handlaying track (with the exception of special curves), etc. are only for aesthetic purposes, too.
You can run your train on an EZ Track oval without needing any of the above.
Terry
Very well said, and thank you.
As I read through my Atlas track catalog, in the "Snap Track" section, I see expressions such as "The choice of discerning modelers", "Discriminating modelers of all skill levels" etc.
Nowhere does it say "For toy trains only." Atlas has been making HO track for over 50 years. They recently upgraded all their turnouts by eliminating the rivets, replaced stamped points with actual rail stock, improved the frog point, decreased the flangeway length from .25" to .12", and added more undercutting to stock rails for smoother divergent point transition. Of course, those who laboriously build their own turnouts might still consider these turnouts as "toys." Therefore if someone has a layout with 100% flex track but also uses "Snap-Turnouts", that seems to be a contradiction.
As for being "prototypical", few railroads if any, lay track in 261 foot sections. They may weld shorter lengths to form "continuous" pieces, but they traditionally still lay "snap track" with rail joiners.
As often stated, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
NewYorkCentralGirl,
Banking on curves only helps reduce lateral forces (centrifugal and acceleration) to allow greater speed, just like on a race track. However the bank in combination with greater speed also increases "G" forces. All other dynamic forces still apply
Yampa bob,
thanks for the info
You're welcome, I hope all your concerns have been answered. Don't be discouraged if it takes a long time to figure out a suitable layout. For some of us, it's a lifetime endeavor.
Have fun
You could use easements leading to a tunnel or behind buildings where the radius could be reduced. This could be effective for all hidden curves. Exposed curves could be the maximum allowable.
On a model track, I think the main place where an easement is helpful is transition from straight track into the divergent turnout point. This transition is rather uprupt, and a major cause of model derails at excessive speed.
Resultant lateral forces increase dramatically at this transition, causing wear and damage to real railroad wheels and points. AREMA, through the auspices of the FRA, have been correcting this problem by changing out turnout components to a lower entry angle, with a longer curved point.
The maximum speed for a standard #20 turnout, which has an angle of only 3 degrees, is 45 mph. With a lower entry angle speeds have been increased to 55 mph with reduction in resultant lateral forces. Changeouts of components on NJT have shown a dramatic decrease in wear and damage.
Turnouts here in the mountains and many freight yards have high divergent angles, often exceeding 8 degrees. Rio Grande addressed this issue in the 50s or earlier by using short curved points.
If you examine a Bachmann turnout, you see the divergent point is curved, compared to the straight point used on Atlas turnouts.
On an Atlas turnout, there are actually 2 abrupt changes, one at the tip of the point, another at the pivot. Also, with the straight point, there is .02 variance in track gauge through the point length. They increased the straight rail undercut, but the abrupt change is still a factor.
For a read on the AREMA research:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/research/rr0610.pdf
If you also factor in all the variables of installing turnouts and the accident rate will increase dramatically. Switches should be mounted flat, no bows, tracks leading in and out smooth and level to the switch. All track should be correctly gauged, that means not over hammering the nails that hold down the track as this will narrow the gauge and cause a hump.
even though the superelevated tracks arent needed the september issue of model railroader had an easy way of doing it so i think i might add them in just for appearance
I superelevate the track by putting in a stripe of.020 basswood under the outside rail. It can't be seen under the rail and it gives the loco a nice appearance going through the curve
Dear NYC Girl,
Others can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the gist of posts from a few years back was contrary to superelevation for model rr's.
The reason is it is not needed and might contribute to derailments, unless the trackwork is perfect.
Am I right, folks?
Best Wishes,
Jack