Quote from: James in FL on August 26, 2014, 11:35:02 PM

Welcome back to trigonometry 101.

OK James. After working through the trig, I may have been able to answer my own question. If the figure 8 is enclosed in a rectangle that runs between the limiting track centers, the width of that rectangle is just twice the track radius, or 22.5 inches. The length of the rectangle is two plus twice the square root of two times the radius, which gives about 53.3198 inches. Do you agree?

Of course, to get the length and width to the edge of the roadbed, I would have to add the total width of the roadbed to these two results. I think that is an extra 1.5 inches that must be added to the length and the width.

Is that about right?

Thanks James. It is interesting that there is not an exact solution. As I feared, this indicates that Bachmann did not design the sections so a figure 8 comes out just right. But I understand what you say about the track being forgiving.

Do you know what the maximum width and length (to the outer edges of the roadbed) that this design will produce for the figure 8?

Thanks for your help.

Thanks for the reply James. Just to be clear, I want a figure 8 that uses a crossing, not an up and over. As for the radius, I do not have a specific value in mind. I just want the setup to be as compact as possible, and to use only standard sections, not flex track. It is n scale.

Is it possible to make a figure 8 using E-Z track? If so, what track sections do I need to get?

Will the engine and cars in the Thunder Valley train set operate on 9.75" radius curves?