Large Scale Central

Track plan

Track and Trestles
#41

Ken Brunt said:

I spent all last winter making track plans for what I wanted to do. So far they haven’t survived the first nail driven. What looks good on paper doesn’t necessarily translate well in reality (or your minds-eye once you see what an area can actually hold). What it does do is give you a good idea of what will fit in a certain space and a basic concept of what your trying to accomplish. Don’t be surprised when you start laying track that you find better and more interesting ways of doing it. What I have on paper doesn’t look anything like what I’ve put down, but it accomplishes what I set out to do. Interesting and challenging. But, then again, I’m an hands-on, operations oriented type of guy. I can spend an afternoon just playing on what I have built so far.

Good luck. My only advice is don’t spend a lot of time “thinking or talking” about it, giter done!

“No plan survives first contact.”. Attributed to General Robert E. Lee, but probably goes back to Sun Tzu. I’ve had many track plans for my RR, and the layout only bears passing resemblance to any of them. That said, the planning was crucial, because it allowed me to weed out ideas that just would not work. Once the track started going down, all bets were off. Changes were made on the fly, and then changed again. They might even be changed again. Who knows? The big boys do this all the time, why shouldn’t I?

#42

OK I have had to revisit this subject. The main reason I asked it was to foster ideas and force me to explain myself and by doing so work through a design to come up with something realistic. Thanks to Steve for asking me what my givens and druthers are. In thinking through that and the switch conversation I have had to modify my dreams and that isn’t a bad thing. He told me in person to avoid a spaghetti feast, well my eyes were bigger than my space. I realized I was trying to cram to much into one spot and it was causing issues.

So with that said I went out side and began cleaning up the area and taking down the existing play area and thinking about the actual size of things. Large scale is well…Large. The amount of track was going to leave little room for anything else. So back to givens and druthers.

Givens: (in order of priority)

Has to fit in a 48’X12’ space.

Must have the “feel” of an 1880’s RR.

Has to have one option for continuous running.

Must have a mine, a steamboat landing, a prototypical depot, and a town site.

Must have min 8’ dia curves, not exceed 2%, have min #6 switches, cross overs must have 9" of clearance.

Have a min of on grade crossover.

Must utilize the existing play structure rebuilt as a switch tower/train shed.

Druthers:

Would like several tunnels and bridges.

have operations considerations.

Ability to run two continuous trains on separate tracks.

Detailed landscaping through out.

So after reassessing the situation and changing my perspective I decided to simplify. I decided I really would be happier with a less is more approach. One it would give me more room for scenery and landscaping, It would help me avoid complicated track arraignments that I would fight. And get me running trains and building stuff to go on the layout instead of messing with installing and maintaining track. This approach also helped me return to prototype fidelity in that my prototype was a simple RR not a lot of track. A busy rack plan would not have the feel of a smallish mining railroad. I also liked the dog bone approach instead of the looped approach but what I came up with was two busy. I would like to keep that same idea in a simpler version. Here is the newest idea floating through my head.

The weird siding up at the upper right was a last minute addition just to show that I have the room to do something there. I might it as the main line and tie it into the reversing loop and use the upper most track as a spur that could lead to the front yard instead of having it run into the loop.

So this design meets all my givens. What it does not do is give me two continuous independent loops. What I have instead are two options for one continuous run depending one which of the two reversing loops that start at the right are used. In doing so i eliminated some complicated track work and simplified the design. But I could have operations on the one reversing loop that was not being used for continuous running for a second train. I also moved all switches to longer straight runs so i don’t have to deal with tight switches on tight corners. Having three reversing loops should give me operational interest. It is a much simpler plan and one I think I could be happy with.

I can see some potential for making a second reversing loop on the inner curve to the right. Trying to keep in mind simple though.

So that is where we are now. Glad I am doing this now as the actual track wont happen until at least next year. So I have plenty of time to tweak.

Edit: this shows the new straight to break the s curves

#43

Nice, but get rid of the S curves, where you have one curve going directly into another of the opposite direction.

Put a straight in there at least the length of your longest piece of rolling stock, preferably double that.

Greg

#44

Greg Elmassian said:

but get rid of the S curves

OK I am going to make you explain this one. I understand the problem with hard s curves but gentle ones are an issue? I used them on both my HO and N layouts with never and issue. I am sure I can do it but would like to know the reasoning.

#45

You want prototypical.

Body mount couplers

Take 2 cars with body mounts, make an S curve and roll the cars through it.

Basically the couplers will try to throw the cars off the track.

I’m sure someone will have a picture.

Gentle curves we don’t have in our scale, ALL of our curves are way tighter than prototype (in most cases, yes there are people with huge spaces and wide curves and running NG).

Greg

#46

Well I took your advice and added a min of 24" straights between curves this will allow for a 40’ scale car. Although to be fully on board I have to see that one. I used body mount couplers in HO and never had that issue.

It was easy enough to do and if there is a chance of a problem better to fix it in the planning stage so I did.

#47

10’D = 5’r = 60"(1:24), divide by 2 for O =30" (1:48), half that for HO =15" (1:87). Don’t let big sounding numbers fool ya.

As I remember 18" was the usual starter set radius track that few ran on when doing scale vs toy…

Try running your little ones through reverse 15"r curves … perspective.

I cheat and use a foot of straight for my 35’ cars.

John

PS: Use easements with your flex track, the straight section is for sectional track.

#48

John that is good perspective. I certainly did not do reverse 15 inch radius. That would have been to tight so thanks for that. I did add straight sections to all the s curves at a min of 24 inches. Most were longer. And when I say straight I had to massage the flex track so it is not dead straight but certainly enough to fix the problem

#49

The track plan now shows the straight sections.

#50

Good deal Devon, you will be happy the first time you run long cars with body mounts.

Here’s what happened on an S curve that was created by a crossover (too sharp) some of the cars made the S curve, part of one did not…

The first part of the train missed the S curve, the rest made it… not pretty.

Greg

#51

Greg and others,

Who are you buying your Llagas Cr. Track and parts from? I see they do not sell it direct (or do they?). I sat down tonight and drew up a left hand #6 switch in full size (well 1:20.3 anyway). That was actually a fun task. I used the same tie size and spacing and off kilter placement as Llagas Cr. and used a prototype (standard gauge) for rough measurements. I want to buy some rail and try making one now. I might a well get started on them so when I do lay track they will be done. Would be nice to get one done and see if I can get a couple local opinions on them (hint Steve).

Couple of questions. How long should the straight section of the closure rail be before it enters the frog? How far from the throw bar should the diverging rails be loose before you start spiking them down to allow adequate bend and ease of operation?

#52

OK, you want an opinion??? Yer missing a couple a screws. And some other screws are loose. Especially if you want to build your own turnouts, but don’t let that stop you. You are in good company, here. We’re all a bit crazy.

I’m not really sure that I understand your questions, but I’ll try. Understanding the question has never stopped me from answering it.

  1. The closure rails are the longest part of the turnout. If you look at an Aristo #6, the closure rails occupy at least 1/2, and probably 2/3 of the entire length.

  2. Starting at the frog, you should spike the rail down on the first four ties. This applies to aluminum rail only. For other metals, different methods apply.

#53

Remember turnout ties are likely to be spaced correctly and squarely because the ties have to support the framework of the rails. I would think that MOW forces would rather ensure that turnouts are perfect and regular track ties are ‘off’.

The answer to your question about the length of the closure rails will answer itself as you lay tracks from the frog.

#54

Devon, you are very ambitious, making good turnouts is an art.

Are you sure you want to start out making them?

I think you can find lots of prototype drawings, but that won’t scale exactly to our wheel contours, and you have to set standards for your wheels.

Let me amplify… if you want to make a turnout that works with “everything” you will not be making a prototypical turnout, NOR will it work for long trains, etc.

If you make a really “good” turnout, that has tighter tolerances, like meets NMRA or G1MRA, then you will need to set some standards for your wheels, and a lot of your rolling stock will need adjustment at the minimum.

It is a lot to do all at the same time: learn about wheels and trucks, learn about turnout building and learn about layout design.

I would not do all of this simultaneously.

My suggestion is work out your “final” track plan. Then find a way to only do part of it, a loop, and minimize the number of turnouts.

Put this in place and then learn about how locomotives and cars run, couplers, track standards, wheel standards, wheel profiles.

When you get your trains running well on a simple loop, then add track and turnouts.

I’ve seen a lot of people dive in “whole hog” and then get overwhelmed, and really get nothing completed and then get frustrated, because they are not having any fun. Get a loop going and get some trains running… that will be a big task in of itself. Then you can have some fun. This is really important.

Regards, Greg

#55

If you’re going to be building your own switches, I recommend this site: http://members.shaw.ca/sask.rail/construction/lsbuild/lsswitch.html

#56

Conversely, if you could come up with a second hand switch of the size you want, you could basically copy it. I men use it for “how longs is this part?” and “how do those 2 things line up?”. Then after making a copy or two, making sure YOU get the track gauges correct, even if the manufacturer you copy didn’t get them correct, then you could try making small improvements to the design based on how the copies you made perform.

Just a thought.

#57

Greg Elmassian said:

Devon, you are very ambitious, making good turnouts is an art.

Are you sure you want to start out making them?

I think you can find lots of prototype drawings, but that won’t scale exactly to our wheel contours, and you have to set standards for your wheels.

Let me amplify… if you want to make a turnout that works with “everything” you will not be making a prototypical turnout, NOR will it work for long trains, etc.

If you make a really “good” turnout, that has tighter tolerances, like meets NMRA or G1MRA, then you will need to set some standards for your wheels, and a lot of your rolling stock will need adjustment at the minimum.

It is a lot to do all at the same time: learn about wheels and trucks, learn about turnout building and learn about layout design.

My first turnouts where the Llagas Creek “kits”, where they came with just enough ‘ties’ on them to keep everything in place. It was easy to replace the Lllagas ‘ties’ with my own ties, and not loose any of the track geometry. I think going this route, or buying premade points and frogs is an easy way for a beginner to learn how a turnout works.

I do think that Devon is in a better position than the rest of us, because he doesn’t have a whole fleet of equipment already on hand. Say he builds a turnout to G1MRA standards, then as he builds/buys rolling stock he can make sure that it meets the standards of his turnouts. Either way he’s got to pick a set of standards and work with them.

#58

OK,

To start yes I am ambitious. I need to explain one thing about what makes me tick. Model railroading for me from the time I was 12 and earned my Railroad Merit badge in Boy Scouts was about learning and building. My merit badge instructor instilled in me a love for railroads that is expressed through modeling. Building is where I get my enjoyment. And for me building is about learning. After all the very first LS adventure of mine is building from scratch a 2-6-0 locomotive. I could have bought a ten wheeler and ran it and then worked my way up. But that’s not how I work. I don’t even have a clue if it will run right when I am done but oh well had fun building it and I learned a lot about locomotives. I know now what all of the bits and pieces do and where all the plumbing goes and why. I learned about steam locomotives.

I understand the concerns about building a switch. But 1) I now I can build one just as good as the next guy. I might not do it the first time but I can do it. 2) I will get far more satisfaction from having done it than buying one. 3) I will learn far more about the science and theory about track and switches by building one than buying one. For me building is the hobby. Also I will not be laying any track (outdoors anyway) for at least a year. So I have time to play with this and learn to get it right.

Now for Greg’s concerns. First let me say thank you because I believe you comments were honest and sincere and meant with the best intentions based on experience and a desire to see me, a rookie, get the most enjoyment from the hobby as quickly as possible. But like I said for me the enjoyment of learning and building is far more important to me than running trains. On that note I get what our saying about wheels and axles. One thing I have learned from this discussion is that they are not all created equal. So I will standardize all my wheels and learn to gauge them so they will work with my track. I will do this regardless of what I do for switches. I also like the idea of starting with a simple layout and adding on. That has been my plan from square one. I will likely build one reversing loop with two switches first and then work from there. I will try one switch and if it works out great if not then I will buy two. I do like the idea of getting one of the Llagas switch kits since that is what I would build mine like anyways then I can copy it. Your right building locomotives and rolling stock and laying track and learning about switches is a lot to take on all at once. But I have some time. I also don’t mind bouncing around a bit (only a bit) from project to project.

Craig is right in that I am starting with a clean slate. I own nothing. I have one 3/4 finished locomotive. So I will be able to build everything to a standard. I am going to standardize everything. One type of track, one brand of wheel set, ect.

Steve is right I am missing more than one screw and mot all of the rest are loose. Besides I have all of you folks to guide me alone.

So get used to the idea that I am going to build a switch and your all going to help me(http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-tongue-out.gif)(http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)

#59

Oh and I guess I asked the question wrong. So what has been beat into my head in this conversation is that the difference between a toy switch and prototype switch is that the diverging closing rail must run straight through the frog. Now as it leaves the throw bar it curves toward the frog and at some point before reaching the frog it straightens out and runs straight. my question is how long does it need to run straight before entering the frog?

#60

On standards. I plan on buying Llagas track and ties for all of my track except switches and bridges. For my bridges I will use the same llagas rail as the track and hand lay them. If I do build switches same thing. If I buy switches they will likely be Llagas. I really like the idea of buying the Llagas switch kit and then copying it. Standardization ya know. So my guess would be I would build my stuff to match their standard. For sure Craig has talked me into buying their frogs and maybe even their points.

From what I have read they are pretty decent in sticking very close to a 45mm gauge. They use a 40mm wheel back to back. I understand that Bachmann and Sierra Valley wheels will work fine under these conditions. I measured my Bachmann plastic wheels and they were right there.

Is there a link to the NMRA or G1MRA so I can see the standards.