using bachmann ez track for grand valley layout by woodland scenics

[googspub]

Does anybody know if it possible to use the bachmann ez track on the Woodland Scenics Grand Valley Layout?

[the Bach-man]

Dear Goog,
Yes it is.
I used EZ Track for Riley's Run, one of our display layouts, which was based on Woodland's River Pass.
Have fun!
the Bach-man

[Hunt]

The layout geometry is designed to be used with the Atlas code 83 track pieces in the Item # 589 HO GRAND VALLEY TRACK PACK


Possible to use Bachmann Track with modifications. It will change the appearance.

Bachmann E-Z track is code 100, roadbed height and width different than layout designed for.
You will need to change or compensate for the Warren Truss bridge and track work crossing it. 
Compensate for the difference in turnout geometry. Don't know if there is a difference in the crossings geometry.
Check and if necessary compensate all clearance above railhead.

[Len]

This is what Woodland Scenics says in their FAQ's about using non-Atlas track for this layout:

Can I use track other than Atlas with HO Grand Valley Layout Kit?

This is possible, but requires designing a new track plan and reconfiguring the layout of the Risers and Inclines/Declines. The track plan for the Grand Valley Layout Kit was designed using Atlas Code 83 Snap-Track.

Another potential issue is Atlas discontinued some track sections used in the original Grand Valley layout design. A revised track plan to account for this, and a track sections needed list, is here:

http://woodlandscenics.woodlandscenics.com/images/instructionsNew/ST1483trackplan.pdf

At first glance it looks like all of the pieces are duplicated in Bachmann EZ-Track, except the truss bridge. That shouldn't be an issue, as any Code 100 bridge could be used and matched up to the EZ-Track to cross the gap.

The bigger concern is the tunnel portals. The foam roadbed used under the Atlas track is narrower than the plastic roadbed used under EZ-Track. So the tunnel portals might have to be carved out a bit. Actually, they had to be carved out on the original layout if you wanted to run anything longer that a 50' car.

After I have my coffee, I'll fire up RR-Track and try duplicating the 'Revised Layout' noted above with EZ-Track. I'll post what happens later today.

Len

[Len]

Huh! I was getting frustrated, because it seems like no matter how I shifted things around, I always ended up with two locations that didn't line up. Then it clicked, using the 2" pieces on all four sides of the 90deg crossing was the problem. Calling the top of the layout 'North', changing the NW leg to 2.5" and the SW leg to 1.5" almost brought everything together.

Up in the NW corner of the layout, in the area circled in red, replacing a 2" section with a 2.25" piece and moving it to the other end of the 18" curve did the trick.

The gap between the NE leg of the 60deg crossing and the first curve is 8.83", but a 9" straight will work as the slight kink created can be spread around the rest of the loop and not be noticable.

Some minor changes to the riser layout will be needed, but nothing significant. I used the Atlas Code 100 Deck Truss Bridge, because I find the trusses of a Warrent Truss Bridge tend to get sideswiped by longer cars when placed right after 18" radius curves.

The Grand Valley layout using EZ-Track (See the track plan on the WS site mentioned above for tunnel portal placement):


Track list for EZ-Track Version of the Woodland Scenics Grand Valley layout

QTY  DESCRIPTION
(11)    EZ 44511 9 inch straight
(13)    EZ 44512 3 inch straight
( 3)     EZ 44592A 2 inch straight
(33)    EZ 44501 R-18 30? curve
( 2)     EZ 44531 R-18 15? curve
( 1)     EZ 44561 std LH turnout
( 1)     EZ 44562 std RH turnout
( 1)     EZ 44542 60? cross
( 1)     EZ 44541 90? cross
( 1)     EZ 44513 2.25 inch straight
( 4)     EZ 44530 R-18 10? curve
( 2)     EZ 44592B 1.5 inch straight
( 1)     EZ 44592D 1.0 inch straight
( 2)     EZ 44591 Hayes bumper
( 1)     Atlas c.100 84 deck truss bridge

Total of 76 items

Enjoy,
Len

[jward]

I would think a 1/8" difference in that track section would be workable in real life. there is probably enough play in the track sections to fudge it. cad programs are far more precise than what we do in real life.