trackplan

[HoModeler]

Question: Are you locked into doing your layout with EZ-Track?

I ask because all of the built-in roadbed track switches, not just EZ-Track, take way more space to build a yard, or bring tracks parallel, than track that does not have the roadbed built in. It's also way easier to adjust the length of non-roadbed switches and crossings.

Len

Agreed.... My layout is all Flex Track code 100... a lot easer to work with by far...

[HoModeler]

Why are you building the railroad in the middle of the room?  That takes up way more space than around the walls.  Around the walls also leaves the centre of the room free(er) for other uses, like a guest bedroom.  As other's have asked, do you have to use E-Z track?  Flex track is a much better option as, by it's very name, is way more flexible in it's geometry and looks way better than the rigid geometry of any brand of set track.

Cheers

Roger T.

+2 on that thought Flex Track is the way to go...

[Skarloey Railway]

First step, imo, is to look at lots of different kinds of railroads to see which appeals in terms of era, equipment and operation. There's a huge choice out there.

Once you've the kind of railroad you like, or even found a specific prototype, figure out the key parts of it you would like to include and can plausibly model, given the space and your skills, then see about arranging them into a satisfying whole. If the layout is based in reality, or is a plausible version of reality, it will ultimately be more satisfying because your structures and operation will have a purpose to them.

I'd also suggest that if you must have a continuous run then don't make it such a major part of the plan. Point to point is much more interesting operationally but you can always fit in a continuous run by joining two spurs from opposite sides of the board together. That way you get the best of both.

[Trainman203]

What's great about your track plan is that you have a Point A and a Point B.  That is what real railroads do, go from Point A to Point B.  Many , many track plans don't do that, and you have done it in minimum space.

[Len]

Just for the practice I modified the original plan using flex track and a combination of Peco and Shinohara code 83 turnouts. Overall size is 9'4" x 7'4". The green triangle is a suggested change to the cutout to leave a bit more space between the corner and the track.

The turnouts in red are #6, the blue are Shinohara #6-1/2 curved turnouts, and everything else is a #5. I added a run around to the upper yard.

The inner loop uses 18" radius curves. The outter loop, except the curved turnouts which are slightly larger, uses 22" radius curves. I would actually use flex, rather than sectional curves, it's just faster on the computer using sectional.



Len

[jward]

len,

altogether a much more workable plan. you've eliminated all the problem areas except the s curve on the inner track. thanks for taking the time and effort to redraw this plan.

[Len]

Yeah, I wasn't happy with the S-curve either, but with the geometry involved it was either that or parallel tracks, and the seperation gives more flexibility for scenary. I figured with 18" curves on the inside Deland will be running short cars anyway. So as long as the speeds are kept down, it shouldn't be a major problem.

Len

[jward]

if the plan is built with a short piece of flex track where the s curve is, you should be able to eliminate it or at least lessen its impact. from my experience, 18r s curves are bad, while one of say 30r would work. that would one of those examples where I would deviate from the actual plan.

[Len]

That inner loop S-curve has been bugging me, so on this take I've replaced it with 36" radius curves (violet) and no S-curve.

I would raise the inner loop and use a grade seperation it and the outer loop, maybe 2 or 3 inches, for scenic interest.



Len

[Morgun 30]

Len, Very nice. Very clean. I should have you and Jeff fix my problems with my track design.

[Deland]

 Great input guys. I knew the s would probably be a derailing nightmare but never thought of replacing it with something like a 36. My original plan is still in motion. Put together a table(almost done, needs more paint), lay it out as close as possible in EZ and play with it a bit, then change it up and see if I like something else better. Also to determine how much of each type operations suits me best. I have a couple of other track plans that look like they might work but they didn't have as much yard area. I had one with a double loop and some yards but switches between the continuous and the local wouldn't work with the elevation changes. I'm still playing with the trackplans so I may find something I like better. I tried the inset along the 7 ft side but found It left little room because of the walk-in area. I'm trying to keep that 30 in reach so I can keep scenery and such taken care of and hopefully when I finalize for a perm layout, I can learn to lay flex well enough to have very few derails.