Hi, this is my second attempt at designing a layout that would fit the space I have available. I have received great tips and feedback the first time and have included a lot of that in this new layout plan.
I've build around existing plans in the Track Layout database here.
Layout design
I plan on only having 4 axel locomotives and keeping with short trains at the layout is only 5' * 10'. Any potential issues with Peco ST-240 & ST-241 turnouts on the main line as the radius is smaller then most other turnouts?
Any other comments would be great too. Thank you!
I believe the turnouts in question have a 17.25 radius, less that the Atlas snap turnouts. I would think with the type of locos you are going to run you would be ok. But testing it out would be a good idea.
I used SCARM to plan the layout, it's saying the Peco turnouts are 22.5 degrees where as the Atlas Snap-switch are 20 degrees.
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
A) The grade would be 3% to the upper level. Clearances over tracks is 3.5 inches
B) I have open access to 3 sides, only left side (end of the 3 mine yard tracks) are going to be against a wall. I've already build the table and have put felt pads under the adjustable feet. The table can be pulled out to gain access to the left side very easily now but there's also no weight yet.
These are definately excellent points to consider, thanks! I'm going to look into locking rollers.
floridaflyer I believe the turnouts in question have a 17.25 radius, less that the Atlas snap turnouts. I would think with the type of locos you are going to run you would be ok. But testing it out would be a good idea.
https://www.midwestmodelrr.com/product/pcost240/
It says "inside radus" is 17.25". I presume that means the centerline radius is about 17.75, very close to the nominal 18" min radius for many locos. I agree a test would be in order before building a whole layout.
Can anyone advise on the Snap switch actual tightest radius? I see that it substitutes for an 18" track piece. With some of the turnout straight, leading into the points, that would mean the curve is tighter, yes?
Would it be worth redesigning with either a #4 or #6 Peco turnout instead of the #2 I used?
I haven't bought any #2 Peco turnouts yet so now would be the ideal time to redesign, I do have quite a few Atlas Snap-switches which I'm hoping to reuse more on branch and yards.
Simply forget Peco Set Track switches if you want to have a reliable operation. The radius is way too sharp and they are designed for European model trains with deeper flanges. I also recommend to replace the Atlas Snap-Switches in your plan!
If you haven´t bought any track yet, go for Peco code 83 track and switches. They follow US prototype, unlike Peco´s code 100 or code 75 track.
I also recommed to redesign your plan using #6 switches and try to avaid that switch on the bridge!
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
Thanks for the pointers Mel I'm readjusting to not begin any incline right after the turnout. Yes I'm using a design based off the G&D layout.
I agree to consider other turnouts if you don't mind another design tweak. I certainly would look at Peco. I used Walthers-Shinohara code 83 but am unsure on current availability for those. Then there are Atlas non-snap turnouts, where others might comment. One consideration is which turnouts accommodate surface mounted swich machines, if you do not want to get into undertable types (like Tortoise).
I would like #6s on the turnouts that involve or come off the main routes, including that to the green section. They just look less abrupt, and it appears there is room for that. Then #5s elsewhere, plus a similar (is it called 2-1/2?) wye.
Are you planning DC only or DCC (or possibly later DCC)? When selecting turnouts, if DCC is to be involved, it is good to understand the wiring and rail gapping issues, if any. Not something likely to drive your decision but you would want to know if you would be expecting to understand and address any unique wiring needs.
I've played around a lot with the design and I haven't come across any way to fit #6 switches and maintain a 22 inch radius minimum on the main line. The table is 5' wide which limits the radius.
I already have a case of 3' Atlas code 100 flex track along with many Atlas snap turnouts (6 left and 4 right). I'm not going for prototypical accuracy, I simply enjoy building the layout and have a small train (1 loco and 4 or 5 cars) going around a continuous track. Based on that, is there any good reason not be be using the Atlas snap turnouts I already have? I also would like to stick with code 100 since that is what all my existing track currently is.
I do plan on using DCC and have a few good books that explain the wiring and how to connect the frog of switches (if needed).
As with an earlier time that you posted a track plan, I think the grade might be steeper than you think. As I said then (and say so often):
cuyamaThe grade will likely be even steeper than you have calculated after you allow for transitions from level-to-grade and back and for the fact that you don't want to change grade within [or too near to] a turnout.
But I haven't done a detailed calculation.
Good luck with your layout.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
jbiss_ca Would it be worth redesigning with either a #4 or #6 Peco turnout instead of the #2 I used? I haven't bought any #2 Peco turnouts yet so now would be the ideal time to redesign, I do have quite a few Atlas Snap-switches which I'm hoping to reuse more on branch and yards.
Hi there,
I would be very inclined to used the peco streamline points and where the geometry clashes fill in the gaps with flex track rather than be captive to set track geometry to get what you want. The G&D plan is certainly a good base! Enjoy the ride!
Regards from Australia
Trevor