Hi everyone,
I'm in the process of redesigning my N scale layout in a small-ish secondary bedroom, and think I'm close to finalizing a design. Basically, its a "G"-shape around 3 of the 4 walls, point to point double tracked mainline (with continuous running loops at each end), running from a staging yard on the lowest deck, up a helix to a mostly scenic river valley run around the "G" clockwise on the middle deck, then up a second helix to the top deck, which is primarily a branch terminal yard with large coal breaker past the yard and industries behind the yard along the wall.
Due to the limited space of the room, in order to keep my aisles from encroaching on my personal bare minimum aisle width, I had to make my two helixes of tighter radius than ideal. I compensated by adding 2' of straight in the helixes, making them ovals to keep the overall grade to about 1.6%.
The goal of this layout is to redress the issues of my current layout, and one of the issues is limited train lengths. Due to the current layout's yards, I'm pretty much constrained to trains of 10-12 cars. I wanted to double this, and designed the new layout to handle 20-25 car double-headed trains with room to spare. The "G"-shape allows me to keep a 16" radius minimum on the mainline, except for the in the helixes which are double-tracked with 13.75" radius on the uphill track and 12.5" on the downhill track.
The feasibility of 20-25 car trains is completely dependant on the train's ability to climb the 1.6% grade helixes. So prior to starting any benchwork, I put together about two loops worth of helix, put track down and tested it. No problem; a single loco would happily pull up to about 14 or so average cars, and double-headed handled 25 without issue.
Anyhow, when I was tracking the test helix, I used 4 or 5 pieces of Atlas c55 sectional track in the middle of each curved end to keep the radius, with Atlas flex completeing the curve and running the straight section in order to add a little bit of easement. It seemed to work well, but it ends up being a bunch of track joints to solder per 360 degree turn of the helix, and it used 4 pieces of (30") flex per turn plus 8 pieces of sectional.
I'm wondering now if it would have been just as effective to use purely flex track? It would be significantly less overall track connections to solder, and would use just a little more flex track (5 pieces per helix turn). Which led me then to wonder about stepping up to a 36" flex track like Peco or ME, which gets me to under 4 pieces of flex per loop. And since I was only putting c55 in the helixes because Atlas had sectionals in the particular radii I needed but only in c55, if I skip the sectional track I could bump up to more sure-fire c70 for the hidden helix and save my c55 for the visible layout. (Another part of this dilemma is that Atlas sectional track in c55 is currently hard to find, but flex is available just about anywhere I looked.)
TL:DR; In short, would you bother with sectional track in such an oval helix to manage the radius, or just go with flex track throughout? If the latter, would bumping up to c70 for the helix be a good idea (I'm think less potential issues with locos and cars in a hard to reach area, for instance?)
Thanks. If anyone is interested, let me know and I'll post the design-in-progress for criticism/impressions/recommendations.
-Jason
Another option I have at my disposal is picking up a Fast Track jig that (conveniently) covers both of my radii, plus enough 36" ME C55 rail to more than complete both helixes, roughly 260 feet of total track between the two. That would kind of be the best of both worlds, with definite fixed radius at the middle of each curved end with the easements available with flex track. Cost wise, even with getting the radius jig, it works out to be pretty comparable to buying 260 feet of manufactured flex. Of course, the build time will be a little slower. This method would definitely reduce waste to the barest minimum
Another alternative; use a Fast Tracks jig for the fixed radius ends, connected by conventional flex for the straight section. Basically, handlaying super-sized sectional pieces for the curved ends and connect with super simple flex with no muss or fuss. Again, cost works out to be roughly the same as all flex, or all handlaid. A little bit more wasteful but not by much.
One advantage of using section for the straight sections is that you could use rerailers to make sure everything stays on though the hidden section. Otherwise, I would use all flex, and unless your train room is tightly controlled with little humidity change throughout the year, arrange it so that on the stright sides you have an unsoldered joint to allow for expansion and contraction. Curves should be soldered at all joints to prevent kinking.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinker One advantage of using section for the straight sections is that you could use rerailers to make sure everything stays on though the hidden section. --Randy
One advantage of using section for the straight sections is that you could use rerailers to make sure everything stays on though the hidden section.
I was going to mention the use of Atlas rerailers but Randy beat me to it. I would just add then that rerailers are wonderful in hidden trackage IF you are very serious about coupler height and do not tolerate low couplers that might/will catch on the rerailer.
And just a reminder that sectional track pieces can of course be soldered BEFORE being put into place, and might be easier to wrassle into position on a helix than flex track.
Dave Nelson
Well, the trick is to put the track down and THEN add the next layer of helix - don't be like Jim Hediger and build a really nice helix and forget to put the track in.
One of these days I will bite the bullet and just trim off all my trip pins. I don't use magnetic uncouplers. I usually set them high so they never catch on anything - and if I would put magnetic uncouplers in, I'd use some rare eath magnets for a smaller but more powerful uncoupling zone, I did that on a previous layout and while you had to spot the car just right, it worked even with the pins higher than just clearing the Kadee gauge. Might suck the whole car in with N scale though, I'm in HO.
Hi, Jason
FWIW the PECO code 80 flex comes in 36" sections, and would
require fewer joints per loop. Even with re-railers, 30" sections don't
quite make it...
Cid (Memphis, Tennessee)
Thanks Randy, Dave and Cid,
My plan was to include rerailers on the straights. Sorry, should have mentioned that. The issue there is that New Jersey has been shut down for a while and Atlas components are really hard to find at the moment. I have a few rerailers on-hand, but not many.
I think I'll just stick with flex throughout; fewest solder connection and a lot less fiddling about making sure there aren't kinks. I'll grab myself some SweepSticks from FastTracks or elsewhere, just to make sure I don't inadvertantly pinch my radii too narrow, but soldering two sections of flex at the table then flexing around the curve was always my plan (and with floppy Atlas flex, it is the only way I can work with it and not loose my mind!) And yes, I totally agree I'll need to lay the track as I build the helix up.... with only 2.1 inches of vertical clearance, there is ZERO chance of me getting in there to do the work once the loop above is installed. My 2-loop test helix let me figure out the most ergonomic way of accomplishing the build. Won't be too hard, but a little time consuming working a loop at a time.
Cid, my current layout is exclusively Peco c55. I have nothing negative to say about it's mechanical ability, as I've had nothing but positive luck. I just wish it looked more US prototypical, and hence the switch to Atlas. I had some Atlas c55 kicking around so I used it for my 2-loop test, and other than discovering that about 1/3 of my rolling stock need wheelset upgrades, it went well. Anyway, there's a very good chance that I'll use Peco c55 or 80 for the helix, whichever is more in stock wherever I buy it from, for exactly the reason you mention; 30" Atlas flex means I need about 105 pieces (total for both helixes), vs about 85 36" pieces. I'll save the last of my on-hand Atlas c55 for the portions of layout that will be scenicked, and use my recylced Peco c55 in the helixes and in the lower deck staging yard.
Thanks guys. I was leaning towards scrapping the sectional track/flex track mix after trying it out, and just wanted some confirmation that I was likely making it more complicated than it needs to be.