Problem with published track plan

[chiefpilot]

After many years out of the hobby, I've recently started a small HO shelf layout based on the "Railroading for City Lovers" track plan (by Larry Forgard) found on page 14 of MR's 48 Top-Notch Track Plans publication. Unfortunately, I've encountered a problem in that the track layout does not appear to fit in the allocated space.

In particular, there are two crossovers that connect a double-track main and, according to the plan size grid, each crossover should require approximately one foot of space. Using Atlas #4 turnouts, however, the smallest footprint I can get for each cross-over (2 opposing turnouts) is almost 17 inches. Of course, adding a small straight section to increase the distance between the two mains makes the problem even worse. Since the plan is only 7 feet long to begin with, this difference of these two crossovers impacts the entire track plan.

I've played with the track arrangement for several hours (with no luck) and I'm wondering if there is anything I'm missing here. Any thoughts???

John

[bikerraypa]

Hi John:

I don't really have great advice for you so much as just empathy. I have tried several published track plans over the years, both large and small, and NONE have worked out perfectly. Every one seems to take a bit of tinkering, which in this hobby is just the nature of the beast.

I've done three things in the past that work when I get to a piece that just doesn't fit.

1. Cut 'em down. If your crossing is too big, just nip a l'il chunk off whatever side you need shortened. Cut the ties back enough to get a rail joiner on, and file the end nice and straight. It usually works OK.

2. back up to the nearest straight section before your problem area, and either lengthen or shorten it as needed. Lay the turnouts where they need to be and measure the length of straight track needed to connect them.

3. flextrack flextrack flextrack. Even if you're building a sectional-track layout, keep a few pieces of flextrack handy. When something doesn't fit, just cut a piece of flex and fit it in place. I've done this with success and often with interesting (read strange) results.

Remember the main rule of precision work. Never force it....just get a bigger hammer.

Good luck!


Ray out

[Big_Boy_4005]

A plan drawn for a small space with a sharp pencil is tricky to follow. The spacing between the parallel tracks where the crossover goes is directly related to how much room they take up, as you noted.

You may be able to get a little off the point ends of the switches, but getting those tracks closer will make the biggest difference, allowing you to shorten the legs. Minimum spacing for straight tracks is something like 1 7/8" or 1 3/4".

[IRONROOSTER]

One problem is that the Atlas #4's are really #4 1/2's. For tight plans that require #4's you should try another brand.

Enjoy
Paul

[tstage]

Chiefpilot,

One foot? Something doesn't seem right. An Atlas #4 turnout is 9" alone, all by itself. A turnout crossover would definitely be longer than a foot. You might be able to trim them down but...I wouldn't drop the track cener-to-center spacing under 2", for safe clearances.

Tom

BTW, welcome to the forum!

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage

Chiefpilot,

One foot? Something doesn't seem right. An Atlas #4 turnout is 9" alone, all by itself. A turnout crossover would definitely be longer than a foot. You might be able to trim them down but...I wouldn't drop the track cener-to-center spacing under 2", for safe clearances.

Tom

BTW, welcome to the forum!

Hmmmmm, you've given me an idea Tom. Even if the plan is drawn accurately to scale, if it only has the track centers, that is not the same as if the track was completely drawn out. You can't use that drawing to measure the length of the switch, it's not the same.

Try this: take a piece of paper and draw parallel lines, 2" apart, along the long dimension. Using a ruler, measure 9" along one of the lines. Transfer that mark to the other line, then connect that point and your original starting point with a diagonal line.

You have just drawn a template. If you used a normal 8.5"x11" piece of paper, and place the switches on the lines you've drawn, they will hang off the ends of the paper.

This is perfectly normal.

It is your expectations that are faulty. It is an easy trap to fall into.[;)]

[BR60103]

The rule is to take published track plans as a guide, but either redraw it or lay it out with real track.
I used a plan for a station and found that they had left only a foot for a crossover. Also, some of the tracks didn't levae any room for platforms.
Don't stick track in the middle of crossovers; it doesn't solve the S curve problem; there may not be an S curve problem.
Track plans used to show 3 points for switches: the points, the frog and the lines met at the theoretical centre.

[willy6]

My cuurent layout is based on a published track plan, i had to do a few modifications to make it work, flextrack to the rescue.

[TBat55]

I used the Atlas "Great Eastern Trunk" layout but substituted Walthers turnouts. I had to cut up every one of them to fit the plan (only the frog angle was the same). The book also admitted that the sectional track forming a semicircle wasn't really a semicircle but wouldn't be noticeable. The curve was either 18"R and 22"R combined, or some short straight pieces thrown in. Should've used flextrack; easier and fewer rail joints.

[IRONROOSTER]

I looked up this track plan. One of the things I noticed is that it does not indicate what size turnouts to use. It also says this layout will be a challenge to build. I suspect that you have to custom build all the turnouts and handlay the track to fit the space.

One other point to keep in mind is that the turnouts are drawn from the intersection of the center lines, see this page on the NMRA's site http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp12.html . The points extend back from this, so even though the points of intersection are 12" apart, the entire length of the crossover turnouts is longer - as you have found out..

If you want to use commercial turnouts such as Atlas you'll probably have to make the layout longer by at least a foot.

Enjoy
Paul

[dknelson]

A good many track plans that are published have never actually been built and from time to time there are some good-looking practical impossibilities that escape the best proof reading. This might be one of those cases.

Atlas Snap Track switches are also 9" long but I think they measure out as # 3 1/2s. You can trim out a bit of track at the ends but not much.

I think Peco makes some smaller turnouts you might want to explore for this track plan.
Dave Nelson

[pandabear]

Using Atlas' software, I managed to fit the scene in 2x8, with #4s on the spurs & #6 switches on the mainline. There was some rearranging of the spurs, but I kept the spacing on the double-track line at 2" or better, and could keep the branch line to 22" minimum radius.

[ereimer]

i just took a pair of shinohara code 70 #4 turnouts and laid them on top of each other to make a simulated crossover . with 2" center to center the distance from point to point is 12.25" , say 13.25" with room for rail joiners . so it's a bit of a tight fit , but not as bad as with the atlas turnouts .

IMHO atlas track and turnouts are big ugly things that should only be used in hidden areas , or if your budget absolutely rules out using shinohara/walthers , peco or some other nice , expensive track . handlaid is probably even better , but i know i don't have the patience to do it ;)

[DigitalGriffin]

The above image is a #4 Atlas snap switch crossover. It is 15" long. If you can shave off 1.5" off each end, then you should be okay.

~D

[cuyama]

John,

As others have pointed out, this is unfortunately one of those situations where published track plans cannot really be built as drawn (at least with commercial components). In addition, if you do resort to #4s in the crossovers, the resulting tight s-curve will be a challenge with longer equipment. Definitely something to mock-up and try.

But you might be able to eliminate one of the crossovers. It appears that the only purpose of the crossover on the left is to complete a run-around track to allow the switcher to move around cars to spot them at an industry. You definitely need a run-around somewhere in this plan. But a way to add one without the cramped trackwork would be to connect the track parallel to the lower of the two mains to that main to form a run-around. (This is the track that now serves an industry that looks like a rectangle with a corner rectangle cut out.)

Then you could drop the left crossover, I think, unless I'm missing something.

Further, it looks to me as if this is not the only problem that you would have in actually operating this plan. The two long tracks along the right front edge look like they would be a neat "yardlet" to use as an interchange or sorting yard, but unfortunately the lead into these track is so short (only about 13-14 inches) that you will need to make many moves with your switcher with a car or two to switch the area ... not very prototypical. If there is any way that you can extend that lead (the left-most front track) for an additional couple of feet, I think you'll get much more use (and fun) out of the yardlet.

A number of the other lead tracks are really too short ... this is a design that looks great but would be a little pesky to operate as drawn. The concept's not bad at all, but it's not rendered realistically. It's unfortunate, but publication with beautiful artwork does not guarantee that a layout can be built or will operate well.

Are you limited to these exact dimensions?

Regards,

Byron
Model RR Blog

[GMTRacing]

John,
You might try the Peco SL-92 and SR-92 small radius switches. That alone will gain you a couple of inches and making a template as suggested above should cover the rest. Welcome to the forum and good luck. J.R.

[cuyama]

After looking at the plan again, I think I see one more thing that might help a little. I think the author may have intended to use a slightly different configuration than the "standard" crossover at the left, but that the artist may have rendered the crossover in the typical way. The clue is in the way the two mainline tracks curve in the area of the crossover.

Typical crossovers between two parallel straight tracks use two of the same type of turnout (left-hand or right-hand), connected curved-leg to curved-leg. This creates an s-curve, which is why designers typically choose larger-numbered switches for crossovers -- to lessen the severity of the s-curve. But that's necessary to connect two parallel straight tracks.

But if the two parallel tracks to be connected may curve, there is a great trick that I learned in John Armstrong's (Kalmbach) book "Track Planning for Realistic Operation". In this case, the designer uses one LH and one RH turnout, connecting them curved-leg to straight-leg. Call this an "angled" crossover for the purposes of this discussion.

That's clearly what the designer intended for the crossover on the right side, but he may have meant for it to be done on the left side as well. Even though the trackplan suggests a "standard" (curved-leg to curved-leg) crossover on the left, it could also be done with the space-saving "angled" crossover. This would allow you to use much shorter and more tightly curved turnouts without running afoul of unwanted s-curves.

Here's a comparison of straight and angled crossovers:

 

It's still not as compact as the published plan, but it is a better solution than trying to cram in very tight turnouts in a "standard" crossover. And it can be built with commercial components.

Again, I still think you could do away with the left side crossover if you add a run-around elsewhere, but if you want to try staying close to the original configuration, perhaps this will help.

Regards,

Byron 
Model RR Blog 

[DigitalGriffin]

Byron has some good advice.

It's probably been said numerous times before again and again, but "Track Planning For Realistic Operations" is really the best reference I had.

BTW: You have good taste. That plan is the one that gave me inspiration for my plan. [:D]

[TBat55]

I thought the plan intended to connect turnouts of the SAME type, like a LH and a RH, but with the curved part going into the straight part (no S-curve). That's how I built it and it works well.

[jkeaton]

Would using a wye turnout for one of the two help? Peco's small radius wye is equivalent to a number 2 1/2, I understand.

Jim

[chateauricher]

Jim (jkeaton),

A wye probably wouldn't work very well in this situation. In a wye, both legs curve away from the centre-line of the tangent. This means the tracks diverge and would no longer be parallel to each other. Not exactly what I think the original track plans had in mind. Even if you took Byron's (cuyama) suggestion of angled crossovers, the curves could become extreme -- creating those dreaded double-S curves we work so hard to avoid.

---

John (chiefpilot),

I would suggest, when using any track plans (yours or other's), start with placing elements whose locations are critically important. Then work outwards from there, adjusting and tweaking as you go.

No plan, no matter how well researched and conceived, ever survives its implementation. Anyone building a new house can testify to the changes that happen during the construction process.

[chiefpilot]

WOW... so many helpful replies!

I want to thank everyone who offerred suggestions to my quandry. I did try some Peco small radius turnouts, arranged as suggested by Byron, and they DO help somewhat. Unfortunately, my LHS had only a few available and I'll have to wait for UPS to bring the others.

Another issue, as mentioned by some of you, is the simple fact that this plan appears to be a bit too tight to allow for reasonable switching operations. So at this point my thoughts are to add the additional Peco turnouts and expand the plan from slightly less than 7 feet to a full 8 feet long. In addition, I'll probably expand the depth from 30" to 36" to allow for some additional industrial buildings.

Thanks once again for all of your suggestions. I'm really impressed with the helpful spirit of this forum. I'll be sure to chime in again should I uncover any more issues!

John