sectional or flex?

[ondrek]

Ok, So I have played with using flex, and i have had some good luck and some bad luck.
My new plans were done using sectional track. then i saw a thread where a member said that there are problems using this. what are the problems with using sectional track?

Kevin

[ragnar]

Main problem as always is to many joints,Also most sectional track is brass thereby making constance cleaning important for good operation.Oh did i mention kinks in your trackwork?

[selector]

Kinks, lots of places where continuity might fail (unless you solder), but also little or no leeway with curves. This will constrain your plan somewhat.

Additonally, if you would like to twist your throttle hard to the right when running trains on the main(s), easements will be important if you are using curves with radii under 22", although easements are advisable any time.

My recommendation? Bite hard and go back to confront flextrack. Master it, without fail, and you will never look back. Just do it.

[tstage]

Kevin,

The biggest advantage to flex track is that ability to lay down long sections of track - particularly on curves that have radii that are NOT covered by sectional track - i.e. other than 18", 22" and/or 24" curves. With flex track, you enjoy more freedom to design your layout how you'd like it to be. With sectional track, you are somewhat more confined and regulated by the type and selection of track produced by the manufacturers. Easements are incorporated much more easily into your curves with flex track.

Kevin, whether using flex track or sectional track, proper layout design and careful track construction and alignment are the MOST important thing. A bad layout design or incorrect track alignment are NOT going to be automatically fixed by magically using flex or sectional track. As Crandell stated, take your time and learn how to do it RIGHT. It will pay dividends in the long run and give you a layout that yields consistent and nearly flawless operations.

Tom

[ondrek]

Ok, I understand all of your ideas on this issue.

here is my layout plan:

http://www.vermontel.net/~kevin_ondre/HO%20Train/CMVTRR3.jpg

Unfortunatly with my space constriction, I need to use 15" radi.
I know this layout works as i have had it set up mostly in a temporary fashon.

huh, so i suppose i should get some flex and try again then huh?

Kevin

[ondrek]

Oh, and i forgot, my largest engine is a 4-4-2 atlantic, the rest are 0-6-0's and 0-4-0's and my cars are 40' and shorter so the 15" radi is no problem.

As you can see, i have 4 18" radi as easements right there in the center(blue curve sections) all the green curves are 15" sections.

KEvin


All the track is already purchased except for the flex. most of the track already has the rails painted too, been doing it on my spare minutes of time.

unfortunate that i need to start all over with the track.

Kevin

[tstage]

Nice little layout there, Kevin. [:)]

The 4-4-2 probably won't look the prettiest going through the 15" radius curves. Do you know what the minimum radius is for that one right off hand? I would think it is 18" radius. You're smart to put in the 18" radius easements. Your 0-6-0 and 0-4-0 should not have any problems with them the 15" radius curves.

I do have one concern though: The olive track in the bottom right hand corner. It seems a bit close to the main track. I'd be worried that any switcher or piece of rolling stock might get side swiped in that spot. You should have room to nudge the curve over a bit to the left.

Tom

[selector]

It IS an interesting and eminently doable layout for the first timer, even with snap track, so I would say forget the flextrack if you have enough of the former. As Tom cautions, though, you may have to use some flextrack to tweak the curves in some places, such as where he thinks you might be a bit close.

I would like to discuss the upper left corner. That split spur seems to serve no compelling purpose, and is very short past the turnout, to boot. What had you considered for that location?

[Benjamin Maggi]

Just a concern that I see. If you have that many crossovers and switches your little engines might experience electrical pickup problems and stall. Maybe not, but mine did when I had crossovers unless they were the more expensive ones by Shinohara (and NOT the Atlas ones).

Surprised no one commented on this, but most sectional track is NOT brass. I would wager that most brass track is now gone, because it hasn't been made in years. There is a bunch of steel track, but nickel silver is better... both NS and steel are better than brass.

Anyways, good luck on your plan. I did something like you did by planning on running little switchers and they kept stalling. I will keep my fingers crossed for you. Should really be interesting to operate, though!

[ondrek]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage

Nice little layout there, Kevin. [:)]

The 4-4-2 probably won't look the prettiest going through the 15" radius curves. Do you know what the minimum radius is for that one right off hand? I would think it is 18" radius. You're smart to put in the 18" radius easements. Your 0-6-0 and 0-4-0 should not have any problems with them the 15" radius curves.

I do have one concern though: The olive track in the bottom right hand corner. It seems a bit close to the main track. I'd be worried that any switcher or piece of rolling stock might get side swiped in that spot. You should have room to nudge the curve over a bit to the left.

Tom

I have run the 4-4-2 on 15" before, it does pretty well. thats one of the reasons i chose the 4-4-2, the wheel base is pretty short.

That olive track is flex and i put flex in the plan there so i could mess around with how close it was to the other track, its going to be used for the storage area for the passenger cars(40' old time ones)

Kevin

[ondrek]

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector

It IS an interesting and eminently doable layout for the first timer, even with snap track, so I would say forget the flextrack if you have enough of the former. As Tom cautions, though, you may have to use some flextrack to tweak the curves in some places, such as where he thinks you might be a bit close.

I would like to discuss the upper left corner. That split spur seems to serve no compelling purpose, and is very short past the turnout, to boot. What had you considered for that location?

I do have enough snap track already.
the upper left corner, that split spur after it crosses the main line with the 45 crossing starts to climb and then was to level off at the switch. the switch is optional and i may leave it out. that line there is a logging line where my climax will just go back and forth. the log cars i am using, all 3 of them are 23' so a short end isnt a problem.

KEvin

[ondrek]

QUOTE: Originally posted by scoobster28

Just a concern that I see. If you have that many crossovers and switches your little engines might experience electrical pickup problems and stall. Maybe not, but mine did when I had crossovers unless they were the more expensive ones by Shinohara (and NOT the Atlas ones).

Surprised no one commented on this, but most sectional track is NOT brass. I would wager that most brass track is now gone, because it hasn't been made in years. There is a bunch of steel track, but nickel silver is better... both NS and steel are better than brass.

Anyways, good luck on your plan. I did something like you did by planning on running little switchers and they kept stalling. I will keep my fingers crossed for you. Should really be interesting to operate, though!

Cross over tracks have bad electrical? crap, i didnt realize that. and i did plan on using the atlas ones. i will have to re-think that one. What i will do is play around with a temp layout using all the cross overs, if all my trains run well over them then great, if not get others, i will have to do.
All my track is Nickel Silver.

If i do flex, i will go after that weatherd flex. I will have to call my LHS and ask him for the remaining stock he had of it. he has retired and closed the store, but he is still living there for a few more days.

Kevin

[tstage]

Kevin,

The point that scoobster28 makes about the crossings and short locomotives is right on. I had problems with the Atlas ones myself.

I tried sanding the track and paring the excess plastic insulator on the frogs with a sharp chisel, but to no avail. I finally switched to the Walthers/Shinohara crossing and, yes, they were more expensive ($15) BUT so much better it wasn't funny. Much less noise and "bobble" as the train travels over the crossing. (There still is some but not as much as with the Atlas crossings.)

scoobster28, I did notice the brass track statement and forgot to make mention of it. Kevin, you're a wise man to set up a temporary layout to test out your design and work out the "kinks" (literally and figuratively).

Tom

[ondrek]

my 4-4-2 uses the tender as well for pickup and one of my 0-4-0's do as well. one of my 0-6-0's does but the other doesnt.

I will set up a small test bed. using all of the cross overs. the switches i was going to prevent any electrical problem by sodering in jumper wires to the underside to make sure power flows all over the place properly.

Kevin

[ondrek]

I thought about what was said regarding the Atlas crosses and switches. I have had issues in the past with the switches. Last night i decided to fix em. So i completed one.

I now have an atlas switch that has jumper wires all underneath (4 of them) to get power to the turing off rails, the adjustable ones and the fixed ones. I did a test and it was very very smooth for my 0-4-0 that does not use the tender for pick up. so things look good there

as far as the crosses...I tested them, they seem to be fine.

I think i will try to do one switch per day. so 1 down and 6 left to do. I need to get a better sodering iron and some flux as that soder just doesnt like to stick to the Nickel Silver rails does it?

I have decided also to go and change my layout design, just a bit. I started by tring to use all 18" radi turns but that just didnt work out in the space i have avail.
So i just went to the full 4x8 not the orig 4x7. what a difference one foot makes!

I also have decided to take out a cross track. now that i have an extra foot. I am going to have the track climb and go over the other on a short 6" bridge. that done, the tunnel that was on the right side of the layout is now eliminated, and the train will just run along a cliff side on the mountain. Here is a pic of my new altered layout plans....


http://www.vermontel.net/~kevin_ondre/HO%20Train/CMVTRR4_4x8.jpg

Kevin

[rrinker]

Didn't see if anyone mentioned this, but with those short distances, those grades are going to be MIGHTY steep. Have you verified that your locos can pul your trains on such a grade?

--Randy

[ondrek]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker

Didn't see if anyone mentioned this, but with those short distances, those grades are going to be MIGHTY steep. Have you verified that your locos can pul your trains on such a grade?

--Randy

Gonna find out.
not sure yet.
from the 90 degree crossing that climb needs to go up 3" to get to 6" bridge

might be a steep climb, I'll see

Kevin

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ondrek

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker

Didn't see if anyone mentioned this, but with those short distances, those grades are going to be MIGHTY steep. Have you verified that your locos can pul your trains on such a grade?

Gonna find out. not sure yet.
from the 90 degree crossing that climb needs to go up 3" to get to 6" bridge might be a steep climb, I'll see

Well, you could change the crossing on the left hand side to a bridge as well. That would make the center crossing medium height and the rear track high but level. Should reduce the over all grade at the expense of having to do lots of off board track.

[ham99]

I have gradually replaced all of the flex track with sectional on my layout, except for one straight run at the back. I don't like flex track, and I never have problems with the sectional. I run a feeder wire every three feet for good electrical contact, and I use Rail Zip on the joints every couple of months. With careful tracklaying, you can avoid kinks. I think it's just a matter of opinion which is better.

[fwright]

I like your layout design. With the rolling stock you are planning, I wouldn't be afraid of 15" radius here and there (especially eased) if it improves the design.

And I'll speak more heresy. At small radiuses - especially 15" - it is easier to get smooth trackwork using sectional rather than flex (ask me how I know :-). Using flex track, you would have to pre-solder the rail joints before trying to lay the curve to get a reasonably smooth curve. Even then, the tendency would be for the flex track to be straighter at the ends than in the middle - sort of a natural easement, which because of the space crunch would likely result in a smaller than 15" radius in the middle. And some flex track ain't - some, especially the better looking stuff, has frustrated better modelers than me. So for small table-top layouts, I tend to recommend sectional track for the fixed radius curves; then use flex track for the straights and slight curves to avoid using sectional fitter pieces - where most of the kinks and costs come from.

The only caution I have with your latest plan is that there is only about 14" clearance in the switchback tail feeding the spurs in the upper left. Depending on the length of your loco, you will only fit 2 23ft cars plus your loco at best in that space. Looks like there is room to lengthen that tail to about 20" to give a reasonable length train.

I'd love to see pictures as it comes along - I am already impressed. I'm a big fan and member of the small and mini-layout club - small being 4x8, mini being smaller down to 4 sq ft where Carl's micro-layouts take hold.

Fred Wright
jack of all trades....(you know the rest)
Picture Gorge and Western Railway - "none more picturesque!"
Tillamook Head and Bethel Railway - "To heaven and back!"

[nobullchitbids]

Don't know if the Atlas turnouts still come with the little t-bar phosphor bronzes -- it has been a long time since I purchased this product --; however, if you can find some of these, they make nifty contact shoes perfect for short-wheelbased locomotives. These can minimize the problem of stalling when crossing frogs.

[ondrek]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Texas Zepher

QUOTE: Originally posted by ondrek

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker

Didn't see if anyone mentioned this, but with those short distances, those grades are going to be MIGHTY steep. Have you verified that your locos can pul your trains on such a grade?

Gonna find out. not sure yet.
from the 90 degree crossing that climb needs to go up 3" to get to 6" bridge might be a steep climb, I'll see

Well, you could change the crossing on the left hand side to a bridge as well. That would make the center crossing medium height and the rear track high but level. Should reduce the over all grade at the expense of having to do lots of off board track.

What you are suggesting is how this layout design all started. I even had the track laid out. the 90 degree was elevated and such. what i found was that I didnt like how it left two valleys, that wasnt my intention.

So, the left 30 degree cross will stay a level crossing and the 90 degree will too. the right side one will start out as a level crossing, and then after i know all the trackwork works well, i will introduce the grade climb and bridge. I am hoping i can have it be a bridge, but I may find out i need to stay with the 30 degree level crossing on that side as well as the left.

Kevin

[ondrek]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ham99

I have gradually replaced all of the flex track with sectional on my layout, except for one straight run at the back. I don't like flex track, and I never have problems with the sectional. I run a feeder wire every three feet for good electrical contact, and I use Rail Zip on the joints every couple of months. With careful tracklaying, you can avoid kinks. I think it's just a matter of opinion which is better.

I am glad I have someone out there who is saying this, there was another response similar. I have decided to stick with the sectional track.

Kevin

[ondrek]

QUOTE: Originally posted by fwright

I like your layout design. With the rolling stock you are planning, I wouldn't be afraid of 15" radius here and there (especially eased) if it improves the design.

And I'll speak more heresy. At small radiuses - especially 15" - it is easier to get smooth trackwork using sectional rather than flex (ask me how I know :-). Using flex track, you would have to pre-solder the rail joints before trying to lay the curve to get a reasonably smooth curve. Even then, the tendency would be for the flex track to be straighter at the ends than in the middle - sort of a natural easement, which because of the space crunch would likely result in a smaller than 15" radius in the middle. And some flex track ain't - some, especially the better looking stuff, has frustrated better modelers than me. So for small table-top layouts, I tend to recommend sectional track for the fixed radius curves; then use flex track for the straights and slight curves to avoid using sectional fitter pieces - where most of the kinks and costs come from.

The only caution I have with your latest plan is that there is only about 14" clearance in the switchback tail feeding the spurs in the upper left. Depending on the length of your loco, you will only fit 2 23ft cars plus your loco at best in that space. Looks like there is room to lengthen that tail to about 20" to give a reasonable length train.

I'd love to see pictures as it comes along - I am already impressed. I'm a big fan and member of the small and mini-layout club - small being 4x8, mini being smaller down to 4 sq ft where Carl's micro-layouts take hold.

Fred Wright
jack of all trades....(you know the rest)
Picture Gorge and Western Railway - "none more picturesque!"
Tillamook Head and Bethel Railway - "To heaven and back!"

Fred-

Thanks for the comments. I really like this layout desgin as well. I had several i did up and this one i kept coming back to. I will be staying witht he sectional track.

The whole theme of the layout is a small VT town with a tourist passenger train. the 4-4-2 will pull the 3 passenger cars around as an old climax gets some logs from the logging camp off to the left. regarding the switch up there and the two spurs, well, i put it on the design as 6" sections, but if the 23' car cant fit there, i will extend it. but the plan is to only have one car per spur. I only have three log cars anyhow. and honestly i dont think the saw mill will be able to handle more than two log cars anyhow, they can only cut so much wood in the day. its gonna be a pretty laid back town. not much going on date range is the 1920's. some time in the fall, that way i can have a pumkin fest or something and there will be people busy in the xmas tree farm getting the trees pruned up for selling.

Oh, anyone know of an HO kit for a Gazebo? My wife would love that right in the center green right next to the one grave stone that will mark the grave of one man who no one really knows, all they know is that he is burried there, for what reason, they dont know either.

I know all about making flex track do 15" radi or less. I have one layout, that i started but never finished because i would much rather do this design. its a 2'x4' layout with a continous loop. and the loop isnt a 12" radius, its more like 10" or less. I got the flex track to do it, and my 0-4-0's went around it too. my Rivirossi 0-6-0 went around it too, just not with its tender, a slightly longer draw bar and it would though.

I have some pics of that i should post, but as i mentioned, i never finished it, infact i ripped up the switches from it for this design.

Kevin

[ondrek]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nobullchitbids

Don't know if the Atlas turnouts still come with the little t-bar phosphor bronzes -- it has been a long time since I purchased this product --; however, if you can find some of these, they make nifty contact shoes perfect for short-wheelbased locomotives. These can minimize the problem of stalling when crossing frogs.

Not sure if i have seen any of these either.

I figure i will just poke away at the ones i have to do, its only 7, its not like i have 30+ switches to have to do up.

thanks though

Kevin

[Medina1128]

HO kit for a gazebo??? Hmmm... how about http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/502-871004

[Medina1128]

Whoops.. found another gazebo kit for you...
http://www.internettrains.com/785-d236.html

[ondrek]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Medina1128

Whoops.. found another gazebo kit for you...
http://www.internettrains.com/785-d236.html

Thats the one!

thanks
Now only if i could find that Dyna Model country church kit. Thats the one the wife likes the most.

Kevin