Thanks everyone and to Paul and Byron, I do plan to increase the size of the "shelf". At least on the three sides that are not against the wall. There I will stick to the twelve inches or so to allow me to reach everything. Only problem there is so;dering feeders on the far side. Might get some help there.
73
Bruce in the Peg
IRONROOSTER The HOG design is a bit of a gimmick in that it was designed to use only one sheet of plywood. But if you want to actually build it, I would suggest you use two sheets of plywood cut into 2'x8' pieces.
The HOG design is a bit of a gimmick in that it was designed to use only one sheet of plywood. But if you want to actually build it, I would suggest you use two sheets of plywood cut into 2'x8' pieces.
Exactly right. It's a shame people don't let these more-flexible layout ideas really show off their benefits by adding another sheet of ply or a couple of pre-cut 2X4 "Handy Panels" of plywood. The extra cost is minimal in the overall scheme of things and the benefits are great.
ByronModel RR Blog
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
The HOG design is a bit of a gimmick in that it was designed to use only one sheet of plywood. But if you want to actually build it, I would suggest you use two sheets of plywood cut into 2'x8' pieces. You can arrange these in a 10'x10' square. This will provide more width for scenery and relieve fitting problems for the brand of turnouts you use and the multi track areas.
Enjoy
Paul
steinjr selectorBruce, would there be a yahoo group that deals with this layout http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HOGRR/ Smile,Stein
selectorBruce, would there be a yahoo group that deals with this layout
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HOGRR/
Smile,Stein
I am smiling, Stein. Thanks for doing that for me...I was pressed and left a drive-by message for Bruce.
Bruce, there ya go......
-Crandell
One of the first problems encountered with both drawing and building a track plan is that turnouts vary in their actual geometry from manufacturer to manufacturer (and sometimes over time with a given manufacturer). There is no way a Fast Tracks #4 will fit identically to an Atlas #4 or a Shinohara #4. All 3 #4s are built to significantly different specs and geometry for good reasons in the makers' eyes. The Atlas #4 is actually a 4.5 so that it fits in better with their 22" radius Snap Track. The straight path is 9" long on the #4, not because it's needed, but because it becomes a drop-in replacement for a 9" piece of straight Snap Track. Similarly, the Atlas #6 has a 12" long straight path for easier planning than if the straight path were 10.82" (designed before computer-based track planning existed). Fast Tracks jigs are based on straight NMRA RP geometry, with no concessions for the 16" closure rail radius of a NMRA RP #4 turnout. Shinohara lenghtens the distance between the throwbar and the frog to avoid such a tight radius for a #4. Of interest is that the various #6s are much closer to each other than the #4s, except for the length of straight track at the 3 ends.
To add to the confusion, too many who should know better call an Atlas Snap Switch a "#4 turnout". the Snap Switch's real geometry is a 20 degree arc of 18" radius for the curved path - that starts 1.5" in from the end of the turnout. The straight path is a 9" straight, the same as the Custom Line #4.
Most older track plans were drawn with NMRA RP spec turnouts for their geometry - and that assumes they were accurately measured and scaled during drawing to begin with. Atlas turnouts will take more space than their NMRA counterparts, and will force the plan not to fit in the advertised space.
If a plan is drawn using a software package, it is important to know which turnouts were chosen during the design process. Otherwise, the same problems as the hand-drawn variety occur. Also be aware that most software design packages have errors with scaling the Walters-Shinohara curved turnouts, because Walters improperly states the inner radius on these turnouts.
Finally, most published track plans are drawn to fit in as small a space as possible while retaining their salient features. On a plan that hasn't actually been built, the designer often misses a couple of things - just because layout design is an intensely iterative process. Insufficient vertical or horizontal clearances get missed. Tracks are very close to benchwork edge. Distances between tracks at different elevations that are so small only a retaining wall can be used as a scenic treatment are not uncommon. Operational issues such a switchback tails being too short, S curves with turnouts, unreasonably short or mismatched passing tracks, and lack of a runaround in a town industrial switching areas are also common design ommissions.
If a published plan is actually built, did the builder provide all the corrections and changes he had to make to make things actually fit and/or work operationally? Read the Turtle Creek project in Model Railroad a few years ago. Almost all the turnouts had to be cut to make the plan work in the intended space. Other changes were not identified in the article, but I bet there were some.
Enough generalities. The HOG RR is a tested design that has been built quite a few times. It was designed using Atlas Custom Line turnouts. If you use different turnouts, you will have to alter the design somewhat. 5 tracks across in 12" will fit (2" center-to-center between tracks, and 2" center-to-edge) if all tracks are straight. But there is not much wiggle room for changes, and not much edge to catch a derailed train.
I do have to question the HOG RR (or any doughnut) as a good design for a person in a wheelchair. The HOG RR is designed to built and operated from the interior, and access in and out is awkward enough without a wheelchair. Perhaps, depsite my project planning professional life, the fact that I can never remember to bring ALL the tools and supplies I need through the liftout/swing gate/swing section/duckunder the 1st time is the main reason I much prefer walk-in designs such as a U, E, or L.
just my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Bruce, would there be a yahoo group that deals with this layout...it seems there are so many specific ones, maybe it exists for this layout. But how about contacting someone at the website for HOG and asking them for what they use...it's worth a contact attempt if they can assure you of the requirements.
This is one of the frustrating things about model railroading -- many published plans do not fit as drawn. One of the best ways to be sure what will fit in real life is to use Xeroxed templates of real turnouts and lay them out on the floor or the benchwork.
Assuming HO, 5 tracks across a 12" space doesn't leave sufficient "buffer zone" at each edge of the benchwork, in my opinion, but it does fit with a 2" track-to-track spacing.
There's certainly no reason one couldn't make one of the sections wider to accommodate this area better. Sections around a central access space has always been a viable idea and I'm glad the HOGRR guys are promoting this long-standing layout concept. But I think it's a shame they didn't allow the different sections to vary in width to better fit the layout. That would have really illustrated the flexibility.
Good luck!
I have had bad luck making a plan in a book actually fit the size of table called for in the plan. Where a #4 or #6 is specified, it doesn't fit where it is supposed to go.
I now have another layout to begin anew and want to be sure BEFORE I build the table and benchwork. What is a good way to do this? I am in a wheelchair so I cannot lay it out on the floor. The layout is the HOG RR and is essentially a square donut 8' X 8' and is only 12" wide. The plan specifys 5 tracks across 12" in one area.