Sir Madog Hi JTG, you invited criticism and here it is! Within the space you have available, you can do much better than this! All of your track is neatly arranged somehow along the edges of your "tables". This will give you an artificial look, which will bore you after a short time. Take the plan as it is and try to have a little more "deliberate" arrangement, avoiding tracks paralleling the layout edges. You will like the difference!
Hi JTG,
you invited criticism and here it is!
Within the space you have available, you can do much better than this! All of your track is neatly arranged somehow along the edges of your "tables". This will give you an artificial look, which will bore you after a short time. Take the plan as it is and try to have a little more "deliberate" arrangement, avoiding tracks paralleling the layout edges. You will like the difference!
Thank you, Ulrich. I appreciate your comment. You raise an issue that had concerned me. In fact, I tinkered with a few other arrangements, putting a little "wobble" in the tracks just for appearance's sake. Even tried just placing the "oval" at a slight angle, in order to accomplish the same thing. But I settled upon the current (admittedly more boring) arrangement for a couple of reasons. First, I believe this provides the most efficient use of the space; putting in a scenic S curve would have greatly limited what I could have done as far as a passing track or industrial spurs are concerned. Second, remember that this is a small part of a much larger layout, and that this particular section is the only representation of an urban industrial district. Therefore, I was more inclined to let the tracks fall straight and true in this section. There's plenty of room on the rest of the layout for a more scenic treatment.
That being said, I'll take a second (or third) look and see if I can find an acceptable way of breaking up the straightness.
Thanks again!
markpierce Those curves don't look right to me if those grids are six inches apart. They look a lot sharper than 26 inches. If you are measuring the diameter rather than the radius (model railroad curves are measured in terms of radius), the curves are much too sharp. Thirteen-inch radius is extreme.. They should be twice as large unless your locomotives only have four axles total.. Mark
Those curves don't look right to me if those grids are six inches apart. They look a lot sharper than 26 inches. If you are measuring the diameter rather than the radius (model railroad curves are measured in terms of radius), the curves are much too sharp. Thirteen-inch radius is extreme.. They should be twice as large unless your locomotives only have four axles total..
Mark
That's a 12-inch grid ... and 26" RADIUS curves.
Hello all,
I'm looking for constructive criticism of the attached HO track plan. Here's the lowdown:
This is a 5x20-foot unit that will eventually be incorporated into a 20x25-foot layout. It will be constructed on 6 hollow core doors with folding legs and a two-sided scenic divider down the middle. The top image shows how Phase 1 will be originally constructed. The second image shows how a reversing loop will be added to form one "end" of the final layout, and the track extended to what will become the main freight yard and the rest of the main line.
The purpose of Phase 1 is to provide some switching fun, as well as an opportunity to occasionally let 'em run around the oval. Operationally, the three-track yard (which will eventually become staging tracks on the completed layout) will be used as a source/destination for cars to be switched into and out of the industrial district.
I'm using 26" curves, with primarily #6 turnouts. Some #4 turnouts (and 21" curves) are used in places that will never be visited by any longer wheel-based equipment. The setting is approximately 1954, so 40-foot cars will be predominant, and I have little interest in massive motive power.
BTW, code 83 flex track will be used; I just like using the 6-inch sections in track planning to easily estimate siding lengths. 6-inch straight sections will be used only to "bridge" the gaps between modules.
Any ideas for me? Thanks!