carl425 ROBERT PETRICK As for the poor design decision of having "long stretches of track parallel to the fascia and/or rear wall . . ." The entire right portion of my benchwork blatantly violates this conventional wisdom, but I suggest that what it depicts is extremely prototypical. I have never seen a real railroad with a fascia. Up to the point of the fascia, I agree that many towns are laid out exactly that way. This is somebody's idea of a good "design principal" (like not putting the sofa against the wall) misapplied to model railroading. One poster even admitted to quoting it without understanding the principle. It comes from the idea that a track should appear to follow geography - not to avoid running off the edge of the layout. This is a good idea generally, but like everything else can be easily carried to far.
ROBERT PETRICK As for the poor design decision of having "long stretches of track parallel to the fascia and/or rear wall . . ." The entire right portion of my benchwork blatantly violates this conventional wisdom, but I suggest that what it depicts is extremely prototypical.
I have never seen a real railroad with a fascia.
Up to the point of the fascia, I agree that many towns are laid out exactly that way. This is somebody's idea of a good "design principal" (like not putting the sofa against the wall) misapplied to model railroading. One poster even admitted to quoting it without understanding the principle. It comes from the idea that a track should appear to follow geography - not to avoid running off the edge of the layout. This is a good idea generally, but like everything else can be easily carried to far.
I've been to San Francisco, and I've seen firsthand what happens when designers try to impose a rigid grid on unyielding topography. On the other hand, I was born and raised in Florida, which is flat like a pancake, and where many towns look just like the little town depicted on my layout. Imagine that.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
ROBERT PETRICKAs for the poor design decision of having "long stretches of track parallel to the fascia and/or rear wall . . ." The entire right portion of my benchwork blatantly violates this conventional wisdom, but I suggest that what it depicts is extremely prototypical.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
rrinkerDespite saying you have some relatively tight radius curves, you actually have, in that plan, implemented many of the ideas being mentioned. Most of your tighter curves, the exception being the two at the top of the right hand aisle, are viewed fromt he outside, not the inside - this helps dimish the appearance issues on tighter radius curves.
You have that backwards. It is the inside view where the tighter radius looks less toy like. Here's the table from the much referenced MRH article that was based on the LDSIG'S original work:
hon30critter OP seems to be amongst the missing. Have we been trolled? Dave
OP seems to be amongst the missing. Have we been trolled?
Dave
Dave, modus operandi around here. We should be used to someone starting a topic and rarely if ever comign back in to respond; meanwhile everyone is busy discussing the topic for the OP like a bunch of bafoons - me included. *sigh*
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I didn't think we were allowed to use the T word. That's why I called it a Drive By Thread on 3/16. At least Robert made it a useful discussion.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
I'm getting a lot of good info. But what is a sticky?
GNgoatkid.
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
BMMECNYC We dont need to talk like lawyers, just avoid using inaccurate broad generalizations.
We dont need to talk like lawyers, just avoid using inaccurate broad generalizations.
If the past 8 years on the forum are any indication, good luck with that!
ROBERT PETRICK 7j43k When I first saw Robert's layout, I really liked it. It is NOT flamboyant . . . But it REALLY feels comfortable to me. Ed Hey thanks, Ed. You know, oddly enough, comfortable is exactly what I was shooting for. I never thought about flamboyant one way or another, but I kinda like the idea of being not. I specifically wanted a double mainline throughout for long, continuous runs that allow trains to stretch their legs. I like trains to run; to pick up stuff here and deliver it over there, and over there is usually a long way away with lots of nothing in between. I have a very low trackage-to-scenery ratio. The only crossover of the two mains is effected by the convergence of the east- and west approaches to the Littlefield bridge shown at the bottom of the sketch. The lack of convenient crossovers means (just like in real life) that a conductor who is lost or otherwise on the wrong track will have to phone the dispatcher and admit defeat . . . and suffer the shame and humiliation of correcting his mistake while the other operators sit idly by or are forced to take alternative routes. I doubt this situation will happen more than once. As for the poor design decision of having "long stretches of track parallel to the fascia and/or rear wall . . ." The entire right portion of my benchwork blatantly violates this conventional wisdom, but I suggest that what it depicts is extremely prototypical. That is what towns look like: long, straight main street intersected by cross streets at regular intervals forming (more or less) square blocks. Boring. Not to me. I particularly like the (boringly) straight double mainline. I can easily imagine the daily commuter or the six-year-old-boy standing on the platform straining to see the headlamp of the locomotive as it rounds the curve in the distance. The straightaway gives the 10- or 12-car consist of the Broadway Limited or California Zephyr room to stretch out before dipping its nose into the station siding. Once in the station, I provided some room ahead and behind so that things never look like Wilt Chamberlain trying to sit in a Volkswagen. As for yards, the entire lower level is nothing but one large yard, about 50 feet long after unfolding the folded dogbone. Laid out and scenicked as a deep-water port, but functioning like any other yard. More or less. Robert
7j43k When I first saw Robert's layout, I really liked it. It is NOT flamboyant . . . But it REALLY feels comfortable to me. Ed
When I first saw Robert's layout, I really liked it. It is NOT flamboyant . . . But it REALLY feels comfortable to me.
Ed
Hey thanks, Ed.
You know, oddly enough, comfortable is exactly what I was shooting for. I never thought about flamboyant one way or another, but I kinda like the idea of being not.
I specifically wanted a double mainline throughout for long, continuous runs that allow trains to stretch their legs. I like trains to run; to pick up stuff here and deliver it over there, and over there is usually a long way away with lots of nothing in between. I have a very low trackage-to-scenery ratio.
The only crossover of the two mains is effected by the convergence of the east- and west approaches to the Littlefield bridge shown at the bottom of the sketch. The lack of convenient crossovers means (just like in real life) that a conductor who is lost or otherwise on the wrong track will have to phone the dispatcher and admit defeat . . . and suffer the shame and humiliation of correcting his mistake while the other operators sit idly by or are forced to take alternative routes. I doubt this situation will happen more than once.
As for the poor design decision of having "long stretches of track parallel to the fascia and/or rear wall . . ." The entire right portion of my benchwork blatantly violates this conventional wisdom, but I suggest that what it depicts is extremely prototypical. That is what towns look like: long, straight main street intersected by cross streets at regular intervals forming (more or less) square blocks. Boring. Not to me. I particularly like the (boringly) straight double mainline. I can easily imagine the daily commuter or the six-year-old-boy standing on the platform straining to see the headlamp of the locomotive as it rounds the curve in the distance. The straightaway gives the 10- or 12-car consist of the Broadway Limited or California Zephyr room to stretch out before dipping its nose into the station siding. Once in the station, I provided some room ahead and behind so that things never look like Wilt Chamberlain trying to sit in a Volkswagen.
As for yards, the entire lower level is nothing but one large yard, about 50 feet long after unfolding the folded dogbone. Laid out and scenicked as a deep-water port, but functioning like any other yard. More or less.
Robert, love your layout plan. I have designed layouts for others, I agree with all your reasons for breaking the "rules" you broke. And you are correct, real life is full of railroad tracks exactly at right angles to all the other man made stuff around them.
Again, great layout plan.
Sheldon
IRONROOSTER This reminds me of some old discussions on which scale is the best. or Which era is the best. or Which prototype road is the best. There is no best and no universal rule of thumb. Every layout we build and operate has compromises with faithfully modelling the prototype. Partly this is because we have limitations, but partly because somethings are just boring. Do you really want to run a train at scale speed for a 20 mile stretch of track in the country with no stations or sidings (approx. 1200 ft in HO) and/or build the layout to support that? neither do I. Do you accurately model the basement interior of every house on your layout? neither do I. You figure out what you want to do and then how to best do it given your space, time, and money resources. If that means running 80' passenger cars on 18" curves then that's what's right for you. If you like to kick back and watch your 4-4-0 pull 36' boxcars around a 60" curve, then by all means do that. BTW the best scale is not the one you're using. You also have the wrong era. And You need to pick a better prototype. Paul
This reminds me of some old discussions on which scale is the best. or Which era is the best. or Which prototype road is the best.
There is no best and no universal rule of thumb. Every layout we build and operate has compromises with faithfully modelling the prototype. Partly this is because we have limitations, but partly because somethings are just boring. Do you really want to run a train at scale speed for a 20 mile stretch of track in the country with no stations or sidings (approx. 1200 ft in HO) and/or build the layout to support that? neither do I. Do you accurately model the basement interior of every house on your layout? neither do I.
You figure out what you want to do and then how to best do it given your space, time, and money resources. If that means running 80' passenger cars on 18" curves then that's what's right for you. If you like to kick back and watch your 4-4-0 pull 36' boxcars around a 60" curve, then by all means do that.
BTW the best scale is not the one you're using. You also have the wrong era. And You need to pick a better prototype.
Paul
Completely agreed, but as pointed out by another poster, even 36" radius represents one of our biggest items of "selective" compression. We run 85' cars around 30" or 36" curves like it is the mainline, in real life that would be a highly restricted speed curve for an 85' car.
I understand and agree about compromises in this hobby, but without some of these discussions, some people in this hobby would never know or understand the implications of their choices until they had problems.
I want passenger cars to have close coupled working/touching diaphragms. I accept all the other compromises I need to make to get there.
In my case, I am so particular about "broad overall visual effect" that I am willing to compromise on things like scale car lengths to get a better overall look.
I run mostly passenger cars in the 70'-75' range on curves in the 36" and larger range to get better looks, better operation, and those working diaphragms.
I have a few 80' cars and they work fine, but overall the trains look better because of the slighly compressed cars on the relatively large curves.
Not to go too far off the topic, but the other benifit of the selectively compressed cars relates to your comments about scale distances and such. Rather than run passenger trains with fewer cars, I can have more cars and pull them into station platforms that need not be as long to support an eight or nine car train.
A nine car train of 85' cars is about 9' long, but nine 70' cars are only about 7' long. Nine or ten car passenger trains close coupled with diaphragms touching, that don't look like toys on curves, are much better to my eyes than 6-7 cars trains with wide gaps between cars and big overhangs on curves.....
My choices and compromises......other may be interested in how their choices will work out.
Well obviously industrial trackage need only be built to standards for the equipment that will operate there.
BUT, the trap of building a mainline to standards that are too restrictive, is that a lot of people in this hobby are always changing their mind about what, where, when and how to model.
OR, they simply don't know yet that they want 85' passenger cars or auto racks.........
Given the space, it makes perfect sense to build a mainline to handle the longest typical prototype equipment.....and even if you are modeling 1905, they had 80' passenger cars then..........
It will look better and run better.
riogrande5761 BMMECNYC Lone Wolf and Santa Fe If you know you are modeling an era with short locos and short cars then you could use 18 inch curves but if you can use bigger it is always better. This is not really accurate. Bigger is not always better. You could put a 72" radius minimum in a 13ft wide room... Yes, but taken in the spirit with which it was meant, I agree. We need to talk like lawyers on this forum and word our posts very carefully to avoid the "yeah, but" replies. So let me give this a try, "where possible, bigger is always better."?
BMMECNYC Lone Wolf and Santa Fe If you know you are modeling an era with short locos and short cars then you could use 18 inch curves but if you can use bigger it is always better. This is not really accurate. Bigger is not always better. You could put a 72" radius minimum in a 13ft wide room...
Lone Wolf and Santa Fe If you know you are modeling an era with short locos and short cars then you could use 18 inch curves but if you can use bigger it is always better.
This is not really accurate. Bigger is not always better. You could put a 72" radius minimum in a 13ft wide room...
Yes, but taken in the spirit with which it was meant, I agree. We need to talk like lawyers on this forum and word our posts very carefully to avoid the "yeah, but" replies. So let me give this a try, "where possible, bigger is always better."?
Still, no, not always. The russians tried that with a 4-14-4 or something like that... didnt work out.
Bigger can be a huge waste of space for spur tracks (it is situational). Having a your mainline minimum radius for every spur track is excessive. You only need the minimum that the rolling stock that serves that industry/minimum that your locomotive doing the switching can handle reliably. Anything over that is gravy. But not necessarily better. A broad radius is a space eater. If you arent using big rollingstock or locomotives, why would you give up that space when you could use it elsewhere.
You dont need curves that make a 85' passenger car look good when you are spotting a 36' or 40' car an industry with a cab end switcher.
riogrande5761We need to talk like lawyers on this forum and word our posts very carefully to avoid the "yeah, but" replies.
When I first saw Robert's layout, I really liked it. It is NOT flamboyant. And I do think it could use fine-tuning--like a couple of curves oddly connected by straights. And I think I might add some crossovers on the double track. And various versions of yards are missing. But it REALLY feels comfortable to me. I like that layout.
ROBERT PETRICK Following up on my previous post. First: I'm typing this on my cell phone, so long complicated missives are a bit difficult. Second: I model N scale, so any numbers bandied about need to be multiplied by 2 so that HOers can relate. Third: the OP was about HO scale curves, but since the OPer seems to have dropped out and since Atlantic Central wanted to expand the thread to a broader discussion, I'll bite. Fourth: specific acknowledgement that opinions may vary. The absolute minimum radius on my layout is 18", and those occur mainly in the yards due to the Peco medium turnouts (estimated to be #6). Most of the curves are in the 24" to 30" range. Several are in the 36" to 48" range. A couple are in the 60" to 90" range. I have one long, broad curve that is 72" radius, but it runs exactly parallel with the fascia. So, do I get points for such a broad curve? Or, do I lose points because it follows the fascia? My train room is 24' by 25' and the layout footprint is about 18' by 25'. I look at it as the world's largest diorama, with a few kenetic elements tossed in here and there for fun. My main design criteria was to create scenic vistas, and if spectators stand in certain locations around the layout and look in particular directions, they'd see the vistas I intended to create. I will do my best to try to make those scenes as un-boring as I can. Here is a sketch of the layout with the vantage points I wanted to include. There are two #4 viewpoints (Dang!) Robert
Following up on my previous post.
First: I'm typing this on my cell phone, so long complicated missives are a bit difficult.
Second: I model N scale, so any numbers bandied about need to be multiplied by 2 so that HOers can relate.
Third: the OP was about HO scale curves, but since the OPer seems to have dropped out and since Atlantic Central wanted to expand the thread to a broader discussion, I'll bite.
Fourth: specific acknowledgement that opinions may vary.
The absolute minimum radius on my layout is 18", and those occur mainly in the yards due to the Peco medium turnouts (estimated to be #6). Most of the curves are in the 24" to 30" range. Several are in the 36" to 48" range. A couple are in the 60" to 90" range. I have one long, broad curve that is 72" radius, but it runs exactly parallel with the fascia. So, do I get points for such a broad curve? Or, do I lose points because it follows the fascia?
My train room is 24' by 25' and the layout footprint is about 18' by 25'. I look at it as the world's largest diorama, with a few kenetic elements tossed in here and there for fun. My main design criteria was to create scenic vistas, and if spectators stand in certain locations around the layout and look in particular directions, they'd see the vistas I intended to create. I will do my best to try to make those scenes as un-boring as I can. Here is a sketch of the layout with the vantage points I wanted to include. There are two #4 viewpoints (Dang!)
Despite saying you have some relatively tight radius curves, you actually have, in that plan, implemented many of the ideas being mentioned. Most of your tighter curves, the exception being the two at the top of the right hand aisle, are viewed fromt he outside, not the inside - this helps dimish the appearance issues on tighter radius curves. It's not really possible to make EVERY curve viewable only from the outside, so there's nothing wrong there. That nice gentle curve to thr right of the middle aisle more than makes ip for it. And the sweeping curves through the river scene on the left - I'll bet that becomes your favorite place to photograph a train once all the scenery is done.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
BigDaddy More than 2 weeks since the thread started and the OP is no where to be found. Not even a "thank you I'll check those books out." This is a drive by thread.
More than 2 weeks since the thread started and the OP is no where to be found. Not even a "thank you I'll check those books out." This is a drive by thread.
I dunno....the thread seems to be pretty-much self-sustaining without the O.P.'s input. Perhaps the extended conversation has put him to sleep.
The "best" curve for HO (or any scale) depends on a number of factors, including the size and shape of the space available for the layout, the type of layout (continuous run or point-to-point), the era being modelled (which includes all of the possibilities and restrictions offered by the equipment of that era), the operations which interest the modeller most, etc., etc.My own freelanced road was envisioned as a secondary main line connecting a couple of industrial areas, with perhaps a smaller town or two along the route. I had a very rough sketch (probably overly optimistic about what would fit) for a trackplan.Unfortunately, shortly after starting benchwork construction, I lost about 30% of my layout area to "other uses", and was left with a fairly odd-shaped room. The sketch, now definitely useless, was tossed. The restrictions of that room shape then made establishing a minimum radius the priority, and to that end, I simply cut a bunch of curves out of 3/4" plywood, starting with a 30" minimum and increasing in 2" increments, then layed them, in various configurations, atop the open grid benchwork, noting on a sketch of the room the ones which fit best at each of the room's ten corners. When I look back on the process now, I was as much looking to find the maximum radius I could put in those places, with only a nod to learning what the minimum might be where space was tighter.I then cut more plywood to create all of the required major curves, and once all were loosely in place atop the benchwork, simply connected them with straight-ish track.The mainline minimum did end up at 30", but only on a turning wye in one of the industrial areas. Pretty-well all of the rest is 34" minimum, and there are a couple at 40" and 46", I think, included mainly because they looked good. Very little of the straight-ish track is parallel to either the walls or the aisles.So, for me, curve radii were determined mostly by the shape of the room, and the rest of the layout - scenic features, structures, town placement, etc. - was determined by the curves. I think that my choice of a late '30s era is fairly sympathetic to those parameters, with mostly shorter rolling stock and small to medium size locomotives. Anyone choosing or forced into choosing a smaller minimum radius could make it look less restrictive if they use the restriction as a guide in choosing era, equipment, and their choice of setting, whether it be urban or rural. Sometimes ones dreams of Big Boys or Alleghenys need to be put into perspective if you want a more realistic and enjoyable to operate layout.
Wayne
Lone Wolf and Santa FeIf you know you are modeling an era with short locos and short cars then you could use 18 inch curves but if you can use bigger it is always better.
Also if by design what you are modeling has tight curvature, then there is nothing wrong with 18", or tighter. Google Bronx Terminal. 12.5" (90ft) and 14" (104ft) radius. Works with 36' and 40' HO scale cars.
riogrande57615.0 x Most reliable coupling on curves with body-mounted couplers and near-scale draft gear boxes.
If you dont use self centering couplers, you can throw the 5x out the window and couple on a 22" radius or less with a 40' car. FWIW, the prototype does not have self-centering couplers...
Edit: for the most part anyway.
DSchmitt jjdamnit Hello all, Lone Wolf and Santa Fe Here is a list I made up of minimum radius for different type of equipment. Toys = 18” Most scale models = 22” Scale models with accurately detailed fames and coupler pockets = 24” Steam Locomotives = varies up to 30" or more. The quote that 18-inch radii is for toys! Seems to be nay saying to me. Hope this helps. 18" radius was the HO standard for years. Many fine HO layouts have been built with 18" radius. Still bigger is usually better, especially with the newer locomotives and cars which often do not have the design compromizes that were accepted in "the old days".
jjdamnit Hello all, Lone Wolf and Santa Fe Here is a list I made up of minimum radius for different type of equipment. Toys = 18” Most scale models = 22” Scale models with accurately detailed fames and coupler pockets = 24” Steam Locomotives = varies up to 30" or more. The quote that 18-inch radii is for toys! Seems to be nay saying to me. Hope this helps.
Hello all,
Lone Wolf and Santa Fe Here is a list I made up of minimum radius for different type of equipment. Toys = 18” Most scale models = 22” Scale models with accurately detailed fames and coupler pockets = 24” Steam Locomotives = varies up to 30" or more.
The quote that 18-inch radii is for toys! Seems to be nay saying to me.
Hope this helps.
18" radius was the HO standard for years. Many fine HO layouts have been built with 18" radius. Still bigger is usually better, especially with the newer locomotives and cars which often do not have the design compromizes that were accepted in "the old days".
I'm sorry, I didn’t mean 18 inch minimum radius meant that your trains were toys. Rather that 18 inches is the tightest radius you want if you are a “Toy Train Collector,” who operates toy trains from Tyco and other brands which were designed for the toy market.My original layout was Tyco slot cars and trains together. It was a toy train layout. When I started operating scale models I found that too many of them would not run on my 18 inch radius track. Therefore I would not recommend a minimum radius under 22 inches for scale models if you can avoid it. If you know that only shorter cars and four axel locomotives are going to be on a spur then you can go below minimum radius, but I only do that if there is no other choice. If you know you are modeling an era with short locos and short cars then you could use 18 inch curves but if you can use bigger it is always better.
As has been suggested, I think the scenic aspect of the layout would benefit from a bit of bend in the long straight parts.
- Douglas
ROBERT PETRICKMy new layout has several places where long stretches of track run parallel to both the front (fascia) edge and the wall. And several places where it doesn't. There was a movie several years back about Alfred Hitchcock making Psycho. One character told him that horror movies were rather low class and simplistic, and he replied, "Yeah, but what if somebody really good was to make one?" I'm not Alfred, but I designed my layout the way I did on purpose. In fact, I broke at least four or five of the Eight Commandments of Good Layout Design, and did so knowingly. Robert
There was a movie several years back about Alfred Hitchcock making Psycho. One character told him that horror movies were rather low class and simplistic, and he replied, "Yeah, but what if somebody really good was to make one?"
I'm not Alfred, but I designed my layout the way I did on purpose. In fact, I broke at least four or five of the Eight Commandments of Good Layout Design, and did so knowingly.
Re: parallel to layout fascia - I'm just passing on what layout designers have recommended; if you aren't happy with that design element idea, I'm afraid you'll have to argue that with those folks. Me, I'm just the messenger - don't shoot the messenger!
You don't need to defend your layout - you only need to please yourself ultimately.
riogrande5761 One thing that is rather boring is long stretches of straight track exactly parallel to the wall and/or fascia. That is something discussed in a number of MR articles on layout design. I'm not a member of any Layout Design SIG's but I would imagine this is one of a number of design elements discussed. For example, it's better to not run long stretches of straight track perfectly parallel to the edge of the layout. Use that space for some nice extra broad sweeping curves for some scenic variety. --Randy John Armstrong mentioned scenic curves in his Track Planning For Realistic Operation - suggesting even though most curves may be so sharp as to be visually unappealing, it's good to include at least one scenic curve which is quite broad and allows the viewer to enjoy trains with longer cars better. I incorporated a 54" curve on one side of my rather small 10x 18' layout for that purpose.
One thing that is rather boring is long stretches of straight track exactly parallel to the wall and/or fascia.
That is something discussed in a number of MR articles on layout design. I'm not a member of any Layout Design SIG's but I would imagine this is one of a number of design elements discussed. For example, it's better to not run long stretches of straight track perfectly parallel to the edge of the layout.
Use that space for some nice extra broad sweeping curves for some scenic variety. --Randy
John Armstrong mentioned scenic curves in his Track Planning For Realistic Operation - suggesting even though most curves may be so sharp as to be visually unappealing, it's good to include at least one scenic curve which is quite broad and allows the viewer to enjoy trains with longer cars better. I incorporated a 54" curve on one side of my rather small 10x 18' layout for that purpose.
My new layout has several places where long stretches of track run parallel to both the front (fascia) edge and the wall. And several places where it doesn't.
rrinker And a workable MINIMUM to fit the space doesn't mean all curves need to be that sharp.
And a workable MINIMUM to fit the space doesn't mean all curves need to be that sharp.
For sure; you can have a minimum radius that may allow all of your equipment to operate reliably, which may not look very nice with longer cars, but you can do things to minimize the appearance or hide some of those locations.
Rob Spangler noted one scene on his layout where there was a turn-back and hid it with a ridge so that under normal viewing conditions, you can't see the sharpest part of the curve. I don't know what the radius was - probably something decent but maybe not visually as good under longer cars.
It's modus operandi here in MR forums for people to post a topic with questions or needing help and then nothing but *crickets* after that. I'm pretty used to it after some years now.
PRR8259 I really don't run passenger equipment, but am more freight oriented.
I really don't run passenger equipment, but am more freight oriented.
I'm mainly freight oriented but such pesky things as 89' TOFC flat cars and auto racks and 86' auto parts box cars have been very common since the mid-1960's and were very much a part of daily freight operations on many RR's, so you need "decent" curve radii to handle them.
--easements are your friend, use them. John
John
Always!
And a workable MINIMUM to fit the space doesn't mean all curves need to be that sharp. One thing that is rather boring is long stretches of straight track exactly parallel to the wall and/or fascia. Use that space for some nice extra broad sweeping curves for some scenic variety.
carl425 ATLANTIC CENTRAL But if no one has a discussion... You mean like your first post in this thread? ATLANTIC CENTRAL Bigger is better......... My choices, 36" minimum mainline, 48" prefered.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL But if no one has a discussion...
You mean like your first post in this thread?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Bigger is better......... My choices, 36" minimum mainline, 48" prefered.
Yes, hoping the OP mjght say "why?".