God bless TCA 05-58541 Benefactor Member of the NRA, Member of the American Legion, Retired Boss Hog of Roseyville , KC&D Qualified
Bob Keller
Originally posted by garyvot Colin, here is the slighly expanded version of this layout that I built last year: Hey I like that! Is there a trick to stretching the 4x8 plywood? Maybe a shelving outrigger. I don't mind riding the throttle, keeps you on your toes. I still wonder why my GP-38 derails. Thanks for the track plan, Bob Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 31, 2005 6:56 PM The track planning software is called RR-Track. An excellent product for designing layouts with sectional track. Unfortunately, this expanded plan won't qutie fit a 4x8 table. It's closer to 5 1/2 x 9. Note that this plan uses some 42" curves and turnouts, and a few Marx 34" "wide radius" curves which you can find sometimes on eBay or at train meets. (It's a shame that no modern manufacturer makes this geometry for O27 profile track.) My expanded "mainline" has an outer passing siding that effectively creates an outer loop for running locomotives that cannot handle the tigher curves. Back to Colin's original issue, I still think cruise control is the answer. But be warned: few modern scale-size locomotives run on 27" curves. At best you can a few scale switching engines that work okay on 27" (the Railking USRA 0-6-0 is one), and some smaller diesels will work. Traditional-size Lionel stuff and Railking items can be found, but not always with cruise control. (The Lionmaster Hudson is one nice semi-scale locomotive that works on this layout despite being rated for a minimum 31" diameter curve.) If you can be happy with a few well-chosen engines and traditional-sized rolling stock, then this is a great layout for a small space. If not, then you might want to stick to a track plan with 31" or larger curves. You will get less action in a 4x8, but that's the tradeoff you have to make. Reply Edit lionelsoni Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin, TX 10,096 posts Posted by lionelsoni on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 8:56 AM Amen on the O34, Gary. My outer main line is O34 for the same reason. However, I have been able to find simple modifications to run everything I want on O27 curves, including a Big Boy, Train Master, 773 Hudson, 16-wheel flatcar, and numerous long passenger cars. Bob Nelson Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 11:49 AM Hey Ya'll Snell50, why not try 0-42 curves on a larger sheet of playwood. Or go with ) gauge tubualr (better any way) and use those curves. The higher rail is supposed to keep the engines on the track better. Bert and Mary Poppins Reply Edit JamesShannon Member sinceDecember 2004 51 posts Posted by JamesShannon on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 12:36 PM I have a Lionel Pennsy GP9 from the late 90's that works on 027 curves even though it is not supposed to. My kids run that on all kinds of crazy temporary layouts and they can't make it derail even if they want to. That loco was $230 new so much cheaper now on ebay or used plus it has TMCC and Railsounds and Magnatraction. I also just picked up the Steel Service Set from 1996 which is a switcher and 3 ore cars < $200 like new used, a wonderful little (TMCC, Magnatraction) set that would fit in with the industrial theme on that layout. Just some thoughts. Jim Reply 3railguy Member sinceMay 2004 From: Kaukauna WI 2,115 posts Posted by 3railguy on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 1:19 PM IT WASN'T MY FAULT! OK, you can blame the engineer. I did the origional trackplan for the Coal Terminal Central and it was published sometime in the fall of 2003. It was called the Indianapolis and Hartford City Railway. It was designed as an inexpensive starter set expansion layout. Yes, the curves are sharp and the trestles are steep. But, that's Lionel 027. With lighter, higher geared engines, you need to keep your hand on the throttle. That's part of the fun and I think I made mention of this in the origional manuscript. One suggestion I can make is to isolate the downgrade with insulating pins and jumper it with a 25 watt ceramic resistor (the ohm value depends on the amps your engines draw) or use a seperate transformer phased in to the main transformer. This will slow the train down as it decends the grade. I agree on 042 and fastrack, but again this was designed to be an inexpensive 4 x 8 layout with an interesting twist to it. BTW, Fastrack wasn't on the market when I designed the layout. John Long Give me Magnetraction or give me Death. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 1:32 PM Yeah, I have that issue of CTT. Reply Edit lionelsoni Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin, TX 10,096 posts Posted by lionelsoni on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 1:51 PM Using a resistor to descend a hill is a better idea than using a separate transformer set to a lower voltage. Running from one block to another with different transformers powering the two blocks requires that the two voltages be not only in phase but equal. Any difference in transformer voltage will be the difference at the rail gap that will be shorted by the pickups and could result in a substantial fault current, which, even if it does not trip a circuit breaker, could mess up the pickups. Bob Nelson Reply 3railguy Member sinceMay 2004 From: Kaukauna WI 2,115 posts Posted by 3railguy on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 3:58 PM Lionelsoni may very well be right on two seprate transformers. However, I've never experienced this on the crossovers on my layout where I have two loops powered by two transformers. I've always used an old multi post ZW transformer when doing this with grades. Another idea is to bank the curves. That would be cool to watch. You can do this by adding shims under the ties or trestle feet. Finding the right angle takes some tweaking. Too steep and the trains might topple over at slow speeds. A smooth transition is required too. Otherwise you could derail the train. John Long Give me Magnetraction or give me Death. Reply lionelsoni Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin, TX 10,096 posts Posted by lionelsoni on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 4:16 PM If the voltage difference is not very much, the current can be limited to a tolerable level by the source impedance of the transformers. Going from block to block on level track, you would want to match the voltages anyway, which minimizes the problem. I mentioned it here because one would deliberately set the voltages to be different between the level and the grade. Another way to reduce the voltage is to put back-to-back diode pairs in series with the center rail. Each pair of diodes will drop the voltage by about .7 volts. A bridge rectifier with + and - connected together will drop about 1.5 volts between the ~ terminals. This eliminates the fault current, is probably less expensive than an additional transformer, and gives the same voltage reduction regardless of the current drawn by the locomotive. Bob Nelson Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month SIGN UP More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Bob Nelson
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month