Hello,
I received a HO Scale Bachmann EZ track set for Christmas and I am looking to expand it into a layout I can do some simple operating on. I have been using the trial of AnyRail to get some track plans worked out and the one below is the one that looks most interesting to me. I currently have a 6x4' board so I don't have a lot of space to play with.
I am wondering if anyone would be able to suggest any modifications to the layout that you think would make it more enjoyable.
Thanks for your help
My layout is all nickel-silver EZ-Track. I have two suggestions.
#1. Throw away the EZ-Track and use Atlas track.
#2. Throw away the EZ-Track turnouts and use Atlas Turnouts instead.
The EZ-Track tends to bow so in many cases the ends of each piece are higher than the middle. This results in track that causes the ends of the cars to rise and fall and can cause uncoupling and derailments. If you want to use the EZ-Track make sure you have pieces that lay flat.
The EZ-Track turnouts are junk. They can be made to work. Mine work quite well but every one of them had to be reworked. I suggest substituting them with Atlas turnouts. The rail joiners are the same so the only modifications required is to put roadbed under the Atlas pieces.
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
here some exemples;
Why an interchange track is an asset is described by Byron Henderson on his amazing website. Some more tricks for small tabletops can be found there as well.
BTW I second the opinion of Jeffrey about EZ-track.
Smile
Paul
I have a 4'x6' using Atlas sectional track on cork. Have never used E-Z Track, so you'll have to go with others comments on that.
Your design will have very tight curves and your mainline has an S curve in it. I have found that many cars, even 40's, don't like to stay on the track through those. Fortunately mine is not a mainline issue, but it is a passing siding, I've managed, but would do it a little differently, if I were doing it over.
My suggestion would be to make your outer track at the top part of the mainline, connecting with the main loop on the right. You can use 18"r curves and a 9" straight, if you want, or a 6" would give you a little more working room at the sides of your layout. Could even angle it slightly to get away from the track parallel to the sides syndrome, if you use a 3" or 6" straight. A two track yard at the top would give you a little switching action. Whether you have a switchback is up to you.
As a scenic element, I would put a divider seperating the two sides Mine is high enough so that I cannot see over it, thus the trains go somewhere and there is a little switching work on both sides. The view block is not centered or square to the sides of the layout, to give a less structured appearance. At one end I have a rock cut, the other is heavily wooded. You could also use a tunnel or buildings to hide the train going out of sight.
Just some thoughts.
Have fun,
Richard
I haven't had much bad dealings with Bachmann EZ Nickel silver Track. We use it for our Christmas layout every year with 3 #5 turnouts. It needs the similar type fitment adjustments when laying most track. However, the turnouts have required some modifications like getting the point rails to contact properly. But I have found most all turnouts require some type of modification to work very well. For example, adding a shim to the guard rail to keep the inside wheel from picking at the frog.
I would want some elevation which can get you some more track which in turn can add some operational interest. Of course with a 6 x 4, I haven't considered if you could handle the grade%
If you keep the S curve be sure and use a #6 or preferably #8 turnout. You should be OK then.
First, !!!
I second, third and fourth the idea of scrapping all Bachmann EZ track.. it is only good only if you have ONE single oval with NO switches, and even then, is only marginal. We had some, and it was the biggest pain since the hypodermic needle was invented.
Go with Atlas track and turnouts.
Now, next is what, exactly, do you want to DO on your layout? that will help to determine how it should be laid out.
In a 4x6 you COULD get away with a 22'R outside loop and an 18"R inside loop, with some offshoots for a siding or two inside the ovals.. That would give you a "double main" and allow you to run two trains.
I have a 3.5 foot by 5.1 foot HO with a 15"R inside loop { I would NOT recommend} interconnected to the 18"R outer loop, with a 4 spur yard in the from middle and a 2 sour engine facility in the back inside of the loop. If I can pack all that into the small layout, I would think you could add to your 4x6 other than a simple loop.
Any possiblity to go 2 foot longer?
the track plan at bottom left as suggested above is a neat idea, but allows for 2 train ops IF you park one on the passing siding while one runs the loop.
Have fun
-G .
Just my thoughts, ideas, opinions and experiences. Others may vary.
HO and N Scale.
After long and careful thought, they have convinced me. I have come to the conclusion that they are right. The aliens did it.
I have to agree that EZ Track is far less than top quality. However, you can certainly find it in abundance just about everywhere. If you plan on building a permanent train table and want to avoid a lot of headaches, I would look at Atlas or Micro Engineering. Both are really good, with Micro Engineering having outstanding switches, or so I have been told.
Good Luck
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
Thank you all for your advice.
As you can see in the layout below, I have removed the S bend.
All bar one of the spurs are now all trailing point so I will not need the passing track. I couldn't work out how to fit it using the sectional pieces anyway. If I want to spot cars on the facing spur I can always run the locomotive round the loop to push them in.
I will also look into Atlas track. Hopefully I can use that along with the EZ track which was indeed a present.
The two switches on the right will allow me to expand later if I get more space. Am I right in thinking this can be called an interchange?
Since the EZ-Track was a gift I can see the need to incorporate it into the layout. If I was going to build another layout (due to health concerns this one is likely my last) I would use Atlas track and roadbed for the main run and use the EZ-Track on the spurs.
dangailer The two switches on the right will allow me to expand later if I get more space. Am I right in thinking this can be called an interchange?
Interchange is a word with a specific meaning in (model) railroading. Imagine your layout as being your home town. Local industries along the tracks are recieving cars by rail to be loaded or unloaded. Those cars have to come from and to go to somewhere. A connection with the remainder of the system or with other railroads is then mandatory. The latter, a connection with another RR-company is called an interchange. Just like staging a great way to let cars come to and go from your local area.
Since any type of car can be spotted on an interchange it's often the most versatile spur on your layout. To be functional however it should be several cars long. How many is up to you, I would not go for less then 4.
Your plan has 2 tracks to a future extension, both are to short to function as a temporarely interchange.
BTW do you have a reason why you are not adding a run-around track?
SmilePaul
Paul,
I am going to put together a time saver puzzle on a small board I have which will be able to be connected to either of the switches on the left hand size. This will give me an opportunity to try out the atlas track, try my hand at laying cork road base and let me do switching while I build the main loop.
I don't have a run around track mainly because I couldn't fit it in easily with the sectional pieces in AnyRail. Also if I need to change which end of the train the locomotive is on I can just run it round the loop.
Thank you for your help
Dan
I would also like to welcome you to the forums. Instead of speaking to the track itself, I thought I would take you through my journey to a track plan, as I am also planning a 4x6:
This is the Tidewater Central. It was built as a seaside themed project railroad by long time MR staffer Gordon Odegard. I love this plan! The track is Atlas Snap Track, and one turnout needs to be shortened, but overall I don't think it is beyond a beginner's abilities. The problem for me was space. This plan requires you to be able to access both sides of the layout, and that was real estate I just did not have. Oh well, back to the drawing board.
While going through the MR 75th Anniversary DVD, I came across the Merkiomen, a little less than 4x6 built by the Rev. Mountenay, and based on a "Layout Doctor" article in Railroad Model Craftsman. As the Pastor puts it, it's outstanding feature is the backdrop that hides part of the oval. This breaks up the "toy train" look, and gives us one town to concentrate upon. Nowadays the phrase that has been coined for this is "Layout Design Element" or LDE. The plan originally had five spurs and no runaround track. I omitted one spur to create a runaround that can handle four 40' cars. Also, the dimensions are slightly smaller at 46"x71". The track here is Atlas Tru-Track, but I believe EZ Track shares the same turnout geometry. The big sell for me was the long portion of the layout can go against the wall. This fits my available real estate so much better.
This is the rendition of the Merkiomen I am going to build. It uses Kato Unitrack. The two main advantages of using Kato are a wider radius (yes I know at 19.25" it's not much bigger than the 18 inch standard, but that small amount does make my 65' passenger cars and K4 Steam engine look so much better), and reliablity both electrically and mechanically. We are back to 4x6 here, but some of that will be taken up by 3/4" wood fascia stained for a finished furniture look. I also omitted the backdrop in favor of using the tree covered hillside to hide the backside of the oval. In addition I am using ideas from MR such as the tree tunnel and the fascia flat.
So there you have my journey through finding the right fit, both literally and personally. Whatever you decide on, I would stress laying out your plan and running some trains prior to making any commitments. It is much easier on the "air line" to find those reliablity issues and whether the plan suits your taste now, not after the track is permanently down!
Chris Ballinger
Modeling the Clementon Branch of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines in HO scale
Chris,
Your rendition of the Merkiomen is very helpful - great utilization of a small space. I'm new to the hobby - and have been given a KATO WGH set as well as a KATO basic oval. Looking at the track selection in the KATO catalogue, I can pretty much figure out the pieces you've used - but just to cross reference, would you have a list of the track pieces you used in this small layout?
It's nice to see what you find when you Google your last name! I love your adaptation of the Merkiomen Branch, Chris. I wish that the Atlas code 83 line had been available in the early 90s; the Shinohara code 70 #4s never fit quite right. If I were to build it again, I'd include the run around track.
Shortly after the article appeared in the December 1995 MR, I moved from western PA to North Jersey. In recent years I've built a Reading branchline version of MR's Alkaline Central, an MR project railroad that also appeared in the December 1995 issue. There are some early pictures here: http://www.readingmodeler.com/index.php/photos/rev-robert-mountenays-reading-branch-line. My latest project is an addition based on MR's Thin Branch.
I'd love to see your versions of the Merkiomen!
Robin (Robert) Mountenay
Lots of good advice here. I have always thought the Tidewater Central was an excellent general plan, with opportunitiues for adding or removing spurs at several different locations. The only thing that is essential to that plan is the main line routing and the passing track. Even so, you might consioder "flopping" it to achieve a mirror image of the original if that suits you betterr. The plan's only problem is also its best feature: It is small and the curves are about as tight as any curve should be. Be sure you limit your equipment to small steam engines, 4-axle smallish diesels, and 40-foot freight cars. This was mentioned above, but it is very important and can't be overemphasized.
Do you think the second layout would work with little to no modification as an On30 layout using Bachmann E Z Track?
The thread is well-past its prime. Also, the OP has not posted in over 10 years. It's dead Jim!
Douglas L Hemmingway Do you think the second layout would work with little to no modification as an On30 layout using Bachmann E Z Track?
Yes but:
On30 trains are larger than HO so you may need to modify the plan.
O scale buildings are a lot larger than HO. You will have to use fewer than in HO.
Good luck
I'm modeling in On30 using Bachmann steel alloy E-Z Track. I don't have a DCC controller yet, have 3 left turnouts, 3 right turnouts plenty of 9 inch straight pieces and 18 inch radius curved pieces and 2 bumpers. This plan looks like it could work in On30, but what do you think?