JamesNWR051. Power source is two Bachmann terminal rails.
As you mentioned via PM, youve already discovered you will need more track feeders than that.
JamesNWR052. DC power, although I know the Bachmann Thomas engines can be converted I'd rather not try. :P
There's nothing wrong with your first layout being DC. Conversion to DCC would be a decision you can put off till later.
JamesNWR053. I have two controllers plugged into an extension cord. Their wires are plugged into the terminal rails.
Cuyama covered this.
JamesNWR054. I was actually hoping to use this turntable and roundhouse: https://www.amazon.com/Bachmann-Trains-Thomas-Friends-Turntable/dp/B002BHXJTE/ref=s9u_simh_gw_i1?_encoding=UTF8&fpl=fresh&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=&pf_rd_r=VX2QK65RSV6QJ24ACEQJ&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=a6aaf593-1ba4-4f4e-bdcc-0febe090b8ed&pf_rd_i=desktop
Okay, I dont have that in my track library. So I cant draw that in easily. Do you have the dimensions of the turntable/roundhouse?
You may have to do some shimming to get the track heights to match.
JamesNWR055. I'm using Woodland Scenics Foam Roadbed.
Ive used it before in O guage, its workable.
JamesNWR056. Code 83 probably, but my terminal rails are code 100, so I bought Atlas's transition joiners although I'm not sure how they work...
They do work takes a little practice to get it right, and you will probably want to solder these. The best method I have found is to slide a code 83 rail first on on side then the other to open it up (carefully they break easily). Once then carefully slide in the code 100 rail on one side only, just a little past the end of the rail joiner sides, but not past the middle. Slide the code 83 back in and align the rail heads. I would then solder the connection because any change in benchwork dimention (humidity) will probably break the rail joiner.
Ah you mentioned using Code 83. The higher resolution parts list you requested will not be code 83, it is all code 100. I can redraw in 83 using atlas, peco or shinohara (walthers), or a combination of all three. Some shimming may be required to make some brands play with each other nicely.
Just out of curiosity, can you post a drawing of the room (MS paint is okay) with the dimensions shown?
Also if you were willing to consider a 4x8 with extensions that either fold down or are removable?
I agree with cuyama's point about the long reach to the back. I designed the track plan to be similar to your current plan to give you an idea about how the original plan could be changed to eliminate the problem areas.
The table is built. Not sure if it can be moved. Pics tomorrow...I'm exhausted. I'm fine with not using setrack peco at all if it's not necessary
It sounds like from the PM you sent me that it would be a lot of trouble to move it out from the wall (its attach to the wall). You might want to consider a hatch or opening in the right hand side 4x8 for access to the corner. This would make cleaning track (which will be necessary from time to time) and initial construction of the track and scenery easier. If not moving it out then drawing of space is not really necessary.
I will indicate on the drawing a good space for an access hatch.
Some things to consider:
What is the height of the layout above the floor?
How easily can you craw underneath the layout?
The height of the layout is probably 4'. I'll have to get back to you on that. The table is actually built with a "tunnel" underneath to access all the way around the back, so pretty easy.
I would suggest cutting either one or both of these marked areas (what is showing up as a red square and/or the pink colored square (it was blue, but I resized the square before I made the .bmp file).
These may or may not be feasible depending on how your bench work is constructed/supported underneath.
I think the red one is more feasible. The pink one would interfere with both the supports underneath and the shelves installed underneath. I'll check to see if this mod is possible.
Well I've found a way to get the track wired. I've found someone willing to lay and wire the track for me. Only question left is which layout plan should I use? There have been a few good ones here and I'm leaning towards the one posted by BMMECNYC. Is there anything wrong with it that I might need to know before I buy the track?
Well, that track plan is in code 100. I will need to redo it in code 83 to give you a parts list.
Is the person that is laying your track comfortable with using flextrak? If so I should be able to get the number of items down (and hopefully the cost), although code 83 flextrack is more expensive than code 100.
As far as anything wrong with it, I dont see anything that pops out. I was hoping for comment.
Are you happy with it? Does it do what you want it to do? If I was building my first layout, I would start smaller. Or work from a track plan that expands in stages.
BMMECNYC Are you happy with it? Does it do what you want it to do? If I was building my first layout, I would start smaller. Or work from a track plan that expands in stages.
I've decided to go a bit rouge and completely switch the plan. What is the general concensus on Bachmann Nickel Silver E-Z Track? I think I'd like to go with something less permanent. See, I've just found out we are probably moving. The table would have to be moved in pieces due to the size. Coupled with the fact that this is my first layout, I think I'd like to go with this brand of track instead. It eliminates a ton of problems as I see it. I wouldn't have to worry about ballast, roadbed, etc. and the track comes apart super easily. Thoughts?
However, I think another change I want to make is the inclusion of an N scale portion to the layout. BMMECNYC, would you mind designing a 4x8 narrow gauge layout using any brand of track? My vision is one of the tables having HO Bachmann EZ Track on it, the other having some brand of N scale track. I hate to double-take on everyone like this but it just really makes more sense under the circumstances.
Below is the Bachmann E-Z Track layout I'm thinking of using for one 4x8 table.
Regards
That layout is pretty poorly designed, sorry to say, but I'm sure that it helps the vendor sell track. There are potentially troublesome S-curves where the end curves feed into crossovers that turn out into the opposite direction. The end curves may also be too close to one another in terms of track-to-track spacing – hard to tell for sure. And the track is right against the edge of a 4X8. As has been posted earlier in this thread, that’s a recipe for trains falling off the edge and being damaged. Not to mention that they may be too close to the walls.
In addition, many folks have found Bachmann EZ Track turnouts to become unreliable over time.
KATO Unitrack has proven to be a much more reliable brand of click-track in terms of turnouts. If you fill both existing 4X8s with two different layouts, you’ll still have access problems in the far corner.
Most modelers would choose to focus on one scale for the greatest efficiency in equipment.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
You have a S curve created by the crossover to the inside loop, at the top and the bottom of the layout.
The outside track is very close to the edge of the table. You will likely have issues with the wall being at the edge of the table (train may strike wall).
The other issue I see with that is that if you have a de-railment, anything that derails to the outside is likely to contact the floor. Typically most people want 3 in of setback from the table edge.
As far as an N scale layout is concerned, I dont have a track plan database for that scale. I could fudge it with HO, but there is no garuntee that it will work, and you will not have an something to work from.
I cannot attest to the quality or performacnce characteristics of Bachmann turnouts, I have never used them. I recommend that you use the gray ballast version of the track vice the black ballast. Gray ballast is nickle-silver. Black ballast is steel rail, and will suffer performance issues over time.
I understand the qualms with the layout but like I said, this isn't permanent by any means. If it only stays up for two years at the very most before being replaced with something more permanent, then so be it. I've actually been in contact with someone who purchased this exact set and they haven't had any problems- and they operate Bachmann Thomas locos as well. So I guess we'll see.
It's all a matter of the fact that I really can't afford a huge permanent setup right now. I'd rather ease into the hobby than try to do everything on a large scale and waste time and money to have it come to nothing.
I think two scales will give me an opportunity to use my creativity. It's all a learning experience in the end.
BMMECNYC You have a S curve created by the crossover to the inside loop, at the top and the bottom of the layout.
What exactly does this mean? What problems does it pose?
BMMECNYC You have a S curve created by the crossover to the inside loop, at the top and the bottom of the layout. The outside track is very close to the edge of the table. You will likely have issues with the wall being at the edge of the table (train may strike wall). The other issue I see with that is that if you have a de-railment, anything that derails to the outside is likely to contact the floor. Typically most people want 3 in of setback from the table edge.
How would I recitfy this? As always, I'm not married to the layout. I liked this in particular because of the three-track mainline. But if it doesn't work, out the window it goes.
BMMECNYC I cannot attest to the quality or performacnce characteristics of Bachmann turnouts, I have never used them. I recommend that you use the gray ballast version of the track vice the black ballast. Gray ballast is nickle-silver. Black ballast is steel rail, and will suffer performance issues over time.
I've had some of the most awful experiences with black ballasted EZ track. I've been told that over time, the steel in the rails goes through some process that causes it not to work...all I know is that at one point I had to get rid of all mine becase the track just stopped working completely.
It's all a WIP...
JamesNWR05 I've actually been in contact with someone who purchased this exact set and they haven't had any problems- and they operate Bachmann Thomas locos as well. So I guess we'll see.
1. Does this person have your exact locomotives?
2. Is this persons layout mounted against the walls? The edge of this layout design contacts the walls, or nearly so.
JamesNWR05I think two scales will give me an opportunity to use my creativity. It's all a learning experience in the end.
Will literally cost twice as much, because you will need two of everything. That having been said a 4x8 of just one will be more than adequate for a first layout. May I suggest disassembling the righthand 4x8 to allow access to 3 sides of the left hand 4x8.
I would also suggest eliminating the outer loop and only use the inner 2. Also I would move the pair of crossovers back from being directly connected to the curve. This will eliminate the S curve that could cause severe issues.
BMMECNYC 1. Does this person have your exact locomotives? 2. Is this persons layout mounted against the walls? The edge of this layout design contacts the walls, or nearly so.
Yes, the same engines exactly. Not sure where the layout is though.
BMMECNYC Will literally cost twice as much, because you will need two of everything. That having been said a 4x8 of just one will be more than adequate for a first layout. May I suggest disassembling the righthand 4x8 to allow access to 3 sides of the left hand 4x8. I would also suggest eliminating the outer loop and only use the inner 2. Also I would move the pair of crossovers back from being directly connected to the curve. This will eliminate the S curve that could cause severe issues.
An S curve is just like it sounds, a curve that looks like an S. A left hand curve leading directly to a right hand. Or a left hand curve leading into points (one route) end of a right hand turnout.
Now I see it. I hadn't thought of that.
So I guess I'll just think about the next steps then? Not sure what the right thing is to do at this point...
JamesNWR05 Now I see it. I hadn't thought of that. So I guess I'll just think about the next steps then? Not sure what the right thing is to do at this point...
Well that depends on your budget and how much you want to spend on this project and what you want your layout to be able to do.
cuyamaKATO Unitrack has proven to be a much more reliable brand of click-track in terms of turnouts.
If you are certain that roadbed included track is the way you want to go, you may want to take a look at KATO.
I went and looked up that website. $800 is a bit high for a first layout.
I've used KATO Unitrack for N scale and I've had pretty good experiences with it. Might choose that instead. Will get back with more ideas
You might consider checking out:
Track Planning for Realistic Operation, by John Armstrong. Some libraries might have it, or you can find it in the store on this website or on Amazon.
Does your track planning software have KATO unitrack? Maybe we could design a layout akin to that brand?
Going off this, something similar to cuyama's idea of creating a layout that doesn't extend all the way into the corner might work...so that eliminates one of the problems, no?
JamesNWR05 Going off this, something similar to cuyama's idea of creating a layout that doesn't extend all the way into the corner might work...so that eliminates one of the problems, no?
It minimizes the reach in problem, but the back side of the layout still has reach in issues (it will be 42"-48" reach on 3 sides. It greatly minimizes the issues (the number of areas where you will have a long reach.
I do not have Unitrack in my library.
Edit:
Looking at the manufacturers website, their track sets are also expensive.
You might also consider checking out the free 4x8 track plans from Model Railroader.
http://mrr.trains.com/rapid/2016/12/track-plans-4x8-sheet