Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="JamesNWR05"] I realize I haven’t explained very much. Let me give a basic rundown of my situation.   <ul style="margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;"> <li dir="ltr" style="color:#000000;font-family:Verdana;font-size:14pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:400;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;list-style-type:disc;background-color:transparent;"> I am operating Bachmann Thomas and Friends HO locomotives and rolling stock exclusively (at least short-term). http://shop.bachmanntrains.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=756 </li> <li dir="ltr" style="color:#000000;font-family:Verdana;font-size:14pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:400;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;list-style-type:disc;background-color:transparent;"> This is my first serious layout ever. I’ve never done this before. </li> <li dir="ltr" style="color:#000000;font-family:Verdana;font-size:14pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:400;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;list-style-type:disc;background-color:transparent;"> The layout drawing wasn’t designed by me, so any changes you might suggest will have to be detailed so I can relay them.   </li> <li dir="ltr" style="color:#000000;font-family:Verdana;font-size:14pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:400;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;list-style-type:disc;background-color:transparent;"> I have a limited supply of code 83 Atlas track, all straights and curves of varying radii. These wouldn’t be ideal to use, but I could make it work I suppose. </li> <li dir="ltr" style="color:#000000;font-family:Verdana;font-size:14pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:400;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;list-style-type:disc;background-color:transparent;"> I realize I made a typographical error in one of my posts. I haven't bought any PECO Setrack yet. I've only decided that I was going to. If an alternative exists, I'm all ears. </li> <li dir="ltr" style="color:#000000;font-family:Verdana;font-size:14pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:400;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;list-style-type:disc;background-color:transparent;"> The table is already built. It’s two 4x8’s arranged into a L shape (as you can see). I wasn’t aware of the “table to fit the layout” not “layout to fit the table” mentality. Sorry :-/. </li> <li dir="ltr" style="color:#000000;font-family:Verdana;font-size:14pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:400;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;list-style-type:disc;background-color:transparent;"> I’m only 16. A lot of this is restricted by the amount of $$$ I can spend on model trains! </li> </ul>   <div class="quote-header"> </div> <blockquote class="quote"> <div class="quote-user">BMMECNYC</div> <div class="quote-content"> So riddle me this:  Is it more expensive to buy a bunch of track that may or may not work with the rolling stock you want or have than to build slightly larger (or maybe not at all any different) benchwork so that you can use readily available and less expensive option for track?   </div> </blockquote> <div class="quote-footer"> </div>     The longest piece of rolling stock I own is 8 inches long (bogied mail car). I've tested it on the radii of the curves I'm planning to have on the layout (more on that point later) and it navigates them without a problem. Not saying I'm not completely open to a different track plan/benchwork- however, I really don't have the expertise yet to be creating one myself. Like I said, the original design seen here wasn't made by me.   <img style="width:704px;height:auto;display:inline;" src="http://i64.tinypic.com/30kangh.jpg" alt=" " border="0" />   Also, you say that I could build a different benchwork that might be slightly larger but otherwise identical to my current one. The consensus from one other post seems to be that an alternative and comparable brand doesn't exist. So what exactly did you mean here?     <div class="quote-header"> </div> <blockquote class="quote"> <div class="quote-user">BMMECNYC</div> <div class="quote-content"> As maxman stated, I strongly encourage you to try your equipment on those radii.  This is easily done with a $5.50 (ish) piece of Atlas flex track, which you can re-use on your layout anyway.   </div> </blockquote> <div class="quote-footer"> </div>   I didn't make it very clear, my apologies. I've actually used a piece of flex-track (Atlas code 83) to test them.   <div class="quote-header"> </div> <blockquote class="quote"> <div class="quote-user">BMMECNYC</div> <div class="quote-content"> That was the better of the two yards as far as the design goes.   </div> </blockquote> <div class="quote-footer"> </div>     The other one is the one closest to the edge of the table, correct? That one would cost signifigantly more IF I chose the PECO route. That's not even considering the fact that it's far too complicated for me to even attempt to "wire" myself.   <div class="quote-header"> </div> <blockquote class="quote"> <div class="quote-user">BMMECNYC</div> <div class="quote-content"> 1 24pk quad straight is 670mm or 26.37in cost: $95.21 on hattons +shipping  (and customs if you buy from hattons.....) 1 25pk of Atlas code 100 flex 36" long cost: $84.99 +shipping (modeltrainstuff in MD).   </div> </blockquote> <div class="quote-footer"> </div>     If the Atlas flex track is the same length as the PECO track, I'm all for it. However, it seems it's a bit shorter, and I don't think I'm confident enough to be cutting the flex-track to make it fit. But just like with everything I’ve encountered so far, I might need to learn. Also, I don't need 24 pieces of PECO quad straights. I only need 9. AND, I was only planning on using them to drive down price. I haven't calculated price per unit for the double straights vs the price of the quads to see which is a better deal.   I really appreciate the help, but just be forewarned that I am absolutely clueless! This is all brand-new to me!!       <div style="clear:both;"> </div> [/quote]   Modeling Thomas trains, the radius is less of a concern, the S-curves still present reliability concerns however.  Cutting flex track is pretty simple.  Xuron makes an excellent flush cutter for $11 or so.  The point of the flex track is you can do the whole thing with just turnouts and flex track, no set track needed.  Set track by default is almost always (if not always more expensive than buying bulk flex).    I have a basic L shape on your L shape bench with 20" radius.  The 90 corner on the inside becomes problematic for radii above that.    Realistically you can do the whole thing in 18" R set track from Atlas, which is available from most hobby retailers.  I would reccommend using Atlas vice other brands, stear clear of steel track (Bachmann black ballast).  Nickelsilver is better performing over all.   That having been said, I have some more questions about your layout design:   -I gather from the previous design that you want the ability to run 2 trains at once?  -What is the power source for your layout currently?  -Are you planning on DC or DCC?  I am currently working off the assumption that this will be a DC layout, due to Bachmann offering the trains in DC.   -How where you planning on connecting the wire to the track for power?   -Atlas makes a $39 hand cranked turntable, it is 9" long.  A motor can be added later for an additional $39.  I do not remember how well this worked (I had the N scale version when I was 12).  Incidentally my very first track plan was an N scale layout that ran in a L shape (mirror image of yours).  I had 1 atlas turnout leading to that turntable.  I had 0 help with it.  I used something called AMX instant road bed.  It did not work very well.  I was 12 at the time I think.  Still have the Bachmann N&W J, (has cracked gears)  The track kept coming off of the stuff.  It is similar to Black Track Tack sold by Scenery Express.  I bought a roll for nostalgia reasons, and to test its suitablility for making an aged pavement looking surface.  I do not recommend this as a roadbed product.   -Speaking of roadbed, where you planning on using roadbed for your track (cork is one product)?  Woodland Scenics also makes a foam version.  Homasote (very compressed paper) is a third option.  Cork is the easiest to use if you plan on using it.    Given the option, would you prefer Code 100 or code 83?  You said you already had some code 83 track, and I can design the layout in either rail height, or both (atlas makes a transition rail joiner, and atlas code 83 ties are sized to make the rail the same height as their code 100 track).  The transition rail joiners can be tricky to use.   The program I am using makes a printable list of all track components I use in the design.    I think thats all, but I have probably generated some questions you will ask.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag

Update Reply

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Model Railroader Newsletter See all

Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!

Subscriber & Member Login

Edit post

Post Body

Tags (Optional)

Subscriber & Member Login

Users Online

Search the Community