Hi everyone,
I am working on building my first HO scale layout. Very exciting :-). As I get all my supplies together, I am finding it difficult to purchase the type of track I designed my layout with, PECO Setrack (code 100) in the US. I have considered purchasing from eHattons but even then the cost is very high. I was wondering if anyone knew a brand of track easily available in the US that would work with my existing trackplan? Thanks in advance. -Griffin
As you probably know, SetTrack turnouts are very sharp (about a #2.5 frog). It seems unlikely that the many crossovers you show will work well, especially when shoving a string of cars. (It might be a little better if you are using all very short cars).
I’d suggest a redesign to allow for a broader turnout in crossovers (and some crossovers that you show now could be replaced with different track arrangements that might actually add flexibility).
I don't believe that there is a US brand that would "drop in" to your existing plan. Atlas 18" R SnapSwitches are a little less sharp, but take up more room. And the radii of Atlas sectional curves don't match up exactly with the PECO SetTrack radii.
I note also that your tracks are very close to the edge of the benchwork. Many folks prefer 3" or move between track centers and the edge of benchwork. And depending on where the walls of the room are, parts of your plan may be out of easy 30” reach.
Good luck with your layout.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Hello and welcome,
R2 and R3 curves are 17 1/4" and 19 7/8" respectively. Depending on the equipment you are purchasing/have already, you may run into difficulties with one or both of those radii. R3 is less problematic than R2.
Peco Short Radius (SL-91/92) turnouts are readily available in the US. Their diverging route radius is 24" which is much better suited to US prototype HO scale models. Length of the turnout is 7 1/4" vice 6 9/16". They are not a direct drop in for the ST-240/241 turnouts, but they are pretty close.
For crossovers between tracks you may want to consider a PECO Medium radius turnout as a minimum. These tend to work satisfactorily for crossing between tracks at a relatively slow speed.
Atlas code 100 Flex track would be a cheaper option for the straight sections. I used Atlas code 100 flex with my Peco code 100 turnouts without issues. You can then trim the flextrack to fit.
As far as settrack goes, 18" and 22" radius is likely all you will find from US manufacturers.
As far as workability of the track plan, you may find that there are several areas that will cause you some operating issues. One in particular is the S curve caused by the crossover at the top of the layout leading into the roundhouse track.
Thanks you guys. I actually had some help designing this layout. The guy helping me said that the design of the table lends itself to a layout with pretty sharp curves. Luckily I'm not using very long rolling stock/engines, and I've actually decided to go ahead and purchase the track. I've shaved the price down signifigantly by doing away with the yard on the right hand side (operating the switches alone would have been a nightmare for a novice like me) and the turntable in the middle, as well as combining 2 double tracks (2x ST201) with 1 quad-straight wherever I can. Thanks so much for the help and advice. More to come...
Hi there,
For longer diesels, the Peco set track points do not work well at all with the reverse curve but if your concern is laying curves, you could get the set track curves from Hattons and use flex track cut to length and SL91-92 turnouts as BM suggested.
I have recently replaced my flex track curves with , in compound curve formations which has worked really well for me and I have also built a lightweight layout from scratch using set track curves and slightly off set flex track which made it a lot more realistic looking even on a small layout... the story is here
http://xdford.digitalzones.com/quicklayoutconstruction01.html
Hope this helps
Cheers from Australia
Trevor
JamesNWR05The guy helping me said that the design of the table lends itself to a layout with pretty sharp curves.
If it were me, I'd be trying out the intended equipment on some of those curves/turnouts before I invested a whole bunch of money to see what actually happens.
If the drawing works, shouldn't the physical layout plan out pretty similarly though?
Side note- I'm not running locos/rolling stock that can easily handle anything above an 18" radius. So even though some of the turnouts and curves seem tight I think it'll be alright.
JamesNWR05Thanks you guys. I actually had some help designing this layout. The guy helping me said that the design of the table lends itself to a layout with pretty sharp curves.
What is the size of the table, and are you stuck with that size for some reason or could you enlarge it a bit? Designing a layout to fit a table does not work as well as designing a table to fit a layout. Do you already have the table?
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?
JamesNWR05Luckily I'm not using very long rolling stock/engines, and I've actually decided to go ahead and purchase the track.
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.
JamesNWR05 I've shaved the price down signifigantly by doing away with the yard on the right hand side
That was the better of the two yards as far as the design (concept vice location) goes.
JamesNWR05as well as combining 2 double tracks (2x ST201) with 1 quad-straight wherever I can.
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).
And if you are worried about bending the radius accurately, there are these things called sweepsticks, and you can have them made to a custom radius: http://www.handlaidtrack.com/SW-HO-C-C
I own the 24" radius version, and they work well.
Also if you were to go the flex track option, you could open that outside main line up to 20" and the inside to 18" -thus allowing you to purchase 18" radius set track locally from most hobby retailers (atlas makes this).
Just some food for thought.
I realize I haven’t explained very much. Let me give a basic rundown of my situation.
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
This is my first serious layout ever. I’ve never done this before.
The layout drawing wasn’t designed by me, so any changes you might suggest will have to be detailed so I can relay them.
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.
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.
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 :-/.
I’m only 16. A lot of this is restricted by the amount of $$$ I can spend on model trains!
BMMECNYC 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?
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.
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?
BMMECNYC 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.
I didn't make it very clear, my apologies. I've actually used a piece of flex-track (Atlas code 83) to test them.
BMMECNYC That was the better of the two yards as far as the design goes.
That was the better of the two yards as far as the design goes.
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.
BMMECNYC 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).
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!!
Thanks for the additional information; it will help folks help you. To me, the biggest concern is not the radii per se, but the very tight s-curves through the crossovers, particularly when shoving a string of cars. Try that before committing to SetTrack and this plan.
If you can’t walk all the way around the two 4X8s in an “L”, you won’t be able to reach into the back corner (unless you climb on the table). That would be a show-stopper for me.
Wiring a simple straight yard isn’t typically very complicated. And a yard can be a useful place to store trains for “fun running” and to try out some operation later if decide you wish to.
In that much space, a layout could be designed to provide the same opportunities as this one (or more) without the super-tight crossovers.
JamesNWR05The 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 :-/.
The vast majority of published track plans and probably most model railroads built (even by very expetienced and acomplished modelers) are "layout to fit the table"
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
DSchmittmost model railroads built (even by very acomplished modelers) are "layout to fit the table"
Respectfully, I don't think so. I guess it depends on what you mean by "very accomplished modelers." Nearly all the experienced and accomplished modelers I know of designed the layout first and then the benchwork follows from that design.
I've designed well over one hundred layouts for modelers of varying degrees of experience from beginners to advanced. Only a handful were "benchwork first."
Edit: Not to say that a fine layout cannot be designed to fit existing benchwork -- it certainly can be done, for the Original Poster's benchwork and for others. But that's not the path taken by most "very accomplished modelers."
cuyama DSchmitt most model railroads built (even by very acomplished modelers) are "layout to fit the table" Respectfully, I don't think so. I guess it depends on what you mean by "very accomplished modelers." Nearly all the experienced and accomplished modelers I know of designed the layout first and then the benchwork follows from that design. I've designed well over one hundred layouts for modelers of varying degrees of experience from beginners to advanced. Only a handful were "benchwork first." Edit: Not to say that a fine layout cannot be designed to fit existing benchwork -- it certainly can be done, for the Original Poster's benchwork and for others. But that's not the path taken by most "very accomplished modelers."
DSchmitt most model railroads built (even by very acomplished modelers) are "layout to fit the table"
Poorly worded on my part. I did not mean to imply that most accomplished modelers design the layout to fit the table, just that some have. Most of my experence has been with modular club layouts, which with few exceptions the layout section is designed to fit the module standard table. There also have been some excellent "fit the table" model railroads presented on this and other Forums. Many but not all based on published plans.
JamesNWR05 I realize I haven’t explained very much. Let me give a basic rundown of my situation. 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 This is my first serious layout ever. I’ve never done this before. The layout drawing wasn’t designed by me, so any changes you might suggest will have to be detailed so I can relay them. 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. 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. 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 :-/. I’m only 16. A lot of this is restricted by the amount of $$$ I can spend on model trains! BMMECNYC 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? 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. 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? BMMECNYC 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. I didn't make it very clear, my apologies. I've actually used a piece of flex-track (Atlas code 83) to test them. BMMECNYC That was the better of the two yards as far as the design goes. 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. BMMECNYC 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). 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!!
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.
Price estimate is based off of list price in Walther's 2017 catalog. Actual cost may vary depending on use of flex track vs set track and actual retail price of track (somewhat lower).
Here is the 3D view as requested by OP. There appears to be a rendering error in 3D mode with either the Atlas Snap switch (right hand side) or the 10 degree 18" radius curve.
BMMECNYC Price estimate is based off of list price in Walther's 2017 catalog. Actual cost may vary depending on use of flex track vs set track and actual retail price of track (somewhat lower).
http://www.modeltrainstuff.com/HO-Scale-Code-100-s/1464.htm?searching=Y&sort=3&cat=1464&show=30&page=1&brand=Atlas
Prices are much lower than I estimated.
I you bought 35 pieces (give or take) of flex track, cost is $121.98 for everything but the curves, re-railers, turnouts and bumpers. Total with turntable is $334.30 before shipping (and tax).
DSchmittPoorly worded on my part. I did not mean to imply that most accomplished modelers design the layout to fit the table, just that some have. Most of my experence has been with modular club layouts, which with few exceptions the layout section is designed to fit the module standard table.
Yes, but you are now talking modular apples and permanent layout oranges. I have a couple of sets of modules. I have #6 turnouts on my main lines and #5 turnouts for spur tracks. It all fits in 12ft x 30". There is no continous run. It is not usable as an independent layout (some limited switching can be done, but its not set up for that).
BMMECNYC
To provide clearance to the back wall, I added 6"x6"x~8.42" triangle cut from the left 4x8 to the inside corner. This may be an issue for the OP. I also used terminal tracks on the assumption that there will be minimal soldering or none at all. They are interchangable with standard components of the same size. It is my understanding that this is the front (accessible side of the layout and the top right is the inaccessible side).
Any comments would be appreciated.
When the Original Poster returns, it will be important to know which sides of the benchwork (if any) are against the walls.
BMMECNYCAny comments would be appreciated.
Depending on the location of the walls, I think some modifications would allow the yard to be longer and potentially more useful. But your work definitely shows that the super-tight (and probably unreliable) SetTrack crossovers can be eliminated.
It's in a corner, so that should give you a sense of where the wall and the table meet. It's basically the far corner where the two edges meet, if that makes sense.
JamesNWR05 It's in a corner, so that should give you a sense of where the wall and the table meet. It's basically the far corner where the two edges meet, if that makes sense.
For clarification are there walls along the top edge of the drawing and the right hand side of the drawing?
Yep.
That was the assumption on which I based my track plan. If you are interested I can post the plan with the parts labeled.
That would be great
BMMECNYC 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.
1. Power source is two Bachmann terminal rails.
2. DC power, although I know the Bachmann Thomas engines can be converted I'd rather not try. :P
3. I have two controllers plugged into an extension cord. Their wires are plugged into the terminal rails.
4. 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
5. I'm using Woodland Scenics Foam Roadbed.
6. 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...
Hope this helps. I keep forgetting to respond to your posts, I'm sorry. :-P
BMMECNYC's track plan addresses a number of issues. With the walls as you describe, though, access to the upper-right-hand corner is going to be difficult. If it were me, I'd plan for an access opening or hatch to be sure that I could get in there easily. Others may not mind climbing on the layout to reach those back tracks.
I could be accused of being obsessed with access and reach (guilty as charged), but if you wanted to keep the existing benchwork as-is I would try something like this. I did the sketch quickly, so it’s flextrack, but it could be reworked for sectional track with some time.
The worst reach is about 36”, but the majority is within 30”. I think it’s also nice to have some variety rather than having the tracks follow close to the edge of the benchwork everywhere, but that’s a matter of personal preference.
If I had the same overall space to work with and the freedom to rebuild the benchwork, I’d try something like this, which would put nearly everything in easy reach (and leave room for additional spurs if you wished to add them someday). Again, flextrack, but could be re-done in sectional with some work.
JamesNWR051. Power source is two Bachmann terminal rails. 2. DC power, although I know the Bachmann Thomas engines can be converted I'd rather not try. :P 3. I have two controllers plugged into an extension cord. Their wires are plugged into the terminal rails.
By controller, I assume that you mean something like this -- folks often refer to these as power packs.
DC control is fine, but running two trains simultaneously and/or crossing from one oval to the other requires some additional wiring and electrical switches to avoid inadvertently connecting the two power packs to each other in a way that could damage them.
When you are ready to start wiring, folks here can provide links and book recommendations. Wiring for two trains operating simultaneously and independently is much simpler with DCC, but requires the locomotives to have decoders.