Many years ago as a teenager I quickly built a layout that turned into a maintenance nightmare. Lession learned, my subsequent layouts were each more carefully constructed. If you take the time to do it right the first time, you don't have to spend alot of time and frustration fixing things.
However, operation of new equipment may expose previously unknown flaws in your previously "perfect" trackwork. Especially when you start to run larger steam locos, the longer wheelbase can expose track problems. My latest track test issue involved centepede tenders and curved (#10 fast track) turnouts.
I have some problems because I used regular solder to connect my jig-built turnout throw bars to the points. When someone throws a turnout under a car or especially a locomotive it can break the point loose. When it happens (twice in 30 operaing sessions and once I did it myself operating as a 'lone wolf') I repair it with silver solder which is much stronger.
Because I didn't understand the significance of slightly staggering the gaps at the entrances of auto-reversing sections, some of my well aligned gaps are causing occasional hesitation and sound cutouts. Since the problem mostly occurs in my hidden staging areas I've chosen to live with it.
"Perfection" is in the eye of the beholder. I get compliments from my operators on how reliably my layout operates. I get much hidden satisfation in seeing how my trackwork reliability compares to some other much larger layouts with awesome scenery and complex operating scenerios. But the bottom line is that "perfection" is whatever is good enough for you.
Grinnell
One thing to remember is that track is not "done". By that, I mean that you can (almost) always go back and improve it. So the track you just installed can always be inspected by the track inspector, who MAY file a report. And the track gang can go out with their pry bars and mauls and tighten things up.
Ed
I freely admit that I don't know the definition of "perfect trackwork". But that does not stop me from trying to get mine better with each and every attempt. And I admit that my current (in progress) layout has track that both looks and performs better than what was there previously. I believe that all on this forum want their trackwork to be as good as they can make it at the time they are installing it. I look at the photos that Sheldon has submitted and I think "WOW". I am sure that Ed's work is like Sheldon's - beautiful. Am I willing to put the effort into mine that these two gentlemen put into their efforts? Oh, yes! Will that get me the same results? Probably not - yet. But I am going to keep at it. But there has to be some time to run the trains! I ain't getting any younger. My perfect is not the enemy of the good.
Old Fat Robert
7j43k In advocating for a very high standard of trackwork, I was thinking that most people could do such work. If they try. I suppose I think people are able to do difficult things if they apply themselves. Others may believe that they can't--that it's just too difficult, so why bother? Maybe they're right.
In advocating for a very high standard of trackwork, I was thinking that most people could do such work. If they try. I suppose I think people are able to do difficult things if they apply themselves. Others may believe that they can't--that it's just too difficult, so why bother?
Maybe they're right.
Maybe they can AFTER gaining experience. To settle for nothing less than perfection from day one, and to only push for that, well then you are absolutely right, why bother. No one can ever meet that kind of a standard on their first layout unless the were born with a magic touch. But to each his own. You do you. What I have is "perfect" for me.
I suspect that I am one of the guys being lectured to on my attitude.
But you asked a question. And I gave you an answer. It obviously did not suit you.
If I had known that I was wasting my time in answering your question, I would not have spent any of my time doing so.
Ahh you guys are a hoot. As I said and rephrased later. Its not necessarily my "trackwork" at fault. I misspoke a bit. I probably should have said "layout" but as all things ride on the rails I said it as trackwork. I also clearly stated that my tracks can take my standard cars and locos at close enough to a zero failure rate, and even some of my over the top stuff at unrealistic speeds, weights, and lengths. And I even have a dropdown that never fails. And that was my current standard of "good enough". And even as I upscale my cars, as currntly many are nothing more than old bluebox Athearn or Accurail kits, not more than a handful Atlas, Walthers, and I think only one Kadee car. (which is a beautful car)
As this thread has given me some thought, last night I threw every underweight, overlength, autorack, piggyback and passenger car behind my MTH GG1 for about 15 feet of train on 54' mainline, and around my 24" min radius curves and let it fly. Went from 20 on the throttle up a bit every lap. Watched every move and it handled every speed step up until about 85 on the digitrax throttle when one piggyback let loose. I investigated and found one truck a bit too tight. After a quick adjustment and a little grease-em, it would do the entire main line at top speed in both directions without fail. If you saw my link to pics of the tracks you are free to criticize. Its not perfect, but I think for a 70s era secondary line that is normally run at much slower speeds, its not far from what it should be either.
After that I setup my PRR K4 and full lenght passenger cars (medium coupled w/diaphrams) and same thing. Most of the cars named in this post are very well rolling although not yet weighted to standards and that made a huge difference. Some of my "wobbly" cars need some TLC. But they still work until I can get to them. And therefore "good enough" for today. And also not unrealistic either.
And I can even back these things around the whole layout at about half throttle which is still way, way too fast for normal operations.
Now all of that and still I have an occasional issue. And often, even after many happy hours, something will still fail, derail, hop, wiggle, forget to throw a turnout, run over a stray piece of debris, etc. just decide to stall, short or up and quit. It's not like every trip around the track, but as stated earlier probably no more than a 5% failure rate and improving all the time. And of course these things multiply whenever any visitor is in the room.
And again, I take nothing away from those that are able to achive that ultimate superior level of perfection. You guys can rest easy as model railroad gods. But I will also say that you guys also make it out like the entry bar should be set that high and to many it is discourging.
If I took it persoanlly. the way it reads on this forum, without a grain of salt from grumpy old men, I would say "why bother" with this expensive time consuming never able to be good enough hobby. And if so I would never take the steps necessary to enjoy things that I do have and am proud of on the way up the steps to perfection.
Most people are just not born with this natural ability. it is a learning process like any other. And anyone reading this post in the future should know there are many happy and unhappy steps along the way. If you are enjoying it you are doing it right. And I am enjoying it. And I also said I am not even a year and a half into it after being an armchair modeler for many years.
I always appreicate the knowledge of those that have gone before, but I gotta say, some of you guys act like mistakes and imperfection never happened to you during the years from your first roundy round set to your empire of today and it does sound very condecending and intimidating to people new to the hobby.
I just got one thing to say. Lighten up the pressure a little buit and enjoy life while you have it before its gone.
gregcBut I don't play Led Zepplin like Jimmy Page.
How many different recordings of "Stairway To Heaven" have been recorded (by Led Zepplin), and which one is the best one. My guitar playing in the last 50 years has gone from newbie, to pretty darn good, to, the Arthritis in my hands is so bad it is just gawd-awful. I just hope my track work doesn't develop Arthritis or there is no hope that a train will stay on the track.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
gregc BATMAN It takes less time to do something right the first time than it does to revisit it at a later time. are you suggesting that modelers intentionally do not do things right? (or are you suggesting that they do what's "good enough" for now)? is there a test that can be performed to verify that trackwork is "perfect", other than using the NMRA gauge and checking for derailments with available equipment?
BATMAN It takes less time to do something right the first time than it does to revisit it at a later time.
are you suggesting that modelers intentionally do not do things right? (or are you suggesting that they do what's "good enough" for now)?
is there a test that can be performed to verify that trackwork is "perfect", other than using the NMRA gauge and checking for derailments with available equipment?
you've convinved me .... i'm selling my clubs
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
gregc 7j43k The problem with using "no derailments" as a definition of perfect track is that you likely haven't tried ALL possibilities. Essentially, you've just been lucky. i agree. it's good enough for your equipment, not necessarily perfect. of course, if you're not happy with looks (detectable flaw), you can make it better. But do looks impact function? (i know for many this is less than perfect).
7j43k The problem with using "no derailments" as a definition of perfect track is that you likely haven't tried ALL possibilities. Essentially, you've just been lucky.
i agree. it's good enough for your equipment, not necessarily perfect.
of course, if you're not happy with looks (detectable flaw), you can make it better. But do looks impact function? (i know for many this is less than perfect).
Looking at it backwards: does derailment-prone trackwork usually look visually "ugly"? I'd say "Yes". I do agree that EVERY bit of ugly trackwork does not necessarily cause problems. But yer building a model of a railroad. Having a crooked decal on a boxcar don't look so good, either. Ya know. Trackwork's a model, too.
So what do you recommend to the OP?
"...my trackwork is not precisely laser lever..."
"...works smoothly MOST of the time." (my caps)
"...even though it sways and wobbles..."
"...occasional derailment every once in a long while."
"...'trouble free' track is an impossible dream..."
"Problems just seem to happen..."
I recommend doing better trackwork. Now, I know the OP didn't lay his track with intentional flaws. He OBVIOUSLY was trying to do the best he could--who wouldn't? But it can be difficult to go over your own work. I recommend getting someone else to come over and say mean things about the trackwork. Hopefully, someone who is very good at it. And also someone who can be helpful and give guidance.
I have been following the construction of a module that is a double track 90 degree curve that features two crossovers in the curves. THAT is an invitation for derailment. THAT builder had a "supervisor" who was not only very well informed, but also a perfectionist. The builder did, indeed, complain about nit picking by his supervisor. And more. And for putting HOURS into redoing trackwork. And yet......
I have seen that module in several setups, and I haven't seen a derailment yet. Uh, wow! AND: the trackwork, the switches--a joy to look at.
7j43kThe problem with using "no derailments" as a definition of perfect track is that you likely haven't tried ALL possibilities. Essentially, you've just been lucky.
of course, if you're not happy with looks (detectable flaw), you can make it better. But do looks impact function? (i know for many this is less than perfect). So what do you recommend to the OP?
there no reason not to do better that "good enough" (GE), but is there a measureable benefit? If there is, maybe your requirements are too low.
BATMANI have played guitar for 50 years and I sure didn't go "I'm not going to learn that song as it will take too much time and effort".
did you learn to play the song "perfectly" (maybe you're a musician)
i also play guitar. But I don't play Led Zepplin like Jimmy Page. It's GE for my entertainment (and yes, I try to play it better).
gregc you don't get paid more for exceeding requirements, but it may cost you more in terms of time and effort.
you don't get paid more for exceeding requirements, but it may cost you more in terms of time and effort.
Exceeding requirements has opened a lot of doors for me and given me lots of opportunities. That doesn't mean I spend other peoples money building a bridge that far exceeds their needs. It does mean doing incredible, intricate paint jobs on my R/C planes that give me great satisfaction. Or going above and beyond when volunteering while coaching kids in sports. People have appreciated my effort and that has given me experiences I would not have had otherwise, so for me excelling has its rewards, that being said I would change nothing if I didn't get recognized for my effort because I would still go to bed with a smile on my face.
Laying good track does require extra time and effort and "cost" in time or effort doesn't come into play as it is a hobby. I have played guitar for 50 years and I sure didn't go "I'm not going to learn that song as it will take too much time and effort". I can play poorly, however, I get great satisfaction from playing well.
Some people know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing. The same applies to personal pursuits.
gregc i haven't heard any describe a test for "perfect" other than what I said above.
i haven't heard any describe a test for "perfect" other than what I said above.
Then it appears you didn't "hear" what I wrote earlier:
7j43k "Perfect" may be defined as having no detectable flaws.
"Perfect" may be defined as having no detectable flaws.
Just a couple of weeks ago, I saw a section of someone's layout that had a pretty bad "swoop-te-do" in it. LOTS of stuff would go through it, especially if it had big Kadees and 4-wheel trucks.
gregc is there a test that can be performed to verify that trackwork is "perfect", other than using the NMRA gauge and checking for derailments with available equipment?
I'm sure it passed the NMRA gage. And there were no derailments, partly because it was straight track. So it would pass Greg's test for perfect.
Would my intermodal cars with Sergents go through? I didn't even bother to try, because I could study the coupler vertical deflection of "regular" trains.
That may have been good enough for many, but it was far from my definition of perfect. I could SEE it, it was that bad.
The problem with using "no derailments" as a definition of perfect track is that you likely haven't tried ALL possibilities. Essentially, you've just been lucky.
I stand corrected. If you do not have derailments or other track related issues and are happy, then good enough is good enough. You have met the criteria.
Through my life experience, when people said good enough, it usually meant it is good enough for now and would require a revisit at some point in the future to fix or finish something properly. Much like putting a tarp over a leaky roof in a monsoon, that may be good enough for now until it can be fixed properly.
Maybe it is a cultural thing.
BATMANIf you enjoy derailments then "good enough" is good enough.
gregcas an engineer, "good enough" means meeting requirements and I assume no derailments is the requirement. (There are no perfect requirements).
For those who want realistic operation "perfect trackwork" is not part of it. In real life where life and property depend on avoiding derailments 100% is not realistic. I concur with those who do there very best at putting down their track and spending reasonable time fixing problems but not 400 hours on one switch.
gregc are you suggesting that modelers intentionally do not do things right? (or are you suggesting that they do what's "good enough" for now)?
If you are going to build what is going to be a permanent layout, educate yourself on all the do and don'ts for success or your effort will be an exercise in frustration. Impatience or "get done-itis" does not equate to an enjoyable experience. If you enjoy derailments then "good enough" is good enough.
Be what you admire, fix what you can fix and never waste time dwelling on anything that is not right, get to work to make it right.
It was hard to do as I wanted to get the track down and run some trains, but everything I read on building a layout said, "do yourself a favour and get the backdrop done first". Advice I am really glad I took.
Let me put this in some perspective. I restore high end classic cars for a living. Some of the cars that are shooting for top honors at national events can have upwards of 6000 hours or many more in them. Yet another man's "show car" can be perfectly fine, operational, and looks great, and win regional or local events and yet they can have only 1000 hours in them. For all but the most discerning judging purposes the cars are equaly enjoyable and operate perfectly, yet one will have much less blood sweat and tears and several hundred thousand dollars less invested. I guess I am saying that my layout is not shooting for a national trophy at this stage in the game, but I admire those that do.
Well said Brent....
I am of the mindset of striving for excellence in everything I do. It takes less time to do something right the first time than it does to revisit it at a later time.
Like I keep saying, some people make their own luck.
The real problem for most people is the benchwork. The track may be perfect when laid but all too soon the benchwork moves and problems happen. People keep on insisting on using table top materials that move too much like ply. Now these materials may work fine for some but alot of that depends on the enviorment. One example of ply problems is a very small portion may delaminate or bubble and this can happen long after it is installed. Liquid can cause real problems with some ply and cork would be a problem too if it were not that the model railroad cork grade is so poor that liquid dose not affect it to any great effect. You need to have all materials move at about the same rate. Cork and nicel silver rail do (as long as you don't go more than 30' in a straight line). I choose beaded foam as a base and have it sit on top of the 1x4 box frame so that in that state, it matches with the cork as far as and expantion or contraction which is next to nothing by the way.
"Perfect" has been defined to mean, where any change is for the worse. I have never achieved it in any endeavor although my instincts for self preservation are strong enough to make me say I might have achieved it or come darn close in my marriage
Track is one of those things were if it makes you a little unhappy you might be tempted to live with it. But don't give in. Keep at it. Many otherwise nice layouts have been abandoned and ignored because of derailments or electrical issues or bad track plans. Sometimes ya gotta be willing to rip stuff out and do it over no matter what the cost, and track is one of those things.
Dave Nelson
Brunton My definition of perfect track is track which is never the cause of derailments or other operational issues (like stalling on turnouts). It isn't that hard to achieve. A little bit of care and attention to detail will result in "perfect" track without an inordinately large amount of time being spent laying the track.
My definition of perfect track is track which is never the cause of derailments or other operational issues (like stalling on turnouts).
It isn't that hard to achieve. A little bit of care and attention to detail will result in "perfect" track without an inordinately large amount of time being spent laying the track.
I see it precisely this way. I understand that random errors might cause the very occasional derailment, but it should not be attributable to my track-laying. It should be an error in operation of the rolling stock or in the mis-alignment of a set of points...but that should be it.
As an illustration, I have, for the first time ever, begun to attach a pusher to the back of my coal drags. In order to learn how to do it, and in order to appreciate the sounds and view on my own 'empire', I have begun to shove my drags, headed with a BLI Class A from the Norfolk & Western, using my beloved PCM Y6b. Understandably, I'm not consisting them, but fiddling with the two encoder knobs on my DT400 throttles (yay!!). With different drives, they behave differently. I have derailed a couple of hoppers already by not having the Y6b shove quite hard enough (string lining on a curve). This is the only type of derailment up with which I will put.
As Mark says, a little care, some willingness to experiment, some fiddling, and you should have clear-running rails. I have a swing up gate on one end of my folded loop that has 16 gaps at the ends of the curved rails. I got them all to be 100% derailment free. It wasn't easy, but I persisted and now can run trains at any speed, any type of consist, up or down the grades, and get no derailments at those gaps.
One last observation, or guess, really: those who love building an empire, and then soon turn to thoughts of a better or different version to build, might not be so keen to spend hours perfecting their tracks' running qualities. I, on the other hand, don't really enjoy much of layout construction; I like the end product and the trouble-free operations I derive from all the hard up-front work. So, fiddling with gaps and geometry is an excellent investment for me.
restorator The question is whether it really needs to "absolutely flawless" if it works just fine when pushing it past the everyday limits.
It depends on what you are running.
4 axle power and 8 wheel rolling stock less than 60ft, you can get away with alot. Ive operated on a railroad with homasote splines with handlaid track. It is not level or straight. It runs just fine under 10 scale miles per hour. If memory serves, there usually no derailments that are not operator induced (mis-aligned turnout).
I run shortline and branch line layouts, where perfect appearence is not required. Laser straight isn't a priority. Slight imperfections are actually more realistic for what I model.
But for operating the models, even at modest speeds, rails need to meet smoothly at the joints and be either level or slightly banked around curves to prevent derailments. Curves where the outside track is lower than the inside track, even a small dip, invites derailments, especially for six axle equipment.
- Douglas