SeeYou190 Lastspikemike Anyone want to embarrass themselves posting an Atlas flex track wrestling session video? And you claim not to intentionally provoke responses with what you write?
Lastspikemike Anyone want to embarrass themselves posting an Atlas flex track wrestling session video?
And you claim not to intentionally provoke responses with what you write?
Here is a meme we can use when confronted like that going forward.
And... I gave you more of the attention you are craving. -Kevin
-Kevin
Don't give the power.
https://youtu.be/naK3KWjbAzA
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
LastspikemikeEven curving the Atlas track so far that the ends are crossed and the curve radius in my hands is probably less than 15" the Atlas track reverts to almost straight when released. It takes many such bending operations to work a 29" radius into the piece. Even more to get close to 24" radius.
If you're using Atlas track, you're wasting your time trying to pre-bend it to a set radius. I'd guess that most of us simply use a centre-line, and tack or glue it in-place as it's put down.When you get most of the piece in place, trim the rail(s) as necessary, then solder -on another length of track and continue.
All of my curved track is on 2"wide 3/4" plywood arcs, and both the "cut" lines and the track centre-lines were done on the sheets of plywood using a pencil in a trammel before the curves were cut from the sheets.
Another nice feature of Atlas flex-track is its ability to self-ease the entrance and exit of the formed curves.
Wayne
riogrande5761 I know this is mainly a code 83 discussion, but I'll briefly comment that I disliked my code 100 Atlas turnouts; I used code 100 instaging. I was able to get most of my Peco large code 100 turnouts for around $18 or 19 each, which isn't that much more than the new price of Atlas code 100 #6. Plus, as you can see by my photo, Peco code 100 large roughly equate to a #7 turnout, making them more broad than a #6. Back to code 83. I don't dislike my Atlas code 83 turnouts that much, and still plan to use the bunch that I saved from my last layout, mostly new or like-new. But there are two things I dislike about them. One is the cast frog (it's an appearnce thing, but yes, that can be mitigated by painting/weathering). The other is you must have a switch machine, either manual or electric. Lets look at the cost thing for a second. The Peco for more expensive yes, and the code 83 even more than the code 100. But you don't have to provide a switch machine so that does mitigate some of that cost you would have to spend on an Atlas, or other turnouts not having the finger flick feature holding the points firmly to one side or the other. Back to Atlas. I wish to simpify my yard work by not installing electric switch machines and all the wiring and the control panels etc. That will take me a lot of extra time and effort. So manual throw is fine since I can reach nearly all of the turnouts. But ... if I used Atlas, I'd have to install a manual throw. I've got some Caboose Industries for my present Atlas turnouts, but my hands are getting a bit arthitic, and they are fiddely to operate. Finger flick is easier for me to operate. So by using Peco, or the new Walthers if I can get my hands on them, I avoid the expense and effort of any switch machines. As for lurch, in yards at slow speeds, I don't mind if my yard turnouts are #5.9 rather than 6, or whatever you call them. For mainline operation, #8 should and I have a bunch of them. If I run out of Peco Electrofrog #6 as I do have only a limited number of them, I'll switch to Walthers #6 which hopefully will come available in the coming weeks.
I know this is mainly a code 83 discussion, but I'll briefly comment that I disliked my code 100 Atlas turnouts; I used code 100 instaging. I was able to get most of my Peco large code 100 turnouts for around $18 or 19 each, which isn't that much more than the new price of Atlas code 100 #6. Plus, as you can see by my photo, Peco code 100 large roughly equate to a #7 turnout, making them more broad than a #6.
Back to code 83. I don't dislike my Atlas code 83 turnouts that much, and still plan to use the bunch that I saved from my last layout, mostly new or like-new. But there are two things I dislike about them. One is the cast frog (it's an appearnce thing, but yes, that can be mitigated by painting/weathering). The other is you must have a switch machine, either manual or electric.
Lets look at the cost thing for a second. The Peco for more expensive yes, and the code 83 even more than the code 100. But you don't have to provide a switch machine so that does mitigate some of that cost you would have to spend on an Atlas, or other turnouts not having the finger flick feature holding the points firmly to one side or the other.
Back to Atlas. I wish to simpify my yard work by not installing electric switch machines and all the wiring and the control panels etc. That will take me a lot of extra time and effort. So manual throw is fine since I can reach nearly all of the turnouts. But ... if I used Atlas, I'd have to install a manual throw. I've got some Caboose Industries for my present Atlas turnouts, but my hands are getting a bit arthitic, and they are fiddely to operate. Finger flick is easier for me to operate. So by using Peco, or the new Walthers if I can get my hands on them, I avoid the expense and effort of any switch machines.
As for lurch, in yards at slow speeds, I don't mind if my yard turnouts are #5.9 rather than 6, or whatever you call them. For mainline operation, #8 should and I have a bunch of them. If I run out of Peco Electrofrog #6 as I do have only a limited number of them, I'll switch to Walthers #6 which hopefully will come available in the coming weeks.
All fair points, no real disagreement here. Atlas has just retooled the code 100 Custom Line turnouts, making them more like the code 83 turnouts, so they got the memo.
The switch machine thing - I only use electric switch machines on the mainline, or in hidden staging - my staging is "hidden" - I use Tortoise machines for the slow motion effect, extra wiring contacts, and the means of control which fits into my relay based route control system.
One "set" (3-6 relays) of relays can control a whole interlocking and provide for one or two button route control where all turnouts not only align to the selected route, but turnouts not in play also return to their "normal".
So I need something of that sort in any case.
Keep in mind, a lot of my electrical needs are also linked to detection and signaling.
Manual turnouts - Any turnouts that would be manual on the prototype I try to have manually operated on my layout. One aspect of my DC control system is route control, tracks get power based on turnout position. I don't rely on old fashioned power routing thru the turnout points, so I need electrical turnout position feedback even on manual turnouts. Built in little springs won't do.
So I use subminature DPDT slide switches as ground throws, which do a nice job of holding the points in place, and provide plenty of electrical contacts.
And while they may not look "realistic", they are small, unobtrusive, and easy to throw with your finger or a small pick/screwdriver you may also be using for uncoupling. They are also easily remotely located in crowded locations.
So, we all have different needs and the features and benefits of various products are sometimes a fit, sometimes not.
Sheldon
riogrande5761 ATLANTIC CENTRAL Thank you Jim for adding that excellent explanation and photos I did not have time to provide. Your method, my method, Dr. Wayne, and mot people I have helped to build layouts for and with, is all basically the same and founded in good engineering principals. Which as you point out, actually reduces the work.... Sheldon And the guess work!
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Thank you Jim for adding that excellent explanation and photos I did not have time to provide. Your method, my method, Dr. Wayne, and mot people I have helped to build layouts for and with, is all basically the same and founded in good engineering principals. Which as you point out, actually reduces the work.... Sheldon
Thank you Jim for adding that excellent explanation and photos I did not have time to provide. Your method, my method, Dr. Wayne, and mot people I have helped to build layouts for and with, is all basically the same and founded in good engineering principals.
Which as you point out, actually reduces the work....
And the guess work!
And to be clear, if there are no ribbons of plywood subroadbed needing to be cut beforehand, guessing at curve radius on a table top is just fine, IMO.
After settling upon the curve I wanted, given distance from the edge, corner, and backdrop to accomodate structure depth and scenery items that mocked up visually in the area, I can honestly say that I have no idea what the final radius of the curve is.
My guess is somewhere between 42 and 56 based upon the distances of where the curve starts and the back drop, and the long easements on either side of the apex.
Also note, that yourself, Sheldon, Wayne, and Kevin all appear to have layouts with sweeping curves traversing below grade scenery. Knowing accurate radii before a single track is laid seems paramount in making that first cut with a jigsaw when building those types of layouts.
- Douglas
doctorwayne Lastspikemike Even curving the Atlas track so far that the ends are crossed and the curve radius in my hands is probably less than 15" the Atlas track reverts to almost straight when released. It takes many such bending operations to work a 29" radius into the piece. Even more to get close to 24" radius. If you're using Atlas track, you're wasting your time trying to pre-bend it to a set radius. I'd guess that most of us simply use a centre-line, and tack or glue it in-place as it's put down.When you get most of the piece in place, trim the rail(s) as necessary, then solder -on another length of track and continue. All of my curved track is on 2"wide 3/4" plywood arcs, and both the "cut" lines and the track centre-lines were done on the sheets of plywood using a pencil in a trammel before the curves were cut from the sheets. Another nice feature of Atlas flex-track is its ability to self-ease the entrance and exit of the formed curves. Wayne
Lastspikemike Even curving the Atlas track so far that the ends are crossed and the curve radius in my hands is probably less than 15" the Atlas track reverts to almost straight when released. It takes many such bending operations to work a 29" radius into the piece. Even more to get close to 24" radius.
+1000
I think that now that we've been up and down with the options, the OP should weigh in with his preferred method of tracklaying (which may now have been influenced by some of the wisdom) so that we might, er, bend the discussion to suggest specific opinions and recommendations on what he might like "best" ...
Doughless riogrande5761 ATLANTIC CENTRAL Thank you Jim for adding that excellent explanation and photos I did not have time to provide. Your method, my method, Dr. Wayne, and mot people I have helped to build layouts for and with, is all basically the same and founded in good engineering principals. Which as you point out, actually reduces the work.... Sheldon And the guess work! And to be clear, if there are no ribbons of plywood subroadbed needing to be cut beforehand, guessing at curve radius on a table top is just fine, IMO. After settling upon the curve I wanted, given distance from the edge, corner, and backdrop to accomodate structure depth and scenery items that mocked up visually in the area, I can honestly say that I have no idea what the final radius of the curve is. My guess is somewhere between 42 and 56 based upon the distances of where the curve starts and the back drop, and the long easements on either side of the apex. Also note, that yourself, Sheldon, Wayne, and Kevin all appear to have layouts with sweeping curves traversing below grade scenery. Knowing accurate radii before a single track is laid seems paramount in making that first cut with a jigsaw when building those types of layouts.
As long as you are above your operationally desired minimum, sure.
And yes, multi elevation layouts require that you know where things are going before you start cutting up wood.
My new layout will have trackage starting at 36" above the floor and reaching 47" above the floor, with most of the visible mainline being between 40" and 44" from the floor.
And there is a fair amount of hidden track, some of which is designed to be accessed by reaching up under the hard shell scenery - something we have done years.
There will only be a "table top" in areas with yards or large amounts of urban scenery.
My curves, except some industrial trackage, will vary from 36" radius up to about 48" radius, and maybe a few "cosmetic" ones larger.
Absolutely. That's why i started off by explaining that my layouts are simply around the room shelf type with or without a peninsula. I expect any future layout to be in a square or rectangular shaped room.
Outside of the sweeping curves through mountain scenery parts, how do you know what a small town is going to look like before you commit to track laying, if track laying is just a one and done type of thing off of a blueprint? Aren't there at least repositioning or iterations of road bed placement?
Still not thinking that protractors with pencil lines transferred from a schematic is the ultimate basis for the final track arrangement.
Turnout templates? Maybe that's why Peco makes them.
Doughless Absolutely. That's why i started off by explaining that my layouts are simply around the room shelf type with or without a peninsula. I expect any future layout to be in a square or rectangular shaped room. Outside of the sweeping curves through mountain scenery parts, how do you know what a small town is going to look like before you commit to track laying, if track laying is just a one and done type of thing off of a blueprint? Aren't there at least repositioning or iterations of road bed placement? Still not thinking that protractors with pencil lines transferred from a schematic is the ultimate basis for the final track arrangement. Turnout templates? Maybe that's why Peco makes them.
Have you taken a look at my track plan?
Obvious areas where structures will be can and do get "platforms" that are integral to the trackwork, like where stations are. At my "wye" for example, the whole wye will be on a sheet of plywood.
And areas like the freight yard will be much like your layout.
But real life is not flat, at least not here in the piedmont of the Appalachians, so after track is in, platforms for other structures will be added at various elevations and locations as required.
Yes, some structures will be preselected and track will be layed out to insure their fit.
Most will be kitbashed or built to fit.
Except for the most "urban" areas, most scenery will be hardshell joining the track subroadbed and all the structure "plaforms". Again the world is not flat around here, not by any long shot.
OK, the exact layout of industrial sidings has some built in flexibilty, but the mainline? Not so much.
The scenic aspects of the mainline have been carefully thought out in advance, even if it is not apparent or indicated on the drawing. There are notes about structures, bridges, highway underpasses, streams, hills, highways, rural roads, forests, farm fields, etc, etc.
And some of that will evolve, but not at the expense of moving track.
I have additional drawings and marked up drawings showing additional structures, roads, etc.
Turnouts, again turnouts are simple #6 is a 9.5 degree intersection, #8 is a 7 degree intersection, I have plenty of them laying around to test arrangements.
And, I actually curve manufactured turnouts into very large radius curved turnouts, or simply build custom ones when needed.
Notice my layout dimensions - the average scene is 3-4 feet deep, it is not about just modeling the 100' on each side of the tracks. It is about giving total context to the railroad and its reason for being, and its setting in the larger sense.
The area where the turntable is will be 10' from layout edge to the farthest backdrop.
It is not a "shelf" layout......
ATLANTIC CENTRALOK, the exact layout of industrial sidings has some built in flexibilty, but the mainline? Not so much.
Yes, I've seen your trackplan and its very nice. More layout than I could handle, frankly.
But yes, my focus with layouts, and the hobby in general; is with industries and the trains that serve them. The concentration of design is the (typically) two action areas on either side of the layout.
I don't like pure switching layouts, and prefer distance between the two areas, with continuous running option, which is really not part of the operations.
The more mainline the better, but in reality, with the two action areas the focus of the layout, the mainline is just afterthought filler for the most part.
Doughless ATLANTIC CENTRAL OK, the exact layout of industrial sidings has some built in flexibilty, but the mainline? Not so much. Yes, I've seen your trackplan and its very nice. More layout than I could handle, frankly. But yes, my focus with layouts, and the hobby in general; is with industries and the trains that serve them. The concentration of design is the (typically) two action areas on either side of the layout. I don't like pure switching layouts, and prefer distance between the two areas, with continuous running option, which is really not part of the operations. The more mainline the better, but in reality, with the two action areas the focus of the layout, the mainline is just afterthought filler for the most part.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL OK, the exact layout of industrial sidings has some built in flexibilty, but the mainline? Not so much.
Thank you for the kind words. I have built several similar, this will be the largest by a small margin, but similar in total scope to the previous one.
And I have designed and helped build layouts this size for fellow modelers.
It is just like what I do for a living - restoring old houses - we have a saying in that business - "how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time".
And, while it may partly be my architect/engineer way of thinking, good planning is important just like it is building or restoring a house.
And as an experianced carpenter, the benchwork aspect is pretty easy for me.
Two years of sketches, developement drawings, concept refinement, testing a few ideas with mockups, research and going thru years of notes from the past similar layouts have lead to this track plan.
The goals are narrowly focused in some ways, and very broad in other ways.
It provides for being a good switching layout, in fact you could just build the yard and industries and have a great ISL.
Notice there are very few industries outside that area.
The idea is to leave most of the rest as railfan type viewing and focus on mainline CTC operation - that's why it stages 30 trains.
It also converts to a display layout with five continous loops that do not conflict with each other so they can run with minimal attention. And, the yard and industries can be worked by an operator while those five trains run.
So three different goals:
Non railroader display running.
Serious ops sessions for a crew of 5 to 12
Single operator operation to any level desired.
And scenery that is broad and diverse, not just railroad centered, rural and urban.
The city will have working trolley busses, etc.
That is why there is only one "place", one city, and the rural areas leading up to it from the east and west.
There are no right or wrong layout concepts, yours is a great way to enjoy the hobby. People should focus on what they are interested in and skip over those parts that don't interest them.
I skip over sound for example. I skip over trying to simulate real places, which some people find important. I skip over every model needing to be highly accurate.
I like well detailed models, but my overall approach is the "big picture" not the track side micro picture.
And going back to layout design and construction with flex track preference, Wood centered layouts with solid construction, track can be formed as it is secured. Prefernce here skews heavily towards smooth flowing Atlas flex among many modelers.
Foam style layouts this gets much tougher. Here, prefernces skew much farther towards "stiff" style flex, like ME.
Since my last layout was on mostly foam, my preference skewed towards ME for curves, and Atlas for easements and straights. The actual curves could be formed, and tacked to be held lightly in place. Atlas flex tendancy to spring back straight would take much more to hold the curves in place on the foam. And, as was mentioned in a prior post, that has it exactly right why: Atlas flex has one "loose" rail, compared to ME flex. Both rails on ME flex are much more stiffly held into place. This makes it harder to flex, but also makes it hold itself in place much better.
Whereas the next layout iteration will have a section or two of foam, and a section or two of more solid construction. The more solid construction areas I will most likely use more Atlas flex, to save on costs, while reserving the ME for the foam or designed photo sections.
Again, there are tricks and tips to make whichever flex track you are using work well. I alluded to some in my prior post. FastTracks SweepSticks or RibbonRail gauges help align all the brands to whatever curvature needed, and the straight gauges help get them all arrow straight.
The big trick with those gauges on flex track is to tack the flex into place while using the gauges if using Atlas, or pre shape the ME using the gauges. (This does indded work, and can be proven, but it need not be, as MANY modelers can attest that this indeed works very well, including me through testing.)
No one brand of track has been proved to be better or worse scientifically.
Now if you ask about appearance, my preference skews more towards the finer profile on ME and Shinohara than Atlas. Even Code 83 is "thicker" on Atlas than on Shinohara or ME.
But again the qualifier is "my preference" in that statement. While I can 'scientifically prove" the rail profile differences, "my opinion" is the thinner profile on ME rail looks better, but I model a secondary line. A major main line might look better with the thicker Atlas rail profile.
And, in areas that are not "up close" I can even handlay the track, if it can be tacked down solidly, it get's super smooth flowing trackwork, and the appearnce at 3 feet looks the same as any more expensive flex. But for up close areas, or areas designed for photography, handlaid will take way too much work to look as good as ME, or even the thicker profile Atlas flex.
I will agree there is a lot of assertions on this thread that can indded be deemed as misinformation to those who are newer, or just skimming over, which is exactly why, I am qualifing my statemnets with "my preference".
To most readers, "my preference" or "my opinion" qualifies the statement as such. But a blanket statement of "Brand X is Better than Brand Y" could indeed be deemed as misinformation, as there is no qualifiers.
Seems like many posts in here are indeed looking to provoke a reply, or are even borderline inflamatory in nature. Especially with regards to "Which brand is better" posts.
Again, to clearly get across my opinion on track, I have qualified them as such.
Those concerned about cost, prefer (relatively) cheaper Atlas flex over (relatively) more costly ME.
And, in my prior resonse, I stated my prefered flex and turnout brands, and whcih one I prefer where, and why. Notice, I prefered Atlas for easements. It's super easy to do with the flowing nature of Atlas flex.
Now - Bonus trackwork "Trick" for those who mix code 83 Atlas with code 70 ME rail. (Like me.) For smooth, hassle free transitions between the two, slide a ME code 70 joiner completely onto the ME rail, then use the Atlas 83 joiner like normal. The ME 70 joiner slides into the Atlas 83 joiner, and perfectly lines up the rail height. No special cutting, filing, etc... Just a quick, easy, and somewhat dirty, way to transition between the two brands and sizes.
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
I have about a half-dozen sticks of Precision Scale code 83 flex I bought at a train show.
I have no prior experience with this stuff, but the price was oh-so unrefusable, so I bought it.
Anyone have any tips, or is it just like any other semi-rigid flex track?
Living the dream.
Has anyone here have experience with Rapido bendy track? I have not heard what people think of it. They don't make it any more but it is out there.
https://www.pwrs.ca/view_product.php?ProductID=219019
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
BATMAN Has anyone here have experience with Rapidos bendy track? I have not heard what people think of it. They don't make it any more but it is out there. https://www.pwrs.ca/view_product.php?ProductID=219019
Has anyone here have experience with Rapidos bendy track? I have not heard what people think of it. They don't make it any more but it is out there.
Well, mechanically it sounds just like Atlas, "springy", so Mike would not like it........
Lastspikemike ATLANTIC CENTRAL BATMAN Has anyone here have experience with Rapidos bendy track? I have not heard what people think of it. They don't make it any more but it is out there. https://www.pwrs.ca/view_product.php?ProductID=219019 Well, mechanically it sounds just like Atlas, "springy", so Mike would not like it........ Sheldon I dunno, sounds bendy rather than springy. It sounds like Walthers flex track. Maybe Walthers found Rapido's Asian manufacturer .....
ATLANTIC CENTRAL BATMAN Has anyone here have experience with Rapidos bendy track? I have not heard what people think of it. They don't make it any more but it is out there. https://www.pwrs.ca/view_product.php?ProductID=219019 Well, mechanically it sounds just like Atlas, "springy", so Mike would not like it........ Sheldon
I dunno, sounds bendy rather than springy. It sounds like Walthers flex track. Maybe Walthers found Rapido's Asian manufacturer .....
But Mike, it says right in the description it "springs back"?
Still happy with my Atlas track that springs back.........
BATMANHas anyone here have experience with Rapido bendy track? I have not heard what people think of it. They don't make it any more but it is out there.
I don't have any experience with it, but...
I was very disappointed that Rapido left the track market. I was hoping that they would manufacture a high quality option for turnouts.
SeeYou190I was very disappointed that Rapido left the track market. I was hoping that they would manufacture a high quality option for turnouts.
That would have been nice, maybe they would have come out with something that no one else produces with larger curved and longer straight turnouts. I still have three boxes of Walthers C83 kicking around or I would have tried out their track for sure. I think track is one of those things where people would rather fight than switch.
BATMAN SeeYou190 I was very disappointed that Rapido left the track market. I was hoping that they would manufacture a high quality option for turnouts. That would have been nice, maybe they would have come out with something that no one else produces with larger curved and longer straight turnouts. I still have three boxes of Walthers C83 kicking around or I would have tried out their track for sure. I think track is one of those things where people would rather fight than switch.
SeeYou190 I was very disappointed that Rapido left the track market. I was hoping that they would manufacture a high quality option for turnouts.
Well, track is surely something that once you find a product that works for you needs, you are not likely to change unless something dramatic happens.
The PECO code 83 line was dramatic, and I think it took customers from all three other big players, Atlas, Walthers and Micro Engineering.
I think Rapido learned real quick that tooling costs and market share was going to be an issue.
There are those four lines of track now, not sure the market will support more than that.
And lets be honest, three of those lines depend on modelers willing to pay higher prices for specialty items, advanced features, and small improvements in appearence.
Atlas has the lowest price because they have the highest market share, they avoid making slower moving expensive specialty items, and they avoid complex features, keeping production costs lower.
Making track is a long term return on investment - it takes big players like Walthers, Atlas and PECO. Micro Engineering I suspect is an outlier. I don't know anthing about their business or ownership, but I get the impression that they are in a strong financial position despite their realtively small product range.
Often businesses like that are started by people with lots of extra cash, who don't need a quick return (or any real return), and thereby are not answerable to banks or investors.
Back in the day, I suspect lots of companies in this business were that way.......I think some still are.
Businesses with no debt and ready cash can operate differently from the typical MBA "formula".
I don't know if there is any market for it, but one thing I would be interested in seeing would be #8, #10 and #12 turnouts with closing frogs. Turnouts with closing frogs were common in this hobby 60 years ago, and it is a particularly good solution for large turnouts - and the prototype does it on high speed turnouts.
But I'm not holding my breath, and I'm not searching the planet for the last remaining ones made by TruScale.