Of those of you who follow his guidelines, regarding 'Squares'...how well does his 28" dimension for conventional curves work for Mainline use?
I am planning my layout and trying to figure out if I'll be able to use longer passenger cars on a conventional curve based on that 28" 'square' dimension......or do I need to stick with broad curves?
Also....I plan on using code 100 flex track...(and this is a stupid question that shows my ignorance)...but how does one get a 28" curve or a 34" broad curve if they used sectional code 100 track? Aren't there only 18" and 22" curves that are most readily available in sectional??? I was wondering if he assumed that most people lay their own track or use flex.....and the 28"/34" curves were used in the book based on that.....
Let the forehead slapping begin.
Mike/Nightshade
Second question first:
You don't get 28" or 34" curves in sectional track. Flextrack or lay your own. There are little gauges available that fit inside the rails and force the flextrack to a uniform curve.
I think 28" curves should work for most passenger cars. If you have them close coupled with diaphragms (the covered walkways between cars) there may be some binding. Or worse on S cuves.
--David
The mind is like a parachute. It works better when it's open. www.stremy.net
I am still planning on using flex track, but the web address above showed a 30", 30 degree curve.....is that a banked curve?
Nightshade wrote: Of those of you who follow his guidelines, regarding 'Squares'...how well does his 28" dimension for conventional curves work for Mainline use? I am planning my layout and trying to figure out if I'll be able to use longer passenger cars on a conventional curve based on that 28" 'square' dimension......or do I need to stick with broad curves? Also....I plan on using code 100 flex track...(and this is a stupid question that shows my ignorance)...but how does one get a 28" curve or a 34" broad curve if they used sectional code 100 track? Aren't there only 18" and 22" curves that are most readily available in sectional??? I was wondering if he assumed that most people lay their own track or use flex.....and the 28"/34" curves were used in the book based on that..... Let the forehead slapping begin. Mike/Nightshade
Good, but the largest you can fit is a better way to go. I used his book to get an IDEA of what fit. I did the final design with 3rd planet and AutoCadd. His book was dead on as to cars and what you needed to have for space.
No such thing as a stupid question only stupid answers. My $.02 on that is if this is your madien voyage into layouts the code 100 felxtrack and the turnouts and such to match are a good choice. To make it look better you could use Code 83 flex on the sidings or just go code 83. Pros and cons of Code 83. For the good side, looks better. Bad side, you can not use a Kadee delayed magnet between the rails with out machining the magnet down to fit, (designed for code 100). Turnouts and such are becoming readly available for code 83, code 100 are NEVER hard to find.
A REAL good thing abouit code 100 is that it is easy to mix sectional and flextrack. Do not worry about the radius deal just draw the radius on the tabel, foam etc and lay down the track. The EASEMENT is simple with flextrack at almost does it for you. The MAGIC is simple using this as an EXAMPLE only. You would use (1) 22" radius sectional track to lead into an 18" radius curve that is a transition into a curve. I used ABOUT 36" going into a 32" and 60" going into a 48".
Hope this hepled.
The 28 inch square allows for a 24 inch radius curve and a 26.5 inch radius curve, plus 1.5 inch clearance outside the wider curve. The NMRA defines 24 inches as conventional curve radius in HO, and says that full-length passenger cars should handle it if proper easements are provided.
I don't know if John Armstrong ever designed a layout for sectional track. His own was all hand-laid - O scale, outside third rail (except for one branch that ran with stud contacts a la Maerklin HO) I do know that you have to change the size of the squares if you change minimum radius. Tight (18") curves call for a 22 inch square side, while broad (30") curves require 33.5 inches. The 34 inch radius curves you mentioned, if defined as a minimum, would stretch your squares to 37.25 inches.
Note that the squares aren't a straitjacket. They're intended for use when layout planning is in the "quick sketch on the back of an envelope" phase, to (hopefully) help you avoid trying to cram ten pounds into a five pound bag. IMHO, nothing about a layout design is finalized until the ballast is glued down.
Chuck (who is in the early phases of construction of a C-shaped bench structure that will eventually support a model railroad)
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Shinohara once offered code 100 sectional curves in radii up through 36", but I don't think it's a current-production item. You may be able to find some new old stock if you search, though.
Thanks for reading MR,
Terry
Hey the K4Kid Its seems to me that your just ready to jump into a HUGE LAYOUT. Lets not forget its a huge task to build and mantain a massive layout. With that being said it sounds to me that you should take a look into a 2 level layout or even a mushroom layout. Dont think you need to have massive table tops to have the best layout.
You seem to want to have a Long main line PRR style and have long runs of trains with some really nice yards and shops. You can have 1 or 2 helix that can bring your trains down and up to each level and even to a 3rd level staging yard where you can have OFFLINE stuff happen.
tomikawaTT wrote: I don't know if John Armstrong ever designed a layout for sectional track.
I don't know if John Armstrong ever designed a layout for sectional track.
He did create a number of (~50) sectional track plans for Atlas. Unfortunately they don't always work out, for example, mating a switch and a wye (that produce two converging tracks 148.5 degrees apart) with a crossing (that has leads 150 degrees apart). . .
KL
Yes I bought one of those little blue Atlas planbooks 35 years ago when I was starting out, most (all?) of the plans were by John Armstrong.
People seem to not be including track-with-roadbed in the discussion, I guess you could call that sectional track. Bachmann makes code 100 track (Tru-Track) with curves from 15" up to 35.5" radius. Kato's Unitrack goes up to about 31" I believe and is code 83.
I guess my orginal thought when I first asked was:
If 18" and 22" sectional is the most used in industry (at least sold, that is) not counting flex or hand layed track, then why are the 'Squares' 28" for conventional and 34" for broad curves?
I was wondering if I was missing some special ingredient that I should add to the 18" and 22" track....
Now, as I stated above, I am going with Atlas code 100 flex track. Mostly because it is the easiest to find and I have a whole slew of c. 1970 rolling stock, and I understand that code 100 is more forgiving than code 83. Personally, I am ok with the way code 100 will look after I lay the cork and ballast down.
I must say that I am a little confused on how to make my easements. So, I will have to re-read the book and go from there.
I really do want the widest curves my table space will allow (7' x 13') and wish to use inclines (2% max?) to the best advantage....and I also want the most forgiving turnouts, both for DCC reasons and for longer cars.
Ultimately, having said all that, In order to save space as much as I can.......I was wondering what the sharpest curves being used out there were and still looked good and worked well with longer cars/engines going around it. I would not want a Big Boy or Challenger going around a bunch of 18" sectional track getting derailed, or making the curve but looking silly.
Thanks,
The squares have nothing at all to do with what sectional track is/was available, or what the manufacturers wanted to call "conventional". The "sharp", "conventional", and "broad" descriptions were a way that Armstrong used to generally describe the curves required to support various classes or equipment. They fairly closely follow the NMRA suggestions seen here:
http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp-11.html
although they are really a generalization. So if you look at what you want to run, and determine conventional works, then using the squares method with the conventional size you can figure about what will fit. If you determine that a different radius will work for you, you can figure the size of a sqare by adding twice the center to center spacing to the minimum radius (that allows a double track, situation, space for sidings, etc., without violating the minimum radius you have decided on. Teh square system is meant to be a guide to tell you what will or won't fit. If the squares say if doesn't fit, you should probably think again. After using the squares to get a general feel of what you can design, you then do the detailed design. I don't know where my (older and newer) copies of the book are hiding just now, but there is a step by step example in the back, if I am not mistaken.
The idea of easements is not change the radius of the curve from straight to the curve redius instantaneously. Armstrong's pictures show the advantages pretty well, and point out that a sharper curve with an easement is actually better that a broader curve without (within reason, of course).
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
TheK4Kid wrote:Hi Randy, I took a look at your layout design and construction pictures on your website. Your tables and foam top setup is where I got my idea for building mine. I like the way you have the cross piece supports in your tables up on end rather than laying flat like bed slats.. Looking at your layout pictures gives me more ideas as to perhaps change some of my ideas. I perhaps could go as wide as 36 inches on my benches, and go around the room. How high does your layout set? I can do much more with mine if I don't use a "walk-in concept, but a instead a "closed around the room concept" I know there is a lot of schools of thought between duck under and walk in layouts, but with an office chair on rollers, access would be easy. Right now I have several different design ideas I may sketch out later today. I have boxes of both cork and foam roadbed , and was wondering what your opinion is of both? Your foamboard backdrops look easy enough to do, and much less expensive than mica board.. Best regards, Ed
There is one example of bedslat framing in Linn Westcott's book. It was certainly not put in by him, since it is for a foam tabletop layout. Other than that instance I can't think of any time that it would be useful.