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.
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
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.
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?
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.
That was the better of the two yards as far as the design (concept vice location) goes.
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 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.
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.
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”
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.”
[quote user=“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
[quote user=“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.
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.
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).
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).