Due to immutable space limitations and scale preferences, I am in the designing phase of an HO 4.5x8 layout with a 2x4 tangent, creating an “L” shape. I’ve pulled ideas from a few track plans and have arrived at what I think is a pretty good plan for operation - basically, a loop that’s somewhat irregular to avoid the race-track look, 18" - 20" curves with easements, with a few industrial spurs for switching and operation. The 2x4 extension has a small yard and an interchange/teamtrack (haven’t decided which, yet).
I’ve read and understand that easements are a good thing, especially for a small layout with sharp curves. After several days of noodling and tweaking, I managed to convert the fixed-radius curves of the original track plan to easements, and the only concession was to extend the layout’s size from 4x8 to 4.5x8.
All the turnouts except one are #4, which limits me in turnout choices. I think Atlas and Walthers/Shinohara are the only two off-the-shelf choices (hand-laid is not presently an option, but may be eventually). So now it’s gotten into my head that a smaller layout can afford higher quality track, but that would mean replacing the #4’s with #5’s or better.
Here’s the question - because of space limitations, my track plan can include either easements and #4 turnouts, or #5/#6 turnouts and fixed radius curves. Which compromise would be preferable?
After more tinkering, I found I could shoehorn both #5 turnouts and easements into the plan, but the curves, while be geometrically proper per my layout software, look unrealistically squared off, and wind up being close to 15" radii. Without easements, I can manage between 19" - 20" radii, which look great, but loose the smoother operation of gradual curves.
The Atlas #4 is really a #4.5; it has around a 22" radius in the closure rail. So either the Walters #5 or the Atlas #4 will work in your situation.
A turnout at the beginning of a curve doesn’t need an easement. A numbered frog turnout has gently curved (or straight) points, a curved closure rail (radius varies with frog #), and then a straight frog. Adding an easement after the frog doesn’t make a lot of sense unless there is a car length of straight between the frog and the curve.
You might be using larger than necessary easements. An easement only needs to be as long as your longest car to be effective. Even if shorter than your longest car, the easement will still help with most of your rolling stock.
Only use easements on the main line and primary passing sidings. Your spurs, yards, and other slow speed trackage don’t need them nearly as much. Besides, if you are using Atlas flex track, or another make that has “spring” in it, you will be hard put not to get a natural easement at the end of the curve. It might not be as long an easemet as you had planned, but it will be there.
Before track planning software, an easy way to lay out the easements at the end of curves was to allow an extra half inch beyond the curve radius and a longest car length along the straight track for the easement during planning. When building, use a springy wood batten to draw the easement on the roadbed/plywood. Track planning software’s easement “feature” may mandate unnnecessarily big easements.
Last, turnouts are not sacred. Read the Turtle Creek MR project model railroad series (2nd installment, Feb 2003). They cut back the straight sections of the Atlas Snap turnouts before the points and after the frogs of the turnouts to get the desired track configuration to fit. Unfortunately, your software won’t let you do that.
You have a small enough layout that it might be better just to lay things out fu
I think I’ll just put the #4’s back in and fudge on the easements a bit. You’re right about the rigidity of track planning software - the one I use doesn’t allow you to change the parameters of the easements.
I am a strong proponent of easements - even in the tightest of circumstances. Look at an N-Trak setup some time. Very wide curves but you can see locomotives physically jerk going into them. However 4.5 X 8 is pretty tight and you may have to compromise with #5/#6s. As was said switches are, by their design, easements.
I’ve “cloned” 4 layout plans - one with #4’s and fixed radii curves (none smaller than 18", one with #4’s and easements, one with #5’s and fixed radii (again, none smaller than 18") and finally, one with $5’s and easements.
#4’s or #5’s really don’t change things that much.
However, regardless of operation, the easement layouts just plain ol’ look bad. That has to count for something. The easements are very generous - picture a 90-degree curve split into 3 30-degree arcs, with arc 1 and 3 very broad (20"-22")and arc 2 very sharp (12-14"). It winds up looking like a corner on a slot-car track.
But I’m not going to give up on easements entirely - maybe I’ll just try the bendy-stick approach and work some minor ones into the plan…
I just ran a few calcs - use smaller easements! On an 18" radius, the easement should be no more than 9" long - the 2:1 ratio radius to easement or longest car - is my rule of thumb for the smallest ratio I will accept. Avoids the race track look on small layouts because easement uses less than 15 degrees of arc worst case. Any rolling stock longer than 1/2 the radius looks silly, will have problems staying coupled on the curve if it will even stay on the track, and will have tremendous overhang.
I would seriously consider 6" long easements with 18" radius curves - long enough to provide real easement for most rolling stock, and long enough to look good, but not so long as to produce the problems you cite.
If you’re using 18" or even 22" curves, then the #4 turnouts will work just fine. Only if you’re using like 24" or 26" curves would I require #5’s. If you’re using 30" or larger curves then the #6’s would be the way to go. Over 36" or 42" curves, then use #8’s.
If I understand this properly, I would rather have a 19.5" continual radius than one with easments that spirals down to 15". An easment does not have to be a monsterous thing and should only take an extra inch or two.
On a small layout I have never had problems with the Atlas #4 Customline turnouts. They are actually closer to a #5 than they are to a #4.
As others have stated, those don’t exactly sound like easements. An easement is a spiral curve that increases in radius from tangent (straight, no radius) to the radius of the main curve. It’s not really practical with sectional track. For best results, the easement length varies with the radius of the curve and the length of the longest car or loco, but even shorter easements help when space is tight, IMHO.
Well, I’m starting to think the fault lies with my layout software, whose name rhymes with “bird granite”, that while versatile in many aspects of planning and display, is very limited with easements. In other words, my choices seem to be ‘easements on’ or ‘easements off’, with no adjustment of parameters. That’s why I’ve decided to draw it with no discernable easements and use the 1/2" -offset/1/2-car-length/bendy-stick approach when actually laying it out on the plywood.
3rdPlanIt (the software I also use) is actually very configurable in the use of easements, but you have to change the default parameters. If you look in the upper right corner of the menu bar, you’ll see something that looks like this.
The “Set Spiral Length” configuration allows one to choose short, medium, long, or a fixed length easement. The “short, medium, long” values are computed by the software. I most often use the fixed-length opiton for most curves (choosing the length approriately for the design I am doing) and the “short” option for situations like connecting a parallel siding.
Seems a bit unfair to blame the software, since it works well for others.
You can always check the manual, the help menu, ot the tutorial for information. Admittedly, these are not the easiest to use, but the answers are out there.
I’ve been to the forums before but have backed out because of all the sniping about the software’s writer and banning of users.
I’m a big proponent of the software, and prefer it to the others, even the free ones. I’ll check when I get home about the easement. My version is 5-6 years old, so it may not have that feature. Looking in the tutorials and manuals, I’ve only found the easement on/easement off I mentioned before.
And the blaming of the software is only from the fact
The feature’s been available since at least version 4, circa 1999. Can’t vouch for earlier than that.
In that manual, it’s on page 21, as part of the “document bar” discussion: “Set spiral length”. In more recent manuals, it seems to be part of the same “document bar” section, though the page numbers vary.
Part of the difficulty may be that the program refers to connecting with and without “easements”, while the discussion of the configuration of the easements themseles is described under “spirals” and “set spiral length”.
On the other hand, one turns off a Windows computer by clicking on the “start” button, so 3rdPlanIt is not the only software with quirks.
Regarding easements and sectional track, for your 90 degree curve, try 22" sections on each end, with an 18" and a 1/2 18" in the center. This provides some easement and ends up as a 20" (or thereabouts) curve. I think this looks better than just a plain 22" curve, and certainly improves on an 18" one.
