New here and back ‘new’ to RR after 20 some years. Thanks to young son I refound my love of all that is trains.
Here are my questions.
In designing phase of an N Scale layout. Planning on two main lines with 20 and 18.75 inch radius turns. I have seen posts about flex track being ‘unable’ to do 18. Is there anything I need to worry about? (Using Atlas Code 55 Flex)
Also, I was planning on 1.5 inches between the two mains. Opinions on that amount of spacing.
Thank you for your time in advance. Plus, I will post my track plan when it is closer to completion for constructive ‘de-construction’.
Paul…you could just buy the sectional pieces of Atlas Code 55 which come in both 18.5" & 20" radius and not have to deal with the flex if you are so inclined. By the time you add ballast, you won’t see much of the specialty ties at the sectional connections anyway.
As far as spacing, I have 1.375" between the track centerlines and don’t have a problem with long passenger cars or TTX double stacks.
A lot of folks dont seem to like using flex, I did some smaller temp layouts with sectional as well as some larger diorama type displays to help my decision process. Plus I got a really great deal on flex and turnouts already.
One thing you can do with flex that no sectional system has duplicated is lay proper spiral easements where your curves straighten out or vice versa. Also, you are planning very generous curves and center-to-center distances - excellent!
I actually model in twice-N scale (1:80) but have used N scale flex on my son’s layout and on a mine scene I once built. I have bent HO gauge flex to as tight as 13 inch radius with no adverse effects and no problems - just be gentle and careful about it. I don’t see N scale flex as any more difficult to lay.
Thanks for the info, I do plan on slight easements and figured I needed the wider radius turns as I will slowly move to body mount couplers on all running stock.
I am using #7 turnouts on the mains and #5 for industrial sidings and the yard.
Thanks again for the info (everyone) and appreaciate any additional input anyone has prior to final design/building.
Welcome back. A bit like me, resting for 20 years or so then getting bitten by the bug.
I just reiterate what Chuck wrote, since he beat me to it. Set track or sectional track does not have easements, or what I call lead in’s. To avoid that toy train lurch into corners. Especially relevant because you intend using all body mounted couplers.
I don’t know what N scale track can curve to, but Peco Code 83 actually has 'minimum radius 18" ’ written in the instructions. I was laying some yesterday and took the unusual step of reading their instructions. If they claim 18" as a minimum it can probably be taken a bit further. But who would want to?
That is irrelevant since you are in N scale. Something I always promote when people ask about track spacing and curves is the NMRA site. They have plenty of standards and recommended practices to give a good guide. Have a look at this http://www.nmra.org/standards/.
Layout builders Dave Methlie, Lou Sassi, Marty McGuirk & Dave Frary routinely use sectional track (some flex) without any accommodation for easements on 4x8 HO layouts and hollow core door N layouts…??
Sorry, I don’t know the guys. Are they commercial layout makers? Possibly they are working to a tight budget. Easements are not essential, but they make operations smoother:
reduce the incidence of derailments, and
give a more realistic appearance for a train going into a curve.
Just a suggestion, not worth arguing over. What might be an idea is to use set track for the desired curve radius, but join in a bit of flex track to make the transition from straight to curve (easement). I used flex track all the way because I did not think of that idea in time.
Anyone who says that there is a problem with 18.00 inch radius curves with flex track is hitting the sauce too early in the morning. Even when I was in HO - back when Custer was a cadet - I had several industrial spurs which went down to 15.00 inch radius or less.
I have several spur/industrial tracks which have less than 10.00 inch radius; PIECE OF CAKE!!! I use Micro Engineering Code 55 flex; I can’t see Atlas Code 55 having any less capabilities.
I suspect the expressed restriction on curves tighter than 18" with some brands of flextrack is that it places too much stress on the plastic componentry below the rails, particularly the tiny plastic “spikes” on the outer fixed rail. At least, their engineering section, such as it is, must have recommended that the restriction be what it is to keep from getting complaints. Also, I suspect that you will have gauge problems the tighter you go.