I recently decided to semi defect from O to HO so please don’t tell those guys. I am planning a pretty simple 4X8 layout with two loops connected by a double crossover so I can run two trains at once. My delemma is that I don’t know what trak to go with but I do know Kato and Bachmann are out due to the plastic road bed that I don’t care for. I am leaning towards the Atlas code 83 but have come to realize I don’t know what radius turns I need. The layout won’t be complex just the loops and maybe a couple branches. I found some really nice vintage accessories to go with it but the track thing has me wondering if I will be making the right choice. There is a lot more choices for track here than O gaige. I know helping out newbies gets old but it’s appreciated.
If you’re going to go with Atlas sectional track on a 4’ by 8’ layout, you’ll probably be looking at 18" and 22" radius track pieces. Atlas now offers both 18" and 22" radius sectional track turnouts. The 22" radius curves will create a loop with the track centerline 2 inches from the front and rear edges of the 4’ by 8’ layout. The outer loop could also be made using 18" radius curves combined with straight sections to form a more rectangular loop. The 18" radius curves will form a loop that will easily fit inside the larger loop. Connecting the two loops with a double crossover shouldn’t be too much of a problem.
Running trains around in circles can lose its charm quickly. Take a look at the many 4’ by 8’ track plans that have been published in MR over the last few years. Many offer an amazing amount of railroading potential. Building one of these track plans and investing in a starter DCC system would offer far more entertainment and layout longevity than a couple of simple loops.
My suggestion would be to use Atlas, Peco, or Walthers/Shinohara flex track instead of sectional track. The fewer rail joints you have the fewer electrical problems there will be to contend with.
Atlas flex track comes in U.S. 3-foot lengths; Peco in 39.5 inch meter lengths. I think Shinohara also comes in meter lengths.
The most common roadbed choices are cork or Woodland Scenics foam.
Flex track allows you to make your own curves instead of trying to figure out which sectional track will fit a particular area.
A little background. I spent nearly 20 years enjoying 3 rail O. I started in HO, but switched when the kids came along. As the kids got older, and had no interest in the trains, I realized that I was ready for more than just running trains around loops, and watching animated accessories do their thing. So about 10 years ago, I switched to HO and HOn3. At first, I still thought like I was still in O gauge. My layout designs were 4x8s and similar with extensions to enhance the basic oval.
But as I came to embrace modeling what a real railroad in my imaginary world would have been like instead of copying other model railroads, I warmed up to different kinds of operations and types of layouts. Shelf switching layouts, micro-layouts, and eventually modular railroading grew in favor instead of baisc oval operations.
I gave serious consideration to a 3 rail O/On30 combined layout, but realized that wouldn’t satisfy in the long run due to lack of realism.
The reason I bring this up is that it sounds like you are trying to duplicate in HO what you have already done in O. If so, why invest in the change of scale?
To answer your question, Atlas track has become the normal standard. Code 83 has pretty much replaced code 100 unless you have a reason to use code 100 - such as used code 100 in hand or available at a very good price. For a 4x8 layout, I would recommend Snap Track for the curves, #4 Custom-Line turnouts, and substitute flex track for the straight track and small fitter pieces (less than 6" long). Your maximum radius is going to be 22" - a 22" radius loop will be 44" a
My initial reaction is to suggest you think again about the two loops (presumably 22" radius for the outer one, 18" radius for the inner one) because in practical reality you will be using up quite a bit of real estate for those crossovers, even if you assume one track is always east bound and the other one is west bound.
Those will come at the expense of places where you could have turnouts for local industries, and will also very much fill up your plywood with track. Also, while to your “O scale eyes” it may seem that you have a ton of space for HO on a 4x8, it really won’t seem all that spacious once you get the track down and the trains running. It would be no easy task to actually run two trains on those two loops and have them DO anything more interesting then just run round and round.
My own suggestion would be an outer loop with 22" radius (which by the way is rather tight in HO and some really big stuff may not run on it) and have some sort of of industrial area in the middle. That way you could have a switcher be busy with the industrial area and the other train running on the oval. You would not want the switcher to need the main line to do its work.
It is a long time since I have looked at any of the popular layout plan books so I have no advice to give on that front. But I would suggest trying hard to actually visualize how you’d run trains on any layout plan you settle on or design, even if it means making a sort of game board layout and cutting out pieces of varied color post it notes to represent locomotives and cars and move them around.
Nah, helping out newbies never gets old, but you ain’t no newbie, what with 350 posts to your credit.
Glad you came over from the dark side, but watch your back, they have spies planted over here. [(-D]
With a 4’ x 8’ layout planned, you are pretty much bound to use 22" radius curves, so just use the Atlas Code 83 sectional track with the 22" radius curved track.
I will make this suggestion. Seriously consider a starter DCC system to power your HO scale layout. That way, you get around using DC to power the tracks by using DCC to power the locos. Then, you can run as many locos as you choose, at different speeds, and without concerns for isolating the two loops from one another.
I’ll second (or whatever) the idea of a single loop with an industrial switching area off one side. I would also add that you should put in a scenic divider to separate the sides of your layout. It makes the train go somewhere, because it goes out of sight. I would not put it in the center and if you put it at a slight angle, it disguises it better. Have it just high enough so that you can’t see over it to see what the trains are doing. Hiding that the train is just going around the end of the backdrop can be hidden by a bridge., tunnel entrance, rock cut, clump of trees or large industrial building.
On the narrow side (away from the industrial area) have a passing siding and possibly one stub siding serving an industry, sand pit, quarry or some such. Even on my 4’x6’ layout, I have a passing siding and can run trains in opposite directions or surprise a visitor, when a different train appears than the one they expected to come circling around again.
Fred, actually I don’t want to duplicate what I have done in O at all as the accessories for my HO layout are totally different than my O and a lot easier to hook up (have you ever tried to connect a MTH accessory?). I don’t have a lot of room or money mostly money so I want to maximize what I can build at a reasonable cost. I enjoy the O gauge trains I have and I have a lot but I love passenger trains and even on a 5X12 layout you can only run about 5 cars max. I am keeping the O gauge trains setup this will be in addition to them that is why I am limited to 4X8. I will just start with two basic inter connected loops and build from there so I am not going in circles because that is boring I will agree. I have been able to obtain a nice amount of really nice accessories and things at 1/10 the cost of O. We also have to hobby stores here that just have great prices on HO stuff constantly so it should remain affordable as long as they are opened.
The census here is that I should go with code 83 sectional and flex track so I guess I am headed in the right direction there. I will eventually get to DCC but I need to get a decent layout together first and then I will head in that direction. I enjoy DCS in O so that was always in the plans. Thanks to everyone here for the great advice.
It seems HO and O are two different worlds and I have been camping in the O world for 40 years so it’s time to see what the other side is about for the next 40 years.
If you’d like to run passenger trains on your HO scale layout, you might be well-advised to build wider than 4 feet so that the radius of your loops may be broader.
Even though the scale is smaller, HO passenger cars (at least the full-length ones) often require curves broader than the 18" to 22" radius possible on a 4X8 sheet. A 5-foot-wide HO layout will allow for a double-oval with radii of up to perhaps 27" and 24.5".
I would love to go 5X8 or 10 but I don’t have the room due to the O gauge layout. My biggest osbticale right now is finding track. All I mean all the local trainshops down here in So Cal are short on everything. There is not one shop that has everything I need. I contacted Atlas and they stated they had shipped most of the out of stock items with the remainder shipping at the end of this month. I don’t know who is full of it my LHS’s or Atlas and the internet sites are in the same boat. It’s impossible for me to drive over 200 square miles to go to the different shops so I am holding out until one of them gets 90% of the stuff I need in. I would order from several sources on the net but paying shipping to several different places is not cost effective. I may have picked a bad time to join in with the HO crowd. There is absolutely no code 83 22" or 24" curves available here. If anyone knows a website that has code 83 switches and curves in stock I would be happy to hear from anyone.
Flex track is not that hard to use and is available.
By the way, if you are planning concentric ovals, 22" and 24" will be too close together for longer cars to pass each other. And 24" radius won’t fit on a 4X8. HO scale track is measured to the center of the curve (unlike O Gauge, which is an outside diameter).
As recommended by the NMRA, 2.5" difference between radii on concentric curves would be a safer choice at those tighter radii. Or you will need to offset your ovals so that there is at least 2.5" difference between track centers at the closest point between curved tracks.
I would also second Byron’s advise on using Flex Track. I would use the Flex with Peco switches. I find the Peco switches to be better made than Atlas. Peco also comes in more variety including curved. You could easily mix Peco switches with Atlas flex. Both these items are available in quantity and reasonable prices at the big on line stores.
To the poster who asked, Yes, Atlas makes 24" radius track in Code 83 . Edit: Byron H corrected me, its also in Code 100.
You’re not defecting; just exploring. I model in O, HO, and N and enjoy the merits and challenges of each scale. After much research, bad Atlas turnouts and the like, my HO modules are all PECO, my N scale 4x8 pike is all Kato Unitrack, and of course, the 15x21 Lionel layout is all Fastrack.
Buy the best quality when it comes to track. Problem free track is worth it!
Code 83 was July 1999. Code 100 was July 2009. Well that is when it was added to the catalog. The actual manufacture and availability might have been varied.