hoping someone can find me. the MR issue i do believe it was Aug. '08, yes that’s it. Vol. 75 Iss. #8. anywho there was an article in there called “3 Track Plans For A Single Sheet Of Plywood” went from pages 46-49. I’m interested in the one on page 48. it was N scale, 8 x 9 foot U shape, and a freelance layout called the “Housatonic River Ry.” i do believe. either river or valley. they gave a good list of the different buildings used, but no list as to the track, just simply a quickie not on minimum turnouts and curves. i’m wondering if someone can direct me on who to get a hold of to get a more detailed track plan of this layout. i want to pretty much build it as planned, with a few changes here and there so if fits the area i want to model (northern Wisconssin). any help is appreciated. thanks
MR magazine track plan database (open for subscribers to the magazine):
http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=tp&id=93
Look under August 2008 for the track plan.
Smile,
Stein
Umm - wait. You apparently has seen the track plan before, and are looking for “a more detailed track plan” ?
This is about as detailed as they come. What specific information are you looking for ?
Stein, a little confused
well, what curves go where, where the turnouts go, how far bewteen turnouts (like on the switch back it was), how long is the staging, more or less just what pieces of track goes where in relation to the base board. i hate planning this crap cause it never works out, and i don’t have money, nor want spend money, on a computer program that can figure this all out for me. i looked at the wbpage that was put on above but all it did was give me the picture thats in the issue. plus the min curve is 9.5 inches, the only train i plan having that MAY be able to go around that is the NW3 or SW800 switcher i plan on getting.
i guess i should say though that i plan on using code 55 flex track, not sectional.
Unfortunately, there are a number of flaws in that track plan, some introduced by the pointless (to me, anyway) gimmick of having it all cut from one 4X8 sheet. The minimum radius could (and should) be increased significantly. The station trackage at Eastport makes no sense and the staging tracks (about 2 feet useable length) are too short to be practical. There are a few other issues as well, but those are the most serious.
If you have space for this layout as drawn, you can correct these and the other defects, but bear in mind that Atlas Code 55 turnouts will take a skoche more room than what is drawn. PECO small and medium radius C55 turnouts will probably fit more easily.
In general, there will be no more details on these published plans. That’s why they are printed with a 1-foot grid. The idea is that you use that grid to scale from the drawing to the layout. Some people draw a 1-foot grid on their benchwork to make that easier.
Learning a CAD program wouldn’t really make it that much easier to actually build the layout, especially since you’ll probably be using different turnouts from what the author assumed. The trackage is not that tight, you can probably work it out as you build – and as noted, if you are wise you’ll make some changes from the published plan anyway.
Byron
Model RR Blog
hmmm…no i feel dumb. i thought i typed everything. first i’ll say i did eye up the Peco. the loco’s i plan on buying all include RP-25 contour wheels or whatever it is but the descriptions say it works on code 55. i read somewheres that Peco 55 is more like code 80 modified to look like code 55 height, so i planned on just doing that instead of having to go out and spend a bunch of money to buy a bunch of new wheels and possibly trucks to convert on cars. i planned on making more staging, although if i remember right the plan used 10 industries on the rails (not including depots or stations) and i only plan on using about 7. i will add a depot or too, but i don’t plan on having ANY passenger service. i’m modeling late 50’s early 60’s and i know by that time it was starting to dwindle. plus i planned on making only a small town, maybe too with the larger layout. i did plan on putting a river, but i figured i’d make it easier/quicker/cheaper to just put a back drop to hide the staging track and such instead of build up hills and stuff. i planned on putting everything right on the plywood base board not on top of foam base, and just adding some foam hills here and there.
but that was one reason i asked. i didn’t like the 9.5 minimum curve. a GP30 is about the biggest loco i want, and i think it’s Atlas just came out with one not long ago, the product review in MR said it ran 9 3/4 curves minimum so i figured the smallest i’d run would be 11.
i also planned on using Peco because in the walthers catalogue it gives basic geometry of the turnouts. i don’t have the money to go out and by a planning template, so i’m stuck with doing it al myself by making scale templates of curves and using a protractor for angles and a compass for curves and a calculator to figure it all out. pretty sure that’s why i’m startin to go nuts over it all. but thanks for the suggestions, it did definetly help me out. any idea’s about the staging though? i figured i would do
This is going to sound annoying, but consider it anyways : it would be a lot easier to read your text and follow along if you did standard punctuation like capital letters at the start of each sentence and shorter paragraphs.
Obviously - it totally is your call whether you want to make an extra effort to make it easier for people to read what you post or not, but in general you will get more and better answers if your questions are clear and easy to read [:)]
I’ll just skip those sections of your post where I can’t understand what you are asking about.
Good call. You should be able to use 11-12" radius curves on an N scale room sized layout.
I am a little confused about this section. Are we clear on the difference between a “staging track” (which is a piece of track, often hidden behind or beneath something) representing “the rest of the world, outside the modeled area”) and “an industry siding”/spur on the layout, where empties or loads for a specific industry are picked up and/or dropped off ?
How long your stagi
Just checked out the track plan - a few comments.
While it could be a good plan for an operating scheme to be developed later, it seems to have been a purely paper (or CAD-screen) exercise. As such, attempting to build EXACTLY to the published plan will almost certainly prove the well-known truism:
No detailed small scale paper track plan ever survives the first contact between the ties and the table.
I suspect that the designer intended the use of flex track (many different curve radii, some in the 15" range, othes down to 9.5") with standard turnouts (possibly from more than one manufacturer.)
The best way to see what will work is to make templates of the various curves and turnouts and ‘plop’ them on the uncut plywood (possibly supported on a couple of sawhorses, or even kitchen chair backs.) You might discover that it all goes together as designed. You might also discover that improvements suggest themselves, or that the design that looked good on paper is an utter bow-wow when laid out full size.
Above all, be flexible in your planning and execution. If you find something that seems set in stone, call for the drills and dynamite.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - to a track plan like nothing ever published anywhere)
Ooooooh, that was all discouraging. I apoligze about not using proper punctuation. And my spelling, for some reason today it’s a tad off. I was going to say some exscuse but I guess it’s more or less just being lazy. If I miss any ‘x’ letters it’s not my fault, the keyboard I’m using has a sticky ‘x’ and I can’t tell if the key was hit or not. I did realize that I couldn’t follow the plans exaclty, I just wanted a more precise rendering so it would be easier to figure it out. Such as the case with the 9.5 curves. No way am I going to use that tight of a curve, 11 inch minimum. I’m going to end up making one of my own, but I don’t have the planning tools, scaled ruler, template etc. Plus as I’ve come to find out, turn out geometry can range from manufactorer to manufactorer, which makes it harder to figure out. I’m getting to the point where I no longer want to try and figure my own layout, but I also don’t want to end up with 50 layout plan books just to find a few that I might like enough to use. Along with that, I’ve also been warned and heard plenty of forewarnings because of the very thing that was mentioned here, alot of book plans are NOT good layout plans. It’s just discouraging. But I’m not looking for total prototypical compliance, such as the one switch back in the plan I am talking about. I know this would be avoided in real life, but I think I like the challenge enough of switching such as to incorporate it into my plans. I have decided too make life a little easier and draw up my layout plans in sections, such as splitting my U-shape idea into 3 or 4 sections. It will make the layout scale larger and easier to measure out once it comes time to build it, and just plain ole easier to draw up.
As for one of the things that seems to be confusing, I was referring to the “staging” area at the back. Someone posted on here, if i remember correctly, that if I did stick to the plan as is it would only be like 2 feet long. I realized after reading the responses that as
[quote user=“MILW-RODR”]
hmmm…no i feel dumb. i thought i typed everything. first i’ll say i did eye up the Peco. the loco’s i plan on buying all include RP-25 contour wheels or whatever it is but the descriptions say it works on code 55. i read somewheres that Peco 55 is more like code 80 modified to look like code 55 height, so i planned on just doing that instead of having to go out and spend a bunch of money to buy a bunch of new wheels and possibly trucks to convert on cars. i planned on making more staging, although if i remember right the plan used 10 industries on the rails (not including depots or stations) and i only plan on using about 7. i will add a depot or too, but i don’t plan on having ANY passenger service. i’m modeling late 50’s early 60’s and i know by that time it was starting to dwindle. plus i planned on making only a small town, maybe too with the larger layout. i did plan on putting a river, but i figured i’d make it easier/quicker/cheaper to just put a back drop to hide the staging track and such instead of build up hills and stuff. i planned on putting everything right on the plywood base board not on top of foam base, and just adding some foam hills here and there.
but that was one reason i asked. i didn’t like the 9.5 minimum curve. a GP30 is about the biggest loco i want, and i think it’s Atlas just came out with one not long ago, the product review in MR said it ran 9 3/4 curves minimum so i figured the smallest i’d run would be 11.
i also planned on using Peco because in the walthers catalogue it gives basic geometry of the turnouts. i don’t have the money to go out and by a planning template, so i’m stuck with doing it al myself by making scale templates of curves and using a protractor for angles and a compass for curves and a calculator to figure it all out. pretty sure that’s why i’m startin to go nuts over it all. but thanks for the suggestions, it did definetly help me out. any idea’s about the staging though? i figured i would do essentially 1 lon
One word of warning. I built the second one, I think it was the second one. The one with the duck under in HO. Or should I say I tried. It did not fit. I carefully laid out the track and measured off of their grid etc. Very carefully. When all the track was laid, well most anyway, until I got to the point where I said, this won’t work. I realized there would be no room for the so called industries. When they laid out the plan they obviously didn’t take into consideration track width and width between track. And if they did, I don’t know how they got a minimum radius of 24 inches as claimed when the space shown for a 180 is about 40 inches? at least it’s WAY less that 48" It looked good on paper for an expansion plan, but when I laid the track to the board as was said earlier, it just didn’t work. If they claim it was me, I challenge MRR to make that layout AS SHOWN and show me. Earlier someone suggested making a template before you lay track. It may not be an issue for that plan in N scale. If you have your heart set on that track plan, be advised you just may have to alter it. But then again for me it wasn’t a big issue just a smug look and a “I’ll never build a track plan per plan again” You will probably want to change something anyway. For me that was way to busy (track packed) for an expansion. IMHO.
Todd