I have had bad luck making a plan in a book actually fit the size of table called for in the plan. Where a #4 or #6 is specified, it doesn’t fit where it is supposed to go.
I now have another layout to begin anew and want to be sure BEFORE I build the table and benchwork. What is a good way to do this? I am in a wheelchair so I cannot lay it out on the floor. The layout is the HOG RR and is essentially a square donut 8’ X 8’ and is only 12" wide. The plan specifys 5 tracks across 12" in one area.
This is one of the frustrating things about model railroading – many published plans do not fit as drawn. One of the best ways to be sure what will fit in real life is to use Xeroxed templates of real turnouts and lay them out on the floor or the benchwork.
Assuming HO, 5 tracks across a 12" space doesn’t leave sufficient “buffer zone” at each edge of the benchwork, in my opinion, but it does fit with a 2" track-to-track spacing.
There’s certainly no reason one couldn’t make one of the sections wider to accommodate this area better. Sections around a central access space has always been a viable idea and I’m glad the HOGRR guys are promoting this long-standing layout concept. But I think it’s a shame they didn’t allow the different sections to vary in width to better fit the layout. That would have really illustrated the flexibility.
Bruce, would there be a yahoo group that deals with this layout…it seems there are so many specific ones, maybe it exists for this layout. But how about contacting someone at the website for HOG and asking them for what they use…it’s worth a contact attempt if they can assure you of the requirements.
One of the first problems encountered with both drawing and building a track plan is that turnouts vary in their actual geometry from manufacturer to manufacturer (and sometimes over time with a given manufacturer). There is no way a Fast Tracks #4 will fit identically to an Atlas #4 or a Shinohara #4. All 3 #4s are built to significantly different specs and geometry for good reasons in the makers’ eyes. The Atlas #4 is actually a 4.5 so that it fits in better with their 22" radius Snap Track. The straight path is 9" long on the #4, not because it’s needed, but because it becomes a drop-in replacement for a 9" piece of straight Snap Track. Similarly, the Atlas #6 has a 12" long straight path for easier planning than if the straight path were 10.82" (designed before computer-based track planning existed). Fast Tracks jigs are based on straight NMRA RP geometry, with no concessions for the 16" closure rail radius of a NMRA RP #4 turnout. Shinohara lenghtens the distance between the throwbar and the frog to avoid such a tight radius for a #4. Of interest is that the various #6s are much closer to each other than the #4s, except for the length of straight track at the 3 ends.
To add to the confusion, too many who should know better call an Atlas Snap Switch a “#4 turnout”. the Snap Switch’s real geometry is a 20 degree arc of 18" radius for the curved path - that starts 1.5" in from the end of the turnout. The straight path is a 9" straight, the same as the Custom Line #4.
Most older track plans were drawn with NMRA RP spec turnouts for their geometry - and that assumes they were accurately measured and scaled during drawing to begin with. Atlas turnouts will take more space than their NMRA counterparts, and will force the plan not to fit in the advertised space.
If a plan is drawn using a software package, it is important to kn
The HOG design is a bit of a gimmick in that it was designed to use only one sheet of plywood. But if you want to actually build it, I would suggest you use two sheets of plywood cut into 2’x8’ pieces. You can arrange these in a 10’x10’ square. This will provide more width for scenery and relieve fitting problems for the brand of turnouts you use and the multi track areas.
Exactly right. It’s a shame people don’t let these more-flexible layout ideas really show off their benefits by adding another sheet of ply or a couple of pre-cut 2X4 “Handy Panels” of plywood. The extra cost is minimal in the overall scheme of things and the benefits are great.
Thanks everyone and to Paul and Byron, I do plan to increase the size of the “shelf”. At least on the three sides that are not against the wall. There I will stick to the twelve inches or so to allow me to reach everything. Only problem there is so;dering feeders on the far side. Might get some help there.