I am a novice and need help to understand an HO track layout published in ModelRailroader in June, 2008. It was entitled “Montreal Harbour Railway.” This is a 9x11 layout that calls for 33" curves down to 24". I need to know if these large radius curves are available. Could I use flex track? Is there a tool that assures true curves?
Thanks for any resonses.
Tertullian
I would suggest using flex track and lay out the curves using a pencil and trammel bar (a wood stick with holes for the pencil and a nail that are spaced exactly 33" or whatever radius you are working with). An old wood yard stick works really well for this, and it has the dimensions already marked on it. When you have the radius marked on your sub-roadbed (plywood or other wood surface), then glue the cork roadbed along the pencil lines, centered on the line. There are a few good books available that show how to do this. I would recommend picking one or two up and read them, they are very helpful. Model Railroader publishes many of these helpful books. Good luck, I am just designing my first layout in over 20 years, and will be doing just this in a few weeks.
Unless the article specifically says so, the plans published in magazines like Model Railroader generally assume they will not be built with sectional track. Sectional track is too limiting. However, in the sectional track world Bachmann EZ-track has large radius curves. The problem with EZ-Track will be things like the three-way and curved turnouts. Notice this article specifically mentions some Peco small and Peco curved turnouts.
That is the major assumption except for those who prefer hand laying.
Yes, there are all sorts of in-track curve gauges. I have found that a yard stick with a nail at the 1" mark and a pencil in a hole at the 34" mark makes a really good 33" radius curve. Just put the centerline of the track right along that mark.
With a 33" radius curve, you will likely have two pieces of flex (or more) for any given curve. Watch out for “kinks” in the curve where two pieces of flex joint. Soldering pieces of flex before bending them will help keep the curve smooth at the transition between the two pieces of track.
Thanks for the help. I received 3 responses. Two suggested the yardstick method and all three were helpful.
Tertullian
This plan has come up before in this forum.
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/128274.aspx
Unfortunately, there are a number of issues with this plan. It’s a shame that MR publishes some of these plans without at least mentioning some of the flaws. It implies a level of suitability that is not always present.
Here’s what I wrote about it in the previous thread:
This plan has a few things going for it, but overall, I think there are quite a few concerns. On the positive side, there is staging, the use of large industries, a fairly large yard, and calling-out specific track components would help someone to build it.
In terms of concerns, the plan does not go very far in exploiting these positives, in my opinion. One of the spurs is only about 4 1/2 inches long when one considers clearance from the adjacent track. That’s a single 30’ car in HO, and the plan requires a turnout and a crossing to reach it. This is just one of the multiple examples where the trackwork seems overly complex for the operating interest it provides.
The large industries seem to have very short tracks to serve them – and only one track each, for the most part. Not very realistic, in my view. Real-life railroading is driven by large industries which receive many cars each shift, often on multiple tracks.
The single Molson Brewery spur holds about four 34’ boxcars total. The large Canadian Rubber Company complex gets by with even fewer. And because those two spurs are connected with the CPR interchange track in an extremely unrealistic switchback configuration, one might have to empty cars from Molson and CPR just to get a couple of cars out of Canadian Rubber. In some cases, it a