I recently read “Track Planning for Realistic Operation” on the advice of many of you here. Thank you, all, for the recommendation. It was a great read and I learned a lot.
So to my question: in reading the book I noted the way Mr. Armstrong suggests laying out a model-sized drawing, particularly turnouts. The math was not beyond my capabilities but until I’ve had the chance to actually do it once, the concepts really just make my head hurt. So, how much “wriggle room” do you typically assume in laying track? I can see that certain things must be defined first, like tracks that will fit snugly into a corner, and I will have to make absolutely certain to allow for zero tolerance for error there.
But beyond things lik that, to what degree do I have to go nuts with exacting measurements, or can I put the track down (without glue!!) based on an “idea”? It seems like there will be some fudge factor to allow me to ignore the differences between what’s on paper and what I might end up with when using flextrack.
If you could share some general advice / life experience on the topic it would be much appreciated.
I think there are as many schools of thought here as there are model railroaders. Some people will build benchwork, and just start laying track. Some won’t do a thing until everyting is on paper. And there are people at every point in between.
One thing we have now that John Armstrong did not have (at least through most of his design career) is software to help us out. I recommend XTrkCad http://www.xtrkcad.org , it has a little bit of a learning curve, but a decent tutorial, and it is free. With this, or another package, you can e pretty sure that what you lay out will fit. I like to have it on paper and picture it there before I try to build it, so this works sell for me.
One concept that Armstrong uses that can be useful in the early stages is the squares method. If you use it, believe it, and don’t try to heat on it, it should tell you what will fit. If you are trying yo handdraw, you have to be really careful with turnouts, since little errors in angles can turn into big errors on the layout.
I drew my layout with a ruler and a compass and some large size graph paper. It was a LOT easier than the layout software (I tried and got nowhere with it, you need to take a class to learn how to use it). Anyway, what you are doing is drawing tangents. For turnouts you need a protactor so you come out at the correct degrees (just buy a turnout like you are going to use and scale it down). I used a french curve to draw the lead ins to my wide curves.
[#ditto] An evening or two with ruler, compass, and graph paper, plus a calculator to do your scale conversions from the real layout space to the paper, is what works for me. Don’t forget to calculate your grades with transitions in and out to get a realistic idea of where you will eventually get the minimum overhead clearances you need when track crosses over itself, as in a folded loop.
Before the discussion turns toward hand-drawing vs. CAD, I’m using CAD software for drawings, but my question really relates to transferring from paper 1" to 1" scale wood and nails. Thanks!
I enlarged my plan to a legal sized page, then printed it out. I can get close enough with that. I’ve known others who blow up the plan to full size and lay the plan out on the benchwork, lay the track on top of it, then take out the paper afterwards.
My “planning” consists of using the Armstrong “squares” to roughly locate the main track(s), followed by a full-size mockup using bent flex (to which you might want to add either real turnouts or, better yet, paper templates made by photocopying real turnouts - I handlay all my specialwork, so turnout geometry isn’t one of my big issues.) I do the “creative flopping” on cardstock, then mark all my tie lines and cut out a full-size tracklaying template.
By carefully measuring the real situation and laying it out full size I avoid scaling errors. If I have a question about clearances I can put my long passenger cars and wide-swinging locos on real rails and find out if they can pass safely. Also, I never
UMMM, why go to all the trouble of planning it out with CAD software if one is not going to follow the measurements it indicates? I mean, one of the primary purposes of flex track is so one can “follow the plan” with it. Usually, what you are describing is an issue if one is using sectional track. Is there something you know you fudged in the CAD? Did you not use standard commercially available turnout templates in the CAD design process? That is where I could imagine some fudge factor need would come up.
On the other hand, if one wants to ‘just put the track down based on an “idea”’ why wasn’t that done from the start?
Thanks for orienting us to your needs…I now understand you better, Gazoo. So, what I did, twice now, was to outline everything on the floor, rug, whatever you stand on, using 1" masking tape. I outlined the bench confines, the part that would show the scenery and track plan, and then I bent and curved and angled sections/strips of tape using a trammel or string and pin to generate the curves and a measuring tape to get all the relative positions right. When I was done, about an hour’s worth if I didn’t screw something up, I could stand back and see for myself if it was all going to work. Mind you, you still have to think and visualize in 3-D for places where there are grades and overpasses, or where there are multiple levels of track running parallel to each other.
I started out printing the 1:1 output from XTrkCad, and transferring it to bechwork. Lately, I’ve been gluing it down to the roadbed. With the registration marks printed I can get things lined up pretty well. Any little offsets seem to get smoothed over with flextrack.
I flop the Kato Track down and find room for the Woodland Scenics risers as necessary. Ive spent the last 30 years with a nose in books, paper, graph papers, pencils and compasses. Moving up and deeper into computer programs to design track… whew.
I might have to demo that closet to finish the construction at some point in the future. That’s for another day. Cant do that without finding room for a new closet =)
I like having the design on the computer, but hate the complications of xtrackcad. Therefore, I have used the CAD software to give me close approximations of how broad curves will be and how things will fit together, but I actually make no attempt to use the “connect” features. It’s almost literally just one piece of track laid down next to the other, and actual turnouts used to show the angles.
Yes, it’s just that simple things like connecting 2 tracks that are 1/8th of an inch apart and, as best as my eye can see, are perfectly aligned would sometimes take 15 minutes. Drove me insane. I just wanted to move on.
I happily did not have that experience, and managed this:
I wish I could see exactly what is causing the trouble. I can’t figure how to answer the question of how much wiggle room there is, I think you have to do the design conservatively , and if things work out better than you though, be happy! I’d start by laying out the things with the least tolerance, and work out.
