I downloaded the freeware version of Right Track from the Atlas website. I tried putting in some classic Atlas sectional track plans from their books, but the connections don’t line up. Anyone have a similar problem, and hopefully a solution?
Kurt Laughlin
Did you use the same turnouts as the plans? I know there are lots of turnout options on that software and it would be easy to get the wrong ones. I think most of the plans use the snap turnouts, but you’d do a lot better if you’d switch them out for custom lines and make the appropriate changes to make it work.
Similar problem but no solution. I was using the N-scale Code 80 track module. Main difficulty I had was misalignment at 90-degree crossing. The database didn’t include the full crossing piece, just the truncated/trimmed piece.
You can join things up using flex track and just know that you won’t have to do that on the real thing.
These ones use #4s and #6s. I even tried using Snap Track vs Code 83, and you can still see where joints are misaligned. It looks like 1/3 and 1/2 curves cause the most problems.
KL
I’m sorry but I don’t know then. I just started playing with the HO part of the software. I model in N scale and the code 55 software (what I use) doesn’t seem to have these glitches. I also don’t copy plans out of books. I create my own designs. That way I can get exactly what I want and make it fit my space perfectly. Have you given any thought to that? There are a lot of people here who could help you with that. Heck, I’d even be willing to chip in on that.
That’s what I was going to do. There are a couple of nice shelf switcher layouts by John Armstrong in those books, and I was going to start by tweaking them. However, given that the software isn’t working, I might be left cutting paper templates. . .
KL
You might try this;
It’s free, and it’s much more exacting. It’s a little harder to learn, but if you do the tutorial you’ll get the hang of it. Just make sure you register it (also free) or you won’t be able to do anything more then a 4x8. Register it and you have free reign.
Kurt,
I had a similar problem a while back. Someone explained that the Atlas “printed” plans have a certain amount of “slop” added to them so that they won’t necessarily come out exact using Atlas RTS. Flex-track will take care of those issues. v. 7.0 now has a flex-track “optimizer” that figures out the optimum radius between pieces of track.
Tom
I use the RTS solely on all my designs. I have gone and taken two different layouts from the old atlas book i have and I used the software and they lined up just fine.
I did the layout 10002, and 10007. 10002 is what i based my layout on actually, I then took the finished plan and then tweeked it to my liking.
what one are you trying to do, I could try it and see if i can get it to work.
I have an issue with the flex track part though, I dont trust the “radius” it lists. I took two 9" straights, connected them with 3 full 18" radi curves, took out the curves then connected the two straights with flex track, hit optimize and it told me that the min radius was 9.6" its listing the radi as half of what it should be. thought that was odd.
but it works well anyhow.
Interesting,…I’ll have to check that out.
Similar problem. In my case I had the wrong code. If you are trying code 83…try code 100. Good luck…JIM
I tried “The Southside Connecting”; Railroad C from 1958’s “Six HO Railroads You Can Build”. It’s also Layout HO-26 from “Seven Step-by-Step HO Railroads” (2001).
I did notice one thing doing some figuring today. In the lower left of this layout there is a triangular area formed by: #4 - 1/2-18 out - 30-deg X - 1/3-18 in - #6 and some straights. If you add up all the included angles (12.5 +15 + 150 - 10 + 9.5), I think you should get 180, but this only totals 177. I notice that the templates in the 1958 book list the #6 at 10 degrees rather than the accepted 9-1/2 or the actual 9.46. Maybe J. A. didn’t have it perfect after all?
I agree that cutting flex track could solve the problem - and would be what I’d use rather than five sections end-to-end - but it still leaves a problem of dropping the Xs and turnouts in the right place.
I’ll try one of the ovals and report back how that goes.
KL
Supposedly that shouldn’t make a difference. I checked two turnouts at the hobby shop and the 83 and 100 are the same. Plus, the Atlas catalog says they should be interchangeable.
KL
Well, the “Simplicity & Great Plains” 4 x 6 oval didn’t work either. I was able to get it sorted out by replacing just about everything except turnouts with flex track. I also had the same problem the other feller reported, namely the optimized min radius is slightly larger than half what it really is.
Weird.
KL
Ok, here it is. Since RTS version 3.0 there has been a problem with the 1/3 18" radius piece of track. They knew about the problem way back then, I don’t know why they haven’t fixed it. The issue with this particular layout it uses so many of that particular piece it is pretty out of whack. But just don’t really join some of the 1/3 18" pieces and it isn’t too bad at all.
Of course the 1/3 18" radius curves are flaky in real life too. I’ve never gotten them to work like they are supposedly designed. I usually throw them away and use flex track.
Thanks TZ, I’ll try that. I thought it might be the #4 turnouts but the partial curves were my next guess.
KL
