Questions about sectional track, rail joiners, and scale discrepancy

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
1

Hi gents/ladies,

I’ve finally reached the point with my “layout-in-a-box” where I can start laying track. (In case you didn’t see my first post here, I’m building Woodland Scenics’ Scenic Ridge using Atlas code 80 snap track)

I’ve been looking forward to this but it’s turning out to be a pain in the you-know-what.

First off, rail joiners doth truly sucketh. They come 4 to a strip, which need to be cut off and nipped if they’re too long to allow the ends of the rails to butt together. Tedious at best, and installation is the same, but painful. Darn things tend to poke right into your finger!

And most of them wind up fitting very loosely!

I ruined a few in an attempt to tighten things up by squeezing them more “closed” before installation, or by crimping them down after.

Just how tight do they need to be?

On that note…After getting all the track down something isn’t right. I assumed it would all follow the centerline of the foam risers, and it does in some areas but not in others-Especially if I make sure the rail ends are butted together completely. If I force sections close to center it opens gaps.

I don’t suppose being off center is a big deal in areas other than where clearances may be tight, like tunnel entrances, but should I be concerned about the gaps? Is that normal with sectional track?

Lastly, I’ve been trying to figure out how to determine scale for landscaping, but again something isn’t right. For example, let’s say I want to model the Matterhorn. That little molehill is 14,692’, which equates to 102’ when converted to 1/144 scale unless my math is off. Obviously that’s one mighty heap of plaster of paris to fit onto my little 3x6 layout.

Things seem better when lesser distances are calculated, for example a 20’ cliff works out to .14" @ 1/144, so I’m guessing some f

2

Yes, certain scenic items are done to a scale that looks right, rather than is exact in scale. Another thing to note though on your Matterhorn example. That elevation is to sea level. In comparison to the terrain around it, it isn’t as towering. Something to keep in mind as you make your scale Alps.

3

Welcome to the world of model railroading.

Your experience with rail joiners is somewhat typical. I use Xuron rail cutters to close clip the individual joiners being careful to remove the flash between joiners. For the most part, the joiners should provide a tight fit. If not, toss the loose ones. It is simply too difficult to squeeze them tighter without making them so tight that you cannot fit them on the ends of the rails.

As far as the sectional track is concerned, give flex track a try. Replace those 9" sections with 36" sections. Easier to shape without rail gaps and a lot less rail joiners required.

Rich

4

This is one of the basic skills you will need to develope as you lay track and in the future possibly build a bigger layout.

Perhaps this is where having a set of basic tools will greatly reduce your frustration assuming you remain in the hobby.

Yes, all the Atlas rail joiners I’ve bought come in strips of 4, and it is a matter of routine for me to use a wire stripper which has a cutter on the end that works perfect to snip them apart.

I find I often have to gently squeeze rail joiners with a pair of needle nose plyers if they don’t fit snugly. You want a fairly snug fit if you want a reliable electrical connection between rail, and I assure you, you do want that. You’ll get the hang of it with a little practice.

As for poking your fingers, while laying the yard in the photo below, I’m done any number of minor injuries to my fingers.

FYI, there is a little triangular tool you can buy which helps you put rail joiners onto rail which could save you some injury. See the link below (I may have to get me one for a layout I am planning next after moving)

https://www.trainsetsonly.com/page/TSO/PROD/150-401?gclid=CjwKCAjwiurXBRAnEiwAk2GFZjx66shjwVDTWa19Umto4P7qyQ_epOFE1Ubxiq6pwBMeORQCZtdnehoCB7YQAvD_BwE

[quot

5

It never occurred to me that I could or should measure my landscaping for scale.

I’m not modeling the Grand Tetons for the NPS Visitors Center, I’m building a mountain that appears big enough to have a tunnel. Some people landscape to the ceiling, and the look is dramatic, but I’m not interested it doing that. Good enough works.

6

Yes, all you can do is try to create an illusion of a larger landscape. One of the most effective ways to do that is with a well done back drop. Perhaps Rob Spangler can post a photo of some of his most excellent work, which allows a narrow seen to appear to have distance to it.

In my current layout design, to fit what I wanted in the space, I have a narrow benchwork only 18-inches wide and will need to run a mainline through it on each side of a backdrop - so the space will only be 9 inches wide. See track plan upper left below the stairs.

But with a scene behind it, it can be made to look more than acceptable. David Barrow did that on his Cat Mountain and Santa Fe with some long linear scenes with low hills painted in the back ground, although the scenes were wider than 9 inches, the concept is still there.

One of the techniques used if you paint your own is to use brighter colors in the for front and faded, hazy features in the painting for distance, just like real life.

So if you want to do a European layout with the Matterhorn in it, don’t make a real mountain with plaster because you could never do that, ever. But if you painted a Matterhorn in the distance or background, you can achieve something far better than trying to make a real mountain which would never do in HO or even N.

7

If you have gaps in your tracks, you are setting yourself up for derailments. Worse, the kinks in the tracks where you are trying to make things work will also be a source of trouble.

The idea of using flex track here or there to correct inconsistencies is a good one. One piece of flex can replace 4 pieces of 9" track and can fit perfectly on your centerline.

Take your time laying the track. Unlike other parts of your layout you want your trackwork perfect. Nothing is more discouraging than having to get up and fix your train if it derails every other time it crosses some part of the track. And if the derail is in a tunnel…

8

Hey, Gimme, if you are modeling in HO scale then I dont understand the 1/144 that you describe. HO is is 1/87, so the scale Matterhorn, for example, would be 168.9 ft high.

As for your rail joiner issues, welcome to the club.

9

Hello all,

Where did you get the OP models in HO?

Atlas Code 80 is N Scale.

Hope this helps.

10

The Woodland Scenic’s Scenic Ridge, is an N scale layout.

I think this has been talked about in here before, in other threads about track plans, and sectional track, but N scale or HO scale track plans, all seem to need some tweaking to the track work to get the layout to come together.

As long as the rail joiners are tight, your going to end up with slight gaps here and there to make it all fit.

Mike.

11

If you are not using the specific track set for that layout kit, but instead a collection of separately acquired components, it won’t fit as intended. That may explain some of the gaps, misalignments, and other discrepancies you are discovering.

Because of the limitations of sectional track, there are often some minor issues in alignment in published plans. But it’s best to minimize gaps and kinks for reliability. Sometimes one can “spring” curved sections slightly in or out to minimize a gap or kink elsewhere.

Soldering track connections helps both with keeping the pieces together and with electrical continuity. As others have noted, most experienced folks use flextrack to minimize joints and to ease misalignments.

Good luck with your layout.

Byron

12

Oopsie, I posted in haste.

13

I suspect the OP is in Britain (or on the Continent?) where “N scale” is 1:144 scale, not 1:160. Kinda like how in the US “O scale” is 1:48, but it’s 1:43.5 in the U.K. and Europe. (The correct scale is 1:45 by the way.)

I notice the Woodland Scenics website has an “updated” track plan for the Scenic Ridge layout, and notes it is different than what is marked on the foam base. I suspect that may be where the problem lies??

https://woodlandscenics.woodlandscenics.com/images/instructionsNew/ST1482trackplan.pdf

Generally, it’s best to get the track down first, then do the scenery, risers etc. Kinda build the layout around the track.

As far as having trouble with track staying together, I would suggest looking into using (c’mon everybody, you know where I’m going - let’s all say it together)

KATO UNITRACK!! [:P]

http://www.katousa.com/N/unitrack.html

14

Having some kinks can be essential to avoid warps in warm weather conditions (due to expansion). But keep theser in straight sections and within 1/16". For the joiners, I use a dremel and cut them in half. This avoids the crunch created by pliers… I should mention that I model HO, the dremel might not work on N scale.

Simon

15

Might be helpful to keep the terminology standard. Gaps are necessary. Kinks (misalignments) are not ever good.

16

One of the things I’ve always hated about public forums is receiving condescending responses from more experienced members looking down their noses.

That doesn’t happen here. Thank you all for your very thoughtful replys!

After roughly an hour of cutting joiners and piecing track together I swore I’d use flex track on my next layout, and I will, but as I apparently got a smoking deal on this I’d like to use what I have rather than replacing everything-for me this is really a training excercise, kind of a practice run.

Having said that, I wouldn’t mind replacing the turnouts…the switch machines(?) look really huge, completely unrealistic, and I’m just not sure how to hide them. I like the idea of ground throws but from what I’ve read the few commercially available units are just too big.

Anyway, to clarify I am using the ‘track pack’ designed for this layout, following the updated plan. It just seems odd to me that it could be so far off…If I make sure all rail ends are solidly against each other certain sections hang right off the risers! (mainly in the tunnel area of course [^o)])

I’ve gone over it several times, thinking maybe I put piece “A” where piece “B” should have gone, but I haven’t found anything out of place.

It looks to me like swapping a few pieces around may be the answer but I’m hesitant to stray from the plan as designed-surely the people at WS/Atlas know FAR more than I do and tested it before release!

As for scale I don’t really intend to model the Matterhorn. [:)] I think the landscape as shown on the box is a bit bland and want to change it a little, so I’m trying to figure out how deep a ravine would be, or the circumference of a lake, or how high a rock outcropping, etc etc. (Just more examples, haven’t settled on anything yet)

If close enough is good enough that works

17

Switch machines are why many install types which go under the benchwork and poke up through a hole under the turnout.

If you are modeling N-scale and the size of the rail bothers you, code 80, which is very out of scale, look into code 55, which is finer and more realistic looking. Way back in the 1980’s I was into N scale but never cared for the oversize rail. I’ve since switched to HO but since that time code 55 track has come out and it looks very nice - something to consider for the future.

18

Look on the bottom of the turnouts, you might be able to remove them, and use Caboose Indusries ground throws.

Or, if you can remove them, you could try an under the table type control, Like Rio Grande suggest.

Mike.

19

Agreed, thanks for making that clarification. I guess my point was that filling every unintended gap with solder is not always a good idea. My previous layout was based on a plan with sectional track, and I had filled all the gaps after nailing everything down. Two summers later, it got very warm in the basement and the track warped pretty badly. It also happened at the club not too long ago. Again, this may not be an issue for all…

20

“…Anyway, to clarify I am using the ‘track pack’ designed for this layout, following the updated plan. It just seems odd to me that it could be so far off…If I make sure all rail ends are solidly against each other certain sections hang right off the risers! (mainly in the tunnel area of course…”

There has to be an error in the mix. If you have been scrupulous and error-free in your own interpretation of the plan, and in your use of the correct materials/components, and in their arrangement/geometry, then the plan itself must have an error in it as presented for public consumption. This follows necessarily from the quoted text higher.

Would it be possible to confer with the author?