Say What???
I don’t have that option - least wise I have not been able to have it avalable when I have tried to fudge slightly small things together.
It doesn’t work if you have enabled easements, since the easement minimum overrides everything else. You have to disable easements first, then you can make connection curves sharper than your specified minimum radius.
Have fun [:)]
Svein
I tried that at first, but, the curves I was trying to copy were not constant radius, but, changing every few inches, I just couldn’t make things line up at all.
The only tutorial for XTrakCad, is a start it and then sit back and try and under stand what it’s trying to show you - no walk through at all, which increases the learning curve by a fair amount.
That would be real handy, and people have already put it on the XTrakCAD wish list.
Again it’s a start it and watch what it shows you kind of thing, not a walk the user through the process - so you see what it does, but, not nessasarly have a understanding of why it did it.
[sigh]
Figures.
It would be only one way or the other.
I looked up the design you referenced and I don’t really see the radii changing, except possibly a curve or two. It looks to me like curves joined by straight sections and easements. In any case, it certainly would not be necessary to use curves that change in radius to essentially duplicate that plan – there’s plenty of room for constant radius curves. (Not all the same radius, but they would’t need to vary within a curve.)
The commercial press typically does not use CAD to draw track plans, they use general drawing tools. So what shows up on the printed page, though very attractive, is not necessarily an accurate rendering and likely does not not reflect precisely what was actually designed and built.
The original design is not that tight in any case, so you don’t have to worry quite so much about being super-precise. There’s a little leeway to render it “close enough” with less sweat.
Byron
I don’t know, the only curves that look constant to me are the double tracks left edge of the layout.
I just realized why I have been problems with the tollerances. [banghead]
For some reasion I was thinking it was HO scale and I was copying it as such, while the layout is actualy a 6X11 N scale.
[banghead][banghead][
][oops]
I shall now turn around and bend over while everyone takes a swift kick ( only 1 each mind you ).
You think this is bad, you should see what happens when I try and do it on paper, I
Well, at least you know more than you did when you started. Silver lining, and all, you know!
So, why not design your own? If you don’t have John Armstrong’s ‘Track Planning For Realistic Operations’, get a copy and have a look through it. Even if you don’t end up designing your own, you’ll know a lot more about what to look for in a design. You could also get ‘101 Track Plans’ (or whatever its real title is) for ideas, though some are ‘dated’. Also look for one of more of John Armstrong’s compilations. There are almost always good ideas in them for all sized of layouts. With all that backup you might find it isn’t as hard as you think to create you own design.
Another thought is to look for an HO design that fits in your space, and adapt it to N scale without rescaling. Just adjust track centers, and things like that, but don’t shink the layout. Then you can end up with nice broad turns, and lots of ‘space’ rather than ‘cramming’ as much track as possible into the space. It’s a though I’ve often had, though I have not actually done it.
Good luck! I’m going to pass on the kick, in hopes that someone will pass on one to me when I earn it!
Well, when you think about it, it’s actually quite logic. Easements or transition curves (I believe the correct term is clothoids) are used only to eliminate a sudden change in direction, between straight and curved track, between curves of different fixed radii, or between curves in opposite directions. In other words, the fixed radius curve is identical to the sharpest curve in the easement. This rule applies everywhere, including XtrkCad.
The easements and the connecting curve relate to each other. When you draw a curve, this curve will come with easements. If you delete a curve, the connecting easements are also deleted.
One compromise you might consider is what I suggested earlier in this thread; by reducing the value in the Easement dialog box, you end up with shorter easements but also smaller minimum radius. That’s what I have done, I have the value set at 0.379 to make easement minimum slightly smaller than360mm, which is my minimum radius (I use Märklin H0).
And a short easement is better than no easement at all…
Have fun [:)]
Svein
The other thing you could do is not use easements in the drawing, but set the minimum radius to a slightly larger value than your real minimum (say 2 inches or so) to allow space for you to actually put in easements when you lay the track. As I would guess you know, a smaller radius track with an easment should work better than a considerably larger constant radius.
I have always had issues designing my own stuff ( generating ideas in the first place ), even then, when I come up with something, I have even a harder time getting it from the brain to paper - let’s put it this way the diffaculties I have in this area come from issues well beyond my control.
OTOH, I can see a model design or proto-type designs and see what parts of it I can use. The idea’s I currently have are well beyond my skill level ( like combining the route through Glenwood Canyon, with that loop in Cali where the trains can actualy cross them selves - that I can never remember the name of - and parts of the Durango-Silverton and Cumbres & Toltec, on a scale that would alow a Challerger or Big Boy to run ).
I think I have read most of them from the local library. ‘Track Planing For Realistic Operations’ was fairly decent - but anything beyond the most basic ideas in ‘101 Track Plans’ I wasn’t able to picture bridges or tunnels where the tracks crossed, so it started to look like spagatti and had me going crosseyed in short order.
[quote]
I plan on eventualy running a Challenger and Big Boy on mine so I’m trying to stay with larger curves, even now.
True.
I was actually thinking of taking an HO plan that fits in your space and NOT rescaling it. So you would get broad curves and lots of space. Of course not lots of track.
As far as the 101 Plans, a lot of them in there pretty much ARE spaghetti. That was kind of the style at that time. It seems that now people try for more linear designs, which seem to me to capture ‘real life’ a bit better. Hence the idea of getting away from the rectangle. Since a 4x8 really takes at least 8x12 (to have access from all sides so you can reach it), using the outer area, with a couple of unavoidable blobs for turning around can make sense and not use more space, especially in N scale. You might see if you can find the book on the N scale Clinchfield. I don’t remember it’s exact size, but it had a lot of good ideas in it. I do’t know if it is still in print.
It’s a thought - I guess I can always add a little more track if it needs it.
< shrug > Thats not to bad for me, as I tend more to the panaramic type loops - I don’t know as I could get into switching ops, unless I had real loading and unloading ops, but I don’t know of any opperating hopper cars in N scale.
Since my layout is going to be sitting on an unused dinning room table, I don’t need to worry about loosing space, since the table is already sitting in the middle of the dinning room and is otherwise unused.
If you remember the name let me know. I have zero qualms buying a used book, if a new copy is normaly beyond my reach or it’s out of print - I have bought books up to 85% off the new cover price that way.
Keen on operating heavy equipment, eh…? [:)] My LHS had a Märklin H0 Big Boy on display when I dropped by a while ago, it was HUGE…! [:O] Only small engines and short cars here, I’m planning a rural Norwegian branch line set in the 1930’s.
Jeff has some very good points. Choosing a larger scale plan and redrawing it in a smaller scale without resizing it would make for some really nice curves. I’m not quite sure what you mean about rescaling Z to N though, that would only make it more difficult concidering your limited space…
Have fun [:)]
Svein
Let’s just say while I normaly go for Diesels, Heavy Steam realy holds my attention.
I’ve seen the Big Boy up in Cheyenne Wy several times, Challenger live in Colo, and the SP 4449 Daylight live both in Portland OR, and in 75-76 in Freedom Train colors as a kid in grade school on a field trip ( had the oppertutinity at that time to actualy tour the cab and opperate the whistle and bell [:D] - can you tell that it had a lasting impression on me ? [:D] ).
I have this idea where I set the layout up, that with a couple of changes to a few parts, and I can run trains from any era from the mid-late 40’s to modern day - as such I would have to stick to a few key building designs that are very simular now as they were in the mid-late 40s’ and countryside.
True. That was in part what I thought I was doing with the other idea I had - thinking that if 18 inch curves were good in HO, they would look better in N scale - I just didn’t realise it was already in N scale not HO, and that the curves would also shrink when scaling down.
[quote]
I’m not quite sure what you mean about rescaling Z to N thoug
Here’s the Clinchfield book:
As far as the other conversions:
O is 1:48, so N is 48/160 times that or .3
Z is 1:220, so N is 220/160, or 1.375
HO is 1:87.1, .544
S is 1:64, .4
I see what you mean, since you are using a dining room it sort of changes the way I’d think about it. I’d have wanted to go around the walls, at least part way, but for what you are up against that won’t make much sense.
That will help - Thanks