You may remember I was having problems getting old Atlas track plans to work with the RTS 7.0 software. I finally got dimensions and laid out track pieces in AutoCAD. After playing around with them, it’s pretty clear - I think anyway - that the problem is not that RTS assembles things wrong but that the plans assume an Atlas #4 has a 10-deg divergence rather than its actual 9.5-deg and a #6 has a 12.5-deg not 10 or 15.
It’s nothing that can’t be fixed by flex-track (although there are some really short jogs needed) but it sure is disconcerting when what you think is a “good” plan just doesn’t fit closely enough to give reliable operation.
Kurt Laughlin
Kurt,
I have been a staunch supporter of the RTS software from the beginning, even though it has limitations and some inherent problems. I wrestled with the same issues until I actually started to layout the track plan with real track. What I discovered was that there will be enough play in the plan and track to align the turnouts (switches) correctly after all and that trying for perfection, which is in my nature, is an exercise in futility.
So, I did a dry fit with all the track pieces including the flex track. After I had aligned and pinned everything into place, then checked the layout twice, I traced the track outline on the surface. This gave me the roadbed (in my case cork) fill in the outline with roadbed, etc. After installing the roadbed I simply placed the track on the roadbed and set about aligning it again to ensure a proper fit (Remember that I too, am a perfectionist) this time I soldered the trackage into larger sections. After that it was a matter of lifting sections of the trackage, spreading the adhesive, and replacing the track.
My point is that sometimes close is really good enough. It becomes a point of diminishing return to try for perfection. MHO… Enjoy!
http://home.earthlink.net/~cdicken673/model_railroad.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~cdicken675/Track_Plan.htm
Oh yeah, like I said it is close enough to work with. The . . . well, “troubling” is the only word that fits . . . the troubling thing is that these plans were made by John Armstrong, someone I always considered to be a staunch advocate of reliable performance as the key to an enjoyable hobby. Looking at these plans, if you used purely sectional track, I’m sure they would “fit”, but I can’t think the trains would run all that well. Some of the gaps are pretty large (like almost a 1/4 inch when everything else around is held square) and the misalignments from 1/2 to 2-1/2 degrees. Even where you have solid fits, like in ladders, the spurs come so close to each other that cars would have to hit those on adjacent tracks.
Just bothers me too that you can’t count on long-time published plans to evaluate software because of problems inherent to the plan.
KL