Ok, So I have played with using flex, and i have had some good luck and some bad luck.
My new plans were done using sectional track. then i saw a thread where a member said that there are problems using this. what are the problems with using sectional track?
Kevin
Main problem as always is to many joints,Also most sectional track is brass thereby making constance cleaning important for good operation.Oh did i mention kinks in your trackwork?
Kinks, lots of places where continuity might fail (unless you solder), but also little or no leeway with curves. This will constrain your plan somewhat.
Additonally, if you would like to twist your throttle hard to the right when running trains on the main(s), easements will be important if you are using curves with radii under 22", although easements are advisable any time.
My recommendation? Bite hard and go back to confront flextrack. Master it, without fail, and you will never look back. Just do it.
Kevin,
The biggest advantage to flex track is that ability to lay down long sections of track - particularly on curves that have radii that are NOT covered by sectional track - i.e. other than 18", 22" and/or 24" curves. With flex track, you enjoy more freedom to design your layout how you’d like it to be. With sectional track, you are somewhat more confined and regulated by the type and selection of track produced by the manufacturers. Easements are incorporated much more easily into your curves with flex track.
Kevin, whether using flex track or sectional track, proper layout design and careful track construction and alignment are the MOST important thing. A bad layout design or incorrect track alignment are NOT going to be automatically fixed by magically using flex or sectional track. As Crandell stated, take your time and learn how to do it RIGHT. It will pay dividends in the long run and give you a layout that yields consistent and nearly flawless operations.
Tom
Ok, I understand all of your ideas on this issue.
here is my layout plan:
http://www.vermontel.net/~kevin_ondre/HO%20Train/CMVTRR3.jpg
Unfortunatly with my space constriction, I need to use 15" radi.
I know this layout works as i have had it set up mostly in a temporary fashon.
huh, so i suppose i should get some flex and try again then huh?
Kevin
Oh, and i forgot, my largest engine is a 4-4-2 atlantic, the rest are 0-6-0’s and 0-4-0’s and my cars are 40’ and shorter so the 15" radi is no problem.
As you can see, i have 4 18" radi as easements right there in the center(blue curve sections) all the green curves are 15" sections.
KEvin
All the track is already purchased except for the flex. most of the track already has the rails painted too, been doing it on my spare minutes of time.
unfortunate that i need to start all over with the track.
Kevin
Nice little layout there, Kevin. [:)]
The 4-4-2 probably won’t look the prettiest going through the 15" radius curves. Do you know what the minimum radius is for that one right off hand? I would think it is 18" radius. You’re smart to put in the 18" radius easements. Your 0-6-0 and 0-4-0 should not have any problems with them the 15" radius curves.
I do have one concern though: The olive track in the bottom right hand corner. It seems a bit close to the main track. I’d be worried that any switcher or piece of rolling stock might get side swiped in that spot. You should have room to nudge the curve over a bit to the left.
Tom
It IS an interesting and eminently doable layout for the first timer, even with snap track, so I would say forget the flextrack if you have enough of the former. As Tom cautions, though, you may have to use some flextrack to tweak the curves in some places, such as where he thinks you might be a bit close.
I would like to discuss the upper left corner. That split spur seems to serve no compelling purpose, and is very short past the turnout, to boot. What had you considered for that location?
Just a concern that I see. If you have that many crossovers and switches your little engines might experience electrical pickup problems and stall. Maybe not, but mine did when I had crossovers unless they were the more expensive ones by Shinohara (and NOT the Atlas ones).
Surprised no one commented on this, but most sectional track is NOT brass. I would wager that most brass track is now gone, because it hasn’t been made in years. There is a bunch of steel track, but nickel silver is better… both NS and steel are better than brass.
Anyways, good luck on your plan. I did something like you did by planning on running little switchers and they kept stalling. I will keep my fingers crossed for you. Should really be interesting to operate, though!
I have run the 4-4-2 on 15" before, it does pretty well. thats one of the reasons i chose the 4-4-2, the wheel base is pretty short.
That olive track is flex and i put flex in the plan there so i could mess around with how close it was to the other track, its going to be used for the storage area for the passenger cars(40’ old time ones)
Kevin
I do have enough snap track already.
the upper left corner, that split spur after it crosses the main line with the 45 crossing starts to climb and then was to level off at the switch. the switch is optional and i may leave it out. that line there is a logging line where my climax will just go back and forth. the log cars i am using, all 3 of them are 23’ so a short end isnt a problem.
KEvin
Cross over tracks have bad electrical? crap, i didnt realize that. and i did plan on using the atlas ones. i will have to re-think that one. What i will do is play around with a temp layout using all the cross overs, if all my trains run well over them then great, if not get others, i will have to do.
All my track is Nickel Silver.
If i do flex, i will go after that weatherd flex. I will have to call my LHS and ask him for the remaining stock he had of it. he has retired and closed the store, but he is still living there for a few more days.
Kevin
Kevin,
The point that scoobster28 makes about the crossings and short locomotives is right on. I had problems with the Atlas ones myself.
I tried sanding the track and paring the excess plastic insulator on the frogs with a sharp chisel, but to no avail. I finally switched to the Walthers/Shinohara crossing and, yes, they were more expensive ($15) BUT so much better it wasn’t funny. Much less noise and “bobble” as the train travels over the crossing. (There still is some but not as much as with the Atlas crossings.)
scoobster28, I did notice the brass track statement and forgot to make mention of it. Kevin, you’re a wise man to set up a temporary layout to test out your design and work out the “kinks” (literally and figuratively).
Tom
my 4-4-2 uses the tender as well for pickup and one of my 0-4-0’s do as well. one of my 0-6-0’s does but the other doesnt.
I will set up a small test bed. using all of the cross overs. the switches i was going to prevent any electrical problem by sodering in jumper wires to the underside to make sure power flows all over the place properly.
Kevin
I thought about what was said regarding the Atlas crosses and switches. I have had issues in the past with the switches. Last night i decided to fix em. So i completed one.
I now have an atlas switch that has jumper wires all underneath (4 of them) to get power to the turing off rails, the adjustable ones and the fixed ones. I did a test and it was very very smooth for my 0-4-0 that does not use the tender for pick up. so things look good there
as far as the crosses…I tested them, they seem to be fine.
I think i will try to do one switch per day. so 1 down and 6 left to do. I need to get a better sodering iron and some flux as that soder just doesnt like to stick to the Nickel Silver rails does it?
I have decided also to go and change my layout design, just a bit. I started by tring to use all 18" radi turns but that just didnt work out in the space i have avail.
So i just went to the full 4x8 not the orig 4x7. what a difference one foot makes!
I also have decided to take out a cross track. now that i have an extra foot. I am going to have the track climb and go over the other on a short 6" bridge. that done, the tunnel that was on the right side of the layout is now eliminated, and the train will just run along a cliff side on the mountain. Here is a pic of my new altered layout plans…
http://www.vermontel.net/~kevin_ondre/HO%20Train/CMVTRR4_4x8.jpg
Kevin
Didn’t see if anyone mentioned this, but with those short distances, those grades are going to be MIGHTY steep. Have you verified that your locos can pul your trains on such a grade?
–Randy
Gonna find out.
not sure yet.
from the 90 degree crossing that climb needs to go up 3" to get to 6" bridge
might be a steep climb, I’ll see
Kevin
Well, you could change the crossing on the left hand side to a bridge as well. That would make the center crossing medium height and the rear track high but level. Should reduce the over all grade at the expense of having to do lots of off board track.
I have gradually replaced all of the flex track with sectional on my layout, except for one straight run at the back. I don’t like flex track, and I never have problems with the sectional. I run a feeder wire every three feet for good electrical contact, and I use Rail Zip on the joints every couple of months. With careful tracklaying, you can avoid kinks. I think it’s just a matter of opinion which is better.
I like your layout design. With the rolling stock you are planning, I wouldn’t be afraid of 15" radius here and there (especially eased) if it improves the design.
And I’ll speak more heresy. At small radiuses - especially 15" - it is easier to get smooth trackwork using sectional rather than flex (ask me how I know :-). Using flex track, you would have to pre-solder the rail joints before trying to lay the curve to get a reasonably smooth curve. Even then, the tendency would be for the flex track to be straighter at the ends than in the middle - sort of a natural easement, which because of the space crunch would likely result in a smaller than 15" radius in the middle. And some flex track ain’t - some, especially the better looking stuff, has frustrated better modelers than me. So for small table-top layouts, I tend to recommend sectional track for the fixed radius curves; then use flex track for the straights and slight curves to avoid using sectional fitter pieces - where most of the kinks and costs come from.
The only caution I have with your latest plan is that there is only about 14" clearance in the switchback tail feeding the spurs in the upper left. Depending on the length of your loco, you will only fit 2 23ft cars plus your loco at best in that space. Looks like there is room to lengthen that tail to about 20" to give a reasonable length train.
I’d love to see pictures as it comes along - I am already impressed. I’m a big fan and member of the small and mini-layout club - small being 4x8, mini being smaller down to 4 sq ft where Carl’s micro-layouts take hold.
Fred Wright
jack of all trades…(you know the rest)
Picture Gorge and Western Railway - “none more picturesque!”
Tillamook Head and Bethel Railway - “To heaven and back!”