My definition of perfect track is track which is never the cause of derailments or other operational issues (like stalling on turnouts).
It isn’t that hard to achieve. A little bit of care and attention to detail will result in “perfect” track without an inordinately large amount of time being spent laying the track.
“Perfect” track work and “good enough” do not really go together. To me, good enough is settling for something less than perfect.
I would define perfect track work as track on which locos and rolling stock never derail, no unintended uncouplings, and no power losses. Add to it, a run around the layout with a mini cam attached to the train to video the track work. It should appear to be laser straight. Now, that is perfect track work, in my opinion. Don’t settle for good enough.
Rich
My guess is that it’s supposed to be “unfinished”. It’s definitely NOT “perfect”. [:o)]
as an engineer, “good enough” means meeting requirements and I assume no derailments is the requirement. (There are no perfect requirements).
how do you know it’s perfect? I think all you can say is that there are no derailments with the equipment you run on your railroad. Does it become imperfect if new or visiting equipment derails?
One might argue that “perfect” track is one that resembles the prototype. And how often is that laser straight - except for maybe Class 1 rails? To properly mimick a short line or siding, one may need to have “imperfections” (e.g. vertical and horizontal undulations) to make it look authentic.
As Rich properly points out, the important thing for any track - modeled or prototype - is that it does NOT derail, have any decoupling issues, and there are no power losses while operating your trains. While I myself do strive for “rail straight” appearance of my trackwork, I don’t have an issue with “visual imperfecions” IF the performance achieves the three objects that Rich outlines above.
Tom
I will let the lazer and the photos do the talking:
Now, you may not really appreciate my opinion, because it is a pretty strong one.
70’ and 80’ equipment does not belong on 24" radius curves (assuming HO scale).
Track should be on a firm base, Homasote, wood, cork at the least, not on foam, etc. My preference is homasote roadbed on well supported plywood, or sheets of homasote over plywood for yards, etc.
Adhesive caulk (like PolySeamSeal) is the best way to secure track to roadbed.
Model train layo
I appreciate your opinion as well as all the others. I also appricate the time and money you all have invested. As my time and money don’t appear to be quite as extensive as some of the others here, I am quite satisfied with what I have. I am running trains and enjoying them. As stated, a few times already, I pretty much only run the super long cars and run them at hgher than normal speeds to use as my benchmark considering my limited 24" min radius. They are not the norm, but a testing method. When I run my 40-50’ cars with a few 60’s in the mix I have relatively few problems at all. When I do run longer cars are reasonable speeds it works fine too, but they dont look so good. Is it laser straight? No. The question is whether it really needs to “absolutely flawless” if it works just fine when pushing it past the everyday limits. I consider my railroad a class 3 for max speeds which pretty much keeps everything on the rails just fine overall.
I think many people here took my original post as a complaint, or cry for help, but it wasn’t. It was more looking for validation that if it works it doesnt need to be laser level and straight. Would it be nice, yes, but it would also never be
I run shortline and branch line layouts, where perfect appearence is not required. Laser straight isn’t a priority. Slight imperfections are actually more realistic for what I model.
But for operating the models, even at modest speeds, rails need to meet smoothly at the joints and be either level or slightly banked around curves to prevent derailments. Curves where the outside track is lower than the inside track, even a small dip, invites derailments, especially for six axle equipment.
It depends on what you are running.
4 axle power and 8 wheel rolling stock less than 60ft, you can get away with alot. Ive operated on a railroad with homasote splines with handlaid track. It is not level or straight. It runs just fine under 10 scale miles per hour. If memory serves, there usually no derailments that are not operator induced (mis-aligned turnout).
I see it precisely this way. I understand that random errors might cause the very occasional derailment, but it should not be attributable to my track-laying. It should be an error in operation of the rolling stock or in the mis-alignment of a set of points…but that should be it.
As an illustration, I have, for the first time ever, begun to attach a pusher to the back of my coal drags. In order to learn how to do it, and in order to appreciate the sounds and view on my own ‘empire’, I have begun to shove my drags, headed with a BLI Class A from the Norfolk & Western, using my beloved PCM Y6b. Understandably, I’m not consisting them, but fiddling with the two encoder knobs on my DT400 throttles (yay!!). With different drives, they behave differently. I have derailed a couple of hoppers already by not having the Y6b shove quite hard enough (string lining on a curve). This is the only type of derailment up with which I will put. [8-|]
As Mark says, a little care, some willingness to experiment, some fiddling, and you should have clear-running rails. I have a swing up gate on one end of my folded loop that has 16 gaps at the ends of the curved rails. I got them all to be 100% derailment free. It wasn’t easy, but I persisted and now can run trains at any speed, any type of consist, up or down the grades, and get no derailments at those gaps.
One last observation, or guess, really: those who love building an empire, and then soon turn to thoughts of a better or different ver
“Perfect” has been defined to mean, where any change is for the worse. I have never achieved it in any endeavor although my instincts for self preservation are strong enough to make me say I might have achieved it or come darn close in my marriage [:-^]
Track is one of those things were if it makes you a little unhappy you might be tempted to live with it. But don’t give in. Keep at it. Many otherwise nice layouts have been abandoned and ignored because of derailments or electrical issues or bad track plans. Sometimes ya gotta be willing to rip stuff out and do it over no matter what the cost, and track is one of those things.
Dave Nelson
The real problem for most people is the benchwork. The track may be perfect when laid but all too soon the benchwork moves and problems happen. People keep on insisting on using table top materials that move too much like ply. Now these materials may work fine for some but alot of that depends on the enviorment. One example of ply problems is a very small portion may delaminate or bubble and this can happen long after it is installed. Liquid can cause real problems with some ply and cork would be a problem too if it were not that the model railroad cork grade is so poor that liquid dose not affect it to any great effect. You need to have all materials move at about the same rate. Cork and nicel silver rail do (as long as you don’t go more than 30’ in a straight line). I choose beaded foam as a base and have it sit on top of the 1x4 box frame so that in that state, it matches with the cork as far as and expantion or contraction which is next to nothing by the way.
I am of the mindset of striving for excellence in everything I do. It takes less time to do something right the first time than it does to revisit it at a later time.
Like I keep saying, some people make their own luck.
Well said Brent… [Y]
Let me put this in some perspective. I restore high end classic cars for a living. Some of the cars that are shooting for top honors at national events can have upwards of 6000 hours or many more in them. Yet another man’s “show car” can be perfectly fine, operational, and looks great, and win regional or local events and yet they can have only 1000 hours in them. For all but the most discerning judging purposes the cars are equaly enjoyable and operate perfectly, yet one will have much less blood sweat and tears and several hundred thousand dollars less invested. I guess I am saying that my layout is not shooting for a national trophy at this stage in the game, but I admire those that do.
are you suggesting that modelers intentionally do not do things right? (or are you suggesting that they do what’s “good enough” for now)?
is there a test that can be performed to verify that trackwork is “perfect”, other than using the NMRA gauge and checking for derailments with available equipment?
If you are going to build what is going to be a permanent layout, educate yourself on all the do and don’ts for success or your effort will be an exercise in frustration. Impatience or “get done-itis” does not equate to an enjoyable experience. If you enjoy derailments then “good enough” is good enough.
Be what you admire, fix what you can fix and never waste time dwelling on anything that is not right, get to work to make it right.
It was hard to do as I wanted to get the track down and run some trains, but everything I read on building a layout said, “do yourself a favour and get the backdrop done first”. Advice I am really glad I took.
For those who want realistic operation “perfect trackwork” is not part of it. In real life where life and property depend on avoiding derailments 100% is not realistic. I concur with those who do there very best at putting down their track and spending reasonable time fixing problems but not 400 hours on one switch.
i haven’t heard any describe a test for “perfect” other than what I said above.