# [H0] Layout based on a Hornby Trakmat.



## CHRlSTIAN (Jan 13, 2022)

Hello Happy Modelers!
This is my latest (possibly silly) idea based on a very old Hornby Trakmat.
The dimensions are: 4' x 5'4". It's supposed to be a short line with some switching operations.
First and second photos: the original version. Third: my version.
All of your comments, advices and criticism will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.


----------



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

Sweet! I love how your version goes in the opposite direction almost !


----------



## CHRlSTIAN (Jan 13, 2022)

How the Hornby Trakmats work:


----------



## CHRlSTIAN (Jan 13, 2022)

Another idea based on another Hornby Trakmat (R8217). Dimensions are: 4' x 6'.
The original version:



















And *MY* version !


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

You can barely get a 22" radius curve on a 4 foot wide
table. That means any curves inside the 22" will have
a quite tight radius. You would be limited to 4 wheel truck
diesel locos or small steamers. The 'My' version even has
a 3rd inside curve. It would be almost unusable by all
but very small locos and cars.

Don


----------



## Chops (Dec 6, 2018)

The ability of our British Cousins to wring out every last inch of available space has always been charming, not to mention the fact that square footage is profoundly expensive. Looks like you took it up a notch.

Also, I am about the expand "Henley in OO." Posted under track design discussion. I was wondering if you could run your program, I assume that this is one you have posted, to fit using Bachmann EZ track? That might save me $50! Also, you might suggest an alteration or addition?


----------



## CHRlSTIAN (Jan 13, 2022)

DonR said:


> You can barely get a 22" radius curve on a 4 foot wide
> table. That means any curves inside the 22" will have
> a quite tight radius. You would be limited to 4 wheel truck
> diesel locos or small steamers. The 'My' version even has
> ...


You're absolutely right ! As mentioned in my first post, these ideas could be completely silly. And I figure that's the case ! 
I need a better track plan.


----------



## CHRlSTIAN (Jan 13, 2022)

Chops said:


> Also, you might suggest an alteration or addition?


Of course I can do that !


----------



## CHRlSTIAN (Jan 13, 2022)

CHRlSTIAN said:


> I need a better track plan.


Found it !
The KISS principle applies completely here. Just scroll down to see my new track plan.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Nice layout….although it only will run/work well in a counter-clockwise direction….once the train is in the inner circle, it can’t get back onto the outer circle unless it backs on….


----------



## CHRlSTIAN (Jan 13, 2022)

Problem solved (hope so..) !


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Better…..still only counter-clockwise though…..


----------



## CHRlSTIAN (Jan 13, 2022)

Old_Hobo said:


> still only counter-clockwise though…..


 Not exactly...


----------



## Conductorkev (Nov 5, 2021)

CHRlSTIAN said:


> Not exactly...
> 
> View attachment 579681



That would be wasting money to take care of the reverse loops.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

CHRlSTIAN said:


> Not exactly...
> 
> View attachment 579681


You can’t use those 2 turnouts at the bottom, because you’d be going against the other train….so why have them at all?


----------



## Severn (May 13, 2016)

I'm used to o which is ac where you could do that no problem.


----------



## CHRlSTIAN (Jan 13, 2022)

Ok guys you are right ! So my project is canceled.


----------



## CHRlSTIAN (Jan 13, 2022)




----------



## Severn (May 13, 2016)

The question really is what could you do instead. [Edit]

After thinking about it over coffee ... Here's an idea. May not work but maybe.

The switches/turnouts are dead, no power to their track, isolated.

The motors have power, optional.

Then the engines have large keep I've capacitors.

And maybe that'd work?


----------



## CHRlSTIAN (Jan 13, 2022)

Thanks for your reply and for your time. Very appreciated.


Severn said:


> The question really is what could you do instead.


 Very good question !


Severn said:


> The switches/turnouts are dead, no power to their track, isolated.


 Very good idea !


Severn said:


> The motors have power, optional.


 No. This small layout doesn't need powered turnout.


Severn said:


> Then the engines have large keep I've capacitors.


 It's a DC layout...


Severn said:


> And maybe that'd work?


 Another very good question...


----------



## Severn (May 13, 2016)

I meant to say keep-alive capacitors in the engines so they "coast" over the dead spot caused by the proposed dead-rail turnouts. however if the polarity of the inner and outer loops mismatch, that's a problem. But they make polarity "switchers" -- which will automatically switch the polarity for you upon detecting a mismatch.

that'd work for a single engine ... 

now two engines going opposite directions i think could work until you crossed the tracks, even with the dead section that the engine coasts through... but ... maybe, i mean it could work somewhat... I think.

well those are my ideas, i look forward to hearing any others ... 

Well there's batteries in the engines! Of course, we should consider that as a real option these days.


----------



## timlange3 (Jan 16, 2013)

What is your goal? You want to build a model railroad, I assume you do not want to look at a static display, though some do build such and are the envy of many. Do you want a loop of track and just watch the train go around? How do you envision interacting with this railroad?


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

If you just want to enjoy running trains, there is no rule against running the train in one direction, either clock-wise or counter-clockwise….


----------



## J.Albert1949 (Feb 3, 2018)

christian -

If you relocate ONE of those crossovers to the "other side" of the railroad (where the industrial tracks are), you now can use the space between the crossovers to "run around" a train, so that you can reverse its direction.

If you leave them as they are now (cramped together), there's not enough room to do a run-around.

Also, I would re-arrange (just invert it top-to-bottom) the plan so that most of the switches are on the side closest to you. Easier to reach if there's a problem...


----------

