# 5x9 Ho layout help



## Timb

Hi, im sorry if im posting in the wrong area and plz delete if i am. 

I have a 5x9 table and i run in ho scale, ive got the wgh kato 3-103 unitrack plan. basically i want more, ive spent days looking and i am very new to this great hobbie and i was wondering if anyone could tell me how to design a layout to upgrade the one i have, i want to run a couple of locos at the same time and would like a bridge, i also love the scenery aspect of this hobbie so i want enough room left on the table to do just that.
any help would be appreciated.

Thank you all
Tim


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

Tim...There are many thoughts that come to mind when upgrading a layout. About 3 years ago, I expanded mine to a little more than twice its size. I simply added two turnouts that let me travel onto the new benchwork, and continued the wiring from the old benchwork to the new. If you are wanting more, I assume maybe you are looking at adding new bechwork to the old? I don't know how much room you have for expansion, but I would think you could add on sections that are no more than two feet wide, and up to whatever length you have room for. 

I would guess you could accomplish that one of two ways. You could try to fit in a couple turnouts that allow for travel to a new section, or just simply take up one of the curves on your layout (I assume you have an oval), and then extend over onto new benchwork. I don't know if I am helping you at all, but those are just some thoughts I have. All the best.

Chad


----------



## Timb

Thanks Chad,

Let me clarify, first of all I thank you for your input. I actually have the worlds greatest hobby layout plan, model 3-103, and it is very simple and I want more track to menuver through, yes I'm basically an oval, I want to be able to run a couple of locos at the same time on different track with crossovers, and have one go up on a bridge wile in my scenery I have a road under it...sorta thing. I am happy with the size of the table but looking for more track "fun" if that makes sence. I would like to incorporate what I have, (track),into the layout. I just don't know how I would go about getting a layout to fit my table and what pieces I would need to buy to put it together. I'm looking so forward to getting the track and building a fun layout. 

All and any help is muchly appreciated!! Thank you,
Tim


----------



## Xnats

The best thing to do is just do an online search and find a style you like. Then take that style and try to get it to fit onto your layout. Once you get a general idea, we can help a little more.

Kato offers some plans - the Fox Meadow is sort of what you are describing.
http://www.katousa.com/track-plans/ho-plans.html

These are some classic ones - scroll down to N and HO scales
http://www.thortrains.net/index.html


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

Hey Tim...ok, I looked up your hobby pack online and saw the layout diagram. Hmmm, I am not the best for commenting on what you would like to do. I would think you have enough space to do an "over and under" situation with a bridge. The incline might be a bit steep, but then you won't really be pulling long trains up them either. 

If you want to run two trains, you might want to consider DCC power. I think you could run two trains on the layout you have now...you would just have to be on your toes to keep from having mishaps. I would think you could add at least one double crossover and have an oval within an oval. You would likely have to buy some more track to accomplish it, but it is easily accomplished. Other guys might have more ideas that you can look into. I admit I am not the best at fitting a lot in a small space. Best of luck, and I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Chad


----------



## Timb

Thank you for the links and your input, I saw one in another thread that cabledawg had made that's what I'm looking for, if I wanted something like that or lets say another one from one of those links how would I know what to buy..... Is it just best if I purchased a layout software program like AnyRail or something...

Thanks again..


----------



## Timb

mr_x_ite_ment said:


> Hey Tim...ok, I looked up your hobby pack online and saw the layout diagram. Hmmm, I am not the best for commenting on what you would like to do. I would think you have enough space to do an "over and under" situation with a bridge. The incline might be a bit steep, but then you won't really be pulling long trains up them either.
> 
> If you want to run two trains, you might want to consider DCC power. I think you could run two trains on the layout you have now...you would just have to be on your toes to keep from having mishaps. I would think you could add at least one double crossover and have an oval within an oval. You would likely have to buy some more track to accomplish it, but it is easily accomplished. Other guys might have more ideas that you can look into. I admit I am not the best at fitting a lot in a small space. Best of luck, and I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
> 
> Chad


Chad

That pretty much sums it up, I'd say you got my vision and this is what I'm looking for.. A over under with a bridge! That sort of thing. in regards to the power, I do run DCC, I actually just purchased it 2 days ago, i think its great and a lot of fun.....well Hopefully someone can help me design somthing and help me figure out what I need to accomplish this...

Thanks very much Chad I will post my progress.

Tim


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

Tim, maybe you could shoot for something like this...

http://www.internettrains.com/merch...en=PROD&Store_Code=IT&Product_Code=TFT-N-1005

Your inside track could be on a different level than the lower. They could remain two separate tracks, but one could go over the other. They could probably just be powered by the same DCC controller. It is a thought anyway.

Chad


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

Oops...I meant that the inside track could be on a higher level than the outer track. I said it kind of funny in my previous post.

Chad


----------



## Timb

Wow, that's nice...yes, that's sorta the basic idea I'm looking for...how would I know what to buy, in regards to track pieces, do I just measure and figure out what track would need based on measurements.


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

Hmmm, well, I suppose you could figure out what you need based on the measurements. Or take something like an oval of 26" radius and an oval of say 22" radius (inside higher oval), and figure out a way to make them go over and under, much like in the picture in the link. Maybe have the lower track close to the left edge, and the upper track closer to the right-hand edge. That way one goes over the other. If you had a mountain with tunnels on the back portion, you wouldn't have to "finish" things very neatly in the tunnel area.

Chad


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

One reason I like that kind of scenario is that there is no real incline to worry about, and you still get an over and under effect. You also don't need to buy any expensive double crossovers.

Chad


----------



## Timb

Yes, that makes total sence, ok at least now I have a idea and more of a clearer understanding on how to put this together. I guess once I actually start putting the vision on paper and start to lay it out it should start to work itself out...I'm sure there will be many hiccups but that's expected. 

Thanks for placing me in the right direction, I do appreciate it...

Tim


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

Oh I don't know if I am very good at placing people on the right track...I just throw ideas out there. Maybe it could be as simple for you as an outside oval with a Figure 8 on the inside that goes over and under with a bridge and trestle set. 

There will be a few challenges for you, like figuring out the parts you need, and how to configure it all on the layout, but it should be fun to orchestrate it too. There is nothing complicated about what you want to do, but it does take a little bit of planning. There will be hiccups...we all have them. Not everything goes perfectly smoothly all the time, but that is what makes it interesting too! I am sure other guys could have some good ideas for you too. There is no one set way to build a layout!

Chad


----------



## Timb

Well thanks for your ideas, they are great... It will be fun and I'm looking forward to it.... Can't wait to figure this out, the hiccups are expected but, that's what makes it fun...
Now I got to try and figure out what to get...
Trial and error....

Thanks
Tim


----------



## Timb

Xnats said:


> The best thing to do is just do an online search and find a style you like. Then take that style and try to get it to fit onto your layout. Once you get a general idea, we can help a little more.
> 
> Kato offers some plans - the Fox Meadow is sort of what you are describing.
> http://www.katousa.com/track-plans/ho-plans.html
> 
> These are some classic ones - scroll down to N and HO scales
> http://www.thortrains.net/index.html


Hi,
I was wondering if I could use this "fox meadow" that's on Kato's websit to upgrade my WGH set? Also could i still elevate a area, or add, somewhere, to make a bridge with this set? And finally, my biggest concern would be, could I make it fit onto my 5x9 table? Or, should I not attempt it? Any help would be great.
Thank you all for your help, I am new to this so sorry for all these questions!!
And your help is kindly appreciated. 

Tim


----------



## Xnats

Tim, I'll take a look at things a little closer when I get home from work


----------



## Timb

Xnats said:


> Tim, I'll take a look at things a little closer when I get home from work


Xnats,

Thank you kindly for your help and your time...

Tim


----------



## Xnats

Ok Tim  I was all set to go, thinking how much fun this was going to be designing a N Scale layout on a 5 x 9 :laugh: Since it is HO I was like, man  there is no room to do anything, lol 
So lets start here and work on the likes and don't likes. At this stage the everything is flat. Do you need more yards? Do turnouts need to be kept at a minimum? Engines are 2 mid-sized road engines. I'll admit I'm out of my gauge here  Your 3-103 set is unchanged in the middle.


----------



## Timb

I bet it could be a great layout with N scale, and sorry for killing your fun..lol...

Ok, The yards seem to be plenty, this would definitely work, in regards to the turnouts, no they do not have to be kept to a minimum, I work with what I need, I would even alter the yards in the center and keep the ones in the design, if possible or if it would look right, so i could free up more space for scenery, I am working on this with my wife and she is big into the scenery thing and want to keep her busy so her interest stays in this hobbie....(ill be able to keep $$) LOL, with engines I have a MTH Pere Marquette 1225 and I would like to add another engine with pass cars and incorporate this into the scenery. I guess that's what you meant with 2 mid size engines. So the layout would only Cary 2 engines? 
What about moving some of the outer track closer, thus creating more space for scenery?? I'm green at this so please bare withme and my opinions...

Thank you kindly very much
Tim


----------



## Xnats

Ok, I will give it another go. I'm still trying to increase the track mileage with an up and over, tightening up the mainline might help with this. Maybe.


----------



## Timb

Mmm... You defiantly have a better understanding than I but I would agree, tightening up the mainline should do it... I hope...


----------



## Xnats

Sorry Tim I just can not find the height to get an over pass. In HO you would need 5 to 6 inches. I can only get up to 3" with a 3% climb, at the half way point. I left everything flat but tightened up the mainline the best I could with sectional track. I tried to give you more sidings but space is a little tight. We are going to need more help, lol. Help


----------



## Timb

Does this desighn still incorporate my 3-103 plan set?, i tried to follow it through and could not tell for sure, I guess within all tightened up it looks different. Although it looks great.....if I can only get that overpass incorporated in this design I'd be good to go..... I really like it, you did a fantastic job and I appreciate it...now all I need is...Help with the overpass. Now, if I can get Help and figure the overpass out, would it be difficult to figure out a parts list for the layout?

Thanks again for your help....:thumbsup: Awesome stuff!!
Tim


----------



## Timb

I don't know if this helps, but I found this old Atlas "HO railroad you can build" and it's called the granite gorge and northern RR. http://www.atlasrr.com/Code100web/pages/10028.htm 
I may be wrong and if I am just say, but could I not use this as a basis for the overpass, I mean just incorporate this into your layout plan. It is designed for a 5x9 table.... Any thoughts??

Tim


----------



## Xnats

Tim the inner loop is your set, I just mirrored the outer loop with the same pieces but added a 2" pieces to stretch it. I have not studied up HO plans to much and I just can not seem to find a way to gain the height. 
The Atlas plan is pretty cool but it looks like is is using 45% crossovers. Kato only makes 90% crossovers though. If no one else chimes in, I'll look around online this weekend on ideas to gain the height, while maintaining the loop. The figure 8 style is the classic up and over. I just can not get a good start and finish spot that would allow any spurs/ sidings, with the oval.  The only option I'm seeing is to have two separate tracks at different levels.


----------



## Timb

Xnats,

Ok, yes, I see what you have done and I see the delema more clearer now.......humm....well I do truly thank you for all your time and effort in this and trying to help me... If anyone else has any ideas or input please jump in....please......

Ok Xnats, let's see if anyone jumps in.... And I thank you for your time your willing to put in on the weekend trying to figure this out for me....

I hope I'm not being a bother to you at this point.... I do appreciate this kindly...

Regards 
Tim


----------



## sstlaure

Xnats said:


> In HO you would need 5 to 6 inches. I can only get up to 3" with a 3% climb, at the half way point.


FYI...You only need ~3.25" vertical clearance from the railheads to the bottom surface of your overpass for HO. 

If you use the width of std 1x4 lumber on it's side as the guide, all rolling stock will clear under that including doublestacks and tri-level auto carriers and you'll have clearance to include using cork under the track as roadbed material. You can see this in my helix.


----------



## Xnats

That is good to know Scott, Thanks. I wonder where I got my numbers from  Told ya I'm out of my gauge here


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

Hmmm, there are lots of things to consider here. The answer could be found in both Scott and Stan's ideas. One could shoot for two different tracks on two different levels, using the 1X4 idea from Scott as risers for the higher track.

I think it is a given that new track pieces would have to be purchased. A 5X9 would be 60 inches wide. That could allow for a 28" radius oval on the outside/lowest level. I would go as big as the table allows. Put in whatever spurs or sidings you want on the lower level, keeping in mind that you would be constructing another level to the inside that would be higher by the height of the 1X4 riser. The higher inner level would be a smaller radius (I would just use the pieces you have now for that oval). I assume it might be a 22" radius or so. I think once you know the dimensions of both ovals, it should be easy enough to figure out what pieces you need. 

I believe TJ has a layout that incorporates an over/under configuration. If I am not mistaken, shaygetz might have a layout that has two different tracks at two different levels. Good luck, Tim!

Chad


----------



## sstlaure

FYI...That helix is a 26" radius and climbs 4" total per loop. (3.5" space + 1/2" plywood thickness subroadbed material) I calculate a running length on each loop at 163.4" (2*pi*radius) giving a grade of 2.4% I can pull 10 car trains up no problem on a single engine (or 24 ore cars)

People do over/unders all the time in 4x8, 5x9 should just make it easier as you can increase the distance travelled.

Just about any 4x8 plan could be stretched a bit to work in a 5x9 space and you'll be able to have nice large radii.

However.......if you're planning on a 5x9 table in the middle of a room, you're eating up 9x13 in space. (guessing 24" minimum clearance on each side.) If you draw up the room and any obstacles, etc, I'd bet we could show you some cool design ideas.


----------



## Timb

sstlaure said:


> FYI...You only need ~3.25" vertical clearance from the railheads to the bottom surface of your overpass for HO.
> 
> If you use the width of std 1x4 lumber on it's side as the guide, all rolling stock will clear under that including doublestacks and tri-level auto carriers and you'll have clearance to include using cork under the track as roadbed material. You can see this in my helix.


Scott,
Thanks for sharing your knowledge, this is good to know and i love the tip about the 1x4 on its side, thank you very much....this should make things a lil easier....
oh, btw, love your layout....it must be awesome to watch in action...kudos!!!

Tim


----------



## Timb

sstlaure said:


> FYI...That helix is a 26" radius and climbs 4" total per loop. (3.5" space + 1/2" plywood thickness subroadbed material) I calculate a running length on each loop at 163.4" (2*pi*radius) giving a grade of 2.4% I can pull 10 car trains up no problem on a single engine (or 24 ore cars)
> 
> People do over/unders all the time in 4x8, 5x9 should just make it easier as you can increase the distance travelled.
> 
> Just about any 4x8 plan could be stretched a bit to work in a 5x9 space and you'll be able to have nice large radii.
> 
> However.......if you're planning on a 5x9 table in the middle of a room, you're eating up 9x13 in space. (guessing 24" minimum clearance on each side.) If you draw up the room and any obstacles, etc, I'd bet we could show you some cool design ideas.


my table actually fits into my space pretty snug..you cant make out on the pick but i have just enough room on the right side to get around the table including room at the back, the left side is up against the wall. I cannot put the table at this point in the middle of the room because it eats into my office and i won have the room needed to work so this seemed to be the best fit for me after many different try's at it....

what if i made a main line streched out as far as i can around the table with a few yards attached and with a few turnouts connect the exsisting track and somewhere right after the back curve go up and across the table over a "bridge" I just dont know how woul i achieve this layout...


----------



## Timb

mr_x_ite_ment said:


> Hmmm, there are lots of things to consider here. The answer could be found in both Scott and Stan's ideas. One could shoot for two different tracks on two different levels, using the 1X4 idea from Scott as risers for the higher track.
> 
> I think it is a given that new track pieces would have to be purchased. A 5X9 would be 60 inches wide. That could allow for a 28" radius oval on the outside/lowest level. I would go as big as the table allows. Put in whatever spurs or sidings you want on the lower level, keeping in mind that you would be constructing another level to the inside that would be higher by the height of the 1X4 riser. The higher inner level would be a smaller radius (I would just use the pieces you have now for that oval). I assume it might be a 22" radius or so. I think once you know the dimensions of both ovals, it should be easy enough to figure out what pieces you need.
> 
> I believe TJ has a layout that incorporates an over/under configuration. If I am not mistaken, shaygetz might have a layout that has two different tracks at two different levels. Good luck, Tim!
> 
> Chad


Chad,

thanks for chiming in...how can i see what TJ's layout lookslike....Sorry cant seem to find where the member list is to nose around...

Tim


----------



## sstlaure

5' is a really deep reach. It will be tough to paint, detail, maintain that back section.

I'd run a staging yard over the top of the desk (maybe 3 tracks would fit on a 6" deep shelf.), then plan for a lift-out panel in the middle of the table (or maybe one near each end) to allow for access.

Do you subscribe to Model Railroader Magazine? They've got dozens of 4x8 and 5x9 track plans on their website.


----------



## Timb

sstlaure said:


> 5' is a really deep reach. It will be tough to paint, detail, maintain that back section.
> 
> I'd run a staging yard over the top of the desk (maybe 3 tracks would fit on a 6" deep shelf.), then plan for a lift-out panel in the middle of the table (or maybe one near each end) to allow for access.
> 
> Do you subscribe to Model Railroader Magazine? They've got dozens of 4x8 and 5x9 track plans on their website.


Actually i dont subscribe, yet, but i think i might just do that...

Doing mill work over the desk is a good idea but would not work for me...

yes 5' is a deep reach, but i have room on the right sie and the back to manover back there and add detail with ease..its got about 2' at back.


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

Tim, I am always happy to throw in my 2 cents. I think the following link might let you see TJ's layout...you can look at other pics of his layout from there too I think. I have not found Shaygetz's layout pics, although there was a thread on it a little while back.

http://www.modeltrainforum.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=1904&c=4

Try that link and see if it shows up.

Chad


----------



## Timb

Awesome thanks....
its funny im no artist but i was sitting here and i came up with this....look at attached...i was wondering if somthing like this would work??

it looks like the pic of TJ's layout, beautiful i might add, but do you think i could incorperate my layout into somthing like this?? also do you think my drawing would work....no comments on my drawing abilities plz...lol..is there anything you would add or delete?


----------



## sstlaure

2 independent tracks? Sure it can be done. the only real problem that I see is the ladder in the upper LH corner is branching out of the curve. You'd want the turnout along the straight.

Here are a number of basic 4x8's

http://www.modeltrainguide.com/index.php?mode=displayarticle&section=3&article=3

The thor website has a number of smaller 4x8+ layouts

http://www.thortrains.net/4holayx.html

These are some neat 5x9 switching layouts.

http://www.thortrains.net/4holay3.html

And here's another website with a number of 4x8 and then some layouts....(these are 2x4 in N scale which is effectively 4x8 in HO)

http://www.cke1st.com/m_train2.htm


----------



## Timb

sstlaure said:


> 2 independent tracks? Sure it can be done. the only real problem that I see is the ladder in the upper LH corner is branching out of the curve. You'd want the turnout along the straight.
> 
> Here are a number of basic 4x8's
> 
> http://www.modeltrainguide.com/index.php?mode=displayarticle&section=3&article=3
> 
> The thor website has a number of smaller 4x8+ layouts
> 
> http://www.thortrains.net/4holayx.html
> 
> These are some neat 5x9 switching layouts.
> 
> http://www.thortrains.net/4holay3.html
> 
> And here's another website with a number of 4x8 and then some layouts....(these are 2x4 in N scale which is effectively 4x8 in HO)
> 
> http://www.cke1st.com/m_train2.htm


ok, so ill change the location of the turnout to a stright area....
these are some pretty cool links....i see some cool things....i see a fun layout in my future  ....
i see a parts list with some of these links, now, if i went with atlas ballast track,(because i have the parts list available) would this be compatible with my kato unitrack...

Thanks 
Tim


----------



## sstlaure

I don't believe the various manufacturers of the EZ-track (uni-track, EZ-track, etc) are compatible with each other.

Personally I like cork roadbed and flextrack due to the flexibility in design it gives you.


----------



## Timb

ok, thanks for your help an support...it is greatly appreciated.

Tim


----------



## Timb

Hi all, 
OK, i think i finally figured out what I'm going to add to make my track complete, but i just want your feedback to see if it is a good idea or do you think i should go back to the drawing board?
I have the 3-103 Kato's world's Greatest Hobie set and i want to incorporate more into it, or use with it so i thought i would add a outside loop using this one that i saw on Ebay.

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Kato-3-111-H...451511?pt=Model_RR_Trains&hash=item5647e620f7

Do you think it would fit in nicely, and i want to add a few turnouts connecting the two sets. I want to run 2 loco's at the same time. The guy from ebay said it would fit nicely....but....i thought id ask you guys, i hope you don't mind and thank you everyone for your time. 

Tim


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

Tim, as far as I can tell, I think that oval would work all right with your existing set. It looks like you have a 28.75" radius with the new oval. That would make it 57.5" in diameter. It would be about an inch in on both sides from the edge. With the built-in roadbed on the unitrack, it might be right out to the edge. I don't see anything wrong with this, but if a derailment would occur, the train could take a tumble to the floor. You could always rig up some kind of "safety net" to catch a falling train. My outside tracks come about 2" from the edge of my layout, and I have never had a problem. I have hard concrete below. 

Also, make sure the radius on your current 3-103 layout has a radius less than 28.75 inches (I am pretty sure it does). I wish you good luck with it!

Chad


----------



## Timb

Also, make sure the radius on your current 3-103 layout has a radius less than 28.75 inches (I am pretty sure it does). I wish you good luck with it!

Chad[/QUOTE]

Chad, 
would you please tell me how to calculate the radius..... ok, So maybe it would not be close enough to my WGH set to put turnouts... if am i looking at this correctly....Because i have about 8" on each side on my widest point with my WGH set in place, and if i put the outer oaval in place that will take me to the edge of the table, will the distance between the two tracks look right and will i be able to connect a couple of turnouts? Also it looks like i will lose out on the corners where i planned on putting a mountain..but than again i could make the track pass through the mountain.. Thank you

Tim


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

Tim, I think I saw where the WGH set has a radius of 22.5 inches. If you start at a center point on your 5X9 board and measure outward to the edge, the WGH pack would be at 22.5 inches out from the center point. The new oval would be 28.75 inches out from the same point. This should leave a distance between the two tracks of roughly 6 inches. If the two turnouts you want to connect don't "reach" each other, I am sure you could fit in some short section that you can buy that would bridge the gap. This is most likely why many modelers prefer flextrack...you can make it to almost any configuration you like. 

Chad


----------



## Timb

Ok, let me throw a twist in for you, what if I used flex track for the outside loop and use kato turnouts and just connect them there. I guess I make it sound easy but is it actually hard to do. I guess I'm afraid of the whole soldering thing, but I'm sure if I had to I could pull it off. 
On the other hand see your point about the Kato oval being real close to the edge...humm..maybe build it piece by piece to get a closer distance between the two track, if that is wise or should I just buy the oval and I will be fine... What do you think is best.

Thank you
Tim


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

Hmmm, there are a lot of options to think over with the latest consideration. There has been talk on the forum recently about using flextrack in conjunction with the unitrack. I guess my only concern is to make the height of the flextrack match the height of the unitrack. I am sure it really is no big deal to do so, just another area to consider and make sure is as close as possible.

If I was starting from scratch, I would use all flextrack. Being you already have Kato unitrack, I would maybe just keep with that track. What I would do is probably start with the turnouts you will have connecting the two ovals, and go from there outward, keeping in mind the radius of the two different ovals. You don't have to have an equal distance between the tracks all around. One side could have the tracks very close together, while the other side could have the tracks about 10 inches apart. All you would really need to join the two tracks together would maybe be one double crossover, or two separate turnouts.

Chad


----------



## Timb

Yes, I like the idea of one double crossover...awesome, thanks I never really thought of that but that's they way I would like to go, just one question if you would not mind, I need a little clarity, you were saying you would start with the turnout and go from there outward. So what you are saying is to piece it out or to buy the oval set and just "put it together". And yes your rite, I don't need it to be exactly side by side, so I will take that advise. Again awesome. Thanks 

Tim


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

Well, I hope I don't give you any bad advice, but I would probably dis-assemble the 3-103 layout. Then I would probably start with the double-crossover, and work my way out from there. The double-crossover is the most critical piece. Keep in mind that a double-crossover could be pretty expensive. You might find that two separate turnouts might be cheaper...I really don't know about prices on unitrack sections. I would maybe fit the turnouts for a yard or siding on the opposite side from the double-crossover. I hope I am helping.

Chad


----------



## Timb

Gulp!!eek...ok you weren't kidding, these double crossovers cost a lot. Ok, so, it looks like I might just use the turnouts.....ok got it though...well here we go and I'll keep you posted how it turns out.... Thanks a lot for all your time and help...it was great and informative. 

Tim


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

Tim...check out this plan from Kato's website. It is expensive though. I think working with flextrack is cheaper and has more freedom, but there are a few tricks to putting flextrack together, although nothing complicated.

http://www.katousa.com/images/unitrack/3-0610.jpg

Chad


----------



## Timb

That's a awesome layout, I could incorporate my layout pieces into this one but by the time I buy the pieces I need to complete it i think it would be to expensive, on the other hand I could mimic mine to this one, somewhat, but keep mine intack and run flex track, because it is cheaper and more versatile, also it gives me the option later on to take out my kato set and sell it and I could just convert it all to flex track. But if I did that I would be much later. In the mean time how awkward would it look with the kato track inside and flex track outside?? I would ballast it...


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

I don't think that would look awkward at all. I guess many modelers have even ballasted the unitrack with success. I don't know a great deal about ballasting, but it should look fine if you ballast the flextrack. As long as you get some roadbed under the flextrack so that the heights match pretty closely, it should work fine. 

Chad


----------



## Timb

Ok, thanks...I'm going to try it, what I'm going to do is just buy one piece of flex track and see if I could get it to work rite, this way if I can't or screw it up it wont be to much of a loss, and if I can I'll just continue around the table. I'm actually getting excited and dying to dive rite in. I just hope it's not as hard as I think it is. I'll just snoop through the forum and figure it out. Wow there's so much here it amazing. Great forum, love it here. 

Thank you Chad!!

Tim


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

Tim...I am always happy to throw my 2 cents in. One thought...if you try just one piece of flex, I maybe wouldn't ballast that right away. You will probably want to get the whole thing set up and working without problems before trying ballast. Ballast makes track more permanent. You might just have to pull something up, and ballast would make it harder. You can test that the height is right, but then I would get everything up and running well before trying any ballast. Keep us posted on the progress and best of luck!

Chad


----------



## Timb

Chad, good call...yes advise taken and followed, I will get it running smooth without any problems first...then ballast it. 
I will keep you posted..

Thanks for your help...2 cents taken and apreciated. 

Tim


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

Oh, Tim, I just thought about something...you might want to verify that Unitrack can be connected to flextrack. Maybe you can search this forum (I think there was a thread on it not too long ago). I mean, there may be a way to connect the two, but I am not sure quite how. If you don't employ any flextrack, I think you could accomplish it with all unitrack too. You just have to plan out what you need. I think it would make it a lot easier if you had the same track throughout. Anyway, maybe other guys could be of more help than me. 

Chad


----------



## sstlaure

So long as you can get a regular rail joiner engaged on the rail and it is 0.100 tall, I don't see where you COULDN'T attach flex to unitrack, etc. Worst case is you may have to trim a little plastic off of the unitrack around the end of the rail to make clearance for the standard rail joiner.


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

That sounds pretty reasonable to me, Scott. 

Chad


----------



## Timb

sstlaure said:


> So long as you can get a regular rail joiner engaged on the rail and it is 0.100 tall, I don't see where you COULDN'T attach flex to unitrack, etc. Worst case is you may have to trim a little plastic off of the unitrack around the end of the rail to make clearance for the standard rail joiner.


Thanks Scott,

That just made things a little easier, i guess a little exacto work around the track is not so bad. 

Thanks for your help guys, it just made things a whole lot easier.

Tim


----------



## sstlaure

No sweat. If you plan on ballasting the track, it will cover an holes you create by joining the 2 different types of track. Most likely by the time you're done, you won't even be able to tell.


----------



## Timb

sstlaure said:


> No sweat. If you plan on ballasting the track, it will cover an holes you create by joining the 2 different types of track. Most likely by the time you're done, you won't even be able to tell.


I guess that was one of my main concerns, but thats good to hear, i dont want it to be really noticeable, but i will ballast it once it is working good and in place and glad to hear that it wont be noticeable.
Thanks 
Tim


----------

