# Atlas track plans



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

I wonder why it is so hard to find corner or l shaped atlas track plans on line, do you think it’s because it’s so old compared to so many modellers today planning with N scale more often in my opinion ? Or is it that an l shaped layout in oval format just takes up too much area?
comments welcome as I still try to cram 12 feet of track into an 8 foot hole…..lol….with 22 and 24 inch curves


----------



## OilValleyRy (Oct 3, 2021)

I think probably due to the odd shape and/or requirement being uncommon. 
Better to think of it as two shelf designs that get connected at the corner.
A great place for a reversing wye.
Alternatively, one half of, or any portion of, a larger any-shaped layout serves as a plan for a small area. Just because MRR publishes a layout plan that fits a 3,000 sq ft basement, doesn’t mean a small portion of it can’t be adopted, adapted, inverted, and fit a funny corner.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

A corner, or 'L' shaped layout would offer a very interesting
track plan...the possible shortage of published plans for 
such is likely because most modelers have the space
for and want a more rectangular layout. 

You can create your own...check the many layouts
published here on the Forum....it isn't likely you'll
find one EXACTLY to your needs...but you will find
sections of plans that you can combine to fit
your available space.

Don


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

BigGRacing said:


> I wonder why it is so hard to find corner or l shaped atlas track plans on line, do you think it’s because it’s so old compared to so many modellers today planning with N scale more often in my opinion ? Or is it that an l shaped layout in oval format just takes up too much area?
> comments welcome as I still try to cram 12 feet of track into an 8 foot hole…..lol….with 22 and 24 inch curves


BigGRacing;

What is an I shaped layout? Do you mean what is commonly called a "dog bone" layout with skinny shelves feeding two wider end sections?
Most Atlas track plans are drawn to fit 4 x 8 sheets of plywood because that's what most newbies use, even though its not a particularly good shape. When/if they get tired of their 4 x 8 layouts they have usually discovered flex track, and don't need a track plan based on using Atlas sectional track pieces. Kalmbach books like "101 Track plans" and "102 Track plans" do have plans for both dog bone and 'L'-shaped corner layouts. Maybe you'll find something there.

So, I wouldn't consider a scarcity of plans for Atlas (presumably sectional) track to be a problem, but then I'm not you.
Maybe you're up to your eyeballs in Atlas sectional track, and just want to use it. Flex track is more to my liking.
You can adopt DonR's suggestion and look for track plans you can adapt, using the shape of space you have, and flex, or sectional, track. If you post a photo of your available space, or a sketch with the dimensions, then maybe I can suggest something.

Regards;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

Thanks guys, and yes, just dead set against flex track and it’s killing me for sure. Every good plan I find is for a 12 foot long section where I only have about 10.5 or it is for 18” track where you can’t run any larger engines if I ever move that route and yes, even my old over under bridge isn’t tall enough for a newer container car if I ever get one of those…..lol. And got forbid there are many track plans with double mainlines…..so demoralizing, why didn’t atlas do a 21” radius curve…..wouldn’t 15, 18, 21 and 24 have made more sense then 15, 18, 22 and 24 ? Or am I just from a different planet ?


----------



## CHRlSTIAN (Jan 13, 2022)

BigGRacing said:


> Or am I just from a different planet ?


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

BigGRacing said:


> Thanks guys, and yes, just dead set against flex track and it’s killing me for sure. Every good plan I find is for a 12 foot long section where I only have about 10.5 or it is for 18” track where you can’t run any larger engines if I ever move that route and yes, even my old over under bridge isn’t tall enough for a newer container car if I ever get one of those…..lol. And got forbid there are many track plans with double mainlines…..so demoralizing, why didn’t atlas do a 21” radius curve…..wouldn’t 15, 18, 21 and 24 have made more sense then 15, 18, 22 and 24 ? Or am I just from a different planet ?


Atlas used those radii because that what radii track they made. Their layouts are designed with their products in mind and want you to buy them. 

Their marketing of these track plans and track is not a bad thing for a new person to the hobby as some may think. It gives a good introduction to model railroading including wiring, train control, laying track, and building benchwork. Not entirely worthless for the new person or anyone who has only had an oval of track on a plywood base watching a single train in a roundy-round.

After an Atlas layout, many are ready to move on to bigger and better, but hundreds have gotten their railroading foundation from Atlas in decades past.


----------



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

Michael,
You are 100% correct with everything you said, I just dont know why they used 22 vice 21 radius, just wondering if it was a math related purpose.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

BigGRacing said:


> Michael,
> You are 100% correct with everything you said, I just dont know why they used 22 vice 21 radius, just wondering if it was a math related purpose.


BGRacing;

The reason for Atlas 22" radius curves is to fit around their 18" radius curves, and to fit (just barely) onto the 4 x 8 table that Atlas track plans are designed to fit. I don't know that 21" radius would fit as well as 22", and even if it did, car overhang might cause collisions on these tight curves.

Being able to get any radius curve you want is one of several distinct advantages of flex track over sectional track. Why would you be "dead set against flex track?" Its easy to use, cheaper, looks better, and has fewer rail joiners.

Atlas track plans do serve beginners fairly well in the sense that MichaelE said. My own first HO layout was from an Atlas track plan. However, Michael is also right about the main purpose of Atlas track plans, to sell Atlas sectional "snap track", Atlas "Snap Switch" turnouts, and Atlas electrical controls. The track plans are a bit of clever marketing by Atlas. Nothing inherently evil in that. All companies advertise, they have to in order to sell their products and stay in business.

The problem with the Atlas layouts is that they don't necessarily serve the new model railroader all that well. Atlas Snap Switch turnouts are not very reliable without modification. The money spent on them would be better spent on Peco turnouts, which are reliable. Now I hardly expect Atlas to advertise for their competitor Peco. Nor is a newbie likely to know the difference. However a newbie led by the Atlas ad / track plan into using inferior turnouts, is likely to get frustrated, and possibly quit the hobby.

Atlas wiring for their track plans uses "common rail" a very uncommon wiring scheme everywhere else but in Atlas world. To some extent, the newbie is learning something that he may need to unlearn later, though there is no great harm in continuing to use common rail permanently, as it is a quite viable control system, just different.
Atlas electrical controls are somewhat unreliable, especially their "blue button" turnout control. They are also bulky, and not very intuitive when it comes to "which button do I push to do that? "

All of my criticisms of starting with an Atlas track plan are based on my own experience, and what it has taught me.
In my beginner's files I simply point out the advantages, and disadvantages, of different approaches to building a first layout, including building an Atlas layout.

My hope is that, given the information that newbies will never get from Atlas advertising, they may avoid some of the frustration, and the extra cost of replacing sectional track, and Snap Switch turnouts, and Atlas controls, that choosing to build their first layout from an Atlas track plan may bring them. That doesn't mean I hate Atlas, or wish them any harm, simply that I believe there are better choices available, and, through comparison, I try to point them out. If some prefer to build an Atlas layout exactly as presented in one of Atlas's track plans, that is, and ought to be, their choice.

"your railroad, your rules."

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

Sorry Traction Fan, I will use as much flex track in the straighter sections that I can. Some minimal flex in easy curves, it just kinked too much for my liking in the ends and I didn’t enjoy it. My 22 and 24 curves kept colliding as well, so using them together turned out to be very futile.


----------



## Mixed Freight (Aug 31, 2019)

BigGRacing said:


> Or am I just from a different planet ?


Hi BigGRacing,

Sectional curved track is quite limiting. There's lots of advice/tutorials out there on the internet explaining and showing how to lay flex track. Do some studying up on it, then just practice a little bit with some scrap pieces of flex track. I'll bet you can soon get the hang of it in short order. 

After doing some practicing, if you're still having a problem, come back and let us know exactly what the particular problem is. We should be able to help guide you through it. 








Where's the kaboom? There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering kaboom!


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

BigGRacing said:


> Sorry Traction Fan, I will use as much flex track in the straighter sections that I can. Some minimal flex in easy curves, it just kinked too much for my liking in the ends and I didn’t enjoy it. My 22 and 24 curves kept colliding as well, so using them together turned out to be very futile.


If you can swallow hard and try your hand at making curves that work in flex track, you'll never go back. Think training wheels on a bicycle. You wouldn't have been without them...for a while. Eventually, you accepted that you had to move forward, and the rest was 30 years ago....am I right? You banged your elbow, chipped a tooth, and screamed in rage...maybe once. But then it was over and you didn't give it a second thought. This is precisely the same thing. Find videos on assembling flex track on YouTube, watch, then watch WHILE YOU DO what they're doing, by pausing and doing the same things. Suddenly, it all seems to make perfect sense.

Flex track doesn't bend, or curve, in the last 1.5" on either end. It just doesn't. Put joiners there and you'll see what I...oh wait, you already did that. So, learn to slide the sliding rail about six ties deep into the adjoining length of flex. Make them touch inside the one piece, and use a sharpie to mark the spot on the rail. Withdraw the sliding rail, remove two ties there, and then reassemble your curve, but now with joiners at the joints, one of them where two ties have been removed. and use the black 'track nails' in several holes to keep the tracks on your centerline.. The one slid rail will keep the curve constant, or so close that nobody will notice...or care. Nor will the rolling stock that passes over the joint. When it works, solder the joiners, remove any track nails once it's ballasted, and you're good to go.

Back to L-shaped layouts: They are most often used, or resorted to, or settled on, people who don't have the space to run a loop of some kind. If you don't already know it, there are loops of all kinds that can have a person enjoying something other than a figure 8 or a simple oval with a couple of sidings or spurs sticking off of it. You can use an L-shaped bench and have a loop cross over itself a la Fig 8, but have it as an overpass....IF...you have the room, or length, to allow the locomotive to climb at no more than about a 3.2% grade. Once you get near 3.5%, not unheard of in either the prototype or on thousands of layouts, you run into traction problems. You'll need to drop trailing tonnage or add more tractive effort ...another locomotive. If you can climb over about 12 feet, you can use a through truss or a through girder arrangement and get pretty much anything below it except pantographs, double-stacks, or TOFC (trailer on flat car).

A folded loop allows you to go around the room, with you standing in the middle watching trains go around you, you pivoting. Means a large backdrop effort for realism, but every style of layout has some drawbacks. Around the room allows a long run, especially if you fold the loop...twist it so that it crosses in the middle, and then bring one lobe over to the other.

Why so few examples of L-shaped layout plans? Because something like 60-75% of all people in the hobby with any time in it, who have found their pleasure, want a continuous run, or a closed loop so that they can just let trains rip and enjoy them. It's hard to do with an L shape unless you have wide lobes at each end...which many just cannot accomplish for one reason or another.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

Deleted prior as decided irrelevant to OP's concerns...


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

BigGRacing said:


> Sorry Traction Fan, I will use as much flex track in the straighter sections that I can. Some minimal flex in easy curves, it just kinked too much for my liking in the ends and I didn’t enjoy it. My 22 and 24 curves kept colliding as well, so using them together turned out to be very futile.


Nothing to be sorry about. Its your railroad, and if you like sectional track better, then that's the track for you.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## CHRlSTIAN (Jan 13, 2022)

I used flex track once in my life for this very small H0/00 layout:


----------



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

Thanks for the great tips everyone! I am slowly making some progress and have had great help from several of you with great track plans, it’s just the editing to make it work with the track that I have now and seeing if it can be landscaped somewhat like how I want it…..I am not a very creative person…..lol, I like building, but not designing….lol.

This is close to the plan I am doing but with the guts from the Black River Junction and turntable up top still.


----------



## CHRlSTIAN (Jan 13, 2022)

Is it a short (red circle) ?


----------



## Conductorkev (Nov 5, 2021)

CHRlSTIAN said:


> Is it a short (red circle) ?
> View attachment 576242


Might be representing where a reverse loop happens. Which yes would cause a short 😀


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

The 3 sections of track that connect to the upper part of the Y turnout is what you wound need to isolate and put on an auto reverser. That is a relatively short section, you might consider eliminating the Y turnout and putting a regular left hand turnout a little farther to the left to make the reversing section a little longer.


----------



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

CHRlSTIAN said:


> Is it a short (red circle) ?
> View attachment 576242


Yes, this will eventually have to be rigged as the reversing wye. And I will look at my space and what will fit lemonhawk, mainly there to turn the engines. I might get a parallel track in there yet, I will have to see How track all lines up, if it does even…..


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

I'm wondering if you would have more yard length if you take a yard lead off of each leg of the diagonal tracks before the lower right inside loop. You would be able to access one of the two yards tail-in or head-in depending upon which direction a train is heading and you would get more yard length. The yards would be on the diagonal to get more length.

You can connect each yard with crossovers and eliminate the Y. If you need to turn locomotives though this won't work.


----------



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

I am going to see if I can use Layoutvision water wings layout and that will give me a couple of yard leads and I will run my main yard down the extra 2 foot wide end.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

bIgG, does this layout fit your space exactly? You know I tried to help you before, but there were too many questions and too may "wants" for me to help at that point. This is a workable layout except I'd highly recommend putting in an aisle into that open central loop, otherwise there will be no way to reach the back of the layout in the corner. You don't want to have to reach over 30-36" max from facia anywhere on the layout. If the only reason for the Y turnaround is to turn locos you already have that covered with the turntable. There is also a way to compress a Y without losing functionality that can be done. Again you are putting what is in my opinion difficult artificial restrictions by insisting on using Atlas snap track. There are as mentioned several reasons why this is a poor idea besides limiting the layout to what Atlas makes. As said Atlas snap switches for example are the second from the bottom on any list of dependability, and there is no direct replacement for them when they fail because they are made with a curved diverging track to allow them to directly fit in place of a plain curved section without disturbing the "oval" of a basic train set layout it makes it near impossible to make a proper yard ladder, for example, or a crossover without an S curve connection. What is worse is that you cannot create a parallel main line without the likelihood of a collision between passing trains in the parallel curves. Parallel curves need to have extra separation in the center to prevent collisions, which cannot easily be done with set track's limited curve radii available. Then there is the problem of not being able to have easements where a track goes from a straight to a curve, Lack of easements gives the layout a toy train look when running and can produce "mysterious" derailments. I see a number of tweaks and better options even in this basic layout that would make far better. I am still willing to help refine it if you have settled on this track arrangement as a starting point.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

BigG, Your wishing for a corner layout and other wished for features is more than met by the famous "Granite Gorge and Northern" originally an Atlas track plan #29. It has been reinterpreted in other scales and variations. Check out Youtube for a number of videos of GG&N layouts.and builds.


----------



## CHRlSTIAN (Jan 13, 2022)

Who's that guy ?


----------



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

Sorry everyone,
We had the freezing rain come through yesterday and lost our power last night at supper until 4am this morning. I didn’t get back to the trains last night sadly. Scenics, I have had great help from everyone here and another forum and you are 100% correct with everything you have said. I have been told this by everyone…..lol. I am making headway though despite my stubbornness. I am also using Peco turnouts with the atlas track and it is slowly working albeit I am seeing how it plays out through trial and error. I would greatly appreciate any input you have to offer for sure, but flex track is not being used, except if it replaces 4 straights or easing into a yard.




































I do want some elevated track and I will be extending the ramp to get my 3 5/32 I think it is for NMRA clearance (I haven’t done that math yet). My train station will be elevated, but that will force me to lose my reversing ’Y’.


----------



## Conductorkev (Nov 5, 2021)

BigGRacing said:


> Sorry everyone,
> We had the freezing rain come through yesterday and lost our power last night at supper until 4am this morning. I didn’t get back to the trains last night sadly. Scenics, I have had great help from everyone here and another forum and you are 100% correct with everything you have said. I have been told this by everyone…..lol. I am making headway though despite my stubbornness. I am also using Peco turnouts with the atlas track and it is slowly working albeit I am seeing how it plays out through trial and error. I would greatly appreciate any input you have to offer for sure, but flex track is not being used, except if it replaces 4 straights or easing into a yard.
> 
> View attachment 576670
> ...



Also watch the clearance to your front tunnel portal I see you started the incline before the portal.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Have you actually tested that grade? Knowing something of the dimensions involved, I'm guessing that you're climbing 3" over 48" or so, making that grade close to 6%. Can your locos climb it while pulling anything?


----------



## OilValleyRy (Oct 3, 2021)

Not to distract from the current state of convo, but 65Steam has a stellar corner layout; I don’t know if he went from a published plan or shoe-horned his own design into the space.


----------



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

Conductorkev said:


> Also watch the clearance to your front tunnel portal I see you started the incline before the portal.


Yes, the hill area will be there and that portal will be sitting higher on foam, still seeing mainly if I can get the track to fit properly and get my clearance and grade the best that I can.


----------



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

CTValleyRR said:


> Have you actually tested that grade? Knowing something of the dimensions involved, I'm guessing that you're climbing 3" over 48" or so, making that grade close to 6%. Can your locos climb it while pulling anything?


My engines are pulling the three passenger cars that are weighted up the grade so far, but I will be stretching it out more for sure. I will do more testing today with a longer pull. It’s an Atlas product, it should work shouldn’t it…..lol?


----------



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

OilValleyRy said:


> Not to distract from the current state of convo, but 65Steam has a stellar corner layout; I don’t know if he went from a published plan or shoe-horned his own design into the space.


His layout is perfect in my opinion but I can’t fit my 24inch internal track into his inside fold, it doesnt look like I want with my concept….his turntable area will be a concept that goes into that area of my layout as well. My double mainline requirement is a huge hurdle in size.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

BigGRacing said:


> My engines are pulling the three passenger cars that are weighted up the grade so far, but I will be stretching it out more for sure. I will do more testing today with a longer pull. It’s an Atlas product, it should work shouldn’t it…..lol?


"Work" and "work well" are two entirely different concepts.


----------



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

CTValleyRR said:


> "Work" and "work well" are two entirely different concepts.


Very good point as usual !


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

You could always simply put a crossing in the middle, but you might have to realign your tracks to fit one of the standard angles.


----------



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

Yes, I started on inside sidings today to see how they fit. I will post a pic tomorrow.


----------



## kilowatt62 (Aug 18, 2019)

CTValleyRR said:


> Have you actually tested that grade? Knowing something of the dimensions involved, I'm guessing that you're climbing 3" over 48" or so, making that grade close to 6%. Can your locos climb it while pulling anything?


If the Atlas pier set is used properly, it takes 12 sections of track to get to 3”. So 108” or 9’ right? 
You do the rest of the math now. I’m done. lol.


----------



## kilowatt62 (Aug 18, 2019)

I actually like the Atlas pier sets for testing different percentage rises. Slide them back n forth and such to change it.
Never really cared for them visually for permanent use. Although, the tallest ones (3”) with the extended base aren’t so bad if cut the top tabs cut off and weathered a bit.
Never thought about using the set inside of a mountain. Seems risky.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

kilowatt62 said:


> If the Atlas pier set is used properly, it takes 12 sections of track to get to 3”. So 108” or 9’ right?
> You do the rest of the math now. I’m done. lol.


I'm glad that your third-grade math skills haven't completely deserted you. Unfortunately, his train doesn't drop off a cliff at the end, but it goes back down as well, so the actual change in elevation is 6", 3 up and 3 back down, which would need 18' to accomplish that change within an acceptable grade.

Bringing a little bit of more sophisticated analysis into it, I've working with Gary on some of his early layout plans, and I know the dimensions of his area, so I know the dimensions of his layout area, hence my recommendation. It's also pretty clear from the photo that the piers are NOT placed at 9" intervals at the joints of standard straight segments.

But refer back to my initial comment: I asked if he had TESTED it, because my rough calculations indicated he might have a problem. If he didn't / doesn't, well and good. There is no substitute for hard data as a result of testing.


----------



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

Yes, CTV has been an awesome help so far with plans for my layout and great tips! I have had to test test test for sure to see what I like and it’s a constant build in progress posted in my layout thread. My engines climbed the grade and I know if it was spread out a bit more and on a steadier foundation, it would have worked. I want worked well though and went with my keeping it flat layout for optimum performance.

A couple of pics , don’t mind the mess, eventually back drop and finishing will be done……I have all of retirement soon to get er done.


----------



## kilowatt62 (Aug 18, 2019)

CTValley,
Easy there cowboy. I wasn’t challenging you in any way. My intent was only to share a few simple numbers from my experience with said pier set. The 3rd grade math comment wasn't needed.

Were you to please take another look at the photo, you’ll see that enough 9” sections of track are used to get the 18’ you mentioned. Yes, many are curved which we both know creates more issues so, more math needed (above the 3rd grade level-lol). There needs to be a pier every 4.5” as designed, for track support. I’ll wager though that it all will fall within acceptable parameters. ‘just sayin’.


----------

