# Returning to model trains......have a track planning question



## WIrailfan

Like the title says I'm excited to be getting back into model trains after LOOOONNNG hiatus. When I was a kid my dad made a simple HO scale 4X8 layout.......was fun for a while but then I got into rc cars.....so the trains went away. Now my interests have changed, my dad has recently passed, but finding his old SOO loco has rekindled my interest in modeling again......and having a MUCH better layout than the first one  I've cleared the same 4X8 table off.....and am building another table that's 3'6" X 7'10" (piece of OSB I already had) which I'll be adding to make a right facing "L" if you will  

Obviously I'm gonna have LOTS of questions cause my dad did all the track work and electrical things back then.......now I've gotta figure it all out lol! I've been a mechanic for 18years so I have a fair amount of knowledge....just gotta translate it to trains! 

I downloaded the Atlas track planner and I'm totally lost :dunno: I kinda figured you'd start by defining the table you've got to work with. Apparently that's not the case. So if anyone has suggestions for a layout to start with I'm all ears (finding layouts online for this table arrangement has proved quite difficult) I'm hoping to have the benchwork complete in the next week or so! Also I have an old Tech II 2500 controller I plan on using (my layout will be DC.....at least for now) and I only plan on running one train at a time....but that may change as my knowledge grows :smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Magic

First off Welcome to the forum :smilie_daumenpos:

That Atlas track planer is not the best starting point, I would suggest SCRAM.
Pretty easy to learn and there is program and online support for it. That's what I used.
Here is a link https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct....info/&usg=AFQjCNGNpwVsFVYaHuvw_zcycgu85wZWKA

Next suggestion I would make is to dig through the HO thread and the My layout thread.
Lots of good ideas in them. The first thing you have to do is make some basic decisions.
DC verses DCC to power the trains. Continuous running or switching operations or a combination of both.
I chose DCC and a combination of both. You should have enough room to run both.
If you plan on running two trains at the same time DCC is much easier to work with and more versatile but more expensive. Even more so if you get sound locos. 

On that 4x8 table you need to be able to reach all of it so access to both sides is necessary.

Next is what kind of equipment to run. The biggest radius turns you can fit on a 4x8 table is 22 inch radius and make a 180° turn. 
Modern diesels, large steam engines and passenger cars work best on at least 22" turns and much better with bigger. Many will run on 18" but not well and look kind of funny.
I have 18" turns and run them and am not bothered by how they look but try to keep bigger equipment on the 22" upper main line. 

Next if you intend to cross one track over another you will need 2 5/8 inches of clearance from the table top to the underside of the crossover, 3" is much better.
This is with using cork or foam roadbed to lay the track on, no roadbed will lessen the clearance a bit. Most people use roadbed but a lot don't. 

A 2% incline or rise will take 50 inches of track to rise each 1/2 inch. That is pretty much the standard in HO but steeper will also work but may limit what you can pull up the hill. 
3% is pretty steep but doable and take less space.

These are just a few of the basics to get you started, that is why I suggest reading the the threads, the more you read the fewer mistakes you'll make.
Feel free to ask questions we are all here to help and there are many different ways to do things. There are no stupid questions and no best way to do something.

I was a heavy equipment mechanic for 40 years and it did not translate well to HO scale. I'm a bit heavy handed at times, often getting a bigger hammer. 

Magic


----------



## DonR

The Layout Design Forum has a number of threads with proposed and
also actually built track plans. While none may be exactly what you
would want you will see various Ideas that you can combine with
others to design the layout that you would like. 

I would suggest that you may want to widen that 2nd section to at
least 4 feet so you can keep your main curves at least 22" radius.

Because of the table dimensions I'd suggest a single track mainline
with several spurs for industries and a yard with several tracks,
the more the better. You'd be surprised at how quickly a yard will
fill up with cars if you go to any trains shows where they are only
4,5 and 10.00 each.

As a mechanic you surely had to work with 12 Volts DC. That knowledge
can easily be used when considering the wiring for your layout. You keep
the plus from touching the negative. Generally on a layout the size 
you are thinking, you would have a buss from the power pack (if DC) or
controller (if DCC) that would be fed from the center and go out
each 'leg' of your benchwork. Track drops every 6 feet or so
would be connected to that. Unless you wanted to run two trains
at the same time that is all the wiring you'd need. It gets complicated
with DC if you want more than one train running.

Turnout wiring is also straightforward. The center terminal of each
turnout is connected to a buss that is fed by one ACCESSORIES terminal
of your power pack, the red and green wires of each turnout connect
to the associated panel buttons. They in turn are fed by the other
ACCESSORIES terminal.

As your plans gel and you run into some problem be aware that
your questions are always welcome here.

Don


----------



## WIrailfan

Magic said:


> First off Welcome to the forum :smilie_daumenpos:
> 
> That Atlas track planer is not the best starting point, I would suggest SCRAM.
> Pretty easy to learn and there is program and online support for it. That's what I used.
> Here is a link https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct....info/&usg=AFQjCNGNpwVsFVYaHuvw_zcycgu85wZWKA
> 
> Next suggestion I would make is to dig through the HO thread and the My layout thread.
> Lots of good ideas in them. The first thing you have to do is make some basic decisions.
> DC verses DCC to power the trains. Continuous running or switching operations or a combination of both.
> I chose DCC and a combination of both. You should have enough room to run both.
> If you plan on running two trains at the same time DCC is much easier to work with and more versatile but more expensive. Even more so if you get sound locos.
> 
> On that 4x8 table you need to be able to reach all of it so access to both sides is necessary.
> 
> Next is what kind of equipment to run. The biggest radius turns you can fit on a 4x8 table is 22 inch radius and make a 180° turn.
> Modern diesels, large steam engines and passenger cars work best on at least 22" turns and much better with bigger. Many will run on 18" but not well and look kind of funny.
> I have 18" turns and run them and am not bothered by how they look but try to keep bigger equipment on the 22" upper main line.
> 
> Next if you intend to cross one track over another you will need 2 5/8 inches of clearance from the table top to the underside of the crossover, 3" is much better.
> This is with using cork or foam roadbed to lay the track on, no roadbed will lessen the clearance a bit. Most people use roadbed but a lot don't.
> 
> A 2% incline or rise will take 50 inches of track to rise each 1/2 inch. That is pretty much the standard in HO but steeper will also work but may limit what you can pull up the hill.
> 3% is pretty steep but doable and take less space.
> 
> These are just a few of the basics to get you started, that is why I suggest reading the the threads, the more you read the fewer mistakes you'll make.
> Feel free to ask questions we are all here to help and there are many different ways to do things. There are no stupid questions and no best way to do something.
> 
> I was a heavy equipment mechanic for 40 years and it did not translate well to HO scale. I'm a bit heavy handed at times, often getting a bigger hammer.
> 
> Magic


Thanks Magic  Thanks for the link to SCRAM....I'm going to give that one a try soon! And I've actually been doing that for the past few nights....I found a table arrangement like what I'm planning a few days ago, but now I can't find it lol! I think I'm going to start out DC (hopefully using the Tech II I already have) but I want to build my layout with a future conversion to DCC in mind. I've looked around at the DCC forum and it seems really confusing.......but really cool at the same time!! Access to all sides of the "L" isn't a problem...the basement has been re-arranged to fit haha :thumbsup: 

I'm gonna stick to 22" turns cause right now I'm not sure what I might buy down the road....currently I only have freight locos and stock. All Athern blue box. I haven't decided if I'm going to use roadbed or not ( I do like how it looks)....or weather I'm gonna use the pink foam over the OSB. I've gotta get the benchwork done on the second table and join the two first! By then hopefully I'll have all my decisions made! 

And haha I'm a bit heavy handed myself....I better be extra careful


----------



## WIrailfan

DonR said:


> The Layout Design Forum has a number of threads with proposed and
> also actually built track plans. While none may be exactly what you
> would want you will see various Ideas that you can combine with
> others to design the layout that you would like.
> 
> I would suggest that you may want to widen that 2nd section to at
> least 4 feet so you can keep your main curves at least 22" radius.
> 
> Because of the table dimensions I'd suggest a single track mainline
> with several spurs for industries and a yard with several tracks,
> the more the better. You'd be surprised at how quickly a yard will
> fill up with cars if you go to any trains shows where they are only
> 4,5 and 10.00 each.
> 
> As a mechanic you surely had to work with 12 Volts DC. That knowledge
> can easily be used when considering the wiring for your layout. You keep
> the plus from touching the negative. Generally on a layout the size
> you are thinking, you would have a buss from the power pack (if DC) or
> controller (if DCC) that would be fed from the center and go out
> each 'leg' of your benchwork. Track drops every 6 feet or so
> would be connected to that. Unless you wanted to run two trains
> at the same time that is all the wiring you'd need. It gets complicated
> with DC if you want more than one train running.
> 
> Turnout wiring is also straightforward. The center terminal of each
> turned is connected to a buss that is fed by one ACCESSORIES terminal
> of your power pack, the red and green wires of each turnout connect
> to the associated panel buttons. They in turn are fed by the other
> ACCESSORIES terminal.
> 
> As your plans gel and you run into some problem be aware that
> your questions are always welcome here.
> 
> Don


Thanks Don! I looked at that thread before I signed up...so I couldn't see any of the pics. Gonna have to check it out again :thumbsup: 

Roger that......looks like I'm going to Lowes! Good thing I didn't really start with the other piece yet!! I definitely want to stick with 22" turns. And I want a mix of continuous running and switching as well. Hopefully two 4X8 tables joined in an "L"" has enough room for that and a decent sized yard......I can see myself buying a lot of cars eventually lol! 

Oh yes I'm very familiar with 12 V DC ........work with it every day. But some of the terminology you guys use has me confused haha! I THINK I know how it works (as far as straight DC)....there's still a buss under the old table from the first layout  I don't plan on running more than one train at once....at least for now! Turnout wiring has me confused right now....as does the choice of what kind of turnouts to use. I think I'm going to use code 100 rail on my layout (once I have one haha) as all the track from my original layout got tossed :thumbsdown: 

Thanks again Don....I'm sure this won't be my last question


----------



## DonR

Code 100 flex track is an ideal choice. While code 83 is popular with
those who want a more true scale track, most of our layouts use code 100.
It is also the most widely available.

I am a big fan of Peco Insulfrog turnouts. You simply do not have turnout
caused derails with Pecos. 

DCC is very simple. The track is powered at all times with around 14 or so
volts of modified AC. (that means your loco and car lights
stay on and don't dim or go out when you slow or stop)

The DCC controller sends digital signals through
the track to the
locomotive decoders with only the push of a button and
operate the speed control. That makes possible running two or more trains
on the same track and have individual control of each. The wiring is even
more simple than that needed for DC. Your old DC buss and track drops
will be OK for DCC when you convert. If you can operate a typical TV
remote you'll have no problem with a DCC controller.

Don

Don


----------



## traction fan

*Track plans & table*



WIrailfan said:


> Like the title says I'm excited to be getting back into model trains after LOOOONNNG hiatus. When I was a kid my dad made a simple HO scale 4X8 layout.......was fun for a while but then I got into rc cars.....so the trains went away. Now my interests have changed, my dad has recently passed, but finding his old SOO loco has rekindled my interest in modeling again......and having a MUCH better layout than the first one  I've cleared the same 4X8 table off.....and am building another table that's 3'6" X 7'10" (piece of OSB I already had) which I'll be adding to make a right facing "L" if you will
> 
> Obviously I'm gonna have LOTS of questions cause my dad did all the track work and electrical things back then.......now I've gotta figure it all out lol! I've been a mechanic for 18years so I have a fair amount of knowledge....just gotta translate it to trains!
> 
> I downloaded the Atlas track planner and I'm totally lost :dunno: I kinda figured you'd start by defining the table you've got to work with. Apparently that's not the case. So if anyone has suggestions for a layout to start with I'm all ears (finding layouts online for this table arrangement has proved quite difficult) I'm hoping to have the benchwork complete in the next week or so! Also I have an old Tech II 2500 controller I plan on using (my layout will be DC.....at least for now) and I only plan on running one train at a time....but that may change as my knowledge grows :smilie_daumenpos:


WIrailfan;

Which comes first, the table or the track plan? This is somewhat like the old, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" question. Obviously our track needs to fit onto a table, but it's also good to let the track plan dictate the table's shape, and not the other way around.
There are practical limits on the total amount of space we can dedicate to our railroad "Empires".(Darn!) These include walls, and wives! Since most of us are unwilling to knock down walls, or divorce our spouse, we have to build within the overall space, but there are different ways of using that space, and some are better than others.
About a zillion layouts have been built on 4'x8' sheets of wood, for instance. This is not a particularly efficient use of most of the available spaces; it's just the shape that plywood comes in. Most modelers want continuous running, which means an oval, or figure eight, and in HO scale, those will fit on a 4x8.
Before going further, we should consider what YOU want in a model railroad. After all, the whole point is to end up with something you like. There are as many viewpoints on this subject as there are model railroaders. Some are quite satisfied with trains running around, and around; others try to duplicate exactly what some real railroad did in a certain place and time. Between these two notions, there is a lot of middle ground, and you should be the one to pick yours.
You mentioned that you want to enlarge, and improve on you dad's 4x8 layout. If your idea of "making it a lot better" includes realistic operation and appearance, then we should think about what we are trying to show on your model. A model railroad, should convey a reasonably convincing impression of being a real railroad, scaled down to a smaller size.
To do that we need to consider what a real railroad company does, and how, and how much of that we can show. Real railroads exist to move freight(and at one time passengers) from one place to another as efficiently, and profitably as possible.
Real railroads, do not haul their trains around in circles, but that doesn't mean we can't. 
It might be more convincing, though, if the train appeared to be going from one town to another instead of right back where it started.
The easiest and most realistic way to give the impression of going from point to point is to actually go, (Duh) from point to point. Many excellent model railroads have been built this way; but it usually does mean giving up on continuous running. Point to point railroads also offer the advantage of using an available space very efficiently. Often the same room that houses the railroad, can also be used for another purpose. My own layout is in my garage. Since it is built mostly on 16" deep shelves, my wife's car can still park in the garage. The same space is also used as a workshop. My railroad is not strictly point to point. It offers the option of loop to loop operation, which allows for continuous running when desired. 
Hopefully I haven't bored you to tears with this long reply. I hope that I've given you some things to consider before you start laying track.

regards;
Traction Fan :smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## geo61bird

Hi, from Wisconsin. :thumbsup:


----------



## CTValleyRR

I'll kind of second TractionFan's opinion. I would advice you to have a pretty good handle on your layout design before you go building benchwork or purchasing track pieces. It's much easier to adapt benchwork to layout than vice versa.

As he said, you really need to understand what you want from your layout before you build it, and whether you want to be realistic in your approach or just do as you please (no issues either way -- it's your layout). There is lots of advice to be had here, but ultimately it comes down to your wants, needs, and limitations.


----------



## WIrailfan

DonR said:


> Code 100 flex track is an ideal choice. While code 83 is popular with
> those who want a more true scale track, most of our layouts use code 100.
> It is also the most widely available.
> 
> I am a big fan of Peco Insulfrog turnouts. You simply do not have turnout
> caused derails with Pecos.
> 
> DCC is very simple. The track is powered at all times with around 14 or so
> volts of modified AC. (that means your loco and car lights
> stay on and don't dim or go out when you slow or stop)
> 
> The DCC controller sends digital signals through
> the track to the
> locomotive decoders with only the push of a button and
> operate the speed control. That makes possible running two or more trains
> on the same track and have individual control of each. The wiring is even
> more simple than that needed for DC. Your old DC buss and track drops
> will be OK for DCC when you convert. If you can operate a typical TV
> remote you'll have no problem with a DCC controller.
> 
> Don
> 
> Don


I'd noticed that looking at peoples layouts.....code 100 seems pretty popular! It seems like your turnout choice is kind like the Chevy vs Ford battle.....but not having derails sounds pretty good to me  Is there a big difference in the cost of turnouts from different brands?

Hmmmm ok well when you put it like that DCC does seem pretty simple.....especially the wiring part :smilie_daumenpos: Maybe I'll give it a bit more thought.....I definitely want to do this right...and running more than one train is a definite goal! And haha I'm really good with a remote.......I might be a natural :laugh:


----------



## WIrailfan

traction fan said:


> WIrailfan;
> 
> Which comes first, the table or the track plan? This is somewhat like the old, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" question. Obviously our track needs to fit onto a table, but it's also good to let the track plan dictate the table's shape, and not the other way around.
> There are practical limits on the total amount of space we can dedicate to our railroad "Empires".(Darn!) These include walls, and wives! Since most of us are unwilling to knock down walls, or divorce our spouse, we have to build within the overall space, but there are different ways of using that space, and some are better than others.
> About a zillion layouts have been built on 4'x8' sheets of wood, for instance. This is not a particularly efficient use of most of the available spaces; it's just the shape that plywood comes in. Most modelers want continuous running, which means an oval, or figure eight, and in HO scale, those will fit on a 4x8.
> Before going further, we should consider what YOU want in a model railroad. After all, the whole point is to end up with something you like. There are as many viewpoints on this subject as there are model railroaders. Some are quite satisfied with trains running around, and around; others try to duplicate exactly what some real railroad did in a certain place and time. Between these two notions, there is a lot of middle ground, and you should be the one to pick yours.
> You mentioned that you want to enlarge, and improve on you dad's 4x8 layout. If your idea of "making it a lot better" includes realistic operation and appearance, then we should think about what we are trying to show on your model. A model railroad, should convey a reasonably convincing impression of being a real railroad, scaled down to a smaller size.
> To do that we need to consider what a real railroad company does, and how, and how much of that we can show. Real railroads exist to move freight(and at one time passengers) from one place to another as efficiently, and profitably as possible.
> Real railroads, do not haul their trains around in circles, but that doesn't mean we can't.
> It might be more convincing, though, if the train appeared to be going from one town to another instead of right back where it started.
> The easiest and most realistic way to give the impression of going from point to point is to actually go, (Duh) from point to point. Many excellent model railroads have been built this way; but it usually does mean giving up on continuous running. Point to point railroads also offer the advantage of using an available space very efficiently. Often the same room that houses the railroad, can also be used for another purpose. My own layout is in my garage. Since it is built mostly on 16" deep shelves, my wife's car can still park in the garage. The same space is also used as a workshop. My railroad is not strictly point to point. It offers the option of loop to loop operation, which allows for continuous running when desired.
> Hopefully I haven't bored you to tears with this long reply. I hope that I've given you some things to consider before you start laying track.
> 
> regards;
> Traction Fan :smilie_daumenpos:


I think I'm beginning to understand what you mean....I guess there's a few things I for sure want in my layout. I want a combination of continuous running and switching...not sure on number of main lines yet (that will probably be dictated by available space) I'd also like a bridge/tunnel.....not sure which one yet! You are correct in your assumption of what I meant by ""a lot better" My first layout was basically a loop with one or two short sidings (my memory is a but cloudy on the details......I'm trying to find some old pics of it) 

Obviously I already have one 4X8 table built.....so I need to decide how I'm going to best add on to it with my plan in mind. What would recommend?.....I have a fairly large space available......but sadly can't use all of it :thumbsdown: Oh and don't worry no tears here......I appreciate hearing your opinions :smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## WIrailfan

geo61bird said:


> Hi, from Wisconsin. :thumbsup:


Hello there!!!! :smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## WIrailfan

CTValleyRR said:


> I'll kind of second TractionFan's opinion. I would advice you to have a pretty good handle on your layout design before you go building benchwork or purchasing track pieces. It's much easier to adapt benchwork to layout than vice versa.
> 
> As he said, you really need to understand what you want from your layout before you build it, and whether you want to be realistic in your approach or just do as you please (no issues either way -- it's your layout). There is lots of advice to be had here, but ultimately it comes down to your wants, needs, and limitations.


I want to have a layout planned before the benchwork is done. I need to find out exactly how much space I can use....that will dictate table size. I want realism for sure (considering my first layout hade NONE whatsoever haha)........not one building or tree :laugh: I haven't ordered any track yet...first thing I need is wood to complete my addition!


----------



## CTValleyRR

WIrailfan said:


> I want to have a layout planned before the benchwork is done. I need to find out exactly how much space I can use....that will dictate table size. I want realism for sure (considering my first layout hade NONE whatsoever haha)........not one building or tree :laugh: I haven't ordered any track yet...first thing I need is wood to complete my addition!


Something that might help is to use the old tried and true technique of a Givens and Druthers list.

Givens are things that MUST happen, whether because a layout without it just won't work for you, or limitations that you have no choice but to accept (like the structural pole in the middle of where you want your layout).

Druthers are things you would like to have if space / time / money / etc allow. This is where most of your compromises will occur. 

Then, when you have a fair handle on yourlayout plan, post it here and get some advice on improvements and potential problems.


----------



## WIrailfan

CTValleyRR said:


> Something that might help is to use the old tried and true technique of a Givens and Druthers list.
> 
> Givens are things that MUST happen, whether because a layout without it just won't work for you, or limitations that you have no choice but to accept (like the structural pole in the middle of where you want your layout).
> 
> Druthers are things you would like to have if space / time / money / etc allow. This is where most of your compromises will occur.
> 
> Then, when you have a fair handle on yourlayout plan, post it here and get some advice on improvements and potential problems.


I pretty much came to the same conclusion  So I decided to start with a 4X8 layout on my existing bench. Later I'm going to make another bench (of a yet unknown size) to add on to my existing trackwork. It'll be a neat challenge! In a LOT of web searching I found this layout......http://www.thortrains.net/4holay9.html top one on that page. Seems like a layout I think I can figure out haha!! If I'm feeling brave I may play around with it a bit too (so as not to just copy the picture) 

Rather than spend an eternity in the "looking at pictures online" phase of the hobby (I've already spent two weeks there)......I bit the bullet tonight and ordered a bunch of 36" nickel silver code 100 flex track, the track bed, and Peco Electrofrog turnouts (6 left....2 right...all medium radius) I'm anxious to start laying track :smilie_daumenpos: I still haven't decided wether I'm going to use foam board over my OSB. If I do I'm gonna have to have it truck shipped cause I've got no way to get it home......even though it's only like 3 miles away :laugh: Hopefully I can make the DC vs DCC decision by the time I have the track down!


----------



## MtRR75

WIrailfan said:


> Hmmmm ok well when you put it like that DCC does seem pretty simple.....especially the wiring part. Maybe I'll give it a bit more thought.....I definitely want to do this right...and running more than one train is a definite goal! And haha I'm really good with a remote.......I might be a natural


Pardon me if some of what I say repeats advice that you already got. I skimmed all the responses, but I may have missed something.

You can run 2 trains on DC or DCC, but there is more wiring involved with DC. But if you want to run 3 or more trains at the same time, DC gets REALLY complicated -- even for us DC folks. However, it is no problem to add 3 or more trains to DCC. The only downsides are (1) the extra cost of more decoders, and (2) trying to keep track of all of those trains without having them run into each other or run across a turnout that is not set properly.


----------



## Magic

Remember with Peco Electrofrog turnouts if you have power coming from both ends of the turnout you'll need to put insulated rail joiners or some such thing on the two diverging frog rails, you'll get a dead short if you don't.

I happen to really like using the foam board, much easier to do so many things.
I think you'll be happy you did, even with a little extra cost.

Link to the track plan didn't work for me. 

Magic


----------



## WIrailfan

Magic said:


> Remember with Peco Electrofrog turnouts if you have power coming from both ends of the turnout you'll need to put insulated rail joiners or some such thing on the two diverging frog rails, you'll get a dead short if you don't.
> 
> I happen to really like using the foam board, much easier to do so many things.
> I think you'll be happy you did, even with a little extra cost.
> 
> Link to the track plan didn't work for me.
> 
> Magic


Ok I've got that noted.....now how exactly do you do that? What are diverging frog rails btw. I'll be honest it's the turnout wiring that has me the most confused :laugh: Oh and the link is fixed :smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## CTValleyRR

You can return your Electrofrogs for Insulfrogs. Those greatly simplify the wiring.


----------



## WIrailfan

CTValleyRR said:


> You can return your Electrofrogs for Insulfrogs. Those greatly simplify the wiring.


Well crap that's what I thought I bought! I got them from modeltrainsruff.com........and the only Insulfrog ones I see are code 83, that's why I didn't get them! Will those work with my code 100 flex track?


----------



## CTValleyRR

Well, they make them all right (Code 100 Insulfrogs)... don't know why MB Klein (modeltrainstuff) doesn't seem to carry them. Probably didn't sell very well.

They are on sale today at Walthers.com.

You can mix codes of track. You have to adapt the joiners (or buy special ones) to account for the difference in rail height, and probably shim the entire turnout as well. But it can be done.


----------



## WIrailfan

CTValleyRR said:


> Well, they make them all right (Code 100 Insulfrogs)... don't know why MB Klein (modeltrainstuff) doesn't seem to carry them. Probably didn't sell very well.
> 
> They are on sale today at Walthers.com.
> 
> You can mix codes of track. You have to adapt the joiners (or buy special ones) to account for the difference in rail height, and probably shim the entire turnout as well. But it can be done.


Yeah I've been doing a bit of searching here at work..........I've found them practically everywhere BUT modeltrainstuff.com. Figures lol! And of course my order is to far along to be changed now! I'm gonna check out Walthers when I get home :smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## CTValleyRR

You might see if you can return them if they're unopened. With me, a store credit at MB Klein wouldn't last long!


----------



## WIrailfan

CTValleyRR said:


> You might see if you can return them if they're unopened. With me, a store credit at MB Klein wouldn't last long!


Well I hope they're unopened...the order hasn't even shipped yet :laugh: About the sale at Walthers....do you know if that's JUST for today? Cause I can just stop by the store on Wednesday if the sale goes for a few days :smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Magic

I would give Model Train Stuff a call, they are pretty customer friendly and if they haven't shipped yet they may be able to stop shipment 
so you don't have to pay ship them back and they can give you a store credit or charge back on your card.

Magic


----------



## CTValleyRR

I agree with Magic -- give them a call. They've always been very helpful to me, too. 

The Walthers ones are still on sale; I don't know for how long. Nice to live that close to them -- like getting free shipping, although you probably pay sales tax.


----------



## WIrailfan

Magic said:


> I would give Model Train Stuff a call, they are pretty customer friendly and if they haven't shipped yet they may be able to stop shipment
> so you don't have to pay ship them back and they can give you a store credit or charge back on your card.
> 
> Magic





CTValleyRR said:


> I agree with Magic -- give them a call. They've always been very helpful to me, too.
> 
> The Walthers ones are still on sale; I don't know for how long. Nice to live that close to them -- like getting free shipping, although you probably pay sales tax.


Yeah I just sent them an email this morning and by 10am they'd removed the turnouts from my order and shipped the rest :appl: A+ for effort on Modeltrainstuff.com's part! 

Yes it's nice being so close to Walthers (my dad always made a big deal out of the only one in the world being right here) .....I do pay sales tax.....but with the sale it's still cheaper! The store is ten minutes away from me  I'm going there tomorrow to get the right turnouts.......I haven't actually been there in almost 25 years 

I'm second (and third) guessing wether I'm gonna use the foam...........is there any advantage to using a 2" or 3" thickness of it? Or is just how deep you can make your river/lake?


----------



## CTValleyRR

WIrailfan said:


> I'm second (and third) guessing wether I'm gonna use the foam...........is there any advantage to using a 2" or 3" thickness of it? Or is just how deep you can make your river/lake?


Some people say it has sound deadening properties (although I'm not one to either notice or be bothered by it); in which case thicker would be better.

In my case, I use 2" because that's generally all the deeper I want to build anything. The area I model doesn't include dramatic cliffs and gullies. More foam allows you to build deeper scenery. 1" in HO equates to about 7.25 scale feet (ish, please don't nit pick me; it's a round number).


----------



## Chip

The sound, 'noise' issue is SO subjective it is almost useless to discuss! The type of material used in the layout itself and then there is the floor it is on and the walls and floors separating the layout from the rest of the house ALL come into play together and almost every layout is different! I had to get 6 locos going at once all pulling at least ten each to get anything close to what I would consider 'noise'. All my track is currently non road bedded and not ballasted on flat MDF.


----------



## WIrailfan

CTValleyRR said:


> Some people say it has sound deadening properties (although I'm not one to either notice or be bothered by it); in which case thicker would be better.
> 
> In my case, I use 2" because that's generally all the deeper I want to build anything. The area I model doesn't include dramatic cliffs and gullies. More foam allows you to build deeper scenery. 1" in HO equates to about 7.25 scale feet (ish, please don't nit pick me; it's a round number).


I'm not really worried about noise.....I'll be using the foam roadbed as well so it should be minimal. I've decided to go with using the foam insulation on top if the OSB. 2" should be enough thickness......I haven't really thought of what kind of geographical setting my layout will be in anyway. For now it's just gonna be flat :laugh: A bunch of flex track arrived today.....the roadbed is coming tomorrow! Gonna try and get the foam insulation this weekend! My plan is slowly coming together


----------



## Chip

WIrailfan said:


> I'm not really worried about noise.....I'll be using the foam roadbed as well so it should be minimal. I've decided to go with using the foam insulation on top if the OSB. 2" should be enough thickness......I haven't really thought of what kind of geographical setting my layout will be in anyway. For now it's just gonna be flat :laugh: A bunch of flex track arrived today.....the roadbed is coming tomorrow! Gonna try and get the foam insulation this weekend! My plan is slowly coming together


Well done! You are at a very exciting stage in the layout building phase and I thank you for reminding me of the enthusiasm I had at that point. There WILL be headaches and 'problems' ahead, stay the course!:appl:


----------



## WIrailfan

Chip said:


> Well done! You are at a very exciting stage in the layout building phase and I thank you for reminding me of the enthusiasm I had at that point. There WILL be headaches and 'problems' ahead, stay the course!:appl:


Thanks  It is very exciting! And I'm glad I helped bring back those memories of yours :smilie_daumenpos: Yes I'm aware of that......I'll be coming here whenever that happens haha :laugh: So it'll probably be a lot


----------



## WIrailfan

*some pics*

Here's a pic of the layout I've decided on, and a few of my new stuff (Soo loco isn't new) and table progress!! What's the best way of getting the layout actually ON the table.........as in accurately locating the turnouts? I was thinking the grid pattern on the layout pic would help.....could transfer that grid to the table hmmmmm :thumbsup: Is that the best way?




























And here's the only thing left under the table from the old layout.....


----------



## Chip

LOL! I jut bought the exact same track cutting tool last week, was using old shovel nose wire cutters and had to file too much! 

ALERT! "All plans go out the window upon first contact with the enemy!" Your best bet is making sure your corners fit and "horse" the rest of it into line! If a turnout does not fit EXACTLY where the plan called for, don't freak out, I can tell you right now it WILL happen! "Plans" in our heads and even on paper or CAD and actual pieces of wood and track rarely match up the way we want them too! You WILL have to 'fudge it' at some point. Always leave yourself some 'wiggle room' in every plan! The MOST distressed posts I've seen are from guys who's 'plans' fell apart upon beginning the work and it does not match the 'proto' vision they had in their minds.

Unless of course it is a pre-made plan of all sectional pieces from an established layout that has been proven to operate as advertised. But that is "making a copy" not "building a layout"!


----------



## Genetk44

I don't know were you got this plan from but since the PECO switches are a slightly different geometry from Atlas,Bachmann and other US style switches you will probably find it won't come together exactly as per the plan, but thats ok....it won't be too far out.

Your idea of laying the gridlines on the table is a good starting point and if you find things don't fit as per the plan thats ok too...just fudge it as Chip says.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Grid lines is the way I do it. Print the plan with a 1' grid superimposed on it, and reproduce the grid, full scale on the table.

As Chip said, be prepared for some inconsistencies in the real track. Just watch how you fudge so that you do not introduce a big kink at a rail joint. A piece of flex track or two will help it come together.


----------



## WIrailfan

Chip said:


> LOL! I jut bought the exact same track cutting tool last week, was using old shovel nose wire cutters and had to file too much!
> 
> ALERT! "All plans go out the window upon first contact with the enemy!" Your best bet is making sure your corners fit and "horse" the rest of it into line! If a turnout does not fit EXACTLY where the plan called for, don't freak out, I can tell you right now it WILL happen! "Plans" in our heads and even on paper or CAD and actual pieces of wood and track rarely match up the way we want them too! You WILL have to 'fudge it' at some point. Always leave yourself some 'wiggle room' in every plan! The MOST distressed posts I've seen are from guys who's 'plans' fell apart upon beginning the work and it does not match the 'proto' vision they had in their minds.
> 
> Unless of course it is a pre-made plan of all sectional pieces from an established layout that has been proven to operate as advertised. But that is "making a copy" not "building a layout"!


That's awesome! I take it they work a LOT better :thumbsup: I've laid the 1' grid out on the table (after deciding I'm not using the foam on top of the OSB) and started playing around with turnouts. I can already see it's not going to look exactly like the pic.....but that's fine with me! As long as it works lol :laugh: In messing around with the flex track I realized I had no way to really know what my radiuses were. So some of those curved track laying tools will be here tomorrow.


----------



## WIrailfan

CTValleyRR said:


> Grid lines is the way I do it. Print the plan with a 1' grid superimposed on it, and reproduce the grid, full scale on the table.
> 
> As Chip said, be prepared for some inconsistencies in the real track. Just watch how you fudge so that you do not introduce a big kink at a rail joint. A piece of flex track or two will help it come together.


Yup that's what I did, and I see now what Chip meant by inconsistencies  I'm definitely going to avoid kinks......I only want to do this once haha! And other than the turnouts it's going to be all flex track......I'm sure it'll work out :smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Overkast

WIrailfan said:


> I've laid the 1' grid out on the table (after deciding I'm not using the foam on top of the OSB)


WIrailfan, on the previous page you stated you _were_ going to use the foam base. Now you're not? Curious as to why you decided not to. If you want any sort of sunken terrain detail (such as a river or just valleys gently-sloping down from the track) then I would highly recommend building on foam - it will make a world of difference on your layout in the end (and you want to be happy with something you're going to spend so much time and money investing on).


----------



## jlc41

WIrailfan, I have a similar layout. I just finished gluing my track down. I used 1 inch foam on a plywood base. I will tell you am I new to this also. I spent a week getting my flex track and turn outs the way I wanted. I used 2 inch foam nails to secure the track and I was glad for the foam it maid pinning the flex track a snap. I don't know how you are going to secure your track but the foam worked well for me, just saying.


----------



## WIrailfan

Overkast said:


> WIrailfan, on the previous page you stated you _were_ going to use the foam base. Now you're not? Curious as to why you decided not to. If you want any sort of sunken terrain detail (such as a river or just valleys gently-sloping down from the track) then I would highly recommend building on foam - it will make a world of difference on your layout in the end (and you want to be happy with something you're going to spend so much time and money investing on).





jlc41 said:


> WIrailfan, I have a similar layout. I just finished gluing my track down. I used 1 inch foam on a plywood base. I will tell you am I new to this also. I spent a week getting my flex track and turn outs the way I wanted. I used 2 inch foam nails to secure the track and I was glad for the foam it maid pinning the flex track a snap. I don't know how you are going to secure your track but the foam worked well for me, just saying.


You guys both bring up good points. While I don't have any immediate plans for any sunken detail (mainly cause I've never done something like that before)........that doesn't mean I won't down the road! I'll be honest I only decided against the foam to be able to start laying track sooner :laugh: Getting the foam 2.8 miles from Lowes to here is gonna be a hassle. I don't have a truck.......guys I work with I'm reluctant to ask (and one of their trucks is too small anyway). And Lowes want's almost $60 to deliver it!!! The foam doesn't even cost $30!!! :rippedhand: But I'll get it here somehow......even if I have to walk the 3 miles with it....it is VERY light :smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## bluenavigator

Do you have anyone that can help you with bring the foams? Yea, truck rent/delivery is totally ripoff. If I am in Wisconsin, I would give you a hand!


----------



## Overkast

WIrailfan, do you have a good size car where the back seats go down and you can leverage trunk space? If you can do this and put the front passenger seat down too, you might be able to fit like 3 or 4 8'x2' 1-inch foam boards running from trunk to front seat.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## WIrailfan

bluenavigator said:


> Do you have anyone that can help you with bring the foams? Yea, truck rent/delivery is totally ripoff. If I am in Wisconsin, I would give you a hand!


Yes I'm going to be using my bosses truck on Wednesday to bring home the foam. I'm about 95% sure it's gonna fit lol :laugh: One way or another it's going to happen! And haha I wish you were closer :thumbsup:


----------



## WIrailfan

Overkast said:


> WIrailfan, do you have a good size car where the back seats go down and you can leverage trunk space? If you can do this and put the front passenger seat down too, you might be able to fit like 3 or 4 8'x2' 1-inch foam boards running from trunk to front seat.


That's a possibility.....but I'd really rather the foam remain in one piece! Thanks for the suggestion though :smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## WIrailfan

*Wiring question?*

Ok so since I'm basically at a standstill as far as track laying till I have the foam....I want to get an idea on how best to wire my layout. In reading a lot of threads I'm planning on powering each piece of flex track. But what do with the turnouts? I don't know how to tell if my layout has a reverse loop or not. It's going to be DC for now using a Tech II controller. And anyone have any good tips on soldering wires to track. Also what gauge wire should be used for the feeders?


----------



## Overkast

WIrailfan, if you insist on a single piece of foam for a 4'×8' layout you are going to make this project unnecessarily difficult and you'll have many more of these frustrating "waiting periods" ahead of you, because it's not just the base you need to worry about, it's also the mountains. 

Just so you know, I was able to transport four 1" 2'×8' foam panels in my Accord just fine yesterday. And all I need for the gap in between then is a filler:















Regarding your questions on soldering and polarity, it is a loaded question. There is much to learn on the subjects if you're going to do it right, and there are many places to read where all thus is discussed. One of the best sources for me was Allan Gartner' DCC for Beginners site: http://www.wiringfordcc.com/intro2dcc.htm

Even though its DCC he does cover differences in DC as well. Basically though I can tell you in short, you need to plan on:

1) soldering feeder wires to every isolated piece of track (don't rely on rail joiners to conduct electricity through the layout from track piece to track piece). 

2) Soldering 5 wires + 2 jumpers to every turnout. 4 wires (2 positive and 2 negative) ensures you'll have power to the stock rails and the frog rails, and the 2 jumpers to carry power from the stock rails to the closure rails. Then the remaining 5th wire is for the frog, which needs to change polarity, so that wire needs to connect to some sort of polarity switching device.

3) For reverse loops, you need to isolate the rail section with plastic rail joiners and you need a way to change the polarity of the rails on the reverse loop section so the loco doesn't short circuit when the wheels touch both a positive and negative polarity at the same time. Some people try to do the cheap method by making a manual control on the polarity, but there's also some pricey-but-automated circuit breakers out there that will do the polarity switch automatically for you the instant it detects a short circuit (and keeps the loco running flawlessly). The PSX AR is one of the best in the industry, and is what I spent my money on... and it was totally worth the investment.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Big Ed

WIrailfan said:


> Here's a pic of the layout I've decided on, and a few of my new stuff (Soo loco isn't new) and table progress!! What's the best way of getting the layout actually ON the table.........as in accurately locating the turnouts? I was thinking the grid pattern on the layout pic would help.....could transfer that grid to the table hmmmmm :thumbsup: Is that the best way?


Expand the layout some? But I guess you got your plan from the same site as I did?
More action with this one.
I just posted this somewhere else,
http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showpost.php?p=1000922&postcount=5


----------



## Chip

Overkast said:


> WIrailfan, if you insist on a single piece of foam for a 4'×8' layout you are going to make this project unnecessarily difficult and you'll have many more of these frustrating "waiting periods" ahead of you, because it's not just the base you need to worry about, it's also the mountains.
> 
> Just so you know, I was able to transport four 1" 2'×8' foam panels in my Accord just fine yesterday. And all I need for the gap in between then is a filler:
> View attachment 163122
> 
> View attachment 163130
> 
> 
> Regarding your questions on soldering and polarity, it is a loaded question. There is much to learn on the subjects if you're going to do it right, and there are many places to read where all thus is discussed. One of the best sources for me was Allan Gartner' DCC for Beginners site: http://www.wiringfordcc.com/intro2dcc.htm
> 
> Even though its DCC he does cover differences in DC as well. Basically though I can tell you in short, you need to plan on:
> 
> 1) soldering feeder wires to every isolated piece of track (don't rely on rail joiners to conduct electricity through the layout from track piece to track piece).
> 
> 2) Soldering 5 wires + 2 jumpers to every turnout. 4 wires (2 positive and 2 negative) ensures you'll have power to the stock rails and the frog rails, and the 2 jumpers to carry power from the stock rails to the closure rails. Then the remaining 5th wire is for the frog, which needs to change polarity, so that wire needs to connect to some sort of polarity switching device.
> 
> 3) For reverse loops, you need to isolate the rail section with plastic rail joiners and you need a way to change the polarity of the rails on the reverse loop section so the loco doesn't short circuit when the wheels touch both a positive and negative polarity at the same time. Some people try to do the cheap method by making a manual control on the polarity, but there's also some pricey-but-automated circuit breakers out there that will do the polarity switch automatically for you the instant it detects a short circuit (and keeps the loco running flawlessly). The PSX AR is one of the best in the industry, and is what I spent my money on... and it was totally worth the investment.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Well will SOMEBODY explain HOW I'm running DCC on 500 feet of track with ONE power feed???? PLEASE!

I keep seeing everybody advise going batcrap crazy with the wiring and I'm just not needing it! I'm no electrical genius and I'm not that lucky! The track IS the wires and do you see em running fresh feed to every power box in a building? HOW many wires do you need to take the power to the SAME place? 

Redundant is good but there IS a point where it becomes kinda silly! 

EVERY piece of track and EVERY turnout? I'm just not seeing the need, MAYBE every 10-12 feet IF you never CLEAN the track! I put the meter on it and drop was MINIMAL across the layout! NO dead spots or slowdowns or anything like that when running MANY loco's at once!

NCE PowerPro 5 amp system.


----------



## CTValleyRR

No need for the sarcasm, Chip. You could have made your point by offering a calm, reasoned response, without all the histrionics. 

As you point out, there is a certain amount of redundancy built in to these recommendations. Some people have more tolerance for risk than others. Certainly, the huge numbers of feeders some people feel the need to install will guarantee that every point on their track has exactly the same level of power all the time. There is a tradeoff between the insurance that offers and the time and material necessary to do it.

At the other end of the scale, copper wire is a much better conductor than nickel silver beams, and any unsoldered rail joint is a potential trouble spot. Many people, fearing the effects on expansion and contraction of their benchwork (NOT the rails themselves, despite the popular misconception), leave a very large number of unsoldered rail joints, or even gaps, which require more separate feeders.

For myself, I divide my layout into large chunks of track -- at least 6-8 feet long, and as wide as all the interconnected track in it. All rail joints in these blocks are soldered, and each block has one, and only one, set of feeders. I RARELY have a problem, and if I do, that's when I add another set of feeders.

My son's 8x8 True Track layout, running a 1.8 amp MRC Prodigy Express2 system, works just fine from a single set of feeders, right to the track closest to the controller.

Really, it's all about each person's tolerance for risk, and how much overengineering and redundancy he wants to build in.


----------



## WIrailfan

Overkast said:


> WIrailfan, if you insist on a single piece of foam for a 4'×8' layout you are going to make this project unnecessarily difficult and you'll have many more of these frustrating "waiting periods" ahead of you, because it's not just the base you need to worry about, it's also the mountains.
> 
> 
> Regarding your questions on soldering and polarity, it is a loaded question. There is much to learn on the subjects if you're going to do it right, and there are many places to read where all thus is discussed. One of the best sources for me was Allan Gartner' DCC for Beginners site: http://www.wiringfordcc.com/intro2dcc.htm
> 
> Even though its DCC he does cover differences in DC as well. Basically though I can tell you in short, you need to plan on:
> 
> 1) soldering feeder wires to every isolated piece of track (don't rely on rail joiners to conduct electricity through the layout from track piece to track piece).
> 
> 2) Soldering 5 wires + 2 jumpers to every turnout. 4 wires (2 positive and 2 negative) ensures you'll have power to the stock rails and the frog rails, and the 2 jumpers to carry power from the stock rails to the closure rails. Then the remaining 5th wire is for the frog, which needs to change polarity, so that wire needs to connect to some sort of polarity switching device.
> 
> 3) For reverse loops, you need to isolate the rail section with plastic rail joiners and you need a way to change the polarity of the rails on the reverse loop section so the loco doesn't short circuit when the wheels touch both a positive and negative polarity at the same time. Some people try to do the cheap method by making a manual control on the polarity, but there's also some pricey-but-automated circuit breakers out there that will do the polarity switch automatically for you the instant it detects a short circuit (and keeps the loco running flawlessly). The PSX AR is one of the best in the industry, and is what I spent my money on... and it was totally worth the investment.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I don't see how the single piece of foam would make things harder once I get it here. It's going to be a while before I attempt any kind of landscaping.....and that would be done with smaller pieces anyway. I'm using Peco Insulfrog turnouts....do they still need 5 wires each? And as far as reverse loops.....does my layout have any? I'm not sure lol :laugh:


----------



## WIrailfan

CTValleyRR said:


> No need for the sarcasm, Chip. You could have made your point by offering a calm, reasoned response, without all the histrionics.
> 
> As you point out, there is a certain amount of redundancy built in to these recommendations. Some people have more tolerance for risk than others. Certainly, the huge numbers of feeders some people feel the need to install will guarantee that every point on their track has exactly the same level of power all the time. There is a tradeoff between the insurance that offers and the time and material necessary to do it.
> 
> At the other end of the scale, copper wire is a much better conductor than nickel silver beams, and any unsoldered rail joint is a potential trouble spot. Many people, fearing the effects on expansion and contraction of their benchwork (NOT the rails themselves, despite the popular misconception), leave a very large number of unsoldered rail joints, or even gaps, which require more separate feeders.
> 
> For myself, I divide my layout into large chunks of track -- at least 6-8 feet long, and as wide as all the interconnected track in it. All rail joints in these blocks are soldered, and each block has one, and only one, set of feeders. I RARELY have a problem, and if I do, that's when I add another set of feeders.
> 
> My son's 8x8 True Track layout, running a 1.8 amp MRC Prodigy Express2 system, works just fine from a single set of feeders, right to the track closest to the controller.
> 
> Really, it's all about each person's tolerance for risk, and how much overengineering and redundancy he wants to build in.


CTV, how many 6-8 foot sections of track do you see in my layout.........I'm thinking 3 or so. So solder everything in those groups together (including turnouts)? Do the Insulfrogs need all the additional wiring that Overkast mentioned? I'm still confused by reverse loops (and a bunch of other stuff haha)  And the wiring would go controller>buss>feeders>track right? 

I've spent tonight attempting to solder a couple pieces of flex track together for some of the curves I have.....and I think my first attempt went pretty well :thumbsup: Do you recommend soldering with or without railjoiners? And what gauge wire for the feeders?


----------



## Genetk44

Soldering track is pretty easy once you have practised it...so go ahead and solder as much as you want. The problem with the insulfrogs is they rely on small metal tabs on the bottom of the rails tomake good electrical contact for powering the diverging rails. If you are willing to rely on that then wiring is easy...just be sure you got good contact all the way through.


----------



## Overkast

WIrailfan said:


> I'm using Peco Insulfrog turnouts....do they still need 5 wires each? And as far as reverse loops.....does my layout have any? I'm not sure lol :laugh:


Good point... your layout doesn't seem to have a reverse loop so I think you're all set there. 

For insulfrogs, no you don't need the 5th wire to change frog polarity, but I still recommend doing the 4 wires +2 jumpers per turnout. Turnouts are the highest likely failure point of a layout, so you really don't want them failing and having to address them later on after you've done all the ballasting and scenery. Best to be thorough now while you can at its easiest.



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Genetk44

Definately yes on the jumpers....the tabs on the point rails aren't good enough.


----------



## RonthePirate

A point on the need for feeders. I use 027 rolled rail. I have over 90 feet of mainline.

Without the feeders, I got almost complete stopping at the approximate halfway point of the feeders. And that is with a Lionel 80 watt transformer.

I am using five feeders now. The difference is astounding! Very little slowdown into the curves now.
And the straightaways are smooth as silk.

Also just a FYI: WIrailfan, I too used the foam roadbed. I'm glad I did.
HO noise,while still there is nothing comparable to O gauge, and o prewar is even worse.
The foam brings the noise level to near nothing.
Since we're using the foam roadbed, the sound qualities about the foam boards is null and void.
It just does nothing with that foam roadbed there.


----------



## Chip

CTValleyRR said:


> No need for the sarcasm, Chip. You could have made your point by offering a calm, reasoned response, without all the histrionics.
> 
> As you point out, there is a certain amount of redundancy built in to these recommendations. Some people have more tolerance for risk than others. Certainly, the huge numbers of feeders some people feel the need to install will guarantee that every point on their track has exactly the same level of power all the time. There is a tradeoff between the insurance that offers and the time and material necessary to do it.
> 
> At the other end of the scale, copper wire is a much better conductor than nickel silver beams, and any unsoldered rail joint is a potential trouble spot. Many people, fearing the effects on expansion and contraction of their benchwork (NOT the rails themselves, despite the popular misconception), leave a very large number of unsoldered rail joints, or even gaps, which require more separate feeders.
> 
> For myself, I divide my layout into large chunks of track -- at least 6-8 feet long, and as wide as all the interconnected track in it. All rail joints in these blocks are soldered, and each block has one, and only one, set of feeders. I RARELY have a problem, and if I do, that's when I add another set of feeders.
> 
> My son's 8x8 True Track layout, running a 1.8 amp MRC Prodigy Express2 system, works just fine from a single set of feeders, right to the track closest to the controller.
> 
> Really, it's all about each person's tolerance for risk, and how much overengineering and redundancy he wants to build in.


I apologize. I'm used to getting jumped when I mention it so I'm a wee bit defensive. I did it on a whim to see 'what the deal is' and was shocked at how far how much can go! I try to spread the news and people don't like it. I have 120 pairs of wired joins and will use em if I must but I'm about running trains and not wiring. It can drive a body out of the hobby or keep em from even getting started thinking you MUST have a redundant power feed to each and every piece of track and turnout you put down on a 4x8 layout!

I encourage folks to find out for themselves!


----------



## Overkast

I must admit, all the research I read on the subject did have an overwhelming majority recommending to solder every piece of track, so to avoid having to deal with any rail joiner degradation problems in the future I did do that diligence. That's not to say Chip isn't right, perhaps it is overkill. And perhaps the rail joiner issue isn't as much of a concern in HO as it is in N Scale too (which is what I'm modeling).

All I know is that once my scenery is all built up and done and I'm running trains, the last thing I want to deal with is electrical issues or ripping up track and ruining scenery, so I'm trying to cross all my t's and dot my i's now.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Chip

My bad, N scale? Please disregard my advice! N scale is not my bailiwick! Won't presume to say nothing about no N scale! I think I've seen one once, they are tiny, that's all I know about N scale.


----------



## Genetk44

Rail joints and rail-joiners are points of failure electrically. The more joints and rail-joiners means more points of failure. Relying only on the rail-joiners to conduct electrical power is a gamble no matter the scale, although the odds are probably a bit worse in N-scale. The advent and use of 3-foot sections of flexible track by most modellers reduces the number of joints and rail-joiners by about 30% in any given stretch of track on a layout, so that right there improves the electrical situation. On a stationary home layout, especially HO, soldering every joint or adding a set of feeders to every section of track seems like overkill to me but each to their own.


----------



## CTValleyRR

WIrailfan said:


> CTV, how many 6-8 foot sections of track do you see in my layout.........I'm thinking 3 or so. So solder everything in those groups together (including turnouts)? Do the Insulfrogs need all the additional wiring that Overkast mentioned? I'm still confused by reverse loops (and a bunch of other stuff haha)  And the wiring would go controller>buss>feeders>track right?
> 
> I've spent tonight attempting to solder a couple pieces of flex track together for some of the curves I have.....and I think my first attempt went pretty well :thumbsup: Do you recommend soldering with or without railjoiners? And what gauge wire for the feeders?


As you've probably gathered by now, everyone has their own level of tolerance for wiring and electrical reliability.

I have run layouts the size of yours with a single set of AWG22 feeders with no issues. My son is doing it now.

Only you can say for sure, but my opinion is three sets of feeders is plenty. I use AWG 16 for the bus and AWG 18 for the feeders, but again, others have their own preferences.

You definitely want to use rail joiners, whether soldered or not. And your order of hooking things up is correct (the bus is a straight line, BTW, not a loop). I can't really say whether all the wiring is necessary with electrofrogs -- I've never used one. For insulated or non-conductive frogs, track power has always been sufficient for me. I've never added extra feeders to a turnout.

A reversing loop is pretty simple, conceptually. Put your finger on one rail or the other. If you can trace a path (that a train wheel could follow) through your layout such that your finger ends up on the other rail on the same piece of track, you have a reversing loop. You don't have one, so don't sweat it.


----------



## WIrailfan

Genetk44 said:


> Definately yes on the jumpers....the tabs on the point rails aren't good enough.


Can someone explain this reply? I'm totally confused by it :laugh:


----------



## WIrailfan

CTValleyRR said:


> As you've probably gathered by now, everyone has their own level of tolerance for wiring and electrical reliability.
> 
> I have run layouts the size of yours with a single set of AWG22 feeders with no issues. My son is doing it now.
> 
> Only you can say for sure, but my opinion is three sets of feeders is plenty. I use AWG 16 for the bus and AWG 18 for the feeders, but again, others have their own preferences.
> 
> You definitely want to use rail joiners, whether soldered or not. And your order of hooking things up is correct (the bus is a straight line, BTW, not a loop). I can't really say whether all the wiring is necessary with electrofrogs -- I've never used one. For insulated or non-conductive frogs, track power has always been sufficient for me. I've never added extra feeders to a turnout.
> 
> A reversing loop is pretty simple, conceptually. Put your finger on one rail or the other. If you can trace a path (that a train wheel could follow) through your layout such that your finger ends up on the other rail on the same piece of track, you have a reversing loop. You don't have one, so don't sweat it.


Yes I've gathered that by now! :laugh: Ok rail joiners it is then....they definitely make lining up the rails a breeze! I constructed a jig for soldering my flex track while straight....with rail joiners it's pretty much foolproof 

I'm using all Insulfrog turnouts....but I noticed on the package it says to only power them from the toe end :dunno: Which end is that.......it seems they just assume you know that kind of thing haha! And no reverse loop....check :thumbsup:


----------



## Overkast

WIrailfan said:


> Can someone explain this reply? I'm totally confused by it :laugh:


Yes, here you go:








Basically what he means is that:

Feeders should be soldered to the stock rails. That being said,
The closure rails rely on the point rails to touch the stock rails and conduct electricity to them through the tabs, but
The tabs are very thin and flimsy, so trusting them for the long term is risky 
That being said, it is recommended to solder a metal jumper (I use a cut piece of paper clip) from the stock rail directly to the closure rails, so the closure rails don't have to rely on the point rails / tabs for power


----------



## Genetk44

Overkast said:


> Yes, here you go:
> View attachment 164057
> 
> 
> Basically what he means is that:
> 
> Feeders should be soldered to the stock rails. That being said,
> The closure rails rely on the point rails to touch the stock rails and conduct electricity to them through the tabs, but
> The tabs are very thin and flimsy, so trusting them for the long term is risky
> That being said, it is recommended to solder a metal jumper (I use a cut piece of paper clip) from the stock rail directly to the closure rails, so the closure rails don't have to rely on the point rails / tabs for power


And from the underside...the jumpers are the two small wires on the right of the pic.


----------



## Overkast

Genetk44 said:


> And from the underside...the jumpers are the two small wires on the right of the pic.
> 
> View attachment 164065


Good call Genetk... yes, soldering the jumpers on the bottom of the turnout (seen on the right of Genetk's pic) is key, so as they don't interrupt the wheel flanges and derail the train.


----------



## Magic

The toe end is the end with the two rails leading into the turnout the heal would be the four rails on the other end.

Are you sure you have Insulfrog turnouts, "only power from the toe end", those sound like the instructions for electrofrog turnouts. 

Insulfrog turnouts will have a plastic gap in the rails just before the frog. 

These are Peco Insulfrog turnouts 
Top one is code 100 bottom code 83
You can see the insulated gaps in the rails at the frog and a plastic part of the frog.









There should be no need to add jumpers as there are already jumpers factory installed. 
The two small wires running about parallel to the rails at the frog. 







Guess you could add jumpers for added contact if you wish.

The turnout Genetk44 has looks like an Peco electrofrog turnout, a little different wiring than insulfrog.

Don't know what Overkast has but it sure isn't a Pico coed 83 or 100.
No little tabs transmitting power on them.

Magic


----------



## Overkast

Magic said:


> Don't know what Overkast has but it sure isn't a Pico coed 83 or 100.
> No little tabs transmitting power on them.


The turnout I posted isn't mine - I grabbed the pic from the internet and added a few labels + the jumpers to illustrate for WIrailfan's benefit. However, based on the rail tie spaces it kinda looks like a Peco as well? It's definitely an insulfrog though, telling by the dark brown color of the frog.


----------



## Genetk44

Overkast said:


> The turnout I posted isn't mine - I grabbed the pic from the internet and added a few labels + the jumpers to illustrate for WIrailfan's benefit. However, based on the rail tie spaces it kinda looks like a Peco as well? It's definitely an insulfrog though, telling by the dark brown color of the frog.


The pic I posted isn't my turnout...its one I grabbed from Google to illustrate the jumper position from the bottom of the turnout.


----------



## WIrailfan

Magic said:


> Are you sure you have Insulfrog turnouts, "only power from the toe end", those sound like the instructions for electrofrog turnouts.


Yeah I'm sure....here's some pics of them :thumbsup:


----------



## DonR

The reason for Peco's instruction to feed power from
the 'toe' end is that these are POWER ROUTING.
The frog rail power is shut off to the divert when the
points are set for straight and vice versa. I get around
that by connecting a drop from both frog rails to the
layout power buss.

Some like this feature because it permits them to
park a loco UNPOWERED on a dead end spur without
the need of a panel switch.

Don


----------



## WIrailfan

Ok so Wednesday was a REALLY productive day :smilie_daumenpos: Got to Lowes and got the foams for both benches and completed construction on the new one!  So obviously that means I've changed my planned layout. Here's a link to where I found the new one....

http://modeltrains.about.com/od/Planning/ss/Ho-Scale-Lakeshore-Model-Railroad-Track-Plan.htm

So does this layout have a reverse loop? I'm going to get pics of the benchwork up later today. Also is contact cement a good choice for gluing the foam to the OSB? If so what about the fumes......cause I'll be using an awful lot lol :laugh: I'm also getting close to starting a thread for my layout


----------



## Overkast

No reverse loops on that layout either, so you should be all good! I use Liquid Nails Projects for my foam cement - works great. Gives you about 10 mins of working time but dries to keep those foam pieces solid in place. Just be sure to put some heavy weight on top of the foam to keep them pushed down to the surface for the drying time. I lay cardboard on top of my foam and then put full 1 gallon paint cans on top of the cardboard (so they don't dent the foam).

Also I just used this new spackle putty called Flex n' Fill for the gap between the foam pieces and it works great. It dries hard and is sandable / paintable, but dries with a bit of flex, so it won't crack (like drywall spackle would) from slight shifts or vibration in the foam.









You can see it applied across the middle in this pic:


----------



## Gramps

I don't see a reverse loop. It looks like a long L shaped loop with several sidings.


----------



## Gramps

I guess I was typing my answer at the same time.


----------



## Overkast

WIrailfan, since you are still a bit unclear on what a reverse loop is, I drew up a diagram that hopefully explains the scenario better:









A "reverse" section doesn't have to be a loop, but the term refers to a section of a track where trains can reverse direction. The problem that happens on reverse sections is that the opposite electrical polarities end up meeting each other, and thus cause a short circuit.

Using my illustration above, if you imagine the red outer rail as (+) and the inner blue rail as the (-) polarities, you can see how the short circuit happens at the top of the illustration when red meets blue (+ meets -).

So the way to fix this situation is to isolate the "reverse" track section using plastic rail joiners (in this case at the turnouts) and then hook up a polarity-switching circuit breaker to the reverse track section. I can go into more detail, but you really don't need me to since you don't have a reversing scenario to worry about.

hth


----------



## DonR

When drawing up track plans for 2 rail layouts it is
a good idea to do as Overcast has done, use, for
example, Red for the right rail where you start, and
black (or blue) for the other. If the two colors meet,
as in OC's drawing, you have a 'reverse loop' situation.

The reason for the color drawing is that in more complex track
plans a 'reverse loop' can occur but not be immediately
obvious. This is especially true if you use crossings and
crossovers.

The nice thing is if you have a DCC system the 'loop'
can be automatically controlled by reverse loop
controller. No electric switches to flip.

Don


----------



## WIrailfan

Overkast said:


> No reverse loops on that layout either, so you should be all good! I use Liquid Nails Projects for my foam cement - works great. Gives you about 10 mins of working time but dries to keep those foam pieces solid in place. Just be sure to put some heavy weight on top of the foam to keep them pushed down to the surface for the drying time. I lay cardboard on top of my foam and then put full 1 gallon paint cans on top of the cardboard (so they don't dent the foam).
> 
> Also I just used this new spackle putty called Flex n' Fill for the gap between the foam pieces and it works great. It dries hard and is sandable / paintable, but dries with a bit of flex, so it won't crack (like drywall spackle would) from slight shifts or vibration in the foam.


Overkast.....is this the Liquid nails you used? And how much did you use? 

http://www.lowes.com/pd_160329-12-LN-704_0__?productId=3014660&Ntt=


----------



## WIrailfan

DonR said:


> When drawing up track plans for 2 rail layouts it is
> a good idea to do as Overcast has done, use, for
> example, Red for the right rail where you start, and
> black (or blue) for the other. If the two colors meet,
> as in OC's drawing, you have a 'reverse loop' situation.
> 
> The reason for the color drawing is that in more complex track
> plans a 'reverse loop' can occur but not be immediately
> obvious. This is especially true if you use crossings and
> crossovers.
> 
> The nice thing is if you have a DCC system the 'loop'
> can be automatically controlled by reverse loop
> controller. No electric switches to flip.
> 
> Don


I think I'm beginning to understand this reverse loop thing :thumbsup: 

I hooked up a few pieces of flex track last night to see if my MRC controller (and locos) still actually worked. Well they worked great for a few minutes.......then either of my locos wouldn't move (or make any noises) till I was at nearly half throttle :dunno: Past half throttle it just screams like the throttle is an on/off switch (at full power) It's looking like I may be considering DCC control.....cause I was only going DC to use what I already had :laugh: Any recommendations on a DCC controller to use?


----------



## CTValleyRR

Asking about DCC systems is like a Ford vs. Chevy question and you will certainly have many different opinions. Here is mine:

You should definitely go DCC. It simplifies wiring, and allows you to have several locos on live track (as opposed to isolated sidings) at the same time, in addition to operating several at once. With the design you have, I would think that's a capability you would want. While you can do it in DC, it's much more complex. There are oter advantages as well.

As for which system, if all you really want is one operator running multiple trains from the same controller, Bachmann's EZ Command or MRC's Explorer are fine.

If you want full features, MRC's Prodigy line, or any of the offerings from Digitrax or NCE are fine. I can't really recommend Bachmann's Dynamis system, unless you are absolutely certain that you will NEVER want more than one operator at a time. To use multiple throttles with Dynamis requires an expensive upgrade, which still isn't as flexible or powerful as offerings from the other 3 companies.

Lenz is another option, but they are much more expensive, and there are several Bluetooth and dead rail options available as well, although personally I don't see those as replacing DCC, especially for those of us who have already invested in it.


----------



## DonR

You won't go wrong with any of the Controllers suggested
by CTvalley.

Any of them will be compatible with any DCC loco on
the market. They must meet NMRA standards.

Most controllers have, as a plug accessory, a wired 
or wireless 2nd or 3rd sub controller so two people could
be operating trains at the same time on the same
tracks. On a large layout you can have fascia jacks
to plug in a wired sub controller that you can move
from one place to another.

If you are one who likes to tweak or fine tune the
decoders, you would want one of the more complete
systems such as NCE or Digitrax.

Unless you plan to run several sound locomotives
at the same time the power supply that comes with
most DCC systems will be sufficien even for 4 or
5 trains. For more 
amps when needed, plug in boosters are available.

Save your DC power packs. You'll use them to power
turnouts and other accessories. DCC controller power
is for the tracks only.

Don


----------



## Genetk44

When it comes to actually choosing a DCC system I think it really helps if you can actually find either shops or other model railroaders where you can actually try various systems to see which suits you best. In my city, the 2 big local shops carried either Digitrax or MRC....so thats what people bought, they just went with what the local shop advised without doing their own research....mostly Digitrax btw.

I decided, after much research to go with NCE.....a number of the Digitrax users decided,after trying my NCE system, to switch to NCE.......they could have saved themselves some money and frustration by actually trying before buying.


----------



## Overkast

WIrailfan, Yes that was the Liquid Nails I used. I've used about 3 tubes so far but I have a very complex track layout and with building the foam mountains I have planed I'll probably need 1 or 2 more eventually. 

My technique is that I use Liquid Nails to adhere all foam pieces, and also the cork roadbed for the track. I use Elmers Glue for the track just in case I need to tear it up and make a change. Elmers is a good temporary hold - not as tough as Liquid Nails but when you ballast the track and then apply glue to the ballast, that will lock in the track nice and solid. So the Elmers gets you by in the track laying phase, but doesn't fully commit you to where you laid the track just in case.

For DCC controllers, I ended up choosing the NCE PowerCab, mostly due to the systems ease of expandability. You can buy a starter set to get 1 or 2 loco running, but as you add more lights and loco to the layout it increases your power requirements, and the NCE system allows you to add on power boosters and additional controllers very easily down the road.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## CTValleyRR

DonR said:


> If you are one who likes to tweak or fine tune the decoders, you would want one of the more complete systems such as NCE or Digitrax.


Just to keep the record straight, any of the MRC Prodigy series will let you do this too. As will the Bachmann Dynamis, but their system method isn't very user-friendly.

It's kind of funny, but different forums tend to be dominated by people who prefer one brand over others. The dominant brand here seems to be NCE, on the Model Railroader forums, it's Digitrax. I guess, as a happy MRC owner, I'm in the minority.


----------



## Overkast

CTvalleyRR, let me guess, you bought the MRC at Amato's?  I was also considering the Prodigy as well, but I liked the affordability and expandability of NCE.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## CTValleyRR

Interesting. I wouldn't list affordability and expandability as advantages of other systems over MRC, myself. The only place I can see them falling short is in the PC interface, which is of no interest to me.

I don't generally buy much model train stuff at Amatos. Scenery materials, common hobby tools, and the odd structure kit. If I'm looking for decoders, trucks, couplers, wheels, vehicles or rolling stock, Tom's Trains of CT in Wethersfield is much better, and for parts and more specialized tools, Time Machine Hobby in Manchester. Tom doesn't waste any space on fancy displays, just tons of inventory packed into every square inch of his store, and just about everything below MSRP. Need advice on how to repair or tweak a loco, Tom (or his assistant Lou) is your man.

I bought my MRC Prodigy Express at the Amherst Model Railroad Show in 2004. I tried Digitrax, NCE, Lenz, Ecos, and MTS at the same time. I rejected MTS as not NMRA compliant, Lenz and Ecos as too expensive, and Digitrax as way too complicated (didn't like how it looked, either). Between the MRC and NCE, the former had a better interface (I really disliked the tiny wheel on the NCE), and seemed easier to use as well.

Once I made my decision, I went back around to all the vendors until I found the best price. As I recall, I paid around 40% of MSRP for an "Open Box".

If you have the luxury, this is really the best way to evaluate the various systems and make your decision. You might not decide on the same system I did, but you'll have all the facts to make an informed choice.

FWIW, I have since added the Wireless Conversion kit, a 3.5 amp booster, and 4 more cabs to the system.


----------



## Overkast

CTValleyRR said:


> I don't generally buy much model train stuff at Amatos. Scenery materials, common hobby tools, and the odd structure kit.


Same with me - Especially since I'm modeling N scale and Amatos is severely lacking in N scale stock in general. Also their prices are very high.



CTValleyRR said:


> If I'm looking for decoders, trucks, couplers, wheels, vehicles or rolling stock, Tom's Trains of CT in Wethersfield is much better...


Great tip, thanks! I may check him out, as this is exactly what I'm looking for in a local shop. Do you know how his N scale stock is? I was just at Time Machine this weekend for the first time in decades, and they too have almost nothing for N scale :thumbsdown:


----------



## CTValleyRR

Overkast said:


> Great tip, thanks! I may check him out, as this is exactly what I'm looking for in a local shop. Do you know how his N scale stock is? I was just at Time Machine this weekend for the first time in decades, and they too have almost nothing for N scale :thumbsdown:


Unfortunately, Tom is also heavily biased to HO. Never-the-less, I would check it out, at least once. He also leans to Northeastern prototypes, which I appreciate.

It's an easy trip from SE CT. Take Rt 2 towards Hartford, then Rt 3 across the Connecticut River. Tom's is in a little professional building right where 3 dead ends into the Silas Deane Highway.


----------



## Genetk44

CTValleyRR said:


> Interesting. I wouldn't list affordability and expandability as advantages of other systems over MRC, myself. The only place I can see them falling short is in the PC interface, which is of no interest to me.
> 
> I don't generally buy much model train stuff at Amatos. Scenery materials, common hobby tools, and the odd structure kit. If I'm looking for decoders, trucks, couplers, wheels, vehicles or rolling stock, Tom's Trains of CT in Wethersfield is much better, and for parts and more specialized tools, Time Machine Hobby in Manchester. Tom doesn't waste any space on fancy displays, just tons of inventory packed into every square inch of his store, and just about everything below MSRP. Need advice on how to repair or tweak a loco, Tom (or his assistant Lou) is your man.
> 
> I bought my MRC Prodigy Express at the Amherst Model Railroad Show in 2004. I tried Digitrax, NCE, Lenz, Ecos, and MTS at the same time. I rejected MTS as not NMRA compliant, Lenz and Ecos as too expensive, and Digitrax as way too complicated (didn't like how it looked, either). Between the MRC and NCE, the former had a better interface (I really disliked the tiny wheel on the NCE), and seemed easier to use as well.
> 
> Once I made my decision, I went back around to all the vendors until I found the best price. As I recall, I paid around 40% of MSRP for an "Open Box".
> 
> If you have the luxury, this is really the best way to evaluate the various systems and make your decision. You might not decide on the same system I did, but you'll have all the facts to make an informed choice.
> 
> FWIW, I have since added the Wireless Conversion kit, a 3.5 amp booster, and 4 more cabs to the system.



Definately agree that the Digitrax system is not very user-friendly in ergonomics or user-interface, especially compared to NCE and MRC. 
But funnily enough one of the things I really liked about the NCE unit over MRC is the thumbwheel for speed-control.....it really makes the unit a single-hand operation leaving my other hand free for uncoupling,throwing switches etc.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Genetk44 said:


> Definately agree that the Digitrax system is not very user-friendly in ergonomics or user-interface, especially compared to NCE and MRC.
> But funnily enough one of the things I really liked about the NCE unit over MRC is the thumbwheel for speed-control.....it really makes the unit a single-hand operation leaving my other hand free for uncoupling,throwing switches etc.


I've heard that a lot, but the only thing I can't do one handed on the MRC handset is program decoders. Selecting a loco is dicey, but that doesn't happen a lot in an ops session either.

I agree, though, that it's a very individual thing. This is why I suggest actually trying them if you can.


----------



## WIrailfan

Overkast said:


> WIrailfan, Yes that was the Liquid Nails I used. I've used about 3 tubes so far but I have a very complex track layout and with building the foam mountains I have planed I'll probably need 1 or 2 more eventually.
> 
> My technique is that I use Liquid Nails to adhere all foam pieces, and also the cork roadbed for the track. I use Elmers Glue for the track just in case I need to tear it up and make a change. Elmers is a good temporary hold - not as tough as Liquid Nails but when you ballast the track and then apply glue to the ballast, that will lock in the track nice and solid. So the Elmers gets you by in the track laying phase, but doesn't fully commit you to where you laid the track just in case.
> 
> For DCC controllers, I ended up choosing the NCE PowerCab, mostly due to the systems ease of expandability. You can buy a starter set to get 1 or 2 loco running, but as you add more lights and loco to the layout it increases your power requirements, and the NCE system allows you to add on power boosters and additional controllers very easily down the road.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Ok cool....I got two tubes the other day, that should be enough to glue down the foams :thumbsup: That's a good tip with the Elmer's glue...do you just spread it real thin then pin the track in place? I'm still deciding on a DCC controller........so no progress there yet (although I do like the look of the NCE so far)


----------



## WIrailfan

*more pics!*

Today I'm working on the DCC "loop" while I have the osb off the bench. Got the first (and furthest away) leg done the other day.......but then ran out of wire :laugh: So I'm going to Lowes to get more this afternoon  Here's some pics of the progress...


----------



## Overkast

I usually lay down a line of elmer's glue right down the center line of the cork roadbed, then use a toothpick to spread it out to cover more surface area. When you spread it out, don't leave the glue too thin because you want enough glue substance for the ties to "grab" on to and keep a firm enough hold when it dries. Likewise, don't leave the spread too thick either, otherwise the glue will stay up between the ties (or worse, flow over them) and you will have no cavity between the ties for the ballast to drop in to.

Keep paper towels handy to occasionally wipe excess glue off the toothpick as you go 

Nice progress WIrailfan... You are officially "committed" now buddy


----------



## CTValleyRR

In HO scale, those fake credit cards that you get in the mail make great adhesive spreaders for roadbed and track. When you're done, into the trash it goes!


----------



## WIrailfan

Overkast said:


> I usually lay down a line of elmer's glue right down the center line of the cork roadbed, then use a toothpick to spread it out to cover more surface area. When you spread it out, don't leave the glue too thin because you want enough glue substance for the ties to "grab" on to and keep a firm enough hold when it dries. Likewise, don't leave the spread too thick either, otherwise the glue will stay up between the ties (or worse, flow over them) and you will have no cavity between the ties for the ballast to drop in to.
> 
> Keep paper towels handy to occasionally wipe excess glue off the toothpick as you go
> 
> Nice progress WIrailfan... You are officially "committed" now buddy


It's been ages since I've used Elmer's glue but it dries clear right? Your and CTValleyRR's replies sound like some great ideas.....I don't think I have any junk credit cards around though :laugh: I'm still in the wiring phase of my build.....at a standstill again cause I'm waiting for more terminal strips from Lowes. There next closest store with everything I need is almost 50 miles away :thumbsdown: Call me OCD but I want to use all the same strips even though they'd be out of sight under the table when completed  And thanks for the compliment on my progress Overkast :smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## WIrailfan

*latest progress!*

Here's a couple shots of how far I've got  Everything under the table is getting cleared out today!


----------



## Lemonhawk

Having tried both Elmer's and Caulk for putting down roadbed and track, I prefer the Caulk method. Use a small blob of caulk spread really thin with a putty knife. Allows some movement before setting ( I use boxed broth and canned veggies to weight things down). Then if I change my mind or discover a kink after running the train, its easy to use the putty knife or box cutter to release things and move them.


----------

