# Update and a couple of questions



## Bigfoot21075 (Aug 7, 2021)

Hi Everyone,

I have gone back to the SCARM board on great advice. I ditched the 9x5/9x6 bump out L shape board in favor of a 4x9 simple rectangle. Looking at the space, there was just no way to attach it to the walls. It has to be free standing and on wheels or I lose 3 feet long ways. Taking what I liked about my old layout and the general idea of the Atlas Granite Northern HO Layout I have set out to combine them in N Scale (REALLY glad I went N scale) - see attached. The right side past the line going across the board will all be a raised town scape/scene.

I still have to work out the elevations and such and that can be a pain in SCARM, but I will get it. I have 2 main track issues.

- Can I use Flex Track with Unitrack? SCARM lists it as Kato 21-000 N Flexible Track, 808mm - I know I will have to make a road bed and shim those sections, but really I could not make it work with out it.

- Lastly, The Atlas Granite Northern uses 2 45 degree intersections. Needless to say, Kato doesn't make them, but Bachman does. I know they will need to be modified to fir, I even found a video on how to do it, but is it a good idea or should I abandon the 45 degree intersection all together?

Yes this one is still a HUGE undertaking, but I think I can pull it off.

_EDIT*_

One more!! Is it better to use a combination of 15 radius and 18 radius to make a turn fit or is it better to just use flex track there as well?

THANKS AGAIN, now that you all have helped me get this back on the rails, I am moving right along.

Rob


----------



## Wooky_Choo_Bacca (Nov 13, 2020)

Good design there Bigfoot with Town on one side of the river and industries on the other. Be sure to fashion a Marina and ship loading / unloading facilities

4X9 or 4X8 ??


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Bigfoot21075 said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I have gone back to the SCARM board on great advice. I ditched the 9x5/9x6 bump out L shape board in favor of a 4x9 simple rectangle. Looking at the space, there was just no way to attach it to the walls. It has to be free standing and on wheels or I lose 3 feet long ways. Taking what I liked about my old layout and the general idea of the Atlas Granite Northern HO Layout I have set out to combine them in N Scale (REALLY glad I went N scale) - see attached. The right side past the line going across the board will all be a raised town scape/scene.
> 
> ...


Rob;

Yes you can use flex track with Unitrack, and it doesn't necessarily need to be Kato flex track either. There are you-tube videos on adapting Unitrack to mate with any brand of ordinary flex track. (I think its simply a matter of cutting off the latching piece, and replacing the Kato rail joiner.) That means you don't have to use the Bachmann 45 degree crossings ("intersections") either. Atlas makes both flex track, and 45 degree crossings that are decent. I presume the Bachmann crossings you mentioned are EZ-Track. I don't know anything about Bachmann's EZ-track crossings, but their EZ-Track turnouts are simply awful. If you can use Atlas, Peco, Walthers, or whatever, brand of crossing rather than Bachmann, that might be a good idea. Or you could scratch build your own crossings & turnouts (see photos) just kidding for now at least.

I can't see your space, but its a little bit of a bummer to me that you can't use the narrow shelf layout attached to the walls. Since your layout will be on wheels, you should be able to get to both sides, albeit with the need to roll it out. Be careful not to dump any trains on the floor while moving the table.
There is a "no moving needed" alternative, which might work in your space, if you're interested. In master track planner John Armstrong's excellent book, "Track Planning for Realistic Operation", he cut 45 degree pieces off one end of a 4' x 8' plywood train table, creating a 90 degree end that could be fitted into the corner of the room. The layout then jutted out from the corner at 45 degrees to either wall, with space to walk up to either side. He re-attached the cut off 45 degree pieces of ply to the other, outboard, end of the 4 x 8, thereby ending up with the same overall area as the original 4 x 8.

Ideally, it would be better to use flex track formed with "easements" at each end of the main curve. When you mentioned 15" radius, I thought of HO-scale, where 15 radius is an extremely sharp curve, suitable only for trolley cars or short locomotives & cars.
Then I remembered that your using N-scale where 15" is an adequate curve for most equipment. Easements are larger radius curves that ease the train's transition from straight track into a curve. Easements are an engineering thing, and there is math to calculate them officially, but there are easier ways too. A crude form of easement would be to use a 18" radius piece of sectional track to feed into a 15" radius curve. At the other end of the main (15"r) curve another section of 18" radius is used before going back to straight track. If you're using Kato Unitrack, (and given the fairly conservative radii involved) this simple system would probably work fine.

By the way, easements for both curves and grades, as well as the "45 degree table in the corner" idea, and a bunch of other nice-to-know stuff, are all covered in "Track Planning for Realistic Operation." You might want to order a copy from Amazon.

Your track plan is not the kind I would choose, "Too much track, & not enough room for anything else." for me, but you're not me, and there is nothing really wrong with your plan. It does have a lot of turnouts, which means spending a lot of money. Have you priced Kato turnouts? They are not the most expensive brand, or the cheapest, but in those numbers, it does add up fast.

Good Luck & Have Fun;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## Bigfoot21075 (Aug 7, 2021)

traction fan said:


> Rob;
> 
> Yes you can use flex track with Unitrack, and it doesn't necessarily need to be Kato flex track either. There are you-tube videos on adapting Unitrack to mate with any brand of ordinary flex track. (I think its simply a matter of cutting off the latching piece, and replacing the Kato rail joiner.) That means you don't have to use the Bachmann 45 degree crossings ("intersections") either. Atlas makes both flex track, and 45 degree crossings that are decent. I presume the Bachmann crossings you mentioned are EZ-Track. I don't know anything about Bachmann's EZ-track crossings, but their EZ-Track turnouts are simply awful. If you can use Atlas, Peco, Walthers, or whatever, brand of crossing rather than Bachmann, that might be a good idea. Or you could scratch build your own crossings & turnouts (see photos) just kidding for now at least.
> 
> ...


 MORE terrific advice - I appreciate you sharing your insight and experience. I do wish this did not have to be an island type table, but it is better than no table and it is a good compromise with the Mrs. I like the idea of an easement for turns, I think that will give it a better look as well. It is a LOT of track that is why I am hiding 1/3 of it under a town, the rail yard may shrink, but as it is it can make for a lot of fun switching puzzles and such. THANKS AGAIN!

Wooky - I LOVE the idea of the marina, I was struggling for a industry focus other than rail not to mention it would give me an excuse to build a few of the Bar Mills kits 

Rob


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

I like your layout, but I would only incorporate a turntable if that would be the only way to turn the train around. They are complex and expensive.

Lots of good insights and advice here for sure! This is the best model train forum I have found, and don't really frequent other boards because this one seems to have the best participants.

Good luck with your build! I've been playing with layout design for about 8 months now, and I'm still trying to find that perfect blend between looking real and fitting into a set space. It seems people are critical of having a lot of U-turns, which I get... but then, you can't have a bunch of dead ends either. So what I'm thinking about is having the U-turns go through tunnels, so it kind of obscures that section of track from view and allows the train to head the other direction at the same time.


----------



## Bigfoot21075 (Aug 7, 2021)

JeffHurl said:


> I like your layout, but I would only incorporate a turntable if that would be the only way to turn the train around. They are complex and expensive.
> 
> Lots of good insights and advice here for sure! This is the best model train forum I have found, and don't really frequent other boards because this one seems to have the best participants.
> 
> Good luck with your build! I've been playing with layout design for about 8 months now, and I'm still trying to find that perfect blend between looking real and fitting into a set space. It seems people are critical of having a lot of U-turns, which I get... but then, you can't have a bunch of dead ends either. So what I'm thinking about is having the U-turns go through tunnels, so it kind of obscures that section of track from view and allows the train to head the other direction at the same time.


I agree with the turn table, my larger layout in SCARM have a reverse loop, and I LOVE the idea, but it just takes up so much space. I even tried to work out another shelf underneath of my layout for a reverse loop and some staging. My thought was I could use an old Go Pro and cheap-o monitor to see everything but it just got more complex than I wanted to deal with so yes, I will have to take the hit on a Walthers DCC 120' turn table. I am a ways away from needing it so that helps ease the cost. I think in the end it will add more interest and fun.

You are right - this is a GREAT resource.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

JeffHurl said:


> I like your layout, but I would only incorporate a turntable if that would be the only way to turn the train around. They are complex and expensive.
> 
> Lots of good insights and advice here for sure! This is the best model train forum I have found, and don't really frequent other boards because this one seems to have the best participants.
> 
> Good luck with your build! I've been playing with layout design for about 8 months now, and I'm still trying to find that perfect blend between looking real and fitting into a set space. It seems people are critical of having a lot of U-turns, which I get... but then, you can't have a bunch of dead ends either. So what I'm thinking about is having the U-turns go through tunnels, so it kind of obscures that section of track from view and allows the train to head the other direction at the same time.


JeffHurl;

I'm probably the main critic of "U-turns," a.k.a. exposed loops for continuous running. As you have discovered, the key word there is "exposed" meaning having the entire loop in plain view, which makes it all-too-obvious that the train isn't going anywhere but round & round in circles.
Most model railroaders like continuous running though, even if its only an option.
You might be surprised to hear that my own layout includes "U-turn" loops for continuous running when I want to just let trains run. It also can be operated point-to-loop with switching at Seattle Union Station, other towns, and the yet-to be built harbor. A point-to point model railroad most closely resembles the "track plan" of virtually all real railroads, and its a valid option. Its primarily used by modelers who really love switching, and prototype operation of a terminal, also by those with a space too narrow for loops. For example the classic shelf switching layout. Plenty of fun, in a small space, but no continuous running.

However, most of us want the trains to be able to run continuously, and so "U-turns" become necessary. That doesn't mean they have to be obvious though. You have hit on the most common solution, bury half the loop. Other options would be to divide the layout into separate scenes, with "view blocks" like a high ridge of hills, or a backdrop. I use lightweight, lift-off, "city blocks" made mostly of foam-filled poster board, to hide part of the turnback loop in Seattle, on my layout. (photos 3 & 4) The track just curves away and disappears under a bridge & behind/under the city. (photo 2)
The narrower sections have removable backdrops, which hide the back track of a "stretched helix" used to climb between levels.
The loop at the other end is disguised by having the two scenes shown in (photos 5 & 6) back-to-back, with backdrops in-between. (photo 1) The loop is somewhat out of sight behind scenery and under the covered bridge.
On the second level there is another loop (actually two concentric loops) hidden inside mountainous scenery.

Whatever disguise you choose, make sure you have plenty of access, access, access! Having a lot of track, and especially any turnouts, hidden by something not removeable is begging for trouble.

Don't begrudge yourself time spent planning. I spent years researching, planning, and even building little 1/8th scale models of my layout. However, all model railroads don't need that extensive (obsessive? 😄 ) amount of planning. I was trying to shoehorn a layout into a tiny space under a condo's stairway at the time. Then we bought a house, with an attached garage! Suddenly I had lots more space. Fortunately I had built a sectional layout. It moved easily, and was readily expanded into the larger space. 

Keep Having Fun;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Bigfoot21075 said:


> MORE terrific advice - I appreciate you sharing your insight and experience. I do wish this did not have to be an island type table, but it is better than no table and it is a good compromise with the Mrs. I like the idea of an easement for turns, I think that will give it a better look as well. It is a LOT of track that is why I am hiding 1/3 of it under a town, the rail yard may shrink, but as it is it can make for a lot of fun switching puzzles and such. THANKS AGAIN!
> 
> Wooky - I LOVE the idea of the marina, I was struggling for a industry focus other than rail not to mention it would give me an excuse to build a few of the Bar Mills kits
> 
> Rob


Rob;

You're dead right! Any model railroad is better than no model railroad! I think WCB should have suggested a "harbor" rather than a "marina." Harbors are usually large, dirty, heavily-rail-served facilities, for handling freight.
Marinas are places where really-rich-folk dock their yachts, and slightly-less-rich-folk dock their sailboats. I've never seen, or even heard of, a rail-served marina. Those 1% types wouldn't want those noisy, smelly, trains, and their "pauper" crews, on the property! 

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

Trying not to hijack the thread 

I plan to have a hill running along the center of a 10' long section with "U" turns at the ends that will tunnel through the hill. My idea is to have the tunnel be open on the end of teh table so there is access from the end, but when watching the train from the "command center" the open part of the tunnel will not be visible.


----------



## Wooky_Choo_Bacca (Nov 13, 2020)

traction fan said:


> Rob;
> 
> You're dead right! Any model railroad is better than no model railroad! I think WCB should have suggested a "harbor" rather than a "marina." Harbors are usually large, dirty, heavily-rail-served facilities, for handling freight.
> Marinas are places where really-rich-folk dock their yachts, and slightly-less-rich-folk dock their sailboats. I've never seen, or even heard of, a rail-served marina. Those 1% types wouldn't want those noisy, smelly, trains, and their "pauper" crews, on the property!
> ...


I didn't say harbor because there is no cove or lagoon to anchor a boatload (pun intended LOL 😁) of boats or ships. There IS a good amount of shoreline along the River to put several pleasure boat docks and at least one or two good sized Maritime industries or a container loading point.

And yes to the any railroad being better than none, this hobby gives me something to do and not having to roast outside in the garage


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

JeffHurl said:


> Trying not to hijack the thread
> 
> I plan to have a hill running along the center of a 10' long section with "U" turns at the ends that will tunnel through the hill. My idea is to have the tunnel be open on the end of teh table so there is access from the end, but when watching the train from the "command center" the open part of the tunnel will not be visible.


 If by "end" you mean the entire back of the 10' long tunnel will be open, that should work OK, as long as there are no turnouts in the tunnel. If you mean you can only access one end of the 10' tunnel, then you will have a very hard time cleaning track, or recovering derailed trains, anywhere beyond the first few feet that you will be able to reach.
I harp on access because I have failed to provide enough of it on some of my layouts. Much of what we think is adequate access looks fine at first, but often proves to be very inadequate when things start going wrong. The best access is a lift-off tunnel. With it removed, the hidden track becomes as accessible as any other track. If that's impractical, the next best would be as big an open side as possible, providing easy, close-up sight, and reach. 

Good Luck with whatever you choose.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

Imagine a block "O" with the shorter top and bottom as the tunnels. Standing at the top of the O or at the bottom of the O you could see into the tunnel. But from either flank you would see a fairly long RR scene with the train simply disappearing into a tunnel.


----------

