# Can someone please HELP ME figure out approx how much track to order for this layout?



## newls1 (Mar 25, 2019)

Hello everyone, im newly returning to this hobby from nearly a 20yr departure from it. I hate to say ive been lazy, but i was searching peoples' layout designs for the past few weeks and finally found a layout I would like to model. I would like to place an order for track but am having a hard time figuring out approx all the track ill need. I would like to get close or even order to much, that would actually be ideal as im sure ill destroy several pieces along the way. 

I hate to ask someone to "hold my hand" about this, but it would be a gigantic help, and it would be a great starting point for me. I do hate to ask someone to take time away from your day and time away from family, etc... 

I will post a pic of the layout for you, and it is a 16x9 layout, and I will be using Code 100 nickel/silver track if that helps. I would sure be grateful if someone can assist me here. My next project will be how to power it as that is my next battle! Im sure my 30year old transformer p/s will not work here!


----------



## wvgca (Jan 21, 2013)

it looks like they used all sectional track ... increases the cost a bit over flex, but ??
the book or web site didn't have a bill of materials ??


----------



## newls1 (Mar 25, 2019)

wvgca said:


> it looks like they used all sectional track ... increases the cost a bit over flex, but ??
> the book or web site didn't have a bill of materials ??


no sir, this is the link for it if you'd like to see it https://www.scarm.info/layouts/track_plans.php?ltp=87#

**EDIT** Im not to worried about price for track... I really want this layout to turnout perfect, so lay it on me!


----------



## wvgca (Jan 21, 2013)

the reference link shows it all to be Marklin track ... is that what you want to use ??
by the way, you can get a list of the of the Marklin pieces used by downloading the zip, and opening it in Scarm


----------



## newls1 (Mar 25, 2019)

wvgca said:


> the reference link shows it all to be Marklin track ... is that what you want to use ??
> by the way, you can get a list of the of the Marklin pieces used by downloading the zip, and opening it in Scarm


Im not familiar at all with that software program, that is interesting as I didnt know that. I was going with walthers or atlas track as it seems to be priced a little better it seems. But i'll go with whatever you would recommend sir, your knowledge is far exceeding mine! And thanks a million for your help so far 

**EDIT** I dont see a zip file to DL


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

To the best of my knowledge, all Marklin track is 3 rail HO, meaning that most trains purchased in the US will not run on it without modification.

Since several of those pieces are unique geometry I think your best bet would be to get some layout planning software (you could use SCARM, but there are other options) and redo the track plan using a brand of standard 2 rail HO track. 

I wonder if that plan was ever built, or if someone just drew it up. I'd have concerns about how that overpass was supported, as well as the grades required (assuming that you want those yard areas to be level). A good layout design software tool will allow you to check that as well.


----------



## wvgca (Jan 21, 2013)

the zip file is the layout design file ....
by the way, i can't recommend Marklin, as I know nothing about it


----------



## Bwells (Mar 30, 2014)

I agree with CTV, that up-and-over section will be impossible to achieve. The grades will be large. Rethink this plan.


----------



## newls1 (Mar 25, 2019)

well damn! Can you recommend a site that has large HO scale layouts to run 2 independent sets of trains.. I hate to be lazy but for me.... following a proven pre-designed layout, and if possible show how much track to get, really would help me greatly. I know most of you are very creative, and make your own layouts, but this time around, It would be my ticket back into this hobby. Thank you all agian


----------



## Bwells (Mar 30, 2014)

I didn't mean to rain on your parade but the grades are the first thing I look at. If you like the plan, you could delete the turnout at the bottom left as well as the yard on the right. you would have plenty of room to do a decent grade but would loose one of the reversing loops. as far as track goes, I would use flex everywhere and start with 20 sticks, turnouts get five of each. You will be looking at $1000 worth of track and I see a three way there which is 40-60.


----------



## newls1 (Mar 25, 2019)

im so confused :dunno: Would this not help me for making the incline and decline parts https://www.modeltrainstuff.com/woo...iqpvC0j1N3dNP6eRhQUZ1c5IqfWnVY7hoCMtMQAvD_BwE


----------



## Bwells (Mar 30, 2014)

Don't be confused, it is a piece of cake. The form blocks work OK but by doing the "cookie cutter" the grades will be formed for you. The problem is the amount of distance required to go up to the needed height. For this plan and the size of the layout space, I would suggest something like this:


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

The grade starting on the left side of the layout looks steeper than 2% but it's hard to tell without any reference to distance on the layout diagram.

If that turnout could be moved farther left before the descending track joins the rest of the main it would be a shallower descent.

However, I have steeper than 2% grades on my layout that do not cause any trouble with trains.


----------



## Bwells (Mar 30, 2014)

To calculate grades use this: %=(rise/run)x100. For our purpose I usually assume at the top is 3". To go from 0 to 3 at 2% requires 150" or 12 feet and that is without easements.
Newls1, this plan can be done with a few changes and you have a large area to work with. Make sure what you are doing is going to meet your needs as you have a very time consuming and pricey project ahead. Remember that railroading is fun, which it is.


----------



## wvgca (Jan 21, 2013)

the marklin layout has a gradient of 3.9%, pretty steep ....
as shown you can reduce the grade to something more reasonable by starting it sooner.


I would just use the marklin layout as a -guide- to making a new layout, say with Atlas code 83 , or something more affordable..
You can always use Scarm to do this with , or another design package if you wish ..
marklin C track is just two rail, with attached roadbed ..


----------



## newls1 (Mar 25, 2019)

Bwells said:


> Don't be confused, it is a piece of cake. The form blocks work OK but by doing the "cookie cutter" the grades will be formed for you. The problem is the amount of distance required to go up to the needed height. For this plan and the size of the layout space, I would suggest something like this:
> View attachment 490202


What does the blue line mean, and 0,3,3,0 represent? And thank again everyone for all your input. Seems like the majority of the feedback is this layout is possible, but start the incline sooner. And I am NOT using the marklin Track, ill be using walthers/atlas code 100 track


----------



## wvgca (Jan 21, 2013)

the blue line indicates the sloped area ...basically it's longer to give a reduced value for grade percentage ..


zero or 0 indicates ground level, 3 indicates the height


----------



## Bwells (Mar 30, 2014)

The blue line indicates track deletion. That's the color in the pen that I don't use very well.
The turnout at lower left is the problem. If left in that would be your zero point and to go 3" in roughly 63" is not good.


----------



## newls1 (Mar 25, 2019)

Bwells said:


> The blue line indicates track deletion. That's the color in the pen that I don't use very well.
> The turnout at lower left is the problem. If left in that would be your zero point and to go 3" in roughly 63" is not good.


if i delete that section of track, i wont be able to have 2 independent sets of trains going at same time. Is there a way to fix this so I can keep it, or can you point me to a site or link on here that has layout plans for large layouts that I can chose from? I dont mind changing layouts, as i havent started anything, im still very much in planning stage and just wanting to order track for a given layout. thanks guys


----------



## Bwells (Mar 30, 2014)

Then take that turnout and move it back, the farther the better.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Take the outside main with the turnout and move it closer to the edge of the table. Widen the table a couple of inches if you have to.

Now you have room to move that turnout farther to the left to decrease the gradient.

The upper left curve on the outside main could come off the curve at a straighter angle and that would give you more spacing for the turnout a bit farther south. You could place that turnout on the outside main on that angled piece of track, that wouldn't be so angled. That would give you a lot more distance for the grade.

Your mainline tracks would not be parallel at that point though.


----------



## wvgca (Jan 21, 2013)

whoops, lol
should have waited for the origional poster to reply ...


----------



## newls1 (Mar 25, 2019)

Please excuse my beginner-ism's!! So if im understanding this right, did I modify the split correctly? Just hoping to get this right so when i have track in front of me, I have somewhat of a "something" to follow, as my brain doesnt work like y'alls  . I have to figure out how to make that gradient too, this is all a 1st for me. Thanks again!!










**EDIT**

I just placed my 1st order of track to get something started. Think this will get a little something going? I forgot to order the 3ft sections of flex track, so ill get several boxes of that next order. In no rush, this will obviously be a several month to years project.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Yes, but to make room for the turnout you should straighten the outside track on the left a bit and run it slightly away from the inner track.


----------



## newls1 (Mar 25, 2019)

MichaelE said:


> Yes, but to make room for the turnout you should straighten the outside track on the left a bit and run it slightly away from the inner track.


will do.. THANK YOU!


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

I didn't realize you have another thread dealing with a prospective track plan.

About grades:

In the real world, the prototype, it takes just over 3 times the horsepower to pull trailing tonnage up a 0.5% grade if keeping the same speed. Think about that. With each increase of a half-percent of grade, and desiring to keep to the timetable for trains in that district, the locomotive must generate a bit over three times the initial horsepower. This means a locomotive running on level tracks that encounters a 1% grade must generate six times the original horsepower if the engineer needs to lose no speed on the hill.

It's not much different in our scale models, believe it or not. For our models, though, power is rarely a factor. Instead, they don't weigh quite the same 'way' and they'll simply lose traction because the motor inside has enough torque to overcome the traction at some point. While not actually stalling on a grade, our model locomotives have enough power that when they lose traction they'll just spin. Spinning coated tires means they'll lose the nice shiny coating in a short time. So, the upshot is we have to consider the work we want the locomotives to actually do without losing traction due to high tonnages trailing or to excessive grades...or a combination of both. Most of us enjoy longish trains on a given layout, if they'll look okay, so we have to worry about excessive grades.

That's one. Two is that you can't expect locomotives to climb into grades that are abrupt at the bottoms and at the tops, with a sharp change of angle. Instead, you need a gradual onset, what is called a vertical curve. Positive at the bottom of the grade, and negative at the top. These take some pains to fashion well enough that they work. Cookie cutter technique does this very well, and we can get into that in another topic or another post.

But, the point about vertical curves is that they start and end at 'zero'. They take up length. By taking up length twice on a curve, at the bottom and at the top, they cut short the distance between them that you can use at a reasonable rate of climb, the grade, to get the height you need. When you have tracks crossing over other, as you have in that initial plan, you need a minimum overhead clearance above the bottom rail tops for a supporting roadbed/bridge, whatever. Minimally, for modern double-stack containers on well cars, you're looking at about 23' or more, which you must factor in scale on your layout. So, when considering changing levels in a given space on a train layout and track plan, you have to keep in mind the vertical curves, thickness of the supporting structure overhead and where its bottom edges will be, and then how much higher still the rail tops on the structure itself will end up being so that it all works realistically and reliably. It could end up being an elevation change of close to 6" for the two rails in question. If you want to have longer trains, you'll need less severe grades, and less severe grades need longer 'runs' in order to stay reasonable and still attain the clearances you need for items rolling under the structure.


Let it not be said that this hobby doesn't afford its members amply opportunity to learn.....stuff.


----------



## newls1 (Mar 25, 2019)

mesenteria said:


> I didn't realize you have another thread dealing with a prospective track plan.
> 
> About grades:
> 
> ...


Thank you for that reply and the time out of your day to write it, much appreciated. 

I have decided to scrap the listed layout, and ive spent the most of this day learning "SCARM" so im gonna spend the next few weeks making a layout from scratch... Think this is the best way to go about this hobby. Appreciate each and everyone of you people for all the help so far.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

That's too bad. With some minor adjustments that could have been a great trackplan.


----------



## Bwells (Mar 30, 2014)

MichaelE said:


> That's too bad. With some minor adjustments that could have been a great trackplan.


Yes :dunno:


----------



## J.Albert1949 (Feb 3, 2018)

*OP --*

You want to pay special attention to post 6 above.

Marklin is 3-rail track, and most "American" HO 2-rail stuff isn't going to work with it (I believe).
_(If you're going to be running 3-rail Marklin equipment, well, that's different)_

Also, the plan you posted has curves and switches that are almost "toy-train" like with their geometry. The turnouts diverge too sharply. This could cause problems with 6-axle engines and longer equipment.

The plan is just "too busy" in my opinion. Also, having an elevated section "in front" with all the yard work "at the back" is going to make "reaching for things" difficult, and sightlines will be obscured.

My advice (sorry if it's blunt):
Find a better track plan.


----------



## lajrmdlr (Apr 25, 2014)

That plan is 9' x 16' but how big is the room? If you can't walk all around that layout there are some VERY LONG reaches for both building it & running trains much less fix1ng derailments, etc. Think about going around all four walls and maybe a peninsular down the middle. Since you just want to run two trains around, you must be thinking of using just DC. Look into a DCC system. There's plenty of info on the internet. Plus check your LHS, local clubs & home layouts that use DCC. Some people say it's too expensive, but it takes a whole lot less wiring & make running trains a whole lot easier & simple!
But if you have to go with this, it's a sectional track plan. Just count all the sections (both curves & straights) & multiply by 9". That will give the total length of the tracks needed. But definitely recommend using flextrack. They are 36" long so equal four sectionals. There's plenty of literature on sectional track plus all the info on the internet.


----------



## cid (Jul 3, 2014)

Hi newls1,
Think you are gonna really enjoy this hobby!! So many facets...
A couple of which you are already battling!!:laugh:
My 0.15 rmb is that you need a better idea of what you want to do before purchasing track! You might change your mind several times before deciding what you would really like!!
I'm not sure if you have spent much time on the "givens and druthers" yet. Maybe you should put a loop of track on a 4x8 and run a train, just to satisfy your sweet tooth!!!
Then decide if you will depict a real area, a specific era, if you want your layout to run continuously or do a lot of switching, etc., etc., etc. Think about "around the walls" vs tabletop! (like Andy said!!) Industries, cityscape, mountains, tunnels, water, all possibilities affecting you plan!
It just seems to me that buying a slew of code 100 track at this point is somewhat premature. but it's your railroad, so your rules!!:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Atlanta (Apr 29, 2019)

It is a nice big layout.
Well if you connot going around your layout from all sides how you will reaching derailed trains in areas who are more far away of the front?

The Arm length is important. It is 4 Inches shorter than 1 Yard in most causes.

On european model railroad layouts the modellers using a fiddle yard below the main board base to store their trains inside it..."shaddow station".

Steep grades are on model layouts the same problem like by the prototype operation...the steeper the grade...the shorter the trains and the more motive power is needed to a train.

Some model train manufactures of europe using traction tires to their models like Maerklin or Trix, so the trains could run onto steepest grades you never had been seen before.

The lower the steep grade the better. Ideal will be a percentage between 0 % and 1.5 % but up to 2.4 % it is acceptable onto hobby layouts.
The middle range of 2.5 % and 3.9 % is well OK for Engines using traction tires but not well onto layouts.
An absolutely No Go are steep grades of 4 % up to 7 % except your choosen prototype used the same.
By more than 7 % and up to 35 % you need additional Chainwheel driven locos like from Fleischmann as example.

Plan your layout by not having steeper grades of more than 1.5 %.

1.5 % means that a train is climbing 1.5 cm or 15 mm on a distance of 1 m or 100 cm or 1000 mm. 

You will need around 11 m or 14 yards of model railway track for a well low steep grade to across other railway track.

Most of my own Locomotives does not have traction tires so my maximum steep grade to be used is 1.5 % or lower.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

So far, all of the European models I have purchased have traction tires. ACME, Roco, TRIX, etc. The mountain grade on my ÖBB branch line is over 5% down and over 4% up.

Grades on the mainlines are 2.5% to almost 3% effective grade. Those traction tires make easy work of these grades and the locomotives have no problem pulling the grades with a string of passenger carriages.

I have more of an issue with coupler arms returning to center due to the car weight close to the locomotive after coming out of a curve on the grades than actually pulling the grades.


----------



## Atlanta (Apr 29, 2019)

Hi Michael,
About the Coupler Arms here are named as KKK (Kurz Kupplung Kulissenmechanik --> Short Coupling Arm Mechanics)
The KKK does not well with the NEM 362 Kadee Couplers.
Better you will use NEM 362 Knuckle Couplers from Bachman or Accurail.
The KKK is requiring a rigid connection between two cars.
The Kadee NEM 362 Knuckle Couplers have a joint between Coupler and Shaft, so if you will use these kind of couplers to european cars than you need fixing the centering arm to its middle position. 
Use working spring buffers in addition for running through curves. The couplers now working like body mounted couplers.








For using NEM Shafts with centering arms you need to use couplers without joints better are all kind of rigid couplers like from Roco or Fleischmann (GFN).

Ya Ingo


----------

