# Does this look bad? Opinions please



## nsmustang55ol (Sep 3, 2021)

I got this one spot that I don’t know, looks odd? Works flawlessly, smooth, no issues. I actually removed the rails on the turnout and slid the flex track rails in. The little turn before the turnout. Does is look bad? To me all the track looks bad before it’s ballasted lol.


----------



## Magic (Jan 28, 2014)

Looks fine to me. The little turn may look a bit funny now but once you get 
the rest of the scenery and ballasting done you won't really notice it.

Magic


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

It looks very tight radius to me, but I have no curves on my layout less than 33". Maybe it's just the angle and some foreshortening, but it looks to me like it is about 18" radius or less. That's far too tight for much of what I run (2-10-4, 4-8-4, 4-12-2, and a T1 Duplex that has blind central drivers and would work okay, but it looks silly).

My aim in mentioning what I run is that these engines all came later. I hadn't foreseen that I would develop a hankering for longer engines and their frames. Luckily, when I had begun to acquire larger steamers and longer diesels, I was building a second layout after tearing down the first one due to finishing our basement. The new layout had no curves tighter than 24", making a huge difference over the first layout and what I could run effectively on the curves. So, if that one curve is 18" or a tiny bit less, I would rejig there. Try to get closer to 22".


----------



## Dennis461 (Jan 5, 2018)

Maybe buy (build) a curved turnout for that spot.


----------



## afboundguy (Jan 10, 2021)

Are you talking about this spot that I circled? That's the only spot that looks somewhat odd but not even that bad. If that is the spot could you swap it out with a left turn out so the curve to the right looks more natural?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I agree that if it's the circled area you're referring to, it looks a little awkward because the eye naturally want to trace a smooth curve rather than one with a short straight segment in the middle. But if it works, that's the goal. If it bothers YOU, you will need to fix it. No amount of convincing from us is likely to change that. It's YOUR layout, I only has to please you, not the rest of us.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

The bit I'm worried about is 'south' of the circled spot by about 10", just below the points. It looks like maybe 15" radius, but I doubt it really is.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

That interchange in the upper left of the photo doesn't look too good to me.


----------



## nsmustang55ol (Sep 3, 2021)

mesenteria said:


> It looks very tight radius to me, but I have no curves on my layout less than 33". Maybe it's just the angle and some foreshortening, but it looks to me like it is about 18" radius or less. That's far too tight for much of what I run (2-10-4, 4-8-4, 4-12-2, and a T1 Duplex that has blind central drivers and would work okay, but it looks silly).
> 
> My aim in mentioning what I run is that these engines all came later. I hadn't foreseen that I would develop a hankering for longer engines and their frames. Luckily, when I had begun to acquire larger steamers and longer diesels, I was building a second layout after tearing down the first one due to finishing our basement. The new layout had no curves tighter than 24", making a huge difference over the first layout and what I could run effectively on the curves. So, if that one curve is 18" or a tiny bit less, I would rejig there. Try to get closer to 22".


Longest Loco I run, or plan on running is a 6 axle diesel. What I might do is take the turnout out and move it down to the bottom and just flip the industry’s siding around. Nothing is set in stone yet.


----------



## nsmustang55ol (Sep 3, 2021)

I might straighten out turnout and make turn wider.


----------



## nsmustang55ol (Sep 3, 2021)

afboundguy said:


> Are you talking about this spot that I circled? That's the only spot that looks somewhat odd but not even that bad. If that is the spot could you swap it out with a left turn out so the curve to the right looks more natural?
> 
> View attachment 573623


No. The curve just south of that. The one you circled is actually extremely smooth, I removed the rails from the turnout and slid the flex track rails into the turnout to make it one continuous bend.


----------



## nsmustang55ol (Sep 3, 2021)

MichaelE said:


> That interchange in the upper left of the photo doesn't look too good to me.


yea In the pic it looks jacked up but in person everything is flat and seamless. I noticed it too when scrolling through pics.When I got home I put my eyes on it and looked ok.

what’s troubling about it?


----------



## nsmustang55ol (Sep 3, 2021)

mesenteria said:


> The bit I'm worried about is 'south' of the circled spot by about 10", just below the points. It looks like maybe 15" radius, but I doubt it really is.


yea that’s the one. I’m not sure what radius it is. Lol


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

nsmustang55ol said:


> yea In the pic it looks jacked up but in person everything is flat and seamless. I noticed it too when scrolling through pics.When I got home I put my eyes on it and looked ok.
> 
> what’s troubling about it?



Mostly the crappy photo quality that makes me think this is a bad track area.


----------



## nsmustang55ol (Sep 3, 2021)

MichaelE said:


> Mostly the crappy photo quality that makes me think this is a bad track area.


Yea the photo is zoomed in lol.


----------



## OilValleyRy (Oct 3, 2021)

It might be the camera angle? Is that seen from a normal operating vantage point? 
Maybe a longer piece of the same radius, to bump the turnout farther along? 
That’s the nice thing about Kato track, reminds me of Legos.


----------



## nsmustang55ol (Sep 3, 2021)

No, is not see from that angle unless you lean far over the middle of table and put a hand on the wall. From normal seat would never see it.


----------



## OilValleyRy (Oct 3, 2021)

It might look totally fine from a normal operating position. If you tested it & it was smooth, and only looks odd from a direction nobody will ever see it, I’d file it under Not Broke, Don’t Fix.


----------



## nsmustang55ol (Sep 3, 2021)

OilValleyRy said:


> It might look totally fine from a normal operating position. If you tested it & it was smooth, and only looks odd from a direction nobody will ever see it, I’d file it under Not Broke, Don’t Fix.


So far on entire layout I have no “trouble areas.”
Just some spots that in my eyes look off. But hey


----------



## nsmustang55ol (Sep 3, 2021)

Update. Ended up straightening out the turnout. Flex track not glued down yet, doin some trial runs.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

That's the limitations of using sectional track turnouts, they are designed with curved diverging track so they can be dropped into and replace a plain curved track section and not disrupt the curve. Prototype and scale turnouts like Peco have nearly straight diverging legs, the direction change is before the frog. The curved leg of the sectional track turnout is what makes them problematic when used in more complex layouts like this and in trying to build a yard ladder. 
The one that concerns me now is in the 3rd pic just below the yellow and black loco, that looks like a very tight radius turn. Tight radius turns and S curves can be ok with short slow moving trains but should be avoided on mainlines. Even when a single car or loco runs through successfully, the sudden change of direction can multiply and yank a longer faster train off the track. The mysterious "string lining" or "crack the whip" effect derailments.


----------



## glenng6 (Mar 12, 2011)

mesenteria said:


> The bit I'm worried about is 'south' of the circled spot by about 10", just below the points. It looks like maybe 15" radius, but I doubt it really is.


Just read you corrected the issue. Good for you, it will make you a happy camper.
That is the spot, 10" south, that struck me right away. The angle does not look right and certainly will cause problems on anything long.
The section, that afboundguy circled, also has an issue. I would address both of them. Glenn


----------



## nsmustang55ol (Sep 3, 2021)

glenng6 said:


> Just read you corrected the issue. Good for you, it will make you a happy camper.
> That is the spot, 10" south, that struck me right away. The angle does not look right and certainly will cause problems on anything long.
> The section, that afboundguy circled, also has an issue. I would address both of them. Glenn


Yes on my last layout which was ALL KATO track, it caused 0 issues but me building a new bigger layout I wanted smoother. Less “plastics”. I kept my turounts becasue of money. They work fine and I can camouflage them enough for me.


----------



## nsmustang55ol (Sep 3, 2021)

Ended up removing the turnout and changing up the curve. Only spot left that’s kinda sharp is after the turnout, but I’m not worried about it as it’s going to be a drive through warehouse entrance along the side of the yard. I’ll play it up with a “caution sharp curve” or sumn. Goes through it smooth.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

Could you move the inside curve after the turnout closer to the elevated curve to allow a more gradual transition? What is the radius of that short section of Kato curved track before the flex? Don't run any long cars like passenger cars or multiple car trains thru there or try to back cars thru it.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

That's the spot I though looked bad several days ago. 85' cars are going to have a time getting through there. Possible problems with steam and six axle diesel too.


----------



## nsmustang55ol (Sep 3, 2021)

I don’t know what radius it is. i can look up the piece and possibly check.
Yes that was my next thought, carefully pull it up and make it more gradual. At this point I might as well do that. I’ll report back with results.


----------



## nsmustang55ol (Sep 3, 2021)

Promised an update so here it is!

made the turnout in the rear more gradual.

moved the incline away from the middle turnouts to make scenery easier and not so cluttered.

straightened out the turnout and redid the curve on the upper deck.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Much better! You still have a bit of an S curve coming off that turnout in the first picture. Also like to see the resolution on that dead end in the 4th picture, too.


----------



## nsmustang55ol (Sep 3, 2021)

CTValleyRR said:


> Much better! You still have a bit of an S curve coming off that turnout in the first picture. Also like to see the resolution on that dead end in the 4th picture, too.


meh. The S curve is what it is.

the dead end will eventually curve right and become an elevated siding. not sure exactly what yet. But pretty much none of this layout is going to be flat.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

What sort of rolling stock and locomotives will you be running on your layout?


----------



## nsmustang55ol (Sep 3, 2021)

MichaelE said:


> What sort of rolling stock and locomotives will you be running on your layout?


Mostly 4 axle locomotives. I only own 1 6 axle and have not had any issues. The rolling stock is a mixture of regular box cars, coal hoppers, oil tankers long and short. I’ll see if I can get some pics. If your asking how long they are scale wise I haven’t a clue.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

The shorter equipment shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## nsmustang55ol (Sep 3, 2021)

MichaelE said:


> The shorter equipment shouldn't be a problem.


i have one tanker that’s like 4.5-5 inches long. it doesn’t have any issues. That’s the longest I got.


----------



## videobruce (Jun 15, 2011)

What looks 'bad' at least to me are the Kato turnouts. For starters, the radius are too sharp. I'm not a fan of theirs at all.
What flex track are you using?
I also agree with the upper left area looking 'awkward'.


----------

