Using Setrack on a serious layout

[Trainnoob]

Has anyone ever used set track on a scenic layout. 

 

Because I've a few things you can do to make setrack look brilliant. 

[JohnR]

Take a look at Bredon (Railway Modeller in the 80s). 

[pheaton]

3 hours ago, Trainnoob said:

Has anyone ever used set track on a scenic layout. 

 

Because I've a few things you can do to make setrack look brilliant. 

There have been quite a few published layouts in various modelling mags over the years that make use of set-track throughout.....

 

 

[Silly Moo]

I’m going to be using it on mine along with a modified Trackmat track layout.
 

Chris Nevard has done a beautiful  ‘Train Set’ layout for Kernow Model Railways using set track. With careful ballasting and weathering set track can look good. 

[Sir TophamHatt]

4 hours ago, Trainnoob said:

Because I've a few things you can do to make setrack look brilliant. 

 

I'll bite the obvious...

 

What are they then?

[Railfreight1998]

1 hour ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

 

I'll bite the obvious...

 

What are they then?

 

I wouldn't say it looks brilliant but respacing the sleepers is a pretty quick way to improve the appearance, though not limited to just setrack. It gets rid of the strange sleeper section at the ends of each panel too.

 

Or you could go the lazy way and use it to model an inlaid section, which also hides the overscale rail.

[PMP]

8 hours ago, Sir TophamHatt said:

 

I'll bite the obvious...

 

What are they then?

 

Careful laying, painting and ballasting brings it up to a pretty good standard.

[AY Mod]

7 hours ago, Railfreight1998 said:

Or you could go the lazy way and use it to model an inlaid section, which also hides the overscale rail

 

As is, nothing will run on that.

[Butler Henderson]

Mixed it up with OO or rather HO Peco Streamline which has the same incorrect sleeper spacing. If you need curves of Setrack radii then IMO they are better done with Setrack and their is also a pretty large curve of 33"radius useful in crossing detachable baseboard joints as the fixed curve to the rails makes cutting and keeping the alignment. 

Edited October 26, 2021 by Butler Henderson

[AndrueC]

I used it on mine (N-scale) apart from the straights. It's not 'exhibition quality' but I think it looks okay for a first layout.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/UyU3hD3iJLa8oQYJA

[Railfreight1998]

19 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

As is, nothing will run on that.

 

 

No?

 

Anything with modern (ie not pizza cutter) flanges runs fine on it.

 

If it helps, the card is very thin - about 0.8mm.

[AY Mod]

1 minute ago, Railfreight1998 said:

 

 

No?

 

Anything with modern (ie not pizza cutter) flanges runs fine on it.

 

If it helps, the card is very thin - about 0.8mm.

 

It honestly didn't look like there was any depth there in the original picture.

[The Johnster]

Butler Henderson makes a very good point; curving flexible track to the sort of tightness that setrack provides pushes it's structural design limits a little too hard for my liking.  The rail begins to tear out of the plastic chairs and gauge is compressed, meaning that the very essence of good tracklaying, that it should be smoothly joined to the next piece without doglegs, is likely to be compromised.  I find that taking Peco code 100 down to 24" radius is pushing it a bit and like to use a minimum of 30".

 

There are several factors at work here of course.  Even very large radius model railway curves are usually seriously under scale radius, and scale 100mph line speed needs needs about 12' radius in 4mm, completely impractical for most of us.  The tighter the curve, the more problems ensue, and I would consider 3' an absolute minimum if you are using scale couplings, and even then considerable care must be taken with the drawhooks and buffers and the strength of their springing.  Further issues are generated by curvature on gradients, because the inside rail has to be kept level with the outside rail in a transverse section, while because it has less distance to fill between the bottom and top of the curve it must necessarily be laid to a steeper gradient.  This corkscrew spiral effect is a big ask for locos with long unsprung wheelbases.

 

A common problem with flexi is that, if it is laid to a set average radius, it will unless you take preventitive measures, naturally adopt transition curves which will mean that the radius in the centre section of the curve is much tighter than you think it is, and in the vertical plane on gradients means that the central part of the gradient is much steeper than you'd estimated.  This may have implications for clearance between trains on adjacent tracks and/or on haulage,  Transition curves are realistic and will improve the appearance of your track, but need to be closely monitored and Traksetta pieces used to ensure minimum acceptable radii are not exceeded in tightness.

 

If you are using RTR couplings, such as tension lock, then much of this is less pertinent, as they are designed for use on setrack which will automatically preven most of the problems so long as you respect the geometry and the minimum radius spec. on the loco instruction sheet provided by the manufacturer in the box (you can download these from the company websites as free PDFs so long as you know the model number).  My preference would be to exceed the minimum spec radius by one, so a loco specced for a minimum R2 would IMHO be best kept to a mimimum R3 for example.

 

But setrack, even the larger radii, looks awful IMHO, and trains negotiating those corners, I can't really call them curves, look highly unrealistic.  When I started Cwmdimbath, my BLT, some 5 years ago, I intended to use the scale couplings that were fitted to such locos and stock that had survived the several decades of my abscence from the hobby, and designed the layout accordingly and to the specification that all locomotives could propel any selection of stock anywhere on the layout at a sensible speed without derailing.  I have by and large achieved this latter spec., but rapidly discovered that the deterioration in my eyesight, steadiness of hand, and hand/eye co-ordination over the aforementioned decades had rendered me incapable of managing scale couplings, and a rethink was undertaken.

 

I decided that, despite it being a retrograde step to my mind, the best option was to revert to tension locks, NEM standard (such as it is; different manufacturers' profiles and materials make a nonsense of the idea that the couplings are standard) being chosen as it is what most current RTR stuff comes with.  I have been able to 'tune out' the ugly appearance, helped by painting the couplings in track colour, and now happily operate the railway with them.  This decision gave me the option of using setrack curves and turnouts, but the horrible appearance dissuaded me from doing this on the scenic section.  I was, however, using a 2nd-3rd radius Hornby curved turnout and a couple of 3rd radius sections, able to extend my fiddle yard from 4 roads to 7, though a subsequent rebuild has reduced this back to 6 in order to maintain enough distance between the roads to get my chubby piggy little fingers in there to handle stock.

 

If I were building some types of industrial and especially dockside layouts I would choose setrack precisely because of it's ability to enable very precise and accurate tightly curved track to be laid.  Altering the sleeper spacing, painting and perhaps 'distressing' the sleepers, painting the sides of the rails, possibly providing cosmetic chairs, and sympathetic bedding of the track base into the scenery will improve the appearance of the track considerably, and careful placement of structures and scenery to divert attention away from the oversharp curvature will help further.

 

Setrack has it's place in the great natural scheme of model railway things, and many of us would not be able to have the layouts we want without it.  It's acceptability in terms of appearance, and performance with big locomotives hauling long coaches, is a matter for personal taste; I'm agin'it on scenic areas, but I would not wish my view to be imposed on everyone.  Bredon, already mentioned, shows what can be done with careful weathering and scenic treatment. 

 

I'd add another point, in the form of a general observation and suggestion; if your viewpoint of your layout is along it's length from the ends rather than the usual broadside on situation, then there is a visual effect similar to the foreshortening of the view by a telescopic lens, and the oversharp curvature becomes less objectionable if it is used for turnouts on long straight or very gently curved sections of railway.  It reproduces the head-on view familiar to many spotters whose haunts included overbridges!  In this instance, setrack curves in the foreground, on a non-scenic section as you look over the parapet of the scenic break, will be essential in order for the viewpoint to be acceptably close to the action.

[DCB]

Set track is great for temporary layouts, we built some great ones on the lounge floor and patio of rented holiday homes over the years.

However on permanent layouts I Mix and match set track and flexi.     The Set track long straights are great for dead  straight main lines as streamline tends to weave slightly if you're not fastidious. Great for turntable decks.   Equally the curves don't dog leg so I use the 3rd radius as the minimum on the shed layout I have even cut webs between sleepers and eased 3 rd radius out to 4th or wider.   Set track rail can be curved fairly easily and then stays curved unlike streamline which straightens out so I have used set track rail with streamline sleepers threaded on for awkward bits of joining rail between points etc.

The horrible thing about set track is the track centres.  designed for scale 64ft coaches, 4-4-0s with long front overhangs and 14.5" radius curves, however a hacksaw soon reduces that to streamline 52mm  or even 42/44mm on the straight. Any less and trains hit, Hornby 9Fs are 40mm wide.    Out of the box Set track points are pretty naff and 14.5" radius through the curved part but can easily be live frogged and converted to 52mm track spacing with a carefully wielded soldering iron.  even so I only use them if desperately short of space but the space saving for an out of the box set track point compared to streamline 2ft radius is minimal.  Chopping off the straight bits at the end of set track points helps but its a lot of work.     

[Chris M]

I built an N gauge layout using a mixture of flexi and set track that I called a serious model. It included some R1 curves and just one set track point in the scenic section. The transition curve on the platform helped to disguise the use of a set track point as seen here.

 

 

The other end of the same station with a rather nasty R1 curve to take the track to the next station. Large steam locos were banned from this layout but then it was only a little branch line. Despite the use of some set track I did take building the scenery seriously.

 

The whole layout was on 4ft by 2ft 3in but included 3 stations and a storage siding. . It was great to operate and very easy to move/store.

 

I enjoyed this layout a lot and often think about building something similar again. The tightest curve on my current layout is just one length of R3 set track leading into the storage sidings and all the track in the scenic area is code 55 so you could say I have moved on.  I wouldn't knock the use of set track in the right situation but tight curves and set track points (in N at least) are best avoided if at all possible.

[The Johnster]

The R1 turnout in the top photo shows what can be achieved visually with careful siting and scenic treatment; superb work Chris!  The lighting, getting less bright in the area around the turnout and the scenic break in the shade of the trees, helps as well, a trick I've used on Cwmdimbath, but with buildings rather than trees.  It's a mining valley so most of them were cut down years ago for pit props.

[DCB]

The trees as a scenic break trick has not really been exploited in modern era layouts.   There are lots of then and now comparison picture books and the thing that jumps out is the increase in the number of trees.  The damn things are taking over.  It steam days any saplings inside the railway fence were unceremoniously ripped out when the grass was scythed or burned to avoid lineside fires.   Now they reign supreme, about 300mm high in OO many of them.  Too many modellers in my view, model 1950 trackside with 2000 stock or vice versa and the situation has indeed changed materially from the boring 1968-1980 blue era, to sectorisation to modern post 2010 era.  Just stick a row of Leylandii in front of the HS for 2010 or a factory for 1950.

[Sir TophamHatt]

9 hours ago, Chris M said:

I enjoyed this layout a lot and often think about building something similar again. The tightest curve on my current layout is just one length of R3 set track leading into the storage sidings and all the track in the scenic area is code 55 so you could say I have moved on.  I wouldn't knock the use of set track in the right situation but tight curves and set track points (in N at least) are best avoided if at all possible.

 

That's a pretty nice layout and makes good use of the points.

I often think some have grand ambitions but some smaller layouts can work much better!

[The Johnster]

Size, as those of us with small ones often point out, isn't the only thing to consider, and as a lone operator who would not be content to watch trains passing, a big layout would not suit me at all even if I had the space.  What actually defines the success of a layout, especially a home one that is not exhibited, is the satisfaction that it provides it's owner, and, after many years and plenty of failures, I have got this more or less right at last, just as well since this layout will, given my advancing years and the inevitability that their advance will be terminated, probably be my last.  A good small one is better than a bad big one.

 

If I won the lottery and had more space, I would probably not drastially alter the trackplan, just model more of the Dimbath branch, include the colliery and a bit of open running line.  I'm happy with the trackplan, and operating to timetable at realistic speeds keeps me happily occupied and out from under The Squeeze's feet for hours!

[cypherman]

The last layout I built was an attic layout with 3ft wide boards running round an 18ft x 12ft attic. I used a mix of set track and flexitrack where needed. I think there is room for both.

[Chris M]

15 hours ago, DCB said:

The trees as a scenic break trick has not really been exploited in modern era layouts.   There are lots of then and now comparison picture books and the thing that jumps out is the increase in the number of trees.  The damn things are taking over.  It steam days any saplings inside the railway fence were unceremoniously ripped out when the grass was scythed or burned to avoid lineside fires.   Now they reign supreme, about 300mm high in OO many of them.  Too many modellers in my view, model 1950 trackside with 2000 stock or vice versa and the situation has indeed changed materially from the boring 1968-1980 blue era, to sectorisation to modern post 2010 era.  Just stick a row of Leylandii in front of the HS for 2010 or a factory for 1950.

Going off topic as the track used is flexi and the radius is wider than any set track curves I have used trees as a scenic break on my new layout. My trains just disappear behind the trees with no tunnel or bridge at the end of the scenic section. I have also made use of my friend the transition curve again.