Track Plans for North American Layouts

[Prof Klyzlr]

Dear RMWebbers,

 

2 thoughts:

 

1 - There's a suspicious-looking loco there, vaguely TP56-ish?

 

2 - I have to say, it's only that it's the layout builder describing the layout that makes me in-any-way capable of overlooking the use of the term "novelty layout"...

 

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

 

PS sidenote, anyone checked the Tractive Power website lately? The oh-soo-modelgenic TP56/70 looks to have been joined by some bigger brothers,...
(The TP90, a SW1500 for the new generation?)

[Keith Addenbrooke]

I think this will be the best place for this question: I’m wrestling with geometry trying to fit my preferred track plan for an HO layout into the compact space I can use (link in my signature to ‘ATSF in 1970 in HO’ below).  The big problem is I have to fit in a 180 degree turn.  If I maintain a 24” minimum radius it’s almost impossible to avoid tight and unprototypical switchbacks, but if I ease the siding / run-round track radius to 22” I can just about get there.  Visually, I know it won’t look as good, but operationally I’m hoping I’ll still be OK.  I’ll be running mainly 50’ cars behind a GP7 (or equivalent 4-axle locomotives), with a few 60’ cars.  I have a 2” track spacing to the mainline, which will remain at 24” and may see the occasional 85’ passenger car.

 

Simple question for those with experience of small layouts: should this work, or is it likely to be too tight?  Thanks, Keith.

[F-UnitMad]

Are you going to view the scene from the inside, or outside of the curve? The rolling stock will look better from the inside. Personally I don't think a 2inch reduction in radius is going to make that much difference to the overall look.

BUT - if you have an 85ft car already, use it when planning things out and help you make the decision, so it doesn't side-swipe anything else on the adjacent curve. If you don't have one yet, I'd be inclined to hold off fixing down your track until you do. Nothing will be more frustrating when operating later than having to remember that 'Stock X' cannot be on Track 1 when 'Stock Y' is to run on Track 2 because of clearance issues.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

2 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I think this will be the best place for this question: I’m wrestling with geometry trying to fit my preferred track plan for an HO layout into the compact space I can use (link in my signature to ‘ATSF in 1970 in HO’ below).  The big problem is I have to fit in a 180 degree turn.  If I maintain a 24” minimum radius it’s almost impossible to avoid tight and unprototypical switchbacks, but if I ease the siding / run-round track radius to 22” I can just about get there.  Visually, I know it won’t look as good, but operationally I’m hoping I’ll still be OK.  I’ll be running mainly 50’ cars behind a GP7 (or equivalent 4-axle locomotives), with a few 60’ cars.  I have a 2” track spacing to the mainline, which will remain at 24” and may see the occasional 85’ passenger car.

 

Simple question for those with experience of small layouts: should this work, or is it likely to be too tight?  Thanks, Keith.

 

I would steer clear of anything less than 30" radius... you can get things around a 24" curve, but if you do go that tight you'd be best to stick to four axle diesels and 50' stock.  22" is really pushing it.

 

Ask me how I know! 

[long island jack]

I think you need to decide period, location(rural/urban) this may dictate your radius, but a minimum would be 24" covers all stock, 85" coaches may not look pretty, you could get away with 22" if you model earlier as stock was smaller 60-70' coaches and 40' or smaller freight cars, you need to tie down your period.

 

https://www.nmra.org/track-curvatures-rolling-stock

[Anadin Dogwalker]

My layouts minimum radius for passenger cars and TOFC is 24" on the NP mainline (and 30" on the Milwaukee so I can run Little Joes). I have a branch that pinches to 21" (as do some of the staging tracks) and -out of neccessity- uses the odd Peco settrack curved point which is notionally 21 and 17.5" which is at the limit for a GP9; 60 foot chip gondolas  look comical.  I'm not shy about fettling these points or car underframes. Shims made out of thin clear plastic inside the check rails and extending the tip of the frog by 3mm or so stops stock dropping into the oversize Settrack flangeways. I use code 75 for everything else.

I'll single out Walthers six-axle passenger cars as being particularly in need of mods. I have a few Heavyweights and full length domes in Milwaukee and GN; the latter definitely benefit from whittling notches into  the underframe and inside truck corners to improve their rotation range and eliminate snags. I remove the lighting rubbing strips. I repainted one heavyweight obs as NPs Green River business car. Chopping out parts of the centre sill (not noticeable unless you turn over the car) enabled it to traverse the full length of the branch. Also replacing the axles with Kadees (36" diameter wheels) is essential for the six axle cars to stay on the track; out of the box, I've had HWs (and some 4 axle Hiawatha cars) derail when propelled in a straight line. Oiling the bearings helps too. Quite why Walthers own wheelsets are such a liability isn't obvious but I'm inclined to blame the slightly flexible plastic axle.

Hope this helps, Neill Horton

[Jeff Smith]

The Kadee On30 24" wheels are on plastic slightly bendy axles.  Haven't had any problems with them though.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Thank you for the responses - all helpful as always.  To respond to particular points:

 

4 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

Are you going to view the scene from the inside, or outside of the curve? The rolling stock will look better from the inside. Personally I don't think a 2inch reduction in radius is going to make that much difference to the overall look.

BUT - if you have an 85ft car already, use it when planning things out and help you make the decision, so it doesn't side-swipe anything else on the adjacent curve. If you don't have one yet, I'd be inclined to hold off fixing down your track until you do. Nothing will be more frustrating when operating later than having to remember that 'Stock X' cannot be on Track 1 when 'Stock Y' is to run on Track 2 because of clearance issues.

 

Good point: Yes - viewing is from the inside in this case which helps.  I do have some twelve wheel 85' passenger cars (very old, unfinished wooden kits I've been given), so can use them to check: good thought, thank you.  They're currently stored away but I can get them out and fix some temporary trucks to check.

 

4 hours ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

I would steer clear of anything less than 30" radius... you can get things around a 24" curve, but if you do go that tight you'd be best to stick to four axle diesels and 50' stock.  22" is really pushing it.

 

Ask me how I know! 

 

Can't disagree - even going back to Linn H. Westcott's "101 Track Plans" first published 1956 (when freight cars were shorter than today), 30" curves were recommended for passenger cars.  It was noted they could get round 24" curves, but would not look right.

 

Unfortunately, in the space I currently have, that would leave me with just about room for a circle, but your prompt led me to check Westcott's advice, which also covers track centres in the text: I'll need more than 2" between tracks at these tight radii (serves me right for only looking at the pictures, not reading the words ).

 

2 hours ago, long island jack said:

I think you need to decide period, location(rural/urban) this may dictate your radius, but a minimum would be 24" covers all stock, 85" coaches may not look pretty, you could get away with 22" if you model earlier as stock was smaller 60-70' coaches and 40' or smaller freight cars, you need to tie down your period.

 

https://www.nmra.org/track-curvatures-rolling-stock

 

Thanks Jack - the link to the nmra standard is really helpful - and also confirms the need for me to look at track centres as well as radius.  I'm not familiar with all the nmra terminology, but the link is to an accessible article too.  Much appreciated.

 

The relationship between era / setting and space is a bit complex in my case: the space I currently have is very restricted, but I want to try a 'starter' as practice towards my long-term goal of a bigger layout.  I'd agree there might be more suitable prototypes for the limited space I have.

 

1 hour ago, Anadin Dogwalker said:

My layouts minimum radius for passenger cars and TOFC is 24" on the NP mainline (and 30" on the Milwaukee so I can run Little Joes). I have a branch that pinches to 21" (as do some of the staging tracks) and -out of neccessity- uses the odd Peco settrack curved point which is notionally 21 and 17.5" which is at the limit for a GP9; 60 foot chip gondolas  look comical.  I'm not shy about fettling these points or car underframes. Shims made out of thin clear plastic inside the check rails and extending the tip of the frog by 3mm or so stops stock dropping into the oversize Settrack flangeways. I use code 75 for everything else.

I'll single out Walthers six-axle passenger cars as being particularly in need of mods. I have a few Heavyweights and full length domes in Milwaukee and GN; the latter definitely benefit from whittling notches into  the underframe and inside truck corners to improve their rotation range and eliminate snags. I remove the lighting rubbing strips. I repainted one heavyweight obs as NPs Green River business car. Chopping out parts of the centre sill (not noticeable unless you turn over the car) enabled it to traverse the full length of the branch. Also replacing the axles with Kadees (36" diameter wheels) is essential for the six axle cars to stay on the track; out of the box, I've had HWs (and some 4 axle Hiawatha cars) derail when propelled in a straight line. Oiling the bearings helps too. Quite why Walthers own wheelsets are such a liability isn't obvious but I'm inclined to blame the slightly flexible plastic axle.

Hope this helps, Neill Horton

 

Thanks Neil, good point about running TOFC (I don't have one yet, but it would be era-appropriate for me).  Agree it's not just about radius - the point was made in a UK thread earlier this year that track tends to take the blame for a lot, including issues with rolling stock - that thread was about Setrack Curved points too.

 

Thanks all, Keith.

 

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

5 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

The Kadee On30 24" wheels are on plastic slightly bendy axles.  Haven't had any problems with them though.

 

Thanks Jeff - when I have all the rolling stock I need a thorough audit on the test-track will be a good idea - wheels and couplers.  I expect I'll be asking questions in the Workbench part of the Forum when that time comes: a lot of this will be new to me.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Jeff Smith]

Keith - regarding Kadee type couplers (there are other similar brands), if you are going to use magnetic uncoupling you need non-magnetic wheels and axles otherwise the rolling stock can be jerky and even uncouple when crossing over a magnet.  Kadee wheels are non-magnetic.

[mdvle]

An obvious partial solution for this particular layout is to turn it into a freight only layout and don't run any passenger equipment - save that for a later layout that doesn't have the space restrictions.  At that point the curves become less of an issue, both visually and for clearance between tracks.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

27 minutes ago, mdvle said:

An obvious partial solution for this particular layout is to turn it into a freight only layout and don't run any passenger equipment - save that for a later layout that doesn't have the space restrictions.  At that point the curves become less of an issue, both visually and for clearance between tracks.

Agreed - that is certainly an option, and any passenger service would be minimal (at best).  As a practice layout I’d like to be able to test passenger cars if I can, and as @Anadin Dogwalker mentioned, TOFC operations also require long freight cars: somewhere I have a photo of a very short early TOFC train from around my period.  Thanks, Keith.

[Joseph_Pestell]

49 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

Keith - regarding Kadee type couplers (there are other similar brands), if you are going to use magnetic uncoupling you need non-magnetic wheels and axles otherwise the rolling stock can be jerky and even uncouple when crossing over a magnet.  Kadee wheels are non-magnetic.

Having watched a lot of US layout videos on YouTube, I have been surprised to see that US modellers don't make much use of magnetic couplings even though the layouts are mostly about switching. 

 

They don't seem that bothered about point motors either.

[Jeff Smith]

9 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Having watched a lot of US layout videos on YouTube, I have been surprised to see that US modellers don't make much use of magnetic couplings even though the layouts are mostly about switching. 

 

They don't seem that bothered about point motors either.

So presumably they use a twizzle stick but you still have to move the cars apart.  With Kadees you sometimes have to resort to the Kadee 'shuffle', ie moving back and forth to hit the sweet spot.....

[Happy Hippo]

Tom Klimoski does exactly that on his Georgia Northeastern Railroad.

 

It's a shortline  all about operating as near to the real thing as possible.

 

It looks great fun and a change from all those model railways that live in a basement about the size of The Prinicipality  Stadium.

 

https://www.thomasklimoski.com/

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, Jeff Smith said:

Keith - regarding Kadee type couplers (there are other similar brands), if you are going to use magnetic uncoupling you need non-magnetic wheels and axles otherwise the rolling stock can be jerky and even uncouple when crossing over a magnet.  Kadee wheels are non-magnetic.

Hi Jeff, good point.   This’ll be something to pick up at another time (on another thread), but not only have the passenger cars I’ve been given got metal axles and trucks, but some of the cars I’ve been given have metal weights in them, which are presumably magnetic too.

[Anadin Dogwalker]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Agreed - that is certainly an option, and any passenger service would be minimal (at best).  As a practice layout I’d like to be able to test passenger cars if I can, and as @Anadin Dogwalker mentioned, TOFC operations also require long freight cars: somewhere I have a photo of a very short early TOFC train from around my period.  Thanks, Keith.

Rapidos recently announced Pennsy flatcars, many of which went to Trailer Train,  may be of interest if you're looking for something shorter than 85/89 footers. Super variety of trailers they're offering too. I have ordered many. 

Train-Worx has produced a number of really useful HO trailers (they're mostly an Nscale outfit) that are bang on for 1965-75. All 40 footers, some with kerbside doors (some roads like NP really loved those) and a drop-frame variant used in the nationwide Sear's Catalogue pool. They were distributed by Intermountain but were only made in small runs to order. Worth pouncing if any show up on ebay.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Having watched a lot of US layout videos on YouTube, I have been surprised to see that US modellers don't make much use of magnetic couplings even though the layouts are mostly about switching. 

 

They don't seem that bothered about point motors either.

It may be partly a question of genre: there are quite a few excellent switching layout out there operated exactly as you describe, often making good use of DCC Sound and slow running capabilities. They are well suited to video recording and regularly reference Lance Mindheim as their inspiration (although Mindheim credits Dave Barrow as his inspiration, according to his blog).  My guess is they represent a particular area of the hobby that is popular at the moment: it just so happens it’s one we can easily access and see.  Absolutely nothing wrong with that of course - I enjoy the videos too.

 

It may be they’ve also inherited the old time practice of running two-person crews on trains on large layouts: an Engineer and a Conductor.  With a Conductor to plan switching moves, operate the switches themselves, perform coupling and uncoupling moves and check and place the waybills as part of the operating fun, there’s perhaps less of an incentive to automate it: spend the money on great sounding locomotives and control systems.  It’s perhaps a bit different to conventional UK practice, where the 0-5-0 is ideally never seen, and which owes much to standards set by our Exhibition circuit?  
 

In terms of planning my American Layout, my influences (and most of my existing reference books) date from the 1990s and earlier, so I’m doing a lot of catching up at the moment!

[mdvle]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Having watched a lot of US layout videos on YouTube, I have been surprised to see that US modellers don't make much use of magnetic couplings even though the layouts are mostly about switching. 

 

They don't seem that bothered about point motors either.

 

The problem with magnetic uncouplers is they aren't entirely realistic in how you need to operate the trains, and it is difficult (and expensive) to have them everywhere you need them - at which point you end up using a stick at least part of the time, so you may as well use a stick all of the time

 

(the exception can be for passenger operations, where it can be difficult to use a stick).

 

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

TOFC operations also require long freight cars:

 

In the more modernish era yes, but TOFC started out using things like 50' cars like Rapido's recently announced F30D/G, which operated with TTX in the 70s/80s

[Keith Addenbrooke]

33 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

In the more modernish era yes, but TOFC started out using things like 50' cars like Rapido's recently announced F30D/G, which operated with TTX in the 70s/80s

Thanks - I’ve found the photo I was looking for in Steve Glischinski’s Santa Fe Railway: an early intermodal TOFC train from 1968 consisting of an F7A unit (in the passenger red warbonnet livery), a silver F7B unit, one long flat car with two trailers (in Santa Fe liveries) and a Caboose.

 

As a ‘pike-sized freight train’ what’s interesting is it represents the start of something new - not a decline and end.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke

[mdvle]

5 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Thanks - I’ve found the photo I was looking for in Steve Glischinski’s Santa Fe Railway: an early intermodal TOFC train from 1968 consisting of an F7A unit (in the passenger red warbonnet livery), a silver F7B unit, one long flat car with two trailers (in Santa Fe liveries) and a Caboose.

 

The 60s was a big era for freight - the move from generic, short box cars/gondolas/open hoppers/flat cars to more specialized (and frequently longer) cars that we now take for granted.

 

But a model layout is all about compromises, and it may be that 2 50' cars are more suitable for a layout than the 89' cars the real railroads shifted to - they didn't have to worry about minimum radius curves being an issue.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

18 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Thanks - I’ve found the photo I was looking for in Steve Glischinski’s Santa Fe Railway: an early intermodal TOFC train from 1968 consisting of an F7A unit (in the passenger red warbonnet livery), a silver F7B unit, one long flat car with two trailers (in Santa Fe liveries) and a Caboose.

 

As a ‘pike-sized freight train’ what’s interesting is it represents the start of something new - not a decline and end.

 

That sounds like the early runs of The Super C, the Santa Fes first go at dedicated intermodal service.  The loadings were very slim in the few years it ran and intermodal faded away until the big revival under Rob Krebs in the 90s, so not at all a generic pike sized freight I'm sad to say.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

I realised i have the book... as I thought, its train 100 the Eastbound Super C at Winslow. So its on the main transcon.  Tofc and curves don't mix at all well.  50' boxcars are the way forward... if you can bear to, check my thread The Eagle Has Landed which starts out with my attempts to shoe horn a US pike into a 14 x 7 shed.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

20 hours ago, Happy Hippo said:

Tom Klimoski does exactly that on his Georgia Northeastern Railroad.

 

It's a shortline  all about operating as near to the real thing as possible.

 

It looks great fun and a change from all those model railways that live in a basement about the size of The Prinicipality  Stadium.

 

https://www.thomasklimoski.com/

 

Another thumbs up from me.  I watched his livestream the other day, it was very enjoyable.  I would still point out though that the GNE may not occupy the size of the Principality Stadium, it still occupies 10'6" × 9'2" and the staging is outside that footprint. Square spaces are definitely an advantage.

 

I couldn't fit it into my shed - too narrow and nowhere for the staging - at which point I finally abandoned modelling US outline.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

1 hour ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

... if you can bear to, check my thread The Eagle Has Landed...

 

Disregard that, Keith... you've visited and commented. 

 

I thought the name seemed familiar!