The Carolina Sandhills Lines in HO Scale

[pdx1955]

There is always a way to get a car to go around a curve, trust me 

Yep, there is . However, that doesn't mean its going to look good doing so. If it's a just a sharper industry spur that's one thing, but on a overall layout basis it starts to look a bit odd. Layout context also comes into play as sharp curves may be ok for (and prototypical) on industrial trackage, narrow gauge, or trolley operations, but for something representing modern mainline operations, not so much. Then you end having to disguise these sharper curves (tunnels, groves of tall trees, buildings, longer easements, etc) or having a good conversation with yourself on what you want for equipment versus appearance/operation and what weight you personally put on each.

[davefoxx]

I glued the foam to the lauan substrate on the first section of the layout (there are three sections).  About half of my railroad library is visible here weighing the foam down onto the plywood.  For adhesive, I used Loctite Power Grab All-Purpose Adhesive, which is compatible with foam.



The next step is to cut the foam to cookie-cutter the branch line (just as I did on the Seaboard Central 2.0) on the second and third layout sections, but I'm held up because I've worn out my last snap knife blade.  The branch must be set at the proper elevation and grade, because once I glue the surrounding foam down, I can't get in there to apply the shims and adhesive (at least on the section that transitions from flat to the grade, which has to be the next section to get glued into place.  The easiest way to do this is to flip the foam upside-down and glue the shims on the bottom with a low-temp hot glue gun.  Then, when the foam is flipped back over, it's instant railroad grade!

DFF

[davefoxx]

I always like the "Sharpie" level of track planning as it really shows how things go together, how much space a switch actually takes, etc.

Thanks, and I agree.  It's much harder to cheat when you're using actual track parts in 1:1 track planning.

Widening the radii is a good idea, however, are you really going to like the appearance of those Amfleet cars on 22" radius curves? Eighty-five foot HO cars can track thru curves that sharp but they won't look all that good as you really need 24" and higher. The cars would have to have truck-mounted (Talgo) couplers or pivoting drawbars (like the Walthers 85' autoracks) to make it around the sharper curves (based on my HO experiences around the turn of the century) . Nowadays body-mounts are much more common which I think will create a lot of problems. Long cars on sharp curves like these will have a lot more overhang, so you should create some mockups to test the track spacings for your sidings (you may have to limit the Amtrak to the main). The previously mentioned S-curve that you've tried to mitigate with the 9" straight is really only good for 70' cars or so, which for this layout keeping car lengths generally under 60' will give the best operation and appearance. As long as you don't take the passenger train through the wye (and I don't know why would you) you'll prevent issues with those that location.

I ran my N scale Kato Amfleet cars on the Seaboard Central 2.0, which had a minimum radius on the roundy-round portion of 11".  So, that's comparable with my 22" minimum mainline radius here.  No, it's not the best looking, and you'll never see a picture of any passenger train on my layout gracing the cover of a model railroad magazine.  I get that.  But, if the cars will run reliably, I can live with the shortcomings, because a passenger train (even an awkward looking train in the corners) is better than no passenger train at all.

I do not foresee any reason why the Amfleet cars would need to go through the s-curve side of the wye.  That tail track in the yard is only long enough for two Geeps to clear the turnout points.  There will be no passenger trains going through there, unless I add the folding staging yard to extend the yard.  I was actually considering car lengths when I decided on the 9" straight section.  That very day, I received the Amtrak cars and several freight cars in the mail.  I measured the Amfleet cars and saw that I would have to add a straight section that was almost 12" long.  That's too long to comfortably fit the 22" radius curve, so I measured the next car down (a 60 footer), and settled on 9" which was a compromise to stay with the 22" minimum mainline radius and a straight section long enough for 50 and 60 footers.

Honestly, I generally have not had any problem with body-mounted couplers.  In fact, I prefer them.  But, being new in my return to HO, I have no idea how well these Walther's Amfleet cars run ( I haven't even opened the boxes yet).  If it turns out that they will not navigate the layout, I'll just sell them.  It's not the end of the world.  I'm quite aware of the risks of such sharp radius curves.  All layouts that I've ever built have had comparable sharp curves.  Usually, I can get my fleet to run reliably.  I'm not afraid to tinker, where necessary.

You may have to do some trimming on some of these cars anyways as the more detailed cars (lower bolsters, air hoses, etc) could have tracking issues with these sharper turns. This is another good reason for some curve mockups. Version 3.0 is physically larger than v2.0, but proportionally it is actually smaller (especially in length and potentially in curves). You may inadvertently shoehorn more stuff in there than you should as you've been in a smaller scale for a while (aka "eyeball re- calibration").

Yeah, it's my understanding that I may need to trim the swing hangers on the Amfleet cars to negotiate sharp curves, because they are mounted to the body, not the trucks.  With the exception of my new 60' boxcar that I have not yet tested, all of my freight cars will negotiate the 16-7/8" radius Kato Unitrack I have.  So, if they'll clear that, there's no problem with the minimum radius on the layout (18" on the branchline, 22" on the roundy-round mainline, and 20" on the passing sidings).  There's really no reason to run anything longer than 50' up the hill, where it's subjected to that 18" radius.

Also, this is a good time to check your industry spots vs yard capacities. If you add up all of the industry spots (including interchange tracks) based on a typical 50' car length they should about equal the yard capacity. Summing the two together equals the maximum car capacity of the layout but you need to divide this in half to determine the operating capacity so you can switch cars instead of "holes" which will keep everything a bit less than 50% full.

This is good information to have, and I thank you for it.  I do not know how to design for layout capacity, so your formula is welcomed.  I'll start crunching numbers the next time I go back into the layout room.  All I do know is that I'm trying to allow for more industry spots for cars that was lacking on the v2.0.

Since you'll won't be trimming the layout sides as much and this layout is about 6' wide this will equal about the maximum 36" reach. If you are not that tall, you should look for reaches under 30", as trackwork outside of this (by the law of Murphy) tends to gives problems. Just be aware of it, and even though you can reach it, you also have to be aware of what is in the way (trees, poles, buildings, etc).

It's definitely awkward to work in the center.  But, I have step-stool that allows me to get up and reach in farther.  This is part of the reason I built a more rugged layout, because I knew the reaching in could cause damage if the layout was leaned on too hard.

Thanks,
DFF

[Dave V]

The next step is to cut the foam to cookie-cutter the branch line (just as I did on the Seaboard Central 2.0) on the second and third layout sections, but I'm held up because I've worn out my last snap knife blade.  The branch must be set at the proper elevation and grade, because once I glue the surrounding foam down, I can't get in there to apply the shims and adhesive (at least on the section that transitions from flat to the grade, which has to be the next section to get glued into place.  The easiest way to do this is to flip the foam upside-down and glue the shims on the bottom with a low-temp hot glue gun.  Then, when the foam is flipped back over, it's instant railroad grade!

DFF

Here's a thought...  If you want to ensure an exact and constant grade, could you use the Woodland Scenics incline risers under the cut-out?  That way you still have your solid foam on top but now you have a perfect whatever% grade with potentially more support as well.

Just a thought.  I need some grades on my RGS and when I get ready to build it, for as handy as those WS inclines are, I don't like having to then plaster-cloth over the inclines to fill in all the accordion gaps.  This might solve that.

[C855B]

Here's a thought...  If you want to ensure an exact and constant grade, could you use the Woodland Scenics incline risers under the cut-out?  That way you still have your solid foam on top but now you have a perfect whatever% grade with potentially more support as well. ...

This is basically what I do, though instead of the WS accordion I cut graduated shims from 2" foam on a table saw (yes, messy). In favor of the WS risers, they will be quicker and require less fiddling to be accurate.

[davefoxx]

This is basically what I do, though instead of the WS accordion I cut graduated shims from 2" foam on a table saw (yes, messy). In favor of the WS risers, they will be quicker and require less fiddling to be accurate.

This is what I did on the v2.0 and what I plan to do here.  I have to admit that Dr. Hotballs suggestion is a good one, though, and if I lived close to the LHS, I'd seriously consider it.  But, I'll just cut graduated 2" foam blocks.  Then I can get an accurate grade, which could be 2.5% or 3.25% or whatever it works out to, i.e., something that might not even be available in the WS risers product line.

Here's what I did on the v2.0 (this is upside down and once flipped over, "Voila!," instant grade!):



DFF

[davefoxx]

Just a thought.  I need some grades on my RGS and when I get ready to build it, for as handy as those WS inclines are, I don't like having to then plaster-cloth over the inclines to fill in all the accordion gaps.  This might solve that.

@Dr Hotballs,

Lightweight spackling to fill the accordion gaps.  Don't plaster, that's messy, and can't be cleaned up by washing it down the sink.  Lightweight spackling.  When you're done, close the container.  Wipe off the trowel.  Done.  Lightweight spackling.

DFF

[Dave V]

@Dr Hotballs,

Lightweight spackling to fill the accordion gaps.  Don't plaster, that's messy, and can't be cleaned up by washing it down the sink.  Lightweight spackling.  When you're done, close the container.  Wipe off the trowel.  Done.  Lightweight spackling.

DFF

I did that n the Midland in some areas, primarily where the ramps were close to the ground:

[davefoxx]

With the impending tracklaying, I needed to overcome some fear and cut up some turnouts.  The reason is that the Walthers (Shinohara) turnouts, when used to form a crossover, put the track centers at more than 2-3/4" apart.  I want 2" track centers.  So, chop chop.

This picture shows how I was able to close the distance successfully.  Whew!  It's discomforting to cut up expensive turnouts with the real risk of damaging them beyond repair:


In case you're wondering how I did that, here's the sneak peek.  The real advantage is that by using the other turnout's stock rail to become the frog rail, I eliminated two rail joints and prevented some conductivity problems in the turnouts!



Oh, and while I was at it, in the interest of getting as much length to the tail track of my wye, I also cut the straight route of the turnout back to bring the points of a third turnout closer to the frog of the adjacent turnout:



DFF

[Chris333]

I just found out Shinohara closed for the summer and it is hard to get their track in Japan, most of it is exported...

[coosvalley]

@Dr Hotballs,

Lightweight spackling to fill the accordion gaps.  Don't plaster, that's messy, and can't be cleaned up by washing it down the sink.  Lightweight spackling.  When you're done, close the container.  Wipe off the trowel.  Done.  Lightweight spackling.

DFF

Haha!...This, but in all caps lock...

[davefoxx]

I finally have some cork roadbed going down.  Actually this is my second attempt.  The first attempt led to the discovery that my 2" foam is not flat.    It was so bad that I pulled up the cork and hit two low spots with some lightweight spackling as fill.  After that dried, I started laying cork roadbed again.  Some sanding of the cork, and the worst of the whoop-de-doos are gone.  It's not perfect, but neither is the prototype.



Also, I have been pondering about what to do for turnout control.  I don't want to go with slide switches on an HO scale layout, and I don't really want powered turnouts.  So, some research online led me to Fast Tracks where I found their Bullfrog manual turnout controls.

http://www.handlaidtrack.com/bf-0002

I ordered three Bullfrogs about a week or so ago to try them out.  I installed the first tonight, because I have to install the switch control before I can install a turnout.  Turnouts are where it's easiest to start laying track.  My first attempt was a complete success.  While it is somewhat exacting to get the turnout control in the right place under the layout to ensure the throw is correct, it was not nearly as fussy as I expected.  On this control, I installed the slide switch for frog powering.  The truth is, though, that was only an experiment to see how difficult it was to install one of these Bullfrogs.  Since I have three Hex Frog Juicers left over from the Seaboard Central 2.0 expanded version, I'll use those and forego the frog powering through the Bullfrog.  Besides, the Bullfrog will do nothing to prevent shorts.  I have not connected the Control Rod Kit with knob to control the Bullfrog, because I don't have any fascia installed yet.

So, here is the Bullfrog installed under the layout in all of its glory:



And . . .



Success!



I'm most pleased, because I didn't know if this would work through 2" of foam and 1/4" of lauan plywood.  As expected, the plywood gave me the perfect surface to mount the Bullfrog to.

DFF

[Chris333]

Sometimes I just use layers of tape to build up low foam areas (only for under cork). I use a 24" ruler to find all the spots.


I used Bullfrogs on my HOn30  layout and they work great. Only thing I don't like is the 1" throw of the rod. I had to put a little shelf under them so I don't bump. And this is with it already recessed 3/4" with a hole saw.

[davefoxx]

Sometimes I just use layers of tape to build up low foam areas (only for under cork). I use a 24" ruler to find all the spots.

There was way too much variation.  I applied at least 3/16" of fill in two spots!  I'm using a four foot straightedge.  I've got another spot near the wye turnout that will require sanding down a high spot, because there's a peak.  I bought a new Ryobi sander today, and it's making quick work of the high spots on the foam and the cork roadbed.

I used Bullfrogs on my HOn30  layout and they work great. Only thing I don't like is the 1" throw of the rod. I had to put a little shelf under them so I don't bump.

I wondered how much they'll stick out.  A shelf seems like a great idea.  I was also considering recessing the knob, so it won't stick out so far.

Thanks,
DFF

[peteski]

Sometimes I just use layers of tape to build up low foam areas (only for under cork). I use a 24" ruler to find all the spots.


I used Bullfrogs on my HOn30  layout and they work great. Only thing I don't like is the 1" throw of the rod. I had to put a little shelf under them so I don't bump. And this is with it already recessed 3/4" with a hole saw.

My friend uses bunch of these on his N scale layout.  I assembled bunch of them for him. His are mounted in recessed panels in the fascia (to prevent snagging/bumping).