Skip to main content

Optimized: reduced the section count ($) by eight sections.   Two curves are smoother near the O60 crossovers, with six O72 1/2 sections.  Alignment is more "perfect", no gaps, no compression at the section joints.

M812F-L-10f

Construction of the cross-overs between the perimeter route and right inside circle, might be worth a look:

Cross-Overs

Nice and smooth flow, very easy for O36 equipment.

 

Attachments

Images (2)
  • Cross-Overs
  • M812F-L-10f
Last edited by Ken-Oscale

As usually happens with FasTrack, there are lots of little sections (1-3/8, 1-3/4, 4-1/2).  Lionel ought to package them by the dozen for a discount.  OR (better), Lionel should introduce a small expandable section (not kidding), that I have shown before, and is available in

Z gauge Rokuhan.r031-2-113x90.4r031-1-218x174.4 and Kato N Unitrack KAT-20050-2__05530.1504130545

And add it to their S FasTrack as well.   Lionel could make good bank with this section, and more folks would be inclined to build FasTrack layouts if it is easier to make fractional connections.  [And would save me tons of time😉, optimizing is the most time-consuming aspect of designing FasTrack layouts to tight specifications.]   I submitted the idea to Lionel by email - fingers crossed!

Attachments

Images (3)
  • r031-1-218x174.4
  • r031-2-113x90.4
  • KAT-20050-2__05530.1504130545
Last edited by Ken-Oscale

Ken,

I really like this plan. I’m embarrassed to ask but would you share a list of the track pieces? I’ve always been awful at track geometry and try as I might I haven’t quite figured this out.  

You will have to sort it yourself, this is how it is presented by the SW.  Chose the turnout type you like (remote or command).  Remember that the O60/O72 turnouts come with two 1-3/8" sections each (roadbed trimmed), so you need less of those separtely.

6-12014, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Straight 10". 18
6-12015, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Curve 18", angle 45º (O36) 14
6-12019, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Crossing 6". 90º 1
6-12022, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Curve 18", angle 22.5º (O36) 4
6-12023, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Curve 18", angle 11.25º (O36) 19
6-12024, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Straight 5". 3
6-12025, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Straight 4 1/2". 15
6-12026, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Straight 1 3/4". 31
6-12035, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Buffer/Bumper (Light) 5". 9
6-12042, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Straight 30". 4
6-12043, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Curve 24", angle 30º (O48) 6
6-12055, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Curve 36", angle 11.25º (O72) 6
6-12057, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Left turnout 13 1/8". (O60) (remote) 1
6-12059, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Buffer/Bumper 3 5/8". 2
6-12073, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Straight 1 3/8". 40
6-16828, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Left turnout 13 1/8". (O60) Command Control 2
6-16829, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Right turnout 13 1/8". (O60) Command Control 2
6-16832, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Wye turnout 12". (O72) Command Control 7
6-16834, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Curve 24", angle 15º (O48) 14
6-16835, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Curve 24", angle 7.5º (O48) 10
6-81946, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Right turnout 10". (O36) Remote/Command 7
6-81947, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Left turnout 10". (O36) Remote/Command 2
6-81948, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Right turnout 15". (O48) Remote/Command 1
6-81949, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Left turnout 15". (O48) Remote/Command 1

Last edited by Ken-Oscale

I'm a new member and have been following all your FasTrack layouts posted on OGR. I think they are great and they inspired me to attempt my very own first track plan. I am still working on trying to get everything to connect on paper! I totally relate to your comment regarding the large number of mini sections of track one needs to complete a FasTrack plan. Check out my first post FASTRACK LAYOUT HELP? A CHALLENGE. 

@drtock posted:

I'm a new member and have been following all your FasTrack layouts posted on OGR. I think they are great and they inspired me to attempt my very own first track plan. I am still working on trying to get everything to connect on paper! I totally relate to your comment regarding the large number of mini sections of track one needs to complete a FasTrack plan. Check out my first post FASTRACK LAYOUT HELP? A CHALLENGE. 

Thanks Drtock.   I commented in your design thread.

This is a great plan and similar to this other one of yours I bookmarked awhile back.  https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/...h-menard-s-buildings

Would it be possible to show what it would look like in RealTrax with O42 on the outside loop and O31 on the inside loop?

I am hoping to build this once my daughter moves out of her nursery.  And the day draws nigh.

Last edited by Mark Holmgren 110217

Ken,
Many years ago when I was planning my layout I read about easements in a Model Railroad Tips and Trips book.  So when I finally built my current layout, using FastTrack, I made the easements using the following curves. An 048curve, a 036curve, a048 curve, a 036curve and a 048curve. Seems to me this method results in fewer pieces of track used, fewer joints and quieter operation. Is there a big difference in curve radius  in the method you use and curve radius method I have used?

BTW Ken I enjoy reading your layout posts and articles in OGR. Keep up the good work!

@ncdave posted:

Ken,
Many years ago when I was planning my layout I read about easements in a Model Railroad Tips and Trips book.  So when I finally built my current layout, using FastTrack, I made the easements using the following curves. An 048curve, a 036curve, a048 curve, a 036curve and a 048curve. Seems to me this method results in fewer pieces of track used, fewer joints and quieter operation. Is there a big difference in curve radius  in the method you use and curve radius method I have used?

BTW Ken I enjoy reading your layout posts and articles in OGR. Keep up the good work!

Thanks Dave!   I am using more small sections to more closely approximate O42 for those compound curves.  In case someone has O42 limited trains, these can run the outside perimeter route.   Yes, more sections (and more $).   The other reason is for a smoother curvature that better parallels the O36 curves.

Comparing the older and newer versions of the layout design, the major change that enables other positive changes, is the connection on the LEFT inside loop that makes a return loop.   In the newer version, the connection goes through and uses a portion of the RIGHT inner loop. 

Earlier, I resisted this alignment, as it requires that a perimeter running train interfere with a train on the inner RIGHT loop in order to run the return loop connection around the LEFT inner loop.  That is a negative aspect:  running the return loop connection involves the outside perimeter AND BOTH the RIGHT and LEFT inner loops.

So why make the reverse loop connection in this "all-consuming" alignment?  The first advantage is that the RIGHT inner loop is longer (better with a slightly longer run).  And second, the added length allows the cross-overs to be constructed with much smoother O72 curves and the O72 'Y', a big plus.  And third, the revised RIGHT inner loop now has better opportunities for spur alignments, including even a small yard.   Fourth, I was able to make the FasTrack section joints at a closer tolerance - important as FasTrack has zero flexibility with compression due to its rigid plastic roadbed, and joints can be stretched only a small amount.  I started the new version with a complete restart from zero, to make sure I had all the joints and alignments as perfect as possible.

So its a tradeoff: a convoluted return loop run involving (and perhaps stopping) trains on both inner loops  VS  the advantages just mentioned.  Which way do you think is a better way to make the reverse loop connection?

Last edited by Ken-Oscale

After discussions with the editor at OGR magazine, I should not publish a labeled track diagram or a list of track sections needed for layouts that might appear in the magazine.   Subscribers want original work in the magazine, not a re-publication of layout plans published openly and freely on the forum.   Sorry to disappoint, but I understand the reasoning.

I am working on a concept that builds this layout from a single 4x8 sheet, to the "L" pictured above, and then to a "U" shape not previously shown, in three stages.  I have the layout designed, now I have to create the illustrations in three phases, and write the article.

The article will be longer than I usually do for the magazine.   If it is not suitable for publication, I will post all materials here on the forum.  Best I can do for now.

Last edited by Ken-Oscale

That’s fantastic!  When will your article be published?  

The article has not yet been written, let alone submitted for consideration.  Realistically, 3 months at the very earliest, 4 or 5 months more realistically:  IF accepted for publication.  We shall see.

I am now thinking the final 'U' shaped layout should be built in 4 phases rather than 3.  Building in stages adds additional "wrinkles" and complexity to the design process, but not the final design itself, nor will it make construction more complex.

Last edited by Ken-Oscale

Add Reply

Post
The Track Planning and Layout Design Forum is sponsored by

AN OGR FORUM CHARTER SPONSOR
OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
330-757-3020

www.ogaugerr.com
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×