O gauge Lshaped design and plans

CHAWKI33 posted:

Ken,

 

I know this is an old post but I am trying to replicate the M412L-01 from earlier in the thread, 6-13-17, with not much luck.  Any chance that you can post the anyrail file?

 

Thanks for the help.

ChawkI33, what do you mean trying to replicate the M412L-01?   Not build it, but replicate the design in another track planning software?

If trying to replicate with another track planning software, be advised that Lionel's FasTrack is a bit variable:   The 4.5" section actually measures to 4.55" (discussed at length in another thread).   That small variance can add up:  3 sections of 4.55" adds 3 x 0.05", or 0.15" longer than expected.   1/8" = 0.125", so the variance is bigger than 1/8" over three sections.

AnyRail is the only program that I am aware of that uses the lengths actually measured from physical track, incorporating the manufacturing variance.   So it is the best program to work with FasTrack, to give the most accurate designs.   The integrated roadbed design means that FasTrack is less able to tolerate variances.   I can take spaces between sections - the connections between track sections can stretch a bit.   But compression of sections that are longer, don't work as well (can't compress to fit a tighter spaces).   Its OK to have a tolerance where the track fits the length with a gap of say 3/32".   But don't try to fit a length that is 3/32" too long.   Your software may allow it, but it will cause some displacement in the actual physical layout.

I worked on the plan you mentioned, and offer this improved version:

1. The cross-overs in the loop in the upper-right are smoother, with O60 turnouts and O72 1/2 sections making the "S" curves, easy for traditional equipment.
2. the loop in the upper-right is a bit longer.
3. The center-rail spacing is pretty accurate, at 4 3/8" spacing, just shy of Atlas-O 4.5" center-rail spacing.   Works fine on my layouts with LionChief scale and non-scale equipment.   But one does need to be mindful of the spacing, and run tests with very long equipment.
4. There is now a new route, a long oval at the top, running most of the 12' length.

I have attached the AnyRail file for this layout:

Thanks for getting back to me.  I am using the anyrail software to plan my layout.  Out of everything that I have seen this is the layout I like the best so I was trying to lay it out in the software to get parts list along with where some structures could go.

CHAWKI33 posted:

Thanks for getting back to me.  I am using the anyrail software to plan my layout.  Out of everything that I have seen this is the layout I like the best so I was trying to lay it out in the software to get parts list along with where some structures could go.

Got it, I hope the AnyRail file is what you need, good luck!

I like this design for a number of reasons: 

1. three trains running continuously, two in the inside loops, and one running the perimeter.   Good for chilling and train-watching.
2. It separates into two 4x8s for relocation and transport.
3. It has many operating routing variations, to keep things interesting
4. there is a bit of switching to do, perhaps more can be added, certainly in the corners with "drop-in" O48 turnouts.
5. It has one reversing route: in one direction, to reverse the other way needs a short backing move.
6. The outside perimeter is about O44.5" diameter, should run much O42, but testing would be prudent.

Thanks for the help.  I have twin 7 year old boys and we are starting this project. The more action we have the better.

One more improved version:  this one replaces the O60 cross-overs with wider O72s, with a section of O84 in the "S" curves.  Broader/wider is always better.   And I added a connecting railroad running the top-left perimeter, so you can imaging trains arriving and departing from elsewhere.   One might position a small industry at each of these spurs.

AnyRail file attached.

Your boys are gonna have a blast!

This next idea is not perfect.   It adds a second "Y" so trains can reverse in each direction without a backing move.   Unfortunately, I can't find a "solution" that works perfectly.   There is a gap of about 1/4" in the area indicated.  

There are five section joints making the connection.  I might try adding a 1/16" shim with gray plastic sheet, between four section joints to make a custom-length.   The tight plastic ball-sockets of the FasTrack would have to be opened-up or just trimmed-off.  Seems doable, but I have not tried it.   The rails will have a bit of "clicky-clack" across the joints.

Here is what the idea looks like: