Atlas Plan Layout Failure

[TOSSpilot]

My son and I are building our first layout and decided to go with a published plan and track to make the initial attempt succeed. We went with the classic Granite Gorge and Northern published in Atlas' book "Seven Step by Step HO Railroads" with a publishing date of 2006.

After I ordered all the parts, I tried to recreate the plan on Atlas' track software RTS. I could not get the track on the software to match up like the plans in the book. I called Atlas to make sure I was not missing something and they responded with a "I do not know about the software but the track plan is fine". So, I let it go.

This weekend, I spend hours trying to set up the track and have everthing line up correctly. I kept looking at it and looking at it and could not figure out why nothing would line up without kinks.

Out of complete frustration, I put everything back into a box and walked away. But, I went back to RTS and the track was laying out exactly how the software was presenting it. Furthermore, the track on the plans does not look like the Atlas Code 83 on the table, especially the switches. But, all the product numbers match up to the inventory list on the plans?

My conclusion is that the published track plan is flawed and was based on other track dimensions. But I am not sure.

Is this problem already known by everyone or am I the biggest train idiot. I had less problems assemblying an RC helicopter.

Craig

 

[jbaakko]

Well, for one, what the radius of the tracks, and the radius of the track plan?

 

[TOSSpilot]

The radius are a combination of 18" and 22". I understand what you are saying but the plans are specific. I tried different parts of the plan to see if I could get a complete section that was working. I ran into similar problem with different sub sections of the layout. The turnouts would cause the biggest problems.

If you look at the published plans in the book, the turnouts look much different from the real ones. I even tried replacing the custom line switch with the snap switch on the software to see if they printed the wrong part on the plans. No luck.

My question is whether someone has succesfully completed this layout as pubhished with the lastest book version. I know this layout has been around forever but have the track pieces changed?

Craig.

 

[jbaakko]

I'm guessing they may have changed. If the track radius is correct, then I'm not sure. Though, with a 1/3 18" radius section, the snap switches match an 18" radius, did you include that part? If so, then, um......

 

[SpaceMouse]

Okay, lets work on fixing it. What is the problem with your track/RTS version. Can you post that here so we can see what you are talking about.

 

[TOSSpilot]

Here are the layouts in pdf. The attachment tool will not let me upload the RTS format.

I went ahead and sent this to Atlas and asked them to explain to me what is going on or send me a RTS version that works. I can go ahead and try to fix it by changing the pieces but I am curious to know what the reason for the problem.

Two files- one with and one without article numbers.

Thanks,

Craig

 

[SpaceMouse]

Okay, it looks like you can salvage it with about 4 pieces of flex track. You will have to change several of the curves away from the set radius, but you should not have to go lower than the 18" radius. You should not have to change the outer loop, so all the changes will be inside.

Hopefully, you can get your money back on the unused sectional track. The worst is you could sell it on eBay.

What are the two turnouts without connections?

BTW: To upload your plan directly from RTS you just have to convert it to a bitmap.

 

[TOSSpilot]

Thank you for the feedback. I think you are correct in that it can be salvaged by adjusting the track and adding some flex track. But, the idea was to create something initially without doing this. I have limited time and wanted to get the train up and running in a short period.

It will be a little tricky to fix it since the plans use a cookie cutter top with specific bench work that I have already cut and built to the exact plans.

I will wait until Atlas comes back with a response before going this route.

The empty turnouts are for the yard. This will not be a problem.

But, the question still remains- did Atlas publish a book that has a flawed plan? I find this hard to believe.

Craig

 

[hminky]

The original layouts were created from the trackwork which gives an incredible amount of slack. The software is rigid. You can put a lot more track in a space than RTS will allow. If you put the track together it will fit the space, but RTS won't recreate the trackplan.

Harold

 

[CBCNSfan]

But, the question still remains- did Atlas publish a book that has a flawed plan? I find this hard to believe.

I doubt that the plan itself is flawed, but the GG&N is certainly not a plan for a first attempt at building a layout.
Click-->

Yep! my first layout too, after much difficulty, realignment I got it together. First difficulty was having to substitute the crossovers, no where could I obtain the ones in the plan. Finaly when it was all together the only place the trains would stay on the track was the figure 8's and that was limited to a single direction on each track. I did some scenery, but it was never completed, disgust and lack of interest soon relegated the space to a table saw and the plywood top to the outback.
Lessons learned: The track rises 3 1/2 inches in an area of less than 5 x 5 ft an experienced track layer can probably cope with the natural twist in the rails in a spiraling sharp curve. The layout risers will have to be very near perfect, there is no room for error.
If this is your first layout, may I suggest building a simpler one, take out the risers and make a flat top 5 x 10 ft table. You can still have a river so some bridges can be used, but don't try to use all the track. Salvage all that is leftover for your next layout, and in the meantime build a simpler one just for the experience. As you learn what you would like in a model RR you gain experience and know how. All the bridges from my GG&N are on my present layout, the track being of brass was disgarded.
My OWN opinion is those Atlas plans were designed to sell track, the GG&N looks impressive but in reality, it is a spaghetti bowl (lots of track, going no where, with nothing to do but watch trains go over bridges) Maybe my opinion only

Cheers Willis

 

[TOSSpilot]

Thank you for all the replies. This clears up the question.

I think I will go back to creating a more simpler plan with more operational components.

Craig

 

[GandyDancer]

I think I will go back to creating a more simpler plan with more operational components.

I just read this, did some circle calculations and then tried to hook it up in RTS. The circle calculations worked out. Anytime the 1/3 18" radius piece of track is used with RTS it screws things up. Don't know why but it is all the libraries and has been a known problem since the beginning when they charged $$$ for RTS. I didn't even get near as close as you did with my RTS.

I never understood what the appeal of this track plan was anyway. Sort of but not quite a double track figure-8 with one passing siding and a cut-over reversing loop. One industry track on the whole thing.

I think you will enjoy a simpler plan better anyway.

 

[CBCNSfan]

I never understood what the appeal of this track plan was anyway.

Well GD, the answer to that is it's the most interesting looking plan in the book to a beginner. It has mountains, a river, lots of bridges and a person new to the hobby can visualize his trains zipping around in all that scenery. hauling coal from a mine, a little town with a rail yard and doesn't realize most of it isn't really functional for operation. (a statement saying something like " a modest rail yard that'll hold a few cars, yep right on, but don't try coupling or uncoupling them. That modest yard is in the middle of the table. Keep in mind, that a beginner most likely has little knowledge of operation. I guess most of us get a start watching a display layout and then the bug bites. After I tore it down, I always felt I should have built one of the simpler 4 by 8's at the front of the book.

Cheers Willis

 

[HaggisKennedy]

For the track plans I've tried, most of them didn't match up exactly. There was always something somewhere. So, these days, I just use the plan as a guide to what it's supposed to look like while I lay down track as close as possible. I usually have an assortment of small pieces here and there, plus a few lengths of flex track to cover gaps that just won't be covered by pieces of snap track. You know the plan has issues when the piece you need is 16.75" long to close the gap.

So, while I'm fiddling to get things closed up, I figure I might as well wing it at other places, and eventually, it will all fit.

Kennedy