I've accepted the biggest challenge (well one of em) in model railroading...

[cuyama]

That is a nice plan. However, it does use a very common track configuration on the crossovers that has a few problems. I would modify the two crossovers to make the space between them longer (bigger passing siding) and no S-curves as thus:

As the designer of the HO 4X8 plan in question, I'll respectfully disagree. While your modification does remove all s-curves, the original version using #6 turnouts has only very gentle s-curves relative to the minimum radius. It's been built a couple of times as drawn by folks who had no problems with it. Folks have told me that the traditional crossovers look more "railroady", but that's in the eye of the beholder, of course.

As drawn, the plan calls for a nominal 48 feet of flex track, but as others noted, most folks find that they need about 5-10% more than the nominal amount in a small layout to allow for cutting pieces to length, do-overs, etc.

 

[ledzeppelinfan1]

As the designer of the HO 4X8 plan in question, I'll respectfully disagree. While your modification does remove all s-curves, the original version using #6 turnouts has only very gentle s-curves relative to the minimum radius. It's been built a couple of times as drawn by folks who had no problems with it. Folks have told me that the traditional crossovers look more "railroady", but that's in the eye of the beholder, of course.

As drawn, the plan calls for a nominal 48 feet of flex track, but as others noted, most folks find that they need about 5-10% more than the nominal amount in a small layout to allow for cutting pieces to length, do-overs, etc.

How excellent to see that you post here!!! I really love the layout plan and have some cool ideas for customizing it to my needs. So, I should get about 20 pieces of flex? Maybe even more since this is my first time? Ive watched a lot of 'how to's' on YouTube so I'm not terribly intimidated by it.

For a 4 x 8, its maybe the best design I've ever seen. Like I said, I will make a couple personal amendments. But it really inspired me. Great Job!!!

I will be posting my pics as I build somewhere on this site...hell, I'll just use this thread.

 

[ledzeppelinfan1]

Also, Byron...what is the best way to make curved scenic dividers...how to mount them into the layout so that they are steady. I have some ideas, but would love to know what the right way is. Thanks for your help already!!!

 

[rzw0wr]

Led,
When it is all said and done by everyone the simple fact remains, It is you layout and your space constraints.
It does not matter what you build as a layout or the size.
You are the only one that needs to be satisfied with it.

Your layout will likely be a work in progress for many years to come.
In 5 years you may not even have anything close to what you started with.
6" here, a few more inches there, add a level above or below.

The main thing is to get started and let your layout grow or change as you see fit.
Your layout may even change as you build it. Good, change it.

Build it and have fun.

Dale

 

[cuyama]

I'm glad you found that layout helpful. As I noted at the outset, 5X9 or 5X10 for a layout like this would be even better because it would allow broader radii.

So, I should get about 20 pieces of flex? Maybe even more since this is my first time?

Twenty 3-foot sections will probably be enough, with a little left over. You can always buy another section or two if need be.

Also, Byron...what is the best way to make curved scenic dividers...how to mount them into the layout so that they are steady. I have some ideas, but would love to know what the right way is. Thanks for your help already!!!

There are a few different methods. One of the folks that built this layout used sheet styrene from a plastics supplier. Another used hardboard (Masonite). As far as mounting to the layout, most folks use 1X2 or something similar extending up from the open-grid frame or L-girder joists below the layout surface. Depending on how it is constructed, a curved backdrop of reasonably stiff material will support itself, it may just need to be secured from moving around.

Best of luck with your layout.

 

[Sirfoldalot]

Doesn't sound like much, but just adding one foot to each dimension - 4 x 8 to 5 x 9 - adds 40% surface area, resulting in many additional possibilities.

 

[trailrider]

First, a couple of questions: What era are you planning to model? If you are planning on the current era, you are going to run into some problems with the length of modern diesel locomotives and 85-ft. long Amtrak cars. Some can be run on 18-in. radius curves, but look better on wider ones which a 48" wide board won't accomodate. OTOH, if you are willing to stick to, say, no later than the 1960's, that makes it easier as you can run 40' boxcars, GP-7's through GP-35's, and can go for ConCor 72' passenger cars. In any case, I would advise Code 100 rather than Code 85, just in case you run into some deep-flanged rolling stock. Another possible suggestion is, IF you are planning to run a couple of short trains at the same time, you might want to use two loops of track. You can then go for a tight inner circle using 15-in. radius. (You can try and see if you can run 22"R on the outer and 18"R on the inner. Shinohara makes 20"R sectional track, but it is more expensive than Atlas. Good luck!

 

[ledzeppelinfan1]

First, a couple of questions: What era are you planning to model? If you are planning on the current era, you are going to run into some problems with the length of modern diesel locomotives and 85-ft. long Amtrak cars. Some can be run on 18-in. radius curves, but look better on wider ones which a 48" wide board won't accomodate. OTOH, if you are willing to stick to, say, no later than the 1960's, that makes it easier as you can run 40' boxcars, GP-7's through GP-35's, and can go for ConCor 72' passenger cars. In any case, I would advise Code 100 rather than Code 85, just in case you run into some deep-flanged rolling stock. Another possible suggestion is, IF you are planning to run a couple of short trains at the same time, you might want to use two loops of track. You can then go for a tight inner circle using 15-in. radius. (You can try and see if you can run 22"R on the outer and 18"R on the inner. Shinohara makes 20"R sectional track, but it is more expensive than Atlas. Good luck!

Thanks!!! I model the 1980's using a lot of shorter diesels and shorter rolling stock. I was planning on Code 100 flextrack and Peco Turnouts for just the very reason you gave, deep flanges.

The only track changes I may make will be in relation to the upper portion of the layout in the industrial switching. I want to add a couple more spurs for more function and variety.

 

[ledzeppelinfan1]

As the designer of the HO 4X8 plan in question, I'll respectfully disagree. While your modification does remove all s-curves, the original version using #6 turnouts has only very gentle s-curves relative to the minimum radius. It's been built a couple of times as drawn by folks who had no problems with it. Folks have told me that the traditional crossovers look more "railroady", but that's in the eye of the beholder, of course.

As drawn, the plan calls for a nominal 48 feet of flex track, but as others noted, most folks find that they need about 5-10% more than the nominal amount in a small layout to allow for cutting pieces to length, do-overs, etc.

Which specific Peco turnouts shall I use? Are they called #6 like the ones in the diagram...or??? I think I am going to go with two concentric curves on both sides instead of the two lines separating on the left side...it will maximize my space a bit better for what I plan to do with the layout. Also, I'm trusting that the S-curves wont cause any issues like you said, which is why I want to make sure I get the proper turnouts to be sure the radius, even of the turnout, doesnt have a negative impact on performance. Thanks Byron, all your input has been dually noted.

 

[Iron Horseman]

Which specific Peco turnouts shall I use? Are they called #6 like the ones in the diagram...or???

The Peco #6 equivalent in code 100 is called "Streamline Medium Radius Turnout". Many vendors (like Caboose Hobbies) are actually putting the #6 in the description these days so they should be easy to find. They come in two variations the electrofog or insulfrog type.

http://www.caboosehobbies.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=745&products_id=29642