Back With Another Design Try

[DoubleDAZ]

I'm back with yet another attempt at designing something I can live with and you guys might think has some operational merit. As a result of prior critiques, I've decided to build my 10x6 N-scale layout in 3 sections; 2 main level sections and a top level section (see attached XTrakXCAD photo).

Each main level section will be 10x3 and simply bolt together. Separation will only require removal of 2 straight tracks on the right side and a homemade wiring harness. This level will be equipped for DCC operation of multiple trains. The top level will be 10x2.5 and simply bolt to upright supports. This level will initially be DC, ostensibly to make use of the Bachmann E-Z Track set I got last Christmas. It may also double as a standalone layout for my 4-yr old granddaughter. Operation will be counter-clockwise from lower left to upper left and back. All curves are 11.25" radius and trains will probably only be 5-8 cars each.

The benchwork for the main level will be a 1x4 grid system (~16" squares) covered with 2" foam. The benchwork for the top level will be a simple 1x2 grid covered with 1/2" plywood topped by 1" foam. It will be cut to conform to the shape of the loop. There will be 1x4 supports at each corner and 1x1 or 2x2 supports elsewhere as needed, maybe even a trestle or something. It will all still sit on a table with access to all sides and a diorama of sorts will separate the 2 main level sections with tunnels going between sections. I haven't decided yet if the scenery from the top level to the main level will include a cliffside or something, or just be a free-floating shelf. I don't even know yet how high the top level will sit. The whole layout will still be mobile, as I will be temporarily taking it apart at least 3 times a year and may even set it out on the patio once in awhile.

The top level is a relatively simple single track loop to be used strictly for show. I'd like the track elevation to be unlevel, varying +/- 1/2" or so to simulate real topography. I may convert to double track with a crossover some time in the future so I can run 2 trains in opposite directions. I can even imagine something like a 2-level over/under folded loop. I've already tried an XTrakCAD design using the Kato Double Track parameter, but I didn't like the result. To be honest, I didn't particularly like the Kato Unitrack design either, but I have more experimenting to do with that. I haven't tried pairing 2 runs of E-Z Track together yet to see what I'd get and think FlexTrack might be the way to go at some point down the line. The curves in the design only signify that the runs won't be straight.

Right now though I want to start simple. There is room to add a passing siding on one or both sides of the diorama to simulate dropping off passengers at a town painted on the diorama or some faux store-fronts glued to the diorama. I'm thinking the scenery would simulate Old West steam passenger service through high desert mountains, like near Flagstaff AZ. I could even forget the diorama and just locate a version of Flagstaff back in the day when Route 66 was mostly all there was. Obviously, 1-2 locos for this level depending on eventual track selection. When I get my steam loco back from Bachmann, I'll just run the standard Empire Builder set on this level for awhile. In fact, I'm currently using a similar 8x2 smaller loop for experimenting and testing. Since this section can be a standalone layout for my granddaughter, I will build it first to get some much needed experience. I may buy a set of Kato Unitrack just to see how closely I can make the designs match.

As you can see in the photo, the main level is basically a fairly tame 20x3 out-and-back 2-level shelf layout wrapped in half. This is more traditional with a train storage area, mainline running, and some sidings. I don't know exactly what the sidings will service yet, but they will be something that would require moving some traffic out and back from storage. Scenery would be also be uneven and simulate the desert between Phoenix and Tucson during the period between steam/diesel so I could run both types of locos. I expect to have 2-3 locos for this level, probably 2 diesels and 1 steam. I'd include something like a couple of bridges crossing dry riverbeds.

I'm fairly happy with the design. It meets my goal for continuous mainline running in both directions and fixes the problems with my previous efforts regarding the steep incline, lack of a planned use, and theme-park like design. But, before I go further, I'd like to get some opinions, particularly on the storage area. I experimented with a few yard designs, including some with a roundhouse/turntable, but felt they took up too much space and yard operation is not my thing. I really just need some room to store up to 3 trains while 2 others are running and I want in/out access as easy as possible. I also thought about connecting the 2 loops on the left, but didn't feel a straight-through there added anything significant, out-and-back with the reversing loop seemed more useful for my intended running. I'd also like to know what you'd think if I elevated the configuration of sidings in the upper section by 1" or so.

I hope some of you will humor me again with feedback, good or bad, particularly those of you who commented on my previous attempts. Thanks in advance.

 

[Motley]

How will you access the center of the layout?

 

[DoubleDAZ]

How will you access the center of the layout?

The farthest reach is 2.5' and so far I've been able to handle that on my test layout. If something drastic happens where I need to fix/replace track, etc., I'll simply pull the 2 sections apart to deal with it. I intend to wire things so each section can be run/tested independently. What am I missing?

 

[RW&C]

That 2.5 feet may start to seem like a lot when you're bending over it doing scenery. 0_0

 

[fast_ian]

Not if you get one of these!.... [A mere $240 from Micromark! ]

Thieir part # 83876 btw.

 

[DoubleDAZ]

That 2.5 feet may start to seem like a lot when you're bending over it doing scenery. 0_0

But that's the beauty of being able to separate sections, the reach gets cut in half. Plus, I'm not looking at major scenery and should have repeated my plan to do major elements as removeable drop-in scenes. For example, if I were to add a horse ranch inside the upper left loop, I'd cut out that area of foam, do the scenery, and then drop it back in. In fact, I'd like to create multiple drop-in scenes for the same space so I can vary the look from time to time, perhaps something along the lines of the 4 seasons. My granddaughter has a large wood puzzle and it got me to wondering why I couldn't create something similar for my major scenery. Yes, there will be seams, but I think I can come up with some sort of scenic cloth to cover those. My goal is not just to create a place to run trains, but to also give me something different to do. I've always be fascinated with modular railrtoading and this is my chance to do something along those lines.

And, while I do appreciate questions/comments like these, I'd really like some comments on the operational aspects of the track design, especially the storage area. Is it okay? Is there a better way in the same space? Do the sidings make any sense? Are the curves too sharp? And so on.

 

[LoudMusic]

I think 30" is a good distance for 'casual reach', but clearly it's possible to reach further if you have some assistance like a stool, or don't mind half climbing up on the layout.

That 'lean over your layout' ladder looks pretty great, and could probably be built from the same material the layout is being built from. I wonder if there are construction plans for something like that on the interwebs.

 

[Doughless]

Not understanding your total goals for your layout, I would say the bottom half poses no real problems.

I don't understand the arrangement of the spurs in the center part of the upper half, especially the two that butt together to form the mainline: 1.) It looks like it forms a nasty S curve which could cause derailments and 2) it uses the diverging routes of the turnouts, making derailments or other problems even more likely.

 

[DoubleDAZ]

Not understanding your total goals for your layout, I would say the bottom half poses no real problems.

If by goals you mean an operational reason to go from point A to B, I don't really have one. I simply like to run trains around a track, reversing directions, etc. My first attempt looked like an amusement ride and I still wish I could do something like that. I have no real desire to drop off empty coal, lumber or any other cars and pick up full ones. Any siding with a business or something I put on the track is purely for show. I actually look at the train as kind of automobile just out for a Sunday drive.

That said, I may come to find that is not enough and might want to actually have something more realistic to do. Therefore, I tried desiging in some potential for real operations in the future, hence the sidings.

I don't understand the arrangement of the spurs in the center part of the upper half, especially the two that butt together to form the mainline: 1.) It looks like it forms a nasty S curve which could cause derailments and 2) it uses the diverging routes of the turnouts, making derailments or other problems even more likely.

To be honest, I don't either. I saw something very much like that in another plan and added it to see what kind of comments I'd get. The main point was to see what kinds of track would fit that space, but I couldn't come up with a specific industry to service.

As for the "S" and diverging turnouts, I admit it, I didn't notice those because I wasn't paying much attention. I didn't expect that to survive this critique process anyway, but didn't want to leave it empty. They do stand out like a sore thumb now that you've pointed them out.

Now that I think about it a little, if I have any theme in mind, I guess I'd like to see an old western town with cattle pens and a pickup point there to take cattle to a meat processing plant in the lower section. I'd also like a horse ranch inside the left loop. I don't know how that would go with diesels, but then I really don't care about realism as far as locos go. If I want a certain loco, then I'll run it as long as elevations and curves allow, regardless of era.

What I think I'll work on is a turnout coming out of the left tunnel with one branch pretty much following the current main and the other branch veering into a town in the center. That branch would meet up with the main on the right or make a 3rd main along the right that would meet up coming out of the tunnel in the lower right, I think there might be room.

Thanks for the comments, gave me a reason to think more about that area and a specific use. Would my cattle and town idea work?

 

[Doughless]

If by goals you mean an operational reason to go from point A to B, I don't really have one. I simply like to run trains around a track, reversing directions, etc. My first attempt looked like an amusement ride and I still wish I could do something like that. I have no real desire to drop off empty coal, lumber or any other cars and pick up full ones. Any siding with a business or something I put on the track is purely for show. I actually look at the train as kind of automobile just out for a Sunday drive.

That said, I may come to find that is not enough and might want to actually have something more realistic to do. Therefore, I tried desiging in some potential for real operations in the future, hence the sidings.



To be honest, I don't either. I saw something very much like that in another plan and added it to see what kind of comments I'd get. The main point was to see what kinds of track would fit that space, but I couldn't come up with a specific industry to service.

As for the "S" and diverging turnouts, I admit it, I didn't notice those because I wasn't paying much attention. I didn't expect that to survive this critique process anyway, but didn't want to leave it empty. They do stand out like a sore thumb now that you've pointed them out.

Now that I think about it a little, if I have any theme in mind, I guess I'd like to see an old western town with cattle pens and a pickup point there to take cattle to a meat processing plant in the lower section. I'd also like a horse ranch inside the left loop. I don't know how that would go with diesels, but then I really don't care about realism as far as locos go. If I want a certain loco, then I'll run it as long as elevations and curves allow, regardless of era.

What I think I'll work on is a turnout coming out of the left tunnel with one branch pretty much following the current main and the other branch veering into a town in the center. That branch would meet up with the main on the right or make a 3rd main along the right that would meet up coming out of the tunnel in the lower right, I think there might be room.

Thanks for the comments, gave me a reason to think more about that area and a specific use. Would my cattle and town idea work?

Dave,

You don't need a theme or a goal, I just didn't want to make a specific comment in case you had.

I would eliminate any S curves, definitely.

In case you might want to drop off cars or do some switching in the future, it might make more sense to have some spurs come off of the siding instead of off the main line, there on the upper part of the layout.

 

[DoubleDAZ]

You don't need a theme or a goal, I just didn't want to make a specific comment in case you had.

I appreciate that.

I would eliminate any S curves, definitely.

I will, but I assume you only mean the one created by that convoluted track I added with the facing turnouts, etc.

I should mention that I intend to do mockups of various sections to make sure they don't cause any problems with the trains I intend to run, particularly the 2 spurs in the lower section and then whatever I come up with to replace things in the upper section.

In case you might want to drop off cars or do some switching in the future, it might make more sense to have some spurs come off of the siding instead of off the main line, there on the upper part of the layout.

I'll look into that to see if I could locate the town and cattle pickup point off that siding without pushing the mainline too close to the center of the main level. Maybe it's time to get some of my granddaughter's toys out to set up a small town, etc., using my test layout. Thanks for the ideas.

I have to admit I'm a little frustrated by the lack of comments, though I appreciate the ones I've gotten so far, and those in other threads about selecting a DCC system, etc. Maybe my goals and design ideas are just plain stupid or I'm expecting too much. I haven't gotten any comments on the planned benchwork, curve radius, spur locations, etc., and that surprises me. I guess I'll assume those parts are okay, though I hate to assume things.

Maybe I just haven't pinned down enough operational plans to get others to offer alternatives. I'm not afraid to go it alone and do my own thing design-wise and I'm up to learning by trial and error like I did 30 odd years ago. I imagine I'll find out soon enough if the benchwork will work or not once I start on the top level. If things don't work out, I'll just be out a few dollars for materials, 1x2s and 1" foam shouldn't cost that much, right?

 

[Doughless]

Dave,

I would eliminate any S curve where two pieces of curved track make the S, with no straight section in between. Cars uncouple at the S because the front of one car is heading in the opposite direction from the back of the other. A general rule is to have a straight section that is at least as long as your longest car in between two opposing curves. About 9 inches of straight track for HO usually works.

As far as the lack of responses. The first question i asked you was about theme or goal. When you have a particular theme and you have a particular goal, you're going to be operating the layout with certain cars and locomotives in a certain manner. Radius of curves, location of and length spurs, etc. become more important.

If you're going to have a display layout where your goal is to railfan trains of any kind and length, than specific arrangement of track becomes less important. Its more up to you to decide what looks good since its tough for others to have a vision for that and contribute specifically. Its not stupidity on your part. A basic suggestion would be to keep the radius as broad as possible if you plan on running long passenger cars or locomotives. I'm an HO guy so I really don't know what is a broad enough N scale curve, frankly.


If you want some more information on the "vision thing", try reviewing this website

http://www.layoutvision.com/

also this one:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/trains/Beginner/BeginnersGuide01.html

good luck

 

[DoubleDAZ]

I would eliminate any S curve where two pieces of curved track make the S, with no straight section in between. Cars uncouple at the S because the front of one car is heading in the opposite direction from the back of the other. A general rule is to have a straight section that is at least as long as your longest car in between two opposing curves. About 9 inches of straight track for HO usually works.

I thought the rule of thumb was something like that, but totally balnked out with that convoluted turnout arrangement.

As far as the lack of responses. The first question I asked you was about theme or goal. When you have a particular theme and you have a particular goal, you're going to be operating the layout with certain cars and locomotives in a certain manner. Radius of curves, location of and length spurs, etc. become more important.

I get that part and I'm not expecting comments about whether or not the spurs are long enough, etc. I probably should have asked more questions in my post. I know so little about actual RR operations when it comes to which directions spurs should face, etc., that I was hoping for some kind of confirmation that my directions make sense. I think I will add my operating concept now and see where that gets me.

If you're going to have a display layout where your goal is to railfan trains of any kind and length, than specific arrangement of track becomes less important. Its more up to you to decide what looks good since its tough for others to have a vision for that and contribute specifically. Its not stupidity on your part.

Like I said, I will add more specifics for my vision and see if that gets me some more comments. That's good advice, thanks.

A basic suggestion would be to keep the radius as broad as possible if you plan on running long passenger cars or locomotives. I'm an HO guy so I really don't know what is a broad enough N scale curve, frankly.

The radius is dictated by my desirte to fit in as much running track as I can while still allowing for a variety of locos and by the space I have. I will try a larger radius, I was working with the kit tracks I have and didn't think to try something else. I have looked at the recommended radius for the locos/rolling stock I intend to buy (at least the Bachmann models) and they all work with what I have. Now I have the cattle/meat-processing tie-in in mind, I will add that and ask more questions about operations.

If you want some more information on the "vision thing", try reviewing this website

http://www.layoutvision.com/

also this one:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/trains/Beginner/BeginnersGuide01.html

Thanks, I will check those out. I just want to run trains, but it looks like I'm going to have to give operations more thought if I want to get the kinds of comments I'm looking for.

 

[Motley]

If you just like to run trains, I think it looks fine. I'm sure you'll get the bug to do scenery, or at least ballast.

As far as lack of responses...huh?

 

[Doughless]

Dave,

As far as what direction switches should face, it doesn't really matter in this sense: I suggested that if you wanted to do some switching, have the spurs come off of the siding. That way when a locomotive is pulling one car, for instance, and it is facing the turnout that the car needs to be switched onto (called a "facing" switch, go figure) it can run onto the siding with the car, uncouple from the car, run by itself forward onto the mainline, throw the switch it just past, run back along the mainline to where it entered the siding with the car, then enter the siding again and push the car through the facing point turnout onto the spur. That move is called a runaround. (A turnout that trails the locomotive and car, where the engine can just back the car onto the spur without having to runaround it first is called a "trailing" switch). If you locate the spurs on or near the siding (or in this case the "runaround track"), you'll be in better position to switch the cars like a real train would.

You don't need operations. Railfanning display layouts suit many hobbyists. Its just that some people who build a layout strictly for display might get bored after a while by watching the trains go round with nothing else to do. If they then decide they want some switching, they won't have provided for it in their layout. After spending a lot of time and money building it, that would be a bummer. Its easier to build in some operation potential on a display layout at the planning phase than to try to add some later.

And just a thought about your plan as it is. The upper green track looks like it has sharp curves. You'll probably want to reserve that track for running smaller locomotives and short cars, like log cars, ore cars, or coal hoppers. Keep the long modern six axle locomotives and double stack container cars for the bottom level. Everything would look more realistic that way, which I think will make you more satisfied.

Overall, I don't think you need to change the layout with the exception of the S curves and maybe have the spurs closer to the siding.

Hopefully, others will chime in. (Looks like Motley just did)

 

[DoubleDAZ]

If you just like to run trains, I think it looks fine. I'm sure you'll get the bug to do scenery, or at least ballast.

I do intend to get into some scenery, but I'm not big on modeling at the moment. I'll try my hand seeing what I can do for the horse ranch, old town, etc.,, for now. However, I don't plan to do ballast, nor do I plan to give up track for buildings. I know I may change my tune over time and I'm not opposed to starting over or reworking large portions if that happens. Eventually I would like to convert and expand to an 3-sided around-the-wall layout (18' x 10' x 12') in one of the bedrooms once it's vacated.

As far as lack of responses...huh?[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm getting responses now, but it was slow going there until I mentioned it here and in some other threads. Like I said, maybe I'm just expecting too much and need to give it time. But, my experience with other forums is once a thread rolls off the first page or 2, they are rarely heard form again.

 

[DoubleDAZ]

As far as what direction switches should face...............you'll be in better position to switch the cars like a real train would.

Thanks, in addition to the previous comments I've gotten, that is the kind of suggestion I'm looking for. I understand what you are saying and will see what I can do with that when I get some time to work with the design again.

You don't need operations............. the planning phase than to try to add some later.

I get that and have tried to add some potential switching capability. If they are not enough though, I need some guidance on how to do better without taking away from the maniline runs.

And just a thought about your plan as it is. The upper green track looks like it has sharp curves. You'll probably want to reserve that track for running smaller locomotives and short cars, like log cars, ore cars, or coal hoppers. Keep the long modern six axle locomotives and double stack container cars for the bottom level. Everything would look more realistic that way, which I think will make you more satisfied.

The green track is a standalone removable DC level with just 1-2 trains running in a continuous loop, depending on if I go with a dual mainline or not. I already have a version with 2 inside passing sidings running a 4-8-4 steam loco and 6-7 cars. Eventually I'd like something from the Old West, a colorful a 4-4-0, 4-6-0 or something. I used the E-Z Track parameter in XTrakCAD to simulate the much more gentle curves I'll get with FlexTrack.

Overall, I don't think you need to change the layout with the exception of the S curves and maybe have the spurs closer to the siding.

Ignoring the "S" curves in green, I only see one more, the spur coming from the right above the storage area. That is where I think the meat-pricessing plant will be, but maybe I could put the spur in front of the plant rather than behind. Now that I think about it, it is kind of silly to locate the train behind where it can't be seen on this type of layout, isn't it?

Hopefully, others will chime in. (Looks like Motley just did)[/QUOTE]

Yes, they have and I'm very thankful for the comments I've gotten and the new ones I'm getting. I guess I just didn't wait long enough, though would you have commented had we not discussed DCC in the other thread?

 

[bkpigs]

You have gotten very good tips so far. My only suggestion would be with the top level, is there anyway you could connect it to the lower level? I think it would be neat if you could get trains to the top to run around for a while without picking them up. It could be a steep little connection line that you would have to back down, nothing too much. Also, you may want to think about straightening the loop a little bit. My thoughts on it is that fewer, larger, sweping curves is more appealing than more, sharp curves. Just my .02 Also, on the comments (or lack there of); alot of us lurk around the threads for a few days before we throw a comment out there. Don't take any offense to it. Just some of us have limited on-line time and want to make sure we have a time worthy comment to post.

Looks good though, definetly a great start. Post a new trackplan with the comments that you like when you get a chance. I would like to see the changes you make.

 

[DoubleDAZ]

bkpigs,

I'd love a way to get to the top level, but that, along with too long a reach, was a major problem with my first design. That level was originally along the back of the layout instead of in the center and the incline simply didn't work.

Don't forget too that I had intended to make the top level removeable and the bottom level is in 2 sections that will also pull apart 3 times a year so we can use the table undeneath for family holiday functions.

You've got me thinking about it though, so I will take a look. I did it this way because I already have most of the E-Z Track and I wanted something my granddaughter could run separately. I guess I could just build her a separate layout, maybe 4x4, and decorate it with things from her favorite Tinker Bell movies; large toad stools, etc.

I'm going to move the spurs in the top section to the passing siding, so I may be able to come out of the loop on the left to start an incline. The incline could wrap around to the center, then right and come up the other side of the mountain. That may be enough run for a workable grade to get me to the top. I could rework the top oval into a large reversing loop and change the layout into a wrap-around loop to loop.

I could still connect the spurs off the siding to the bottom level pretty much the way they are now, they'd just be coming off the siding instead of the mainline. That may also give me more room to build the Old West town/cattle spur/horse ranch. It wouldn't be prototypical, but that's obviously okay with me.

The biggest hurdle will be figuring out how to keep the sections separate so I can pull them apart 3 times a year. I'm sure it's not going to be easy and I'm also sure many here will balk at the idea of even trying. But, I enjoy challenges and I can always change things back. Using foam for the incline makes things a lot easier than they were 30+ yrs ago, that's for sure. As long as I can put straight track in the right places, it seems doable. I welcome comments about it though, maybe I'm giving foam too much credit.

As far as the curves are concerned, I've already mentioned that those will eventually be gentile, sweeping curves using FlexTrack. I wanted to do the design in E-Z Track to see what would be possible if I went with it, but I'm pretty much resigned to using FlexTrack, at least on the straight sections. That probably means I won't be able to use either E-Z Track or Unitrack for anything else because it will look too weird connecting to the FlexTrack. I don't particularly care about the look, but I don't know if FlexTrack on cork will even connect to E-Z Track or UniTrack. Is the roadbed on E-Z Track or UniTrack the same height as cork? If they do connect, maybe I could add a fairly compatible-looking ballast to the FlexTrack to make things look okay. I've used FlexTrack in the past, just not with E-Z Track or UniTrack.

Thanks a lot for the comments. I don't know if it was my whining, but I'm grateful for the comments I'm getting now.

 

[DoubleDAZ]

Okay, bkpigs (and anyone else who cares to comment), I did some playing with XTrackCAD today to see if I could do an incline to the top level and incorporate it into the layout vs being a separate piece. Here is what I came up with and it's pretty crude. Don't pay attention to "S" curves, or the curves in general, because all will be more sweeping with FlexTrack when actually laid and I only plan to run trains of 5-8 cars in length, unless the layout supports more.

The blue track is the main level, the green is the incline, and the orange is the top most part. I've noted some of the elevations from 0.00" to 4.00". I know you calculate the grade by dividing the rise by the run and multiplying by 100. I get a run of roughly 26' making the grade around 1.3%. However, I'm more concerned about separation, particularly on the right. I plan on using 1" foam on 2" foam risers. I believe the minimum separation for N-scale is 1.75" and I think I meet that, though it's pretty close at points 1.64 and 1;76. Am I wrong?

The side by side separation of tracks between point 1.76 and 2.64 appears to be too close, but the green portion will run alongside a sheer cliff and the rest above will be aligned as needed with the FlexTrack.

I changed the spur on the top to come off the siding and I think I can make a town work on the main spur and the cattle loading dock work on the other. The spur to the meat processing plant has been straightened to eliminate the "S" curve there and the "cheating" with the connection to the town spur looks like it will work for me.

Main operation will be the cattle train from the lower right out of the storage area to the top level and back again. On the way back, it will stop on the siding to drop off/pick up cars using the mainline there as a runaround. It will pass through the storage area with cars, move the cattle cars to the plant, etc., then pick up the next run and repeat the process.

A second operation will be a passenger train from the upper right out of the storage area to the town using the :cheating" connection to pick up passengers for a scenic ride to the top level and back.

If I understand the automated DCC reversing mechanisms correctly, I should be able to locate one at the lower right exit of the storage yard and one at the top level turnout to permit unattended running of a train as long as the other turnouts are properly switched. I have long runs and can run any trains in both directions over the entire layout. Those meet all of my major goals, so I'll be happy if you all think I can make this work.

I know it looks pretty complicated, but I'm determined to make something close to this work. The switching possibilities are growing on me as is the control needed to run multiple trains using the siding, storage area, and reversing loop for passing, etc. I haven't quite figured out how I'll separate the top and bottom halfs, but I think I can work that out. I'm only worried about the lefthand loop at the 3' mark and the crossover to the right of that where I don't have straight tracks.

BTW, curve radius is 11.25", the recommended radius for the locos and cars I intend to buy, including the big 4-8-4 steam locos with 52' tenders.

Okay, let me have it, what do you all think?