I've just completed the draft of my first Z scale track plan. Before I go forging ahead, I want to do a reality check and see if there are things I'm doing where I'm either going to run into problems, or if there are things about what I've planned that just simply don't make sense. What I'm trying to achieve is a relatively compact layout that offers some reasonable amount of interest and challenge, while keeping things relatively simple. Take a look below -- everything is Rokuhan sectional track, of which I've checked on the reasonable availability of all the pieces. Any constructive input welcome Image of plan attached...
Perhaps you could tilt the entire track plan down to the right so that the straight tracks don't run exactly parallel with the baseboard edges....gets rid of the train set effect. Carim
Looks pretty good. I did one similar, but more square and an over and under instead of the crossover. The Rokuhan track works very well. I wish that I would have used curved turnout for my spur as it would have given me a longer storage area. I have not used the curved turnouts, but I am very pleased with all the Rokuhan products I have used. Also make sure you have the space you need for scenery. Have fun and share pictures. Trey
I do like the idea of tilting the whole layout a bit -- that's a good idea, thanks. But I'm trying to keep the depth of the whole thing to well under 36 inches, so it'll all fit onto a larger desktop. I'm planning to use a double-slip turnout at the crossing, as I'd like to be able to run trains either exclusively on the outer or inner ovals, as desired. The outer track will be elevated to about 1", and back down, over 96 inches, which is basically all but the upper LH curve and the double-slip. I hope that will work-out okay. If not, I won't be too broken-up about it, though. I've tried to incorporate a large variety of different track segments, so that I can easily plan a different layout if this one proves unsuccessful. Thanks for the input!
Looks quite reasonable. I too did a similar layout many years ago. One thought might be to eliminate a couple of the 90 degree curves. Say on the right side make the top 120 degree and the bottom 60 degree. Mark
That's actually a really nice idea, and I think I may give it a test, to see if it will work-out (in my design software). It may, however, not leave enough space for the elevation that I want to do. I'd like to have some rolling hills, with a short tunnel and bridge, on the RH side of the layout. But it would definitely add interest to be able to have something other than a perfect-radius half-circle on each side
You should find the path is slightly longer. You're just moving a curve section rom bottom to top, no change. Think of the new straight track to be the hypotenuse of a right triangle with the original straight on one side and the length you have to reduce across the bottom as the other. From high school geometry the hypotenuse must be greater than the sides. Occasionally that stuff comes in useful.
I had a layout that had two levels. The junction between the two was at a middle elevation so that the grades were less. So you would start low, come up halfway to the junction. Depending which turnout you used, the train would continue on up to the high level or back down to the low level. In your plan, the back is the mid level and the inner track could be the upper level - lower level in front.