I have been pondering my first layout on approx 36" x 96" table. I want to do a yard with 2 or 3 mains. the reasoning is I would have a place for my cars (on the track not on the shelf) and the mains would run the full length of the table (96"). I am very proficient in drawing in Autocad, however I would have issues drawing the switch lines correctly as i would just do single line layout. I would use 1 1/2" track spacing (center line) on the mains and 1 1/4" spacing for the yard (center line). I was thinking about using ME flex track. first off would a yard be a good thing to tackle as a first build? Bruce
First off, are you using DC or DCC..........it doesn't matter too much, although if using DC, the yard will most likely require additional wiring to isolate each track so that you can park trains. If using DCC, you can simply run a feeder to each track......with DC you'll need additional switches to kill power. A yard is not am overly complicated addition to a MRR. Are you looking at doing a stub end yard or one with access from both ends? Again, doesn't matter, just curious. ME track is good, but it can be harder to find than other brands.....if you know of a good supply it's a good choice.
A yard should not be to complex for a first effort. I would suggest that you try to keep your main track from simply bordering the table edges.
Some considerations from someone who uses AutoCAD for work. You can use AutoCAD, but you might need to buy a few turnouts and create blocks of them to insert into your drawing. You may luck out and find a source of the blocks you need, however. I used AutoCAD about three layouts ago. I have since adopted AnyRail, even though it meant learning another drawing program. A 3' x 8' double-track loop is a good starting point, You can independently run two trains and just watch them roll. Crossovers between the loops are mandatory: you can run two trains in same direction and route the faster around the slower. You can let the outer loop circle the layout while you switch the yard via the inner. Three mains is overkill - seldom seen in the real world except in certain isolated areas. In addition, the inner main might have a fairly restrictive curve radius limiting car length. An Interchange Track off the outer main is worth considering. It's just a section of track branching off the main and running off the layout edge. Theoretically, this lets you get any type of car from anywhere in the world off and onto the layout. Track:Micro Engineering C55 is good stuff. Some people like the fact that it must be curved by hand and it will retain the curvature. Others find this difficult and prefer Atlas Code 55 or other brands of flex that are, shall we say, "flexier" and don't hold their curvature until anchored to the layout. Roadbed: give Scotch brand double-sided foam tape a try. Works really well and is super-fast. Works very well over extruded foam, since it will grab the smooth surface. Should work over plywood. No glue, no caulk nothing to hold the track while the adhesive dries. Peel and stick! Turnouts: I have limited experience with M# Code 55 switches. I had one on the layout and tore it out. ME code 55 works with Atlas C55 turnouts, but Atlas turnouts need a means to hold the switch points in place. It is possible to adopt Peco Code 55 turnouts to any brand of C55 track, but it takes additional effort - I'll let others chime in on that one. A yard for car storage and sorting is a good idea. A through yard is better than stub-ended since cars can flow through without reversing. However, accommodating a through yard within an oval can be a bit of a challenge, Controls: DCC. Simpler wiring, no block switches for manual power routing = easier operation, higher initial cost, learning curve, locos cost more, better lighting control, sound, can use a smartphone as a throttle.Layout should be broken up into "power districts" with short-circuit protection. There's more, but this is a starting point.
@MRLdave, DCC is what I will be running, Stub end yard, with possible expansion access from both ends. ME track from Fifer hobby. thanks BoxcabE50, great idea. any good ideas about drawing in autocad?
thanks Ristooch, Great thoughts, instead of foam tape try Isotac by 3m 10mil thick (3M 9473 Isotac 2-Sided Clear VHB Tape). I will have to give Anyrail a try.
Stay away from Peco code 55 track unless that's all you're using.......it's good track, but Peco uses code 80 rail set deeper in the ties to give the height of code 55. As a result, if you try to use it with other brands, you are trying to connect code 55 rail to code 80. It's possible, but a headache. I used code 80 for my hidden staging yard and all my visible track is code 55, mostly because I had enough leftover code 80 to do the staging yard (the run down to the staging is 50 ft and the yard is 6 45 ft tracks, so it saved me buying 300 ft of flex track and 12 turnouts) but that only requires one connection. Trying to fit peco switches with ME flex would be a nightmare and most likely give you a lot of reliability issues , especially since you say this is your first layout.
My understanding is that Peco code 55 has a dual web base - where you plan to join to other code 55, if you file off the bottom web your left with code 55 rail that will join right up to other code 55 rail. I would suggest you at least consider Atlas code 55 as well, it has a much wider variety of turnouts: #5, #7, and #10's, as well as wyes and curved turnouts. I agree with the ones who say not to use AutoCad. There are several software packages for layout design, ranging from free (XTrkCad) to $100 (CadRail). Some others are AnyRail and SCARM. I'm an AutoCad user but I find the packages specifically for layout design to be much better.
On the ME, also a Fifer customer, and so far really happy with it. For track laying I've been following Joe's videos on track laying on his Sayrehurst Secondary layout. You can find one of his videos I used ( HERE ). I've been happy with his methods. Cork (if used) and track goes down pretty quick using them. I'm using Micro Engineering code 55 track and so is Joe so that was another reason I'm using his videos as a guide. He uses ME turnouts where I'll be using turnouts I've built myself. If you are using ME rail you might also find the video ( HERE ) helpful. The tool used in that video and what Joe uses is very hard to find the last time I looked. I found one in someone's old stock in Canada and bought it but since have designed basically the same item that you can 3D print. You can find the print files ( HERE ). You could also make the tool by other methods. It is very quick and easy to shape the track to any desired curve or straighten it back out if needed using the simple tool. I've also designed some other layout and track laying tools that you might find useful ( HERE ) down the menu a ways. Sumner
Bruce, You might also try XTrackCAD. It is free software, and has a user group on groups.io with over 3700 users. I use it a lot and like it, but I only use Unitrack sectional track, for which it has a complete library of Kato's available pieces. It appears to have a lot of tools for flex and hand-laid track. With sectional track, I'm only using a fraction of it's capabilities. It also supports designing the benchwork, etc. supporting your layout. Learning about easements (gradual transitions between straight trackage and curves) is important, and you can practice with simple loops, dog-bones, figure-eights, folded dogbones, etc. Track layout programs also allow you to specify minimum radius of curvature for your layout, and keep you from violating that. I'm sure you can do almost anything in AutoCAD, but a dedicated train layout application will have a lot of dedicated features that make specific railroad layout design tasks easier.
As Bruce said, be careful with your curved track radius. Don't try to jam too much track in a small space, you will then tend to violate the minimum radius. This is a lesson I learned. Currently planning to rebuild. My nice new Rapido passenger cars don't like tight radius curves. If you want to run large steam locos,6 axel diesels, passenger cars and long freight cars do it right now. This will eliminate a lot of frustration. Good luck with your layout.
Almost as, if not more, important than minimum track radius is transition between such radii and straight (also called tangent) track. Learn about easements for transitions to/from curves, and how to employ them. Lots of equipment will negotiate surprisingly tight minimum radii, if the radii are properly eased. However, a train successfully negotiating a tight curve, and looking good while doing so, are two different things. But strategic use of scenery as view blocks can alleviate the latter. And if your era is that of 4 axle diesels and 40' railcars, it will look better still. But if you like long passenger cars, 89' flats and big, modern, 6 axle diesels, not so much. Lots of people frown upon "spaghetti bowl" layouts these days. Let them frown; do what YOU want! And a folded dogbone or twice-around need NOT have excessively sharp curves on a 4x8 N scale layout. But if you want a huge yard or industrial district, then a simpler oval or kidney is more likely to accommodate that. It's all in the planning...
I used to do layouts in AutoCAD and later Microstation. XTrakCAD is free and you can export from XTrakCAD to DXF. So if you draw out all your turnouts in XTC, import the DXF to CAD, explode the object, you can get a mostly-accurate centerline group. At this point I just use XTrakCAD natively. Also, cannot emphasize enough what BigJake was saying about spirals/easements. I tried using the clothoid function in CAD and found it real unwieldy. Two methods I've used. Method 1: Use a spline curve to replicate the "flexible stick" method. Lay out your arc and tangent, then draw perpendicular lines at the start and end of your easement. Snap the spline a bunch of times to the curve outside the start line, intersection snap at the start line, intersection snap at the finish line, then snap a bunch of times to the tangent. Then select your perpendicular lines and trim off the spline outside and the arc/tangent inside, et voila. Here's what that looks like: Method 2: Use several arcs of decreasing curvature, each approximately 30 scale feet long. This is what I use now, and is how the Southern Pacific laid out actual rail lines in California and the Northwest. Here's my spreadsheet for radius and angle of transition curves: And here's what that looks like in XTC.
Fascinating method of computation of the steps in radius: for N remaining steps, multiply previous radius by (N+1)/N. Thus, the last (longest) incremental radius is always N+1 times the starting radius, for N steps. It is also interesting that, while SP easements were specified in terms of a sequence of radii, rail curves were laid out in the field in terms of an offset per unit length of run, to eliminate having to locate and use the multiple centers of radii in the field. The physical center of a (segment of a) curve was often either buried deep in a mountainside, elevated high in the air, out in deep and/or fast-flowing water, etc. While a working center could be calculated to compensate for the elevation from the true center (at least not over water), it becomes increasingly difficult and error prone, especially if the curve is laid out on a grade. They had slide rules, not calculators or computers. The SP method also somewhat reinforces the use of segments of increasing radii for easements in sectional track (e.g. Unitrack).
From a railroad surveyor's perspective, this is just linearly increasing curvature. You mentioned how alignments were laid out with offsets, hence chord definition. Suppose we're laying out a 10-degree curve, as seen everywhere from Weed to Walong. For a 120' easement, you want segments at D= 2, 4, 6, and 8 degrees, respectively. Converting to radius you get: 2 degree: 2864.934' R 4 degree: 1432.685' R 6 degree: 955.366' R 8 degree: 716.779' R 10 degree: 573.686' R (final)
FYI MicroEngineering is up for sale. ME pridects from them have already been hard to find and now with the company / assets up for sale, unless you already stocked up it may be a bust.
