Howdy everyone! After years of putting snap track together on the carpet I am finally in a place to build my first layout! I have been planning, reading, and researching for a while and decided on the following plan:



I apologize for the poor sketch. I do not like using layout design software and this is the best I can do with my limited scanners.

Now for the basics. It is designed as a modern day switcher that can be run as a double track as well. I'm looking at using 1-3 operators, but usually myself. I think I have the room to make up and break down 7-10 car trains using the stub end yard and switch out the various industries. There is a track on the left side of the layout that will go to an eventual upper level. The room is just over 13' x 11.5' and I have labeled all of the turnout sizes and major radii. The benchwork is 2' wide and runs around the walls except for across the entrance where I will be building a fold down section.

But aside from a poor view, I would like to hear from everyone what they think! I am open to suggestions for improvement as well as what people like and do not like.

Thanks!

Looks good overall but,may I make a suggestion?

Instead of using #4 turnouts why not use Peco Medium turnouts which is more like a number 5? I recently learn the Peco medium switch is the same size as the #4.

The street price is about the same.

The medium switch.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://udisco.com/hobbies/pics/210096.jpg">https://udisco.com/hobbies/pics/210096.jpg</a><!-- m -->

Brakie Wrote:Looks good overall but,may I make a suggestion?

Instead of using #4 turnouts why not use Peco Medium turnouts which is more like a number 5? I recently learn the Peco medium switch is the same size as the #4.

I have thought about going up to #5 sized turnouts. I would like to stick with #4s due to their smaller size, but finding them has become difficult. And that goes for all of the manufacturers. I appreciate the reminder about Peco turnouts though, I have had good experiences with them at my old club.

little65 Wrote:

Brakie Wrote:Looks good overall but,may I make a suggestion?

Instead of using #4 turnouts why not use Peco Medium turnouts which is more like a number 5? I recently learn the Peco medium switch is the same size as the #4.

I have thought about going up to #5 sized turnouts. I would like to stick with #4s due to their smaller size, but finding them has become difficult. And that goes for all of the manufacturers. I appreciate the reminder about Peco turnouts though, I have had good experiences with them at my old club.

Honestly, operation improvement is appreciable between a #4 and #5. In the past, I only used #4, thinking I was "saving" real estate. Drawing many plans made me discovered that most of the time, you can get the same amount of track when dealing with larger turnouts when you know what you're doing.

If you were doing a transition era layout or older one with lots of 40ft cars, I wouldn't mind. But doing modern era switching means most cars are 50ft at least. They aren't that friendly with #4, especially when having operation in mind. When you use larger turnout, coupling and uncoupling is much more easier. No need for steep transition curves where operation is a nightmare. Think about it before fixing definitely your choices. On a switching layout, I would really make sure the track work flow as gently as can be.

Personnaly, I like PECO a lot, I know many don't like them, other swear by them. But in all honesty, no need for junky switch controls, which is perfect for an intuitive and fun switching layout. There's a way to get them at a fair price when shopping. The Code 83 turnouts are similar, but not really made to be easily hand operated. One could add a small styrene rod on the throwbar make them easier to operate (that's what I'm gonna do with mine).

Matt

One could add a small styrene rod on the throwbar make them easier to operate (that's what I'm gonna do with mine).
-------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent idea Matt..I like it enough to follow your lead.

Happen to know the size?

Looks good to me, broad curves, plenty of space. I might also support the idea of the Peco switches, I don't think they take up much room despite being alittle higher in number than the #4 switches.

Green_Elite_Cab Wrote:Looks good to me, broad curves, plenty of space. I might also support the idea of the Peco switches, I don't think they take up much room despite being alittle higher in number than the #4 switches.

The Atlas # 4 and the Peco medium switch is the same length. I recently found that out in a discussion on another forum.

I used only Atlas #4 on my layout. That provided all the space I needed to do my than preferred track plan.
It was an expensive track plan..... all switches got replaced by Atlas #6 within less than a month.
A "standard" GP38 and a 50' boxcar look dramatic awful on a #4 switch in my eyes.

A "standard" GP38 and a 50' boxcar look dramatic awful on a #4 switch in my eyes.

Reinhard
-----------------------------------------------------
Reinhard,Yet that same GP38 and 50' boxcar looks good on a Peco Medium switch because the diverging route isn't as sharp as the #4s.

I was a supporter and user of #4 switches but,after seeing and using a Peco medium switch..There's no going back to #4s.

Brakie Wrote:

Green_Elite_Cab Wrote:Looks good to me, broad curves, plenty of space. I might also support the idea of the Peco switches, I don't think they take up much room despite being alittle higher in number than the #4 switches.

The Atlas # 4 and the Peco medium switch is the same length. I recently found that out in a discussion on another forum.

I've actually got both on my layout. The #4 leads into my yard and the rest of the yard tracks are peco mediums, except for the very first three directional turnout.

To be honest, I haven't had much trouble with my 50' and greater cars going through that #4. There is a another #4 on my passing siding near the yard, and I go through that one at speed and never have problems there.

I like this discussion about turnouts! I had anticipated using only Atlas #4s at first. Each brand has their ups and downs of course, but I kept coming back to the Atlas ones mostly due to cost. But I would like to minimize my "re-works" and so I will check out the #5 sizes at the train show this weekend.

Do all of the medium Peco turnouts use code 100 rail?

Matt, what do you mean about the styrene rod on the throwbar of the Pecos? Can you expand on that?

Reinhard, I would have to say that appearance is not going to bother me much at this point. But I can't even make up my mind about lunch, let alone a glued down track plan Thank you for the warning!

Green, I have never had problems operating or running at speed with #4s either. That was a part of why I was planning to use them. Maybe it comes down to the equipment, how the turnout was laid, and the use?

Do all of the medium Peco turnouts use code 100 rail?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peco also has code 83 track.

I decided to use code 100 since its cheaper then code 83 and there's more to track pieces to choose from like operating derails and that was a plus for me.

I have used Atlas Custom Line #4s for years on my small switching layouts with zero problems.

Peco HO track comes in codes 100, 83 and 75. The 100 and 75 are generally the same geometry, but some bits are different. 75 seems finer in the clearances. Code 100 may come in 2 standards.
Code 83 is intended to look more North American and is labelled with frog numbers.
When the code 75 came out, one of our dealers commented that Peco had finally got it right -- operation was much better.

little65 Wrote:I like this discussion about turnouts! I had anticipated using only Atlas #4s at first. Each brand has their ups and downs of course, but I kept coming back to the Atlas ones mostly due to cost. But I would like to minimize my "re-works" and so I will check out the #5 sizes at the train show this weekend.

Do all of the medium Peco turnouts use code 100 rail?

Matt, what do you mean about the styrene rod on the throwbar of the Pecos? Can you expand on that?

Reinhard, I would have to say that appearance is not going to bother me much at this point. But I can't even make up my mind about lunch, let alone a glued down track plan Thank you for the warning!

Green, I have never had problems operating or running at speed with #4s either. That was a part of why I was planning to use them. Maybe it comes down to the equipment, how the turnout was laid, and the use?

Just like you, I didn't care about the look of track a few years ago. In all honesty, most equipment will run through a #4 and 18" radius... My large 2-10-2 didn't had any problem at all, passenger equipment too... but it doesn't look good and, worst, as stated previously, they make switching moves more tricky and are derailment prone when doing backward switching moves. Saving 5$ for a turnout makes no sense to me if it's not up to the job in the long term. Better invest in good track work and shop them wisely than regret, like Reinhard, a month later. I know, I learned the same hard way and I've got boxes full of Atlas Snap Switch #4 I'd like to get rid of at any cost. It's mainly the chief reason why I'm rebuilding Hedley-Junction Yard from scratch. You know what, going from Snap-Switch #4 to PECO #6 didn't shortened significantly the yard. In fact, it made transitions smoother, thus easier to operate at low speed. And at least, PECO 83 turnouts aren't deformed like Atlas Code 83 which are always bent in some mysterious way... what a worthless brittle piece of junk it is. Their Code 83 #4 are especially awful.

For other code 83 component like crossings and flextrack, I use other brands as suited. I wasn't too much impressed by PECO flextracks which looks good, is quite strong, but is hard to lay in curves without kinks, and surprisingly also on straight parts! Maybe I'm just too dumb, but I prefer Atlas flex which is truly flexible.

IMPROVING A CODE 83 PECO TURNOUT:

About the Code 83 turnout: If you know the PECO Code 100 turnouts well, they have small bulges (or pins) on each side of the throwbar that help to operate them with your fingers. The Code 83 turnouts lack these pins making them hard and frustrating to operate (it was our main concern about them when we decided to redo the track). However, they have a hole on each side of the throwbar where code 100 have the pins. Two weeks ago, I found out I could glue small bits of styrene rod into these holes to replicate the pins of a Code 100 turnout. That way, you get the best of both worlds in term of look and operability. Wish I had pictures of that. Hope I'm clear enough! Looks better than a huge operating switchstand.

@Brakie: I don't know yet which rod diameter is needed. I didn't visit the layotu since 2 weeks and don't have a turnout at home. I only remember I inserted a track nail in it and it fitted when I tested my idea.

BTW, as Brakie said, there's a HUGE difference between Atlas Snap-Switch and Custom Line... On our previous club layout, we found out it was better to go custom line... but too late! Snap Switch is quite curved, made to be a part of a 18" radius curve. Custom Line is a true turnout and works far better and look better too.

The only problem with PECO code 75 is the oversized ties. It looks like they put tiny rails on code 100 trainset quality snap track. I was really disappointed when I ordered some for a project.

Matt

little65 Wrote:Green, I have never had problems operating or running at speed with #4s either. That was a part of why I was planning to use them. Maybe it comes down to the equipment, how the turnout was laid, and the use?

I would agree with that, but I still think its wise to use a bigger turnout where practical.

sailormatlac Wrote:Just like you, I didn't care about the look of track a few years ago. In all honesty, most equipment will run through a #4 and 18" radius... My large 2-10-2 didn't had any problem at all, passenger equipment too... but it doesn't look good and, worst, as stated previously, they make switching moves more tricky and are derailment prone when doing backward switching moves. Saving 5$ for a turnout makes no sense to me if it's not up to the job in the long term. Better invest in good track work and shop them wisely than regret, like Reinhard, a month later. I know, I learned the same hard way and I've got boxes full of Atlas Snap Switch #4 I'd like to get rid of at any cost. It's mainly the chief reason why I'm rebuilding Hedley-Junction Yard from scratch. You know what, going from Snap-Switch #4 to PECO #6 didn't shortened significantly the yard. In fact, it made transitions smoother, thus easier to operate at low speed. And at least, PECO 83 turnouts aren't deformed like Atlas Code 83 which are always bent in some mysterious way... what a worthless brittle piece of junk it is. Their Code 83 #4 are especially awful.

When I rebuilt my yard, I made sure that I replaced all the snap switchers for the same reason. I am curious how you got a 2-10-2 to fit on 18"! I can't get my 2-10-4 to go through even a 22" curve without the drivers binding! My GG1s aren't big fans either, and they are articulated!

Though I am continuously surprised by what WILL travel through an 18" curve, I've noticed that a lot of things will not, and the 18" inner oval is my most hated aspect of my current layout. Fortunately, I don't see any sections of 18" track on this track plan where it counts.

Quote:BTW, as Brakie said, there's a HUGE difference between Atlas Snap-Switch and Custom Line... On our previous club layout, we found out it was better to go custom line... but too late! Snap Switch is quite curved, made to be a part of a 18" radius curve. Custom Line is a true turnout and works far better and look better too.

Matt

The #4s on my layout are custom line, but I do indeed also have snap switches on my layout! I'd really like to get rid of them, but the nature of my track prevents them from being easily replaced. They make up the crossovers that also function as a run around next to my industrial park. The switches entering my industrial park, as well as all the other switches in that park, are all snap switches.

To be fair, I rarely have issues with the ones on my industrial park (and I better not, its the only ballasted and semi-embedded track on my layout!), but the crossovers are another story. On this particular switch on the inner oval, the crossover is set so that the "diverging" route is the mainline, while the "straight" route runs through the crossover to the outer oval.

As you can see below, my freight cars love to climb up the switch points. this hasn't happened so much lately, but it is trouble. I have tried filing the points and everything, but it seems pretty difficult to keep some cars on. I also checked the wheel gauge, which was fine.


My guess is that a snap switch isn't the most awful thing if its in an industrial park and its well installed and maintained. I should point out however, that I've had to replace several snap switches because the outer divergent rail would break loose and attempt to straighten out, so I don't know how trustworthy they might be. I'd definitely avoid them on the mainline in any future layout!