Well the day has finally arrived and I am at last starting to lay track (Woo hooo!!) My layout consists of 6 modules. I am now approaching the first transition from one module to another a question has arisen. What is the best method to span the gap from one module to another? I had planned on using short sections of track (2” or so) to make the transition and not solder the joints like I’ve seen on many large module style layouts at train shows. This would work fine on straight sections however most of my module transitions take place on curves (space restrictions mandated it). I’m using N scale Peco code 55 flex track for all my track work and after using just a few sections on curves I have realized that an unsoldered track joint on a curve is a bad thing. Next thought is to use a piece of sectional track, however Peco doesn’t make code 55 or 80 sectional track in a 19” radius to my knowledge. Atlas code 80 sectional track splices in fine for rail height but the ties stand too tall and make a “hump” where the joint is (if that makes any sense). Has anybody else had this problem and how did you solve it so a curving transition from one module to another goes smoothly? Brian
We have lots of module transitions with our NTrak club layouts. I can only think of one place where we have a curved piece of track making a transition and it doesn't work very well. Because we have to be able to take the modules apart, we use rail-joiners and bits of sectional track to make the joints. The modules are clamped together underneath, so there is virtually no danger of module movement pulling the tracks apart, but, unlike a straight section of track where we can simply slide the joiners up, insert, and then slide the joiners into place, a curved section of track tends to pull out toward the outside of the curv. If at all possible, you might want to reconsider and position and design your curves so that your joiner tracks are essentially pieces of straight track. I don't want to be discouraging, but I think that operational reliability will, in the long run, matter a lot more than whether three inches of track is curved. Good luck! Adam
Ouch! Thats what I was afraid of. Smooth running is a must as I have learned from my previous layout derailments= frustration x 2. If you look at my track plan and construction progress on railimages you'll see that reconfiguring just isn't an option at this point either. I could just ignore the whole "mobile" module thing and lay track as if it were one huge layout instead of individual modules but I plan on moving in about 3 years and the module route would make that ordeal much easier. Something about sawing through rails and then somehow fitting them together later dosen't sound like it'd be any easier. I may experiment with some Atlas code 80 sectional pieces and see if I can grind down about 1mm from the bottom of each piece to get it to match the height of Peco flex track. Ive got over a grand invested in Peco track now so switching to Atlas flex or sectional isn't an option either. Anybody else with ideas? Keep em' comming. Brian
Brian, You can try to get rid of the "HUMP" by making the ties a tad bit thinner. Just place a piece of sandpaper on a flat surface and move the sectional track with rails up in small circular motions until they can mate without the hump. Jerry
Thanks Jerry. I've got a disk sander that should make short order out of the task. I figure if I glue the flex track down a few inches past where I want the removable section to go then cut back so as to just fit it in then the flex track shouldn't bow out of radius. Of course plan B of just ignoring the module joints now and hacking them apart when it comes time to move sounds easier for the short term. It also compairs to sawing the dining room table in half in order to make it fit into the u-haul trailer though. :-( Brian
Brian: 3 years seems like a relatively long period of time to me. Suppose you construct the layout in modules for ease of future moves, but install the track as if the layout will be permanent. When you finally move, you will have to cut or unsolder those curves crossing the seam between modules, but the 3 years of good reliability you have in the meantime may be worth the cost of replacing all those curves in the future. FWIW, my experience has been that a move to a new trainroom sparks an urge to make significant changes (improvements) to my layout, so that subsequent layouts and track plans might be similar to each other but are never exactly the same. You may also find the underlying modular framework makes it easy to set up a surface again in a new location, but you'll want to put a completely new track configuration on the old layout surface.
Brian, at the FREMO we work with modules. In my basement I have segments, too. Now I lay my track over module joints. Look at my scatchbuilding crossings. I solder the rail ends to PC board ties. Wolfgang
Dave, I am thinking of going with your idea that 3 years is in fact a long time to enjoy no derailments at module joints. When I do move, who knows what my new train room will look like. I had originally invisioned making this layout in one 40' long relatively straight setup. Without too much dynamite I could conceivably rearrainge the modules at the next abode to make that happen. Or I could keep it in the same configuration and install new track splices after the move. That, in theory, shuold be even easier since the track is already glued into a relatively perfect 19" radius. I'd just need to install a piece of sectional track when sliding the modules back together. Then again who knows. Maybe the person that buys this house will be a train nut also and want to keep this layout for himself which means I'd have to build a totally different layout. Ooh, the creative juices are starting to flow again...
If the modules are made for future "movability", rather than current "portability", then only cut the track where it crosses a joint when you are about to move. Then when you rebuild/reassemble the sections in your new place, just do a bit of trackwork and soldering and you should be fine. If it is designed to be constantly taken places (like Wolfgang's modules) then you need to find a way of anchoring the track and providing a joiner. At www.hotrak.ca, our standards say that all module track must end with 3 inches of Atlas snap-track (so the rails are securely anchored), 3 inches from the end of the module. That allows a 6" joiner piece to be used to span the gap. People in the club have sometimes made their own joiners, ballasting some very thin styrene that is glued under the ties, or custom fitting pieces for curved tracks. Others (whose modules always go together) have solderd their track onto brass screws imbedded right at the edge of the layout. They have no joiner tracks, and instead rely on alignment bolts on the "end plates" of the modules to make sure that everything gets lined up when the modules are assembled at meets. Hope that helps. Andrew
Also, take into consideration expansion and contraction. Not only might your transition tracks be effected by any temperature changes. But your module base can do the same, plus humidity effects the wood. Boxcab E50
I use at one point rail joiners. There the track crosses the module joint at a very low angle, about 30 degree. At all other places I solder the rail to PC board ties. Finished. At my home layout and at my FREMO modules. Wolfgang
Brain, Why not just solder the track to some brass screws? Works fine in mine case (a Fremo module). This is a relative small curve (r = 75 cm). The guard rails are just what the names say, guard rails. O and I don't use alignment pins. My fingers (feeling the ridges) are good enough. Gino
Boxcab E50, Excellent thought re. the benchwork expanding/contracting. Never thought of that aspect. Good news though. My layout is in the corner of my basement with only 1 small window. In the last 3 years I don't think the temp has changed more than 5 degrees. Good for expansion problems bad for feet that don't like a constant 65 degrees! Gino, I already decided to lay the track across module joints and cut at a later date but when the time comes I will be using your idea of guard rails at the newly created joints. Excellent idea to remedy impending catastrophys caused by any small misalignment issues. Seems easy enough to add guard rails of the size you showed. Thanks to all for the inputs. Brian
That's one good-looking module connection. I've seen the soldered-to-screws technique before, but the guard rails presumably make this one more reliable. I guess they're because the track crosses the gap at an oblique angle.
Triplex, They aren't really necessary but more an insurgence. This way I'm sure that when the segments aren't completely aligned there won't be a derailment. Gino
