Does anyone have any track plans for any 8x16 layout with minimum curves being 0-72.Im in the process of designing a layout and was wondering if anyone had any ideas.



Ian



www.southoldstation.webs.com

how about 8x18?

Got one right here. Can probably be compressed to fit.

Basically, any 4x8 H.O. track plan with 18" radius will work. Double the radius and the table dimensions and you have it in O Scale with 36" radius (O-72.) A lot of the Model Railroader magazines have 4x8's, plus there are several in 101 Track Plans. You will have to play with the turnouts, though as most plans call for #4 turnouts as opposed to curved drop-ins like O-72. If you're using ScaleTrax or Ross track, you're pretty much set with the turnouts as well.

Hope this helps.

Here is a link to the plans in "101 Track Plans" by Linn Westcott
http://www.trainplayer.com/Sit...ges/101_gallery.html

As Matt said. Take any 4x8 HO layout, It translates to 8x16 for O gauge.
http://www.thortrains.net/4holayx.html

The layouts featured in 101 track plans tend to also support switching and industries. To add to that, you should also pick up "Track Planning for Realistic Operation." It's a good source for modifying some layout designs to enhance operation.

quote:

Originally posted by AGHRMatt:
Basically, any 4x8 H.O. track plan with 18" radius will work. Double the radius and the table dimensions and you have it in O Scale with 36" radius (O-72.) A lot of the Model Railroader magazines have 4x8's, plus there are several in 101 Track Plans. You will have to play with the turnouts, though as most plans call for #4 turnouts as opposed to curved drop-ins like O-72. If you're using ScaleTrax or Ross track, you're pretty much set with the turnouts as well.

Hope this helps.

Thank you very much I did not realize that you could do that. I am going to look threw some issues in model railroader magazine.


Ian

www.southoldstation.webs.com

Ian --

Lemme offer a contrarian view of this 4x8 HO scale-up advice: don't. Well, more accurately, don't without thinking of the trade-offs.

Look, yer talking 96 sq ft, which is modest by O standards (hah! my 7-year-old layout is 60 sq ft!). One of the glories of O is that we have perfectly functional operations at O31; HO can't do that (proportionally) 'cause couplers are frame mounted. When yer talking less than 200 sq ft, i'd say look to O's strength: reliable operation with curves that other scales can't match.

Now, i completely agree with the "Realistic Operations" reference; my little road was profoundly influenced by that book. The deal is: in O, smaller roads haveta compromise some things; just decide what yer priorities are. For me, it was two loops of operation and as many accs as i could fit on sidings. No yards or grades for me, then. Your desires may be different.

-- gary ray

Do you like long runs of loops or lots of switching action, yard work.

quote:

Originally posted by ope express:
Do you like long runs of loops or lots of switching action, yard work.

I would like to have at least 2 loops but i love yard work i was thinking about haveing an under the layout storage yard, but i would like to also have something above the table.
thanks

quote:

Originally posted by hunter_alexander:
how about 8x18?

Got one right here. Can probably be compressed to fit.

hunter_alexander, I really like your track plan do you have any photos of the layout?

You might want to check out Atlaso.com website
and look under 3 rail layouts. I do not know if
Atlas O has the size your looking for but they might
have a similiar plan to give you some ideas.

George