# 2' radius ?



## Old Bandit (Mar 5, 2013)

A simple question from a newbie :
What do you think about the 2' radius ?
It's the smallest radius available, but I think it is too small...
Thanks for your answers !


----------



## djacobsen (Jul 20, 2011)

Bandit, 
The 4' diameter curves aren't the smallest available. 
Pizza Layout's
http://youtu.be/EB5eF_6g6VY

Whether they are too small depends on how much space you have available for your layout, 
and how much money you have available to purchase track. 
Many people, myself included are quite happily using them on their layout's. 
If you're a beginner without alot of money to purchase track with, the 4' diameter curves can 
be purchased very reasonably used, and they can be reformed into straights and larger diameter curves.


----------



## Old Bandit (Mar 5, 2013)

Thanks for your answer !


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Sure, you can use 4' diameter just fine.. 
as long you realize and accept it will severely limit what locomotives and cars you can run. 
you will be limited to small 0-4-0 or 2-6-0 steam engines, small diesel switchers, and the shortest of freight and passenger cars. 
if you are fine with that, then 4-foot diameter curves are fine too! 

The problem is sometimes people start out with really tight curves, then they get annoyed that models exist that they cant use: 










They blame the models, and not their curve choice!  
(Im not saying you are doing this!  obviously you aren't..but I have seen it before..) 
But as long as you understand what you are doing up-front, and understand that tight curves limit choices, then its all fine. 
Scot


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

What do I think about 2' radius? It's a waste of time unless you are forced to use it. 

But I suspect this is another "teaser" question. 

Mind telling us why you are asking this? Do you have a situation where you are forced to use it? 

Regards, (somewhat suspiciously) Greg


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 15 Mar 2013 07:24 AM 
Sure, you can use 4' diameter just fine.. 
as long you realize and accept it will severely limit what locomotives and cars you can run. 
you will be limited to small 0-4-0 or 2-6-0 steam engines, small diesel switchers, and the shortest of freight and passenger cars. 
if you are fine with that, then 4-foot diameter curves are fine too! 

The problem is sometimes people start out with really tight curves, then they get annoyed that models exist that they cant use: 










They blame the models, and not their curve choice!  
(Im not saying you are doing this!  obviously you aren't..but I have seen it before..) 
But as long as you understand what you are doing up-front, and understand that tight curves limit choices, then its all fine. 
Scot 
Scotty, how much lunch you wanna bet I could make it fit


----------



## FlagstaffLGB (Jul 15, 2012)

Morning all, since I see Greg is up early and expressing answers, don't you have rail length issues with "reforming" or bending existing small curved track to a larger radius (diameter)? I know that Aristo uses small screws to hold the ties in place, but even if you remove those, there has gotta be some cutting or adding to the rail for a full circle of smaller sections,,, Right? 

Ed


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Ed, 
I repurposed 8'D curves, I put 2 together in an S and when straightened each side had a long and a short, came out equal. 
I used them on a siding so I left some drunkeness in the rails.... 

See ya down the line, 

John


----------



## Old Bandit (Mar 5, 2013)

You're absolutely right Greg Elmassian ! That's all folks !







[/b]


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

hmm..I thought this was a serious question, apparently not. 
i'm confused.. 
what am I missing? 

Scot


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 15 Mar 2013 07:52 AM 
What do I think about 2' radius? It's a waste of time unless you are forced to use it. 

But I suspect this is another "teaser" question. 

Mind telling us why you are asking this? Do you have a situation where you are forced to use it? 

Regards, (somewhat suspiciously) Greg 
Really Greg? What I'm doing is a *waste of time*??? 10 years in this scale, never bought anything bigger than R1, never needed it, so I would hardly call it a waste of time.









Rant time









OK all you newbies and lurkers out there reading this, here's the deal, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH R1 CURVES - *NOTHING*. 

Wider is NOT necessarily Better, I am getting dog-gonned sick and tired of this increasingly silly dogma being parroted in LS for the last few years. How many time have I read a newbie saying "I only have a 10' x 20' area what track curves should I use?" and instead of actually *thinking* about the guys circumstances, just blurt out "Oh, you must use 10' dia curves or your *not* doing it right" I have even read to precisely this same question one person who recommended 20' dia curves, no ****, 20' dia curves... BIGGER than the area the newbie had to use, geeez THINK about the message this send, it says if you don't have a 1/2 acre of land, go away! I read that one fellow was calling his 50' x 70' layout _small_...SMALL? is he pulling my leg? That's as BIG as my whole flipping home's property, house, garage and yards! That's considered SMALL these days??? It doesn't help when GR publishes a layout under the byline "small layout" and the dam thing is bigger than my two car garage with attached workshop! That is NOT how to encourage newbies, particularly if like me, they are on tighter properties.

When the newbie follows the "advice" the resulting layout ends up being boring simple circle they get bored or frustrated that they have such a dull layout.Small curves allow MORE track in a GIVEN space, this is crucial if your dealing with a small yard, or limited indoor space. Smaller curves are more affordable, easier to work with, and still allow for a great deal of rolling stock to operate on. AC GP-9, U-25, SW etc will all operate just fine on as small as a 5' dia curvage. and there are tons and tons of 40'-ish cars out there that all work just fine also. Including 5' dia and 6.5' dia curves in your planning opens a great deal more options in layout planning where rigidly adhering to the 8 or 10' dia minimum drastically LIMITS your planning options. 

Sure using smaller curves does limit the rolling stock you can use, but conversely, the wider you go, the more limited your space planning options become. 

Now I will say that there is a responsibility on the Newbies part as well, if you MUST HAVE a K-27, or a Dash-9 then you also have to accept that you probably not going to be able to plan much of a layout in that 10'x20' yard you thought would be perfect for a garden layout, but if you like GP9s or 2-6-0 steamers or other medium size engines, you options open up tremendously, however if you like small critters or feldbahn type equipment, the world is your oyster!

PS please don't remind me my pizza's are simple circles, that was the intention, to cram as small a LS track and layout as humanly possible into as small a space as possible, so its not relative to this conversation. 

BTW if you are open to it, ACs 21" and 31" dia curves DO open a whole new world of possibilities, now add in a crazy German company that apparently make turnouts that work with the 31" dia, (they call it R0), the mind boggles!!!!! 


Rant time over, that was fun, I need to rant more


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Scot, 
Looks like you be missing the 'ol bandit ...again.... see his telling avatar. 

Me thinks it's more of a social perception, than trains. 

1st time; Suggested use of Archives. 
2nd; Greg's suspicion... 

John


----------



## FlagstaffLGB (Jul 15, 2012)

Sorry for "stealing" the thread, but I appreciate the insight one rebending some of the R-1 (4 foot diameter) to larger radius configurations. I personally hadn't tried it and was somewhat content on purchasing LGB 1500, 1600 or 1800 at a premium. Since the largest engine I currently run is a LGB mogul or Bachmann "Annie", the 1500s are fine, but the apprearance of Rio Grand and Western coaches seem more suited for switching yards and not main lines as they snake across the corners and get awfully darn close to the side walls. Since R-1 is fairly available and often folks get rid of it on the "cheap", then bending it to a larger radius is a good way to keeping prices down. Nice rant vsmith...I'm sure you feel much better!!!! LOL


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Victor, he asked MY opinion. I gave it. It's how I feel. We know you are stuck for space, and have VERY creative ways of working with it. 

I'm entitled to my opinion, even without being asked for it. The "bandit" specifically asked for our opinions. 

This is NOT about encouragement or discouragement. 

You cannot invalidate my opinion just as I cannot invalidiate yours. 

Greg


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

As long as the loco and car's wheelbase can handle it, is fine. Same as prototype. There may be more friction on the flanges so run equally in both directions so failure from wear is not as premature. 

Andrew


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

I've got limited space in present location and if it were not for the locos I already have, I would have went with2ft radius curves. I stayed with my 4ft radius curves to run my longer locos and usat coaches. This limited the room for side tracks and scenery. With the limited space for side tracks I had to use some 2ft radius switches which then caused problems with fort cars I have body mount couplers.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 15 Mar 2013 09:29 AM 
Victor, he asked MY opinion. I gave it. It's how I feel. We know you are stuck for space, and have VERY creative ways of working with it. 

I'm entitled to my opinion, even without being asked for it. The "bandit" specifically asked for our opinions. 

This is NOT about encouragement or discouragement. 

You cannot invalidate my opinion just as I cannot invalidiate yours. 

Greg 
No problems, Greg, just poking a little fun at your wording









I did want to address the sticky R1 issue though, and this being in the Beginner Forum and being a specific question about the usage of R1's, alot of Newbies and Lurkers will eventually find there way to this topic and I wanted to put the word out that there is nothing evil or wrong about using R1 curves, they are just another planning tool in the layout designing handbook. Instead of being constrained by some dogmatic minimum diameter notion that could seriously damper their planning ability to instead consider planning based on the following rational: 

1. How much space do I realistically have to use

2. What kind of trains do I really like and want to use

3, What are those trains minimum track requirement

4. What trackage can I use to accomodate these trains.

5. What trackage will allow me to plan a layout that I will continue to find interest in

Finally If they cannot achieve these, they have to ask "are my expectations greater than the means available?" and if so maybe they need to be more realistic on their goals, thats initially how I ended up indoors "stuck" using R1's, but after 10 years I doubt I will ever need to use anything larger as I have come to appreciate there virtues. 

I think part of the problem for most American LSers is that there is not alot of good examples published of R1 layouts in recent years, I spend alot of time reading the British Gscalecentral.com site and it has many examples of well planned and executed R1 based layouts, the use of based mostly due to the smaller size of the homes and yard. I think if more folks saw what can be accomplished there wouldn't be so much negativity to their usage.

So not invalidating anything, but as you said, just giving my own opinions, I do respect yours.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Garratt on 15 Mar 2013 09:36 AM 
As long as the loco and car's wheelbase can handle it, is fine. Same as prototype. There may be more friction on the flanges so run equally in both directions so failure from wear is not as premature. 

Andrew Based on personal experience, Engines aside, switching to ball bearing wheels eliminates this problem, particularly on uber-small curves like Aristo's 31" or 21" dia track. Pricey option, but it really *does* work.


----------



## Dave Meashey (Jan 2, 2008)

One way to look at things - that newcomers may be totally unfamiliar with - is that both streetcar and industrial track had very tight curves. On the industrial side, it caused the development of small, but powerful tank locomotives. It also sometimes caused major railroads to purchase geared steam locomotives - some Shays and other geared steamers were even encased in boxcab-like carbodies (some writers say that was to keep them from scaring horses - I personally think a horse would be a whole lot more afraid of the sound of a locomotive than what it looked like.)

Anyway, what I am trying to show is that there are plenty of good "real world" examples for tight curves and densely packed track.

But above all - 
Have fun,
David Meashey


----------



## cape cod Todd (Jan 3, 2008)

There is a time and place for the tight curves like Dave mentioned in a industrial application or trolley line. I will add in the living room for the Christmas RR. 
When I first went out to the great outdoors I used R1 2' radius tracks due to them being cheap and readily available. I was happy with my little locos and short cars running around but as my interests grew so did my equipment roster and the cars and engines got bigger. This was great except I had built a mountain tunnel pass in the shape of a "J" and it was impossible for my larger stuff to fit through. Luckily I was able to build a bypass so today the mountain route is hardly used. Last year I had a curve easement program where I replaced 5 foot diameter with 8 foot and 8 foot with 10 wherever I could. The trains do look and perform a lot better on wider curves. I now can run a 2-6-6-2 and a GP38 without worry except through another tight tunnel where I used 5' diameter tracks. The 2-6-6-2 makes it but I do worry about it. 
My advice to you would be to go with a wider curve than the 2' radius if you can and don't build yourself into a corner like I did.


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

At least for now I am using 4' dia (2' radius), and expect to stay that way for indoor. I do like the older, shorter prototype equipment in part because it looks better on model track radii. 

Larger does look and work better - but I'll take more trains in the space any day! 

If work can expand to fill all available time, then it is only fair that trains can expand to fill all available space.


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

I used my 32 inch circle around my Christmas tree on my pool table. I used 2 axle rolling stock and all ran well for the holiday season. 

And my 32 inch circle is 2 pieces of 8 foot rail bent into a circle, no power loss at joiners!!! Works great for me.


----------



## Old Bandit (Mar 5, 2013)

Gentlemen, thanks for your answers !








Now, I'm gonna use 4' diameter curves.
I have a very small place for my layout: 5' x 8'...and that's all !


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

Another aspect with having to use short locos and cars is that the consist is way shorter so the train actually has a place to come from and go to in a limited space. The railroad is more convincing when not chasing it's own tail. Logging and small industrial railroads lend themselves to limited space situations without seeming too toylike.

Andrew


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

Posted By Old Bandit on 17 Mar 2013 07:15 AM 
Gentlemen, thanks for your answers !








Now, I'm gonna use 4' diameter curves.
I have a very small place for my layout: 5' x 8'...and that's all !


Now you even have room for a passing loop. Bonus! All that space in the middle too.
The possibilities are endless! 

Andrew


----------



## Trains (Jan 2, 2008)

Just seen a layout with 2 foot radius, this week end. It was out standing! 
Logging railroad up in the mountains . About 10 x 30 foot table. What will work
for some one my not work for some one else. Don't know why people have 
to run something into the ground if they don't like it!

Don


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Don't see anyone running anything into the ground. 

Greg


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 17 Mar 2013 02:09 PM 
Don't see anyone running anything into the ground. 

Greg His answer seemed to be a little quirky to me







, but it could be a language thing. Old is in France. Correct? Maybe something lost in the translation.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Well its a nice starting point: 

Some suggestions: 










Here is the first layout I did a few years ago. 










Here is another layout I did outdoors about the same size as yours. Never got to really finish it off the way I wanted.










Here is one I did finish before I had to dismantle it for space, but about the same size as yours, PS that's my Pizza up on top. I do know I wish I could have kept this one around longer.

Small layouts are in many ways much harder to do well than big expansive layouts, because you have to think about almost every square inch.


----------



## Old Bandit (Mar 5, 2013)

Thanks for your help Gentlemen !
This is the very beginning of my small layout (5' x 8').

MY VERY SMALL LAYOUT !


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

If you had two more switches, I'd consider putting in a passing siding. My first inclination would be to put on switch in place of the straight section in the curve to the lower left of the photo, then put the second switch in place of the last straight section along the front right. It wouldn't be a long passing siding, maybe enough for one or two short cars, but it gives you some fun operating potential as a runaround. Good luck with this! 

As a side note, while I'm usually in the "use the widest curves you can" camp, two of my favorite railroads use 2' radius curves. Much like Vic's example above, in both cases, the trains are well suited to the nature of the track; small, quirky, and industrial-themed. The landscaping is top-drawer, and really pulls everything together. It is done such that the curves are there for a reason. Rocks, bushes, etc. shape the landscape to where the track looks to curve because it has to, not just because the train needs to turn around. I spent many a fine afternoon watching trains run around one of them. (The second one is in the UK, and I've never seen it in person.) 

Later, 

K


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

I like the idea of a passing siding over a simple side track. Especially on larger layouts with longer trains you don't have to back a long train into a side track. But something that can be done with a passing siding is to program for two trains running in opposite directions. You would need two electric switches and a programmable control box to change power so each train can take it's turn around the layout.


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

So, Randy - based on your above comments fer passing sidings, would You recommend 1 to 2 mile long passing sidings on My layout!?? A 2 mile run would match a 10,000 plus foot "real siding''... 

Dirk


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By SD90WLMT on 18 Mar 2013 12:09 PM 
So, Randy - based on your above comments fer passing sidings, would You recommend 1 to 2 mile long passing sidings on My layout!?? A 2 mile run would match a 10,000 plus foot "real siding''... 

Dirk 

Hi Dirk If you have the room yes.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Now then, given your limited 5'x8' area to work with, and the fact that I am considered by many here to be stark raving MAD







, I would suggest you could possibly do something like this:










Adds passing siding, crossover, and some spurs for industry sidings and an engine shed, all without adding anymore to your exiting benchwork.


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

But he's got a big hole in the middle ... looks like a quarry operation!


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By BigRedOne on 18 Mar 2013 04:21 PM 
But he's got a big hole in the middle ... looks like a quarry operation! 
Oh, whats a little more plywood


----------



## Old Bandit (Mar 5, 2013)

Thanks for your ideas.
I keep the hole in the middle ... it's my place to control the layout.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Old Bandit on 19 Mar 2013 10:30 AM 
Thanks for your ideas.
I keep the hole in the middle ... it's my place to control the layout.

OK then, I would consider adding at least one more spur on other side there next to the opening.

...the but I still think it could use a couple more turnouts,









and a crossover,









and a village ,









and a mountain


----------



## Old Bandit (Mar 5, 2013)

Hey hey hey...
Please keep cool !
It's only a small layout, it's not Disneyland !


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Old Bandit on 19 Mar 2013 01:47 PM 
Hey hey hey...
Please keep cool !
It's only a small layout, it's not Disneyland !
























Ah! but it *could *be


----------



## Old Bandit (Mar 5, 2013)

Hello vsmith !
You said " Ah! but it *could *be" Disneyland !
OK ! That's my new project...

NEW PROJECT


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

Come on Old Bandit, 

The early Disneyland layout was just a warped circle with a couple of passing loops and a few sidings. 
Oh, and there was a princess in the middle..... and a mouse, don't forget the mouse! 

Andrew


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The design is in the shape of a mouse's head with ears if you connected them with a string (or track) ... triangular


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

If am not mistaking that pic is the model of the Space Mountain roller coaster. Thats what is under the shell. Its a big coaster for the footprint it occupies.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Been studying harbor transfer yards again. Since I drew that plan idea for Bandit, kinda got some more ideas last weekend, top pic is the version based on Bandit's suggested plan, bottom version is based on a plan found on Carl Arendts scrapbook, modified into G, again all R1 curves. Both are Harbor Transfer layouts complete with car float in/out service and could be an interesting ops layout in a small footprint:









I will repost this drawing on my indoor layout thread just to show another way to approach a harbor switching layout.


----------



## Old Bandit (Mar 5, 2013)

Thanks for your help...but there is only one train on my layout.
And I like to watch this train running at full speed...like a TGV !


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

Posted By Old Bandit on 26 Mar 2013 04:56 AM 
Thanks for your help...but there is only one train on my layout.
And I like to watch this train running at full speed.

Why don't you superelevate the track then? Like a velodrome.









Andrew


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Old Bandit on 26 Mar 2013 04:56 AM 
Thanks for your help...but there is only one train on my layout.
And I like to watch this train running at full speed...like a TGV !

Bandit I think you chose the wrong scale then:


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

[No message]


----------



## Old Bandit (Mar 5, 2013)

A real TGV can't run like that !
And the TGV track is the best of the best.
Nobody can't find a better track in the world.

TGV


----------



## Old Bandit (Mar 5, 2013)

This is my new project (many thanks for your help vsmith).

NEW IDEA


----------



## Old Bandit (Mar 5, 2013)

It's absolutly the same diameter (4') for all the curves of this layout.
I run only short trains (3 or 4 cars) and I can park the other cars on the passing siding.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Added another turnout and a passing siding? See, my voodoo is beginning to work, I'll have you adding a couple more spurs to it if I can find some powdered alligator for my next spell.


----------



## Old Bandit (Mar 5, 2013)

An alligator like this one ?

ALLY GATOR


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Something like that:


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

Posted By vsmith on 25 Mar 2013 07:36 PM 
Been studying harbor transfer yards again. Since I drew that plan idea for Bandit, kinda got some more ideas last weekend, top pic is the version based on Bandit's suggested plan, bottom version is based on a plan found on Carl Arendts scrapbook, modified into G, again all R1 curves. Both are Harbor Transfer layouts complete with car float in/out service and could be an interesting ops layout in a small footprint:









I will repost this drawing on my indoor layout thread just to show another way to approach a harbor switching layout. 

You changed the pictures. Them's more better than them's before! but same stuff. Do they make chipboard that big?

Andrew


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Garratt on 29 Mar 2013 09:22 AM 
Posted By vsmith on 25 Mar 2013 07:36 PM 
Been studying harbor transfer yards again. Since I drew that plan idea for Bandit, kinda got some more ideas last weekend, top pic is the version based on Bandit's suggested plan, bottom version is based on a plan found on Carl Arendts scrapbook, modified into G, again all R1 curves. Both are Harbor Transfer layouts complete with car float in/out service and could be an interesting ops layout in a small footprint:









I will repost this drawing on my indoor layout thread just to show another way to approach a harbor switching layout. 

You changed the pictures. Them's more better than them's before! but same stuff. Do they make chipboard that big?

Andrew 

Andrew, if by chipboard I think you mean what we call OSB or plywood, this would be multiple sheets of 4x8 ply with a 1x wood frame under, fairly substantial work. Nothing very portable about them, but I would love to try putting one together. I have been examining harbor terminal layout design, I find R1 design translates well at 75% reduction to HO 18"R, I took Bandits plan and reduced it to HO, which I am so very tempted to try:










This also includes another harbor terminal layout, the first large terminal in the first pic above with the circular freight house was based on a terminal in the Bronx, this lower one is based on a Harlem area terminal, again totally self contained little railroads with lots of operations. The upper right layout is a condensed version of the Harlem yard, both are based on plans from Carl Arendts website.

My biggest problem is that I have far more ideas than I have space to provide for them, so almost all of them will never get beyond the plan stage.


----------



## Old Bandit (Mar 5, 2013)

This is my new project #2.
What do you think about it ?
I'll order all the parts ASAP.

*NEW PROJECT #2*


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

vsmith, 


I was just joking about the 'chipboard' as we call it in Australia. Particle board is also a used term. Not OSB, not ply, the stuff that is ruined when it gets wet. It seems to be the default approach until one realizes the problems using it. I was sure you changed the picture you first posted. No matter.
I've been looking at your harbor designs, they look interesting for a small space. With plenty of options for passing routs etc. You could have a mass of trains on that layout in such a small space and things could still function and not completely jam up! 


Andrew


----------



## Old Bandit (Mar 5, 2013)

vsmith & Andrew,

I use these "chipboards" since 1980 (only indoor of course !) for loudspeaker systems, floors, in my van... and I've never had any problem.
The structure of my layout is made with 2'x1 'and it works very well.


----------



## Dave Meashey (Jan 2, 2008)

Guys;

Those harbor tracks were usually switched by small 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 saddle tank steamers. Occasionally a geared steamer would be used, and the Reading RR broke all the rules by using the 0-4-0 camelback switchers Mantua made popular in HO scale. When large industrial boilers were available, fireless steam locomotives might be used. Basically, those tight industrial layouts were a "critter heaven."

Makes me wish I had room to build one of Vic's designs (no basement or garage), but then where would I run this?










Have fun,
David Meashey


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

You have it on a frame though OlBandit. Some don't which makes it hard to carry and when they pick it up it bows and buckles the track. It also weighs a ton and you can't run wires underneath. It is good for speakers because it is dense and has less resonance than plywood. It was more of a joke about everything having to fit only on an 8x4 straight from the lumber yard. 
I had a hose pop off my washing machine and the tap was on full. I was away all day. I reckon an Olympic sized swimming pool's worth of water flooded under my house and made it rain down stairs all over my 'chipboard' workbenches, shelves, cupboards etc. I had all my large containers, tins and power tools full of water. My old solid speakers and all the other 'chipboard' puffed up and turned to cr*p.








What do you guys call the stuff? Particle board? The bits of wood in it are small but still just visible unlike OSB which we don't see that often here in Australia. 
I like to make my baseboards with construction ply on 4x1" pine frame, all glued and screwed together. Very strong and light.


Andrew


----------



## Old Bandit (Mar 5, 2013)

My layout is very light and it will be like that for a long time.
So I can easily move it if I need more space in my garage.
The thickness of the "chipboard" is only 1/2 inch.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

You see, my voodoo works, my powdered alligator got you to add a siding, now add some chicken blood and I'll have you adding another.









I built a small O layout using 1/4 plywood and 1x2 wood framing, it is very light and easy to move.


----------



## Old Bandit (Mar 5, 2013)

Can your voodoo find for me a lot of money for buying all that I need for my layout ?
























*VOODOO PROJECT !*


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Now if it worked that way wouldn't I be retired and living on my own private Caribbean island inside a hollowed out volcano like any other self-respecting Supervillain?


----------



## Old Bandit (Mar 5, 2013)

So you are NOT living on your own private Caribbean island and you are NOT a self-respecting Supervillain ?
What a pity !
What kind of voodoo is it ?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Bandit, have you totaled up the cost for that layout? 

If you think those few pieces of track are a lot of money, then you better push your trains around the track, you won't be able to afford locos! 

Is this thread going anywhere?









Greg


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

String!


----------



## Old Bandit (Mar 5, 2013)

Hello Greg !
As you can see on the photo, my layout is very small but ready to run !
I have one diesel engine (Bachmann 0-4-0) and eight freight cars.
In fact, this layout works as well as it can be.
I'm just looking for a better idea...
And I do what I want any all time...'cause I'm FREE !


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Old Bandit on 03 Apr 2013 11:18 AM 
So you are NOT living on your own private Caribbean island and you are NOT a self-respecting Supervillain ?
What a pity !
What kind of voodoo is it ?







































I never said I was NOT a self-respecting Supervillian, I'm just not a wealthy one... hey man, volcanic island hideouts are downright expensive!


----------

