Help needed for a track plan

[Mannick]

Hello,
I found this very old photo of a Jouef exhibition layout. I tried to draw the track plan with Anyrail several times but I failed miserably. Could you help me ? Many thanks in advance.

/media/tinymce_upload/018b0488a953ce20908ce963877c021f.jpg

 

/media/tinymce_upload/9a0c0f6ced619afc914f9bc3eab57560.jpg

[walkingthedog]

I guess it's because Jouef track is a different geometry to Hornby track. The left half of the circle is 4 R609's. The right is 3 R609's and 2 R8075's. Obviously the two curves on the points are longer than an R609. Perhaps you should use Jouef track. 

[Chrissaf]

Both arcs (curves) of the R8075 are Hornby Radius 2 [438mm radius]. Whereas the R609's are Hornby Radius 3 [505mm]. So you are never going to get a perfect circle combining these two track products together.

 

If you really want a perfect circle for aesthetics reasons, you might get a perfect circle if you change out the R609s with R607s [Radius 2 (438mm) double curves]. The arc of the R607 is 45° and the arc of the R8075 outer curve is 22.5°, Thus 2 x 22.5° = 45° i.e two R8075s = one R607.

 

Extract from R8075 product page

/media/tinymce_upload/bf458de6e2fe36e069af366658e48c18.jpg

 

Extract from R609 product page

/media/tinymce_upload/4a22c58e32f28472a307a518ec1d2680.jpg

 

You can see all the current Hornby track geometry on this webpage

https://www.thinglink.com/scene/876128215507140609?buttonSource=viewLimits

 

 

TIP: As a newbie poster on the forum, just be aware that the 'Blue Button with the White Arrow' is not a 'Reply to this post' button. If you want to reply to any of the posts, scroll down and write your reply in the reply text box at the bottom of the page and click the Green 'Reply' button.

.

Particularly as my reply includes an image, using the 'Blue Button' may result in your reply being held back for image approval, even though it is an existing image.

.

See also – further TIPs on how to get the best user experience from this forum.

https://www.hornby.com/uk-en/forum/tips-on-using-the-forum/

.

[96RAF]

I would say at the 9 o’clock position there is a short straight probably R610, which could realign the top joint.

/media/tinymce_upload/a3ecff72e7858e88daeac7ce2560b3f3.png

[walkingthedog]

It needs a short straight at 9 o clock to line up the tracks at the top. Is that what you are saying Rob.  

A bit of flexi would do the job. 

No need to use different radius track.

 

I doubt the track in the photo is Hornby. 

[atom3624]

Is the program correct?

The points causing the chaos are more at the 4:30, than the 6:00.

 

Totally agreed by the diagram, the insert should be at 9:00, but logic would say it should be at 10:30.

 

Al.

[walkingthedog]

How can you have 10:30? 

[walkingthedog]

Look out blue leader, bandits at 20 past 4.

 

20 past 4 but it's 15 hundred hours...........aaaarrrggghhh. 

[RDS]

Well spotted Rob. 

The track joins are obvious now that you have pointed them out.

[atom3624]

My 8yo can tell time better ... !!

 

There's 6 hours in-between - or 180'.

 

Never mind.

 

Al.

[walkingthedog]

At least you know what you mean.  😆

[Rana Temporia]

Jouef now use Hornby track since they became part of the family. I suspect that this layout uses some flexi track in the make-up of it, especially on the single siding. 

 

It depends when this layout is from. If it's recent it is probably Hornby track but if it's the old Jouef produced track the geometry is totally different and as it's a show layout the outer circle could have anything in it. 

[walkingthedog]

Mannick says very old photo and it certainly looks it. I reckon before Hornby got involved.

[Howbi]

@Mannick.........If you fitted the short straight R610 at 9:0'clock as suggested the small gap would easily be absorbed by the natural flexibilty in that size circle.........HB

/media/tinymce_upload/a8f5e3a68d54f6697551bba1d83dadf3.jpg

[atom3624]

The track would have to be secured, of course, or in view of that slight 'geometry anomaly' the track would naturally try to separate.

 

All I was referring to earlier is 'imagine where the hour hand would be at 4:30 and 10:30' - opposed by 180'.

The points are at ~'4:30', so I was saying the infill straight required to complete the circuit would be better positioned opposite the points, at 'hour hand 10:30' position.

That's all.  Probably closer to 5 and 11 o'clock positions I must admit, but that's what the clock references were about.

 

Al.

[walkingthedog]

Clock references usually just refer to where  the hour hand is on the hour. 3, 7, 12 etc. 

[atom3624]

I always like fine tuning things ... !!