# 2-ft Wide Door Layout - Comments?



## Dslot (Sep 2, 2007)

Our small house has no room for a permanent layout. I've built temporary ones, and have two of those in the planning stage now. But I need an ongoing layout to time cars and test tracklaying, scenic, and control ideas on. 

This weekend, the TM goes out of town, leaving me four days in which I can mess up the living areas of the house to my heart's content. I've decided to build a testbed layout on a 2-ft hollowcore door that I can set up on the dinner table, and stand on-end in the garage when not in use.

It will be lightweight (foamcore ground and track supports), with handles for easy pick-up and carry, and felt pads along the bottom. Removable buildings and driver stations. Power supply will store separately. Tomy track, but I may lay the main straight with Atlas, to compare the smoothness.

The layout will be mostly a test circuit to time cars, but I want it to be interesting enough to invite friends over for racing. I'll be running Tjets, JLs and Aurora AFXs.

Below are four course designs I'm considering (all are run counterclockwise from bottom).
#1 is a road course with the feel of open countryside, a nice flow, and the broadest curve. But it requires long (i.e. heavy) extensions made from 1x3 lumber to get some extra width.
#2 is tightly packed and visually appealing (to me).
#3 has highly unequal lane lengths, but is kind of attractive.
#4 has nearly equalized lane lengths and has the fewest extended 6"R curves.​Any comments would be welcome. -- D


----------



## tjd241 (Jan 25, 2004)

*Three cheers for the compact layouts out there!!!!!*

Nice idea and nice track plans.* I like #4.* Firstly, I'm a big fan of the over and under (always have been). Second, not a fan of the nested sections on #2 and #3 and with #1 you may regret the noodlie inside section. I had a section similar to #1 and I found it kind of annoying. 

I have a small layout as my only layout. First one I built I crammed every piece and specialty in I could. Then on the next one I tried to make up for elements of what I missed out on in the first one. Finally with this 3rd one I have now... I stepped back and tried to figure out more what I liked to run on. A satisfying layout (even a small one) can be lots of fun. Try them all and pick the one that you like to run on that will also allow you to test/tune/time your cars. Too technical and you may find it interferes with that.

Good luck with the build and keep us posted!!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup: nd


----------



## TomH (Jan 17, 2006)

I like the first one if the inside was straightened out a bit. Being portable, an overpass config might get damaged or smashed. You could put very slight banking in the curves to give the track a more natural look. I used white silicone caulk to fasten the track down. Works great. Use sparingly. I took up my track recently and it came up pretty easily. Whole lot less work than screws or nails.


----------



## yankee_3b (Dec 14, 2008)

Great job on all the plans, however my vote is for #4. #4 will give you more landscape and detail flexibility. The elevation with the overpass will add character to the layout. :thumbsup:

What design software are you using?


----------



## roadrner (Jul 21, 1999)

I 'm going with #4 as well! I downsized a couple of years ago from a 14'X4' table to a 36"X80" door. Worked out great and is fun to run on. Plus the Gkids can do their own marshalling now without having to bother an adult to reach their cars on the backstretch. :devil: rr


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

I like #1. Better spacing and gaps. The tendency to cram and over populate is always looming when scale modeling.

I would try an over and under with this configuration and work from there. Take a look at Nuther Dave's "Land HO" and note that it has a fluidness to it with no crammage or peas touching carrots. 

My own personal take is that perspective must be forced into the design and track sections that abutt or allow for no runoff only crowd and thereby shrinky dink the entire effect your trying to create.


----------



## martybauer31 (Jan 27, 2004)

I like #1 and #4, with the edge going to #4. I really like the variety that the over/under gives you....


----------



## T-jetjim (Sep 12, 2005)

I like #4, especially if you are going to landscape. 

Jim


----------



## TK Solver (Mar 18, 2004)

I like #4 a lot. If you go with that one, would you use a guard rail between the two straights?


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

I would do layout #1 and use a 30" door instead of extending a 24" door. May also want to consider drilling a matrix of small holes on the underside of the door and trying to fill as much of the hollow door as you can with minimal/nonexpanding spray foam insulation to knock down the noise.


----------



## NTxSlotCars (May 27, 2008)

#2 It's the bomb. Over-under tracks a neat, but, on a door?
I would recommend a Tomy AFX crossover track before an over-under.










The auction is http://cgi.ebay.com/TOMY-AURORA-AFX...66:2|39:1|72:1205|240:1318|301:1|293:1|294:50

Just my .02 pesos

Rich


----------



## Dslot (Sep 2, 2007)

Thanks to the forum for all the good comments so far. TJD241 suggested:


> Try them all and pick the one that you like to run on...


 That makes a lot of sense, and I'm ashamed to say it hadn't occurred to me. Just too theoretically inclined, I guess; the simple and practical solution escapes me sometimes. The weekend's almost here, so I'd better start hacking up some track to make those odd-sized fitter pieces if I'm going to test-run all four layouts.



> _...I like #4. Firstly, I'm a big fan of the over and under... _


_ I like O/Us also. I like the lane-length balancing aspect, even if it's not perfect (it's especially imperfect on #4, with all the 6" curves on one side of the overpass, and all the bigger stuff on the other - not too equalized, I fear). Even though lane rotation balances the race better, I'd rather have the cars of two equal drivers close to each other for the whole race, rather than one falling artificially behind, then closing up after the lane rotation. On a more or less equalized course, you can still use lane rotation, but equal cars will stay close together the entire race, and the distance between cars is more indicative of the actual state of the race. 



...with #1 you may regret the noodlie inside section. I had a section similar to #1 and I found it kind of annoying.

Click to expand...

It took me a minute to realize what you meant, since I like #1's pacing when I drive it in my head. Then I remembered an earlier layout that looked good on paper - nice and challenging - but after I drove it, I ended up taking out a curve because it felt too claustrophobic - braking all the time, never got to floor it except on the main straight.



...test/tune/time your cars. Too technical and you may find it interferes with that.

Click to expand...

 A very good point. I thought of that at the beginning, but I may have lost sight of it once I started drawing the courses. I'll know when I try them out, I guess.



...keep us posted!!!!

Click to expand...

 Yup. I plan to photograph each stage of the process for the forum. Thanks TJD.

-- D_


----------



## Dslot (Sep 2, 2007)

TomH said:


> I like the first one if the inside was straightened out a bit.


 Hmm. That's two for two on straightening out the twisty bit on #1.


> I used white silicone caulk to fasten the track down. Works great. Use sparingly. I took up my track recently and it came up pretty easily. Whole lot less work than screws or nails.


 My plan exactly, except I think I'll use black.



> You could put very slight banking in the curves to give the track a more natural look.


I want to experiment with mild banking, but it's not one of the main objectives of the build. If other things don't go smoothly, I may postpone fiddling with banking until later, just to get the thing running smoothly by Monday.



> Being portable, an overpass config might get damaged or smashed.





> _and Rich sez:_Over-under tracks a neat, but, on a door?
> I would recommend a Tomy AFX crossover track before an over-under.


I plan to have almost 3/4" of rigid foam covering the door, so I can get some of the elevation I need by dropping the lower track down below the surface; the upper track will only rise an inch and a half or so above the surface, and I think that won't make it too vulnerable. Thanks for the thought, Rich, but the overpass stretches believability far enough - pretty as they are, only a few real-world tracks have one (Monza and ???). A level crossing just isn't race-course, old chap. Plus, it looks like an invitation to non-driver-related deslots; years ago, I gave up on the keen old Model Motoring curved crisscross tracks, because the cars' pins and/or pickups would snag on them an appalling percentage of the time. I realize centrifugal force would make it worse on the curved crossings than the straight, and I appreciate the suggestion, but I'm just not ready for the intersection track. 

-- D


----------



## Dslot (Sep 2, 2007)

> _TK sez:_ I like #4 a lot. If you go with that one, would you use a guard rail between the two straights?


 Probably a low and unrealistically thin wall with racing product logos on it.


> _T-jetjim sez: _ I like #4, especially if you are going to landscape.





> _martybauer31 sez:_ I like #1 and #4, with the edge going to #4. I really like the variety that the over/under gives you....





> _Roadrner sez: _I 'm going with #4 as well! I downsized a couple of years ago from a 14'X4' table to a 36"X80" door. Worked out great and is fun to run on. Plus the Gkids can do their own marshalling now without having to bother an adult to reach their cars on the backstretch.


 Well, #4 looks like the favorite, so far. I'm always a bit surprised that so many people put slot tracks on 4-ft wide tables. The old model railroad rule of thumb is that 36" is as far as the average person can reach across a layout at normal table height (30-odd inches high). Since slotting takes much more frequent reaching than model RRing (at least when I'm driving), it seems pretty clear that a 4-foot table is asking for marshalling trouble (or back trouble), unless you can get around _both_ long sides and one end. I really like hollowcore doors.


> _Yankee_3B sez: _Great job on all the plans, however my vote is for #4. #4 will give you more landscape and detail flexibility. The elevation with the overpass will add character to the layout. :thumbsup:
> What design software are you using?


Thanks, Y_3B. It's not a commercial track-layout software. I created all the elements myself on _Adobe Illustrator CS _for Macintosh. The track sections don't automatically snap to one another, so I have to nudge and fudge them into exact position, but I really like the look of the final product, and I don't have to wait for anybody to add the track pieces I want in the next release. I just draw 'em up and use them.

:wave:Thanks to all. -- D


----------



## Dslot (Sep 2, 2007)

Bill Hall said:


> I like #1. Better spacing and gaps. The tendency to cram and over populate is always looming when scale modeling.
> 
> I would try an over and under with this configuration and work from there. Take a look at Nuther Dave's "Land HO" and note that it has a fluidness to it with no crammage or peas touching carrots.
> 
> My own personal take is that perspective must be forced into the design and track sections that abutt or allow for no runoff only crowd and thereby shrinky dink the entire effect your trying to create.


I think see what you mean about 'Nuther's track. Because he didn't go overboard packing track into the space, it has a nice natural, scenic look. Of course, I pretty much gave up any idea of making a scenically realistic track when I decided on a 2-foot table. Things are just going to have to be packed tight; shrinky-dinking seems inevitable to some extent. And because the table will be moved and stood on end, scenery will have to be on the sketchy side. I'm thinking of going with cutout 2-D flats for buildings and grandstands, even in the foreground. Converting #1 to an over-under - that's an interesting idea. Thanks, Bill. I'll take a look at doing that tomorrow.



> _AFXtoo sez: _I would do layout #1 and use a 30" door instead of extending a 24" door. May also want to consider drilling a matrix of small holes on the underside of the door and trying to fill as much of the hollow door as you can with minimal/nonexpanding spray foam insulation to knock down the noise.


 Thanks, AFXtoo, for your usual sharp analysis. Even a 27" overall is pushing it a bit for storage space, but the 30" HC door _would_ be lighter, and less work. I know I have a 24" door, and a 32", not sure about a 30". I'll have to visit the hollow door collection in my storage warehouse, if I end up going with #1.

I've run with the track tacked down to a HC door with just a sheet of felt between track and wood, and the noise never bothered me. I think the 3/4" of rigid foam I'm planning for this layout's surface will probably keep me from having to shoot foam into the door itself. If not, I'll just turn up the motor noises sound-effects CD (well, okay, tape) a bit louder. -- D


----------



## rideinstile (Dec 26, 2007)

I like #1. We had a 36x80 door track at our old house due to storage. It was just a 4 lane figure 8 with an overpass. If you have everything fastened down and a sturdy overpass you should be fine too though. I really would get a 36" door, you'll be glad you did it. Dave:thumbsup:


----------



## tjd241 (Jan 25, 2004)

Dslot said:


> I think see what you mean about 'Nuther's track. Because he didn't go overboard packing track into the space, it has a nice natural, scenic look. Of course, I pretty much gave up any idea of making a scenically realistic track when I decided on a 2-foot table. Even a 27" overall is pushing it a bit for storage space -- D


_(meter's running...I'm up to 4 cents now I guess ) _ but... Just 2 more thoughts that struck me as I read your replies.... Firstly, my layout is 36" wide, but even if it was only 24", I would *still* have landscaped via the same methods. You could turn my layout upside down and nothing would fall off. Realistic scenery does not have to be fragile.... Secondly, although I fancy the idea of the challenge of building a great 24" layout (it *CAN* be done) if you _could_ increase your width even a matter of a couple inches it would _*really *_open things up (literally). When I went from 28ish to 36" the difference was striking. As I moved pieces around in my design phase I found formerly impossible designs had become actual choices. If you can swing it... add width. If not??.... it'll be juuust fine. nd


----------



## yankee_3b (Dec 14, 2008)

I agree, the final look of your track design product is the nicest I've seen. You should think about marketing it. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## TomH (Jan 17, 2006)

May also want to consider drilling a matrix of small holes on the underside of the door and trying to fill as much of the hollow door as you can with minimal/nonexpanding spray foam insulation to knock down the noise.[/QUOTE]

Most hollow core doors have a interior gridwork of cardboard to keep the two outside pieces of luan mahogany apart, with a filler piece of wood added where the lockset is installed. The foam might move the cardboard filler pieces around a bit as it expands. Might work, might not. Also the foam might bow/bulge the door as it expands if you aren't carefull. Solid core flat panel doors are filled with particle board, too heavy IMO to be portable. I think a hollow core door might actually deaden the sound a bit, and using the silicone caulk under the track will further dampen the vibrations. Can't say for sure. My closest experience is with a track I built that had indoor outdoor carpet with old Aurora lock and jointer over a hollow door. Noise wasn't an issue but the track joints sure were.


----------



## resinmonger (Mar 5, 2008)

yankee_3b said:


> I agree, the final look of your track design product is the nicest I've seen. You should think about marketing it. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


I second Yankee 3B's opinion on your track layout software. It may require more manual interaction than the available offerings but it is pretty awesome with respect to visual presentation. In fact, you'd have a hard time matching the computer rendered layout's looks with real track. Now, we need track that looks as good as your computer graphics!!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

> foam might move the cardboard filler pieces around a bit as it expands. Might work, might not. Also the foam might bow/bulge the door as it expands if you aren't carefull


That's why I said "non expanding foam" which is readily available. I've used it (http://www.touch-n-foam.com/nowarp.php) with very good results. It's the only thing I'd use around windows and doors other than fiberglass batting. The reason for the matrix of holes was to account for the interior gridwork on the hollow core door, so more of the voids are filled. But if you are okay with the hollow core door sound, the easiest thing to do is - nothing. 

Expanding high pressure foams like "Great Stuff" are great for making track scenery but can cause more problems than they are worth for insulation applications.


----------



## Dslot (Sep 2, 2007)

*Progress Report*

*What I've done so far.*

Topped the door with cheap (buck-a-sheet) foamcore from Dollar Tree. The paper is softer and doesn't hold nails as well, so the standard, harder-surfaced version would be better I think. I topped the foamcore with brown wrapping paper, so once I get the track temporarily tacked down right, I can just trace the contours onto the brown paper with a marker. When I put down the track permanently, it will be easy to get the placement close to correct. It will also provide a template to cut accurate foamcore ground pieces to butt up to the track for a flush surface and aprons (rather than having the track standing up above the surface.

Tested the Road Course (#1) in two versions, with a skinny-tired Tjet Mercedes, a JL GTO, and a magnaAFX Porsche, at 22 volts (Tomy wall wart) and at 17 volts (an old HO power pack), and four different set controllers.

Tested placement and effect on visibility of full-depth and reduced-depth buildings.

*What I've learned so far:*

Nuther Dave (tjd241) was dead on with two points:
"...you may regret the noodlie inside section (on #1). I had a section similar to #1 and I found it kind of annoying... [try them and] pick the one that you like to run on that will also allow you to test/tune/time your cars. Too technical and you may find it interferes with that." Good advice.

So - The official candidate version of the Road Course track (#1) now looks like this:







I found that removing the last chicane improves the flow and feel for racing, as well as making it a better test ring. And I get to use my 18"R curve that I thought I'd never have a place for on these little door layouts. Cool. Thanks, ND.

16 Volts is much better for running Tjets/JLs/AFXmagnas on a compact course than 22 volts, at least for a duffer like me.

Even with only a single sheet of foamcore between the track and HC door surface, and track nails going down into the wooden door face, track noise is a non-issue for me. When I finally use silicone adhesive to put the track down, and pull up the nails, it can only get better, but it's almost not worth the extra effort.

If you're using a sharp drill to bevel nail-holes in Tomy track (even in a manual drill), it's a lot easier to get a hole than a bevel. I now simply turn the chuck manually and de-burr by turning it in reverse.

The easiest way to get power to Tomy track is to cut the orange plugs, with about 6" of wire, off two Tomy controllers and one wall-wart, stick them in the terminal track, and alligator clip the controllers to the bare ends. On each double-wire, stagger the ends, so the clips won't accidentally touch one another.

Some cars just don't like a particular section of track, for some reason unrelated to anything I can discover by looking or feeling.

More later.
-- D
Oh, thanks for the kind comments on the track planning graphics; we can discuss that subject a bit more after the build is done.


----------



## TomH (Jan 17, 2006)

Yeah you might not need the silicone caulk. If the nails loosen though, it will be easy to apply the caulk after the fact on loosened track pieces. I used a dob in the middle of the loose track piece, pushed the track down and that was it. Doesn't take much at all and I used as little as possible, just enough to keep the track down.
I bet your problem with some cars not liking a particular section of the track centers in the pickup shoes contact. Take a spare piece of track and take a good look at the cars that are doing ok and compare with the cars that aren't. You will probably see that the pickup shoe contact patch is the culprit. First place I would look at anyway.


----------



## TomH (Jan 17, 2006)

The curve one up and to the left of the terminal track, believe it is a 12", is going to be the key to running the inside section quick if you are running C.C.W. I think. If you can keep it hammered through there it will be good. Two wide through there..it will be good. Looks like a fun area. If there is a way to get a sweeper in between the right and left 6"ers in the mid upper right area and loose some of those 6"ers in the process, it might be worth looking at. It might pull that section down a bit and open up the infield for landscaping. If you could get a 12" curve right above the 12" curve on the left end there. Either direction coming out of the 6's you would have an area of medium throttle that might add some excitement.


----------



## Dslot (Sep 2, 2007)

*Progress Report -2*

We have a winner!

After modifying #1, I liked it so much that I wondered whether I should even build the others. But I went ahead. 

I was hoping #2 would be as good, being a flat track and letting me use a narrower table. But #2 just wasn't much fun, for some reason, even after fiddling with the parts. I whizzed away a lot of time making frankentrack sections - remember when your dad told you to measure twice; cut, file, tack, reinforce and epoxy once? Too bad I didn't.

I skipped #3 and went ahead with #4, the semi-equalized over-under. I made a few changes, to eliminate the odd size tracks and give a longer bridge, and a better track fit without fudging.Here's the latest version:








On the first lap, I knew this was it! It's a great track in either direction. The Tjet Mercedes seems to like it best running right-to-left on the long straight. It looks great winding down the grade before passing under the overpass. The AFX Porsche preferred it the other direction, slipping into the 15" winding-down curve like it was built for it.

So gentlemen, I present you with Tanglewood Glen. I think I'll see if I can't make the overpass look like the old stone bridge on the original Watkins Glen road course from the 1948-52 Grand Prix. Maybe I can find a place for some town building flats reminiscent of Franklin St. Too bad there's no place to represent Milliken's Corner, now that I have ditched my usual jumble of 6" corners for an amazing number of sweepers, considering the size of the layout. Amazing to me, anyway. It's the smallest and probably the fastest-driving course I've ever built.

I had hoped to have the course finished and finally tacked down by this time, with minimal scenery, but I lost about a day and a half of my four-day weekend to car and health problems - and hadn't planned on building and testing three separate tracks, so things are still under construction.

I'll post some photos this week.

Thanks for all the comments and advice. I'll get around to replying to the late ones after the track is done and I have the tools and materials cleared for the TM's return. :wave:

-- D


----------



## resinmonger (Mar 5, 2008)

That looks really cool, Dslot. As you said, it is pretty amazing that you've got super sized curves in a extra small space. It makes me ponder what my 36 x 80 door track could become if I Dslot'd the layout. Out with the plethora of 6 inch torture sections and in with the broad sweepers! Thanks for the inspiration.


----------



## slotcarman12078 (Oct 3, 2008)

Congratulations on your choice!!!! It does look like a winner for sure!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## TomH (Jan 17, 2006)

Good job. That fixed that upper mid section with all the 6's. I had a elevated section real similar to that. I had to put up a pretty good sized fence around that 9incher to protect my cars from my crappy driving style. That layout will be copied. I would submit that to the hoslotcarracing site.


This was a similar track in the middle of a teardown. See how high my overpass was. I would go as low as possible if I had to do it over again. That would have kept the track leading up to the overpass on the same plane as the track next to it for a longer period.


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

Looks great D !


----------



## TomH (Jan 17, 2006)

hope this works better


----------



## roadrner (Jul 21, 1999)

DSlot,
I think you have a winner there. Looks like fun and just enough turns for any racer to handle! :thumbsup::thumbsup: rr


----------



## Guidepin (Apr 25, 2009)

*1,2,3,4? Dslot*

I think I would try #4,on a30" door.Room for scenery. Then I would mildly bank the curve after your longest straight going into your second longest straight.GOOD LUCK GK::freak:


----------



## Dslot (Sep 2, 2007)

*Progress Report 3 and Pictures*

By the time Carol returned, the living area was cleaned up, the tools were put away, but the layout wasn't finished.










Work has progressed more slowly this week as I fiddled with track height, banking, and heat-warping part of the front straight to form a slightly humped hill. 

I also checked and modified clearances for the bridge, using a Tyco US-1 dump truck (the biggest slot vehicle I own), and added a smidge to accomodate a semi-trailer rig (I hope). Does anyone have *measurements* for the Tyco, Aurora, and new Autoworld semi-rigs with the box trailer? I need height from the track surface, and width. Thanks.

For some reason, the drawing calls for a 6" straight between the two 15R curves, but the track falls comfortably into position with only a 4" gap. Two inches of error is a lot, and I still haven't figured out where it comes from, but "the map is not the territory" and I'd rather cut another custom fitter than force the track out of line, opening up gaps at the joints in the curves.

Photos of the progress so far are up on my Photobucket page. There are 14 pics, beginning at *this one*. Since the last one, I've lowered the bridge and whole rear elevated track by about 3/16", and I've built up the left-end loop somewhat higher, but may pull it back down. It seems a bit extreme, on the sober consideration the morning after.

More to come.

-- D


----------



## slotcarman12078 (Oct 3, 2008)

Looks like the AW semi box trailer comes in at 1 3/4 inches high. The width of my test sample is 1 3/8 and that's the drive tires..


----------



## TomH (Jan 17, 2006)

I would have thought that by raising the track the gap would have been wider then 6". You might try minimum height on the overpass and gain an inch. Put a 3" straight in there.


----------



## tjd241 (Jan 25, 2004)

*Nice Dslot....*

Keep up the good work...:thumbsup::thumbsup: nd


----------



## Dyno (Jan 26, 2009)

I have an over/under setup on a hollowcore 36 inch wide door with just some green felt underneath. I dont find it too clickety clackety at all. Without the felt it was quite noisy. I sometimes wish it was a bit longer for when I bust out the fast magnet cars, but overall I like my layout. My layout is the Oak Hill 36 on HOslotcarracing.com. The only drawback is that you must use screws to hold everything down because nails wont hold too well, and its tough finding the right size screws at the Home depot. I have everything screwed or glued down because mine is supposed to be portable. However, I never have actually moved it yet.


----------



## Crimnick (May 28, 2006)

Pretty damn cool...good job!


----------



## Dslot (Sep 2, 2007)

*Paneling Nails*



Dyno said:


> The only drawback is that you must use screws to hold everything down because nails wont hold too well...


Dyno,
On this layout, I found that paneling nails hold well. Rather than leave the subject buried in this thread, I started a new thread on it.

-- D


----------

