High Density Track Layout Program

This is my attempt to create the “optimal” 1/43 scale track layout for a 4′ x 8′ space. In this sport, “optimal” is extremely subjective. I’ll present my criteria and findings…. You make the call for yourself.

Introduction

Welcome to the 1/43 Scale High Density Layout (HDL) Program!

This is something I came up with after spending the holidays putting down and ripping up different track layouts in the living room.  My wife wasn’t too happy having the entire floor covered in track.  Since I already had built a 4′ x 8′ platform for HO scale track, why couldn’t I use that?  Well, obviously, you can’t get a lot of 1/43 scale track in a space that small…. or could I?

In the pages that follow, I will show you how something that started as a simple mental exercise has become an ongoing challenge to find the “perfect” layout.  I welcome anyone who has the time and energy to develop their own designs and send them to me.  I’ll post as many as possible (until I run out of space at least).

Design Criteria

In designing a layout, here is the criteria I use:

• It must use standard Artin 1/43 scale track.
• It can not contain any of the new higher radius curves (since I don’t have any to measure).
• It should fit on a standard 4′ x 8′ sheet of plywood or MDF.
• It should have as many long straight-aways as possible.
• The overall track should be as long as possible.
• The track should cover as much as the table as possible without a lot of overlap.
• It should have a good variety of the types of corners to be negotiated.
• The lane lengths should be as close to equal as possible (I use crossovers to maintain even corner counts).
• I wanted to keep the final join that closes the track to come within 1/4″. Normal track play should allow me to adjust to that tolerance.

Design Issues

Once I started working on the layouts, a few things became apparent:

• There is a 5/8 ratio between long and short straight tracks. It takes 5 long pieces to equal 8 short ones. Coming from the HO world, where all the straight track has a multiple of 3″, this seemed rather strange to me. It does however have some advantages, the primary one being that it allows for a great variety in the length of straights that can be built. See the track table for more information.
• The track is too wide for the length of the straights. The track is 4 1/2″ wide, but a short straight is 4 3/8″. This causes track to overlap after a quick turn as shown below (circled in blue). This turned out to be my biggest issue. There were many designs that had to be adjusted because of overlap problems. Those adjustments waste a lot of space.

• With any rectangular shape, the longest dimension available is between opposite corners. On a 4′ x 8′ sheet, this measures to an angle of 26.57 degrees. Since Artin corners are 45 degrees, this would ultimately skew the entire layout and waste space. This means that most layouts need to run at right angles to the board edge.
• Finally, banked curves have a slightly tighter radius than a flat curve. Using both types maximizes the possible layouts.

Rating System

Overview

Once I had started trying different layouts, I decided I need a way to compare them.  Some designs seemed better than others, but it was all subjective.  I wanted to be as objective as possible and in the course of trying different layouts, I realized that there are quite a few elements that could be quantified, including:

• Track length in relation to table size
• Variety in the types of turns used
• Table coverage (did I use every square inch possible?)
• Visibility (how much of the track is hidden by bridges?)

Using those four elements and a lot of math in Excel, I came up with a rating system that helps me evaluate each layout.  If you are interested in that sort of thing, you can read a detailed explanation of how it works on this page…

(Pending) Rating System Formula Detail Page

Strangely enough, the results it produces seem to closely mirror my subjective opinions, with two important exceptions:

• It can’t quantify aesthetics (how good does the layout look?)
• It doesn’t predict “raceability”. I can design a whole lot more layouts than I will ever want to build and test, so for that, I have to totally rely on good old gut instinct.

If you are interested in seeing how the system rates our designs, you can view or download a fully annotated Google Sheets workbook here….

High Density Track Layout Program – Artin 1/43 Workbook

The Layouts

The following gallery shows some of the layouts I have come up with including high level details like Name, Length and Rating. The layouts are sorted by the type of surface they were for.

Click on any image to be taken to the full detail page for that particular layout.

“Plywood” – Standard 96″ x 48″ Sheet

These layouts can be built on any standard 4′ x 8′ sheet of construction material. That includes plywood, laminate and some MDF products. The smaller surface area actually produces generally high overall track ratings since it is hard to fill the larger surfaces.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

“MDF” – Oversize 97″ x 49″ Sheet

These layouts are designed for 97″ x 49″ sheets of MDF, which used to be easy to find but are a little tougher now. You can also build these on a standard sheet of plywood if you are willing to allow some overhang. If you can find it, it is an excellent surface for creating alternative layouts.

---

Ping Pong Table – 108″ x 60″

These layouts are designed to be built on top of a regular Ping Pong (aka Table Tennis) table, which is a great surface for large, non-permanent setups. While the larger surface allows for longer, more complex layouts, their ratings tend to be lower since you cover less of the total surface area.

---

Conclusions

So, after working with this for a while, I have developed some strong opinions regarding Artin 1/43 layouts…

General

To start with, you can get a lot of track in a smaller space than I ever imagined.  When I first started this, I was just looking for something that would give me something close to what I was use to in HO scale.  In that respect, I really accomplished all I wanted.  Along the way, it has become fun, in and of itself.  I’ll never build half of the layouts I come up with.  I just enjoy the challenge of a new design.

Design

For what ever reason, the dimensions of current Artin 1/43 track were poorly thought out.  Now, don’t get me wrong.  I think that Artin track is the best value on the market, and I am quite happy with it.  It’s just very frustrating that the short track is 1/8″ too short!   It really complicates the whole design issue and wastes space.  As I thought about it, my best guess is that this is a factor of Artin being around for so long and trying to keep the system consistent.  I imagine that when the track was first designed, there were good reasons for the dimensions they used, which have carried forward to this day.

By the way, Cararra 1/43 scale track does not have this problem.  They provide three different straights, one of which is as long as it is wide.  On the other hand, it’s a lot more expensive and difficult to obtain and the length ratio’s are not as flexible as Artin track.

Once you get beyond the dimension issue, I think that the 5/8 ratio between short and long straights are a great assets when it comes to laying out a design.  After 24″, you can come up with a combination of track that increments every 7/8″ of an inch.  How cool is that?  Well, for one thing, you can almost always design sections that fit where you need them and line up correctly.

Speaking of lining up track – quick connect track has quite a bit of give.  As the length of your layout increases the more likely you will be able to make up a gap or misalignment in the final connection.  Of course, all of the designs we come up with connect perfectly, every time…. yeah, right.  Sure they do.

I think it helps to actually build sections of your layout as you are creating the design.  This helps to validate how certain sections will work, especially compound turns.