I planned the first stage of my layout using Scarm. However, when building this with C tracks in 1:1 (well, 1:87 then), the geometry of the tracks actually differ from the drawing in two areas:

(1) Some curves in the upper left area, where a 24071 had to be extended to 24077, and a 24064 extended to 24071.

(2) The inner curve in the upper right area, where a different configuration of straight tracks was required.

Well, I can live with this difference, but I must admit it is a little annoying. Has anyone else experienced this? Is there another software package that would be more accurate? I used a very small tolerance in Scarm, I think it was 1 mm. I've been thinking of testing Wintrack, as it seems to have features for documenting wiring etc. This could maybe be a reason to do this because it would be nice to have the layout documented properly (e.g in order to understand the digital spaghetti I implement )

Peter

I installed the demo of WinTrack and it recommended the same configuration as Scarm in the below area. In "real life", I had to exchange the 24071 track in the red circle, with a 24077 track... Well I can live with this



Btw, I will stay with Scarm. Actually, the user interface for adding tracks is smoother with Scarm, IMHO. Also, saving EUR 99.50 which immediately disappeared for something else on eBay.de!

I totally agree, it's not that elegant. The only reason for this is the available space for the hidden station. I want each block to consist of 5 pieces of 24360. The rightmost and leftmost tracks are contact tracks. To be able to expand from a single track to 6 parallell tracks with (1) 77.5 mm distance between (as I have the 24624 DKW (crossing) line-up on the right side and (2) excluding 24130 R1 curves, this was the only solution I came up with The only thing that really disturbs me having some parts that differ on the Scarm drawing and in "real life", is that I can't use the Scarm bulit-in track inventory anymore, as I have to stick with good old Excel again...!

That's what I think too, as it is e.g. difficult to make sure that the "total curve" is 90 degrees. However, looking at the drawing in post #5, it was the mentioned 24071 I had to extend to a 24077 AND the 24064 (which is approx. 20 cm left from the 24071) I had to extend to a 24071. The track in between was OK. That's puzzling me

I use Anyrail for my K-track layout. I find it generally quite accurate.

The good thing with K-track is that if you have funny gaps, you can always use a bit of flex track on the planning software, and then adjust to reality (i.e. your actual layout) when it comes to putting down the track.

But let's be honest - there will be always be some small differences when it comes to reproducing the track plan 1:1. To start with, I doubt I'm able to align tracks 100% accurately, make an exact 90 / 180 turn, etc. So I use my plan as a guide only and adjust as and when necessary. Thankfully, I found a box full of short straights and curves that helps!