Pls take a look at this plan in the data base , and suggest how get seperation of levels in the right corner. From a switch in lower center, two lines diverge and the lowest in the drawing passes under the other approx 5 feet away from the switch, heading toward the right corner in a tunnel. As shown, it emerges at the "zero" elevation, apparently level with some other nearby trackage The "up and over" leg would need to climb perhaps 4.5-5" to look reasonable so close to a tunnel portal. I believe 4.5" of rise in 60" of length is 7-1/2 pct grade. Not nice. The lower level can not "help" out by being depressed because it would have avery steep rise back to "zero" level for the nearby crossover.
What to do?
My 3rd attempt to respond...
Stu - I agree with your assessment about the steep grade. Unless you are operating a trolley themed layout, that rise over run would be prohibitive.
However, if you like the overall trackplan, why not make it a true loop-to-loop, and omit the offending tangent alltogether?
thinking i could elevate the diverting switch at about 2.25", with a climb from the neighboring switch around the loop. That is 2.25" rise in approx 85"--around 21/2pct grade. Then the upper line continues to climb to 41/2, and the lower descends back to 0". Not sure what better solution if I want to keep the plans as originally done. Tried to email to designer to ask his thoughts, 3 years later, but no reply yet. I hope he was aware of the challenge he was presenting.
Still fooling with this plan; see same sort of grade problem with bridge in center rear; it crosses a track which which will eventually divert as one of two legs from a switch whose other leg ascends to cross the bridge, so switch must be elevated a bit to ease grade up to deck of bridge. This puts the switch at higher point then any of the incoming or outgoing trackage. However, as I type this, i see there is room to move the switch to the left, which lengthens the length of track to bridge, and thus eases grade. So thats good.
If you look at the track plan, the designer makes the comment do remember to includer the Seneca River; I wish he had indicated where it might go--I see no place for a river bed. Suggestions?
ok i see the river --thats what happens because i need a new color ink cartrdge installed
I have a similar scene on my layout. The benchwork is only 3 feet wide here, but the loops are separate.
And here's the almost finished scene.
I am working on this track plan, building a module corresponiding to the left side of track plan-- an approx 6ft long x 4ft wide (again approx) loop with a siding which connects to a wye. I believe that the curves shown are 031, but to my dismay, I find that gargraves 031 curves are larger radius than lionel O guage curves, and this is giving me trouble. I think I have noticed this before--the gargraves product is close to identical to Marx 034 curves.
I'm trying to instal; an extra passing siding in fromt of thesation, from the bottom of the loop, and then bending 90 deg atthe top of the loop, back to the descending other side, which it rejoins in the middles of a leg of the wye. Clear(like mud)?
Any comments on the curve radius? I believe the plan is actually in realtrax, but 031 should be 031 and I computed carefully and believe there is the space to do what i outlined.
I found over the weekend that Gargraves and a competitor both marke pre-bent curves which they describe as 031. I have some previously purchasedwhich are larger than Lionel's, matching the Marx 034, as I mentioned above. But this weekend, at a train shop in NJ, I bought 6 usedpieces which DID match Lionel perfectly, and they were really key! I didn't find this our until I got home and compared to the others I had. The proprietor of the shop had agreed that the 031 curves are (frequently) bigger thaN Lionel. He clearly also didnt know that two companies are marketing "031" with different dimensions.
i have the book by Linn Westcott re L girder benchwork, and in it he mentions using the "cookiecutter method" of making trackboards. But i see in order to make it work, you lay out yr track on the table top (plywood sheets, with any addtional sound deadener material on top), mark the route and then cut the material as marked. Questions I have: In order to cut without slicing your joists, then the sheet material must all be ontisers approx 2-21/2" above the joists. Do you cut out and remove areas where no track will run? If so, you are creating "holes" in table through which things can fall. 2. If you do that, what is optimal width to cut for o gauge trackage? 3", and a bit wider on curves?
Back on the area of a indication of a large bridge under which a track snakes in an S curve from behind on left toon front on right. It seems to me that the trackage at left and behind bridge is about 7-1/2" center to center behind the track which will run through the bridge. If the track is 4-1/2" - 5" below bridge, a commercial tunnel portal is so high that a tunnel over the lower track won't look very realistic that close to the track going up to the bridge. It seems the only treatment is the track to the bridge seeming to be pushed up in front of the track behind and to the left of the bridge. Other Ideas?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month