Yeah saw someone did that and was planning on doing something like that some how. That part of the layout is going to be the upper level so will prob be about 45"-50" off the ground. The low end is only 29.25 inches high and that is low want to bring that up also want to reinforce it since my dad built it not as a tradional table but supported the 4'x8' plywood with strips of wood and used wooden horses at each end for the feet. So i want to take the top plywood off and build a proper table frame to put it on. would like to get it up to atleast 36" off the ground.
Don't let those support posts "hem" you in. Incorporate them (water tower with red and white checks at top, concrete coal tipple...), or hide them under a mountain that rises to the ceiling. ( I masked my support column behind a rocky ridge with old ceiling tile).
First thing you might want to do is get that layout about 40" off the basement floor. A) Brings choo-choos closer to eye level B) Reduces the vertical area you are trying to cover C) Provides storage area beneath (got any old cabinets...?) D) Makes wiring a whooooole lot easier...
That's the problem i have it's not up against the wall it's actually in the center of the storage area of the basement. The imovable objects i have are the basement support posts and they're just under 8 feet apart with the 8'x'8 layout i'm going to have to build the second table with notches in the table to go around the posts. a 10' long table with a foot extra on each side of the posts can be done but all the storage space along the back and one side of the table has to be removed and found a new place for and it'll also start to move into the laundry area of the basement that's where the hard sell on a 8x10 would be. Been cleaning that basement out for 11 months now and over 60% of what was there is gone now and still no where near done. The layout i have now had stuff on it since the eairly 80's and that layout is as it is now has been there since the 70's when i father built it part of the reason i want to rebuild it. A minimal will have to still be stored under the tables but have to rethink where i'm going to put all that i am keeping right now have alot stored in the work shop area of my basement that's gota come back over to the train section once it's completed too. Was looking through train books at pics and saw some zig zag that real trains use and was toying with that idea too but wanted to look into it more. Again not looking for big trains think the most i've pulled at once a few times was 7 or 8 cars and that was just to use what i had and test power loads with the cars to find the limit. The big problem i have it i like steam so pulling a tender which adds length to the train but does nothing really. There are a few local Desels i'm thinking about getting too.
Don't sell the layout short. 8'x8' is a pretty good sized piece of real estate. And if you can pull it away from the wall to give a two foot aisle space, you can spend a long time planning and detailing it.
I further believe that you could manage a grade from ground level to the first tier. You could use a switchback to climb from first tier to second, giving your log loader and sawmill some interchange. One of the newer shays can easily tote two or three cars, zig-zagging up and down a hillside.
fifedog Boyd - Gonna havta disagree witcha on the S-curve thingie... Fox - You're operating postwar engines, designing a track plan on a 8'x8' or 8'x10' layout, wanting to incorporate a bridge some 14" above the lower level, and not sure which track system you wanna go with (you do like the MTH switch appearance)... I think I'm up to speed with both your threads. I honestly think you're experience would be happier with keeping your trains on separate tiers. Heck even throw a middle tier in there for 3-train operation (good example is the triple bridges in Richmond,VA if you need inspiration). Use your O-31 tubular for the upper two levels, and try the MTH track on the lower level. Than, as finances permit, start to replace the track on the upper levels. Picture in your mind what 3 trains running simultaneously, with the room lights off, would look. Gives me warm-fuzzies.
Boyd - Gonna havta disagree witcha on the S-curve thingie...
Fox - You're operating postwar engines, designing a track plan on a 8'x8' or 8'x10' layout, wanting to incorporate a bridge some 14" above the lower level, and not sure which track system you wanna go with (you do like the MTH switch appearance)... I think I'm up to speed with both your threads.
I honestly think you're experience would be happier with keeping your trains on separate tiers. Heck even throw a middle tier in there for 3-train operation (good example is the triple bridges in Richmond,VA if you need inspiration). Use your O-31 tubular for the upper two levels, and try the MTH track on the lower level. Than, as finances permit, start to replace the track on the upper levels.
Picture in your mind what 3 trains running simultaneously, with the room lights off, would look. Gives me warm-fuzzies.
I am about to construct an 8'x12' layout for my two American Flyer trains. (That's all the room I have what with my HO layout monopolizing the available basement space).
To avoid the grade elevation issue, I am constructing two tiers. The lower tier will be for my steam engine negotiating an oval with a figure 8 inside it. The upper level will be another oval, just outside the lower tier oval, with a crossover bridged above the figure 8.
All of this with the grandkids in my. They should love it with each of them operating their own train with the novelty of switching into the figure 8 or switching to the bridged crossover, to hold their interest.
In any event, I like your idea about the tiered layout as opposed to the construction of grades, especially in a small space.
Rich
Alton Junction
Right now i am operating post wars eventually do want to get into modern era stuff when i have the money and the right trains come along. Do like the idea of a 3rd tier but pushing it with the 8'x8' already and 8'x10' isn't going to be an easy build since there's imovable stuff in the way and walk way space is needed. Like the look of the MTH switch but if i have to do without them i do they weren't deal breakers like i said i the other thread untill last weekend i thought they were Fast Track switches. MTH is cheaper then Fast Track but my original question in the other thread was which one was the best of the newer stuff and everyone jumped on the fact that MTH wasn't it. The bridge i have i measured again and even if i did the 14-16 difference in levels it wouldn't of looked good since the bridge was 7" high but i can just use it where the other bridge was going to go on the upper level sitting on the table over the stream i was going to add. Thought about different closed loops but problem with that is space. Right now I have a 4'x8' layout with an outer passing loop and a 5 car train takes most that up and it takes about 10-13 sec to go around once 20 sec if i slow it to 1/2 from 3/4 speed. With the closed loops it'll still take about the same amount of time which is one of the 2 things i'm trying to achive here is give the train more area to move so it takes longer to make one compleate pass around the table. I already planned on using under the table for that purpose originally just wasn't thinking it would be to posibily get up the hill. The 2nd thing i'm going for is i'm not looking to build something that i can turn on and let it go and once in a while flip a switch otherwise just watch it. I'm a hands on person two accessories i know i want already are the log loader and the sawmill and i planned on putting them on different levels to give the train a purpose. Still looking at all the stuff there is for O gauge. I do want a small set of spurs up on top i can control the power to to store other trains and cars when not in use so if i decide to switch from freight to passenger i can (have it thought out for post war stuff right now but digital stuff would make it easier yet i know) The 3 trains running with the lights off would look good (actually going to shield over the controls and transformers so i can turn the lights off and still run it by the light from some white LED's i'm going to wire up.) I want to set it up so i can sit back and watch it if i want to but also so i can take control the rest of the time. I got the ideas for the layout all i need to figure out is which track is the best to use and what is needed to do to get up and down the hill safely if that can be done and where would i need to give on it.
With 48" curves a 3% grade in an "S" curve can stop just about any but the shortest train.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
lionroar88 Lee,Helixes are really nice, but they require a lot of room themselves. I have O-45 and O-54 curves on my layout and opted for the O-54 on the transitions where they double back on themselves. I found anything less would cause longer cars (passenger cars) to derail more frequently due to the stresses put on the couplers.
Lee,Helixes are really nice, but they require a lot of room themselves. I have O-45 and O-54 curves on my layout and opted for the O-54 on the transitions where they double back on themselves. I found anything less would cause longer cars (passenger cars) to derail more frequently due to the stresses put on the couplers.
Brent,
Thanks for the heads-up on the helix but I am not going that route. Anyway the largest curves on my layout are Gargraves 042, or 043.5 because Gargraves has a wider curve than others do. I might have one or two pieces of 054 thrown some where but that's about it. My upper level is 027 and 032 Gargraves curves.
Lee F.
I've been looking my plans over trying to see if i can make a raised level on the lower table so i can cut some of the distance down. The bridge i have i was going to use i'm going to put where i had another bridge going. A major problem is it all doesn't look right size wise to me. Not because it's a semi small layout the lower table is only 29.25 " off the ground so even the high table at 3.5' to 4' looks small to me.
It seems to me that the length of the layout would have to be immense to get the second level up 14 to 17 inches, at least without the use of a helix. The helix would seem to be the only way to go, and it would certainly take up less space than the space needed to elevate the second level to that height, especially in O gauge.
Every time grade or incline is brought up I always think of old times, my over under figure 8 using graduated trestle and running single motored MPC engines with cars in tow.
Real funny, if everything is just right it can get up there and if it manages to come down without flying off the track and still carrying some good speed it will keep on truckin.
That must have been one of the layouts shown with the graduated trestle set? Wonder what the incline % was. More like a roller coaster... Know it sounded like one.
Sorry to bring up toy railroading with all this serious modeling talk.
You'll need the entire periphery of a 4-by-8-foot table at 2.5 percent to get the 6 inches or so that you need so that each of three loops clears the one under it. There'll be no opportunity to level off--you'll be climbing the whole way.
Bob Nelson
For some reason for me with O Gauge i'm not as worried about being prototypical as i would be with HO i just want everything safe for the trains wear wise and to lessen the chance of derailments. A Helixes under the upper table is what i'm thinking also i do want to have the room to level it off at points to take stress off the train plus i have a Tressle bridge i want to add in there about half way up. Thinking Fast Track or Real track for the track but areas not seen might use tubular for strenght and easier to anchor down. I want to keep the incline conservitive already figure i'll have to start it on the side of the table and work toward the back of the table. Don't want to go any greater then a 2.5% - 3% incline. I'm one that doesn't usually hauls alot of cars behind the train partly due to the size of the table i have now and i just don't have many in general. I do have a few in mind but they are more just to link the use of accessories at the top and bottom of the layout.
As fifedog said, grades are usually described in percent, as the rise divided by the run (in the same units). So a track that rises 2 inches in 100 inches of run is a 2-percent grade. That is considered a serious grade for prototype railroads. For model railroads, 4 percent is about the most that is practical, although there is no hard-and-fast rule.
Sometimes the question arises, whether the run should be measured diagonally along the rising track or horizontally along the table's surface. But it makes so little difference in the result that my AREMA manual for specifying prototype track doesn't even say which to use.
Strictly speaking, the relationship between grade as a percentage and grade as an angle depends on which way you measure the run. But, again, for practical purposes, whichever you assume is of no consequence. You can safely assume in all practical cases that a degree of angle corresponds to 1 3/4 percent. That means that the 10-to-12-degree rule of thumb that you mentioned is 17.5 to 21 percent, which is huge and, it is safe to say, will never work.
What about using a helix? It is a circle of track that rises up using curves, you might be able to fit one into a corner and keep it of plain site. Otherwise you will you use up a whole lot of your layout space going uphill.
I have two levels but don't connect them to keep it simple for track work.
You aren't dealing with diesel or steam locos here. You are dealing with electric motors and therefore there is a lot that goes into this equation. On my table I have three 'levels' the main level is flat, then there is a transition from there up to 7", this took some work because I did not want to burn out my motors every time I pulled a train from level 1 to level 2 and believe me they struggle - unless double or triple headed. The transition from level 2 to level 3 is also a 7" rise. The table is 8'2" x 13'10" and the transitions had to be curved to make them work. But curving your transitions adds more stress to the couplers and trucks... so...I have 2 Lionel GP-30s (TMCC version from 2006 and the Legacy version that came out a couple years ago) with them double-headed I can pull a Dummy GP-30 and 15 PS-1 boxcars. I haven't tried anything longer. I also have the new Legacy WM Challenger and it can pull the 15 PS-1 boxcars as well.I think my grades range from 3.5% to 4%, but am not 100% certain on that. My recommendation is to set it up the way you think you will want it, get the track powered up, and run some test trains. If the engines can handle it then you can go with it... if they can't then modifications need to be made. IMHO, a 14" rise in the area you are describing isn't going to work.
RISE over RUN. Meaning, you need to divide 14" by whatever length in inches you need to get to that level. You get above 5%, your results may be awful.
The rule of thumb for tubular track used to be 1/4" per 10" section of track.
most say 2%. I have done greater. With the newer two motored can diesels with die cast frames and fuel tanks, more grade will work. Also the consist being pulled. Fewer the cars, the more grade you can pull. Sometimes the space dictates the grade.
God bless TCA 05-58541 Benefactor Member of the NRA, Member of the American Legion, Retired Boss Hog of Roseyville , KC&D Qualified
With O gauge what's the most incline i can have for getting up a hill? I'm building a layout with 2 different levels to it but i don't want to have it be a small difference in levels. All these supports for i see to make inclines usually only raise the train about 6 inches off the tables but i wanted to make a higher difference then that. I want to make the difference between the two levels somewhere between 14"-17" i know i'm going to have to use the whole length of the tables to do it but what i'm having trouble figuring is the pitch of the incline. Looked online at different sites and on here and getting alot of different numbers in alot of different measurments. I've heard no more then 2% for every 100 inches and i've heard no more of an incline then 10-12 degrees. The height of the 2nd table isn't finalized just yet but personally i don't want to go less then 14" between the two. The lower table is 8' long and the upper one will be 8'-10' depending on the need. If i have to loop the incline under the upper table to compinsate for the incline it's a possibility i'm willing to have to work with.
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