My layout design

[lionel2986]

Hey zeke and lionroar,

I haven't really worked on the layout since my dad left for Europe (its in his finished attic). That and I just checked the temperature in the train room. Its 95 degrees right now :) Thats about the hottest I've seen it this year. I'm also taking a summer math course at my college so that takes up most my time. 

I checked the lionel catalogue and it says the bridge is 4 3/4" so I used that height. I also tried to make that inner loop with the downgrade larger by spreading out the middle loop and outer loop switches (much like lionroar did in his picture). It's going to be tight so I won't be able to see if it works until I set up the track, test it out and do fine tweaking that I can't do on RR-track software. I very much like the "D" configuration but I'll have to wait until my dad gets back in September if I go with that. He doesn't want me using his saw when hes away. Before he left I cut all the wood for the planned "T" layout. 

I'm really looking forward to this layout. I just picked up a Lionel New Haven EP-5 and I can't wait to run it. I set up a little loop with O-27 track and it handles it nicely. 

[Anonymous]

any updates? I am curious on your track plans

[Anonymous]

I have a 3.25% grade uphill and a 3.5% grade downhill. What is the general rule for grades? I could make that grade much lighter. I have that whole back stretch to work with. Downhill will require a block with less voltage supplied. I have 4 controls on the ZW and 3 lines of track (might make that two depending on spacing). I was thinking of hooking up the downhill block to its own control and reducing that voltage to almost nothing. I have some tweaking to do.

OUCH!!!!

I've ventured over to Fife's a couple times and I can tell you 3.25% is a bit much.  Because of testing on his layout I have kept all the inclines on my layout at less than 2% and that makes for a challenge, believe me.  Also, O-27 curves aren't recommended for grades.  I would go will nothing less than O-31, or even O-42 for curved inclines - O-27 is just really hard on engines pulling a grade.  Also, where you think down hill runs are OK for steeper grades, I would caution you here as well.  If you HAVE to go with steeper down grades, consider at least 2 if not 3 straights after the grade to allow the engines so slow a bit before negotiating a curve.  If you have to have a curve at the end of a down grade, you should consider super elevating the outside rail to compensate for centrifigal force...

Also, if you have the room you could turn this into more of a 'D' configuration... will post an example in a few mins...

However, with a 5 inch clearance for the bridge the best I could do is a 3.9% grade.

[Eriediamond]

I see what you mean, but I think that the approach to the bridge is the longer run from the back of the table and the shorter run that loops down underneath is going to be all downhill, so gravity would assist the train....  It would make no difference in going the other way, which I think is the reverse of the train direction he indicated --

"I have a 3.25% grade uphill and a 3.5% grade downhill. What is the general rule for grades? I could make that grade much lighter. I have that whole back stretch to work with."

Jim, I see what you mean now and agree with your reasoning here. I was thinking of the the train pulling up that grade. Looks to be plenty of room on that back stretch to make a reasonable approach to the bridge. In my opinion here, I think that would be the better thing to do. I'm only thinking of the problems with those switches near the bridge on the lower level by lowering the lower track under the bridge. Ken 

[Brutus]

I see what you mean, but I think that the approach to the bridge is the longer run from the back of the table and the shorter run that loops down underneath is going to be all downhill, so gravity would assist the train....  It would make no difference in going the other way, which I think is the reverse of the train direction he indicated --

"I have a 3.25% grade uphill and a 3.5% grade downhill. What is the general rule for grades? I could make that grade much lighter. I have that whole back stretch to work with."

[Eriediamond]

You might want to have the underneath track actually go down some as it comes to the bridge.  In other words, you raise up most of the track about an inch or so with a foam board above the table height, then the rise on the track to the  bridge is less.  The track that goes underneath actually goes down an inch or so, under the bidge, and then up to meet the regular track.  Does that make sense?

I may be missing something here, if so my apologies to Jim. The problem I see here is the grade in the track from under the bridge where it loops around to go over the bridge on the inner loop. If we lower the track that goes under the bridge we won't have to have the bridge as high from the layout base. However two things still remain constant: 1) the vertical distance from the lower track to the track on the bridge, and 2) the distance (length of track) from under the bridge to the bridge. Grade percentage still remains the same. Only two things again can change that percentage. Change the vertical distance or change the travel distance. Ken

[lionelsoni]

I use 6 1/4 inches between O27 and O34 curves.  With that spacing, I can cram a double crossover into a corner using O27 turnouts.  The outer track of course retains the minimum radius of O34 (15 3/4 inches), because it passes through the non-diverging parts of the turnouts.

[Brutus]

According to my Peter Riddle book on toy train track planning a 4 inch center to center spacing is good when you are using wider diameter curves, like 072 etc.  When using the tighter diameter curves, he recommends using a wider spacing, because the car ends swing out farther.  He recommends using 5 1/2 inchs center to center of O31.  Just FYI.  Also, in the RR Tracks program, you can set the squares down to every 6 inches, which helps a lot.  Too bad it won't go down to 1 or 2 inches.

[Brutus]

You might want to have the underneath track actually go down some as it comes to the bridge.  In other words, you raise up most of the track about an inch or so with a foam board above the table height, then the rise on the track to the  bridge is less.  The track that goes underneath actually goes down an inch or so, under the bidge, and then up to meet the regular track.  Does that make sense?

[gwg50]

I like it. looks like a fun layout.

[fifedog]

lionel2986 - My layout is an elongated figure-8, with a climb of 5 1/2 inches to cross itself on a trestle.  It's approximately a 3.2% grade over 14 feet of track, and my engines are really put to the test pulling a freight.  Engines with speed control have the muscle to make it.

That small O-27 loop of track leading up to your bridge I think will be a mighty challenge for most engines.  At the very least, I'd set this section of trackage up first to see if your fleet could make it running light.

If it's me, I'm encorporating that bridge with that inside mainline,and perhaps even passing under it with the outside main using a 90 degree crossing.

Just suggestions.  You'll figure it out, I'm sure.

[lionel2986]

what are the dimentions?

Each box is 1 foot. So the room is 10.5 feet by 13 feet. The layout is 13 feet long and extends 7.5 feet.

Looks great to me - I think a poster above is worried that the curved sections are too close together and trains will hit each other....  I'm not sure how much clearance is needed.

 

I'm going with 4 inches from center rail to center rail. Is that fine? I can't figure out how many inches the tracks are apart from each other with this program without really straining my eyes. So my design might not work out at all. I just tried to space them a track or two's width (in the program) apart from each other. Not sure how accurate the widths of the tracks are in this program.

 

 

HERCULES - a good name for the engine that can make that climb on your inner loop track.

I have a 3.25% grade uphill and a 3.5% grade downhill. What is the general rule for grades? I could make that grade much lighter. I have that whole back stretch to work with. Downhill will require a block with less voltage supplied. I have 4 controls on the ZW and 3 lines of track (might make that two depending on spacing). I was thinking of hooking up the downhill block to its own control and reducing that voltage to almost nothing. I have some tweaking to do.

make sure you check "bad idea #1" in another post.

Just checked Frank's thread and he responded to my question about his grade %. It sounds like he is having trouble with a grade less than 3%. Guess I'm going to have to try it out and see if I can control it with a separate Voltage block. I like the trail and error method more than the software.

Nice looking schematic, just the same.

Do you have a layout like this plan? Any pictures?



Thanks everybody for the suggestions. I've avoided many problems posting ideas on these forums from people that seem to have tried everything :)

[fifedog]

HERCULES - a good name for the engine that can make that climb on your inner loop track.

Be careful with that long straight tangent of track that I believe you are putting by the wall.  What fits on a diagram doesn't necessarily translate onto layout.

Nice looking schematic, just the same.

[Brutus]

Looks great to me - I think a poster above is worried that the curved sections are too close together and trains will hit each other....  I'm not sure how much clearance is needed.

[lionelsoni]

I had long intended to implement prototypical three-aspect block signalling on my layout and had amassed a drawer full of various appropriate signals.  This would have required my insulating an outside rail of O27 tubular track over the entire layout to make the control rails I would need to detect occupancy.  I even designed a way for the signals to communicate bi-directionally through the control rails.  But, when I went to figure out where to put the signals, I realized that I could not find practical locations that made sense.  So I went to plan B.

I decided to try to improve on the typical two-aspect toy-train signal that goes red when the locomotive arrives and reverts back to green when the last car passes.  I have a circuit that allows me to adjust the turnoff time for red and yellow to simulate a train's passing through the (imagined) blocks after the signal.  The green can be set to shut off after about a minute, to save the lamp.  It can also be arranged to come back on or stay on when there is any voltage on the track, so that a train does not approach and run past a dark signal, which is a prototypical no-no.

The circuit works with either a color-light signal or a semaphore (at least a Marx one), driven not by its original two-aspect coil but by a Tortoise stall motor under the table.

I hope to get a few of these working on the layout soon.

[Anonymous]

what are the dimentions?

[Anonymous]

make sure you check "bad idea #1" in another post.

[lionelsoni]

Unless you actually want to implement something like positive train control and make the signals stop the train, there is no reason why the block used to power the train have to correspond to the blocks for signalling.

[lionel2986]

Grayson - I took that into account and plan to elevate the 0-27 track to be level with the 022 switches by using a roadbed. I've seen it done with gargraves in a Lionel VHS I have and in my opinion, it looks nice. Thanks for the heads up though and don't hesitate to mention any other problems I might run into :)

[magicman710]

I dont think its a good idea to intermix #22 switches and 027 track. With as much switches as you have, there with be alot of raised track and stress on track joints. It may not look good on your layout.

 

Just my ,

Grayson

[lionel2986]

Maybe I will remove the inside loop and somehow make the outside loop longer by looping around twice. That way I can have blocks. I've always liked seeing the block signals illuminate and 'control' the train. I'll see if anything comes to mind.I've got time. I still have to square the benchwork, screw in the plywood, brace the legs and buy more O42 track and switches.

I also wanted to somehow incorporate a 90 degree crossover but I like the blinking bridge overpass more.

[Anonymous]

looks good...

You would need 4 blocks per line to run two trains.  2 trains on each line may be a bit much but what the heck!   And no you can not run 'blocks' the traditional way with TMCC... as far as I know.  You should check with Wes Witmore his layout videos really help to understand block wiring and what can be done...

[lionel2986]

Hi all,
Finally got to work on my layout design with RR-track. Not too happy with this program, but that’s another story. Spent about a week or so designing and tweaking it but I'm happy with my design. I will need to tweak more once I layout the track. I was going to go with 2 mainlines but figured out a way to have 3. Do you think its too cluttered and maybe should go back to 2 mainlines? The outer most loop consists of O42-O34-O42 spiral curves and the inner two consist of O-27 curves. I'm going with Lionel O22 switches because I like how they look and they are reliable. The rest of the track will be O-27 because I prefer those looks to the O track. Power will be supplied by a new ZW with two 180 watt powerhouses. Would like to setup a block system to run 2 trains on each line, and would also like to get the original Lionel trainmaster command. Do you think my loops are too short for a two train block system? How many blocks do I need per loop if I want to run two trains on each? Could I control a TMCC train on a track with a conventional engine and have the blocking system functional, or do I need to incorporate a switch to disable the block system when running TMCC? I'm hoping the block system will still work and block TMCC engines that I let amateur friends control to reduce the chance of crashing. I forgot to mention there is an access hole where the diner is. I also have 2 triangular pieces of plywood that will keep that outside loop from hanging over the edge in those two inside corners.

 

Here it is: