The flattest part of the yard (where the rail yard would've gone in) was rated at wildly ranging from 2% to 11% with it changing less than a foot from each other using an electronic level to figure it out. If I had to guess, the average for that section is above 4% with that area being the largest area that's relatively flat to start on when I wanted the yard for the layout to be 100% level.
Great for you, I guess you run steam to ensure something that level.
For the original poster, sorry it came to this, just out of curiosity, what did the grades wind up at? 10%?
Your previous estimates of 4% were certainly do-able.
I'm just curious, not trying to add salt to the wound, I'm sure you are disappointed.
Regards, Greg
Visit my site: http://www.elmassian.com - lots of tips on locos, rolling stock and more.
Click here for Greg's web site
The Home of Articulated Ugliness
I am sorry to report that due to the realization of the actual grades in my back yard, the layout I had in mind is not feasible at this time. I may look into it again in the future when we get some landscaping done but for now the large scale protect has been put on indefinite hold.
I just resubscribed to Garden Railways Mag and got a free pdf on building outdoor structures.
The article looks good. The email offer was dated 5/24/10. I think it's available separate for $7.95.
ExP_Razor I'm wondering where I would manage to get hold of something like that or if I would need to scratch build it.
I'm wondering where I would manage to get hold of something like that or if I would need to scratch build it.
You’re on your own (scratch) for the turntable. Do some serious searching here on these pages as there are several over the past couple years. For the round house, have a look over at www.coloradomodel.com , Piko also has one, or if you are very handy you could always build one with cement and stones. As far as details on your masterpiece, do as much (or as little) as you want ensuring you use materials that can withstand the elements.
Tom Trigg
Hey there, another step in the planning, another question to be answered.
I have done more measuring and have decided I could probably fit a turntable and roundhouse into the layout and I'm wondering where I would manage to get hold of something like that or if I would need to scratch build it. With another factor being that I may have underestimated the size I would need to contain it, I'm also wondering how big the diameter should be for the outside wall of the roundhouse given the types of engines I'm planning on modeling.
On the equipment side of things, I have confirmed that the narrow gauge portion of roaring camp was never used for anything other than a tourist railroad and so I'm taking a step back and will be modeling most of the same equipment during the time the stuff was owned by West Side Lumber Co. As a result, if I do DR&W #50, it will not be representing both roads.
In regards to the roundhouse, I'm also debating how much detailing work I could put in to a structure that would be outside at all times without it becoming tedious due to being constantly exposed to the elements.
Well, today we have begun phase two of the track planning (with phase one being the marking of the route), and after getting a few sections of 10ft diameter track I've found out that with the exception of a few places where I might need something slightly tighter (small adjustments to straight aways), the good majority of the layout will have a minimum of 10 feet with quite alot of it being able to take wider curves. There is still a question of slope grades but I think the good majority of the main will be at or below the 4% mark.
The largest sweeping curve on the layout, on estimate, will be close to 40-50 feet and will be done with flex track. I am trying to incorporate flex track into most of the layout though I am collecting single track peaces to judge curves with.
I've discovered the little bounus of the track made by USA trains of having the track joints physically bound together through two small hex head screws in each joint and those I talked to at the shop where I got it showed the difference between standard and narrow tie spacing, to which both LGB and USA come fairly close.
Unless there's anyone that has had trouble with the rail joints I described I will probably take advantage of the option to have them bolting the track sections together, with the main problem to that being the fitting to any flex track where it would be used.
The next step will be leveling the ground to prepare for putting in the rail bed before permanently laying the track sections we've been test fitting.
If it comes down to it I may consider an alternate type of control method for live steamers. I do wonder if anyone still makes an electric K-28 model.
Another question I have is about the Beartrap (Ridgeway) spark arresters the K-28s, now owned by D&S, had during the 90s. Is that at all consistent with how they were while owned by the D&RGW or is it something the D&S did after taking over the Silverton line? I do know they were originally developed by the C&S but I'm not dismissing the possibility that they might've adopted the type for those engines. I personally like the way they looked while equipped with those.
Check to see if the locomotive's wheels are insulated. If they are, then you're in good shape. A few manufacturers offer decoders that drive servos, though I can't remember which models off the top of my head. Install one of those decoders, hook them to the servo, and you're up and running. You'll have to figure out how to get power from the rails to the electronics, but if they're in the tender, that shouldn't be too difficult to add track pick-ups to the tender trucks.
Just keep in mind that live steam locos tend to dribble oil onto the rails, some more than others. Oil attracts dirt, which--if on the rails--insulates the rails from the wheels, meaning you're not getting power to the electronics, which means you're not controlling your train with the reliability you'd otherwise have.
If the locomotive's drivers are not insulated, then you're out of luck on the DCC thing.
My personal opinion is yes, it can be done, but why go through the effort and more importantly the expense? The servo-driving decoders are not cheap, then you have to add the cost of the servos. You can get a 2.4 gHz transmitter/receiver for around $150 that includes the servos and offers proportional control and glitch-proof performance without needing to worry about track power at all. When you want to do more locos, you need only purchase a new receiver and more servos. I've heard people talk of $15 2.4 gHz receivers, and you can get micro servos for as low as $13 each.
Later,
K
A question I have for anyone who does both DCC and life steamers is how well they can be made to work with each other. If I do any of it, it will be after the entire layout is complete but I am curious none the less. I do know that they run off the basis of the DCC decoder being the only thing on the loco pulling power from the tracks, with the purpose of the decoder being to control the regulator, reverser and the like. Part of the reason for asking this is the fact that accucraft no longer makes an electric K-28 but does sell butane powered live steamer versions. If the DCC issue is anything like the very limited number of live steamers I've seen in HO that also have DCC, the decoders actually control servos that operate the manual controls (which in HO is tiny).
I'm not suggesting they're not tight, because that was the primary advantage of narrow gauge railroading--they could fit where standard gauge lines could not. But they are definitely not remotely as tight as anything you're suggesting they may be. I think you'd be surprised at how large they really are. I rode the line a few years ago, and saw nothing that indicated curves out of character to other narrow gauge lines I've ridden in Colorado and Pennsylvania. I'd be surprised if there was anything tighter than 25 to 30 degrees. (nominally a 10' radius in 1:20.3)
You owe it to yourself to contact the Roaring Camp RR and ask them what their curves and grades are. Their chief mechanical/operations guru (I forget what his exact title is) has worked on many 3' gauge tourist operations, including the White Pass, D&RGW, and C&TS. He should be able to tell you exactly how that line stacks up against the others in terms of curves and grades.
(As an aside, the reverse loop at Antonito, which sees K-36s on a routine basis, is around 225' radius, or around 11' radius in 1:20.3.)
Yes. The "short" curve sections are prone to be even wider radii since they only have to turn just a little bit. Curves cause drag on a train, and that makes the locomotive work harder, use more fuel, etc. It was always in the best interests of the railroad to keep curves to a minimum, and where they were needed, to make them as gentle as the topography would allow.
For instance, if you're in a relatively flat field, and you enter headed north and need to leave headed east, you can run north for a while and make a sharp turn to the east, or you can start a gentle turn to the east as soon as you enter the field. Unless there's something in the field (like a building, pond, or something) that would keep you from making that long, gentle turn, the railroad would always opt for the gentle turn. It's easier on the equipment, and it also requires less track, since you're cutting across on an arc of a circle instead of heading up and over on two legs of a square.
Even in spots where the curves are very short? Some of the shortest curved sections are probably only 2 to 3 yards long as measured from the inside rail (only long enough to be supported by a couple of ties), usually with a broader curve connected at one end.
The sharpest curves on the prototype route are probably under 60 ft in diameter, with a guess that they might be as sharp as 40 or even 30 in some spots
I hate to tell you, but you're sadly misinformed on that. Google "Roaring Camp and Big Trees," click on the map, then click on aerial image. (Or use Google Earth.) You can clearly see the tracks--well when they're not under the trees. My rough estimate puts them at around 360 - 400' diameter, which puts them in the neighborhood of around 30 degrees. (Here's a link that translates curves measured in degrees to radius: http://www.trainweb.org/freemoslo/Modules/Tips-and-Techniques/degrees_of_curve_to_radius.htm )
I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, but they're simply not realistic. Yes, the Shays are capable of running through some fairly tight curves, but no railroad civil engineer would ever lay out a railroad with curves that tight. You'd never get a train around it.
Both the heistler and the 3 truck shay I entend on using, the models (and formerly the prototypes) are West Side Lumber Co. engines. The shay is actually a fairly large size (imo) for a narrow gauge of the type, however I have also seen the types of turns it can go around. The sharpest curves on the prototype route are probably under 60 ft in diameter, with a guess that they might be as sharp as 40 or even 30 in some spots (though probably not long enough to contain the entire loco at that sharp a turn).
I'm honestly not sure how that would scale down to the models, I also don't know what the 20 degree radius would translate to.
Would that mean that the 8 foot minimum both the K series and the 3 truck shay has is not prototypical for either loco? I can sort of expect for the K series models to be taking tighter curves than they should but the shay is something that was designed to take sharp turns.
Without a doubt. The Shay--perhaps--could handle curves that tight on the prototype. The Uintah Ry. had a 60-degree curve, which translates to 5' radius in 1:20.3, and ran Shays over that. (They also ran their 2-6-6-2 articulateds over them, but they were designed specifically for those curves.) To my knowledge, that's by far the tightest curve on a common-carrier US 3' gauge railroad. Logging and industrial lines may have had curves similarly tight, but they tended to use much smaller locos.
I don't know what the tightest curve on the D&RGW was, but if it was tighter than 20 degrees, I'd be quite surprised. The EBT, who had locos with similar wheelbases to the D&RGW had a 17-degree curve that they considered very tight.
We rode it in route from Oslo to Bergan two years ago. It is totally electric powered from the hydro-electric station at Kjosfossen. The Oslo Bergan train stops at Myrdal station, 866 meters, where we transferred to the Flam which drops down to the sea level station, 2 meters, I took some pictures of the train but I think better ones are available on-line. A most impressive line.
Rex
kstrongMost all model locomotives can traverse far tighter curves than their full-sized counterparts. Deeper flanges, increased lateral play, and/or blind drivers (drivers without flanges) allow the models to do this. (Some prototype locos also had blind drivers--it's not just a modeling thing.) To keep things in perspective, a "tight" curve on a typical US 3' gauge railroad would scale to roughly 15' radius/30' diameter in 1:20.3. Later,K
Rex in PinetopCheck out the Flam railway in Norway. The maximum gradient is 55%. Braking is done by generators feeding resistor grids on top of the driving cars. Rex
Check out the Flam railway in Norway. The maximum gradient is 55%. Braking is done by generators feeding resistor grids on top of the driving cars.
By the way, I'm not saying that you don't need boosters, I'm just saying that you probably don't need as much power as you seem to think you need. Also, my understanding is that USA locomotives do require more power than most other locomotives. So, if you locomotives were all USA, you would probably need more boosters than if you were running all Aristocraft.
Bob
ExP_Razor It's not 10 trains I will be supporting, the count is for the locos. On the main line I don't expect to have more than five trains , with a sixth being run out of the lumber area between there and the yard.I count:1 switcher for in the yard2 logging locos7 main line locos/helpers
It's not 10 trains I will be supporting, the count is for the locos. On the main line I don't expect to have more than five trains , with a sixth being run out of the lumber area between there and the yard.
I count:
1 switcher for in the yard
2 logging locos
7 main line locos/helpers
Locomotives that are not running will not draw much current. If they have sound decoders that are turned on (making sounds) they will draw more than locos that are just sitting there on the track. Certainly a loco that is not running will not be drawing 3 amps or anything close to it. My four locos that were running, along with three others that were just sitting stationary on the track pulse the current requirements of the lighted (with incandescent not LED lights) totaled less that 8 amps. I'm sure of that because the DCS200 is known to be slightly over rated on it's output, which is supposed to be 8amps with a fan blowing on it. I didn't have a fan on it. That's why on a hot day it tripped out eventually.
BTW, check out the thread called "Gravel Glue" in this forum. Interesting product called "Stabilizer" that seems to work well for holding ballast in place.
Edit: kstrong, here's a photo of the layout done by Dean Lowe, the guy who expressed the tips on both the soldering and the track bed. This is the result of the pea gravel, granite and resin mix. Is this somehow different from most attempts to use the stuff or is something different on this layout that makes it more viable? According to the narrator on the video covering this, the steepest grade on the layout is 3%.
I've not seen Dean's railroad, and can only go from what I'm guessing exists in the photos. The track itself looks like it's "cemented" in with small crusher fines, etc. to give it a more prototypical, scale ballast look. I would bet that's the part that gives the track its solid foundation; that the pea gravel is more of a sub-roadbed. It may also be bonded, but that begs the question of "why?" Unless he specifically likes the aesthetic of the pea gravel, there are easier ways of accomplishing the same thing without relying completely on a bonding agent to hold things in place.
Pea gravel is used in playgrounds specifically because it doesn't lock in place the way crusher fines do, so when kids fall, the ground gives beneath them to cushion the impact. Pea gravel in the environment in the photo of Dean's railroad would do the same thing. I wouldn't step on that track for love or money. (Not that you should make a habit of walking on track, but we all do it.) A solid foundation of crushed stone will lock together and form a hard surface that's not going to give--and will do so without bonding agents of any kind. I've got code 250 rail and once it's got its annual ballasting in the Spring, I can walk on the rails all summer long without worry. It moves with the expansion/contraction (and in Colorado, we get a lot of that), and settles back into place very nicely. The afternoon rains/evening watering help to continually solidify the roadbed.
If it's working for Dean, I can't argue with success. But there are easier ways to accomplish the same goal. My suggestion would be to try the crushed stone, and if there are areas where you have trouble with ballast eroding or pooling, then look into bonding it somehow.
One thing I am curious about is that I noticed that accucraft's 3 truck shay has the same minimum curve radius as the K series locos when in reality, the shays and the heistlers should be able to negotiate much sharper curves. Is this due to an "artificially" increased minimum turn radius for the K series locos or are the geared locos somehow hampered when scaled down?
Most all model locomotives can traverse far tighter curves than their full-sized counterparts. Deeper flanges, increased lateral play, and/or blind drivers (drivers without flanges) allow the models to do this. (Some prototype locos also had blind drivers--it's not just a modeling thing.) To keep things in perspective, a "tight" curve on a typical US 3' gauge railroad would scale to roughly 15' radius/30' diameter in 1:20.3.
300 feet of mountainside to work with is quite a bit of property especially if that's only part of your operation. You said the Nevada County Narrow Gauge Railroad is local to you so I assume you're in CA in the old gold rush area outside of Grass Valley?? Planning for up to 10 trains in that much space sounds like a very major project indeed. Will you be doing the work yourself or is this perhaps a club or museum project? Curious,
I've got jumpers across all of my track joints and it works great. It was a pain cutting all the wires, cleaning the rail and soldering on all those jumpers, but I'm glad I did it. I've had no problems with track power. I just have one set of feeders to my layout. My layout is about 30'x40' with several loops and sidings. My DCC controls are all in my back porch. I use a DT400R and a UR4R to control trains. With My DCS200 I can run three trains without any trouble. If I add a fourth I do eventually overload and shut down the system. So far that has only happened on hot days. If the weather is cool I can get away with the fourth train. All of my turn outs are manual. Eventually I will power them and keep the stationary decoders inside the back porch. I only have one UR91 and it's just laying on the floor of my back porch. The only time I have transmission trouble is when I'm laying on the ground next to a train and the throttle is on the ground with me between it and the UR91. Then if I just lift it up a little I get the transmission to go through.
Bob in Southwest Michigan (Kalamazoo)
Get the Garden Railways newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month