Help me Please. While some of you are tinkering in your train rooms I have a little experiment for you. Take a 6' board and lift one end 2 1/2 to 3 inches. Now stand back and tell me how bad this looks. I know that this is pretty steep but because of concessions to the Wife on the size of my layout I need to get enough hiegth to run one track over another for about 8' and I think I can squeeze out 6' to 8' for the up and return grades.
Thanks in advance.
Ron
I refuse to grow up!!!
In 6 feet you are looking at just over a 4% grade. In 8 feet its 3%. Forget small or not-great-running locomotives. A lash-up of 2 or 3 high quality diesels and you should be OK. Big, heavy steam (I'm thinking, for example BLI/Precision Y6B) might just handle it. Geared locos such as Bachmann 3-truck shay will do well, just as they did on the prototype. Good luck.
Could you possibly lower the grade for the lower track. In other words, if you only want a 2% grade for the upper track, can you find a way for the lower track to descend at a 2% grade under the overhead track? It can come back up again after the crossunder.
I have used this at two points in my layout plan.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
hi,
How easy it seems, how hard reality often is...you will need vertical easements at both the top and the bottom of the grade. It might easily cost you 2 times a foot.
smile
Paul
Ron,
the impact of grades on layouts is often underestimated. Anything above 3 % should only be used on logging layouts, operated with geared steam.
In the real world, grades usually stay well below 2 %, although there are some places, where grades run up to 7 % (Bernina line in Switzerland).
What Paul is hoping you'll see immediately is that you don't have the full 6'. You must start at zero grade and rise up in a vertical curve to whatever the grade must now be to get the elevation you desire and transition back to level again at the top. Those two sections eat into your usable constant grade hugely, so much so that you will end up with 4.75-5% grade when the transitions are engineered into the grade. And as your grade steepens, your transitions have to be that much longer to get from level to constant grade and back to level again.
The suggestion to split the difference between the lower and upper levels where they cross is a good compromise.
Crandell
hon30critter Ron Could you possibly lower the grade for the lower track. In other words, if you only want a 2% grade for the upper track, can you find a way for the lower track to descend at a 2% grade under the overhead track? It can come back up again after the crossunder. I have used this at two points in my layout plan. Dave
I would really consider Dave's recommendation of lowering the base track. Even if you need to alter the benchwork or cut into the foam( foam base). You can lessen the grade to something more managable in that 6ft. You only need 3" of clearance. A ballasted deck bridge done with 1/4" ply can keep that railhead to railhead dimension to about 3 3/8- 3 1/2". You can apply side bridge girders or earlier period wood truss to the plywood sides. If you can depress that lowered track 1', your only looking at a rise of 2 1/2". This may be much more workable and can include the vertical easments needed.
A basic track plan would really help.
Modeling B&O- Chessie Bob K. www.ssmrc.org
I started with a 12' layout and grades approaching 4% it didn't work. My cross over is 1/2 up and 1/2 down for the two grades. As mentioned.
Lee
Hey everyone, Thank You for all the advice and information. My plan was to hide about half of the mainlines total length under itself down one side of the entire layout, creating the illusion of a longer run. Below is my original track plan for my mainline but I have shortened the length of the layout from 12' to 10' and I was allready having an issue with the grade before. So I guess I will have to rethink the entire idea on my mainline, I am also planning on as large of a turn radius as I can so that I can run some longer steam locomotives and passenger trains. My whole railway is based on a fictional excursion and railway museum type of operation with some freight operations, this way I do not have to limit my trains to any one era.
Again Thank You for all your input and advice.
[View:http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/themes/trc/utility/:350:0]
Is this to be a semi-permanant or permanant layout? Don't know if your module design is for ease of construction or for future diassasembly. Is this around the walls?
The elevations of the main are changed throughout the modules, I suggest this, as a permanant layout done open grid w/ risers would simplify an eliminate quite a few issues w/ the elevations. You can deck the open areas in ply or foam for scenery and still have removable scenery sections to access that hidden mainline if for some reason underbenchwork access becomes cumbersome. To gain added clearance for lowered track, the upper portion can rest on a much thinner ply set on risers, 1/4 or 3/8" should work if you set the blocks/ risers properly.. Remember that running track over track w/ sw motors above will add additional interference. May need to shift that lowered track or offset linkage from sw motors.
hi
you are in big trouble, if you keep those 34 radii the usable length of your passing siding will be about one foot.
paul
Although you could use two curved turnouts, say Shinohara #7.5's, and extend your siding somewhat.
I don't really understand the need for the hidden trackage as you show it.
If you modify your layout plan you might not need as much of a grade.
The problem is you have two places where the track has to pass over the other, one at each end. Cutting that back to one location should help.
Make two laps of the layout, with one lap "inside" the other Have the laps cross on one end only. A train now has most of a full lap around the layout to gain (or lose) elevation. That should drop the grade well below 3%.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
i posted it already in one of your other threads:
About a 3,5% grade, shortening your layout till 10 feet will not help you.
Smile
Hi and Thank You All for your input. Paul I still have the track plan from one of my previus posts.
I was falling into an old habit of trying to shove to much track into to small of a space, my thinking was that if a train on the mainline was to disappear under a hillside and by adding a siding to pull onto allowing another train to use the mainline, that this would create the illusion that the first train had completed a longer journey as it had been hidden from view. Just trying to play with the minds eye so to speak.
Anyways I can now can see that this is just not going to work. To adress some of the questions about my modules, currently I am building this in a 20' X 24' shop that is primarily my Wifes glass and pottery studio and my workshop. The whole idea is that the layout can be dis-assembled and stored when the Wife has large art projects going on, and we know that we will be moving in the near future so it is portable. I also hope to have a larger space in time and this way the layout is easily expandable as space permits.
Again Thank You for all the input and please keep posting any thoughts you may have.
Drgn
What about a double loop?
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
DrgnTrappr The whole idea is that the layout can be dis-assembled and stored when the Wife has large art projects going on, and we know that we will be moving in the near future so it is portable. I also hope to have a larger space in time and this way the layout is easily expandable as space permits. Again Thank You for all the input and please keep posting any thoughts you may have. Ron
The whole idea is that the layout can be dis-assembled and stored when the Wife has large art projects going on, and we know that we will be moving in the near future so it is portable. I also hope to have a larger space in time and this way the layout is easily expandable as space permits.
Ron, It seems that if this "modular" layout will need to be setup and dissasembled on a regular basis, you may just what to keep it to a much simpler design. You are already facing troubles with the elevations. By simplifying the plan and keeping the track on one level you will have a better running layout. I could see all sorts of troubles in the construction and trying to have take apart sections of elevated and breaks on grade and turns could eventually turn into an operational nightmare every time you set it up. I would suggest part of the layout incorporate a switching yard on 2 of the modules and then do as a modular club for the remainder. If your wife needs some room, you could at least keep a portion of the yard/ switching sections up and running. This may give her the space she needs and you could still "play"
Eventually if you aquire a new space, the yard modules and posibly other turn and industry portions may be better suited to fit into a new plan. Modules with various curved/ elevated track would most likely have to be scrapped. Just a thought.
drgn trappr
You can do what you want in a 10' X 4' and have continuous running with I think 21" to 22" curves some what the way I set mine up. A switch yard would have to be on the inside of the inside track. The train goes by on the outside once then on the inside track next time around. My yard caused me to increase that spot to 5' to accommodate the yard tracks. Here is an old picture that might help to explain my system. I hope my attempt to explain the design helps.
Hey Lee,
Great photo and I think that is more in line with what I will end up with. I am really glad I posted this before I actually started laying track, otherwise I would have a real mess on my hands. Things are at somewhat of a stand still for a few days, I need another sheet of plywood and a couple of sheets of foam to finish the last two modules, and I promised the Wife I would not spend anymore money on trains this month. Good thing it was the short month,LOL.
Thanks
Ok lets try this again! Here is a new track plan showing the module configerations. I also wanted to adress some questions. The layout will need to be taken down from time to time to allow the wife and I full access to the studio space but the layout will be up 80% of the time. Alignment should not be any problem, my Wife is a mixed media sculpter and I by default have become her mechanical engineer, she designs and creates the pieces then I have to figure out how to make them transportable. This sometimes requires a piece to be made in a moduler fashion with precission alignment when re- assembled at a gallery or show.
My layout now consists of two 2' X 4' , one 2' X 8', one 2 1/2' X 8', and one 2 1/2' X 3 1/2' modules. We know that there is a move planned in the not to distant future, so this will allow for the move also, it will also be readily expandable as more room becomes available. The move should be into a new studio and it will be two stories with the Wife down stairs and my space upstairs.
Please look this over and tell me what you think, it has been a long time since my last layout and now that I have the time I want to get this phase started.
The green line is the main line the red is industry sidings and the brown may be a future frieght line. The main line is my only concern now so that I can get the track down and run some trains.[View:http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/themes/trc/utility/:550:0]
ask Lee about the scale he is modelling and a precise plan.
It looks to me to be N scale, and why would I want to copy his layout. My bench work is all ready framed out and will grow. I liked the plan you sent on my earlier post but then I made some changes to the bench work, have to keep the Wife happy. I also dont need all that staging just yet and that as you know eats up scenery. I wish I had more time on one of those cad programs but what ever or how ever I draw it up will likely change as the track gets laid. You know that goes.
Again Thank you for the input
What you do not need yet, you will need tomorrow.......and since the staging was under the visible part of the layout it would not cost you scenery-wise.
It is time to start being un-lazy .......and start making drawings with scale switches and radii.
I doubt very much if the chosen construction method with foam is the most easy when it comes to a sectional plan with so many grades. The old-fashioned "cookie-cutter" all plywood construction is pretty straight forward. And stay away from short pieces of plywood, when longer pieces are bend and properly supported its strength will amaze you.
As said before, the passing siding is way to short, nor do i see any of your museum buildings. Smaller radii will give you the length to develop a station; though your wish to run long equipment might lead to a choice for N-scale.
Paulus Jas hi, ask Lee about the scale he is modeling and a precise plan. Paul
ask Lee about the scale he is modeling and a precise plan.
Did I miss something? Is the OP using "N" scale?
I'm using "HO". A 5' X 10' table would have bigger curves and be a better design. that's why additions to my lay out are 5' wide. On 4' table, track has to come to the edge. I use a 1 1/2" plastic shield to avoid off the table excursions. Elevation is carried through the curves and from one end to the other on a 10' length. Now I remember, The cross under curve is just under 20" on my 4' section. The reverse loop in the middle of the lay out is 18" radius, but would not be used if larger radius is required. My 2-6-6-2 and 6 axle PA1s will travel smoothly any where on my lay out.Of course I will defer to older modelers. Just my suggestions. OH, if I were to start over from scratch, I would probably do around the wall instead.
Good luck.
Morning Everyone,
Paul; Your right I do need to take the time and either learn to use the Atlas free program or find one that is easier to use.I am also probably getting ahead of myself on some of the other details too, like building placement and such. You are also right about using wood framework and plywood sub-roadbed, I have been thinking this and will only be using the foam to fill in for the scenery. The last real layout I worked on was in the late seventies no computor design then we just drew up a rough sketch and then made changes as we laid the track to make it fit. It was also just a huge table of four sheets of plywood with access holes that you had to crawl to get to. the layout was a scaled down copy of Riverside International Raceway and train ops around Perris Ca. and March Air force base.
Thank you for the drawing out the plans like that, today I am going to set up a tripod and use a yard stick to draw out some differant curve radiuses on my bench work, just to get an idea of what they will look like. It has been a long time and now that the Wife is giving me full support in this I am probably trying to move a little to fast on this, but that is why I have been posting all the rather dumb questions. The hobby has realy gone a long way since my active days and I have a lot of Catching up to do.
Lee; I am sorry, When I looked at the photo of your layout and because of the lens you used I was trying to judge the scale by the length of the trains in the far end of the photo, and I just assumed that you were modeling in N scale. Yesterday I had taken an 8' length of 1" X 3" and layed it on my bench work put out a couple of pieces of flex track, a terminal track and found an old transformer. Then I pulled out an old engine and some rolling stock out of a box thatI have been toting around the country for over twenty years. after putting together my little train I was a little surprised at how long it looked on that 8' board. I even thought about having to switch to N scale for just a moment. But then thinking old eyes and big hands, N scale is not going to work. As a little experiment I lifted the end of the board up 3 1/2 inches and realized how silly this grade looked but was amazed that the engine that has not seen the light of day for twenty years pulled six boxcars up the grade, but when I added another inch it tried but just spun the wheels.
Well I realy appreciate all of your patience and I am sure there will be a lot of "dumb questions' from me as this endeavor takes shape. Thank You!
What you mean looks bad! Looks about the same as the 4% grade from the mainline interchange to the colliery at the high end of the valley on the Tomikawa Tani Tetsudo - except that mine is shaped more like a garden hose that's been tossed carelessly on the ground in loops and wiggles.
OTOH, I'm not trying to run 50 car trains of auto racks. A typical train has a couple of 4-wheel goods wagons and a short coach, usually with an 0-6-0 teakettle on each end.
If you combine that g-nasty grade with short cars and small locomotives, preferably in a 'themed' way, it can be made to look good and operate well. If you want it to look like the (fill in Class 1 of choice) main line....
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Hi Chuck,
Now you have peaked my interest, can you post a pic ?
DrgnTrappr Hi Chuck, Now you have peaked my interest, can you post a pic ?
My inability to post pictures, or even get my wife to point HER digital camera at the layout, is a standing joke around the forums.
Actually, a photo wouldn't show much - just a bunch of tracks wandering around inside a steel framework, rather like the Himalayas ride at Disney World before they put the skin on...