I'm new to this and am trying to find a 4X8 layout to build. I like this one, but having trouble understanding the plan. It says it has a max grade of 3.6, but nothing on the plan seems to show grade like some of the plans do. Also, the top dotted line, I'm assuming is a tunnel, but it is drawn over the station and bank. I guess you have two different levels, but I am having trouble figuring out what is on each level.
Hi mlf, and welcome. I don't have MRextra and can only see the thumbnail of the plan, but it seems it has two separate loops with a shared track at the bottom. The smaller loop is a simple loop through the shared track, with almost half of it hidden track (the dotted line) and the larger loop (with a tunnel in the upper right) runs on top of this.
I can't see any elevations on the thumbnail, but I would guess that the shared piece of track is middle elevation, with the smaller loop going down and the larger loop going up, creating sufficient height for the lower loop. The exact heights for the different parts of the loops are not given, and is for you to decide to get the two loops to work.
Best regards,Svein
Thanks for the response Svein. Like you said, half of the smaller loop is hidden in a tunnel indicated by the dotted line. What I don't understand though, is that dotted line is drawn through 3 different structures, Mooney's Plumbing, the Station, and the Bank. Since the dotted line doesn't dissappear and reappear when it's drawn through these structures seems to indicate the tunnel is above those structures. Again, I'm new to this, but can't visualize a tunnel through a hill side being above structures.
Welcome to the hobby and the forum.
mlfIt says it has a max grade of 3.6, but nothing on the plan seems to show grade like some of the plans do.
The grade is probably actually steeper than that, unless the builder used signficantly substandard clearances. And that's before allowing for the extra effective grade created by the curves.
It may be that the author (who is not the builder) wasn't able to make elevation measurements on the constructed layout and used an estimate for the grade.
The track plan this layout was based on is the "Buckley & Onarca RR" from the December 1966 Model Railroader (reprinted in Track Planning Ideas from Model Railroader, 1981). That track plan does have elevations, and the grades seem to be above 4.7% before allowing for the extra effective grade from curves. But it does seem to be based on adequate clearances, at least. The switching lead into the yard would also be a very steep uphill shove in the yard, which is not ideal.
A tightly curved 4.7% grade is very steep, and it would take some precise construction to make it work – and probably then only for short trains of short cars. The March 2017 layout would require similar precision. The 2017 layout seems to be placed against one or two walls, which puts a good portion of it out of easy reach for most. Most folks prefer access on at least three sides (including both long sides) for 4-foot-wide benchwork, since more than a 30” reach over scenicked layout is more than most would like.
If you have enough room for a 4X8 “island” along with adequate aisles, you may have room to expand the published plan to 5X9 or 5X10, which would ease the grades.
Alternatively, you could look at a similar plan with less or no grade, such as this HO 4X8 track plan.
mlfAlso, the top dotted line, I'm assuming is a tunnel, but it is drawn over the station and bank.
That track is below the station, bank, etc. Note that in the photos, the bank building is elevated in order to create necessary clearance for the steeply descending track below. My sense is that the published layout as drawn would be fairly challenging for most newcomers to the hobby.
Good luck with your layout.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
The dotted lines are hidden trackage.
This plan has 2 buildings with track inside, the furniture company in the upper left and the engine house lower right.
There are 2 tracks on the right end that curve into a tunnel under the mountain. The one furtherest to the right has grade going down so that it will pass under the bank and station and come out next to the creamery. The other one has a grade going up and comes out of the tunnel next to the bank.
The curve on the left is down grade from St. Albans to White River junction.
This plan has limited information and you will have to work out where the grades start and end, what each grade needs to be, and what elevation each part of the layout is.
If this is a first layout, I suggest you try a plan that shows elevation and where grades start or is all on one level.
Good luck
Paul
How about not building the hidden loop and grades and building a flat layout something like this?
CVermont_zpswenw7wfb by Donald Schmitt, on Flickr
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
Byron, I do plan to increase the size of the layout whatever is needed to make a 22" min radius, so hopefully that will help with the steep grade problem. I've started playing around with xtrkcad. I guess if I increased the width and length by 8", that would accomodate the 22" curves, correct? I want to keep the width as narrow as I can so I won't have a problem with reach.
That is very helpful info Paul. I definitely better understand the layout now. I realize this might be a bit of a challenge, especially for a first layout. But I'm not one to easily get frustrated, and I like a challenge, so I just might give it a try.
The one turnout in the lower right hand side where the track "Y's" off into 2 before it goes in the two tunnels.........would that be a curved turnout? Who makes those for 22"? I guess the rest of the track would be a combo of flex and sectional?
Good suggestion DSchmitt. I guess if I get two frustrated with trying to lay it out the way the plans call, perhaps I'll give that a try. I'm hoping that someone else on the forum, or some other forum, attempts to build this layout.
mlf I guess if I increased the width and length by 8", that would accomodate the 22" curves, correct?
Note that there is no magic in a published track plan, so once you increase the size overall there may be better options.
mlfThe one turnout in the lower right hand side where the track "Y's" off into 2 before it goes in the two tunnels.........would that be a curved turnout?
As drawn I believe that it’s a straight turnout, but you could try a curved turnout. Depending on the brand of track you choose, these are often quite a bit longer than straight turnouts of similar frog number, so they aren’t always the “silver bullet” one might hope for.
Edit: By the way, if you decide to increase the minimum radius to 22” (which is generally a good thing), you’ll want to be sure that the turnouts are a good match in terms of frog number (otherwise the functional minimum radius is compromised by tighter turnouts). #5 turnouts are a good match for 22” radius curves, as are the Atlas Customline “#4s”, which are actually #4½. By contrast, the Atlas SnapSwitches (both 18” and 22” radius) have a frog that is relatively much sharper than a 22” radius curve. "True" #4s are also relatively sharper than 22" curves.
If you are considering curved turnouts, note that the Walthers Code 83 curved turnouts are actually sharper than advertised on the inner curve by about 2”. They're also quite long for a given frog number.
Welcome to the forums! The title of your post caught my eye (see my location).
If you have the room you could go to a 5' width, as 30" reach is considered "normal". Unless you have short arms or your layout is quite high, you should be able to reach to the center without much problem. Set a surface up at the height you plan to have your layout, put some mock ups about the height of trees and buildings you are planning. With no tracks in the center of the layout you might even be able to sneak in an extra couple of inches.
For the grade problem, can you lengthen the layout a little? Each extra foot in length you add two feet to reduce the degree of grade.
Another thing, unless you plan to follow the plan as closely as possible, you could put a view block down the middle. I did this with my current 4'x6' and it makes the trains go somewhere. The view block is just high enough so that I cannot see what's on the other side. I can stand at the end and see both sides when needed. You can use buildings, trees, tunnels, bridges and rocks to disguise the transition from one side to the other. I used a deep rock cut on one end and a clump of trees on the other end of mine.
It would help if they had added the elevation figures, but....
Though I am planning an around the room shelf, this one has possibilities for expanding and having the center open. I hadn't seen this layout yet, as my friend still has the MR issue and it hasn't been added to the Data Base yet. It will take some modifications, but I think it may be a good base plan for me to start with. There are a couple of others that are similar and I will put them all together and see what I can come up with.
Have fun,
Richard
I'm just guessing, as most of us probably are, but it may be that both loops have grade changes. If you started an incline at the tower on the outer left loop, running clockwise, to the obvious high/low spot between the bank and station, hold level until the turnout at the tank, then decline to the switch at the yard office.. With the left inner loop start a decline after crossing the road at the grocery store until reaching the low spot, then starting an incline back to the yard office. It would leave you with two steep inclines on the two inner loops, but can't see much other way that doesn't call for the tricky trackwork of turnouts on a grade.
Just my perception.
EDIT: Looking at it from this point of view, it would mean the wooded area across the middle would be an incline between the two main levels.
Good luck,
Gosh, I don't know. Seems like you see it different than me. Don't now why they would not have shown the grades on the plans.
mlfDon't now why they would not have shown the grades on the plans.
As noted earlier
cuyamaIt may be that the author (who is not the builder) wasn't able to make elevation measurements on the constructed layout and used an estimate for the grade.
The original 1966 plan had grades on both loops to split the grade between them, but the grades were still very steep and would make it difficult to switch cars.
I've never seen anyone else try to build it -- and in the intervening 50 years layout design thinking has broadened a bit.
yeah, I might have to rethink my plans on building this. I did get the track layed out in xtrkcad with 22" radius curves and got everything connected. It is almost identical to the plans, but I had to tweak a few places to get a couple of tracks connected. Didn't indicate any grades on the layout though. I know it has a parameter for max grade you can set. I'll set that to 4 and see if I can get it to work out. If not, perhaps I will tweak the layout or choose another one. I believe the software let's you "run a train" also. I'm assuming that feature will let you choose a certain locomotive and flag any problems it might encounter with the design.
Based on the comments you and others have made about the steep grades on this layout, I wouldn't even attempted it with the 18" radius the plan calls for. Pehaps the 22" version will make it doable though.
mlf I believe the software let's you "run a train" also. I'm assuming that feature will let you choose a certain locomotive and flag any problems it might encounter with the design.
I would be surprised if the program recognizes subtleties such as the need for a longer transition from level-to-grade (and back) for steeper grades and not changing grades too close to a turnout. Many published speculative plans ignore those factors, which combine to make the actual grade if built steeper than the grade published with the plan.
Again, in your expanded space, there will be many alternatives that would likely look and operate better.