The room is 14' x 11' It is based on the Norfolk & Western Abingdon Track Plan. HO Rail. I'm using Tillng Track.
I'm newish at this. Although I half built a small layout 35yrs ago. I used Scarm to track plan. I'm need some serious critical suggestions.
Here some clearer pics of separate levels. Please point out problems i may encouter. I plan to build individual levels with struts. Is this a doable operational layout. I dont have any old trains as I only have 2 at this stage. So i dont need to have low elevations. I also dont like the idea of too much track but I like a long journey. So gonna use i few tunnels trees gullys that will hide track but not trains as much. I'm more interested in the scenery aspect as well.
Welcome jTrackin.
I guess you meant Tillig track? I had to search for it to find out what it is.
Also, no pictures of your track plan. If you go to the "General Discussion" forum, the first two post, or sticky notes, from Steven Otte, explain how to post pictures.
Mike.
My You Tube
Welcome to the forum. Your posts will be moderated of the next 9 do not be frustrated.
As said above, pics require you to follow the rules. Google pics don't usually work, it that's what you tried, nor can you "attach" a pic. Some of us old guys don't see so well, so the default font works better than the small font you used.
We have some professional layout designers int he forum that will weigh in when we can see you plan. You've already stated you avoided one of the most common problems, trying to squeeze too much in in a given area.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
jTrackin The room is 14' x 11' It is based on the Norfolk & Western Abingdon Track Plan. HO Rail. I'm using Tillng Track. I'm newish at this. Although I half built a small layout 35yrs ago. I used Scarm to track plan. I'm need some serious critical suggestions. Here some clearer pics of separate levels. Please point out problems i may encouter. I plan to build individual levels with struts. Is this a doable operational layout. I dont have any old trains as I only have 2 at this stage. So i dont need to have low elevations. I also dont like the idea of too much track but I like a long journey. So gonna use i few tunnels trees gullys that will hide track but not trains as much. I'm more interested in the scenery aspect as well. Photos https://www.flickr.com/photos/155241874@N04/34489166600/in/dateposted-public/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/155241874@N04/34744094611/in/dateposted-public/
Photos
https://www.flickr.com/photos/155241874@N04/34489166600/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/155241874@N04/34744094611/in/dateposted-public/
Here's your image so that others can see it.
Without knowing the elevations that you plan to place the three tiers, it is hard to know if this is possible, but I think the grades might be much steeper than you expect (and perhaps unworkable). If this is your first layout, three decks might be a big undertaking.
Most folks modulate the depth of the various tiers to improve access and visibility.
The original N&W Abingdon plan you referenced from the September 2010 issue of Model Railroader uses a peninsula to gain elevation between the two decks (although as drawn, the tight curves might prove unreliable). As I recall (but could be wrong), this was a speculative design that was never built.
A similar earlier design of mine for a client (that was built) is found in my article in Model Railroad Planning 2013 representing the Clinchfield in HO in 12’X13’. This did require many crossings of the door.
This design used multiple decks and multiple passes on each deck to allow more elevation gain between the decks themselves without unreasonable grades. (The "Mid" and "Lower" laps were at different elevations on one physical deck). You may be planning something similar, hard to tell.
I think the elevation and grades issues should be addressed first, and then the operational potential of the resulting plan could be determined. Good luck with your layout.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Thanks Byron
I only used the N&W Abingdon plan as per stations and yards as be new not sure if it will be a operation layout in the end but by copying it as you see I mostly have, when I understand how to run operations it may be used.
The Yellow track is hidden (can access a red door) and other door is a lift up
Here is Scarm 3D pic
https://www.flickr.com/photos/155241874@N04/34069943703/in/dateposted-public/
the grades are 1.2% a small spot it will be 1.7%
I 've kept the middle of my room empty it could later be a addon maybe turntable yard habour etc.
James
Here's your image
I misunderstood your first post -- I thought you were talking about separate decks rather than separate laps on a single deck. Rather than “struts”, we usually refer to them as “risers” to set different elevations of tracks*.
Those nominal grades seem OK, but I don’t know if that gives you enough elevation difference over the hidden track for adequate clearance for trains and your hand (for maintenance or emergencies). You’ll also need transitions from level-to-grade and back – and since for reliability you shouldn’t change the grade within or directly adjacent to a turnout, I think it still might end up a bit steeper than you think. CAD can allow one to draw things that won’t actually work well.
It depends on what you want ultimately, but it seems to me that the multiple laps with interconnections of your plan may be less realistic and interesting than a plan that more-or-less travels along only one route A>B>C>D rather than having multiple paths from A>C, A>D, etc. For example, on the Abingdon layout, there is only one path from Abingdon to Creek Junction to White Top to West Jefferson (the end of the branch).
I also think that 3-D renderings from CAD programs can be misleading. Once actually built and scenicked, I think you’ll have less room for structures and industries than you might like.
Good luck with your layout.
* Edit: And typically the risers are suported from a framework rather than a tabletop. This might be open-grid or L-girder construction.
Alot good points to think about there Byron "Risers" I'm abit slow with the lingo
Gradients: is there a formula to go from flat 0mm rise 1% do you rise .6% for the first little bit then 1%?
I do want circluar travelling but also prototype A>B>C>D i want both
1st - Abingdon Station Elev: 0mm
2nd - Damascus Elev: Elev: 78mm
3rd - White Top Mountain Elev: 180mm at Peak
4th - West Jefferson Elev: 99mm then back to 0mm
As per pic below
https://www.flickr.com/photos/155241874@N04/34736846942/in/dateposted-public/
And you correct about CAD like programs so I setup some mockup using lego, sticks and boxes. I will have be clever with scenery.
But is Abingdon Yard workable - should I move those 2 turnouts move to the left abit.
I'm not sure I can make suggestions to help with the design as drawn, but perhaps others may be able to help. It just seems too crowded horizontally and vertically to my eye -- but that's based on my preferences and experience.
Honestly, I’d personally take a step back from CAD, think about what you want to accomplish, and start over. The Abingdon plan really depends on the peninsula and multiple decks. (Although I think the radius is too tight on the peninsula in the published plan, the basic idea works.)
Note that Area 4 at a railhead height of 99mm (3.9") is too low for clearance above staging at 0mm/0". One needs to allow for subroadbed (e.g., plywood), roadbed, the trains themselves, and hand access.
From an operational standpoint, note the difference in your Area 4 (West Jefferson) versus the published plan’s West Jefferson. On the published plan, that area includes a runaround (double-ended siding) and a wye for turning engines – it’s the terminus of the branch line.
If you wish to operate like the prototype, those elements would be helpful. But if you instead actually want a continuous run to go up and all the way back down, then a different plan would be better. There’s nothing magical about a published plan -- especially if it is intended to operate differently than what you want.
jTrackinGradients: is there a formula to go from flat 0mm rise 1% do you rise .6% for the first little bit then 1%?
The transition itself is a vertical spiral of gradually increasing grade, but you can roughly figure it as a .5% or so – the important thing is to allow enough length. Plywood will naturally form the vertical curve. I like to allow about a car length for each per cent of grade.
I hope that I have not been too direct -- layout design is a personal thing and my suggestions are based on my experiences and generally accepted best practices. I think if you started again from a blank sheet with a list of things you’d like to see on your layout that you would probably come up with a better plan for you than trying to adapt the Abingdon plan. Best of luck.
jTrackin,
As the designer of the 2010 plan, I'll go ahead and weigh in. Cuyama is likely correct about the track radius on that plan. Unfortunately, the limitations imposed by the "small bedroom" necessitated a reduced radius. An HO scale LMB N&W 4-8-0 will short against the cylinders on 20" radius (don't ask me how I know this). The design was a concept design, and is not the one I've been building. However it does share some aspects with the N&W Walker Creek Branch, which is my layout.
Some general comments (which may or not be relevant for you):
* The Abingdon Branch plan was definitely not intended as a beginner layout. The construction techniques required are pretty advanced due to the multiple levels and complex helix construction. I see you've taken out both elements, but at cramming in a lot in small space.
* On the prototype, there was no yard at Abingdon. Trains were made up at Bristol and run as extras up to Abingdon. My layout plan followed this philosophy to avoid using up space for a yard. Of course, it's your layout and your plan, so feel free to modify reality to suite.
* Your plan is making something of a spaghetti bowl with three loops of track. You may try to reduce the number of loops to two and provide a bit more strategic placement of the track. That will open up more space for scenery if only one track needs to be hidden. If you can bring West Jefferson back down to an area close to Abingdon, you could provide a hidden connection that allows for continuous running without sacrificing out and back operation.
* On a related concept, staging could be placed behind the scenery rather than under it. There were a couple of articles in MRP on this idea. One called was "X-staging", the other was something like "North Dover" (I remember the name because Dover was where I grew up). With your room size, this may be very doable and avoids stacking three levels of track.
Hi Mike Like your scenery, looks good. Is the layout all one level.?
fisherdmOn a related concept, staging could be placed behind the scenery rather than under it. There were a couple of articles in MRP on this idea. One called was "X-staging", the other was something like "North Dover" (I remember the name because Dover was where I grew up).
My Model Railroad Planning 2004 article on "X-Factor Staging" included this N scale track plan based on the Santa Maria Valley Railroad. Note that the San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara stub-ended staging yards are at the same elevation as the SP mainline, connecting at the crux of the "X". These were behind low backrops or under buildings on the layout.
A similar (but continuous-run) staging design is seen in Mike Hamer's North Dover, NH Boston and Maine HO layout. Again, the staging tracks are behind low backdrops.
cuyama, thanks for adding the images.
I'm appreciate you advice and i'm not stooping to "its my track and I'll do what I want" ...yet
I'm not really getting this though- And I bow to experience, but I was told I had too much hidden track but to me on the above layout there seems to more track then displayed. I like the continuous looping x 2 but you dont see 1 of them. Is it because it is a good operational layout.?
I tried to get out of cad and into reality some photos.
Abingdon station ..well you get the feel
https://www.flickr.com/photos/155241874@N04/34556012900/in/dateposted-public/
and West Jefferson
https://www.flickr.com/photos/155241874@N04/34779777232/in/dateposted-public/
is there too much track visually for West Jefferson?
there will be 2 more or maybe 1 staging track under the mountain mainline.
I have also taken the suggestion of making West Jefferson into a terminal but no wye it have to travell backwards or go on to Elkland, North Carolina and then staging and then back to Abingdon. Would that work?
Oops, double post
jTrackinAnd I bow to experience, but I was told I had too much hidden track but to me on the above layout there seems to more track then displayed.
As I explained, the issue is not how much hidden track, but the clearance to the hidden track.
In the layout from my MRP article, there is substantial clearance to the hidden track.
If you want to stick with your track plan, of course that is your option. That happens a lot with folks who post here and then choose not to act on the input they receive. But keep in mind that you will need to reach into the staging area for maintenance and to handle emergencies.
Best of luck with your layout.
Yes I agree, I'm going to act on fixing those 2 points. And try address the others. You guys have hindsight on your side. Thanks for your time.