Hello All,
I have generated several potential track plans for a layout in an upstairs bonus room (See link below for PDF). The space is "interesting" in that it has an alcove that's not really useful for anything, but I thought that the odd space would provide some interesting design constraints.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qnvpne9vwfumu2s/Layout_with%20divider.pdf?dl=0
My problem is this, whenever I get to a track plan I like and then try to add some interest via elevation, the 3D ends up looking too subtle (trying to keep the grades under 2.5%). I am using SCARM, as the learning curve on other software is a bit steep.
I have begun constructing benchwork (only the yard portion so far) and I am hesitant to take it any farther without a set in stone track plan that is both satisfying and buildable for my skill level.
Skill Level: By profession I am an electrical engineer, but I have a background in architecture. It's been years since architecture school so the creative gears are a little rusty, but I understand design process well. When I was in architecture school my professors always encouraged us to design in section, but I have no idea how to do that at this at God scale! I am hoping a veteran can help me to look at this problem in a different and more productive way.
I have been experimenting with various scenic divider locations, two completely separate track systems at different elevations, and various scenic devices. I just want to avoid the railroad on a plank type look.
My prototype as far as scenery would be the Texas State Railroad between Rusk and Palestine. But I want plenty of operational elemant to add to the fun of the layout. Continuous run is not a must, but is desired if it can be tastefully.
Thanks in advance for any help or comments!
I would have designed a track plan for that space a lot differently. If your two loops didn't mirror each other and were more linear then you could gain more altitude by stretching it into one longer track instead of two parallel tracks. Also if you showed the entire room then we could see how much more area you have. If there is enough room I would possibly recommend instead of having a donut hole that the track follows the wall and then have the far right side fold back to the center of the room and have the curved part of the peninsula go into the area which is where the duck under is located. I know that is hard to visualize. I will try to post a picture later.
2.5% grade or less WILL look fairly shallow in a 3D view. The key is, where lines cross over one another, do you have at least minimum vertical clearance when roadbed/bridge thickness is taken into account (and remember the railhead of the lower track will likely be higher than the elevation set in the program, since the elevation is typically (at least with 3rd PlanIt) the subroadbed height, so you need to add roadbed thickness and then the tie and rail height. You also need to allow transitioon space at the top and bottom of each grade, you can;t just go from level to 2.5% grade instantly (well, you can, but nearly ever car and loco will either get stuck or derail). Like a transistion curve, you need to transistion into a climb or out of it to level off at the upper level.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinkerthe elevation is typically (at least with 3rd PlanIt) the subroadbed height
3rd PlanIt elevations refer to the railhead. It would be impossible otherwise to allow for all the variation in rail height, tie thickness, roadbed, etc. This is true for all model railroad CAD programs, I believe.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Lone Wolf,
I think I understand what you are describing. I definitely don't like the donut from an access and aesthetic perspective. As you can see from what I have built and where I stopped I hestitated when it came to the donut and started thinking about how nice and elegant a point to point railroad might be without all of the loop hassles, but I am still struggling with a childhood need for continuous running I guess? (just a phase I hope).
See below for the room dimensions you requested. I have negotiated the "max building envelope" with my wife. If you saw my unfinihed 2000 ft2 basement you would question my sanity, but I just don't have the time or desire to sheetrock and light the whole thing. Maybe when I retire I will follow Shoeless Joe Jackson into the cornfield.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ajx2qj1ekt14pay/layout.pdf?dl=0
Randy,
I definitely want to make sure reliability is paramount. I remember the train experiences of my youth and struggling with all kinds of problems with no resources like this website to help steer me away from frustrating mistakes.
One of my engineering professors at the Illinois Institute of Technology was completely adamant about the proper design of vertical curves and now I know what he was so obsessed about. In truth, i think the engineering challenge of designing a model railroad is almost more lofty than full scale design because the space constraints are so rigid.
I am beginning to understand some of the "tricks of the trade" by simply reading and observing. It's the theatrical component of the model railroad that really has me stumped. It's almost like a magic show...a little bit of misdirection and back stage machinery can make a train appear to come from somewhere thousands of scale miles away.
I just can't seem to grasp how all of these beautiful layouts that I see manage to synthesize track elevation, lanscape elevation, and the tiny scale in order to create something so suggestive of an experience which I love and associate with all railroads...watching a beautiful landscape roll effortlessly by the window, like a candy store for people who love to see mountains, lakes, forests, tunnels, fly fisherman, farmers in fields, an old burned out house, and all of the other wonderful things that can be seen from the right of way.
I guess I love the the perspective of the world from a train car, and that's the feeling I want to capture in a layout. I rode the Metra and the L in Chicago almost everyday when I lived there and I could never peel myself away from the window.
Sorry for the digression. I am thinking more and more that a point to point is the way to go for the kind of feeling of a journey that I want. Railyard operations are becoming more and more interesting the more I read about them, but I am trying to pace myself and really examine this as I haven't laid a hand to this since I was 12.
Instead of making a donut, maybe along the wall as Lone Wolf suggested? Maybe overlaying the loops onto the same part of the layout and letting the linear part of the layout be more realistic?
Don't know? But Any guidance, advice, or insight into why you like model railroading might help me to hone in on some elusive inspiration.
Interesting track plan. I too suggest doing the layout a bit differently. Pls consider the following:
1. More sidings and interchanges so that gives you intersting operations. You can have various industries on the sidings
2. Instead of trying to squeeze two loops in the alcove (top of the layout), put in one loop. You then have plenty of space a broad curve partly hidden with scenery. This gives the impression of the layout going well-beyond what is visible.
Before jumping in to a layout, you ought to get yourself a track planning book (or two) and Armstrong's book on operations. Other books to add to your library include ones written by Jeff Wilson. That should get you started. While waiting for them to arrive, here are some questions to decide:
1. What era (if any) and area you trying to model?
2. Answering Q1 can help with Q2: what industries do I want replicated?
3. What is a suitable arrangement and how will I build the benchwork?
4. What is the purporse of may layout? What am I trying to show?
Hmm, I always thought the elevation set was the base. But no, I just placed a pieceof plywood at the same elevation as a piece of track and the track was nicely embedded in the middle of the plywood (since the axis origin of everything is the middle of the object - say a 2x5 standing on edge (4" along the Z axis) and it's a true 2x4, not the actual wood dimentions, at a Z height of 24 inches, the top edge would be at 26" and the bottom at 22". If it was horizintal on the screen, right on the 12" mark of the Y axis, the top edge would be at 13" and the bottom edge would be 11"). I should have remembered this - it made getting my workbench drawn a true pain, trying to line up the frame members for solid corners. Forget typing values in, I just used the arrow keys to nudge each piece until the intersecting lines were a single thickness line.
I'm trying (and failing) to remember how the 3D CAD I learned on worked. Unlike the 3D add-on for AutoCAD at the time, this program, much like 3rd PlanIt, drew 3D object right from the get-go, no building a 2D 'thing' and then adding a Z height. It probably was much the same, the center of an object 2x4x1 thick would be at 1:2:0.5.
Thanks for the feedback y'all. I sketched out the boundaries of my space in the attached dropbox link as Lone Wolf requested:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/kyc945tig9nj61d/AACqwXBjvaJqnrjTPN_YdIDUa?dl=0
I will also post some pics of my prototype. Not a lot of elevation change is East Texas, but I think I found a piece of track plan inspiration in my hometown.
I will generate some track plans including suggestions made in the thread and post this evening. Thanks for the help!
Don’t rule out a narrow shelf that goes above the TV and completely around the room, with a lift out bridge by the door. This could allow a nice long run for continuous running. The shelf layout I’m building in my bedroom has no footprint because it is built above the furniture and shaped to widen and narrow to match the furniture underneath. It varies from 6 inches to 18 inches.