An SW1 would be a nice choice--so darn cute:
Converting an old Walthers to DCC might be a problem for many people. I think the newer one is supposed to be easier.
Those two steam switchers, especially the 0-8-0, are nice looking locos. I just don't see them in this kind of service. Especially the 0-8-0.
Bachmann also makes a 4-6-0 that I think would work--a bit bigger than that beautiful 4-4-0. I guess you could get both???
AND. It comes with a footboard pilot--just the thing for switching purposes.
Ed
7j43k An SW1 would be a nice choice--so darn cute:
I totally agree with you, Ed. They are cute.
Yea, the newer ones are "DCC-ready" - i.e they come with the 8-pin NMRA socket. Converting the older Walthers SW1 to DCC wasn't that bad. The primary challenge was extending the milled channel on the chassis to help isolate the bottom motor bushing from the frame:
I had the advantage of having access to a bridgeport at a former place of employment so it was a fairly seemless modification. I think I did this a year or two prior to Walthers re-releasing their SW1 again.
FYI: If anyone is interested in converting their old Walthers SW1 to DCC, as well as adding a rear headlight to the cab, click on the link in my signature below and go to the "How To" Series tab where there is a step-by-step tutorial for the process.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
I too like the track plan in general. Good ratio of scenery to track, and the track "flows" nicely. Personally, turntable or turntable is really a personal preference. The bridge when coming into the trainroom looks really great, but will be difficult to construct, and be prone to damage. I would probably go with something smaller, more sturdy.
One area that hasn't been discussed and where I would have some concerns are the declines and inclines on the ramps. From the diagram, it is difficult to see what the track levels are. Considering you plan to run steam (and in particular small steam - 4-4-0's, maybe 2-6-0's etc.). I plan to run these types of engines on my own layout under construction. I would make sure that you are not going over 2.5%, preferably not over 2%. In an earlier layout, I tried to go to 3% and as soon as I added 3-4 cars, I had slippage and stalling.
Also remember that your (relatively) tight curves add additional friction to any incline. The rule of thumb (developed by way of experiment by a guy named John Allen) is that the additional grade percent created by the curve equals 32/radius. So in the case of a 20" radius, the additional grade is 1.6%. That means that a 2% grade turns into a 3.6% grade in terms of drag.
Could you post a track diagram with track heights and or grades for us to take a look at?
The minimum radius on the layout is 500mm (19") the incline or decline is 3% to reach a level from 0 to 100mm (about 4") why you may ask I used 3%, well that's what people told me to use, even 3% is a standard value in AnyRail.
If you tell me that will be to steep then i need to redesign these inclines and declines i could lower it, but i like to have at least 80mm (3") of free space between levels.
I thought i did read somewhere you should calculate with 1% incline per meter, is this correct?
The percent of grade is independent of the measurement system. A 1% grade is .01 inch per inch. And .01 foot per foot. And .01 meter per meter.
I would worry about a 3% grade. And agree that it would cause problems for small engines.
One other thing about grades that many newcomers to design do not realize is that one should not change grade within or right at a turnout. I usually allow at least one longest-car-length from the turnout
In addition, a vertical transition is needed from level-to-grade and back for reliability, this is even more important for steeper grades.
Once you have allowed for distance from turnouts and for the vertical transitions, your grades may be shorter (and thus, steeper) than you hope.
Good luck with your layout.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
7j43kI would worry about a 3% grade. And agree that it would cause problems for small engines.
Ok, i will redesign the in- an declines and take at least 85mm free space between levels, i will manage. But thanks to the guys who advised me poorly.
The NMRA (National Model Railroad Association) calls for 3" (76.2 mm) vertical clearance above rail top.
Real railroads in the US have also used certain standards for vertical clearance. A very common one is/was "Plate B". It WILL NOT clear large modern cars. BUT. None of those ran in 1950. I am convinced that everything that would have run on "your" railroad in 1950 would fit Plate B.
And the Plate B vertical clearance above rail top is 2.08" (53 mm) in HO.
There is/was also Plate C. It is slightly larger, and accepts many/most modern cars. That vertical clearance is 2.14" (54.5 mm).
Please keep in mind that your train will fit such a clearance. Your hand + your train probably won't. So you have to be very careful where you use such a minimal clearance. DO NOT use it where you will have to spend time rerailing your train.
BUT. 53/54.5 mm is much smaller than 85 mm.
AND. Heed my warning about where and when to use this minimal clearance.
ANOTHER AND. Add a few millimeters to the PlateB/C numbers. For "safety".
Thanks Ed, that's why I wil use a minimum 80mm.
DiGTrack, make sure that you add the height of your rail profile (incl roadbed plus your sub road bed) to those 80mm. In the planning of my own layout (see separate thread on this forum), I had a similar discussion about level clearance. I realize you are not going to run double stack container trains, but you want a minimum of 3" clearance between the top of the track to the sub roadbed of the level above. I have implemented just that, and it still is tight, in particular if you would ever have to reach in there with your hand.
Also, I realize there are plenty of model railroads around that run on 3 or even 4% grades (after all, Woodland Scenics sells a 4% ramp), but if you want to run small steam engines, they will struggle. I know from experience - Bachmann Spectrum 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 which are otherwise great running engines. I have a Roundhouse 2-6-0 that behaves a little better on such steep inclines, but only marginally. I settled on max 2% on my current layout, and have no problems, including through 18" radius curves.
Reworked the tracks, now I have a max of 2.4% incline, and a minimum clearance on one spot of 76mm which is about 3" on onter spots the clearance is 81mm (3 3/16 inch) or more. Top level is at 90mm (3 35/64 inch), bottom at 0.
Minimum curve radius is 19" (500mm)
It took me alot of work to do this without losing the track I just love to see in the layout. Tomorrow I will share the pictures, for now I say good night y'all
cuyamaOne other thing about grades that many newcomers to design do not realize is that one should not change grade within or right at a turnout. I usually allow at least one longest-car-length from the turnout In addition, a vertical transition is needed from level-to-grade and back for reliability, this is even more important for steeper grades.
Thanks for this great info, I will incorperate this in the real deal.
Change the plan a bit, and made an 3D artist impression (raw) of the layout, with the aid of AnyRail, AutoCAD, Sketchup and Vue (this last for the 3D rendering), included the attic aswell for a good picture.
Starting Picture, AnyRail Layout track plan (final)
Render picture 1
Render picture 2
Render picture 3
Render picture 4
So after all planning and designing of the layout is time to start working on the attic, need to insulate it first, drywall the walls, and when that is all finished I can finally start the benchwork, timeframe? Well we'll see ;)
Now I have to study on DCC and things.
Ohw, one questions (for now ;) pops in to my mind, how are you laying your tracks, damping with cork, nailing the track or..... give me some tips please, thanks.
Hi Gerard,
welcome to the wonderful world of model railroading US-style!
Just a few remarks which come to my mind when I look at your layout idea:
There are some serious reach issues incorporated into the design, the most critical one being the station tracks behind the town. You will not be able to reach it unless you crawl underneath the layout and get there from behind, providing the sloping ceiling allows you to somehow get up.
The same problem exists on the other side of the layout - the hidden staging tracks are more or less inaccessible .
Over all, the layout has more of a European flavor to it than an American.
I think you will be better of simplifying the design, avoid hidden tracks as much as possible and reduce the depth of the benchwork.
MR´s Trackplan Database has some nice layout proposal which could fit into your space of roughly 9 by 11 ft. One of my favorite designs is the "Lost Island Bluffs Railway", which was featured in the May 2010 edition of Model Railroader. If you are a subscriber, you can access tha database.
Here is a sneak preview:
A more complex design is the Abingdon branch of the Norfolk & Western RR.
Or the Lake Nipigon Northern RR, featured in the April 2013 edition of MR.
These are just three examples out of many.
May I recommend to get the book "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" by John Armstrong? It´s a "must-have" for all those aiming at building a layout with prototypical operation.
https://www.amazon.de/Track-Planning-Realistic-Operation-Railroader/dp/0890242275
I hope you are not offended, but building a layout is a long and also costly journey which should lead to where you want to go.
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
Tinplate ToddlerI hope you are not offended, but building a layout is a long and also costly journey which should lead to where you want to go.
Not at all, I started this thread to get ideas and to pin point problems with the layout, so every comments I will take into consideration, thus far I implemented most of the Ideas that were given to me.
Your concerns about the reachability left and right I tackled, yes I have to reach the back by going underneath the benchwork, but I don't see this as a problem, I will have enough space on eihter side.
Regarding the plan it self, maybe because I'm European, my style of designing a layout is different from what is done in the US.
What I like in layouts is the possebility to have plenty of play possebilities, but I hate unnatural turns to be visible. Since I have plenty of time to design a layout I will look into the given examples, I see some interesting things in the examples.
DiGTrackWhat I like in layouts is the possebility to have plenty of play possebilities,
That is certainly something we share!
After 55 years in the hobby and numerous layouts built, I am back to where it all started, when I got a Marklin starter set for Christmas. The layout Iam building is only a very small one, but I just love to play (and not operate) with it.
I really suggest you buy the book I recommended. It will help you to design a layout which will fulfill your needs and wants!
Tinplate ToddlerMR´s Trackplan Database has some nice layout proposal which could fit into your space of roughly 9 by 11 ft. One of my favorite designs is the "Lost Island Bluffs Railway", which was featured in the May 2010 edition of Model Railroader. If you are a subscriber, you can access tha database.
I'm not sure I have, how can I become a subscriber?
DiGTrackhow can I become a subscriber?
There is a button on the upper right corner of this page which say "Subscribe". click on it and follow the menu.
I think it is worth it. The monthly magazin is a valuable source of information, loaded with inspiration and "how-to´s" for your own work. I think the subscription is still reasonable, when compared to the magazine prices here in Germany.
I feel the layout "flavor" is more European in the scenery and building layout than the trackwork--the town, especially. But that is easily fixed. At least at an early stage of construction.
I think the bridge at the entry does not HAVE to be a model bridge. It could be a "black bridge". That being a span of wood painted black--it does not exist in the model world. Thus the sections of track on the layout itself don't HAVE to be a continuation of the bridge. Though I do like those sections--bridges over water are interesting. The bridge could be "mixed"--a black bridge between two real bridge segments.
Consideration could be given to replacing the last foot of the bridge at Coldwater Town with a track switch. It could curve inwards to a freight house/team track, something quite often near a town's passenger station. Or it could supply another industry or two. American towns have been known to mix industry and housing.
7j43kI feel the layout "flavor" is more European in the scenery and building layout than the trackwork--the town, especially. But that is easily fixed. At least at an early stage of construction.
Thanks Ed, indeed the town is far from what I have in mind. It should be a little town/village in the era I want (mid 40s, early 50s) I just have to find the right ideas for the town. The plan is that all (most at least ;) will be build from scratch, so I'm not bound by kits (told you allready, I'm more a scratch builder than kit builder).
So I will look up in google some interesting small towns.
So a track or two for some small industry beside the station, hmm like the idea, and is common, also here in Holland, see picture below, on the right side is a small freight house, you may see the tracks.
Below same stationhouse, in front you see the tracks that lead to the freight house (this must be between 1950 and 1955).(by the way, this station I build from scratch, unfortunatly it got destroyed during the move last year, 2 years (not non stop) of scratch building down the drain :(
I build it from original A0 format (copies of course) blue prints, using polystyreen, the real thing was taken down late 70s, shame but to exspensive to maintain.
What place in the rather large and varied United States are you considering modeling?
7j43kWhat place in the rather large and varied United States are you considering modeling?
Hmmm good question, not sure, my plan was a non fictional town with small industry in a US fashion, like a rural theme, forests (like forests), bit of water (that's wy I choose the name of the town to be Coldwater.
"non fictional" means "a real place"
That may not be what you were trying to express, but it really is a better choice. That is because it is harder to invent a place than to recreate a place. I know. I've done it. Thus, if you copy a real place, your work will be more believable.
Well then. You can forget about most of the Southwest. And much of the midwest and upper midwest. And lots of Florida. No forests.
You've still got almost everything west of the Mississippi. And the Pacific Northwest.
The trackplan is pretty un-specific, so you could build that. And wait to decide. But it's still something to be considering.
Indeed Ed, non fictional was not right indeed. I like Colorado, Durango & Silverton. Years ago I bought a video of the Durango & Silverton narrow gauge loved it. I had even made plans to visit it, but thus far it never happened.
I was extremely fortunate to be able to ride the narrow gauge rails to Silverton, when they were still operated by the D&RGW back in 1974 - a once in a lifetime experience for someone living on your end of the Big Pond, Gerard. Blackstone makes some of the steam locomotives, as well as some freight cars and passenger cars in HOn3, but they don´t come cheap.
The State of Colorado has (outside of Denver) still retained some of that "Old West" flavor we "Europeans" quite often connect with our thoughts of the USA.
Modeling a short line in the Colorado Rockies is certainly an interesting and rewarding theme for a layout. Howver, you need to gather lots of info on that topic. A big help can be the book by Dell McCoy "The Crystal River Pictorial" which you can get here:
https://www.amazon.de/gp/offer-listing/0913582042/ref=sr_1_1_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1534916237&sr=8-1&keywords=crystal+river+pictorial
The book contains not only pictures, but also track plans to help you design your layout!
Thanks again guys for your comments, very helpfull.
Well after much thought and browsing for examples, pictures, actual models, alot of videos etc. I decided to leave regular H0 and will switch to H0n3.
Why, well I just love it, love especially logging themes and of course the Durang & Silverton line. There is however a drawback, I haven't got the hight to do large mountains, so I will try some moderate hills, and hopefully the rest with backdrops.
The name Coldwater is still there, in a small early 1900s town, yup that will be the era (I think ;). I have Coldwater Junction, a larger switch area, and loading/unloading but not only logging, a small passenger station will be there aswell (I also want to simulate the Durango line).
Levels start at 0 and go up to 3" and at Swanhill Junction at 3 1/2" At Swanhill trans go or come out of the mountin which will hide the turns.
Also at Swanhill there is a staging area.
A big threstle brigde on left. An uneven junction top mid and the rest I will fill in.