Hi all,
I've posted here recently about my plans for my primary N scale layout at our new living arrangement with my in-laws. Those plans are still a Go, just need to get the garage sorted once we complete the move officially at the end of the month. This is rather an HO question.
So, a few years ago I had pieced together the equivalent of a DCC HO starter set for my step-son with a loop of track plus a siding (Kato Unitrack, I'm pretty sure, as I liked the little I've used of their N scale offerings.) He was super into all things trains when he was a little younger, but aside from a single set-up for about 3 days when he first got it, this HO set has sat dormant. I had the idea of setting it up and expanding on it for a small switching layout in our new in-law's apartment; nothing fancy, just a "Switchman's Nightmare"-type layout in an odd nook in our living area with a small staging yard coming in through the wall from my future office. Figured the 20-30 minute operation sessions would be a nice distraction from working on the computer every now and then, and with a minimal investment.
My ROW agent surprised me when I showed her the plans; she pretty much said she was shocked I didn't want to do an around the room ceiling shelf layout. I honestly had never though of anything so adventurous, but since she opened the door I've been researching and came up with a simple plan I like to take advantage of the much longer run such a layout would give me. It's a simple plan basically for rail-fanning; just a twice-around the walls utilizing a bridge on an 8" shelf (except in the corners of course), with a set of turn outs to make a short run to the Switchman's Nightmare and staging area. I've added a simple provision to allow running of either two trains circling in the same direction on a twice-around loop, or in opposite directions on individual loops with a level crossing (just have to run them at the same speed and time it so they don't enter the crossing at the same time.) Think I settled on 24" radius minimums, with 2" spacing on tangents and 2 3/4" on level curves, expanding out to 3 1/4" where the foam 2% inclines are in play. The nice thing with using a bridge for the other crossing of the loops is that for a portion of the run, the inclining rear track will be elevated and visible while standing in the room, and when the inclined track crosses the bridge to become the foreground track, I can build a little scenic hillside over the low track in the back over which to plant my wife's trees. This section with the low, hidden back track is along a diagonal but currently bare stud wall, so the backside is totally open for access. But most of the around-the-room will be basically unscenicked except for some front-side static grass and bushes, probably some roadbed ballast on the front track, and a painted backdrop. The railhead height will be perhaps 75" from the floor, about an inch above the bottom of the joists and 2" above my head, so no one would see much behind the first track without a step stool.
Anyhow, it's been decades since I've done anything with HO scale, and there seem to be a ton more track options available compared to when I was a kid in the 80s. I've been using N scale Peco code 55 for so long, I automatically gravitated to their code 83 when I was in AnyRail planning up this unexpected layout; I liked Peco's 83 over their 100 due to that line having numbered frogs which I could juice (an added expense, for sure, but something I've done in N scale from my first forays back into the hobby as additional piece of mind almost more than anything.) But there are a bunch of other options too; Atlas 100 was the other I checked out, and I think was likely what I ran on as a kid. Switches will #6 or #8 (no real preference, I have the space for either) throughout, and they'll be thrown by top-mounted machines that I'll hide between the rear track and the wall along with the track bus, with small toggles or push-buttons mounted on the shelf edge.
So, as my track won't really be seen except in profile, what would you guys turn to for fairly bullet-proof track? Headroom for cleaning the track isn't an issue, but working on the shelf would be something of a pain so I'm looking for a minimum of tweaking needed. Most of the layout will be built on the bench and tested there, then installed on the walls of course, but the bench is only so big and a certain amount of joining work will need to take place up on high, but that can't be avoided.
Thanks!
-Jason
Wahoo!! Niiice!
A suggestion/tip for you. If it's twice around, with an overpass of some kind, spend a good amount of time designing, proving, and then being prepared to alter that part of the layout. I'm not saying you'll probably have to, or want to, do it over, just that if you don't plan this meticulously with the 'gauge loading' in mind (aka 'clearances to the side and above the nether rails'), you may have little choice. Give yourself some room to grow, maybe to pantographs, maybe to a large articulated steamer, and those things add another 1/2" to the side and above in your scale...at least.
I've switched to Peco 83 for the new layout and am very happy with it, used mixed Atlas (staging) and Peco code 100 for the previous layout, branch was Micro Engineering 83 with Atlas 83 turnouts - never had a problem with any of those, but like the look of the code 83 mainline (loved the Microengineering code 83, but availability is likely nil going forward). For the Peco turnouts, there is no need to power route the frogs on the Insulfrog or Unifrog turnouts. All of my locos including the shortest wheelbase run through #5 thru #8 switches without pickup problems. The Unifrogs (or old Electrofrogs) are easy to wire if you do want to power the frog - I got a new #6 electrofrog double slip that had wires attached, cut them off because there was no need to use them.
Thanks Selector,
Yep, been a while since I worked with HO clearances so the flyover bridge and the inclines leading to it have been designed with a lot of wiggle-room. Learned way too many times to measure twice (or 3 times, or 4), cut once, lol. As this area is the most critical (and would be the most difficult to work on, with the reduced headroom), it'll be built fully on the bench, tested, and at least partially scenicked before screwing it onto the wall.
No articulateds in our future ... that would certainly cut into the budget for future potential acquisitions on the primary N scale pike! Besides, my minimum radii of 24" would be a limiting factor for reliable running, I think. I'd have liked to have gone broader, but I'm already making my corners as large as I think the ROW boss will accept. I've added pretty generous easements everywhere to minimize the fairly sharp hook of the 24s to the middle 50 degrees of the 90 degree turns, but that was the best I could do. That said, I hope to borrow a buddy's Mikado and some of his heavyweight pax cars to test out a mock-up for clearances, especially where track will be next to the foam inclines. A Mike or a Pacific is about all I can see us looking for one day, especially for a railfanning layout. For that matter, I'd be more likely to find myself one of the few camelbacks that are/were out there in HO (absolutely zip in N, which is why my Lehigh Valley pike is late 40s and not the 20s.)
I had in fact thought of pantographs; if I ever choose to install them, (I could see myself picking up a boxcab one of these years; my grandfather had a ton of them in standard guage, and there's alway been a soft spot in my heart for the goofy things!), I'll probably keep them on the lower, 100% dead-level loop. We're strictly non-modern, so zero chance of running double-stacks, autoracks, or anything tall really. All the same, the vertical clearance for the bridge is 3.5" railhead-to-bridge bottom, a scale 25.3 ft; should be good for most anything I'm likely to throw at it with room to spare.
Thanks Lou, good to hear you're happy with the Peco 83. I have a ton of experience with Electro/Unifrogs from my N scale adventures... I may not juice the frogs right away (and often don't/haven't), but I'll be keeping the lead wire attached just in case. Call it paranoia or maybe just the somewhat fiddly nature that is N scale. I always have a spare Frogjuicer around, it seems, just in case a switch or engine decides to no longer play nice out of the blue.
Not to address your questions, but a comment on your plan.
I have seen several around the ceiling shelf layouts in garden scale and O. The problem I had with them was the inability to see anything but the side of he train from below. Any train on a secnd track would be difficult to see and in HO it would be even more difficult. A passing track so you can park a train to change the one being operated works, but to view it would be difficult. Any switching operations would be difficult, I think.
Hate to be a wet blanket, but make sure you do some viewing of other layouts before you put a lot of time into something you may not be able to see.
Have fun,
Richard
Hi Richard,
Yes indeed, visibility is definitely restricted. But, the ceiling and the shelf will be just over my head at about 75" railhead height, not quite as bad as it could have been if they had built this foundation with the extra block of heighth like they tend to do in more modern home constructions. Still a profile-only view, but the mock up didn't look too bad to my eye. It helps that the room is good size so a viewer can stand back quite a bit to view the train on the opposite wall. But it's basic scenery only, unless I can put something right at the edge, otherwise any detailing would be mostly lost (bad angle if close enough to see the details, or too far away if getting the best angle from across the room.) Besides, a little bit of HO is what I have kicking around in a tote taking up space, not O or G.
The back track will be largely out of sight behind the front track, except for a 16' run where it climbs up to a flyover bridge over the other track. No operations will be performed on this layout, it's purely a railfanning layout. I do have a switch arrangement to allow either 2 trains running on a twice-around loop in the same direction, or 2 trains running on separated individual loops in opposite directions. Four switches need to be thrown to accomplish the latter, but with the track arrangement this only has to be done once when establishing the routings the train will take, then after that it's strictly hands-off (needed a crossover from one loop to the other with a diamond between the two switches, so spacing the trains to not both arrive at the level diamond at the same time will be important, but that's pretty simple speed-matching.) Either way, each loop spends about half the length around the room as the front track and half as the back track, so both trains will get their chance to be in the lime light at the edge of the world as it were.
Completely agree that a high up shelf layout isn't ideal, but it's what I have available (plus a little extra space at a more reasonable chin-high level where I'll be installing a small Switchman's Nightmare switching area extension to the ceiling shelf run, fed by its own small staging yard so basically run independently from the shelf layout.) As I said, this is all just gravy for some railfanning since the Missus unexpectedly said she expected something like it... but my real layout will be in N scale in the garage.
Thanks,
As a bit of a follow-up towards Richard's concerns about the view angles, I did some mock ups and some math. I mocked up a nominal 6" wide shelf set with the top edge at approximately railhead height (75"). I don't currently have the HO equipment on hand, but my N scale gear is all here, so I set up a couple 40' box cars centered 2" in from the edge. I then backed up until I could see the top of the wheels. I was about 67" from the wall, or 61" inches from the edge of the shelf. I know my eye level is approximately 69", and the height to the top of the N scale wheels were about 6.2" above that. Little bit of arctangent geometry tell me my eye was looking up at about a 5.6 degree angle. Given the height of N scale 33" wheels (0.2") set 2 inches from the edge of the board, my loosely measured distance to see the top of the wheel was pretty darned close.
Why does this matter? Well, it just gives me a baseline to compare against. For example, I didn't have track or roadbed under those N scale cars, and if I did I should be able to see the top of the rail from the same spot 60" from the edge of the shelf. More importantly, if I'm across the room 12' from the edge of the shelf, as long as my head isn't lower than about 13" above the floor I'll be able to see the top of the rail of the front track. As my normal seated eye is at about 42" above the floor, I'd say that's an acceptable margin.
Extrapolating further, if I elevate the rear track (2" further back on tangents) by about a 1/4", I'd also be able to see the top of the rail for that track as well from 60" from the edge of the shelf or across the room (when there isn't a train on the front track, obviously). If I elevate the back track by 1/2", I'd be able to see the whole track profile from 60" away or more. And if I don't elevate the back track, such as around my level crossing and crossovers, at worst I'd be able to see from about the top of the rear car's wheels up. And all these are if I was going to run N scale around the shelf; the larger size of HO just helps all these angles.
Of course, this is all back of envelope figuring and the real world doesn't usually comply quite so nicely. But there's enough margin in those error bars from this evening's mathematical adventure to assure me that given the inherent limitations of a layout visible in profile only, I can achieve some interesting views and I have some options to improve those views pretty easily ... as long as I stand a pace and a half back from the shelf.
Oh well, it is what it is. For a very simple railfanning layout, I'm pretty confident I can make what I have envisioned in my mind work. Hopefully I can mock up a section of the plan in situ and with the actual HO equipment this weekend. It'll be Kato Unitrack and not Woodland Scenics foam roadbed and Peco c83, but it should be close enough to see if the theoretical roughly matches the real world. If I do, I'll snap a few pics and upload them here.