Jeff, you have gave me something to think about, don't understand what I am thinking about but I will figuer it out.
Plus I will run the book over to K-10 Trains for Ken to look at as well. If my math is right to get 7" up 2% I need 58.3 feet each way?
Depending on what Ken from K-10 trains tells me this section would be for shorter trains that run just this loop for the mine. There will be a out side loop for the A line (main line ) that will go a round the mine. I would like to pull 6 to 10 coal cars with either my BLI Heavy Mike, BLI M1a or BLI Hudson with traction tires.
They really need to stop showing PIC of layouts that have rails 2 feet above the main line.
Tired of flat again Cuda Ken
I hate Rust
I'm not saying you can't get it to work, and I like the folded dogbone concept well enough that one lies at the core of our layout here.
What worries me most about the layout as drawn is in the lower right corner. As the track comes out of the lower loop, the outer leg runs into a tunnel at level zero. Shortly thereafter, it crosses underneath the inner leg (which becomes the outer leg at that point. You can get by with a 2.75 inch difference in rail heigth at a crossover, but only if you use quarter inch luan for the upper subroadbed, and choose not to run unusually tall equipment, like a 250 ton Spectrum derrick. Otherwise, you need at least three inches or more difference in rail heigth at crossovers.
In this case, they indicate that. The inner leg shows to be at the plus three elevation one section of track before the curve begins. The problem you will run into adapting the layout to your 5x9 is that it shows that same track at the plus 6 level half a curve later.
Even if you use three quarters of an HO curve to grade up to plus six, at the 22 inch radius you specified, you only have 22" x 2 x PI (full circle), times 0.75(three quarters of a full circle), lineal inches of track to accomplish that. I get a three inch rise in 103.6 lineal inches, which is a 2.89 percent grade. That's pretty steep for a normal railroader, much less one who likes to challenge steam with long trains, and it's a generously low assessment of the actual grade that section will encompass, because you get the benefit of the doubt on the half versus three quarters of a full circle issue. Three vertical inches in half a 22" curve comes to a grade of 4.3 percent.
One saving grace, you don't have to worry about transitions in that section, as long as you maintain a steady grade. I think it could be worked out, but it's something you're going to have to play with a bit before casting the design in stone.
Something else to think about while I'm here, one strength of a folded dogbone is that where the "two" mains are close together during the "fold", a simple crossover from one to the other creates an easy reversing loop, or even two of them if desired.
These have to be wired as reversing loops, and will also impact your grade considerations in this case, but the potential is there, inherent in the design, if you choose to take advantage of it, and it doesn't require much track or room, just a pair of turnouts.
The plain came from "Complete Layout Plans for all model tain sets" second edition Jan 1978. As far as the grade Jeff that is one of the reason I asked what people thought of it. The grade would start in the tunnel well before it shows 1" in the PIC.
It is O gauge, how long is a standred section of O gauge track? I know most atlas HO straights are 9". The bench in the Pic is O gauge and it is 3'6" X 8'. If they are 9" then it would be a 3.3 grade. But my new bench is 1.5 feet wider and 1.5 longer than the one showen.
One of the main things I like is I run it as a stand alone while I tear down the rest of the bench and start fresh.
Any one speak O gauge?
Cuda Ken
No special wiring.
The layout is a modified folded dogbone. The modification is that the fold crosses over itself, and you might run into grade problems trying to pull that off in a 5x9.
Crunch the numbers and see what you come up with, I think it's going to be pretty steep.
cudaken wrote:Here is a idea that came to me today at work. ... Left side is the current bench right is the new 5' X 9.5 foot section. Not sure what the X section of track is called where it cross over or is that what it is called? Never used one before.
... Left side is the current bench right is the new 5' X 9.5 foot section. Not sure what the X section of track is called where it cross over or is that what it is called? Never used one before.
It depends on the brand of crossing that is used if it will require any special wiring. Fully insulated crossings like Atlas will be no issue.
Generally one can test for needs of reversing "loop" wiring by tracing the path of a potential train. Start in various places and take all possible paths back to that location. If any of the traces result in the train at that point headed in the opposite direction then there was a reversing section in the path it followed.
Ken
In the print of a layout from the book is called the reverse dogbone.I know because it was the very first layout I made several years ago.i built it in ho on a 4'x8' table.As i built it expaned it in the middle by 4' so it ended up as 4'x 12'. I had my yards on the top of the picture. It was very interesting to watch my kids play with it.The grade was very steep that is why I put the center peace in.Hope this helped you out on a discission.
slow train ED
I can make out what seems to be an indication for O gauge at the bottom right of the expanded image.
I found this little plan immensely appealing at first glance, but also noted right away that it has no way to turn trains. It could be easily done, I think, by extending the diagonal through to the right past that top industry and curving left to join the main.
bearman wrote: That track plan looks like the Custer & Shoshone Station (?) more or less from 101 Trackplans.
That track plan looks like the Custer & Shoshone Station (?) more or less from 101 Trackplans.
I would go so far as to say that at one point or another most layouts looks like something out of 101 Trackplans, even if it's only part of one of the track plans mixed with part of another.
The art of it, comes from being able to look at 101 Trackplans, and decieding which part of the track goes into a tunnel, and which part forms a bridge, and the other stuff like that - something I can't do at all, which is why I find 101 Trackplans of very limited value.
Bear "It's all about having fun."
Greg H. wrote: cudaken wrote: SNIP Allso came across this today in a old layout book. With a little work I think I can use this on the 5' X 9.5' section and use the drawing above to hook it to my main line. I want to keep all the turns around 22" and I think I have the room. I like to beable to run the new section as a seprate branch line to the mine but still be able to run a A line train on it as well. It will be all DCC as well and HO. Hey, that's a nice looking layout that can lend it's self to modification. Three questions.What size is it?What scale is it?Where did you find it?
cudaken wrote: SNIP Allso came across this today in a old layout book. With a little work I think I can use this on the 5' X 9.5' section and use the drawing above to hook it to my main line. I want to keep all the turns around 22" and I think I have the room. I like to beable to run the new section as a seprate branch line to the mine but still be able to run a A line train on it as well. It will be all DCC as well and HO.
SNIP
Allso came across this today in a old layout book.
With a little work I think I can use this on the 5' X 9.5' section and use the drawing above to hook it to my main line. I want to keep all the turns around 22" and I think I have the room. I like to beable to run the new section as a seprate branch line to the mine but still be able to run a A line train on it as well. It will be all DCC as well and HO.
Hey, that's a nice looking layout that can lend it's self to modification.
Three questions.
What size is it?
What scale is it?
Where did you find it?
That looks a lot like one of those WS pre-fab layouts. Very similar track plan.
Unless I've gone brain dead, which could happen at this time of night, there's no reverse loop (besed on the fragment of the drawing). Any time you leave one layout and come back to the other you are still going the same way. You just need to wire it so things are not shorted, in other words the right hand track on both sides are common. At the simplest level, assuming there are no reverse loops in either side, it's a figure eight with cutoffs to make it two ovals.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
It looks like what would be a standard crossover although I assume the tracks are far enough apart you'd accomplish this with turnouts rather than the normal crossover track, using a standard 90 degree crossing in the middle. You wouldn't need any special wiring because, as far as I can see, you're not creating a reverse loop. Well, I take that back. The longer I look at it, the crossing on the middle looks like it will create a reverse loop on both layouts so you'd need to wire a reversing switch for each direction. I think you could avoid this by using turnouts that didn't cross one another in the middle but I'm really lousy at electrical things so I hope one of the electrical guru's will chime in and let me know if I'm right or wrong.
Not sure what the questions is with the layout diagram. Is this what you're think of using for the connecting section? Looks interesting but also complicated enough it would be a long building project.
As I move on to working on the new K-10 Mining section I have been looking for the best way to have long smooth turns in the shortes space I can to hook up to my current bench.
Here is a idea that came to me today at work.
Left side is the current bench right is the new 5' X 9.5 foot section. Not sure what the X section of track is called where it cross over or is that what it is called? Never used one before.