DMarker wrote:My second question for the forum, totally unrelated from the first question above, is on vertical easements. I plan to use cookie-cutter, 3/4" plywood and cork construction. I understand that a 2.5% grade is a rise of 2 1/2" over a run of 100". To maintain a true 2.5% maximum grade and allow for vertical easements, the 100" run should be extended, but by how much? The online searching I've done varies greatly. The shortest was 6" (3" on each end of the grade, based on a geometrical explanation that was way over my head). The longest was 30" (12" for each percent of grade). I interpret the variation to mean that longer easements are better. But on a smaller layout where you're scapping for every 1/8", don't worry - let the cookie-cutter do it's thing, and if 2.5% is really 2.75%, so be it.Any feedback on either of my questions would again be most appreciated.-Marker
My second question for the forum, totally unrelated from the first question above, is on vertical easements. I plan to use cookie-cutter, 3/4" plywood and cork construction. I understand that a 2.5% grade is a rise of 2 1/2" over a run of 100". To maintain a true 2.5% maximum grade and allow for vertical easements, the 100" run should be extended, but by how much? The online searching I've done varies greatly. The shortest was 6" (3" on each end of the grade, based on a geometrical explanation that was way over my head). The longest was 30" (12" for each percent of grade). I interpret the variation to mean that longer easements are better. But on a smaller layout where you're scapping for every 1/8", don't worry - let the cookie-cutter do it's thing, and if 2.5% is really 2.75%, so be it.
Any feedback on either of my questions would again be most appreciated.
-Marker
With 3/4" plywood, you are not going to be able to bend it to a vertical curve that your rolling stock cannot handle. I've always used 5 ply 1/2" plywood, and I've never been able to bend that into too sharp a vertical transition for my HO layout. So why put yourself through the agony of calculating everything to the nearest .001"? Very few of us can construct benchwork to better than 1/16" tolerance, anyway.
One of the beauties of cookie-cutter construction is not having to worry about vertical transitions. Calculate the grade based on straight line, and know the mid-point when built will be a little steeper. But if train length approaches even 1/2 the length of the grade, a good portion of the train will not be on the steepest part of the grade at any given time.
Tip: if at possible, make the entire grade with one piece of plywood, including a little distance beyond transitions at each end. The worst place to have a plywood joint is in the vertical transition area. Better to put the joint at mid-grade with a decent length splice plate underneath (if the splice plate is fastened properly, that section isn't going to bend into a vertical curve).
Another tip: if the grade is on a curve, be prepared to add extra risers and cleats to "twist" the plywood into laying flat (or your chosen super elevation) across the grade. Without the introduced twist, on a 180 degree curve 1/2 the grade will a negative super-elevation and 1/2 will have a positive. The steeper the grade and the sharper curve, the more pronounced the effect. Don't ask me how I learned this.
Final tip: Be prepared to go to 5/8" or 1/2" plywood instead of 3/4" subroadbed for your grades if you can't get enough bend or twist into it. The bends and twists pre-stress the plywood and will make it more rigid than plywood laid flat, so the the reduced thickness will not cause you any sagging problems.
my thoughts and experiences, your choices
Fred W
DMarker wrote: I've been making progress on my layout planning - mostly working on Town C first, getting roads and parking lots and crossings, more specific on the industries and building footprints. Not ready to post an updated plan yet. The Thawville thread was great learning for me, but lead me to an amateur proto-lance question for you guys. When would a railroad service multiple industries with one spur vs. an individual spur for each industry? I'm guessing it would be based on what's most cost-effective. For smaller industries in rural midwest during the late 60's, what would be typical?
I've been making progress on my layout planning - mostly working on Town C first, getting roads and parking lots and crossings, more specific on the industries and building footprints. Not ready to post an updated plan yet. The Thawville thread was great learning for me, but lead me to an amateur proto-lance question for you guys. When would a railroad service multiple industries with one spur vs. an individual spur for each industry? I'm guessing it would be based on what's most cost-effective. For smaller industries in rural midwest during the late 60's, what would be typical?
I am glad the Thawville thread was of use to you. I (and Jeff - ICRR1964) had fun working on that design.
For the 2x8 small agricultural town design contest, I researched three midwestern towns (one of them, Thawville, in collaboration with Jeff - ICRR1964), looking at historical prototype photos,
It certainly seems that having several industries on the same track at least was not something very unusual - I found this in all three towns I looked at:
You have already seen the Thawville design (and the prototype photos that design was based on).
Here is another 2x8 layout, based on prototype photos of NP trackage in Fergus Falls, Otter Tail County, Minnesota (pop about 13 000 - it is a larger town).
And her is another, based on a the small town of Dalton, MN (pop 258, as of the 2000 Census). My wife's grandpa had a rail served business in Dalton back in the 1950s or so - a smallish lumber dealership.
Prototype photos from Dalton (from the Minnesota Historical society's online DB of images):
View from the south:
View from the north:
Prototype photos from Fergus Falls (also from the MN Historical society online DB):Here is a prototypical track through a smallish midwestern town (Fergus Falls, Otter Tail County, MN - picture is from 1971, tracks are older):
We are looking northwest along the Northern Pacific track. Depot is at left side of photo, freight track center left, elevator at top, concrete pipe plant and fuel dealer on siding at bottom.
Same scene seen from the north towards the south:
Smile, Stein
Here is the bottom of the grade.
________/ That is not much of a diagram with keyboard... been way too long since ASCII...
Anyhow...
A pullman Heavyweight is about 1 foot long. If I ran that pullman into the bottom of the grade as presented in my rough diagram in the previous sentance, the wheels will lift off the ground and derail when it runs into the grade itself.
That pullman should start to GENTLY very GENTLY climb about 1.5 feet PRIOR to the start of the grade. This Grade will increase from Horizonal to the actual grade.
WHen that pullman reaches the TOP of the grade it needs about 1.5 feet to DECREASE the grade before actually passing the summit itself onto Level track.
So, whatever grade I have I add about 3 feet to the total length to allow that pullman to behave nicely.
Now that coal car? The little widdle 6 inch car? You hit the trestle grade about 4 inches prior and end it 4 inches after.
I have tested the PRR Duplex from BLI against my KATO track and a woodland scenics gradeient foam at 3% I find that I need to start the grade 2 feet from the bottom of the incline and end it 2 feet after the top of the incline.
The word I use is transitions and they exist at the bottom and the top of all grades.
Regarding the smaller layouts with less room for transitions, That is why I keep a 4 axle set of ABBA F units with a 2-10-2 pusher. I can handle any train up any grade as long as the flanges can hold the rolling stock down on the rails at the transitions.
With that attitude, I consider 3% the maximum grade. If it still isnt enough room then I add curves to it to try and cross over the track at a different location and stay within the 3%. Yes I know I will introduce additional gradiant because of curvature but we are in mountain country anyhow.
I'm going with the twice-around design with lower-level staging. Thanks for the confirmation that this design will work as long as I pay close attention to the grades and, as selector advised, keep the staging to a few tracks located at the front edge of the benchwork.
Well, I dont find anything to pick on in the latest plan. But arent you overly thunking the trackwork in town B?
I like the plans and the ideas presented here very much. It's too bad that the center space of the room will be used for something else. Also the need for two liftouts is daunting to me. One will be enough.
I see that you are determined to have a functional yard, whatever the space you have. I like how you made it work. The plan to the lower left of the screen shows alot of empty space. Leave that space empty until you master scenery or other ideas pop into your head during construction.
DMarker wrote:The friendly, supportive and fun atmosphere is impressive - lots of information and entertainment - 21 pages on toast!!!
industry spurs and building locations are all rough ideas.) Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
3. I tried to keep the lift-out sections as simple as possible, but each would contain two tracks on different grades. Seems complex, but doable.
All some good points to a very good initial plan. I would consider that you have the staging under the opposite side from the yard though. Even if you are able to gain the 8-10" separation, you should try to avoid having the staging yard directly beneath the main yard. There will be quite a few switch machines under that yard. Any service or replacement may cause removal of the staging yard.
I like how it has been described to start the decent much farther back by altering the benchwork. This can even be done as a forground track that is on a small shelf attached th the main framework.
Even if you have track elevation that are 8" different on the lift out, some creative stepped frame shouldn't be a problem.
A good plan so far, keep us posted on progress and changes.
Modeling B&O- Chessie Bob K. www.ssmrc.org
Thanks everyone for your additional feedback. In response to some of your comments...
Thanks for pointing out the reach issues in the NE and SE corners. Maybe I could get the shelf smaller in those areas or use your ideas of a pop-up from behind. I will work on that. On Bob's idea of a duck-under on the north wall, this is a door to the outside. We don't use it often, but the door swings open into the room.
Sorry SpaceMouse, but I still can't visualize your suggestion. I've attempted to draw the change in the following image.
I think there's at least two problems with my drawing. 1) I don't see how to get from Town B to under Town C in the distance available (from the 4 to the 0 on my drawing), and vice versa. 2) In my drawing, the two routes have to cross somewhere (the blue X on my drawing), but I don't know where/how.
What am I missing?
I am no expert, but I play one on TV.
I don't know if you have thought about it but maybe you have. Since it looks like you have no problem with trains running through the same scene on different levels (which there is nothing wrong with) and if you are using that door along the south wall a lot you might just want to think about putting two blobs on either side of that door and have the track loop back on itself. That way your only lift outs will be on the seldom used door and you will have free access for people to move freely from the Train, uh, I mean Family room.
Just something to think about. Plus it keeps the plan a little simpler and visitor friendly
Chris
Lancaster, CA
Check out my railroad at: Buffalo and Southwestern
Photos at:Flicker account
YouTube:StellarMRR YouTube account
DMarker wrote: Thanks everyone for your prompt and thoughtful feedback. I should've mentioned in my original post that I'm usually only able to get on the computer every few days. Please don't interpret my delayed response as a lack of interest.Regarding your comments on laying out the turnouts and buildings in Towns B & C, good suggestions that I will definitely use as I refine those areas. For sure I need to check and double-check the radius of all curves. SpaceMouse, I read your comment about planning streets and parking for industries in a different thread and thought "man that's a good idea!" Then I totally forgot about it. I wrote it down this time.I'm still stuck on this grade thing and the LL staging separation. Selector says I could get 8-10" with approx 2.5% grade, but SpaceMouse only gives me 6". Obviously, I like selector's answer better , but when I do my own math I can barely get to SpaceMouse's 6" mark . I'm doing the math by hand so I could be messing it up. I calculate approx 19' of run from staging to Town B, then about 4' more from the other end of Town B to the yard lead of Town A. So, 23' x 2.5% grade gives 6.9", then need take away some to allow for vertical easements. I'm assuming the track in Town B should be level. Help!!!Spacemouse, I also don't follow your solution to get additional inches. If you could expand on that a little more, I would be most grateful.Dazed and confused, but having fun... thanks again!
Thanks everyone for your prompt and thoughtful feedback. I should've mentioned in my original post that I'm usually only able to get on the computer every few days. Please don't interpret my delayed response as a lack of interest.
Regarding your comments on laying out the turnouts and buildings in Towns B & C, good suggestions that I will definitely use as I refine those areas. For sure I need to check and double-check the radius of all curves. SpaceMouse, I read your comment about planning streets and parking for industries in a different thread and thought "man that's a good idea!" Then I totally forgot about it. I wrote it down this time.
I'm still stuck on this grade thing and the LL staging separation. Selector says I could get 8-10" with approx 2.5% grade, but SpaceMouse only gives me 6". Obviously, I like selector's answer better , but when I do my own math I can barely get to SpaceMouse's 6" mark . I'm doing the math by hand so I could be messing it up. I calculate approx 19' of run from staging to Town B, then about 4' more from the other end of Town B to the yard lead of Town A. So, 23' x 2.5% grade gives 6.9", then need take away some to allow for vertical easements. I'm assuming the track in Town B should be level. Help!!!
Spacemouse, I also don't follow your solution to get additional inches. If you could expand on that a little more, I would be most grateful.
Dazed and confused, but having fun... thanks again!
By rough estimation, I figure you've got about 23 linear feet from B or C to staging, thus corroberating<sp> SpaceMouse's 6ish inches. Now add the additional amount from B Or C to A and you gain maybe 2ish inches more, getting closer to the 8ish inches mentioned eailer in the thread. Your "liftouts" would probably best be made as (4) individual items, as they will be on opposing grades to achieve the desired grade seperation between A and staging, through B and C.
As for overall critique; Very nice. Simple, yet functional. Should be fun and challanging to build, but not so daunting to delay operation. Only thing that stands out to me (besides double checking "standards", ie minimum radius, etc.) is the "reach distance" in the very corners of Towns B and C ,combined with the height at which this may be built to clear "daily living".
You might consider having enough space in the corners to "pop up" from behind the backdrop to reach rear most items, or just reduce the distance, from the facia to backdrop, to a more managable 24-28 inches (looks like you might be reaching almost 36 inches now).
You can get fancy and start your changes of grade before the lift-out/bridge sections, or you can achieve your separation by making the route from town B and counter-clockwise to the left an up-grade. With the top lifting by 3-5", and the route to staging dropping 3-5", you are sure to get the minimum practical separation between levels that you need.
Either way, to get the two levels means either two bridges at different heights at each span, or create a single, multi-level bridge.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
I designed myself a Basement Layout as well this winter. My room is 9' x 17' a bit smaller than yourself. However our track plans were remarkable similar, although I only had 2 towns each against apposing long walls.
The importance of staging for me is a must, there is no way to simulate traffic if nothing leaves and comes to the layout. And the magic hand from the sky doesn't leave much to the imagination or the weathered cars, plus it is very time consuming.
For me the around the room twice approach to the hidden staging yard doesn't work. For one with a smaller linear run the grades were two steep or didn't provide enough clearance. Two due to the elevation change the second town disappeared, with opposing grades. Three I model the upper midwest, its flat not graded.
I realized I could make the entire layout a Helix, and run around the room another trip to decend to the hidden staging. However the intent of the Layout was to be built with domino approach and be movable someday. It would be hard to fit a Helix layout into another layout.
So I finally decided to cut a hole in one wall and run the 16' staging along the laundry room wall. Its not perfect but a comprimise none the less.
But I get to keep my two towns.
Cheers
2. I calculate at a 2.5% grade a separation track to track of about 6". That includes in between the two tracks any foam, plywood, support structure and roadbed. Not looking promising. But it could be worked out by reversing your direction 180 degrees in the corners (about where the words "Town B" and "Town C" appear) and dropping the additional 4-5 inches required.
4. You have the buildings. Have you allowed for streets and parking lots for your industries. If they are served by trucks can the trucks back in? What about scenic features?
DMarker,
I like the trackplan. I think you've done a good job of figuring in switching and operation. Of course i'm not one of those "design experts" you mentioned.
I think you can get those mains down to staging with some creative customization on your benchwork. Basically using a part module, part girder style benchwork. I've been trying to work this out for my own layout as well. Also the yard modules would probably need to be thinner but sturdy. If you know how to figure grade %, figure out what you need for clearance on staging then go back from there. I'm thinking you'd be able to begin your grades after your towns and by customizing your benchwork, keeping the downgrade main on girder while the other areas around it in that section would be modular, you could make your way under the yard. I hope i'm explaining this in a way that makes sense.
I might fiddle around with the yard a bit to see if you couldn't get an extra track in there or something , and i would try to make your switch lead a little longer. In town C you might want to try taking the bldg. out of the center of the tracks, move the tracks closer together and make yourself a longer passing siding there. But that too could depend on where your grade would begin going to staging.
Either way , I think your on to something good.
I think you have done very well. I would be happy with this design. It has some variety, and plenty of the railfanning running. It also addresses your requirements for making the room largely multipurpose. Just make sure you have much of the layout high enough where chair backs won't be slamming into the bench. Heads, too, in those chairs. Or, if that causes a serious access problem for your youngster, what will you do to protect everything. Hard feelings bite when they come at you most weeks.
At your point at upper right, Town B, just lower right of the name are two turnouts. The upper seems to lead into a very tight curve....you may want to loosen that up a bit by taking the apex of the curve further to the NE a bit.
You only really need about 8-14" of separation. It isn't as if you have two 36" deep shelves over which you must reach....is it? The staging should be as shallow as you can make it..12-16" would be ideal. With that depth, reaching into 8" shouldn't be a huge problem if you only have four or five tracks deep. I am not saying 8" would be fine, but it would be doable. All you need is clearance for a wrist and the cuff of a sleeve. In any event the runs you show should have no trouble getting you down about 10" with a 2.5% grade...ish. Trust the math, but don't overlook the vertical easements.
Yes, two tracks at different grades is doable. Just form the terrain and do it while the section is in place. Build up your roadbed, lay the tracks, and do rolling stock push trials to see how it works.
I think you should have fun, and it will be a challenge.
Typical story: model trains in my high school and college days, then a long break. On a whim, I stopped in a hobby shop two years ago at Christmas time and got hooked. I've been reading, dreaming and learning ever since. Bought some stuff and laid some track on a sheet of plywood to play with trains while I learn.
First, I have to compliment you guys on your forum. The friendly, supportive and fun atmosphere is impressive - lots of information and entertainment - 21 pages on toast!!!
Here's my dream:
Scale: HO
Era: Late 1960's
Layout Space: 14' x 20' basement room. Door into the room on center of the south wall (used a lot), door to the outside on center of the north wall (used seldom).
Prototype/Freelance: Central Wisconsin freight (the Stevens Point/Marshfield area), based loosely on the SOO Line. Maybe based more tightly as I continue to learn about the SOO.
Atmosphere: I picture small towns, small industries, a rural feeling, space/length between points of interest.
Design: I've zeroed in on a twice-around design on an around-the-walls shelf layout. Center space stays open as this a multi-use family area. The twice-around in this space seems to allow for three separate towns. Lower-level staging to emulate points east (Chicago for example) and west (Twin Cities). Built in sections to start small and grow, also could be dismantled and moved if necessary. Would require two lift-out sections.
Operation: Great to support somewhat realistic ops as I learn about all of that - don't know much yet. Railfanning for sure - my oldest grandson is in first grade now and loves our roundy-round.
Here's my current layout plan.
The plan is still at a high level and needs lots of refinement. (The yard, industry spurs and building locations are all rough ideas.) Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Here are my specific questions.
1. Is the twice-around with a large town on one wall and two small towns in the opposite corners a reasonable approach/good use of space to achieve my goals described above?
2. Not sure that I can get reasonable separation for the lower-level staging (under Town A) with a reasonable grade. Seems possible, but I'm not sure. Is this gonna work? Also, I'm thinking the track in towns B & C should be level, would you agree?
3. I tried to keep the lift-out sections as simple as possible, but each would contain two tracks on different grades. Seems complex, but doable. Comments?
4. Am I totally missing something - altogether whacked? (Hopefully not, but I'd like to learn now versus the hard way.)
Any other thoughts/ideas/suggestions that all you design experts can offer would be most welcome! Thanks in advance for any advice that you can offer.