Peter,
Actually I lied. My duck-under is really only 5 1/2" wide. 5 1/2" is wide enough for a double track on 3" centers. One end of it can be seen in the photo below. This is part of my unsceniced staging area made from a large collection of older Atlas code 83 components.
The duck-under is 34" long to span a 2'-6" doorway plus casing. It is made from a 1 x 6 furniture grade poplar board topped with 1/2" homasote. The total thickness then is 1 1/4 inch. The duck-under is removable so this assembly just drops into place on a 2x2 ledge. A countersunk carriage bolt is used to hold it in place.
The brown stuff in the picture is latex wood filler used to smooth out any transition from one part to the next. Part of the head of the carriage bolt can be seen in the center mostly covered with wood filler.
My goal was simplicity with minimum thickness. This duck-under has been in place for 9 months with no sagging noted. If you have a longer span or want more strength 3/4x3/4 aluminum angle irons could be wrapped around the bottom edges of the poplar board with no real increase in thickness (1/8"). We have a tendency to forget that there are a number of metal solutions available when you need strength without bulk.
Eventually I plan to apply Central Valley Plate Bridge Girders to the sides of the duck-under to give it a more finished appearance. CV sells these side plates separately and they can be kit-bashed to create one long span if wanted.
-John
p.s. As I said, the duck-under was designed to be removeable but I have found that the quick bend-under needed to get through the doorway was just not an issue (51" clearance). So I have yet to get back to cutting the rails and wiring the duck-under section for removal.
AlreadyInUse wrote: I would be very concerned about dimensional stability at this point.
I would be very concerned about dimensional stability at this point.
If you feel this may be a problem, use metal studs for construction.
Tom
Life is simple - eat, drink, play with trains!
Go Big Red!
PA&ERR "If you think you are doing something stupid, you're probably right!"
rustyrails wrote: However my duck-under has a clearance of 51 inches and is only 8 inches wide. So the design of the duck-under can make a difference. And swing openings, lift bridges and other techniques can also be used.
However my duck-under has a clearance of 51 inches and is only 8 inches wide. So the design of the duck-under can make a difference. And swing openings, lift bridges and other techniques can also be used.
John: I'm reconsidering the around the room design for all of the reasons stated in this thread. Not to mention that if I want to maintain 30" radii, my blob has to be 6' across.
Your duck-under is 8" deep. That would really solve my major problem. How wide is it? Is it constructed from harwood? I would be very concerned about dimensional stability at this point. Perhaps running the spline over the duck-under...
In any event, I'm slowly coming to the realization that planning is also "working on the layout". A lot more time spent on this stage will pay huge dividends in enjoyment later on. As my wife told me, "We don't have a time-table for this!"
My copy of Joe Fugate's DVD video series arrrived yesterday. I've only watched the first one so far: operations. Fascinating and a lot more to think about.
Regards,
Peter
North Carolina Railroads. No double track in the mountains but lots of curves and grades. Here is one that rises from Old Fort, NC to Ridgeway, NC with 5 turnback curves that takes 13 miles of rail to go 3 linear miles.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=old+fort+railroad&ie=UTF8&ll=35.634558,-82.235069&spn=0.065294,0.11261&z=13
Now that would be fun to model. :)
You are only using 1/2 the room for the layout (if you don't believe me, draw a diagonal line from upper right to lower left and see how much layout is in the right side of the room).
Why not put the bottom "blob" with the turnback curve in the lower right corner and angle the yard into the center of the room.
Lose the crossing/over pass on the upper blob. Put a couple staging tracks for each main along the left wall and hide it behind a low backdrop (just high enough that when you stand at the layout, you can't see the tracks, but if you stand oa a foot high stool you can see and reach over the backdrop.
Question: Would they have had double track mains through the hill country of N Carolina in the 1950's? If not, will you be able to capture the look of N Carolina if you do have double track?
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I hardly ever critique a track plan as everone has different visions of what they want to accomplish. You have a nice room to work with and a couple of things came to mind.
1 You have a lot of tunnels, tunnels are great if accessabe to clean track, fish out that dreaded derail and such.
2 You stated you wanted another town.
3 It appears you have a crossing
So with just this in mind and you have considered loosing most of your tunnels, having more visable track with another town with no portals in a tight area.
See if you can start a grade on straigh track just past the yard about where the tunnel is marked. Loop the track over with a bridge. Your second town could be in the area of the hatch, being a hilly town you could design it not to show , using buildings and such an perhaps at a 45 degree angle for more frontal area.
Anyhow my thought it could give you numerous areas for spurs.
Just my 2 cents. Enjoy...John
Peter, you are probably a lot like me...somewhat impatient to run trains on something approximating a realistic and fun layout. So, you take calculated shortcuts.
Bad news in this hobby.....really, really, bad news. For every shortcut you take, count on hours of displeasure...okay, you see what I mean.
One of the first lessons I learned with my first layout is that if you don't have something to do besides "railfan" and watch your choo-choos trundle around what amounts to a weirdly configured figure-8, you will come to dejection and ultimate defeat. IOW, you will become disenchanted over a few months at most. Then what?
Secondly, if you don't have room off the layout, or at least parked somewhere out of the way, you will have a dickens of a time having fun and running stuff realistically. You must have staging or storage so that you can have the fun with the space you have created. Even if that is two 6' parallel stubs to the side, or hidden under a mountain (better) joined to their lead by a single #5-6 turnout.
Thirdly, even the most basic of yards adds immense utility, variety, and fun to your railfanning. Let me leave that thought with you by stating that I elected to incorporate a substantial yard (not a large one, just something useful for the train lengths I envisioned) in my current layout, and am I ever grateful for having done so.
So, apart from the wonderful help all the other gentlemen are offering you, you need to help yourself and accept some of the wisdom resident in their posts and in the books that you claim to have read. Perhaps one you have missed is the late John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation available from Kalmbach. You and I will probably never have a hankering for an involved layout such as those planned by John over nearly 50 years, but we should do more than pass over his central premises...one being that a railroad has a purpose. It must earn its keep and pay for the odd college education....well, okay, and a new loco and some box cars occasionally. Our layouts should afford us users the pleasure of "working" in revenue service somewhere along the main, even if just one industrial complex and two feet of track.
Variation and realism are what give our layouts legs. Otherwise, they become like so many other things in our homes...there for an hour, then put away for weeks at a time.
-Crandell
Hi, Peter, and First off, don't be too hard on yourself. We have all worn the when starting.
If I may offer a variation on what John (RustyRails) said. If you have settled on a track plan (more or less; they always change) try building a small part of it. Experiment with tracklaying, scenery, a little opreations. See what you like. Also try different methods for each phase and learn what works best for you.
Many people will encourage you to read, read some more, and then find more stuff to read. Reading is great and can teach you a lot of stuff but there is nothing so instructive (in my opinion) as getting your hands dirty.
Hang in there and hang out here. We're always ready to offer advice and help.
rustyrails wrote: If this is your first layout, a 15'x12' two level layout is quite an undertaking. Most of us started out with the basic 4'x8' and spent a long time just learning basic things like how to lay roadbed and bend track. So don't be disheartened but it might be wise to slow down a little bit.
If this is your first layout, a 15'x12' two level layout is quite an undertaking. Most of us started out with the basic 4'x8' and spent a long time just learning basic things like how to lay roadbed and bend track. So don't be disheartened but it might be wise to slow down a little bit.
Sorry if I mislead you John... The current layout is a single deck only. The top is 52" off the floor. (It was 54", but after I had it completely constructed, my wife insisted I lower it by 2". So I took it all apart, cut 2" off all the legs and, as luck would have it, it all fit back together again!)
The duck under is 36" wide and 44" high. Not too bad. But it's also 36" in depth. That's most of the problem since you have to duuuuuuuuuck under. No one ever enters the pit. They don't even ask.
rustyrails wrote: The reason I dwell on the duck-under is that, in my opinion, an around-the-walls layout is much easier to construct and maintain than a layout with big blobs and associated access hatches. Double sided peninsulas are fine (typically with a view block) if you can reach in from both sides easily.
The reason I dwell on the duck-under is that, in my opinion, an around-the-walls layout is much easier to construct and maintain than a layout with big blobs and associated access hatches. Double sided peninsulas are fine (typically with a view block) if you can reach in from both sides easily.
Excellent points. All of them. Perhaps if the duck under was narrower with the option of a lift out so it could be removed during construction...
rustyrails wrote: Bottom line - take a breath, step back, and enjoy what will be a multi-decade hobby.
Bottom line - take a breath, step back, and enjoy what will be a multi-decade hobby.
Your absolutely right John! My only excuse was that I was anxious to "get trains running". I feel like such a fool! Probably no one has ever made this mistake before.
These are all great replies! Thanks to everyone for your suggestions so far.
Brian: Yes, I can bring the "town" down a bit. That might really help with the main line length. I'll measure it tonight and see how much more space I can capture. Yes, I found the 3 tunnel openings pretty ugly as well. To the right is a storage closet with the door just about where the benchwork ends. I would love to tear that out and capture the space, but right now, we just have too much stored in there.
BigG wrote: Hi, and welcome to the learning curve! Have you looked at the booklet: "101 Trackplans"? (Recently republished by Kalmbach)
Hi, and welcome to the learning curve! Have you looked at the booklet: "101 Trackplans"? (Recently republished by Kalmbach)
George: Yes I have this book. And 4 other track plan books as well. I'm familiar with #62. I have a sticky marking the page as a plan I admire. I'll have to take a closer look. I really want to try to maintain 30" radii or greater throughout.
BigG wrote: You mention grade problems with a long loco; that says there is too sharp a transition from the horizontal to your grade. You cannot ignore vertical easements as easily as on the horizontal, but you can cheat a bit on the approaching trackwork by making a longer section slightly inclined. A <1% grade in a town area won't likely be a problem, but try a sample before you commit to it. For long passenger cars, keep your curves big-radius. The 2-10-2 will thank you as well. Your plan for a spline sub'bed can make the vertical easements gentler and easier to build.
You mention grade problems with a long loco; that says there is too sharp a transition from the horizontal to your grade. You cannot ignore vertical easements as easily as on the horizontal, but you can cheat a bit on the approaching trackwork by making a longer section slightly inclined. A <1% grade in a town area won't likely be a problem, but try a sample before you commit to it. For long passenger cars, keep your curves big-radius. The 2-10-2 will thank you as well. Your plan for a spline sub'bed can make the vertical easements gentler and easier to build.
I didn't use easements in my current layout and am paying the price. Lesson learned. As well as my problem with transitions from grade to horizontal. I'm hoping going to a spline sub roadbed will help with that.
I was considering a grade in the town area for the "cheat" factor and for some added visual interest to avoid another plywood Pacific scenerio.
Thanks again to all!
You said: "After a couple of months of study..."
Layout planning and technique learning can be a challenge but that phase can be fun in its own right. When I got back into MRR a few years ago after being away from it for 30 years I found out that I needed to re-learn everything.
See the current thread "track plan critique" for some of my thoughts on starting out but one thing in your notes caught my eye. You said that you could not live with the duck-under. What is (was) the height of your layout? I am 60 years old and I have a duck-under that is no problem for me at all. However my duck-under has a clearance of 51 inches and is only 8 inches wide. So the design of the duck-under can make a difference. And swing openings, lift bridges and other techniques can also be used.
Since you have something built now you can use that to test optimum heights and depths for you. Construction and maintenance can quickly sour one on this hobby unless you do a lot of up-front investigation on items such as ease of reach.
Good luck,-John
It seems we have been going thru the same planning/const'n/modify circle. I settled on a plan (#62), as a base, not solely that it can be walked into... no duckunders for me! Being 12x12 didn't quite fit the size of my 'world', so I shrunk it to 11'w x14' high. The extra length gave me some room to add 4 trk of staging and the thru-line under the lower bottom area. Yes, it's all hidden, but I don't see that as a show-stopper. If need be, there are some cheap automobile rearview TV setups available. For now, the plan is for IRDOT units that I'll likely build to show train positioning under there.
For some added interest, there'll be a dropdown leaf across the opening to the pit, holding a Bascule bridge, allowing for trains to appear from staging and heading up the right side. I expanded the yard next to the pit and made the rear one slightly higher to break it up a bit. Being a Lonewolf, means that I've been reinventing the wheel somewhat, but reading a lot gives me a lot of insight. A couple of good friends are watching what I'm up to, to keep me out of real trouble :+)
If you are building a multi-storey layout, you need enough room between the rails below to the bottom of the subroadbed and wiring above to get in there with a screwdriver and tools for track maintenance. Keep your yard in the foreground for easy handling. Most switch maint will be needed here too.
Glad to see you have a good bunch of contacts. Haven't met a modeller yet who didn't want to talk about the hobby.
Most of all, have fun! George
A few basic observations, but these things are sooooo personal and different to each of us:
There doesn't seem to be any sort of hidden storage on the layout, which would be essential/useful to store your stock on (even if it's just one or two sidings or loops to represent "the rest of the world" - perhaps try to hide a couple on the left side behind some scenery? This is especially important if you want to run more than just one train around in circles, and otherwise have to remove it prior to the next one being used). Also, the loop to the right (around the "hidden access hill") will, to my mind, not look too prototypical with those three tunnel mouths and the crossover.
There seems to be a lot of un-used space within the footprint (although there is no indication as to where the door is located) - can you bring the "town" loop down to the bottom of the plan? - you'll get a lot longer "mainline" run, and the "yard" could be placed in the middle.
I'd strongly suggest that you buy a couple of track plan books for small to medium layouts, and go visit anyone who will offer you an invite to their own layout. Lastly, if you don't like duck-unders, a thin, hinged bridge carrying a track, which could be lifted when you want to get through would REALLY open up possiblities for much better use of the space, and give you far more potential in the space allowed.
Thanks for the offer to contribute.
Brian
I am 10 months into building a layout, have decided it's not working, and I am going to rip it out and start over. I could really use some advice, insight, and help with my track plan.
The Problem
After a couple of months of study, I started on my current layout last May. It's basically a 15' x 12' with a duck under. L-girder and a bi-level plywood deck construction. Only about ¼ lends itself to 3-dimensional scenery. The rest is a plywood Pacific.
The Cure
Constraints
Here's the basic plan I'm trying to develop. It's 15' x 13'. The 3' x 5' yard in the lower left is not included in those dimensions.
The track is about ½ of what I have now I would really like to run a double main line. But I can't figure out how to do it without most of it in tunnels. Is there a way to create a double main line and perhaps add another industry and/or town?
(Yes, I've read Space Mouse's beginner's guide. Twice. I've joined the NRMA and regularly attend my division meetings.)
Thanks for any and all help, advice, and criticism. There's no need to go easy. I'm a 58-year-old geezer and can handle it.