Raised on the Erie Lackawanna Mainline- Supt. of the Black River Transfer & Terminal R.R.
Are you a beginner getting ready to do your first layout? If so, I'd avoid inclines at all costs. Grades are the only places I have significant issues with derailing or uncoupling. And big engines are a nightmare on anything like a steep grade (more than 2%). At 2%, you need 175 horizontal inches (14.6 feet) to gain 3 1/2 inches of elevation (the minimum vertical separation for a lower level track). And you need that much to come back down again if you're joining the ends of a loop.
I have to say that I'm not familiar with the layout in question. However, my feeling is that if you just want a bridge, you can use risers (either Woodland Scenics or make your own out of extruded foam panels) to elevate the track above the plywood (or whatever you're using for a base) and just insert a bridge and water feature into your layout. The water feature would rest on the base, and thus be below the track.
This image shows the technique on my son's layout.
Yes, I know the depth of field isn't too good in the photograph, but that's the idea. The lake is actually at a higher level and has a waterfall coming out of it, although it is still below the main terrain level.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
Capt, just calculate 2% of your available length. In other words, if the track length is 100 inches, 2% = 2 inches of elevation, etc. Two percent is sort of a rule of thumb which most equipment will handle just fine.
My HO layout has an over and under track loop and the entire layout is 3 feet x 4.5 feet, so obviously grades steeper than 2% are used. Mine are about 4-5% and all of my equipment will handle it just fine. Granted my trains aren't more than 4 or 5 cars long, but on a layout as small as mine that's about all that's feasible anyway.
Just one bit of advice: Test it before you build it. Just get a long 1" x 4" board and temporarily tack or glue some track on it. Prop up one end on something and see how well your trains will run on it. It's easy to try different percentages - just prop it up a little higher and try again. Then you'll know for sure and it's very quick and easy to do.
- Harry
Capt. Grimek wrote:Hi,I'd like to run big locos in an 8X16' room.Layout design # 56, the Dayton & Northern R.R. in Linn Wescott's book, "101 Track Plans for Model Railroaders"appeals except, I'm not sure if it's possible to add inclines/grades to this layout or not?Could anyone who has this book and is experienced offer some suggestions?...I have 4' I can add to the length and 2' I could add to the width. If there's a way to add a decent grade and ideally a bridge and scenery or over under somewhere, I need suggestions.This is one of several layout styles I'm considering. The number of operating sidings for industries appealsas do the corssovers for meets on the double track, but I'd really like a couple of bridges somewhere...Thanks!
This plan has an oval mainline, so any increase in elevation will require a similar decrease within a relatively short distance.. Not much will be gained by having track on a grade, and you don't want a grade where there could be a cut of cars (or they will roll away). You might consider adding slight grades to the opposite ends, perhaps increasing elevation by a half inch or so.
The plan is quite crowded, but with the additional width and length that you have, there will be more room for scenery and a brook or two, with the corresponding need for bridges/trestles/culverts. Build the frame so that you have at least a couple or inches or so distance between the top of the framework and the (presumably plywood) track base, so there is room for below-tracks scenery without weakening the frame.
Mark
It's not really the grades that kill you so much as the transitions. Unless they're very gradual at the top, longer cars and locos will tend to derail. since the rear of the loco / car is still on the grade, which tends to make the front pop up and the flanges slide over the rails. This is much more of a problem if your transition is on a curve.
Going downwards, coupler trip pins tend to catch on ties if the transition is too abrupt.
And, of course, any transition is enough to uncouple cars if your couplers have a lot of play or aren't perfectly aligned.
Speaking from experience in all three cases.... I've found it relatively easy to gradually transition into a 2% grade... anything steeper gives me a kink in the track, usually at a joint, and that's where the problems occur.
Capt.
I don't have experience with that particular layout, but I wouldn't take the layout plan as gospel. Those plans were drawn by graphic artists and only loosely represent reality. In addition, they used turnouts available 40 years ago and the ones today can have different geometry. I've had as much as 50% variation in size when I tried to recreate the plans in that book with software using the turnouts available today.
I'm not saying give up. I'm just saying maybe you should draw the plan out using one of the free programs available before you plop down your cash and find something ain't right.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Hi, I wonder if the addition of a long grade will really add to this plan. Once the train gets to the top of the hill, what will it do in the extra 4ft you have available? It'd take more than that to turn around so it could come back down, unless the only real thing up there was another turntable. You'll need a 3/4 circle plus a mean reverse curve there to reconnect with the original upgrade. In designing your grade, don't forget to allow for the curvatures- both horizontal and vertical, to get onto and off the grade. While long-chassis locos look great on big layouts, they look (to me) a bit odd on tight radius curves and short straightaways, and love to lift wheels off the rails and drag couplers if the vertical transitions are too abrupt.
I'm currently building a variation of plan 62, with added staging at the bottom of the pictured plan, inside the raised level. Short bodied locos and back country railroading will be the rule. No-duckunder is important to me as well. My biggest challenge was to get a reasonable grade from upper right, going left and over the yard in a version that is a foot narrower than shown.
Glad to see someone else is exploring Linn's great book, and really pleased to see it republished. There's a lot of new thinking on layout design that could be applied to some of the plans in it.
Have fun, George
Capt. Grimek wrote: Well, if the same vein and a similar plan (but with more operation and only 26" into 24" curves) the following planhas grades designed into it. If anyone also has this book in their libraries, I'd appreciate comments as to whether anything looks too optimistic with it. (Running articulated locos)."Track Planning Ideas from Model Railroader" 58track plans from past issues selected by Bob Hayden"The Warbeek and Sunmount R.R." Pages 32 & 33
ByronModel RR Blog
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Hi again.. About my layout: it started as 12x12', but it was a foot too wide for the space available, so I shrunk it. Now it is only 11'w x 13.5'hi as the picture is printed with the pit opening on the right. After a ream of scratch paper and a lot of doodling, the orig plan kept coming back at me. Nothing says you have to slavishly copy the original, but I figured it to be a reasonable try. I made a 12"-scale HO drawing on a sheet of the heavy paper from inside a roll of sheet vinyl flooring that somehow survived my housebuilding, and drew in the switches as closely as possible. I used Peco mostly with a few Shinohara and some Atlas. I don't think I had any problems getting things to fit. I use C100 except where the Atlas are, and they are on the conversion list for C100 too (presently C83) as some of my stock has deep flanges that hit bottom some places. I traced the dwg onto Velum and then onto the plywood subroadbed for cutting.
During construction it became very obvious that this rookie needed some place to hide/stage trains. That is something rare in 1950-70 plans. I got good space in the 2nd attempt by placing 4 runs plus the thru track under the hilands at the bottom of the sketch. Since I have access to all but 5' at the top-left of the perimeter, I can reach everything so servicing isn't a problem. There will be a couple of pop-ups to help with the reaching, one under the lumbermill to come.
You mentioned 1 loco; how much rolling stock do you have? In a small area, would N-scale be an idea for you? Unless this layout is for small fingers, that may be worth thinking about. You'd have roughly twice the real estate to build in, and only need about half the vertical clearances for flyovers. A helix might give you vertical space for a multi-level layout. In N, it would fit into your room easily; in HO, you'd have to think hard about it. They are rather large. In 8x16, don't abandon the around the wall style. A drop-down across the doorways may be feasable. I have a Bascule bridge slated for my pit opening, on a drop-down panel that will swing completely out of the traffic so as to not get banged about. That'll all come later when I get around to scenic-ing.
Problem doorways? If you and the landlord can agree, and the wall is not a "supporting wall", they could be converted to pocket doors that slide inside the wall, or maybe just reversing the swing can do a lot to help the space open up. Be aware of local bldg codes that may require doors to open outward, or window access for emergencies.
Looking fwd to what you decide on.... Planning can be fun too! George
Yes, it was definitely the Wescott book.
I got serious about one of their shelf layouts. It was supposed to be 12" x 12' if I remember. Using Atlas turnouts and flex, it took 18" x 14' to get it all connected. I asked others here and was told it was common. Since then I've heard others say the same thing on other layout designs.
I'm not saying don't do, just be wary. And I will add to what Byron is saying--those plans are very old style. We've come a long way since then. Track plans today look better and operate better for the same space. The biggest thing that has changed is that the designs have moved from being like amusement park rides to functioning railroads.
Because I was redefining the overall size of the plan, What I used for turnouts really became up to me. I bought a lot of curved units by Peco, Shinohara & Walthers, to the delight of my LHS. That large-radius curved one from Peco was a lifesaver, and inserted into an easement area was a boon! Think it is close to 60/30" radius. Laying everything out on that real-sized plan on the floor, meant I could put things where I wanted, and juggle track to fit. Track doesn't need to come straight off the turnout, but can keep curving more to make a yard throat easier to line up. Some units have curved exits, while others straighten almost as soon as they get past the frog. Carefully trimming some back toward the frog can be useful, but leave enough space for the railjoiner... :+) I agree with the problems of small scale; someone keeps moving the world as I try to rerail cars! The Rix rerailer ramp is a great help.
Keep exploring. There's no one way to make a layout; what works for you is your "right" way. Unless modelling an exact scene from the prototype, anything reasonable goes. The joy of freelancing means you can mix parts of several plans to your advantage.
G.