Looks like you are off to a good start. If it were me, I might give up a little bit of curve radius to bring the tracks in from the edge slightly, but that's up to you. Remember that the minimum radius is just that -- if you drop down to 22" anywhere on the mainline, that's your minimum radius for the overall layout.
Using broader radii elsewhere will look better and will be necessary to maintain track-to-track spacing in some areas, but your operation will still be limited by the smallest curve in the mainline.
I did see a couple of issues that arise from using sectional track and Atlas' RTS for the plan. (My original plan assumed flextrack.)
As seen above, the flextrack tool allows one to create possibly troublesome s-curves with no warning. On the original plan, there is at least 12" of straight track between the opposing curves. Also, in the lower right corner the Atlas flextrack tool may have created a curve slightly sharper than your 22" minimum radius. You would want to be careful in that area when actually laying track.
Best of luck.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Dear Byron & Friends
I'm honored that you took the time to reply to my post. I've visited your site several times and have found other sites, such as the Layout Design SIG, through your site.
I've spent about two hours trying to recreate the plan of yours suggested by Paul above. I expanded it for a 5 x 9 table and my progress is attached. The yellow sections are flextrack.
Now, I'm off to explore your suggested track plan and order the book you suggested. I already have Westcott's benchwork book.
Thanks again for responding.
--Jaddie
The original published plan is probably not very operable. Besides the exceedingly steep grades (4 1/2%), there is no room for transitions from level to grade (so the actual grades would be steeper). Also, some of these grades are on very tight curves, increasing the effective grade to well over 6%. It's a shame that some of these are published as "beginner's" plans, they are anything but. Interesting conceptual idea, but probably not a workable layout, especially for a beginner.
Expanding to 5X9 is always a good idea with any HO 4X8, but it's not enough in this case to fix what ails the original plan.
If you don't have any experience with building HO model railroads, a good choice might be one with no grades. One from my website was suggested earlier in this thread, another HO 4X8 track plan that would allow two trains in motion at once
Expanding this or something similar to 5X9 would make a better layout by allowing you to broaden the radii.
For building cookie-cutter style benchwork, an excellent resource is Basic Model Railroad Benchwork: The Complete Photo Guide by Jeff Wilson (Kalmbach)
Another thought if I might. Shrink the upper loop slightly so it fits inside the lower loop. Then you can put the inner loop at an elevation and corresponding grade you like without being driven by overhead clearances.
As is, the plan will have steep grades. Having personally had smaller layouts with similar grades, you can make it work if you can live with short (5-6 cars per locomotive) trains and pick your locomotives carefully. For most, those limitations are unacceptable, which is why you are being cautioned about the grades.
I have always used cookie cutter plywood on L-girder for layouts with grades and elevation changes. You don't even have to make the cuts in the plywood until you are ready to expand to multiple levels. Then get the jig saw out, cut the plywood, and elevate to your heart's content with risers and cleats.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
hi Jaddie,
cookie-cutter on L-girder is the most forgiving and most easy way to construct a subroadbed ever, beside being flexible.
If you compensate the grade for the curves and take vertical easements in consideration your incline will become almost impossible.
As always model railroads are compromises, I used 2,5" clearance between levels, but was willing to accept the consequences: no car higher then 1.8 inches above the track.
Your plan is lacking a passing siding near the yard BTW.
A great plan by Byron Henderson, without grades is this one
Smile
Paul
Dear tgindy
Thank you for the wealth of resources.
The L-girder and cookie-cutter approach seems advanced to me. It's been twenty-five years since I've done any woodworking.
That does seem like the best path with a layout like the one I posted.
But now that two of you have raised caution flags about the steepness of the grade, I'm having second thoughts about the design.
You might consider a cookie-cutter approach (i.e. using 1/2" plywood) -- If the upper portion is to be flat at level elevation of x-4" for a town w/some industry. Also, with a foam-base -- You must add for extra foam thickness to the 4" height due to the tunnel underneath at x-0" -- This means a steeper track grade up to x-4".
Here's an MR Forum cookie-cutter search; a Google web search for model railroad cookie cutter layout, and; a Google images search for model railroad cookie-cutter layout where some pictures may be helpful -- By showing more benchwork ideas (including supports) than just cookie-cutter.
Also, the track grade from x-0" to x-4" might be a little steep, and be cautious with a turnout on a grade.
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
Dear CTValleyRR
CTValleyRR But, speaking of being "inclined" to help.... How much did you compress it? My immediate concern is that you have a 4" change in height, for which, to have a "steep" grade of about 2%, you would require about 200 linear inches, not counting easements at both ends. It looks like you're making this elevation change in, what, 6 linear feet? That would give you a grade of about 5.5%, which is pretty much a non-starter
But, speaking of being "inclined" to help.... How much did you compress it? My immediate concern is that you have a 4" change in height, for which, to have a "steep" grade of about 2%, you would require about 200 linear inches, not counting easements at both ends. It looks like you're making this elevation change in, what, 6 linear feet? That would give you a grade of about 5.5%, which is pretty much a non-starter
Thank you for responding, and I love your pun.
I didn't compress the plan; I expanded it. It was designed for a 4 x 8 space. In Model Railroader's plan (the Wexford Railroad), the incline was just three inches, but I thought I needed more than that for double-stacked freight. Four inches seemed like a good number since Woodland Scenics produces four-inch inclines.
But if you say that's too steep, then I'll take your word for it. I'm very new to this stuff.
Thanks again for being "inclined" to help me.
The immediate answer to your question is to use any of the following under your track:
Plywood / masonite splines
Woodland Scenics 4" risers
Stacked extruded foam panels
Only the area immediately beneath your tracks needs to be supported by solid material. The rest can be hollow.
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
Dear Friends
I recreated the attached track plan from a plan in Model Railroader's database and modified it to fit on a ping-pong table.
In considering how I might build such a layout, I'm having trouble understanding what I'd use to support the elevated section of the layout (the shaded portion of the attached image). I assume I'd use cardboard strips covered with plaster cloth to get a slope from the area on the right to the elevated area on the left, but once the height of four inches is reached, then what supports the elevated section?
Thanks for any help you may be inclined to offer.