Paul_in_GA Hi Dan, yes, you are right, this is what I'd like to see but I will understand if I don't have the room. This hobby has a huge learning curve which I'm trying to negotiate right now. So much to learn and I have so many questions.
Hi Dan, yes, you are right, this is what I'd like to see but I will understand if I don't have the room. This hobby has a huge learning curve which I'm trying to negotiate right now. So much to learn and I have so many questions.
OK, now we're getting somewhere! Now, like I said this is my interpretation of what you've posted between this and the other thread. Sit down for ~20 minutes and come up with your list, and post it here for everyone to see. This'll really help people in helping direct you to the right resources, or in avoiding pitfalls on your plan.
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
NeO6874Paul_in_GAI guess my theme would be this. A coal company where I can haul coal, to where I have no idea. I'd like mountains and elevated railway on at least one part of it, lots of rock cliff faces with trees above, and a separate area with a station and a separate train that will carry passengers to a train station Kind of like two RR's in one. I have two locos so far. The CSX U23B and the small Bachman diesel 44 ton switcher. I'd have a street and houses and small businesses along the line. I like tanker cars, box cars, hoppers, and passenger cars. I don't know if they make small passenger cars becuase from what I read they need LARGE radius turns, unless someone makes smaller cars? I think that would be my foucus for what it's worth.
Paul_in_GAI guess my theme would be this. A coal company where I can haul coal, to where I have no idea. I'd like mountains and elevated railway on at least one part of it, lots of rock cliff faces with trees above, and a separate area with a station and a separate train that will carry passengers to a train station Kind of like two RR's in one. I have two locos so far. The CSX U23B and the small Bachman diesel 44 ton switcher. I'd have a street and houses and small businesses along the line. I like tanker cars, box cars, hoppers, and passenger cars. I don't know if they make small passenger cars becuase from what I read they need LARGE radius turns, unless someone makes smaller cars? I think that would be my foucus for what it's worth.
I'd have a street and houses and small businesses along the line. I like tanker cars, box cars, hoppers, and passenger cars. I don't know if they make small passenger cars becuase from what I read they need LARGE radius turns, unless someone makes smaller cars? I think that would be my foucus for what it's worth.
This is starting to get good. I may have missed it (since you have two threads about this subject), but have you made a list of your "Givens and Druthers"? From what I can piece together (so this is most likely incorrect): Givens: Room is (approx) 14x14, and used as an office currently. There's a desk, some bookshelves, etc that need to be navigated around (and left accessible). Druthers: Era -- mid-late 1980s (based on the U23B; as one lettered for CSX wouldn't have been around til then)22" Min RadiusCoal CompanyOther small businesses that utilize tank cars, boxcars, hoppers and the 44-tonnerPassenger ServiceMountains or some other reason for elevation change of the track.
From what I can piece together (so this is most likely incorrect):
Givens:
Room is (approx) 14x14, and used as an office currently. There's a desk, some bookshelves, etc that need to be navigated around (and left accessible).
Druthers:
Era -- mid-late 1980s (based on the U23B; as one lettered for CSX wouldn't have been around til then)22" Min RadiusCoal CompanyOther small businesses that utilize tank cars, boxcars, hoppers and the 44-tonnerPassenger ServiceMountains or some other reason for elevation change of the track.
Texas Zepher This is starting to get good. I may have missed it (since you have two threads about this subject), but have you made a list of your "Givens and Druthers"? From what I can piece together (so this is most likely incorrect): Givens: Room is (approx) 14x14, and used as an office currently. There's a desk, some bookshelves, etc that need to be navigated around (and left accessible). Druthers: Era -- mid-late 1980s (based on the U23B; as one lettered for CSX wouldn't have been around til then)22" Min RadiusCoal CompanyOther small businesses that utilize tank cars, boxcars, hoppers and the 44-tonnerPassenger ServiceMountains or some other reason for elevation change of the track. And nothing says the list is in concrete. It can be tweeked and adjusted. Don't just use this one.
Oh, absolutely! Guess I wasn't quite as clear as I should've been in my original post
Hi,
I've read your wishes and wanted to warn you. When going for a 22" minimum radius and you want to add a parellel track its radius will become 24,5" and it will never fit on an 8x4 table top. Without a second track at the outside passing sidings on a 8x4 will be way to short.
When going for radii like the above the width of your layout will become about 5 feet, so access on at least three sides is needed. You could build your layout on casters, so it can be stored against a wall, a donut-footprint is an other option.
This plan has 22" and 24,5" radii, it uses #6 turnouts on the mainline, so longer cars or coaches can be used without problems. Never the less i would try to find shorter coaches of about 10" length max.
The outer track is partly further away from the inner track and elevated. Even a short tunnel is added, just as a road where some buildings alongside will be at home. A couple of spurs, connected to the main with #4 turnouts, could host all kind of industries beside the coal mine. Two spurs could be considered as an interchange.
I would build this little layout at armpit heigth, so a lot of storage underneath is quite possible. Maybe even your bookcases will fit here. Talking about the coal mine, it introduces empties in loads out trafic. The coal could be brought to the staging yard or/and the interchange tracks. Between "formal" operating sessions the coal is brought back to the mine. Just like the empties, which will return to their starting point: the interchange or staging tracks.
Paul
Paulus Jas Hi, I've read your wishes and wanted to warn you. When going for a 22" minimum radius and you want to add a parellel track its radius will become 24,5" and it will never fit on an 8x4 table top. Without a second track at the outside passing sidings on a 8x4 will be way to short. When going for radii like the above the width of your layout will become about 5 feet, so access on at least three sides is needed. You could build your layout on casters, so it can be stored against a wall, a donut-footprint is an other option. This plan has 22" and 24,5" radii, it uses #6 turnouts on the mainline, so longer cars or coaches can be used without problems. Never the less i would try to find shorter coaches of about 10" length max. The outer track is partly further away from the inner track and elevated. Even a short tunnel is added, just as a road where some buildings alongside will be at home. A couple of spurs, connected to the main with #4 turnouts, could host all kind of industries beside the coal mine. Two spurs could be considered as an interchange. I would build this little layout at armpit heigth, so a lot of storage underneath is quite possible. Maybe even your bookcases will fit here. Talking about the coal mine, it introduces empties in loads out trafic. The coal could be brought to the staging yard or/and the interchange tracks. Between "formal" operating sessions the coal is brought back to the mine. Just like the empties, which will return to their starting point: the interchange or staging tracks. Paul
Thanks, this looks real nice but one problem, the bookcases are over six feet tall. Plus, the desk has been moved twice now and it's a HUGE pain to do. It is very heavy. Right now it abuts the closet door. So if in the drawing it was to be in that same position but slid back to the left that would be where it sits now, oh and it's 9" away from the wall for access to wires.
Your plan looks really cool though.
Right now I'm in information overload.
Paul_in_GARight now I'm in information overload.
I am currently designing and building a layout for my father in the hospital. Even with a very simple plan and 40 years of layout experience I've run into some new challenges with it. I expected to finish it in 2 days. Now 2 weeks later I keep saying tomorrow. Darn that Mat Medium takes a long time to dry.... That is why many people suggested starting small and learning as you go.
Texas Zepher Darn that Mat Medium takes a long time to dry....
Darn that Mat Medium takes a long time to dry....
Ain't that the truth.
Alton Junction
Paul_in_GA Paulus Jas Thanks, this looks real nice but one problem, the bookcases are over six feet tall. Plus, the desk has been moved twice now and it's a HUGE pain to do. It is very heavy. Right now it abuts the closet door. So if in the drawing it was to be in that same position but slid back to the left that would be where it sits now, oh and it's 9" away from the wall for access to wires. Your plan looks really cool though. Right now I'm in information overload.
Paulus Jas
Yes, I'm sure your head is spinning. When things calm down, go back to Paulus' plan and consider it as going a long ways towards being the layout for this room. It addresses many of the items you are interested in, and provides more, like staging (you can read about that elsewhere).
Paulus is a steady contributor to this forum with his layout designs and they are usually spot on with what the modeler is looking for and the space provided. I would double track the bridge and make the layout completely double-tracked, just to have the ability to run two trains unattended if you wished. And Walthers sells a dandy doubletracked truss bridge (but don't order it yet!)
Yes, the bookshelf idea won't work, but I see no reason why the current location of the desk would be a problem. In fact, its better that it is to the left.
After a few years (I would guess) you could even be ambitious and enlarge the plan to incorporate more of the room, like Stein's second plan, and hook it into the existing layout.
Its good to have a goal and a final vision.
But what many are cautioning is to not to try to build it all at once. Practice with the staging yard first, or maybe one of the loops. Do something that allows you to run a train and familiarize yourself with the process of building, running, and maintaining a layout.
BTW, to address something in another post, I am no DCC expert, but it is my understanding that the Bachmann 44tonner will run just fine on the same NCE powercab you will use for your U23B. Modelers complain about the Bachmann since its technology is rather simple compared to the digitrax/NCE stuff. So some of the fine tuning of the running qualities you can program into the U23B's decoder might not perform as well with the simple Bachmann. But for your circumstances, it should run just fine.
A DCC knowledgeable person may want to confirm this.
- Douglas
Doughless it is my understanding that the Bachmann 44tonner will run just fine on the same NCE powercab you will use for your U23B.
it is my understanding that the Bachmann 44tonner will run just fine on the same NCE powercab you will use for your U23B.
Absolutely. The cheapest Bachman diesels come with a plain decoder, but it has the core DCC functionalities - you can assign it an id, and do the basic stuff like change directions, speed up and slow down.
I also agree with Doughless about Paulus's plan - it is a good plan and a good concept, no matter whether you have to leave the shelves where they are or not, and no matter if the desk is in the lower right hand corner or next to the cupboard. Just don't build the optional area indicated in light tan if space gets too tight with the desk next to the cupboard.
It also has the advantage relative to a 4x8 that it is far easier to get a store to cut a 4x8 sheet of plywood into e.g. 2x4 foot sections, and then transporting those sections home in the back seat of a normal car.
And as Doughless mentioned - even though Paulus has single tracked some sections to get more interaction between trains (one train has to wait while another train uses the single track section), you could double track all the way if you want to have two trains running continuously. It is not the exact placement of every turnout, or the exact curves of the benchwork that are important to take away - it is the concept that one option is to do a smaller doughnut style in the upper right hand corner, and make benchwork high enough that it is easy to duck under (or roll under on an office chair) the narrow benchwork section.
But whatever - just take a pause, relax a little, read a little in a couple of the books you have coming, and try to remember that very few of us are super great artists - I know that I am no artist. I like running trains. I know a thing or two about why and how railroads operate. I can analyze track plans for functionality. But I am most emphatically not a great landscape artist.
A few lucky people can do great scenery work right off the bat. Most people have to do things over several times before they get something that is good enough. Good enough is a reasonable standard for most things in model railroading.
Smile, Stein
Doughless Paul_in_GA Paulus Jas Thanks, this looks real nice but one problem, the bookcases are over six feet tall. Plus, the desk has been moved twice now and it's a HUGE pain to do. It is very heavy. Right now it abuts the closet door. So if in the drawing it was to be in that same position but slid back to the left that would be where it sits now, oh and it's 9" away from the wall for access to wires. Your plan looks really cool though. Right now I'm in information overload. Yes, I'm sure your head is spinning. When things calm down, go back to Paulus' plan and consider it as going a long ways towards being the layout for this room. It addresses many of the items you are interested in, and provides more, like staging (you can read about that elsewhere). Paulus is a steady contributor to this forum with his layout designs and they are usually spot on with what the modeler is looking for and the space provided. I would double track the bridge and make the layout completely double-tracked, just to have the ability to run two trains unattended if you wished. And Walthers sells a dandy doubletracked truss bridge (but don't order it yet!) Yes, the bookshelf idea won't work, but I see no reason why the current location of the desk would be a problem. In fact, its better that it is to the left. After a few years (I would guess) you could even be ambitious and enlarge the plan to incorporate more of the room, like Stein's second plan, and hook it into the existing layout. Its good to have a goal and a final vision. But what many are cautioning is to not to try to build it all at once. Practice with the staging yard first, or maybe one of the loops. Do something that allows you to run a train and familiarize yourself with the process of building, running, and maintaining a layout. BTW, to address something in another post, I am no DCC expert, but it is my understanding that the Bachmann 44tonner will run just fine on the same NCE powercab you will use for your U23B. Modelers complain about the Bachmann since its technology is rather simple compared to the digitrax/NCE stuff. So some of the fine tuning of the running qualities you can program into the U23B's decoder might not perform as well with the simple Bachmann. But for your circumstances, it should run just fine. A DCC knowledgeable person may want to confirm this.
Yes his plan looks excellent. But from what I see how do I know what track I would need? How would I know what goes where? This is the confusing part. You guys can look at a nice drawing like this and infer a LOT but it's all Grek to me as it were. I would need to know what pieces of track, where it would go, the buildings and where they would go etc. I'd LOVE to build this but I need more information.
So in the meantime I'm just gonna wait for my track to arrive, set it up, wire it for DCC and play with two trains going at once. No scenery, no elevations, no buildings, just track and trains.
steinjr Doughless it is my understanding that the Bachmann 44tonner will run just fine on the same NCE powercab you will use for your U23B. Absolutely. The cheapest Bachman diesels come with a plain decoder, but it has the core DCC functionalities - you can assign it an id, and do the basic stuff like change directions, speed up and slow down. I also agree with Doughless about Paulus's plan - it is a good plan and a good concept, no matter whether you have to leave the shelves where they are or not, and no matter if the desk is in the lower right hand corner or next to the cupboard. Just don't build the optional area indicated in light tan if space gets too tight with the desk next to the cupboard. It also has the advantage relative to a 4x8 that it is far easier to get a store to cut a 4x8 sheet of plywood into e.g. 2x4 foot sections, and then transporting those sections home in the back seat of a normal car. And as Doughless mentioned - even though Paulus has single tracked some sections to get more interaction between trains (one train has to wait while another train uses the single track section), you could double track all the way if you want to have two trains running continuously. It is not the exact placement of every turnout, or the exact curves of the benchwork that are important to take away - it is the concept that one option is to do a smaller doughnut style in the upper right hand corner, and make benchwork high enough that it is easy to duck under (or roll under on an office chair) the narrow benchwork section. But whatever - just take a pause, relax a little, read a little in a couple of the books you have coming, and try to remember that very few of us are super great artists - I know that I am no artist. I like running trains. I know a thing or two about why and how railroads operate. I can analyze track plans for functionality. But I am most emphatically not a great landscape artist. A few lucky people can do great scenery work right off the bat. Most people have to do things over several times before they get something that is good enough. Good enough is a reasonable standard for most things in model railroading. Smile, Stein
Hi Stein, I think I can do the scenery part with no problems. I can build kits sans problems too. Ditto for wiring, cutting plywod and making legs for it, you name it I know I can do it BUT for one thins. That's understanding what all the terms mean, like staging, double track, points, frog, (I'm learning though) and other things. It's just as I indicated in a precious post that I don't see how you guys can look at his layout plan and infer so MUCH from it. I would need to know a lot more before I start on it. Things like what track, the locations of said track, the locations of the buildings etc.
I have several more books on order that people here have suggested so until they come in I'll just have to wait.
Can you or anyone else recommend a good book on real-world operations like WHAT they do with the trains, how staging is used, how sidings are used, how they actually do it in real life? Thanks.
Paul_in_GA Yes his plan looks excellent. But from what I see how do I know what track I would need? How would I know what goes where? This is the confusing part. You guys can look at a nice drawing like this and infer a LOT but it's all Grek to me as it were. I would need to know what pieces of track, where it would go, the buildings and where they would go etc. I'd LOVE to build this but I need more information. So in the meantime I'm just gonna wait for my track to arrive, set it up, wire it for DCC and play with two trains going at once. No scenery, no elevations, no buildings, just track and trains.
By all means, set up your track, wire it, and run the trains. Just keep that plan handy for the day you want to build a layout. As Stein said, exact placement of each item isn't the issue, especially with the buildings.
Most of the plan is designed with flextrack and Atlas #6 turnouts (I think that's what Paulus usually uses).
Flex track comes in 3 foot sections and is designed to bend, unlike sectional track. This allows you to make broad sweeping curves instead of going from a consistent curve to a perfect straight, like you'd have to do with sectional track. Modeler's like flex track since it can be flexed into more realistic curves. And since it comes in 3 foot sections, there a fewer joints between sections.
Cutting and laying flextrack are some of those skills that are acquired. Not difficult at all, but certain ways are better than others.
Some of us like analyzing track plans. Its not really essential to the hobby, just an aspect that some enjoy.
If you are interested is specific topics, you should also use the search function on this forum. There is a wealth of knowledge archived in the forum discussing many of the issues you might have questions about.
Paul_in_GACan you or anyone else recommend a good book on real-world operations like WHAT they do with the trains, how staging is used, how sidings are used, how they actually do it in real life?
This book is very helpful in describing how real-world operation may be suggested on the model:Realistic Model Railroad Operation: How to Run Your Trains Like the Real Thing by Tony Koester
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Doughless Paul_in_GA Yes his plan looks excellent. But from what I see how do I know what track I would need? How would I know what goes where? This is the confusing part. You guys can look at a nice drawing like this and infer a LOT but it's all Grek to me as it were. I would need to know what pieces of track, where it would go, the buildings and where they would go etc. I'd LOVE to build this but I need more information. So in the meantime I'm just gonna wait for my track to arrive, set it up, wire it for DCC and play with two trains going at once. No scenery, no elevations, no buildings, just track and trains. By all means, set up your track, wire it, and run the trains. Just keep that plan handy for the day you want to build a layout. As Stein said, exact placement of each item isn't the issue, especially with the buildings. Most of the plan is designed with flextrack and Atlas #6 turnouts (I think that's what Paulus usually uses). Flex track comes in 3 foot sections and is designed to bend, unlike sectional track. This allows you to make broad sweeping curves instead of going from a consistent curve to a perfect straight, like you'd have to do with sectional track. Modeler's like flex track since it can be flexed into more realistic curves. And since it comes in 3 foot sections, there a fewer joints between sections. Cutting and laying flextrack are some of those skills that are acquired. Not difficult at all, but certain ways are better than others. Some of us like analyzing track plans. Its not really essential to the hobby, just an aspect that some enjoy. If you are interested is specific topics, you should also use the search function on this forum. There is a wealth of knowledge archived in the forum discussing many of the issues you might have questions about.
Thanks again. I already have one piece of it. I read in one of my books that you need a special cutting too to cut the rail that's longest.
I just don't understand how you guys can look at a plan and know what you're looking at. It's like hieroglyphics to me! LOL.
cuyama Paul_in_GACan you or anyone else recommend a good book on real-world operations like WHAT they do with the trains, how staging is used, how sidings are used, how they actually do it in real life? This book is very helpful in describing how real-world operation may be suggested on the model:Realistic Model Railroad Operation: How to Run Your Trains Like the Real Thing by Tony Koester
Thanks for that link. I remember him from Model Railroader magazine. I used to collect them about seven years ago and even had a ton of stuff I bought but lost it all in a nasty divorce.
Paul_in_GA Thanks again. I already have one piece of it. I read in one of my books that you need a special cutting too to cut the rail that's longest.
Well, it is just a cutter - like a regular plier with sharp jaws. But Xuron brand cutters are popular, because they are flat on one side - the side you use towards the part you are keeping, so there is less filing.
Can be bought e.g. here: http://www.micromark.com/xuron-track-cutter,9199.html
You can also find cheaper tools that do the job, if it seems overly expensive. Cutting flextrack is something that people tends to do a lot, though, so good tools are nice to have.
Paul_in_GA I just don't understand how you guys can look at a plan and know what you're looking at. It's like hieroglyphics to me! LOL.
Experience. And having read John Armstrong's "Track Planning for Realistic Operations", which several people have recommended - makes you understand the purpose of various tracks.
Paul_in_GA But from what I see how do I know what track I would need? How would I know what goes where? This is the confusing part. You guys can look at a nice drawing like this and infer a LOT but it's all Grek to me as it were. I would need to know what pieces of track, where it would go, the buildings and where they would go etc. I'd LOVE to build this but I need more information. So in the meantime I'm just gonna wait for my track to arrive, set it up, wire it for DCC and play with two trains going at once. No scenery, no elevations, no buildings, just track and trains.
But from what I see how do I know what track I would need? How would I know what goes where? This is the confusing part. You guys can look at a nice drawing like this and infer a LOT but it's all Grek to me as it were. I would need to know what pieces of track, where it would go, the buildings and where they would go etc. I'd LOVE to build this but I need more information.
Really, it's no more difficult than breaking down an electronics schematic or architectural drawing -- you just have to know where to make the "breaks"
Track --> as mentioned by others, flextrack is the "standard" that people use nowadays (for the most part). Since there was a description of the plan elsewhere stating minimum radius was 22" with the outer track being 24.5", we can figure a few things for the main table (I'm ignoring the staging along the east wall).
1. 22"R curves have a circumference of approx 138" (gradeschool math that you never thought you'd use outside of class time C=pi*2R), or 11' 6" Since we have 2x half-circles of this radius at either end, 4x pieces of track will do this part, with a little left over (about 6").
2. 24.5"R curves have a circumference of approx 153", or 12' 9". we'll need 5x pieces of flex for this (15').
3. for the rest of the mainline (excluding turnouts, and any sidings, etc), there's minimally 12' of tangent (i.e. not curved) track, allowing some slop for "Dan doesn't want to figure the length of those diagonal lines" . So, another four (4) pieces of track.
4. Sidings look to be a combined total of about 12' (excluding turnouts), so another 4 pieces of flex here.
So, all told we're up to 17 full pieces of flex track, add in 10% for flubs/miscalculations/etc, and 20 pieces should cover your needs with a little left over (about 2-4' or so, maybe a little more, maybe less). But honestly, if you end up "short" flex track, it's not terrible to run to the LHS for another piece or three.
there are 14 turnouts on the main table, of which a minimum of 6 will be #6 or larger, since they're mainline-mainline switches (the crossover in the north [4] and the bridge in the south [2]) that will more likely than not be traversed at speed (as opposed to anything of the sidings, where the local freight would be travelling more slowly).
What goes where --> well, that's what the drawing is for. The grid represents a 12" square of floor/table space. All you need to do is a little bit of work to translate the plan to the table surface (assuming you were using this exact plan). Though, as tracklaying is an art more than a science, you'll find that you have to move a switch an inch or two one way or another to get it to operate right (or clear bridge abutments, whatever).
NeO6874 Paul_in_GA But from what I see how do I know what track I would need? How would I know what goes where? This is the confusing part. You guys can look at a nice drawing like this and infer a LOT but it's all Grek to me as it were. I would need to know what pieces of track, where it would go, the buildings and where they would go etc. I'd LOVE to build this but I need more information. So in the meantime I'm just gonna wait for my track to arrive, set it up, wire it for DCC and play with two trains going at once. No scenery, no elevations, no buildings, just track and trains. Really, it's no more difficult than breaking down an electronics schematic or architectural drawing -- you just have to know where to make the "breaks" Track --> as mentioned by others, flextrack is the "standard" that people use nowadays (for the most part). Since there was a description of the plan elsewhere stating minimum radius was 22" with the outer track being 24.5", we can figure a few things for the main table (I'm ignoring the staging along the east wall). 1. 22"R curves have a circumference of approx 138" (gradeschool math that you never thought you'd use outside of class time C=pi*2R), or 11' 6" Since we have 2x half-circles of this radius at either end, 4x pieces of track will do this part, with a little left over (about 6"). 2. 24.5"R curves have a circumference of approx 153", or 12' 9". we'll need 5x pieces of flex for this (15'). 3. for the rest of the mainline (excluding turnouts, and any sidings, etc), there's minimally 12' of tangent (i.e. not curved) track, allowing some slop for "Dan doesn't want to figure the length of those diagonal lines" . So, another four (4) pieces of track. 4. Sidings look to be a combined total of about 12' (excluding turnouts), so another 4 pieces of flex here. So, all told we're up to 17 full pieces of flex track, add in 10% for flubs/miscalculations/etc, and 20 pieces should cover your needs with a little left over (about 2-4' or so, maybe a little more, maybe less). But honestly, if you end up "short" flex track, it's not terrible to run to the LHS for another piece or three. there are 14 turnouts on the main table, of which a minimum of 6 will be #6 or larger, since they're mainline-mainline switches (the crossover in the north [4] and the bridge in the south [2]) that will more likely than not be traversed at speed (as opposed to anything of the sidings, where the local freight would be travelling more slowly). What goes where --> well, that's what the drawing is for. The grid represents a 12" square of floor/table space. All you need to do is a little bit of work to translate the plan to the table surface (assuming you were using this exact plan). Though, as tracklaying is an art more than a science, you'll find that you have to move a switch an inch or two one way or another to get it to operate right (or clear bridge abutments, whatever).
Thanks, that's a LOT of good information and exactly what I needed.
Paul_in_GA NeO6874 Paul_in_GA But from what I see how do I know what track I would need? How would I know what goes where? This is the confusing part. You guys can look at a nice drawing like this and infer a LOT but it's all Grek to me as it were. I would need to know what pieces of track, where it would go, the buildings and where they would go etc. I'd LOVE to build this but I need more information. So in the meantime I'm just gonna wait for my track to arrive, set it up, wire it for DCC and play with two trains going at once. No scenery, no elevations, no buildings, just track and trains. Really, it's no more difficult than breaking down an electronics schematic or architectural drawing -- you just have to know where to make the "breaks" Track --> as mentioned by others, flextrack is the "standard" that people use nowadays (for the most part). Since there was a description of the plan elsewhere stating minimum radius was 22" with the outer track being 24.5", we can figure a few things for the main table (I'm ignoring the staging along the east wall). 1. 22"R curves have a circumference of approx 138" (gradeschool math that you never thought you'd use outside of class time C=pi*2R), or 11' 6" Since we have 2x half-circles of this radius at either end, 4x pieces of track will do this part, with a little left over (about 6"). 2. 24.5"R curves have a circumference of approx 153", or 12' 9". we'll need 5x pieces of flex for this (15'). 3. for the rest of the mainline (excluding turnouts, and any sidings, etc), there's minimally 12' of tangent (i.e. not curved) track, allowing some slop for "Dan doesn't want to figure the length of those diagonal lines" . So, another four (4) pieces of track. 4. Sidings look to be a combined total of about 12' (excluding turnouts), so another 4 pieces of flex here. So, all told we're up to 17 full pieces of flex track, add in 10% for flubs/miscalculations/etc, and 20 pieces should cover your needs with a little left over (about 2-4' or so, maybe a little more, maybe less). But honestly, if you end up "short" flex track, it's not terrible to run to the LHS for another piece or three. there are 14 turnouts on the main table, of which a minimum of 6 will be #6 or larger, since they're mainline-mainline switches (the crossover in the north [4] and the bridge in the south [2]) that will more likely than not be traversed at speed (as opposed to anything of the sidings, where the local freight would be travelling more slowly). What goes where --> well, that's what the drawing is for. The grid represents a 12" square of floor/table space. All you need to do is a little bit of work to translate the plan to the table surface (assuming you were using this exact plan). Though, as tracklaying is an art more than a science, you'll find that you have to move a switch an inch or two one way or another to get it to operate right (or clear bridge abutments, whatever). Thanks, that's a LOT of good information and exactly what I needed.
Actually, Paul, that isn't what you need. What you need is a little practical experience in laying things out. None of us are born geniuses. But having laid a little track in our days, we have gained that essential experience that enables us to eyeball a plan and take a pretty good guess at what's in it. The only way you're going to acquire this experience is to do it yourself.
If you'll pardon my saying so, you remind me of a lot of the engineers at work. This object is laid out just so, built with this many feet of steel and so many weld joints, and there's just no other way to do it. But we're building a model railroad, not precision machinery. What I'm sensing here is fear of making a mistake. Now, if you're on a really tight budget, I can see how that might be an issue, but you don't seem to be. For someone as handy as you claim to be, getting started should be a breeze. Slap down some benchwork in the approximate configuration, take your best guess at the dimensions required (over-estimate), and slap some track on it. You will very quickly learn whether your guesses were accurate, and it will generally be pretty obvious where you went wrong. You said in an earlier post that "[you] want to do this right". But you won't. I guarantee it. Not the first time, probably not the second, maybe not the third. But like the apocryphal story of Thomas Edison, you won't be failing, you will be discovering ways not to make a layout. It's ok. It's part of the journey. But you'll never get to the end of the road if you can't take the first step.
Or don't use Paulus's design, and try something on your own. To paraphrase Franklin Roosevelt: Take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.
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
CTValleyRR Paul_in_GA NeO6874 Paul_in_GA But from what I see how do I know what track I would need? How would I know what goes where? This is the confusing part. You guys can look at a nice drawing like this and infer a LOT but it's all Grek to me as it were. I would need to know what pieces of track, where it would go, the buildings and where they would go etc. I'd LOVE to build this but I need more information. So in the meantime I'm just gonna wait for my track to arrive, set it up, wire it for DCC and play with two trains going at once. No scenery, no elevations, no buildings, just track and trains. Really, it's no more difficult than breaking down an electronics schematic or architectural drawing -- you just have to know where to make the "breaks" Track --> as mentioned by others, flextrack is the "standard" that people use nowadays (for the most part). Since there was a description of the plan elsewhere stating minimum radius was 22" with the outer track being 24.5", we can figure a few things for the main table (I'm ignoring the staging along the east wall). 1. 22"R curves have a circumference of approx 138" (gradeschool math that you never thought you'd use outside of class time C=pi*2R), or 11' 6" Since we have 2x half-circles of this radius at either end, 4x pieces of track will do this part, with a little left over (about 6"). 2. 24.5"R curves have a circumference of approx 153", or 12' 9". we'll need 5x pieces of flex for this (15'). 3. for the rest of the mainline (excluding turnouts, and any sidings, etc), there's minimally 12' of tangent (i.e. not curved) track, allowing some slop for "Dan doesn't want to figure the length of those diagonal lines" . So, another four (4) pieces of track. 4. Sidings look to be a combined total of about 12' (excluding turnouts), so another 4 pieces of flex here. So, all told we're up to 17 full pieces of flex track, add in 10% for flubs/miscalculations/etc, and 20 pieces should cover your needs with a little left over (about 2-4' or so, maybe a little more, maybe less). But honestly, if you end up "short" flex track, it's not terrible to run to the LHS for another piece or three. there are 14 turnouts on the main table, of which a minimum of 6 will be #6 or larger, since they're mainline-mainline switches (the crossover in the north [4] and the bridge in the south [2]) that will more likely than not be traversed at speed (as opposed to anything of the sidings, where the local freight would be travelling more slowly). What goes where --> well, that's what the drawing is for. The grid represents a 12" square of floor/table space. All you need to do is a little bit of work to translate the plan to the table surface (assuming you were using this exact plan). Though, as tracklaying is an art more than a science, you'll find that you have to move a switch an inch or two one way or another to get it to operate right (or clear bridge abutments, whatever). Thanks, that's a LOT of good information and exactly what I needed. Actually, Paul, that isn't what you need. What you need is a little practical experience in laying things out. None of us are born geniuses. But having laid a little track in our days, we have gained that essential experience that enables us to eyeball a plan and take a pretty good guess at what's in it. The only way you're going to acquire this experience is to do it yourself. If you'll pardon my saying so, you remind me of a lot of the engineers at work. This object is laid out just so, built with this many feet of steel and so many weld joints, and there's just no other way to do it. But we're building a model railroad, not precision machinery. What I'm sensing here is fear of making a mistake. Now, if you're on a really tight budget, I can see how that might be an issue, but you don't seem to be. For someone as handy as you claim to be, getting started should be a breeze. Slap down some benchwork in the approximate configuration, take your best guess at the dimensions required (over-estimate), and slap some track on it. You will very quickly learn whether your guesses were accurate, and it will generally be pretty obvious where you went wrong. You said in an earlier post that "[you] want to do this right". But you won't. I guarantee it. Not the first time, probably not the second, maybe not the third. But like the apocryphal story of Thomas Edison, you won't be failing, you will be discovering ways not to make a layout. It's ok. It's part of the journey. But you'll never get to the end of the road if you can't take the first step. Or don't use Paulus's design, and try something on your own. To paraphrase Franklin Roosevelt: Take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.
Hello CT,
This is what I have decided to do. I have some track on order. I have an old train set with snap together track in an oval. I plan on getting some plywood very soon, putting the oval crap on it, wiring it for DCC and running trains. I also have the full-sized paper templates from Walthers. I plan on doing a paper track mockup.
Yes, I am probably very much like the engineers you mentioned. However, I'm learning to think differently now. More creatively.
My only problem is this; say I get some plywood, make a layout with real track, run the trains, put some switches in it and all that, my problem is trying to visualize how I'd elevate some of the track. I'd like one lower level and then have it climb a gentle grade to a higher elevation and back down again. I have more than enough books to guide me and you and everyone else is right, I have to just do it. I am still gathering stuff so I can do it. Just need plywood, track, and wood for legs. Then lay the track and go from there.
All the guys on this forum have given me great advice and it's SLOWLY starting to sink in. LOL!
Paul_in_GA My only problem is this; say I get some plywood, make a layout with real track, run the trains, put some switches in it and all that, my problem is trying to visualize how I'd elevate some of the track. I'd like one lower level and then have it climb a gentle grade to a higher elevation and back down again. I have more than enough books to guide me and you and everyone else is right, I have to just do it. I am still gathering stuff so I can do it. Just need plywood, track, and wood for legs. Then lay the track and go from there.
For your first go at it, I'd stay away from elevation changes. They are tricky, and will cause you all kinds of headaches if not done properly.
The real problem here is that, to do grades properly, you need A LOT of real estate. A 1% grade requires 100 linear inches for every one inch in rise. A 2% grade requires 50 inches to go up that same inch (or in 100', it goes up 2".... same thing). Anything higher than 2% is asking for trouble. Think of it this way. In your 14' room, a continuous 1% grade along an ENTIRE WALL would gain you only 1.7" in height; 3.4" (BARELY enough vertical separation for the tracks to cross) if you used a 2% grade. Then you'd need the OTHER 14' wall to come back down again. Now, there are ways (train elevators, helixes, etc.) to get around this, but they're more advanced. If you must have vertical separation, my advice would be to either have two independent tracks that don't interconnect, or don't try to form a loop, so that you don't have to come back down.
To make matters worse, with inclines, you need to make sure turnouts stay in the same plane, and that you have an easement (a gentler slope) at the top and bottom.
Paul's layout, as drawn, is not conducive to two linked levels.
Again, though, slapping your risers down on a table top would demonstrate this concept pretty quickly.
And just another note here. You will generally get better advice if, rather than saying, "How do I do this?", you can ask something like, "I tried this and this happened. Then I tried this, but it didn't help. Any suggestions?"
CTValleyRR And just another note here. You will generally get better advice if, rather than saying, "How do I do this?", you can ask something like, "I tried this and this happened. Then I tried this, but it didn't help. Any suggestions?"
OK, will do. As for elevated tracks I'm basically out of luck. I just don't have enough room. There's nowhere else in my house and I don't have a basement. That room is pretty big, all it contains as you see is the desk and and three connected six-foot tall bookcases. Now, do you know what I had to do in the last week to get that room ready? I had to rent a wallpaper steamer and remove a full wall mural from it. Patch the wall, sand it, then paint it. Plus I moved that heavy desk twice. So now when you walk in it looks like I have tons of room but everyone tells me I don't for what I want which is a REAL disappointment. I'll be stuck with everything on one plane right? Man, what does this hobby require an aircraft hangar two miles long like what I used to work in? How do you people get the space? I'd have to have an addition to the house built in order to get enough room but that's crazy, I can't afford that. Lack of room.
It isn't that bad with elevations. I have a two layouts in my house - a tiny 11 foot x 15" switching layout on the wall above my computer in the office nook at the rear of our living room - there I chose to not do any elevation changes - or rather - I did some elevation changes for spurs, and found I would rather have more flat spur length than the scenic effect of the spur dropping away from the main track.
But in my downstairs layout, which is around the walls in a room that is 6 1/2 x 11 1/2 feet, I have some elevation changes: Here the main closest to the front of the picture is going up 2% around a 20" radius curve, using woodland scenics inclines under to get the slope:
I just took a 2% incline, cut it off at the level it was even with the level I wanted to rise to, and curved the incline down around the curve until it was flat to the surface of the foam.
On the other side of the layout I wanted a barge terminal scene lower than the yard in the background. So I cut away the 2" foam from the foreground and replaced it with 1" foam, and then laid a 4% incline down from the mainline level to the barge terminal, around a 19" radius curve, and a 2% incline up to the yard, to create visual distance. My larger engines don't like to go down there - too steep and too sharp radius - but the barge terminal switcher does just fine taking 4-5 cars at a time down to the barge terminal: Here are some pics from the experiments I did to determine heights I liked for the visual effect:
Is this perfect work that would work for long trains and long cars? Nope. But it works just fine for what I am running - short trains of one to eight or so 40' cars pulled by a 4 axle diesel switcher.
Here is a link to a forum thread where a video of a layout under construction shows a different way of doing raised track/elevations: http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/209946.aspx using wooden risers and cookie cutter style plywood subroadbed with foam on top.
to many on here are seeing bears on their way who are not really there. Wether you are buiding your layout the "cookie-cutter" way or with foam inclines, adding some elevations changes are very easily done. Even more important, changes are just as easily made. Stein's pics are pretty clear, don't overdo or don't expect the differences of elevation between the two lines to be huge. On my plan only an overpass over a road was worked in.
And yes, you might start with a completely flat layout first, also with my plan. Add the river and grades later. Whatever constuction method you choose you will have to choose one that allows you some space in the future under the tracks for a river or a road underpass. When building in one of the styles mentioned above this not an issue at all.
EDIT:
BTW some planning elements were mentioned worth thinking about. Radius versus length of equipment, the limitations of an 8x4, double tracking or single tracking or partial single tracking (like on my drawing) or even a twice around. Staging was mentioned, just like possible issues with open top traffic (empties in, loads out). Even the way the storage / staging / terminal tracks could be added, if they are added at all.. Books are written about coal hauling, which part should be incorporated into your plan? Going for switching (Stein's plan) or is the emphasis more on trains running along?
However looking back 10 years from now, you might still be thinking about plan 1123version32Z behind your drawing board, or maybe start building your third layout. Famous layout builder and designer Lance Mindheim is talking about a 7 years time span of love for his latest layout (where did I hear this mentioned before?); starting all over is part of the fun. Plunge in the deep despite of the bears or........?
End of Edit
Big smile
Paulus Jas don't expect the differences of elevation between the two lines to be huge.
don't expect the differences of elevation between the two lines to be huge.
Or at least - don't expect a huge elevation difference between two railroad lines if the two railroad lines are connected and the track needs to rise from one line to the other or fall from one line to the other. If you have two railroad lines which are not connected - so you don't need an incline or decline to get from one line to the other - e.g. where the one line is a purely scenic element, you can of course have quite a bit of elevation difference between the lines. Another well known trick for creating a visual impression of an elevated track for a single track running through the landscape is to have the track be at some "middle" level, and then have the scenery behind/beyond the track rise up and the scenery in front of the track drop down, with the track running on a ledge carved into the mountain, perhaps with a bridge across a creek or a short tunnel through an outcropping. Have a look e.g. at this build blog for a couple of Norwegian Fremo modules by Norwegian Model Railroader Svein Sando - the text is in Norwegian, but the pictures should be fairly self explanatory as to the landscaping techniques used: Part 1: http://sando.co/index.php?vis=315&nid=3
Part 2: http://sando.co/index.php?vis=319&nid=3
Part 3: http://sando.co/index.php?vis=320&nid=3
It is not a given that to create a a visual impression of an elevated line that you actually need to go up long inclines.
Smile, Stein, who will take a break now and give Paul in GA a chance to recover from information overload
hi gentlemen,
Svein's work is great, so are those lovely Nohab's. (F7's build for a lot of European railroads with two cabs just after WW2)
From Luxembourg:
Some still in operation today
If you can find it, pick up a copy of Model Railroading with John Allen. I think it may inspire your freelance style. Small trains, traveling through mountainous scenery. You have plenty of room there to keep you busy for years.
And it all started with this:
Paul_in_GA CTValleyRR And just another note here. You will generally get better advice if, rather than saying, "How do I do this?", you can ask something like, "I tried this and this happened. Then I tried this, but it didn't help. Any suggestions?" OK, will do. As for elevated tracks I'm basically out of luck. I just don't have enough room. There's nowhere else in my house and I don't have a basement. That room is pretty big, all it contains as you see is the desk and and three connected six-foot tall bookcases. Now, do you know what I had to do in the last week to get that room ready? I had to rent a wallpaper steamer and remove a full wall mural from it. Patch the wall, sand it, then paint it. Plus I moved that heavy desk twice. So now when you walk in it looks like I have tons of room but everyone tells me I don't for what I want which is a REAL disappointment. I'll be stuck with everything on one plane right? Man, what does this hobby require an aircraft hangar two miles long like what I used to work in? How do you people get the space? I'd have to have an addition to the house built in order to get enough room but that's crazy, I can't afford that. Lack of room.
First off, Paulus' plan does not have a track crossing over another; therefore, the amount of real estate needed to have a grade change is merely dependent upon how high you want the elevated track to be. if you don't have much real estate to work with, make the elevation change smaller. You don't need 3.4" of height.
Second, don't be fooled by photographs of completed layouts. Most photographs of layouts that you see in print or on the internet of completed scenes, are usually photgraphed in such a way as to make the scene or layout look larger than it really is.
There can be a huge difference in the realism portrayed in a photograph and what you see if you actually visited the layout in person.
If you haven't seen a layout in person, try to find one. There may be a club in your area, or sometimes train shows will have display layouts. You will quickly realize that when you see a layout in total, the scene that was photgraphed looks more like a model than it did when you saw it in a photograph. You can also get a sense of this when photos pull back and you get a shot of the entire layout in your view.
You have plenty of space to have a fun layout that can contain several realistic scenes. Don't get discouraged because you can't have a basement empire. Most modeler's don't.
BTW: I don't want to commit MRR heresy and say something critical of John Allen's layout, but it always looked like a maintainence headache to me. While it photographs well and I'm sure it looked great in person, It was probably designed with certain goals in mind, at least more so than most modelers; to photograph well, to sort of be a display/inspirational piece for the hobby, and perhaps to sell books and articles to publications. Those aren't exactly the same reasons why most modelers choose to build the types of layouts they build.
That John Allen layout is exactly what I had in mind all along. I love it.
I have seen three real layouts so far, one N and two HO and I have to say I was very impressed.
Another thing, I don't how many of you have actually seen the Woodland Scenics DVD of how to make a layout but they had two levels, a tunnel, mountains, and all that on a 4 x8 sheet of plywood. The companion book even gives a detailed list of track. They even ran what appeared to be a locomotive like mine on it and it worked.
I guess I will just have to experiment as soon as my track gets here.
And, yes, I do have massive information overload, so much so that yesterday I just worked on a jigsaw puzzle all day then took a drive to take my mind off things.