To address the comments on elevation changes -- several people tried to read more into the comments than was actually there. Sure, slight changes in elevation are possible on any layout. My point was to try to give the OP some sense of the amount of real estate required to build sensible grades. What I meant about Paulus's design is that by keeping it in the corner or the room, you remove any possibility of constructing enough grade at a reasonable incline (2% or less) to make the tracks cross -- that is, you couldn't adapt the plan to incorporate a crossover. I apologize if I confused anyone (especially the OP)
Never the less, while small changes in elevation are certainly possible on any layout, I would still recommend that a newbie stay away from that kind of roller coaster effect until he has some more experience in track-laying. Distinguishing what is possible from what is wise (just because you can doesn't mean you should).
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
steinjr Paul_in_GA I was referring to the Swedish links I think it was stein who posted. Svein Sando's pages in Norwegian. Sweden is the next country over, like Canada is next to the US :-) Grin, Stein
Paul_in_GA I was referring to the Swedish links I think it was stein who posted.
I was referring to the Swedish links I think it was stein who posted.
Svein Sando's pages in Norwegian. Sweden is the next country over, like Canada is next to the US :-)
Grin, Stein
Although that's not so obvious now that they've removed the locations from our avatars.
OOPS! I stand corrected, sorry if I offended anyone.
NeO6874 wePaul_in_GA WOW! This post and the one above it with the links are AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!! I CANNOT believe the detail and the QUALITY! I guess some people have skill, some have TALENT, and some have both. This guy in those links has both. Stunning work. I could only HOPE to achieve that someday. ... unless I'm mistaken, that's a "RL" shot of the locomotives, rather than a model (mostly because you can see the "heat" from the exhaust coming off the locomotives)
we
Paul_in_GA WOW! This post and the one above it with the links are AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!! I CANNOT believe the detail and the QUALITY! I guess some people have skill, some have TALENT, and some have both. This guy in those links has both. Stunning work. I could only HOPE to achieve that someday.
WOW! This post and the one above it with the links are AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!
I CANNOT believe the detail and the QUALITY! I guess some people have skill, some have TALENT, and some have both. This guy in those links has both. Stunning work. I could only HOPE to achieve that someday.
... unless I'm mistaken, that's a "RL" shot of the locomotives, rather than a model (mostly because you can see the "heat" from the exhaust coming off the locomotives)
Yeah, I realized that right before I posted, I knew it was real, I was referring to the Swedish links I think it was stein who posted.
Paul_in_GA Paulus Jas 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 Paul WOW! This post and the one above it with the links are AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!! I CANNOT believe the detail and the QUALITY! I guess some people have skill, some have TALENT, and some have both. This guy in those links has both. Stunning work. I could only HOPE to achieve that someday.
Paulus Jas 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 Paul
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
Paul
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
Paulus Jas Hi, 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 Paul
Hi,
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
Thanks Paulus, you have been a tremendous help with your information. I would also like to thank cudaken for speaking with me at length this morning. He gave me a lot of information. Thanks Ken!
cuyama Well-intentioned folks often cite John Alien's first layout to newcomers as an ideal track plan without also noting that it had extremely tight curves (14" radius or so), very steep grades, and handlaid-to-fit turnouts, all of which are beyond the abilities of most newcomers. Not to mention completely inhospitable to the OP's U23B.. As others have pointed out repeatedly, some sort of folded oval or folded dogbone or donut-style layout would work well in the space -- better than a 4X8 monolith. There is plenty of room for changes in elevation and even for a track to cross over another, as has been shown early in the thread. If the OP would like a bill of materials and step-by-step instructions for this first foray into layout building, perhaps one of the Atlas layouts from a book would be appropriate. These are track heavy and often limited to 18" radius, and the inefficient HO 4X8 monolith, but they otherwise seem to meet the OP's personal needs for complete details and a fast start. They aren't the best layouts, but they are the best documented. The one thing I would say is certainly do not wire the Atlas layouts using their components as shown in the books. But if going DCC from the start (a good choice), that issue is eliminated. And of course, flex track would be a better choice than sectional track, but that's an easy substitution. Best of luck.
Well-intentioned folks often cite John Alien's first layout to newcomers as an ideal track plan without also noting that it had extremely tight curves (14" radius or so), very steep grades, and handlaid-to-fit turnouts, all of which are beyond the abilities of most newcomers. Not to mention completely inhospitable to the OP's U23B..
As others have pointed out repeatedly, some sort of folded oval or folded dogbone or donut-style layout would work well in the space -- better than a 4X8 monolith.
There is plenty of room for changes in elevation and even for a track to cross over another, as has been shown early in the thread.
If the OP would like a bill of materials and step-by-step instructions for this first foray into layout building, perhaps one of the Atlas layouts from a book would be appropriate. These are track heavy and often limited to 18" radius, and the inefficient HO 4X8 monolith, but they otherwise seem to meet the OP's personal needs for complete details and a fast start. They aren't the best layouts, but they are the best documented.
The one thing I would say is certainly do not wire the Atlas layouts using their components as shown in the books. But if going DCC from the start (a good choice), that issue is eliminated. And of course, flex track would be a better choice than sectional track, but that's an easy substitution.
Best of luck.
Thanks for the advice and the links!
Paul_in_GA]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.
Well-intentioned folks often cite John Allen's first layout to newcomers as an ideal track plan without also noting that it had extremely tight curves (14" radius or so), very steep grades, and handlaid-to-fit turnouts, all of which are beyond the abilities of most newcomers. Not to mention completely inhospitable to the OP's U23B..
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
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.
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.
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?"
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.
- Douglas
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:
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
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.
Smile, Stein
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
All the guys on this forum have given me great advice and it's SLOWLY starting to sink in. LOL!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.