hominamadThe outer loop is 24" radius and would serve as a small passenger line. The next loop inside that is a 22" radius which will connect in one or two places with the outer loop and could be a mixed passenger/freight line.
Here we have an issue that might be overlooked easily. For most newbies operating is just that, having two trains orbiting at the very same time, without any interaction. Also for your sons this will become boring pretty soon, unless some exitement is designed in. IMHO dads modelrailroad is quite different from the one your boys will love best.
On normal double track railroads freight and passenger trains both run in both directions. Some form of staging could make that possible, just as the staging addition on the MR-Virginian. Wayfreight and or yard operation is usually part of the fun on a lot of "adult-layouts". Like a train from staging to a highlevel terminal and back, whether it's a freight only, a mixed train or a mine run.
BTW on small layouts trains usually are pretty short; Byron Henderson (Cuyama) made a very wise remark. The steep grades needed on the branch will limit the length of both cars and trains. An engine with a 60 ft coach and a combine is quite different from a train with 5 full body 85 ft long passenger cars in tow. The first might very well be doing fine on both the main and the branch. Those longer cars require more clearance as well, as noted already by Cuyama.
Smile
Paul
hominamadGood points about the grades. I'm going to tweak the plan to allow for vertical easements and then see what it looks like. Is the grade on the Virginian handled better than what I have?
Note that the Virginian grade is much longer than yours before crossing over. This allows the chance for a longer run to reach the desired elevation, lessening the grade. There are some other issues in the way the grades affect the industries (cars will tend to roll out of the big mine based on the grade of the branch, for example), but those were probably dealt with in construction.
Simply double-tracking the outside oval of the Virginian might give you a place to start in 5X9 or 5X10. But note that concentric 22" and 24" curves may not give enough clearance. 2.5" difference would probably be a better safety margin with a wider variety of equipment.
hominamadIt seems in a 4x8 or even 5x9 or 5x10, doing anything with grades high enough for crossing over is difficult and not recommended.
I personally didn't say that it wasn't recommended, only that one must be realistic about what may be accomplished. Reliable grades do require care in design and construction Unfortunately, the majority of published HO 4X8 tracks plans are overly optimistic in the grades they quote.
If planned and built with care, grades can work on smaller track plans, but they may limit the length of trains and cars that may run on them reliably.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
So it would seem. There is a possible solution, though. You split the difference between the two levels. Instead of making the one track rise and fall again, doing all the changing, why not make the nether one shoulder some of the obligation for clearance between the two? Make the topmost track do a 2% rise and fall while the track over which is passes does the opposite. You get your 4% separation over the same distance, but with grades half that oppressive.
Crandell
Good points about the grades. I'm going to tweak the plan to allow for vertical easements and then see what it looks like. Is the grade on the Virginian handled better than what I have?
It seems in a 4x8 or even 5x9 or 5x10, doing anything with grades high enough for crossing over is difficult and not recommended.
Just like in the real world, changes from one level of operation up against gravity to another level, such as over a hill on a railroad, require phenomenal amounts of energy. While rail transport is second only to water-based transport in terms of efficiency, lakes and seas are essentially 'flat', whereas railroads have to negotiate grades and curves all the time.
Take another look at Byron's diagramme. Those transitions.
Suppose it takes only 600 hp to pull a trailing tonnage along level track @ 30 mph. For every half-percent rise in grade, the horsepower requirement more than triples. So, if you nicely transition from level running to a very gentle 1% grade, you will need nearly 3700 hp (!!) to maintain the same speed. And that's only if your engine can apply suffficient traction at the wheels to maintain its adhesion. If it is too light, you'll slip supplying the tire surfaces on steel rails with that much horsepower. Slipping means "No longer going 30 mph, and approaching zero very quickly." Better hope your brakes work!
My point is that it works the same way for our scale locomotives. The physics scales pretty well, all things being equal.
Another point, and this is about grades. Even if storming up grades won't be a problem, or crawling, because you have tons of tractive effort on the head end, the steeper a grade gets, the longer the transitions into and out of them must be. Think about it. With a mere half-a-percent change, you could almost make a kink and your lcomotives are unlikely to loose their footing. Now imagine going from level to 3%. That's one heckuva kink! So, you fashion a vertical curve at the bottom of the grade to 'ease' your locomotives up into the grade in such a way that the couplers behind them don't disengage and so that all wheels providing traction can continue to enjoy adhesion on the rail heads. But, just as you must do this at the bottom, so you must leave the rising path gradually at the top when you want to return to level. The big question is, how do you fit what would justifiably be called a reasonable vertical curve with all the desired properties into the same space you were planning...the same length of grade? If your grade is steep, your transitions will have to be longer for the 'easing' part, and that severely impacts the actual change of elevation between those longer vertical curves.
In conclusion, the steep incline on any railroad, real-world or scaled, is a distinct and severe impediment. They require careful engineering, gobs of horsepower, and tons of room if you want to minimize the damage or energy requirements they are wont to impose on the trains.
hominamadFinally, there is an option to switch to a track that begins a 2.7% climb that ends up being 4" high by the time it crosses over the first rack. I can even make that 5" if I want but it will be a grade of about 3.7%.
Your diagram appears to show your grade beginning at 2.7% directly at the connection to the turnout. This type of "hockey stick" grade transition is not buildable as drawn, unfortunately. For most reliability, grades should not change within a turnout or immediately at the end of a turnout.
For reliable operation, you need at least a car length of level track after the turnout and then some car lengths of transition from level to grade, depending on how steep is the grade. Like this:
So your actual grade will be significantly shorter, and thus steeper, than your calculations It doesn't necessarily mean that it will ultimately be unworkable for short trains of short cars, but you'll need more careful calculations and some care in construction.
Remember also the increased effective grade of the tight 18" curves from friction: 32/R or 32/18=1.7% effective grade added to your nominal grade. That adds up fast.
And as Paul noted, the location you have suggested as a yard will not really allow enough length to be usable as drawn. Once you consider clearances from adjacent tracks, your industry spurs might be shorter than you think in terms of usable length, as well.
Best of luck.
hominamad - I think you underlay a common beginner´s mistake. The Cactus Valley RR certainly has a fairly simple track plan, but is certainly not easy to build. The various grades require a high degree of accuracy in terms of benchwork and track laying.
Another item is the limited operation such a layout offers. While I can understand the need for continuous running, you should be aware that letting a train circle around track won´t catch a child´s attraction for more than 10 minutes. It gets boring pretty soon. IMHO, the Virginia Central is a much better choice, as it offers both.
Hi Paul - there are a few reasons why I like it better than the Virginian. For one thing it seems simpler and easier to build with a bit more room for error. It's basically just two connected ovals and then the center operations areas can be as complex as I want to make them. It also allows for two trains to run continously which you can't really do with the Virginian. Depending on what I do with the center areas, maybe I can even have a 3rd train doing something else while two trains run continuously? (please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this)It also seems that my grades and radii are less than the Virginian since the elevated portions don't have to climb within the center area of the layout. It may be getting too tight, but it looks like I could possibly fit a two or three track yard on the top, straight section of table. I definitely need to tweak it some more. I would like to add the run arounds like you mentioned as well. The elevated portion of the layout is high enough that I could probably have a relatively large, plateau section where I could have more robust industry tracks if I want. The one negative is that the mainline tracks are somewhat boring but I think I'm ok with that. I can do some creative things with the scenery to make it more interesting. The thing that appealed to me about Cactus Valley type layout was that it has a long main line for a small layout. Thanks for the input.
hi H,
It would be great if you were able to explain why you prefer your design over the Virginian.
The track going uphill could lead to small station, not to an industry only.
I would prefer the Virginian cause it has a small yard and run-arounds. Part of the Virginian is its staging extension, so hoppers from the mine do have a destination.
BTW i can't see the way you could build a small yard where you have it indicated; length is not sufficient.
Hey everyone - I'm back again and wanted to get everyone's feedback on a plan I came up with on my own while playing around with a demo version of Anyrail. Some parts of this are crude because I'm still at the 50 track limit of the demo and I had to do some crazy things with flex track to connect everything. I am going to purchase the full version and do it correctly but I'm pretty sure the measurements are sound even though it looks strange.
I started out thinking about the things I wanted to do and built out from there. The outer loop is 24" radius and would serve as a small passenger line. The next loop inside that is a 22" radius which will connect in one or two places with the outer loop and could be a mixed passenger/freight line.
Just with those two tracks, I can have two trains running continuously in a boring oval. Great for the kids. There is also an option to switch to either a town or industry or small rail yard on either side of the layout.
Finally, there is an option to switch to a track that begins a 2.7% climb that ends up being 4" high by the time it crosses over the first rack. I can even make that 5" if I want but it will be a grade of about 3.7%.
Once it crosses the track, it curves back with 18" turns and keeps climbing back as high as I want at that point. Eventually it will terminate at an industry which can be as high as I want in a mountain that would cover the bottom tracks.I can run operations if I want from the mountain industry to the structures at the bottom of the layout.
Maybe this is a case of CAD-to-soon, but I seem to have gotten everything I want in here with even some room left over for scenery.
Am I missing anything here that makes this difficult or unbuildable in any way? I know I've gone a bit outside my 5x8 space but I think I can expand slightly to 5x10 if I have to. I think in some ways this layout is similar to the Virginian, I like this better for some reason.
Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
H
Who among us who had trains when we were kids did not stage a wreck?
Only thing I staged to crash when younger was putting Hot Wheels cars on the crossing and seeing how far they flew.
Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm.
Hi gentlemen,
my sunday or pocket money was taken for maybe 6 weeks; however the fun continued. Probably in a more modest way.
Happy New Year in good health.
cuyama UPinCTWho among us who had trains when we were kids did not stage a wreck? I didn't. We knew that if we broke something, the parents wouldn't spring for a replacement.
UPinCTWho among us who had trains when we were kids did not stage a wreck?
I didn't. We knew that if we broke something, the parents wouldn't spring for a replacement.
My bother and I used to share a layout, which had a similar track arrangement. One day, my little 0-6-0 crashed into his prized big red Diesel and sent it flying to the floor. Damage was little, but it required a repair for which I had to pick up the tab out of my Sunday money. That hurt a lot!
In Paul's plan wouldn't making the one track decrease in elevation under the bridge help keep lower the grade a little?
Lone Geep
\
cuyama Paulus JasBTW your boys will love the "blue" crossing, engines at full speed just missing each other. Paul's plans are always clever, but I wonder about the wisdom of the at-grade crossing on every lap. Perhaps Dutch kids are more attentive and better behaved, but my younger brother and I wouldn't have gone very long before we would be racing and a crash would occur when we were that age.
Paulus JasBTW your boys will love the "blue" crossing, engines at full speed just missing each other.
Paul's plans are always clever, but I wonder about the wisdom of the at-grade crossing on every lap. Perhaps Dutch kids are more attentive and better behaved, but my younger brother and I wouldn't have gone very long before we would be racing and a crash would occur when we were that age.
My dear Byron,
I still remember the exitement my brother and me; 30 years later it were my kids having great fun. Despite the crashes my old Marklin trains are still working flawlessly.
Due to the grades I would build it "cookie-cutter" style. The turnouts just above the engine service track might need some tinkering. The plan was drawn with Atlas C83 snap-track. I would shy away from long coaches and engines.
Access to three sides is needed, so it requires quite some space.
Thanks Paul. I really like this one! Has elements of everything I'm looking for. Do you think it's "buildable" as is?
Two ovals on a 9x5 bench, one for each guy. The two are connected with each other; through a small yard cars or engines could be transfered between the two loops.
An addional interchange or fiddle tarck is the connection with the remainder of the world.
With a 20" minimum radius and #4 turnouts (some S-curves might cause an issue) smaller equipment would be mandatory. The grades are just under 3,5 percent.
This plan was just an idea, not yet completely matured.
BTW your boys will love the "blue" crossing, engines at full speed just missing each other.
DSchmittHere is a layout idea I have for an N scale layout on the upper bunk of a bunk bed. It is 40" x 74"
40X74 in N scale is 73"X136" in HO, larger than the Original Poster's desired layout. Your 13" radius in N scale is equivalent to almost 24" in HO.
DSchmittThe Cactus Valley plan has a 15 inch minimum radius.
That's a good point about which I had not remembered. Mr. Frary doesn't seem to mention it specifically in the MR article (December 1998) or in his on-line article, but the tightest turnback curve does seem to scale to about 15.5" to 15.75" radius. Perhaps he meant to keep it at 18" but couldn't within the confines of the 4X8. That curve is level, so it doesn't exacerbate the grade, and the original poster could probably broaden it with his wider benchwork.
But definitely worth pointing out -- very challenging for a lot of equipment.
Hey Gondola - I play guitar and bass, but not so much these days. That amp is actually a Fender Blues Deluxe. Really love the Princeton Reverb though. Also have a Hartke bass amp, not shown in the photo. I noticed the amp was in the picture after posting it and was actually wondering if anyone would comment on it.
Getting a lot of good ideas from everyone here. I see the appeal of cuyama's plans but was hoping I could do something that had a crossover somewhere. I really like the look of tracks on different levels. I guess I could take one of the other plans and have a track go down or up slightly to give the effect, but without having it actually crossover anywhere.
And I will admit that the benchwork was a lot easier than I anticipated it would be. I basically did it in a weekend.
Here is a layout idea I have for an N scale layout on the upper bunk of a bunk bed. It is 40" x 74" and the mainline radii vary but the minimum is 13 inches. (One siding has a short 12.2 inch radius curve). The spurs are all over 10 inch radius. The tracks going off the table would connect to removable staging.
The tracks to staging in the upper center could connect to form a Y, but I think I would make them go to completely separate staging yards.
Plan drawn with XTRAK CAD. One Peco curved turnout, The rest are Peco medium (main to siding, main to staging), and Peco small (to spurs).
BLImage1_zps62f6ee33 by Donald Schmitt, on Flickr
It ia based on a 4 x8 HO plan in a 1950's Boys Life Magazine
HO1_zps6baddc64 by Donald Schmitt, on Flickr
The Cactus Valley plan has a 15 inch minimum radius. My plan in HO should fit in a 5 x 9 space with over an 18 inch minimum radius.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
The others all posted some great plans and info but I saw the Fender amp, looks like the Princeton Reverb,great old amp what do you play? I have 2 peavey amps, a Nashville 400 and a Custom 400 stereo chorus that I play my pedal steel guitar thru depending where I'm playing at. When I get tired of working on the trains I do a little picking and practice a little. Jim.
Sir Madog
The 15" minimum radius and handlaid-to-fit curved turnout of this layout might not be the best choice for a beginner as-is. But with the extra width, it might be possible to resolve those issues.
hominamadI'm not sure I totally understand what people mean actually when they talk about operations.
Operation is actually pretty broad, but generally means moving cars and trains purposefully, usually suggesting to some degree real-life activities. Many people enter the hobby thinking they have no interest, but then find it becomes a lot of fun. Running trains in circles can get boring for many pretty quickly. Ops can be very formal or pretty casual, depending on your interests.
Running passenger trains, switching out power and head-end cars, dropping sleepers, etc. could be another fun way of operating. But you need the track to support it.
The good news is that if one chooses a plan that offers both fun-running and ops, you have the option to add more operating challenge and fun later if you like. If you choose a plan to begin that offers little potential for operation, then you have no option to add ops except with the Sawzall and a rebuild.
A plan like this HO 5X9, for example, offers two separate ovals plus a yard and some switching. No grades and broader radii than the Cactus Valley mean it might be easier to build and operate reliably (both plans use flextrack). You'd also need to add the foot in length to your benchwork for this (or any 5X9), but that's easy with L-girder. And there are many others.
With a plan like this, one still has the chance to build a little vertical scenery, but it's not necessary to build steep grades for the trains.
[And I know that you don't want to contemplate this, but now that you've seen how fast and easy it is to build benchwork, you could always add a "lobe" to the side to create an L-shaped layout and give yourself more room to work.]
Paulus Jasthe grade at the right side is much steeper; 22" length for a 1" rise is already 4,5%. The effective grade will then be 4,5% + (32/18)% = 6,25%.
Good point Paul, I measured a different grade that seemed the steepest at first glance.
operation means you let trains move over your layout. However since about 70 years ago Frank Ellison wrote about "the Art Of Model railroading" and 50 years ago John Armstrong wrote "Track Planning For Realistic Operation" the word is merely used for layouts which try to make more realistic operation possible. It involves building trains, switching industries or interchanges or servicing engines.
Fun-operation is sometimes used for layouts designed to let train just orbit around.
You will face another problem when you want to run passenger trains. The radii used on the Cactus Valley are way to small to sustain 85 ft long coaches.
A design with 2 independent main lines might be your best option. Like Byron Henderson's wonderfull Falls Mill RR.