Thanx Ulrich. That is a nice looking turntable. As you say... I'll give it a go. I am soooo tired of doing easements.
Good Day Sir
Steve
Life is tough, but it's tougher if your'e stupid.
Fouled AnchorSo what is your take on turntables? I have heard horror stories, and that is what has kept me away from a layout as pictured above. Of course I could try to fit in a "Y".
A turntable adds a lot to the atmosphere of a layout, but they do take some care in installing them. If I were in yourf place, I´d give it a go!
Here you find a good source for an On30 turntable.
A wye needs a lot of space and is not easy to wire. Should you go for DCC, you will need an automatice reverser, which uses a short circuit detector to trip the polarity change. My layout will have a wye to add some operation interest to an otherwise rather "dull" shelf layout.
Texas ZepherThird, I think you need at least a 1 car run around in the top mining area. This will allow the operation of moving the caboose to the back of the train. The loco will still have to go "backwards" down but at least it will be at the front of the train.
With very steep grades it was common for the loco to be coupled to the downhill end of the train to prevent runaways if a couplings breaks. This is especially when the loads are hauled downhill.
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.
A point to think about that hasn't been mentioned.
There are a good many folks that get bored with the limitations and the back-and-forth movement of a switchback - probably more than actually enjoy operating a switchback. I would recommend mocking up a simple, level switchback on a shelf to see which category you fit into before you sink a lot of time and effort into building it.
The same probably applies to "switching puzzles". Ovals probably have the proportions of like/dislike reversed, but there are plenty of folks who get bored with them, too.
Unfortunately, it's very difficult to figure out what kind of operations you like best before you've built a layout or two to the operational stage. Being associated with a club or operating on other mr's layouts is a big advantage, but not always easily achieved.
just my experiences, your choices
Fred W (who prefers shelf layouts and switching vs watching them run, but took a while to learn that)
considering that your previous plans did not have a reverse loop or turntable, why do you think you need one with a point-to-point or shelf layout?
(i'm struggling to build simple small turntables on my small pt-pt layout).
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
Thanx Ulrich. Yes you are right, and actually I am working on one now that is similar to what you posted. I have a point to point "U", and an enclosed as shown. I am trying different ones. Oh, and I take criticism well.
So what is your take on turntables? I have heard horror stories, and that is what has kept me away from a layout as pictured above. Of course I could try to fit in a "Y".
I'll post as soon as I have my around the room shelf done.
Very good input.
Steve,
are you prepared to take on some criticism? You are about to invest a significant amount of time and money in building a layout. It would be a shame if you go through all of that, only to find out at a later stage, that the layout is not really what you wanted to have.
A few points of critique:
May I suggest that you take a look at some other ideas? A shelf-type layout going around all the walls in your room will offer many more oportunities. Why not go for something like this:
Thanx gregc, yes, I did consider a 2.5' in a U configuration in 12x16 room, but decided a continuous loop is a must, and I really do not want a duck under. So I settled. Using AnyRail, I am still experimenting with configuration, but I like my latest so far. I decided againt the shelf around the room because I will not use a turntable.
Appreciate the help.
Fouled Anchor Great info Mike. Here's where I'm at so far:
Great info Mike. Here's where I'm at so far:
You may want to simplify or add an additional sw for another "runaround" Now it may be a bit cumbersome or blocked.
Modeling B&O- Chessie Bob K. www.ssmrc.org
Have you seen Byron's comments on alternatives to 4x8 layouts.
Instead of a 4x8 and trying to squeeze a switchback inside the oval with a steep grade, have you considered a 2x16' layout (w/o continue running) and the possibility of multiple switchbacks that may be 10' in length.
Texas... excellent suggestions. I will play with it a bit. Trying to stay around a 4% grade, I could only gain about 10". I would love to go steeper and higher. I wanted the height for a curved trestle. I like your swithback better. I'll post when I have the mods done.
Thanks a million.
Fouled AnchorOne area has a 4.5% grade, and I'm hoping my Two Truch Shay and Climax will handleit with a small consist.
Where I'm at so far. Man I wish I had more width.
Second. I know this is not HO, but I don't think you are utilizing the little bit of width that is available. I would push the swichback area as far to the left as possible. Even if You have to go with a sheet of masonite as a scenic divider. This will allow a bit more space between the tracks of the switchback. Is there enough elevation to extend the 2nd tail over the double track main loop? If so that would give even more wiggle room to make the top part more interesting.
Third, I think you need at least a 1 car run around in the top mining area. This will allow the operation of moving the caboose to the back of the train. The loco will still have to go "backwards" down but at least it will be at the front of the train.
I recall the popularity of switchback Model Railroader articles in the 1960s, but; 50 years later we have a YouTube Channel like (from) David Kos.
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
Where I'm at so far. Man I wish I had more width. One area has a 4.5% grade, and I'm hoping my Two Truch Shay and Climax will handleit with a small consist. I will test it before modeling.
Thanx Chuck. Was wondering about the grades. Was just starting to play with that in AntRail, so the grade info helps a lot. My minimum is set to 18" on the mountain, so I was not planning on anything larger than say a 2-6-0. But is something to think about.
Thanx for the help.
More great Ideas Texas... thank you! At the north end I was thinking a mine entrance going into the back wall (that end is butted up againt a wall), and a vertical mine shaft at the southern end. Gonna play with it to see about logging.
Again, thanks for the help Texas.
Tail tracks on switchbacks were frequently upgrade from the points, but at an easier grade than the real climb. That gave upgrade trains a bit of a boost when getting started. IIRC, the Crown King Extension was 3.5% grade between turnouts, and the 350 foot tail tracks were on a 2% upgrade to the bumpers.
One thing to watch is the vertical curves between up and down grades, If you stick to short cars and flexible locos they can be shorter than the ones I use for 20 meter cars, but you WILL need them.
The Monarch Branch was mentioned. As a three foot gauge route it was operated with 2-8-2s. After standard gauging the Grande tried using six axle SDs - once. They couldn't handle the 24 degree curves. From then to abandonment the motive power was four-axle GPs.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - without switchbacks)
Texas Zepher Fouled Anchor Texas... cool. My plan is for somewhere in Colorado anyway, that's why I was wondering. I modeled it in AnyRail, and it looks pretty cool. Here is a photo from Seth Johnson http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/84/f9/90/84f99055b78c92b9c0131bb365a6c57d.jpg If you search "Monarch branch switchback photos" there are lots of hits.
Fouled Anchor Texas... cool. My plan is for somewhere in Colorado anyway, that's why I was wondering. I modeled it in AnyRail, and it looks pretty cool.
Here is a photo from Seth Johnson http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/84/f9/90/84f99055b78c92b9c0131bb365a6c57d.jpg
If you search "Monarch branch switchback photos" there are lots of hits.
There's another angle that may be of interest to TZ's suggestion of Monarch Pass. It was standard-gauged in the late 1950's. After that, the steam and wooden truss-rodded gons gave way to Geeps and steel GS gons. Pretty much all traffic was limestone headed to the steel mill at Pueblo. Thus you could also get HO standard guage Geeps in yoru favorite brand and a group of Red Caboose D&RGW GS gons and go modern on exactly that same track. Might have to switch out structures, too, but a good change of pace if you want it.
Now, there were no Shays or Climaxes operated on this line. But there is a bunch of On30 Rio Grande stuff available that would work if you wanted to get more specific in following Monarch Pass as a prototype, both motive power and rolling stock.
Another suggestion on the tail tracks. With a little extra elbow room in planning, you could locate mines, log landings or other shippers on one or more of those tail tracks for even more industries to switch. For instance, pencil in a logger to justify the geared lokies.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Texas... thanks. That's a pretty big guy switching up. Goin searching.
Mike... excellent advice. I was just getting an idea of what I wanted, and planned on tweaking. Yes curves, and a spur at the end. Will work on that. Will post a pic later.
Thanx Mike
Fouled AnchorTexas... cool. My plan is for somewhere in Colorado anyway, that's why I was wondering. I modeled it in AnyRail, and it looks pretty cool.
One thing to consider is having an extra spur at the tail track at the very end of the line. Assuming you intended to not make separate trips up and down the mountain with the empties and the loads. You need a track to drop the MTs on to allow you to pick up the loads.
Since you're making the trip up and down the mountain anyway, consider curving and spreading the tail tracks out a little instead of keeping everything parallel. This makes for a more scenic line, eases the problem of too much vertical scenery concentrated in one place, and provides more of a sense of going someplace.
Thanx Frank. I was thinking the same thing.
Gonna go check it out.
Hello I made a switchback it was a fun build it was harder to get the rock to look right then it was to get the track layed out. here is a theard with some info. These guys helped me and have some good ideas. Hope this helps Frank
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/197910.aspx
More things to consider...
Count out your moves and which end the loco ends up on, since you do have control in the planning process how this comes out, unlike the prototype. Generally, you want the last movement on top to shove with the loco on the downhill end or the end that faces out to return along the line. This allows for easy switching if there is anything more than just the one terminus track. On the other hand, if it doesn't, then you'll need facilities to run around the train there in order to complete its work.
You generally don't need turning facilities, but sometimes there are. On steep lines with steam engines, it was sometimes necessary to keep the front of the boiler pointed uphill to keep the tubes covered to avoid a boiler explosion.
As for actual contruction, switchbacks seem simple enough. But it's very critical to observe the limits of vertical curvature around the switches. Obviously one way goes down, one way goes up, and the third, tail track tries to stay level -- but isn't always. Yet you can't make the transitions too abrupt or you'll run into problems with the equipment getting past it. Leave some extra length to account for the transition to vertical curves as the line climbs. Generally, you want turnouts to be located on the level, but sometimes you can fudge this a bit. The important thing is to test over and over with the trains you'll be running to verify things work as planning before you finalize things.
zstripe... good info and pictures. Man that is some rough trackage.
Thank you.
Texas... cool. My plan is for somewhere in Colorado anyway, that's why I was wondering. I modeled it in AnyRail, and it looks pretty cool.
Thanks
You can probably get many idea's from this site:
http://www.algonet.se/~justus/zigzag/
Take Care!
Frank