New layout plans - feedback welcome

[Anonymous]

Greetings everyone. My name is Lance and I have been thinking of building a HO scale layout for some time now. I live in an older farm house, of which the upper floor is unused. I would like to use a room there for my layout, but design the benchwork as such that I can remove a 3 foot section to get something larger into one of the adjoining rooms, if I ever had to in the future. The layout would be kind of a modular layout with some larger than usual modules too.



http://lefebure.com/trains/layout/layout1.gif <-- Click for full sized image.

The layout is a rough design, built in Atlas' Right Track software. Each grid square is 1 foot. Anywhere the track is a single rail along a wall, there is a door to another room there.

The era will be present day Union Pacific. I have been thinking 24" radius curves, but will the bigger diesels work alright with a smaller radius if necessary?

Currently the plan has 2 helixes. Is there any good reason I should stay away from doing a helix?

I'm looking for any feedback that you all may have.

Thanks,
Lance

[FThunder11]

Looks very nice. I hope it works

[camarokid]

24" will work just fine. Anything smaller will have overhang with long engines and cars. If at all possible try to work in one with a 28" or 30" radius to see how much better the cars look going through the curve. Helixes are fine but very time consuming to build depending on how many turns you need to raise the elevation. They do make for a longer run because the train is going in circles. If you double track it you will need to keep at least a 3" center for overhang or more. It's a good looking plan. Have fun!

[camarokid]

Just checking back to see if anyone else has offered help. Guess not. I am surprised that even you haven't . What I was really looking for was to see if Big_Boy_4005 gave you any input on helixes as he has a dandy one. I built 2 of them and really didn't do a good job and had a lot of problems with them. Saying that I am toying with the idea of buildiing one for my current layout. There's a years work for me since I only work on my trains from Nov to Mar. Then it's golf time with my daughter. Ain't it great! Have fun.

[Anonymous]

What is the purpose of the twin helixes? It doesn't appear that you are using the space above or below for additional mainline run or modeled scenes, so I am guessing that you just need head clearance for the duckunder. If this is so, you might just consider building the entire layout at closer to eye level to begin with; many advanced modelers have come to a conclusion that the realism is enhanced by doing so.

I am a proponent of the one-turn helix, as a means to a different end: it extends the length of mainline between two model towns. Actually, I'm experimenting with a concept I've labeled "Foreground Miles" on my home layout, where the mainline runs once through a fully modeled scene, then goes hidden and turns back, then turns again to pop out on a small non-modeled shelf just in front of the fascia. In this way, I get three times the mainline length, with the line running through the scene once, behind or under it once, and then in front of it once. Just prior to the next town, a one-turn helix can bring it back up to the "modeled" level. The foreground trackage can incorporate a passing siding and be part of the overall operating scheme, and it can also serve as a "fiddle yard" for adding or removing rolling stock, if the layout lacks an accessible staging yard.

On the track plan you show, the easiest way to incorporate "Forgeround Miles" would be to connect the two helixes in a different way. Exiting the yard on the left, the main could skip the first helix, turn down at the second helix to run backwards and hidden, then turn again where the first helix is to run in the "Foreground". If you're not opposed to winding through the same scene twice or in more than one direction, then you wouldn't have to hide any of this turning-back. But overall you'd gain a lot more running length.

One other consideration: where you have industrial spurs indicated, I'd encourage you to place short runaround tracks to aid with their switching. If you're really wanting to model an active high-traffic mainline, then a train-length passing siding would be appropriate, so that the parked cuts of cars during switching do not foul the main. And, go ahead and use some sharper-radius curves on the spurs; it will visually highlight the distinction between main and spur to do so. I'd incorporate an 18" radius curve here or there, especially where it can contrast with a 28" or larger mainline curve.

Finally, the yard as you've designed it is lacking a drill track, or tracks. This would be a long stub ended track parallel to the main line which is as long as most of your yard tracks, so that when a switcher is shuffling cars, it doesn't have to back out onto the main to do so. Avoiding the first helix, as mentioned above, would allow you to incorporate such a drill track, and don't worry about using a tighter radius here. The main can still bend around the corner at its minimum radius, and the drill track can be tighter to fit inside; you'll only be using a short-wheelbase switcher at slow speeds here anyways.

Hope there's some ideas in here that help!

[Anonymous]

Wow. Those are some real good ideas guys. I especially like the idea of running through the same area 3 times to increase the length of the main. Looks like its back to the design board for me.

I had already planned to put the layout higher than the normal table. Probably 50 to 60 inches above the floor. The higher it is, the easier it will be to put wires under the benchwork too.

Keep the ideas coming......

Thanks,
Lance

[Anonymous]

I added a couple half helixes to turn the train around to get more track length. The hidden track is in gray.



http://lefebure.com/trains/layout/layout2up.gif <-- Full sized upper layout
http://lefebure.com/trains/layout/layout2down.gif <-- Full sized lower layout

I'm thinking the height of the upper track would be 58 inches above the floor, with the lower track at about 54 to 55 inches. Can I expect 3 inches of grade change out of that part helix?

Thanks,
Lance

[NZRMac]

A 2% grade is nice 1inch rise (or fall) every 4 feet of track, the tighter the radius the higher the grade % too.

Ken

[Anonymous]

Your helix may give you trouble in a non-temp-and-humidity-controlled environment. I belong to a club that heats it's building only on open nights, and our pywood built helixes were inclined to warp both lengthwise (dips and ridges) and crosswise (tarck not level at cross section). In a barn, try using bulletproof materials like 3/4" plywood, and keep you helix rises adjustable by using treaded rod, washers, and nuts at each helix level.

[Anonymous]

For the one helix that I've still got in my track plan, I was thinking of starting with a piece of flat plywood and buiding the incline out of foam. I think it will be much easier to work with the foam to get a consistant grade out of it as well. The foam should also allow me to taper the start and end of the helix so it isn't such a drastic change for the train.

One other though I had about not using plywood directly under the helix is that when I have the track go over itself, I can just use a HO scale bridge. I should be able to get one that is thinner than 1/2 inch plywood, therefore I don't need to have as steep of a grade in the helix. In other words, I only need 3.5 inches of rise instead of 4 like I would need with the plywood base.

Thanks,
Lance

[Anonymous]

I like this second version a lot more! The lower level squiggly-mains suggest a main line through some rough topography, meaning some good chances for dramatic scenery, as well as a reason for the tunnel portals which will be necessary with all the hidden track.

The only thing about hidden track, though, is that it is hidden. In other words, you're not going to be able to visually inspect it and find the trouble spots once it is below the scenery. You'll need to lay this track and ensure that it is absolutely flawless before hiding it; trust me, I've learned as much the hard way.

One odd thing about your helix, though, is that the two main lines actually have traffic flowing in opposite directions. The same train will pass through on the outer track in one direction, then traverse the inner track in the opposite direction later. Obviously, real railroads would not do this, so it comes down to a compromise- do you scenic the two-track loop and treat it as part of the regular main line, or do you leave it somewhat "unfinished" to acknowledge that it doesn't represent a real railroad condition? There might be a way to have the outer track emerge from the helix one turn higher than the inner track, so that the top level (exposed) still only shows a single track instead of two, but of course this would be more difficult to build, and probably means a crossing ("diamond").

Another option might be to eliminate the inner loops altogether, and use the squiggly mountain main to climb a stiff grade (perhaps 3%) to get back up to table height. Again, you'd only climb up high enough to still duck under the outer loop, so you'd have to have a bit more climb beyond the helix before you got back to the yard. This would give you a helper district on the lower level- a run of mainline where you have to add in some helper engines at mid- or rear- train. Could be fun.

Go ahead and try to expose as much of the lower level as you can; the upper level can be thinned into just a 6" wide shelf in places, to accomodate this. Old-skool model railroaders might not even differentiate between upper and lower, just have the same scenery serve both, but I'd be in favor of a trimmed edge or fascia of some type to separate them.

Just my opinions! Enjoy, and Happy Thanksgiving.

[johncolley]

Another idea that can be helpful is to use a double track helix which accomplishes 2 things: it gives you a long passing track, and you can use it for staging in either or both directions if it is several layers deep. Just use the inside radius for downhill traffic and the outer one for uphill as it is slightly longer and so eases the grade. Enjoy!

[Anonymous]

It sounds logical to have the uphill train on the outside of the helix, so I tried rebilding the blueprint to go the other direction. Over all, I would like the trains to go counter-clockwise in this room.

[img.nr]http://lefebure.com/trains/layout/layout3.gif[/img.nr]

I should first say that I don't like this much. Its just too disorganized for my tastes. This plan would include a over/under type of bridge instead of a true helix so it will be easier to see and access the lower part of the layout.

After doing some thinking the past couple days, I'm looking to do a helix the direction like I had in layout #2, but go with several loops, not just 1. I'd either build my own helix or purchase the pre-made pieces from Trainstyles. With their 4.5 turn helix, that should create a difference of 15 to 16 inches - enough to have a fully visable lower level. That would hopefully eliminate some of the hidden track that could cause issue.

-Lance

[Anonymous]

Just a couple of comments on Helixes (or however you spell the plural form)......
We have one helix on our club layout, the Meridian Union Terminal Raliroad, that is used to convey track from table level to duckunder level to travel to the next room. It is constructed of particle board subroadbead under cork roadbed under Atlas flex track. It is a two track main on 24" and 26" centers. The helix makes 4-1/2 loops to reach the required altitude.
Trackwork in the helix should be nothing short of excellent. In our case that meant level side to side. We chose not to do any superelevation although, I have seen it done. It also meant soldering rail joints.
Operation on a helix should be limited to 20 car trains. (although we have broken this rule from time to time and even used pusher units). What the heck, every rule was made to be broken.
It is also imperative that cars be as uniformly weighted as possible. If your cars are not uniformly weighted then be sure to put the heavy cars to the front. Believe me a de-railment in a helix can be a b..., well, it can be bad.
Having said all this, best of luck and GO FOR IT.

Regards,
Bill Lowe
Sec/Treas.
Meridian Union Terminal Railroad
Meridian, MS