So guys i wanted to start anew in my attempt to design my layout. Below is the space i am working with.
This area is 149 square feet and i want to build a dog bone style layout so that i dont have to duck under or a movable bridge. I am going to freelance model a scene from the alaska railroad. Most likely looking like turnagain arm headed to seward. I am going to attempt to make the walkway appear to be part of the inlet. Going for scenes like this.
I am going to run both freight and the large passanger trains on this route. I need a yard, but a pretty small one maybe 4' by 2'. A few small industries. (Oil or mining). A small fishing town. And mountains. Here are the only to configurations i can come up with for benchwork that will allow 26" curves at the end of the dogbone.
I dont like this one since the large area by my tool box i wont be able to reach and walk all the way around.
This one seems like a better use of the space since i will be able to walk around each of the larger areas for the most part. I want one of these large ends of the dogbone to cricle around one of the mountains to wind the mainline from the coast up into the mountains. This is where i will incorporate a few tunnels, a spur for mining, and multiple bridges.
What do you guys think? I want to make the most of all the space i have
Bad design, not enough walk space in interior, can be fixed in the #1 design by making the benchwork smaller. I used 24" benchwork with mine but I found 19" would work just as well.
Something like I did. Just remember that the outside track of the dog bone, (against the wall) will be easy to transition to, but entering and leaving the inside track from each dog bone end will require at least the same 26" radius to smoothly transition.
Mike.
My You Tube
Getting closer but still work to do. Try to get your aisles at least 3', with 2' absolute minimum for access-ways. Narrowing the benchwork during straight runs as rrebell suggests would help. You can also curve the corners on narrow benchwork to make room for tracks going around the curves- one of the reasons you often see railroads with flowing benchwork sides.
If you lay track down on the plan then you will see the problem that Mike mentions. On the second version I think you can make the right hand dogbone work but the one on the left does not have enough room for track to enter/exit. If you tuck the left dogbone up into the corner near the pipes it would probably work out much better.
Designing for reach into the center of dogbones is always a challenge. But you can always build the center scenery as a module and then drop it in place. Also 30" reach is absolute maximum for working on track, but I found up to 3' is doable for basic scenery.
Hate to be a broken record, but you really must get the basic track plan finalized before building the benchwork.
Huntington Junction - Freelance based on the B&O and C&O in coal country before the merger... doing it my way. Now working on phase 3. - Walt
For photos and more: http://www.wkhobbies.com/model-railroad/
I like plan #2 But I moved the blob to the top corner and add a backdrop over it to hide the turn around. I would also add a backdrop down the center of the other blob. I drew it up in autocad. I started with 30" min rad.
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/12631542_10207218836423550_8647683869272860695_n.jpg?oh=369f8c888171d8b546bfe9f6c3456450&oe=5732ED30
You have a nice space so don't stop trying different arrangements Ideas. Use paper to sketch ideas faster.
Steve
One thing I noticed is you didn't mention what you plan to run. On my pike my min. radius is only 18" but I only have a few (very few) 50' cars, all others, like 95% are 40' or less (the 50' cars are so I can be proto accurate for my time period, they may disapear. Last for a single person 30" walkway is fine, 48" for two.
Thanks for all the advice guys, I made a preliminary track plan on the second benchwork last night. I ran into the problem with the left bench as well. I will upload it when i get home from work. I am planning to run both freight and the large alskan Walthers Proto passanger cars. My loco to start with will be an athearn Gensis SD70-MAC.
I am not too worried about the aisleways on the inside, as it will be only for my own operating use.
My minnimum radius will be 26" on the mainline due to the protos requiring at least 24. I may have a few spurs in the mountains with some curves of 18 or 22 with the frieght cars.
Hey guys here is the sample layout plan i have so far. Right now everything in 26" radius min.
I widened out the walkway by narrowing out some of the benchwok along the top wall. This will be pretty basic, a dogbone with one choice going into the mountains to continue to higher elevation to 9 in at a 4% grade or continuing through the mountains at the 4.5 in elevation it will have already been on from the 3% grade.
Opinions and comments are encouraged. I want to get this right without to much of a headache.
Now you are cooking. It is starting to look like a real layout.
Grades- anything over a 2% grade is pretty steep. Up to 3% is do-able depending on your locos and the length of trains you want to run. More than that will likely require consisted diesels or double-heading steamers in order to pull more than a few cars up the grade. And 4% is just too steep.
Also consider how it will look- much over 2% will appear very wrong for modern locos and rolling stock.
Another factor you need to consider is vertical easements. The track will need to gradually transition to the grades in order to keep those long passenger cars from unhooking from each other. Vertical transitions eat up some track length, so the actual grade will be a bit steeper than what the program is calculating.
A 4-1/2" rise is a bunch, and 9" is huge. Bottom line- I would decrease the grades and lower your upper levels.
Remember you can also drop your lower level in places to give the impression of more vertical height between tracks. Here the lower track entering the tunnel to the left is dropped 1/2" from the base level. And still, the difference between the upper and lower track height is just 4-1/2" in this photo. Like I said, 9" would be a whole bunch and not worth all the challenges to making it work.
As for the track plan, I would make the yard much bigger and work a run-around into the yard design. Also add more sidings and/or staging tracks at least to "park" trains on. By the time you have all of this built you are likely to have accumulated a much bigger collection of locos and cars than you probably think and they will need somewhere on the layout to hang out. So keep on playing around with it.
Constructing the benchwork for this sort of layout is another topic for discussion. Its quite an aggressive plan for a first timer and you will need to be patient and work to develop the skills needed. But first step is to get settled on the track plan.
I agree on the yard aspect. I didnt add onto it more because i hit my 50 piece limit on the anyrail software. I also am not very sure how i want to layout the yard at all, that is there just to show the space i have avaialble.
I am not too intimidated by the benchwork. I am quite capable with building things out of 2x4s.
My main question is why are there so many products selling 3% grades and 4% grades (like woodland scenics) if A. They do not work well or B. They look funny. I really do not care if it looks like a prototypical railroad. I just dont want it to be obnoxious looking. My trains will not be running many cars. Most likely topping out in the 10 car range. I am starting from nothing except a few old hand me downs so i dont have a lot currently. And if i accumulate too many cars and need a bigger yard then i will just have to expand into the rest of the basement. Haha
Do a search on grades and you will find many threads discussing how much is too much, the need for vertical easements and the like. Better yet, do some testing by setting up track on a long board, set it at different grades and give it a try. That's exactly what I did to come to my conclusions.
Many years ago I built a layout that was not very successful mainly because the grades were too steep. I guess it was a good learning exercise but then again I don't encourage others to repeat my mistakes.
I guess you can try using foam risers on a flat base if that is what you are thinking. It is definitely a simple option for getting started. But that's not the way I would build a layout like you are planning. Way too much flowing elevated track- not at all a typical beginner's plan. And better suited to more advanced benchwork if you can manage it.
OK, your track design takes in the problems I mentioned about the "inside" radius to each end of the dogbone. Looks good! On my "L" shaped dogbone, I had to add on to the benchwork for the inside radiuses to make a constant 24" radius.
Mike
You have an "S" curve to the south of the turntable that will create a problem. You need a straight section at least as long as your longest car between curves in the opposite direction.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
Carl I don't see the S-curve you refer to, but I agree that is another thing to watch out for.
Grades and elevated track are fun but add a bunch of complication. And you have to commit to a method before building the benchwork. Most successful first layouts have very little elevated track just for this reason.
A shelf with foam risers running up to it should work, but you would need to arrange the risers with some vertical transitions at the bottom and top of the grade, and figure out how to mount your roadbed and track on them, and then get them to meet up evenly with the shelf. And the shelf would need to be solidly supported. I never used the WS risers so don't know exactly what is involved. (It would be helpful if someone with experience using this method could post some pics and hints.)
But if you are going to do all that, why not just skip the foam risers and use plywood to build the elevated sections including the grades?
Either way I would include a flat run all the way around to start. Then work on elevated sections.
You can carry this thinking further into more advanced types of benchwork. Here is what mine looks like under the same area that I showed earlier. I mount ply sub-roadbed wherever the track runs, at whatever elevation it needs to be. Then I build the landforms and scenery around it. A common method for building a layout with rolling terrain, and very versatile, but not a simple build.
As for turnouts, #8's look great but are not really needed. #6's should work fine. Also decide how you are going to actuate the turnouts since you also should consider how the switch machines will mount before building the benchwork. The Tortoises that I use screw right to the bottom of the ply which makes things pretty easy.
Hi Spartancook.
I have been following this discussion with interest. I don't have a lot to ad, but wonder if you have a table saw or access to one. If so check out/ Google "spline roadbed". It lends itself well to the kind of flowing trackwork you have in your design. Also I would not go over 2% on an incline.
One more thing to consider is, you can have ups and downs in your trackplan for the sole purpose of going up and down, just like in the real world. You don't always have to have something to go over if you want to throw a grade in on your layout. Also if you can't get the clearance you need, just resign yourself to the use of a crossover until you get a bigger basement.
Here is an old video showing my splines before they got covered up. The risers are attached to the 1" x 4" open grid work below. Also note the bevelled edges. No need for cork roadbed as you mount the track directly to the spline.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
Thanks for commenting. I really enjoyed your video. The section that you have raised with the other track going into a tunnel is very simialar to the look i am going for. How high does your track rise up? Unfortunately i do not have access to table saw, I just moved and have not met anyone with one near by yet.
Also I have a larger basement. A good 1200 sqft extra of room. Its large and open. This is my workshop area. I have plans to build a bar and finish the rest into a movie room. I also wanted to start smaller and see how much the train bug bites me. Looks like its bitten hard though, maybe i will rethink how large I want the rest of the basement eventually.
Hobby Guy thanks for the reccommendation on the #6 turnouts, that will make planning easier. What tortoise do you use?
Really getting excited for this project. Just bought this loco on Ebay. Once this track plan gets done we will be ready to roll!
Brent I enjoyed your video too, first time I've seen it. I thought about mentioning spline but was concerned I might have gone too far with my L-girder.
Spartancook, we can't see what's under all that foam but Brent's open grid is similar in concept to my L-girder benchwork. The idea is to build the frame so that you can attach risers to support the track (whether on ply or on spline). Then fill in the gaps with foam, plaster shell or whatever to build your terrain and scenery. If you really want free-flowing track with lots of grades then this sort of construction is really the way to go.
I don't have a table saw either but I do have a nice miter saw that I make good use of. Special tools are not absolutely necessary so don't let that stop you, but I have to admit they do help.
Tortoises are very popular switch machines. Just do a search and you will find a bunch of places they are sold. They mount under the ply and a stiff little wire passes through to move the points. They are totally hidden and are very reliable- much better than snap switch machines.
Since Brent threw his video out and you mention tunnels, here are current pics of that same corner that I have been using as an example. There is only 4-1/2" height difference between the two levels even though it looks like a lot more than that. How the terrain and scenery is designed can really magnify the effect.
And here is the tunnel entrance. The lower level passes under the double-track through this tunnel. Notice that the track to the left is 1/2" higher. There are three levels of track in this area, all mounted separately and supported by risers from the frame.
The new loco looks very nice!
HObbyguyI don't see the S-curve you refer to, but I agree that is another thing to watch out for.
SpartanCook I agree on the yard aspect. I didnt add onto it more because i hit my 50 piece limit on the anyrail software. I also am not very sure how i want to layout the yard at all, that is there just to show the space i have avaialble. I am not too intimidated by the benchwork. I am quite capable with building things out of 2x4s. My main question is why are there so many products selling 3% grades and 4% grades (like woodland scenics) if A. They do not work well or B. They look funny. I really do not care if it looks like a prototypical railroad. I just dont want it to be obnoxious looking. My trains will not be running many cars. Most likely topping out in the 10 car range. I am starting from nothing except a few old hand me downs so i dont have a lot currently. And if i accumulate too many cars and need a bigger yard then i will just have to expand into the rest of the basement. Haha
I notice s curves mentioned too. The longer the car, the more that becomes a problem, it is no problem in 40' cars, starts to be a problem with 50' but only is the radius is small. There is an artical out there that addresses this with tests done, no speculation.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Gidday, I’ve been fence sitting but am liking how your plan is developing. Regarding “S” curves as long as the track work is good and they’re “flowing”, especially with a 26” minimum radius, I don’t really see the problem.
I must have been blind not to see it, my only excuse is that the track is "flowing" so nicely it didn't jump off the page. I agree as long as there are easements into/out of the curves there it should be OK, but a spot to watch out for.
JaBearRegarding “S” curves as long as the track work is good and they’re “flowing”, especially with a 26” minimum radius, I don’t really see the problem.
Did you perhaps miss this part of his plans?
"I am planning to run both freight and the large alskan Walthers Proto passanger cars."
or maybe this disclaimer from Walthers?
"PLEASE NOTE: As these cars are the correct prototype length and feature full underbody detail to match the prototypes, a minimum 24" radius is recommended for operation"
HObbyguyas long as there are easements into/out of the curves there it should be OK
Unfortunately, this plan depends on this S-curve as drawn to fit in the space available. There is no room for easments, and no option for a fix when the problem shows up other than tearing down most of the layout or giving up the long cars.
At a radius only 2" broader than what the manufacturer requires as the minimum, I do not believe these 85' passenger cars will run reliably on this spot. IMO, either the S or the passenger cars has to go.
Carl425 how about if he moves the upper curve to the right a bit? Looks to me that it would help straighten out that S.
HObbyguyhow about if he moves the upper curve to the right a bit? Looks to me that it would help straighten out that S.
That's an option. (assuming of course that he's ok with moving everything that's attached to it) Moving the center point of that curve 6" or so to the right should be enough to create the 12" straight that would accomodate the 85' cars.
Or... you could just shift the whole layout counter clockwise into a shape like this: