cuyamaFor those who think this approach suggests the Sandpatch grade, you may not understand the prototype.
Unless one has railfan the 'Patch and was thinking more on a mini Patch and not having build a barn for the layout and still have a close but,no cigar Sand Patch.
Looking at that 9x7 footer N Scale would be the choice or a CSX branch in HO.
I would start my grade about 6-8" from the curve on the bottom right and end it 6-8" from the left bottom curve.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
For what the Original Poster desires in the space he has, N scale is the better choice. There are a couple of N scale approaches that would work.
Yes. My standard philosophy is go with what we got.
It might also be helpful to place a scale human figure inside the layout with lines that represent the normal field of vision. It is a fairly confined space, and vignettes is about all I could come up with. I apologize for my shortcomings.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
[quote user="carl425"]
hardcoalcase with switching centers (intermodal/industry/visable stageing/yard/etc.) located on the inside of the main.
carl425Folks have mentioned the space a helix takes up, but you have to remember that only the space on the lower level is lost. The space above the helix is still usable.
That is true to a degree, with one important caution. In a room this size, likely the best location to place the helix will be in a corner. With that, the only access for maintenance and emergencies is up through the center of the helix.
This will be a bit of a wriggle for many of us, and being able to fully stand up inside the helix is a big help for most tasks. So anything that covers the top of the helix should probably be easily removable.
So the helix radius must be considered relative to access from inside, not only the minimum radius required by the trains.
Edit: It's probably obvious, but I'm talking about access to the "back" of the helix against the wall. Depending on the arrangment of the rest of the layout, the "front" of the helix might be reached easily from an aisle.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Some folks posting encouragement for HO for this concept in this space haven't taken a moment to sketch it to-scale. At anything like a reasonable minimum HO radius for the type of railroading the Original Poster has described, basically only a simple oval fits. And that's even before allowing for the door swing into the room, which the Original Poster hasn't yet fully described.
Here's the visual.
For those who think this approach suggests the Sandpatch grade, you may not understand the prototype.
ROBERT PETRICK Yeah, it means twice as much rolling stock, and yeah, it's a crazy idea, but it might be something. Or maybe not. Robert
I dunno but,its very interesting and has possibilities.
BRAKIE I would go with a around the walls with Sandpatch as the focal point. Some times less is your best friend for such a layout.
I would go with a around the walls with Sandpatch as the focal point. Some times less is your best friend for such a layout.
I also like the around the walls approach, and the OP stated that swing-out bridges or duckunders at the doors would be acceptable.
OP also stated that he wanted three decks. There is a solution (kinda) that doesn't involve helixes or nolix ramps or elevators . . . but it does involve some sleight-of-hand deception.
I'd go ahead with three decks and compose and build different stand-alone vignette Sandpatch themes for each. One feature of the prototype involves impressive mountains and long tunnels, so each deck would have a turnout branching from the mainline trackage and leading to a tunnel. Then, you could operate on a single deck for a while, and when ready to move on the train can disappear into the tunnel (which is actually just a length of hidden staging track). A short, discrete amount of time passes . . . and voila! the train emerges from the other end of the tunnel on the next deck. It isn't the same train, of course, but rather an exact clone consisted to look like the other. Yeah, it means twice as much rolling stock, and yeah, it's a crazy idea, but it might be something. Or maybe not.
baltimoreandohiofanscale from Cumberland to summit on a 3 deck shelf layout circa 1990-1994. The shelves would be connected by a helix in the corner of the room. I've been told by many that HO is a daring choice to go with for the room size and the length of cars I'll be operating (89' autoracks and TOFC), and N scale is the way to go. I'd be okay with N, but I prefer HO as the detail is much better and overall it just looks better. What is your opinion? Should I do N? Let me hear your opinion!
Here's another thought if you like HO better. If you wish to model 1990-1994 era and rethink your space and loose the helixes.
Food for thought.I would go with a around the walls with Sandpatch as the focal point. Some times less is your best friend for such a layout.
If you're more interested in watching Sand Patch operation then add a large staging yard on the opposite wall and watch the action.
hardcoalcasewith switching centers (intermodal/industry/visable stageing/yard/etc.) located on the inside of the main.
Did you miss the part where he said "switching doesn't really do it for me" and said he wanted to model helper operations on the heavily trafficed B&O Sand Patch Grade?
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.
Another idea, which would work fine in HO. A single deck layout with a single or double track mainline running around the perimeter of the room with switching centers (intermodal/industry/visable stageing/yard/etc.) located on the inside of the main. Could have four switching centers (one on each side of the room) or fewer but larger centers.
The idea is that the mainline is shared, and represents the track from each center to the next. This way you have room to run long trains on broad radius curves, with starting and destination points to suit your taste.
Simple concept - no helix, no elevator, no steep grades. Putting a few mild bends in the main (i.e. avoiding arrow-straight track) will make the main appear longer than it is.
I'd like to claim this as my own idea, but I remember it from a way-back MR article/track plan where the author likened it to a Scottish Links golf course - many holes accessed off of one fairway.
Originality is simply the art of covering your sources!
Jim
TrainzLuvr I have a few posted on a different train related website but not of the whole railroad. CraigN I model N scale and my 11 x 25 foot room in the basement is too small now that I have my trains up and running. But thats because I was too impatient and didn't even think about hidden staging for all my equipment that for some reason continues to grow. I run autoracks and TOFC on a double track mainline. In N scale, The autorack is 7 inches long. I have 18 of them and with a couple engines you are looking at an 11 foot long tran. And on my railroad it looks decent but would look better if it was longer. I have a space similar in size to yours, about 23'x12', that I'm struggling to envision having H0 in. Granted, I do not think I will have long autorack trains, but I do like longer trains, so comes to the same. Do you have any photos of your N railroad to share?
I have a few posted on a different train related website but not of the whole railroad.
CraigN I model N scale and my 11 x 25 foot room in the basement is too small now that I have my trains up and running. But thats because I was too impatient and didn't even think about hidden staging for all my equipment that for some reason continues to grow. I run autoracks and TOFC on a double track mainline. In N scale, The autorack is 7 inches long. I have 18 of them and with a couple engines you are looking at an 11 foot long tran. And on my railroad it looks decent but would look better if it was longer.
I run autoracks and TOFC on a double track mainline. In N scale, The autorack is 7 inches long. I have 18 of them and with a couple engines you are looking at an 11 foot long tran. And on my railroad it looks decent but would look better if it was longer.
I have a space similar in size to yours, about 23'x12', that I'm struggling to envision having H0 in. Granted, I do not think I will have long autorack trains, but I do like longer trains, so comes to the same.
Do you have any photos of your N railroad to share?
ROBERT PETRICK Has anyone ever determined what the absolute steepest grade in HO scale could be? 4%? 5%? 10%? I've seen some pretty steep overpasses (on 4'x8' Figure 8s). I'm talking an engine and perhaps a few cars. Not really operating; just transposing from one level to the next.
Has anyone ever determined what the absolute steepest grade in HO scale could be? 4%? 5%? 10%? I've seen some pretty steep overpasses (on 4'x8' Figure 8s). I'm talking an engine and perhaps a few cars. Not really operating; just transposing from one level to the next.
Coincidentally, I just tested out maximum grades yesterday. My Bachmann GP7 can climb a 7.5 degree (that's 13%) grade while pulling two cars in a straight line. Not having a kitchen scale or anything, I couldn't weigh the cars, but that would be a useful data point.
Though you also have to consider the maximum change in grade that the locomotive can accomodate. The front pilot/cowcatcher or whatever usually has pretty low ground clearance, so when going directly from level ground to a steep grade, that could hit the rails. I'm estimating the GP7 could increase its grade by 2.5 degrees (thats 4.4%) per its total length.
I'm currently testing these things because I'm planning a small size HO layout of my own... trying to jam in a lot of stuff into 4x6.5 feet :)
CraigNI model N scale and my 11 x 25 foot room in the basement is too small now that I have my trains up and running. But thats because I was too impatient and didn't even think about hidden staging for all my equipment that for some reason continues to grow. I run autoracks and TOFC on a double track mainline. In N scale, The autorack is 7 inches long. I have 18 of them and with a couple engines you are looking at an 11 foot long tran. And on my railroad it looks decent but would look better if it was longer.
YouTube Channel
Website
For a 9x7' room, with the goals given, N scale is your only option. No debate on that one. Put a fork in it and get started.
I've got a 10x18' basement room with an around the walls layout and a 20 car train is pretty long for even that layout.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I have a 9x7 bathroom in my house.
I just can't picture an H.O. scale railroad in that small of a room.
I model N scale and my 11 x 25 foot room in the basement is too small now that I have my trains up and running. But thats because I was too impatient and didn't even think about hidden staging for all my equipment that for some reason continues to grow.
In a 9 x 7 foot room , the same train would be along 2 of the walls at the same time.
So IMHO , if you want autoracks and TOFC , go with N scale. If you want autoracks and TOFC and better detail that you get with H.O. , then look for a bigger space.
Craig
Here's another option - elevator shelves. see http://ro-ro.net/ According to their site, comes in 4' & 6' modules and can be joined up to 18'.
You could put the elevator behind a removable backdrop and squeeze in as many levels as you want.
I have also seen similar home-made units detailed in MR, one was curved.
carl425 Folks have mentioned the space a helix takes up, but you have to remember that only the space on the lower level is lost. The space above the helix is still usable.
Folks have mentioned the space a helix takes up, but you have to remember that only the space on the lower level is lost. The space above the helix is still usable.
Yes. And the uppermost revolution of the helix can be exposed in the open disquised as a Tehachapi sort of loop. Another inch or two can be picked up by incorporating a Broadway Limited Horseshoe Curve type of alignment on one level or another.
All kinds of ways to chip away at tight spots.
Sir Madog 7j43k HO is better than N. And O is better than HO. That´s a pretty meaningless statement unless you add better in or for what. HO scale certainly offers the chance for better detail for people with less than a watchmaker´s dexterity and O scale even tops that, but any lack of detail becomes more apparent the bigger the scale is. It finally boils down to one´s own intentions and givens and druthers.
7j43k HO is better than N. And O is better than HO.
That´s a pretty meaningless statement unless you add better in or for what.
HO scale certainly offers the chance for better detail for people with less than a watchmaker´s dexterity and O scale even tops that, but any lack of detail becomes more apparent the bigger the scale is.
It finally boils down to one´s own intentions and givens and druthers.
What I was trying to get at is that I believe that, if a model railroader had enough time, space, and money, he would go large scale. It's more massive than small scales (railroads generally being known for massiveness) and, at the same time, more intimate, in that, for a given sight distance, you can see more. And you will be closer, in scale feet. And things work better, too. Like better electrical contact.
Of course, there really are constraints in the real world. Lack of enough: time, space, money.
Note that in the discussion in this topic, the point of superiority for N scale is it will fit where HO won't. Not that it is in any way better, otherwise.
I suppose the only thing, in my theory, that would keep a model railroader from going humongous is that it would be too difficult to turn the model over to apply the trucks and couplers.
Ed
It seems to me that an n-scale adaptation of the Clinchfield plan that Byron posted would fit fairly easily into the space you have. If you don't like "the loops", you could put your helix on that blob.
Full disclosure... Byron's Clinchfield plan is one of my all-time favorites and was a huge inspiration to me in planning my own layout.
n-scale
if you have a ramp that runs along the walls with 12 Rad at the corners you get about a 345" run. at 2 percent grade you climb 6.9" per lap. so 2 laps around would get you to 13.8" which would be a nice seperation between decks. You can hide the ramps behind the a removeable backdrop.
There would still be plento of room for scenery in front.
Steve
wjstix I was in O scale until 1987. I considered switching to N, but ended up going with HO. If I were making the choice now, it would be N. N scale equipment now is at least as well-detailed and smooth-running as HO was then, probably better. I'd use Kato Unitrack, pretty amazing how many products Kato makes now for N (that I wish they made for HO too!); not just track but fine running engines.
I was in O scale until 1987. I considered switching to N, but ended up going with HO. If I were making the choice now, it would be N. N scale equipment now is at least as well-detailed and smooth-running as HO was then, probably better. I'd use Kato Unitrack, pretty amazing how many products Kato makes now for N (that I wish they made for HO too!); not just track but fine running engines.
News Flash - KATO is, and always has been an N scale company that occasionally dabbles in HO.....
For me personally, N scale is simply way too small to be of any interest. With enough space and money, two rail O scale might be real nice, and if more was available S would appeal to me as well. But after 46 years in HO, I think I'm were I need to be for my modeling style and goals.
Sheldon
7j43kHO is better than N. And O is better than HO.
baltimoreandohiofan ... on a 3 deck shelf layout circa 1990-1994. The shelves would be connected by a helix in the corner of the room.
... on a 3 deck shelf layout circa 1990-1994. The shelves would be connected by a helix in the corner of the room.
I had a friend Christine she was modeling the Chesapeake and Ohio in the 1940s-1950s. And the Chessie System in the 1970s.
I forgot the location of the area but she was going to a quad deck and helixs on both sides all in HO Scale. With almost the same dimensions.
Unfortunately it's been 9 years, she basically quit building it and started replaning. Christine said she'll redo it with a single shelf layout.
Amtrak America, 1971-Present.
There is always TT & Z scale which would be tiny compared to N. Is your eyesight OK? Do you have the shakes? If so, stick with RTR cars & engines.
Dennis
baltimoreandohiofanThe door barely swings in to the layout space, its not a problem. Crossings of the entrance I don't care about. I'm only 5'6.
Posting a sketch of your room with the entrance and any other obstructions noted would help others help you.
Hey B&OFan -
Is it possible to access some space in an adjoining room? Say, a closet or something? Enough room to build an adequate helix. Or are you strictly limited to the room as indicated?
Building a single independent level is not a problem. Or even several single levels. The real challenge is connecting the levels with continuous running fully consisted prototypical trains. Or even shunting a few cars from one level to the next.
Designers here often use the phrase 'Givens and Druthers'. Have you pondered exactly what you want, what you need, and what compromises you are willing to make? Once you have a flexible list, there are many on this board who can provide info and advice to get to the getting.
Good luck,
The door barely swings in to the layout space, its not a problem. Crossings of the entrance I don't care about. I'm only 5'6.
Switching doesn't really do it for me. The purpose of this layout rather is to simply run trains and simulate helper operations on the prototype from Hyndman/Cumberland to Sand Patch.