Have fun with your trains
the crossover on the upper left and the crossover on the lower left both serve the same purpose and one or the other can be eliminated. This may gain you some space to increase the spiral 15 curve. You can use the switches to add a siding somewhere else.
Steve
Yes, I have been purposely only picking up shorter cars, the locos will be no larger than a GP9ish territory. Era would be end of steam but with a splash of Penn Central because you can't model urban decay without PC. Commuter trains would be Bachmann Budd cars which are 18"r compliant. The genesis for this was a basket load of still in box classic era Tyco stuff I found at a thrift store for cheap. I grew up with Tyco, I also have some a Athern and Bachmann equipment. I also have a still in box Woodland Scenics Grand Valley layout kit but I may sell it as there is very little "Grand Valley" on this layout. I want to build a "decay era" layout based on an old school plan, so far I like this layout alot.
I'm just grateful you gave us a trackplan that we don't have to turn our monitors sideways or upside down and backwards to see.
Given your post count, we know you are not new to the hobby and the considerations of radius. I would find the 15" constricting, but your situation and space are different than mine.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
It pays to remember, when following any Linn Westcott (or other source) track plan from the 1950s, that they assumed the use of, and therefore were suited to, the sorts of HO trains that were sold and popular then, meaning mostly 40' (or even 36') cars, and four axle diesels and fairly small steam locomotives (most famously of course the Varney 0-4-0T "Dockside" which probably could take a 9 inch radius if it had to). He would have designed a very different layout if he'd been thinking of 60' freight cars and 6 axle GEs.
Dave Nelson
Yes I may have to extend the beginning of the left hand riser as far back down that side as I can. I may end up with a "pothole" as such where the transition under the bridge occurs near the switch tower.
vsmiththe grades would be steep, especially on the right hand side
In adapting this layout to slightly larger spaces in the past, I have been able to split the grade on the right-hand side (descending toward the “signal tower”). Worth looking at.
That's why I think the grade on the left-hand side probably worse (along with the 15" curve, which exacerbates).
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Yes, the grades would be steep, especially on the right hand side, I am looking at starting the riser farther back, closer to the switch tower, that would mean some funky trackwork at the turnouts, but nothing too extreme. I like older smaller trains, so trains would be very short 5-6 cars max, engines and cars would also be smaller, no DASH-9s or autoracks. I have to experiment with the elevations but vertical clearances would be tight as well. If I decide to build, I plan to buy the largest car I can imagine running on it, likely a Athern vista-dome car or a smaller car carrier and see what happens, I may be restricted on what I can run but then I'm not looking to run any Big Boys on this.
This is a very similar layout to our 4x8. We have an internal folded dogbone with a simple outside oval loop and a few switches that act as crossovers and sidings. I had a few design criteria set our by my wife and kid. Two trains and the same time without the possibility of a collision, a tunnel, a bridge and a mountain.
I can run 75' passenger trains on our outside loop. Our grades are right at 3% (used Woodland scenics 3% risers) and 18" min radius curves. 10 car (single loco) trains are just about our max. We've run up to 3 trains at the same time.
I think we adapted ours from http://tysmodelrailroad.blogspot.com/p/design-planning.html
The grades are pretty stout. If allowing even a fairly tight 3.5" railhead-to-railhead clearance on the 15" curved climb on the left, the nominal grade after providing for a transition from level-to-grade is over 4.1% Add to that the effective grade caused by friction (for HO, 32/R where R is the radius) of over 2.1% and the total effective grade is over 6%.
Certainly worth mocking up first to be sure.
If you are building on wheels anyway, building 5X9 (or even 4½’ wide) would help a lot. I have designed a couple of variations on the “HO Railroad that Grows” for clients that worked well, but always larger than the 4X8 “sacred sheet” for HO.
Good luck with your layout.
Byron
I'm having a bit of trouble where, towards the bottom and a bit to the right, a track crosses through two switches. I assume that section of curved track is an oversight? Maybe.
I imagine the grades will be steep. How steep?
The commuter platforms imply passenger service. My guess would be a locomotive plus two 60' commuter coaches.
It looks like short trains with short cars.
Sure. Why not?
Ed
Considering building this, I had a small 3x5 urban layout that I was planning to build but I have picked up alot more HO material. Now I am considering a slightly larger 4x8 that has alot more track action and ops opportunities in a little larger space. This would be on a fixed wheeled table that can be moved around as necessary, its based on Linn Westcotts "Railroad That Grows" layout, only with a few tweeks like the ability to run two trains at once and possibly three train operation. Let me know what you think, yes, it does retain the 15"R curves on one side of the inner figure 8, thats fine, after all it is an urban layout based on tight spaces and nasty urban trackwork ;)