Hi guys, I am just getting back into the hobby. A family friend and I and did a partial build of a HO layout (for myself) back in the early 90's. He also had a big HO layout of his own. I ended up getting into cars and drag racing and lost interest and sold my own layout. Fast forward like 30 years and his daughter reaches out to with the unforunate news that he passed away. The daughter wants to give me a his current layout he started to build in his apartment. I helped her remove it all and bam I am back in the hobby. He was good at the hobby and I will try my best to finish the layout as proper as I can..
I am trying to use some of his existing layout and add a main line to mine. I am just wondering; I am hoping to use a Atlas pier set ( Ho Pier Set, Ho Scale Accessories, Ho Track Listing| Atlas Model Railroad (atlasrr.com) ) to "go over" the freight yard he built. I was advised that I need a 6 ft area to do a "up and over" Hopefully the pictures will explain. Can I use a 4 ft area instead or will it be too tight? use this link to view the pictures test pictures | Team Chevelle (chevelles.com) Thanks again, re-learning/learning a lot
Welcome back to the hobby and to this forum! Your first posts will be moderated, so please be patient. I assume 4 feet is the maximum space you have. Yes, it is possible to build an "up and over" in that space, but you'll probably be disapointed from a performance perspective. Slopes will be very steep, which means that some of the locos will slip going up. Your layout will be much more realistic without it, in my opinion.
Simon
PS: I learned to drive on a '72 Chevelle... What a car that was.
Thanks Simon! a '72 Chevelle was a nice looking car! The last before they switched to the collonade styling. I have a '70 Monte Carlo I bracket race..test pictures | Team Chevelle (chevelles.com)
I actually have 6 feet but I will have to squeeze around the area from time to time to get my "storage stuff". I want to do things right this time, as compared to my teenage self.. The original shelf style is 18 inches in width so I will add 54 inches to that area. I will likely still need a access panel I assume unless I can reach the areas. I was planning on "curving" the plywood cut extension as it seems like it is a better look..I also plan to add 12 inches to the rest of shelf to run the main line back to the other side..
No, 6' is also tight IMHO. Trains sets came with 4 cars, so setting the piers to the 6' will most likely allow a loco to pull 4 cars up, not 5
First, note that the Atlas pier set you're referring to only raises the track 3", meaning some equipment (Vistadome or modern Amtrak passenger cars, double-stack cars, some piggyback cars) won't be able to fit under the elevated track.
Anyway, to raise the track 3" in 8' would be about a 2% grade, which is usually the max you want to use on a model railroad mainline.
To raise it 3" in 6' would be about a 4% grade. Generally that steep a grade is only used in modelling a logging railroad in the mountains, or where you intend on modelling a helper operation (an extra engine hooks up to help the train up the grade, then uncouples and the train continues on it's own).
To raise 3" in 4' would be over a 6% grade. I suspect some engines (particularly inexpensive 'train set' models) might struggle going up that grade by themselves, let alone trying to pull a few cars.
Also be aware that this discussion so far only talks about the slope for 1-way. To go up and then come down again would require the same distance yet again.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Hello All,
Glad to hear you are back in the hobby.
I agree that the clearance needed for an overpass in HO on in a 4-foot space would be difficult.
The reason many modern modelers use 1- or 2-inch insulation foam as a base is you can carve down creating features.
In my particular case, I have no under pike access so I took a page from the prototypical (real) world and cut 1/2-inch deep "trenches" and laid automotive flex tube to run my wires through. Think utility tunnels.
This way I can senic over these and not worry about burying the wires.
If you use even a 1-inch foam base you can carve out an underpass for the lower track and not have to elevate the overpass so high.
Unless you are running double-stack intermodal cars you will need 3-inches of clearance from the railhead to the underside of the overpass.
By using 1-inch foam and carving down the entire depth you only need a 2-inch overpass, which is more attainable with your given space.
I have a 4'X8' pike with a curved 3% grade to an overpass over the mainline.
This curve begins approximately 1/3 of the way along the 8-foot side, traverses the whole 4-foot width and ends approximately 1/2 way on the opposite 8-foot side.
A consist of three (3) GP30s; one on the head end and two (2) pushers move eight (8) 34-foot loaded coal hoppers up this grade with some difficulty. A steady hand on the throttle to power up the locos on the grade is needed.
What you are attempting is not impossible but it will take some out-of-the-box thinking (see my signature).
Keep the questions coming and as always...
Hope this helps.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
Wow, what a trip down memory lane. I got this for Christmas in the very early 90's. The atlas pier set and two plate girder bridges which were separate. That cross braced item was set aside. As a kid I didnt know its purpose since my dad bought a compatible bridge
I remember this required long approaches. On 4' X 8' plywood table with a few curved sections on incline, I recall it reached 7' long so the train could make it up the hill and not topple sideways on curves. In essence, the up and down approaches worked in a spiral oval fashion.
The aproaches should not be 4' long as planned. I don't think that's enough space. EDIT
https://www.trainsetsonly.com/atlas-up-and-over-in-4-x-6-code-83.html
sorry, here's the track plan we used 30 years ago. The crossings were actually bridges. Right after the switch on the left side, the incline began running up along the top of the photo, continues up on the right side of the photo and then levels off right where it crosses over the track. That's where the piers went. After crossing, it wound back down and leveled At grade right where it passed beneath the track above..next to the pier you showed. This layout is 4x6'. Pretty sure we stretched it a bit. So I maintain 7' of approach if there's curves or 6' per that recommendaction for straight track
Here's a sketch of my first HO scale layout, on a 4'x8' table....
It had remotely controlled turnouts (cable-operated from the control panel) and remote mechanical uncoupling, also activated with cables, by push-buttons on the control panel diagram. The outer track with the "up/down" notations show approximately how much length of track is needed for a useable up-and-down incline. That up-&-over is a reverse loop, as is the small diameter loop in the area to the left.Track was from Atlas, with brass rail on fibre ties. Turnouts were the same, but came as kits.
That outer track on the right of the photo. It's rising just after the switch at the bottom of the photo, correct? That's about 6' of length there to the bridge. This a great track plan
NorthsideChiIt's rising just after the switch at the bottom of the photo, correct?
Yeah, the track rises just after passing that turnout at the bottom. I'd never measured the distance from there to the point where the grade levels-out just before crossing the mainline on the oval, but I'd guess-timate it at about 8'. The incline at the top of the sketch is about the same.It was important that the grade at both ends was high enough to allow clearance for trains on the bottom level, whether on the mainline oval, the small inside loop or the dead-end tracks where industry was located.The trackplan shows a truss bridge over the main oval...my father built it using basswood shapes (I-beams and H-columns mostly). It then connects to a wooden trestle, made from strip balsawood, which joins solid ground right about where the short track, also on a dead-end wooden trestle, veers off to a small coal dealership. The elevated track near the lower left-end of the diagram passes over the main oval on a through girder bridge, also built with balsa wood.
While I have several of the cars and locos which came with that layout, (not as a train set, but as selected items, some new, others used) many of them were sold later when I had begun building my own layout(s).
Wayne
Thasks for the info guys! In reading all the responses I think I will use the pier set somewhere else on the layout. I have a fairly straight 8ft run coming out of the (potential 4 ft extension) that would work. I just need a "railroad reason" why the bridge was built either add a larger river or add some tracks under it. I will limit my rolling stock to a certain hight to make it usable. I will then keep the extension down to 4 ft and then it can also make the room more usable in the basement for storage etc..I should be able to run a "dogbone loop" on either side of the layout within two 4 foot dogbone areas using flex track (24-32 degree maximium curves I have the guages). I tried using the SCARM software to show you guys a potential track plan but can't figure it out at the moment. Once I get the benchwork done I will try to use the "paper tracks" for track planning and use cardboard for structures "mock up" . For now (keep it somewhat simple for now) this is the most allowable layout size I want to use. I am getting a electrical guy to wire up a 8ft flurescent light (I had it laying around) and maybe another light or two next week for the layout.I believe figured out how to post pictures directly, hopefully these links work.. https://photos.app.goo.gl/aLrGbBzifBqonTqQ7
https://photos.app.goo.gl/kBbrM4zH9LiKk3LY8
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Gz3ZymtAG4d9qP437
https://photos.app.goo.gl/aLrGbBzifBqonTqQ7https://photos.app.goo.gl/kBbrM4zH9LiKk3LY8https://photos.app.goo.gl/Gz3ZymtAG4d9qP437
I forgot to mention that I also had a Chevelle...I bought it almost new, as the original owner had ordered it with a 4.56:1 rear end, apparently because he needed to tow a large boat. I've never understood all of the technical terms regarding engines and the available upgrades, but do know that it had the 396 engine, with 375 HP, and a four-speed manual transmission. The car was pretty quick, but not very fast...I got rid of it in 1971, and bought a new Datsun 1200 that was faster (the Chevelle crapped-out at 90mph, while the Datsun would do 95), as verified by the OPP (Ontario Provincial Police).
The Chevelle sucked gas faster than any of my beer-drinking co-workers could manage, giving an impressive 4mpg rating (premium gas, of course) while the Datsun managed a 40mpg average on regular.
The Datsun finally expired in 1987 with over 350,000 miles on the odometer - best car I've ever owned.
I doubt that my HO scale locomotives will get anywhere near that sort of mileage.
There is virtue in simplicity. We are all tempted to build a more elaborate layout, but when we do that without increasing the physical size of the layout, we often end up with a "spaghetti bowl" track plan that primarily exists mostly because we could build it. So, given a mature layout design, does it really need more track and more complexity? Would a real railroad do that? Really, sometimes less is more.
Nice, that must have been a ss 396 (around 325 HP) and with the 4:56 gears it would certainly have a lot of rpms on the highway! I am putting in a set of 4:88's but that is for a drag car only application..I guess you oil guarded that Datsun because for it to last that long in our rust belt climate it really terrific!
Yes, I am just trying to have the discipline to keep it simple! My goal is is try to "actually finish" this layout as my last one never got done. I might try to put a few "extension" spurs on it just in case I ever want to go further.. I installed one of the 4 foot extensions for the dog bone this weekend but I am having trouble trying to keep it level. I might have to remove it again and start with some new ideas in terms of supportive benchwork. I check with the level tool and then put a piece of flextrack on the plywood and run a freight car down it. I guess this is good way to check that it is level? I will also be adding foam..