Hello, I'm looking for advice on my planned DC freelance HO round the room layout. Any insights fresh eyes can contribute are appreciated. I'm not sure if I've laid everything out well? I'll mostly be running 1930's to 70's diesels from Santa Fe and other US railroads along with rail fanning a few British steamers. It's designed for a room 2.3m or 7 feet 6 inches wide by 4.7m or 15 feet 5 inches long with a door in the bottom long wall. I've decided against a helix as the room is just too narrow.
My aims for the layout are :
Minimum radius curve 572mm or 22.5". (Now widened to 24")
US freight operations.
US passenger services.
Continuous railfan running of 3 trains on 3 loops.
For operations the layout will work as dead end branch line with a terminus station at the end. The other end in staging has a reverse loop for turning trains for the next session. So loop to point.
The lowest level (pink) at 26" (66cm) represents a interchange with other railroads, Rio Grande , Burlington Northern or whatever else I feel like running. From staging trains climb a twice round the room gradient of 2.5% on the straights and 1% on the curves . This gradient brings trains up to the main level (blue) at 40" (100cm) in the top right corner. There trains proceed anti-clockwise along the double main past the Yard, through a passenger station then up a second once around the room gradient to a single mainline or Highline (orange) at 46" ( 114cm) past a mine, an urban industrial area and finally terminating at the station which has an attached mini Intermodal yard. Engines can turn here and make the return trip along the highline, down to the double mainline and down to staging. All of the main level and the highline will be sceniced excluding the area on the bottom wall next to the work bench and the swing out section in front of the door.
My main concerns are:
Should I move any of the stations or industries around to make better use of the space?
The return loop in staging is going to be a pain to step over and avoid banging into.
Also having the yard lead of the main Yard run over a bridge over the river gorge is annoying.
I think I should be able to run train lengths of five 12"passenger cars and ten 7" fright cars based on the run around available and platform lengths. Is that right?
Thanks for any input.
Welcome to the forums.
Your room is very close to the size room I am prepping for my new layout. Summer has stalled progress for the moment. My entry is just slightly to the left of yours and I'm hung up on how to build the entry gate. I have the basic design from a club layout, but doing it....
How wide are you planning to make your shelves? I'm using 2' wide, 2" extruded foam.
I'm not good at track planning (another hang up) so will let others critique that part, just hoping to get you back to the top of the list so others to see and comment on.
Good luck,
Richard
to the Model Railroader magazine discussion forums. We are very glad that you have found us. Your first few posts will be delayed by the Kalmbach Media moderators, but that ends soon enough, usually after just a few posts. Please stick around through the delay and become a permanent part of the discussions.
Making your pictures visible:
I am not the one to comment on track plans.
Please stay with us.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Thanks Cowman, my shelves will vary in depth but average about 2 foot. Il be using IKEA Ivar shelves as the main structure and will cut lengths of 1cm thick plyboard to use as sub road bed.
I haven't even started to design the swing out door. Do you have a diagram or photo of your club one. Mine will be tricky as it will be holding 3 gradients as well as a double main and a single Highline.
Thanks Kevin for posting my photos! Very kind. Here are a few more:
The mainline where trains enter from staging at top right corner.
The highline where trains terminate and locos can turn around on turntable .
The lowest staging level with the annoying protruding reverse loop.
I can't see the images on this computer (problem with the computer, not the images) but a couple of quick comments:
22.5"R curves should be OK for 40-50ft long freight cars and small to medium locomotives, but may be too sharp for many brands of full-size passenger cars - especially cars with body-mounted couplers. Athearn passenger cars, or the old AHM/Rivarossi cars, might work better.
You mention your time frame as 1930s-70s, and mention Burlington Northern a couple of times. Keep in mind BN wasn't created until 1970, by a merger of Great Northern, Northern Pacific, Chicago Burlington & Quincy ("Burlington Route") and Spokane Portland & Seattle. The only one of these that connected with the Rio Grande was the Burlington; after World War 2, those two plus the Western Pacific ran the California Zephyr from Chicago to San Francisco.
MurBallThanks Cowman, my shelves will vary in depth but average about 2 foot. Il be using IKEA Ivar shelves as the main structure and will cut lengths of 1cm thick plyboard to use as sub road bed.
One of our contributors ,Bobby (AKA Camaro Guy), in Orlando, used IKEA shelves to support his layout with perfect results.
I hope he comes back. His contributions were too brief.
MurBallThanks Kevin for posting my photos! Very kind. Here are a few more:
Hi Stix, I'll be running railroads together from completely separate eras that never met in real life just because I like them.
Thanks for your observations about passenger car sizes. I currently run all my existing stock on 20"R curves without derailing problems. The lack of realism on curves I can live with and I don't think I could use 24" curves within my space, maybe I should try again though. I run Thrall well cars and IHC passenger cars with bogie mounted knuckle couplers fine. I know I'll have to be careful when buying more cars to avoid the more prototypical models like newer Walthers that require 24"R . I think I'll try some old Rivorossi sets next.
Thanks for the pics again Kevin. I'll check out Bobby's posts
Hi Stix, I revisited my plan and widened all curves to 24 inch minimum without too much disruption or losing any features. Do you think 24 is wide enough for most larger passenger cars to stay on the rails? I think Walthers often cite 24 inch as a recommended minimum but maybe it's not enough in practise?
wjstix I can't see the images on this computer (problem with the computer, not the images) but a couple of quick comments: 22.5"R curves should be OK for 40-50ft long freight cars and small to medium locomotives, but may be too sharp for many brands of full-size passenger cars - especially cars with body-mounted couplers. Athearn passenger cars, or the old AHM/Rivarossi cars, might work better. You mention your time frame as 1930s-70s, and mention Burlington Northern a couple of times. Keep in mind BN wasn't created until 1970, by a merger of Great Northern, Northern Pacific, Chicago Burlington & Quincy ("Burlington Route") and Spokane Portland & Seattle. The only one of these that connected with the Rio Grande was the Burlington; after World War 2, those two plus the Western Pacific ran the California Zephyr from Chicago to San Francisco.
In my experience with the Walthers 85' passenger cars, 24" radius curves are a bit tight and can cause derailments, particularly by snagging the diaphragms on adjoining cars. Longer couplers can go a long way in solving this problem.
For me, I use 30" radius curves minimum, and the longer passenger cars can negotiate these broader curves with ease.
Rich
Alton Junction
Thanks Rich, I doubt I can go as wide as 30 so I'll just swapp the couplers for longer armed ones, that should stop derailments? While reducing realism i know
richhotrainIn my experience with the Walthers 85' passenger cars, 24" radius curves are a bit tight and can cause derailments, particularly by snagging the diaphragms on adjoining cars.
I have pretty much given up on 85' cars after several experiments.
I have secured sets of both "Standard" and "Streamlined" Athearn passenger cars, and almost a dozen Roundhouse "Harriman" cars. I think these are all about 60'-65' long.
I also have some old plated Tenshodo shorty passenger cars that I got for a song, but not enough for an entire train.
My "Mail Train" is all brass, but none of the cars are over 65' long.
All said, I think I have six complete undecorated passenger trains now, and I have not painted a single car for one of them.
I might never have an SGRR passenger train.
MurBall Thanks Rich, I doubt I can go as wide as 30 so I'll just swapp the couplers for longer armed ones, that should stop derailments? While reducing realism i know
Yeah I hear a lot of grumbling about the longer passenger cars. Even though they are beautiful models they seem to be unreliable on the track? I have a few Hornby British coaches and they track very well. I have one older IHC Rio Grande passenger set that nadkes curves flawlessly thanks to their bogie mounted couplers, they even allow themselves to be pushed over turnouts without complaints.
Does anyone have any comments on the track plan? Anything seem in workable?
richhotrain MurBall Thanks Rich, I doubt I can go as wide as 30 so I'll just swapp the couplers for longer armed ones, that should stop derailments? While reducing realism i know Using longer couplers should help a lot. All of my passengers are good jumpers, and none have ever fallen between the cars. Rich
Using longer couplers should help a lot. All of my passengers are good jumpers, and none have ever fallen between the cars.
MurBall Yeah I hear a lot of grumbling about the longer passenger cars. Even though they are beautiful models they seem to be unreliable on the track? I have a few Hornby British coaches and they track very well. I have one older IHC Rio Grande passenger set that nadkes curves flawlessly thanks to their bogie mounted couplers, they even allow themselves to be pushed over turnouts without complaints.
There is a thread on the General Discussion about minimum radius. The Layout Design Special Interest Group (LDSIG) has related physical car length to minimum radius. A car that is operated on a curve with a radius at least 3x its length will not have any problems with the curve being too tight. For a scale 85ft model that measures 12" actual over the couplers, that means a 36" minimum radius. A 70ft passenger car would want 30" radius, and a 60ft car wants 25" radius.
Now how do we get cars to get around a lower radius curve without issues? The necessary coupler swing and length has to be there. The trucks must rotate further without hitting any underbody details. Trucks may be moved closer to the car end than is prototypical. And there has to be extra clearance to possible obstructions - structures, parallel tracks, scenery, etc. MOST of the time, passenger car manufacturers take care of this for us so that we can use them on 2.5x or even 2x curves, typically by moving truck location and getting rid of underbody detail around the trucks. A lot of model passenger cars are also shortened from their full prototypical length. Walthers does not do as much of this as others, so their passenger cars often struggle on 24" radius where other makes do not.
And if you don't like the LDSIG's findings, the NMRA Recommended Practices (RP) has always recommended 30" radius (broad) curves or more for full length passenger cars.
Not what you wanted to hear. With a 24" min radius, my recommendation would be to happily run shorty passenger cars (60ft). If you don't run 85ft cars at all, very few people can tell that your cars are short for lack of a comparison. Even better would be 23.5" radius with a 12" long easement.
If you are going to go ahead with full length passenger cars, pay attention to which makes have reported problems on 24" curves - Walthers is one. Test each passenger car to see if anything rubs on a 24" curve. Test to make each car to make sure the coupler has enough swing when coupled to other cars - both short and long.
I sympathize because I have 18" radius curves. I run Overton-size passenger cars - full length models of a 34ft unique prototype. Or I have some models of 50ft prototypes, which works out to about a 2.5x ratio - generally doable with testing.
Fred W
....modeling foggy coastal Oregon in HO and HOn3, where it's always 1900....
I'm not familiar tith IKEA shelves. I am only doing a single shelf layout and plan to use a swing up gate, which would not work with a multi level layout.
Which way can your gate swing? A swing out would be better I think, as a swing in would be limited by the width of your narrow center aisle.
MurBallDo you think 24 is wide enough for most larger passenger cars to stay on the rails? I think Walthers often cite 24 inch as a recommended minimum but maybe it's not enough in practise?
-Matt
Returning to model railroading after 40 years and taking unconscionable liberties with the SP&S, Northern Pacific and Great Northern roads in the '40s and '50s.
I'll have to figure it out when building I think. The door swings out so I was intending to swing the multi level bridge inwards, there will be about 1.6m or 60" available which should be ok.
cowman I'm not familiar tith IKEA shelves. I am only doing a single shelf layout and plan to use a swing up gate, which would not work with a multi level layout. Which way can your gate swing? A swing out would be better I think, as a swing in would be limited by the width of your narrow center aisle. Good luck, Richard
fwright MurBall Yeah I hear a lot of grumbling about the longer passenger cars. Even though they are beautiful models they seem to be unreliable on the track? I have a few Hornby British coaches and they track very well. I have one older IHC Rio Grande passenger set that nadkes curves flawlessly thanks to their bogie mounted couplers, they even allow themselves to be pushed over turnouts without complaints. There is a thread on the General Discussion about minimum radius. The Layout Design Special Interest Group (LDSIG) has related physical car length to minimum radius. A car that is operated on a curve with a radius at least 3x its length will not have any problems with the curve being too tight. For a scale 85ft model that measures 12" actual over the couplers, that means a 36" minimum radius. A 70ft passenger car would want 30" radius, and a 60ft car wants 25" radius. Now how do we get cars to get around a lower radius curve without issues? The necessary coupler swing and length has to be there. The trucks must rotate further without hitting any underbody details. Trucks may be moved closer to the car end than is prototypical. And there has to be extra clearance to possible obstructions - structures, parallel tracks, scenery, etc. MOST of the time, passenger car manufacturers take care of this for us so that we can use them on 2.5x or even 2x curves, typically by moving truck location and getting rid of underbody detail around the trucks. A lot of model passenger cars are also shortened from their full prototypical length. Walthers does not do as much of this as others, so their passenger cars often struggle on 24" radius where other makes do not. And if you don't like the LDSIG's findings, the NMRA Recommended Practices (RP) has always recommended 30" radius (broad) curves or more for full length passenger cars. Not what you wanted to hear. With a 24" min radius, my recommendation would be to happily run shorty passenger cars (60ft). If you don't run 85ft cars at all, very few people can tell that your cars are short for lack of a comparison. Even better would be 23.5" radius with a 12" long easement. If you are going to go ahead with full length passenger cars, pay attention to which makes have reported problems on 24" curves - Walthers is one. Test each passenger car to see if anything rubs on a 24" curve. Test to make each car to make sure the coupler has enough swing when coupled to other cars - both short and long. I sympathize because I have 18" radius curves. I run Overton-size passenger cars - full length models of a 34ft unique prototype. Or I have some models of 50ft prototypes, which works out to about a 2.5x ratio - generally doable with testing. Fred W ....modeling foggy coastal Oregon in HO and HOn3, where it's always 1900....
Thanks Fred, I think I will have to limit myself to shorter cars. Although I do currently run 12" IHC cars but get away with it because of the bidie mounted couplers.
I will try and revisit the plan and add 26"R minimum curves if possible.
When you say 'even better would be 23.5" radius with a 12" long easement.' do you mean that most derailments happen in the transition from straight to curved track?
Thanks Matt, some good news there. I do like the bachmann spectrum carriages and the level of detail (I'm not knowledgeable enough to be a rivet counter!), do they always tend to be shorter than the prototype similar to the athearn cars?
MurBallWhen you say 'even better would be 23.5" radius with a 12" long easement.' do you mean that most derailments happen in the transition from straight to curved track?
Correct. A direct "no transition" from straight to curved track creates an initial side lurch. Watch a Lionel train some time to see this lurch in action. This is common with Snap Track and fixed radius curved track pieces. A transition from straight to curve at least as long as your longest car/engine is highly desirable, and mandatory on the prototype.
The transition will mostly eat into your straight track approaching the curve, but only adds 1/2" or less to the radius in HO. The prototype surveys cubic spiral transitions. In our models, Atlas or other "springy" flex track naturally creates transitions for you without much effort. The more difficult part of using springy flex track is getting a consistent curve radius. The curved side of a model turnout usually has short straight segments connected to generous radius curved segments, so these already have pretty reasonable transitions.
Truck mounted couplers, wide swing couplers, removal of underbody detail, moving trucks closer to the car ends, and adding transitions are all time-honored ways of getting our models around impossibly tight curves. May be unsightly, but it can be made to work well. OTOH, there are those among us who really value appearances, so 4+x curves are in order for them. Free-mo recommends 48" minimum radius for HO.
MurBallAlthough I do currently run 12" IHC cars but get away with it because of the bidie mounted couplers.
I have a long string of unmodified IHC passenger cars. Truck mounted horn-hook couplers and all. They are silky-smooth with no problems being pulled through a 22 inch radius curve.
They do not like being pushed at all, even on straight track.
My problems arise when trying to install touching diaphragms. It is jut not going to happen for these cars on my 24" hidden curves.
MurBall Thanks Matt, some good news there. I do like the bachmann spectrum carriages and the level of detail (I'm not knowledgeable enough to be a rivet counter!), do they always tend to be shorter than the prototype similar to the athearn cars?
I always forget how to figure the math, but if 1:87 means you multiply inches by 87 and then divide by 12 to get scale feet, I figure my cars are just shy of 80' in length. I think the Athearn shorties are more like 65' or 70'. Someone here would know offhand, I'm sure.
crossthedog MurBall Thanks Matt, some good news there. I do like the bachmann spectrum carriages and the level of detail (I'm not knowledgeable enough to be a rivet counter!), do they always tend to be shorter than the prototype similar to the athearn cars? No, I believe the Spectrum and Branchline passenger cars I have are not as short as the Athearn equivalents. To my lights, they look like standard length heavyweights, but I am not well schooled in this matter. I always forget how to figure the math, but if 1:87 means you multiply inches by 87 and then divide by 12 to get scale feet, I figure my cars are just shy of 80' in length. I think the Athearn shorties are more like 65' or 70'. Someone here would know offhand, I'm sure. -Matt
No, I believe the Spectrum and Branchline passenger cars I have are not as short as the Athearn equivalents. To my lights, they look like standard length heavyweights, but I am not well schooled in this matter.
OK, I have been reluctant to comment in thread for a number of reasons, but here goes.
In the real world of North American railroading, heavyweight steel passenger cars from the early part of the 20th century came in a wide variety of lengths. Yes, many were 80' (+/-), and most sleepers, diners, obsevations built by Pullman road on a semi standard 80' frame.
BUT, head end equipment (baggage, RPO, express, etc), and coaches, and a LONG list of other exceptions came in an endless selection of lengths from 60' (or even less) up to 80'.
So, to assume that a model in incorrect based on length alone would be incorrect thinking.
EVEN early streamlined/smoothside cars came in various lengths. The B&O Columbian, a great many of the first SP "daylight" cars, and a variety of others were less than 80' long, typically 75' to 78'. While the newest streamliners built in the 40's and 50's were typically, but not always, 85' long.
Now that we have cleared that up.
Each of the Bachmann Spectrum heavyweight cars are correct models - maybe not for all the road names offered, but they are correct models of cars that existed - including their length. The coach and combine are PRR prototypes and are 78' long. The Pullman is a unique floor plan Pullman built with a vestiblue only at one end, it is 80' long, the diner and observation are also Pullman plan cars that are 80' long.
The Athearn heavyweight cars are 72' long, except the RPO/baggage which is 67' long. They are completely freelanced using "typical" Pullman company construction details. That said, the baggage, RPO/Baggage, and coach are very close matches to cars that did exist, including their 72' length.
To go deeper into this requires a BOOK, or two.
Now, as I said above I have been reluctant to comment on this thread.
No offense to the OP, but I will be more direct than others who have tried to steer him in the direction of larger curves or compressed passenger equipment.
I think the proposed track plan tries to put too much, in way too little space, and will be a construction, operational, and maintenance disaster.
It is hard for me to understand the OP's goals, but trying to run 80' cars on 24" radius, and squeeze in all these different elements seems destined to look toylike and not operate well.
Maybe the first consideration is not a concern?
And the broad scope of subject matter the OP hopes to cover?
I realize that I have considerably more space than the OP, but his space is not exactly small. I am posting my track plan in an effort to explain the concept of modeling "one place" and having the trains come and go from/to continous thru staging.
layout facts:
Minimum mainline radius - 36" radius with 16" long easements
Minimum mainline turnout - #6
Design train length of most staging tracks - 20 actual feet, 1740 scale feet.
Again, the OP's plan may well be right in line with his goals and that is fine. We all do in this hobby what interests us. But from an engineering standpoint, I think he has a lot of engineering challenges with this plan.
Sheldon
That's interesting Kevin. The ones I have have had the horn hook replaced by knuckle couplers and they don't mind being pushed, even through points. If I buy any more of them I'll replace the horn hooks with Kadee #508 conversion couplers
So in my track plan I would need to ensure 12"easements where I have circled red where straights meet curves. No where else right?
MurBall So in my track plan I would need to ensure 12"easements where I have circled red where straights meet curves. No where else right?
Not exactly. The crossover situation at the top of the plan should just be modified to elimintate the "S" curve thru the crossover. The top track should just change direct the the same amount as a turnout and other track shoul just run straight into it.
A curved turnout at the other end of that siding would make the siding longer and make both routes "smoother". Most North American style model turnouts have a built in "easement" effect.