Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker The WS 4% rises actually take you up to 4" over their length. If you go all WS, you can use their risers and stacl the next set of iinclines on top. Or just use a couple of pieces of 2" foam, it's cheaper. Run the first set of inclines. Then put in the elevated foam. Put the next set of inclines on this. --Randy
QUOTE: Originally posted by ereimer sounds like you've got it figured out . also the track plan is starting to shape up nicely , keep up the good work !
QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage Jarrell, I like Randy's suggestions. If you curve the track as you negotiate your hill, you can "shorten" the linear distance it will take you to get to your 8" rise. The downside, of course, is that it makes the effort harder on your locomotive. But then...a curved and meandering track might allow you to lessen your overall grade. Something to think about. Have you decided what kind of locomotive you are going to use for your logging operation? A Shay would look terrific. IMHO, I'd stay away from the Rivarossi's. They look terrific but are hit and miss on performance. I believe the Bachmann's are reliable ones. FYI: I'm not seeing the posted layout from my end. All I see is the proverbial "broken box"...Never mind, it's working fine now. Tom P.S. Okay...something funky is going on because now I'm not seeing it again. Hmmmmm This is really weird. Every time I comment it flips back the other way...
QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse 4% for your mainline is pretty steep. I was just reading today in Armstrong that a 1% grade cuts your towing power to 1/3 that of level ground. I have a 3.7% layout and my small old-time steamers can only get a caboose up. Logging, huh? This is the site that got me going on a logging layout. Scroll down to the pictures. The tutorial on building a layout is pretty good too. http://www.cooncreek-and-tumbleweed-springs.co.uk/
QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage Jarrell, what if you had a 2% grade going up the right side of the layout, have it level off over the bottom dog-bone, then circle it around and have another 2% grade up the same side but going the opposite direction. (Course, that would probably necessitate pushing the mainline out more towards the front of the benchtop on the right side to do that.) Your logging camp could culminate up at the top right corner. (Jarrell, didn't you mention at some point about thinking of putting a tunnel at that spot anyhow?) Anywho, just throwing out ideas. Consider my suggestions worth what you're paying for them.... Tom Hmmmm.... I think I understand that. Now where would the loggin' rails depart from the main line... at the upper right corner? Jarrell
QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse Ihaven't actually drawn it up yet, but I have an idea for a layout that will climb 16 inches to a second level. The key is that the mainline cuts in and out of tunnels on its climb so that there is only one mainline visible in each scene. I still have a lot to work out, but you don't have to show all your track. You can climb without having a spagetti layout.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jacon12 QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse Ihaven't actually drawn it up yet, but I have an idea for a layout that will climb 16 inches to a second level. The key is that the mainline cuts in and out of tunnels on its climb so that there is only one mainline visible in each scene. I still have a lot to work out, but you don't have to show all your track. You can climb without having a spagetti layout. Are you going to incorporate this into the next one you're building? Jarrell
QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage Jarrell, Here's what I was trying to convey: It may not be exactly what you are looking to accomplish but it would allow you a more gradual grade on your layout. There would be a short tunnel (bottom right) where Level 1 would pass over the main then continue (in the reverse direcion ) meandering up to Level 2. At Level 2, you could either add a nice size yard with a turntable by crossing above the main again, or loop it around for the trip back down. For what it's worth... Tom
QUOTE: Originally posted by selector I really like Tom's idea, Jarrell. In fact, everyone's input is first class, if I may judge it so. I will respectfully suggest a whole different approach; switchbacks. You could just as easily use the old mining and logging solution of zig-zagging the trains up the side of steep mountains to get up to the work-site. The advantages to that solution is that you get to see your trains in front of you all the time, and you can reach them if they do funny things on you. By the way, I too, am very happy to see your method and your discipline in all of this. I am very much a fan!!
QUOTE: Originally posted by jwar [#ditto] on all the above suggestions. Perhaps a log landing in the upper right and lower corner. One thing that really jumps out to my eye, this is a fantastic layout for a long tall tressel. BTW keep in mind cleaning track when considering tunnels. This layout will look great...John
QUOTE: Originally posted by jacon12 QUOTE: Originally posted by jwar [#ditto] on all the above suggestions. Perhaps a log landing in the upper right and lower corner. One thing that really jumps out to my eye, this is a fantastic layout for a long tall tressel. BTW keep in mind cleaning track when considering tunnels. This layout will look great...John John, I hadn't thought of that. Just how DO people clean tracks in tunnels? Lift off mountains? Jarrell
QUOTE: Originally posted by jacon12 QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage Jarrell, I like Randy's suggestions. If you curve the track as you negotiate your hill, you can "shorten" the linear distance it will take you to get to your 8" rise. The downside, of course, is that it makes the effort harder on your locomotive. But then...a curved and meandering track might allow you to lessen your overall grade. Something to think about. Have you decided what kind of locomotive you are going to use for your logging operation? A Shay would look terrific. IMHO, I'd stay away from the Rivarossi's. They look terrific but are hit and miss on performance. I believe the Bachmann's are reliable ones. FYI: I'm not seeing the posted layout from my end. All I see is the proverbial "broken box"...Never mind, it's working fine now. Tom P.S. Okay...something funky is going on because now I'm not seeing it again. Hmmmmm This is really weird. Every time I comment it flips back the other way... Tom, I know it's going to be a Shay and I know that I'll be real happy to get 2 or 3 cars up the incline. Thanks for the heads up on the Bachman! Jarrell
Modeling B&O- Chessie Bob K. www.ssmrc.org
QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse Under Tater Mountain:
QUOTE: Originally posted by Robert Knapp Jarrel, The track plan from tstage need not have the swichback to gain the clearance. If you start at one dogbone end following the backdrop you will have 18-20' of track to gain 4" of min clearance. The 8" of climb is not nec. Even if 1/2 of one end is covered side acess could be made w/ a removable facia panel. Now you would only have about 2 1/2% grade. This way you won't clutter the mainline track area an also cover the opposite curved end. You would most likely want to keep one end clear for additional sidings/ industries and a small town. Remember that having a branchline w/ log or coal you will need space for lower yard tracks to take the cars to. The couple tracks you origionally showed and are on tstage's plan can be extended or added to to form more of a lower yard. You may also want to consider a crossover/ passing track to change direction (reversing block of coarse- but easily done). Keep hammering out the possibilities and ideas, I think your getting closer to "the plan". Bob K.