Hello..just joined the forum. I have been lurking for awhile and have really enjoyed quite a few of the threads. I am currently finalizing my track plan for my HO scale Lake Superior and Ishpeming RR. I have a 13x7 foot layout and have many of the structures built. The plan is to start the benchwork this weekend. My oldest son went to college this fall and it opened up some space but had to wait for the wife to fininsh painiting a few rooms to get going.
I look forward to being involved on the forum
Welcome to the forums,Mullet19! I look forward to reading about your progress(photo's are good,too).
Mike
I'm a LION.
My Railroad is the Route of the Broadway LION
But if you have been lurking you may already know that.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Hello Mullet19!
Congratulations of your first post!
My son has just moved out too, and in doing so I gained a 24' x 12' space in the garage that was previously occupied by his gym equipment, among other things. We are putting in a garden shed next spring and that will allow me to get most of my junk out of the garage as well.
Please share your progress!
Cheers!!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Sounds like you are off to a good start! You have decided on a road name, and a theme. And have a good idea of the track plan. If you could post a picture of your track plan, we may have some suggestions.
If you have not done already, read the "How to Post a Photo to the Forum" at the top of the list
George In Midcoast Maine, 'bout halfway up the Rockland branch
Hello and welcome.
You have decided on a very interesting railroad, and I look forward to seeing your track plan. I'd also be curious to see what era you plan to model, your operating scheme, and what equipment you intend to use.
Tom
You are at the right place to get answer to your questions. Don't hesitate to ask.
Good luck with your projects.
Guy
Modeling CNR in the 50's
Thanks for the kind response. I grew up in Michigan and remember this RR from visitis to the UP in when I was younger. My plan is late 1990's to 2000's time period. I am a diesel guy and will use AC4400CW and U30C's as my power. Lots of ore cars of course. I almost afraid to post my layout because you guys are all experts and it probably looks pretty bad to you but certainly open to advice. The goal was to have as long as run as possible from Marquette docks to Tilden Mine. I knew I would want a little more than just ore cars so a few other options have been included to keep me enterntained with operating. I also was able to include Eagle Mills yard before heading to the mine and this also will help me get engines on the right side of the train for servicing the mine.
Mullet19:
A couple of questions and observations/suggestions about your layout.
What is the length and width of the benchwork?
What is your minimum radius?
What is your steepest grade and where is it?
Will your benchwork all be at the same elevation?
I'm wondering about the grade needed to get from the red track (underpass?) to the yard on the left. Your yard should be dead flat. Otherwise free rolling cars will end up at the low end of the yard. Same thing with the passing track on the right. If it slopes you won't be able to park a cut of cars without a locomotive attached. There are ways to keep cars from rolling on a slope but IMPO they are a pain.
One easy solution (which I suspect you have already thought of) would be to have the left side of the layout lower than the right side. The track could start to gain elevation at the bottom of the left yard, level out through the passing siding, and then continue to rise towards the top stub ended yard. The track leading to the underpass could start to descend before the bridge. That would give you some fairly gentle grades.
Keep us posted!
Mullet19 ...
.... It looks like you have many hours of enjoyment awaiting you. It will be a fun layout to build and to operate. The ore dock is likely to be very impressive.
Feel free to ask questions from forum members.....
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU
The layout is 7' on short side and 13' on long side. The min radius is 22".
The grade leading up to the yard on the right is about 3% . I believe I will have the length to acheive a slight enough incline to level off by the yard on the right.
I appreciate you looking and taking time to respond
Had a good weekend and got the primamry benchwork done. Will build the legs this weekend
Looks like a good start.
Welcome! Looks like a nicer place for a railroad station than a murky basement...
Bench work looks great.
please update us on your progress
Welcome and looking good on the benchwork. I built something similar but a little bigger to go around the walls of a basement room. Enjoy!
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Well, I have a few comments and some questions:
Are you planning on using 1 or 2 locomotives for your ore train?
How do you plan on supporting the mine scene above the red track? What is the planned separation between the green and red track?
At a 3% grade you need 8ft of track to get 3" of clearance. 3.5" is just under 10ft, 4" is about 11.5ft and 5" is about 14ft.
For HO scale you will probably want 3" of clearance under your supports.
You have possible derailment causing S curves at the following locations:
TBD Industries -Feel free to use that name if you like for your industry
Mine Switch- Lower right side of plan on the mine side of the switch. Not as likely to cause problems as others.
Engine Service facility
Team Track-depending on the length and type of cars on the team track.
At the top of the Marquette Yard
I'm building something 12x6 in almost that exact same layout. The red curve up top is red for a reason - that grade will not work. I tried almost exactly the same thing to cram in more action, and I decided I'd prefer to have my locomotives stay on the track, if you catch my drift. BMMECNYC did not mention that a curved grade actually requires more distance.
You've got almost the same problem I do, where you just don't have enough between your last turnout and a curve to begin the grade.
Also, what's the minimum radius you're shooting for?
Julian
Modeling Pre-WP merger UP (1974-81)
Mullet19 The layout is 7' on short side and 13' on long side. The min radius is 22". The grade leading up to the yard on the right is about 3% . I believe I will have the length to acheive a slight enough incline to level off by the yard on the right. I appreciate you looking and taking time to respond
Don't forget that you need some extra space to transition from level track to track on a grade. The transition needs to be gentle enough to prevent nasties like unwanted uncouplings. The term for the transition is called a vertical easement.
Here's a link to a thread on the subject.
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/166001.aspx
CG
Made the link clickable.
fieryturbo...BMMECNYC did not mention that a curved grade actually requires more distance....
It requires more distance only if you're adjusting the grade to compensate for the curvature.
Most of the grades on my layout are 2.5%, and many are on a curve or multiple curves. After allowing for vertical easements, the grades are 2.5%, with no decreases to compensate for curvature, so each curve effectively increases the grade percentage, determined by the formula 32÷radius (in inches)The grade on the rear track, below, starts several feet out-of-view to the left...
...and crosses the high bridge on a horseshoe curve with a 34" radius (increasing the effective grade by .94%)....
...the track continues upgrade at the same 2.5%, and into another horseshoe-type curve of 34" radius...
...and exits that curve into an "S"-bend with radii of 42" (an effective increase of .76% for each curve therein)...
...the train then crosses another bridge (seen below as viewed from near the summit of the grade) and is immediately into another "S"-bend with 42" radii.
A long train nearing the summit (longer than I would normally run) is on all of these curves at the same time, with the cumulative effect of the curves adding another 4.9% to the actual 2.5% grade. (Or maybe not - see the continuing discussion below.)Since I don't have room to lessen the grades to compensate for the curvature, I establish "tonnage" ratings for all of my locomotives by running them with test cars of a known weight (heavier than most cars in service) and applying those figures to normal cars. Most trains require doubleheading and often a pusher, too.You can make the grades as steep as you wish, as long as you can provide sufficient motive power to get the trains up them.
Wayne
doctorwaynewith the cumulative effect of the curves adding another 4.9% to the actual 2.5% grade.
It doesn't work that way. The curves aren't cumulative. If you're on a curve, the effective grade at that point is the actual grade plus the effect of the curve.
The way you are describing the effect, if the front 3rd of your train is on a 2% grade, the middle 3rd on a 3% grade and the final 3rd on a 4% grade the effective grade would be 9%.
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.
Okay, I can see what you're saying when it's explained that way. I'd guess then that if the grade is a constant 2.5%, then as long as any part of the train is in, f'rinstance, the curve with the 34" radius (the tightest of the several curves involved) then the effective grade would be 2.5% plus .94% added for the curve? Or maybe not, since only a portion of the train would be in that particular curve.
A 2.5% grade which is straight has an effect on the train, and the same grade with a curve has an increased effect on the train. If the train is long enough (as was my test train), and there are multiple curves in which different portions of the train will all be at the same time, then how would the effect of those curves be calculated? An easy guess would be to average of the various values for each curve, and add that to the 2.5% grade, but because the curves are not necessarily of equal lengths, that might have to be taken into consideration, too.Your example, which I assume is on a straight grade, has a ruling grade of 4%, so I'd think that my first estimate (2.5% + .94%) might be correct. However, each subsequent curve still presents its effect - if there are only 20 cars are in that first curve, once those 20 cars are in the next curve, there'll be a different 20 cars in the first curve. It may not be a linear increase of effect, but surely the effect of 40 cars in two curves is greater than that of 20 cars in one curve. Is there a way to determine the cumulative amount?Since I don't normally run such long trains, I supose that the answer doesn't matter a whole lot, but I am curious about it and wonder if anybody can shed further light on this. Where's Al Krug?
doctorwayneIs there a way to determine the cumulative amount?
Unfortunately, I think not - at least not with the math skills I have.
What I believe to be the case is that each car creates a drag on the train. The drag of each car is increased the steeper the grade or tighter the curve it is on. The right way to figure the drag on the train as a whole would be to calculate the drag produced by each car and add them up. It would be really easy if you could say that if half the train is on a 2% grade and the other half is on a 4% grade, the cumulative effect is 3% (the average). While the math is over my head, I know that it's not that simple.
Your comment about the ruling grade is another point I find interesting. I believe a grade can only be considered ruling if it is large enough that is effects a whole train. The flyover junction illustrates this point. You could have a 6% or so grade for a couple hundred yards to allow one track to climb over the other, but this wouldn't be considered the ruling grade because it doesn't effect the whole train and it's not long enough to cause the train to lose its momentum.
When I built the layout, I knew that grades and curves had an effect on how much a locomotive could handle, and that when both occurred in the same place, that both came into play. I wasn't aware, until a couple of years ago, of the formula for determining the comparative value of the effect of curves occurring on grades, and simply added locos until the train would go where it was supposed to go. That method still works for me.