Interesting article--I' be taking that incline---stretch it out and then lower the second level a bit---I have a 20" X 9'8" board that I could replicate something like that on. But still, I'd stretch that run up out an lower the second level
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
wjstix I think the grade was connecting the two levels, it wasn't meant as an interchange track in the sense that cars would be 'parked' on the grade.
I think the grade was connecting the two levels, it wasn't meant as an interchange track in the sense that cars would be 'parked' on the grade.
Common sense calls for adding an interchange (drop-off, pick-up) track parallel to the left end of the upper mainline. This is true whether the layout represents two railroads or one.
I think the grade was connecting the two levels, it wasn't meant as an interchange track in the sense that cars would be 'parked' on the grade. The article mentions something along the lines that "the grade is very steep, but it isn't unprototypical for short cuts of cars being moved from one railroad to another in an urban environment" or something like that.
It could be part of the designer's intent was to make it difficult to move more than a couple of cars at a time, making the switching take longer and require more thinking ahead etc. Switching layout often include little difficulties or bottlenecks like that to make operating the layouts more interesting.
What's nonsensical about this plan is the interchange track on a 6.5% grade. That would make it difficult to handle cuts of cars parked on such a grade. The plan makes makes better sense as a single railroad with a short, steep grade to an industrial district, not to another railroad's mainline.
The 6.5% grade could be reduced significantly if on the right side of the plan the upper mainline rose and the lower mainline (I prefer switchback lead to the port area) dropped.
The article's photo shows they plan can be built to the design.
Mark
wm3798 I suggested the shoving maneuver because from what I've read, whenever there's a situation where a cut of cars has to be moved up or down a steep grade, the operating rules typically require the engine to be on the down-grade end of the train.
I suggested the shoving maneuver because from what I've read, whenever there's a situation where a cut of cars has to be moved up or down a steep grade, the operating rules typically require the engine to be on the down-grade end of the train.
Absolutely agree from the prototype perspective. I was just talking about the model and an alternative if the grade proved too steep to shove up reliably, especially (as you pointed out) with truck-mounted couplers.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I suggested the shoving maneuver because from what I've read, whenever there's a situation where a cut of cars has to be moved up or down a steep grade, the operating rules typically require the engine to be on the down-grade end of the train. This was to prevent a runaway situation should a coupler fail.
This was the case on the Western Maryland's Chaffee Branch, which included a stiff grade (close to 8% in some places) as well as a switch back. As such, there was a run-around at the switchback so the engine could stay behind the cars even after the switch back move. Moves were also limited to certain number of loaded cars at a time.
This actually adds a little bit of operating interest to a model railroad like this.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
wm3798 I'm pretty confident that given the short spurs, an N scale locomotive from the current era would have no problems shoving a couple of cars up the hill.
I'm pretty confident that given the short spurs, an N scale locomotive from the current era would have no problems shoving a couple of cars up the hill.
Probably so. In any case, note that the way the spurs on the upper level are laid out, you wouldn't actually need to shove cars up the hill. If you could manage your runaround on the lower deck and were content to make multiple runs up the grade to switch the upper level, you could always pull the cars up the grade and shove them down the grade, which increases the chances for success.
I don't think that was the designer's intent, given the runaround on the upper level, but it's a "bail-out" alternative.
MILW-RODRthe elevation change is 2 3/4 inches. Thats over twice as a typical N engine. I agree with the author that it would be very visually appealing, but I personally would drop the elevation to 1 or 1 1/2 inches.
If you did, your trains might well hit the subroadbed of the upper track. You have to allow for the thickness of subroadbed, roadbed, and track when comparing railhead-to-railhead elevations.
The author, Brad Smith, mentions that he was inspired by E.S. Seeley Jr.'s "Iron Mountain Line" from the book Track Planning Ideas from Model Railroader (Kalmbach, 1981). Smith copied Seeley's original design fairly closely, except for increasing the length and straightening the lead at the upper left. This track plan was also found in the July 1967 issue of Model Railroader and is quite cramped in the original, so the extra length is welcome.
The original was designed more as two tiny towns rather than one urban switching area and included a runaround on what is the steeply-pitched ramp in the new article. In this way, Seeley's original looks a lot like Linn Westcott's Switchman's Nightmare, but with grades.
The original design by Seeley curved the end of the tail track for the ferry around the right-hand side of the shelf, but not under the other tracks. However Smith extended the tracks and buildings at Bedford (above) over this tail track in the new design. That's one reason why he needed more clearance, and thus the steep grade on the connecting ramp.
That's different from the original published design by Seeley and not a trade-off I would have made personally. It almost looks as if Smith started the design from the left and ran out of room a little bit at the right.
I like the idea of recasting this as an urban switching area, but the steepness of the ramp wasn't really necessary (with a little rework). Since the bridge at the upper left of the new design is intended as a drawbridge, it wouldn't have needed to be so far above the "river" surface to be believable, IMHO.
Well, I AM an N scale modeler, so I'll try to address some of the issues. I agree, the degree of separation is excessive. When I read the article, I couldn't see the actual elevation change, but it's definitely steeper than it needs to be. I'm pretty confident that given the short spurs, an N scale locomotive from the current era would have no problems shoving a couple of cars up the hill.
The problem would come more from the truck mounted couplers wanting to fold up and leave the rails. Body mounted couplers would be less prone to that problem, but more prone to separating given the vertical transition. But even that may be a non-issue, since gravity will work to keep the cars together whether going up or down. (the only logical move would be to have the engine downhill from the train, a fairly typical restriction on this sort of trackage.)
As for the actual change in elevation, it looks like the designer accounted for standard clearance based on the NMRA gauge, which would require a little over 2" between the top of the rail and the lowest component overhead. There are two factors that could have been considered to reduce this.
1. If the designer used a through truss bridge, he could have maintained the same clearance while reducing the separation by 1/4 to a 1/2", rather than the solid plywood subroadbed that he used.
2. Considering the tail track that passes under the higher line is not a through track, and that the only thing that would likely pass under the high line would be the engine, and perhaps a single freight car, he could have reduced the clearance to something more appropriate to that task. There won't be any tri-level auto racks or double stacks moving over that line.
He also could have reduced the transition grade by lowering the point on the upper main, then gently rising from that point to the point where the tracks cross. This would create a stretch of track that's not level though, which can wreak havoc on a switching session...
It's an interesting little design, and I'm studying it to see if there are elements I can use on an expansion area I'm working on, but there are definitely things I would do differently.
Lee 1234Reminded me of the GUM STUMP & SNOWSHOE RR created by Chuck Yungkurth. I was going to link to a track plan but there appears to be trademark issues. Model Railroader ran articles on it, but a quick search didn't turn it up in the subscriber's track plans.
http://www.carendt.com/scrapbook/page38a/index.html
Smile,Stein
bsteel4065 Hi guys Anyone see the article '2 levels on a shelf' in the latest (Nov) MRR on pages 56 & 57? I model HO and not N so, maybe I'm not seeing problems in this design that aren't there. but a 6 1/2 percent grade over what must be 3 feet is an enormous climb for any train. Also, a steep climb straight from the flat will surely uncouple as every coupler will rise out of the pocket of the previous coupler. I really appreciate the designer's work, but is this a practical design? As I say, I model in HO and it wouldn't work there. Thoughts? Barry
Hi guys
Anyone see the article '2 levels on a shelf' in the latest (Nov) MRR on pages 56 & 57?
I model HO and not N so, maybe I'm not seeing problems in this design that aren't there. but a 6 1/2 percent grade over what must be 3 feet is an enormous climb for any train. Also, a steep climb straight from the flat will surely uncouple as every coupler will rise out of the pocket of the previous coupler.
I really appreciate the designer's work, but is this a practical design? As I say, I model in HO and it wouldn't work there. Thoughts?
Barry
I'm not sure why the designer felt he needed so much separation between the levels. But I didn't read the article or study the plan in detail (but will tonight) so the rest of my comments are in general.
Published track plans - especially when the designer wants to get paid for the plan - undergo less review than those posted here on the forums. The designer can't have a plan circulating on the web or other public area, and then expect to be paid for having it published. So the plan is held closely at least until after publication, with few, if any, reviews for constructability and operability made. At Model Railroader, the plan is usually redrawn by graphics artists who may or may not be familiar with the fine points of layout planning and/or the designer's vision. It's highly doubtful the graphics artist is going to stop the publishing of the plan until the practicality of a grade is resolved.
For these reasons, unless the plan had actually been built, I am always suspicious of published plans. I give them the same practicality, sanity, constructability, and operability checks I would to any other layout plan. Even if the plan has been built, was the plan redrawn to reflect changes made during construction? Or are the mistakes that were corrected during construction still there?
I'm not an N scale guy, but from what I read here on the forums, I skeptical that any N scale locomotives could pull more than 2 cars up a 6.5% grade, and there's a good chance many could not pull themselves up the grade. In HO, a 6.5% grade could be managed fairly well with 2-3 car trains if reasonable care is exercised in the selection of the locomotives.
On a 6.5% grade, smooth vertical transitions are critical to successful operations. In planning for my HOn3 switchbacks, I have a 2" rise to accomplish in 42" with 20" long, 3 car trains. But 14" of transitions at each end will cause a 1" rise - about a 7% grade - in the middle 14". And I am going to have to do some testing in advance to ensure this plan is going to work. Keystone Shays with their short, all metal superstructures are the motive power, and so should be adequate to pull the load. The real question will likely be what couplers are needed to negotiate the grade transitions. If the plan won't work, the fallback is to reduce the needed rise to 1.5".
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
I haven't seen the article yet, but my own design and limited space and the desire to have lots of stuff makes this work. I can stay away from steep grades, but the concept is the foreground represents one location while the raised back area is totally different, but is NOT fully separated by a full doubledeck.
I will have special shelfs that carry trains to the other levels (NoLix). Its very careful designing.
One of the MR special layout books had an N scale layout that did this but was around the room. If there was a yard or city on the lower level, the upper was just run thru narrow ROW, then reversed wide upper, narrow lower.
Way to cram it in.
Barry,
lucky you - I still have to wait for my copy to arrive!
A grade of 6 1/2 % is way too much for my taste, although not totally out of place. The Swiss Berninabahn has grades up to 7 %, without being a rack railway.