CapnCrunch...I plan to use superelevation. I guess another question is whether exagerated superelevation can overcome less than minimal curve radius?
Most of my curves are superelevated, but I don't think that it's of any help mitigating the effects of too-tight curvature.
The minimum radius on my layout is 30", and that's in only one place. Most is 34", but there are a couple in the high 40"s, just for appearances-sake.
I'm modelling the late '30s, so freight cars aren't too long, but I do run full length passenger cars, too.
Wayne
CapnCrunch One yard would represent the LA area and the other would be the Bay Area.
One yard would represent the LA area and the other would be the Bay Area.
One idea: build one yard; one end of the yard could represent the bay area, the other end would be LA. You could run a through freight from the 'LA yard', around the layout to the 'Oakland yard'. And continous running would be built-in. (this is not an original idea, others have used this method.) -Nathan
I model modern era and I run 36" minimum radius. My previous layout (modern) was 24" radius and I had occasional issues with 89 ft auto racks, and 85ft passenger cars. You need perfect trackwork to run modern on 24" curves.
I would suggest to you a miniumum 30" radius and try to lay the best track you can.
Michael
CEO- Mile-HI-RailroadPrototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989
Thanks for the extra input re curves. I have figured out how to make 22" work for my 50s-60s era stuff but need to see if I can accomodate modern trains for the grandkids. For modern, I mean 89' intermodal cars (if that is their length) and the newest six axle locos. Can anyone suggest a minimum radius that will keep this size equipment from derailing. I plan to use superelevation. I guess another question is whether exagerated superelevation can overcome less than minimal curve radius?
Tim
Late to the model railroad party but playing catch-up.....
Welcome aboard! I like your slow down approach. Why rush?
Have you considered getting some books from the library to help you reduce the learning curve? There are plenty of them available, and I strongly suggest reading nearly anything written by Jeff Wilson.
Another way to help yourself in the hobby is joining a local MR club. You can meet plenty of folks who have "been there and done that." Such resources are invaluable in understanding what to get and when.
Getting the grandkids involved is a great idea. My brother always had a layout in his basements over the years. His kids didn’t show a lot of interest but the grandkids that came along did. You never know. One granddaughter really dug building structures and scenery while a grandson was a natural electronics wiz at a young age. They spent a lot of his babysitting time downstairs together.
Even with 22" R curves there is still equipment that won't run on it. I tried putting an auto car on my 22" R curves and it wouldn't stay railed. Given you're talking about modern equipment, you want to have curves as broad as you can get away with. The 22" R curves can handle up to a 62' car at least in my experience. If you're planning to have longer car than that, you need broader curves.
You could probably use 22 " radius curves instead of 18". That little bit may make quite a difference.
Ken Vandevoort
CapnCrunch...What is a nolix?
This is a nolix...
...a visible stretch of track which is used to gain altitude. Mine's about 45' long, and climbs from about 44" above the room's floor to a height of 59" above the floor.
I've been looking through MR threads and doing some other research and have come up with a couple of quesitions:
1. If I want to have the ability to run modern equipment on my layout, what would be the minimum radius to avoid derailments? NMRA says 40" but I can't tell if that's for aesthetics or function.
2. What is a nolix?
First off, thanks to everyone for their words of welcome and thoughtful suggestions. This is a great blog! I have listened and am acting on your recommendations:
riogrande5761 "You're going to outgrow 11X15'." The more I thought about it, I knew you are right. That prompted me to think outside the box and I have figured out how I can expand the shed to 11X26'. In the immortal words of Fred G. Sanford, "Mucho bettero."
MRRDAD "Look at a switching yard as a small space option and drop continuous running". I have begun a small switching layout in my garage to start practicing my building skills and will keep adding to it. However, I really feel the need to retain continuous running in my big layout. :-)
riogrande5761, See You 190 and Rickstrains4824 "Bigger curves are better". Agreed. While I would be comfortable with the tighter curves for my modelling of the late 50s and early 60s, it dawned on me that my grandson may wind up becoming more interested in modern trains and larger curves would be mandatory. This led me to my decision to expand the layout size.
Big Daddy "Get a copy of Track Planning for Realistic Operation". Done. I also picked up Freight Cars of the 40s and 50s and Modelling the 50s. They all look like great reference material. I will also look into a basic guide for DCC.
G Paine "Find a copy of Downtown LA on the Santa Fe." Will do. In the meantime, the 50s modelling book has an article on Modelling the SP in LA.
MisterBeasley "There are no stupid questions." You may find that I test the limits on that. :-)
Owen W in California Thanks for the PM. I look forward to meeting you at the train show.
Thanks again everyone.
BigDaddyIt has some useful information such as separation of adjacent tracks and radius of curves. I would contrast it with the Atlas track plan book, that squeezes in every crossing and turnout the company makes.
.
It looks like I over-edited my post before I submitted it. I have a tendency sometimes to type too much.
I deleted my first paragraph where I went on-an-on about all the great basic information in John Armstrong's book.
His technique of "doodling by the squares" is about as far in track planning as I ever needed to go. it is a great system for simply working out ideas without breaking out the drafting supplies.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Check with Kalmbach customer service and see if you can get a reprint of the article "Downtown LA on the Santa Fe" which was published in Great Model Railroads 2002. It talks about a small shelf layout based on "The patch" area in LA, and has the type of industrial switching you are thinking about
Also "Progressive Rail" from the June 2002 Model Railraoder, a modern switching layout in an industrial park
Just to give you some ideas, and maybe a place to start and have fun planning, but get some building done as well. Don't get into the paper planning trap, you need to get your hands dirty an build something to gain some modeling skills.
George In Midcoast Maine, 'bout halfway up the Rockland branch
I, too, built layouts when I was much younger, but life intervened and I was in my fifties before I returned to the hobby. Fortunately, I still had my teenage trains, which had moved with me in cardboard boxes from home to home.
I ended up with late Transition Era as my timeframe. I have a lot of 18 inch curves, for space reasons. As others have said, this is fine for most engines and 40 foot freight cars, but there are shorter passenger cars and even longer cars with "compromises" that work.
Anyway, welcome to the forums. Remember, there are no stupid questions. As an old hand, even I still learn from the forums frequently.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
SeeYou190 BigDaddy I would suggest a book by John Armstrong, Track Planning for Realistic Operation John Armstrong's book is very good, and it is the go-to reference for those who want to operate their model railroad as if it were a real railroad. . However, if realistic operation is not your thing, it is better to build something you will enjoy. . My layout is desgined for one-man fun, not operation by a rule book. -Kevin
BigDaddy I would suggest a book by John Armstrong, Track Planning for Realistic Operation
John Armstrong's book is very good, and it is the go-to reference for those who want to operate their model railroad as if it were a real railroad.
However, if realistic operation is not your thing, it is better to build something you will enjoy.
My layout is desgined for one-man fun, not operation by a rule book.
It has some useful information such as separation of adjacent tracks and radius of curves. I would contrast it with the Atlas track plan book, that squeezes in every crossing and turnout the company makes.
Of those that insist on prototypical accuracy, I'm pretty far down on the list, but if my layout looks a little less toy like and a little more realistic, that would be a good thing.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
Welcome aboard.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
BigDaddyI would suggest a book by John Armstrong, Track Planning for Realistic Operation
I would suggest a book by John Armstrong, Track Planning for Realistic Operation and one of the Kalmbach Introductory DCC books, if you are interested.
Hi Capn': There are plenty of model railroaders in the OC who would be happy to help you get the most out of the hobby (whatever that is for you, personally). One way to meet us would be by joining the Cajon Division of the NMRA and getting involved. No need to be a lone wolf around here. Owen W
CapnCrunchLayout construction can't proceed until I finish several major projects that are currently underway
I feel your pain. I am in the same situation.
Back!
Your plan for 18 inch curves is fine for what you say you will run, 40-50 footers and 4 axle diesels.
As others have said, bigger is better, but if you are willing to accept the equipment constraints, you should be OK.
Hope to see you around quite a bit.
Hah hah, took three posts for the welcome emotocon to get rolled out!
I would suggest to the original poster that you upgrade your layout plans to have 22 inch minimum curves. Your trains will thank you and 22 inches radius is still pretty small space friendly.
Model train curves are like flat screen TV's. What ever you think will be adquate, you'll wish you had bigger!
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
50's and 60's era, with lots of switching....
Sounds good for a layout. As was mentioned, with 18" curves you are limited, as nothing super long will like those curves, but with your era, most freight cars should be okay.
To the hobby!!!!
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
Welcome aboard Capn!
I'm glad you are trying to recreate some of what you experienced as a kid. You have a small space, but you can do a lot with it if planned propperly.
Yards take up a lot of space. Figure a yard will take up one wall in a 11x15 space. Maybe consider one yard and just build it as an industrial switching layout instead of continuous running?
Just a thought.
Ed
Semi newbie HO scale modeler coming from the O scale world
Better late than never! The hobby has come a long long way in the past 40 years.
You'll out grow that 11x15' shed but if you are in California, basements are rare as hens teeth. I can relate to the can't proceed thing. After we moved in to our current home in late 2017, my wife had some priority house plans (first floor) that had to be done before we could start finishing the basement. So it's turnout to be about a 2 year wait beforer layout construction could begin!
Curve radii of 18 inches in todays world is very sharp. Long rolling stock will not like them much but if you are running 4 axle engines and 40 and 50' freight cars, you should be ok. Passenger cars of scale length - not so much.
In the mid-50s and early 60s, I lived in Pico Rivera, east of Los Angeles. There was a Santa Fe line two blocks from my house and i heard all of the freight trains from my bedroom at night. My mom worked in a factory closer to downtown LA and I attended a blue-collar elementary school that provided extended day-care for the working mothers. On the way school each day, we drove through the industrial areas and crossed numerous Southern Pacific tracks and sidings. We were regularly stopped at crossings and I would watch all of the box and freight cars going by and try to imagine what they carried and where they came from. I vaguely recall seeing an occasional steam engine, but it was mostly diesel switchers and road/switchers that stand out in my memory. I am just now truly entering the hobby. I had a couple of failed attempts early on, but life events intervened and I never got off the ground. Now that I'm retired, I'm hoping to engage my grandkids and pursue my own creativity in this wonderful hobby. To that end, I built an HO track around of the Christmas tree this year and used some of the structures salvaged from my dad's old layout to decorate it. My grandson was very impressed. My conceptual plan is to build an HO layout in an 11X15 shed. It would represent a combination of Southern Pacific and Santa Fe from the late 50's through the early 60s in a free lance arrangement with as much prototypical authenticity as I can muster. I'll probably discover that I'm trying to pack to much into a relatively small space but I'm hoping to fit in two small yards that would be shared by both lines, and a continuous loop mainline that they would both attach to. One yard would represent the LA area and the other would be the Bay Area. There would be sidings along the mainline and near the yards to make freight deliveries. As I said, probably too much but it's a starting point. No matter what, I'm pretty sure I will need to rely on 18" curves for some if not all areas, but I intend to focus on four axle engines and 40-50' box cars so hopefully, it will all operate reliably. Layout construction can't proceed until I finish several major projects that are currently underway (Mrs. Crunch would be most unhappy), so grounbreaking will likely be summer at the earliest. In the meantime, I have started acquiring some rolling stock to augment what I received from my father. Many of them are unbuilt kits so I will start assembling them in the evenings when not working on the major projects. My plan is to only model equipment that I recall seeing as a kid. I'm in awe of the craftsmanship displayed by so many of you on this blog. I doubt that i will come close to matching what others have accomplished but it will give me something to shoot for. Finally, I would like to thank everyone for being so welcoming in the responses I've received to my initial posts. Tim