Coffee table layout and multiple level trackwork

[Anonymous]

I prefer multi-levels, but having said that, two thirds of the layout I am currently building is on flat land. In the space you are describing, all of your track will be on a grade, so if you want to do any switching, you will have a problem with cars running backwards, or forward as the case may be.

If you throw yourself into "quality" modelling, people will respond well if it is flat or multi-level. It is mostly the modelling that people respond to first.

[Anonymous]

I prefer multi-levels, but having said that, two thirds of the layout I am currently building is on flat land. In the space you are describing, all of your track will be on a grade, so if you want to do any switching, you will have a problem with cars running backwards, or forward as the case may be.

If you throw yourself into "quality" modelling, people will respond well if it is flat or multi-level. It is mostly the modelling that people respond to first.

[Anonymous]

Dusty
I started with that track plan and gave up a and went flat with a crossover, the 4% grade would only allow 4-5 cars in the short space, with my diesels and 1-2 with steam, flat I can run cars completely around the track and bump the caboose with the engine, but I usuall only run 8-9 cars on that track , it looks better on the 2x4 layout. I modified the track plan into two separate tracks and I can run 2 trains at the same time, looks neat when they pass each other going in opposite directions. Besides I live in Florida and there are no mountains, serious hills or tunnels in the state, it's just flat with a lot of water. Set up a test and see how many cars your engines can pull up a 4% grade in that short distance and you will see what I mean. Go Flat
Bee Line

[Anonymous]

Dusty
I started with that track plan and gave up a and went flat with a crossover, the 4% grade would only allow 4-5 cars in the short space, with my diesels and 1-2 with steam, flat I can run cars completely around the track and bump the caboose with the engine, but I usuall only run 8-9 cars on that track , it looks better on the 2x4 layout. I modified the track plan into two separate tracks and I can run 2 trains at the same time, looks neat when they pass each other going in opposite directions. Besides I live in Florida and there are no mountains, serious hills or tunnels in the state, it's just flat with a lot of water. Set up a test and see how many cars your engines can pull up a 4% grade in that short distance and you will see what I mean. Go Flat
Bee Line

[dustyg]

I have posted this in the "Layout" forum, but I'd like to hear from more members on this subject:

I model in N scale. At present, the only space I have for a layout will be in a coffee table that a furniture-making friend is building for me. The internal dimensions are roughly 27 1/2 inches wide by 48 inches long, by about 6 inches high.

I'm currently drawing the track plan, and am trying to decide between keeping the track on one level, and letting the scenery rise and fall around it, or doing some kind of folded dogbone arrangement and having the track cross over itself - a similar arrangement was featured in the Sept., 2001, MR.

I'd like to hear opinions about the aggravation and complexity of multiple levels, but gaining twice as much mainline distance, versus keeping a simpler but shorter, one-level track plan.

I'd love to hear from you through a forum, or e-mail me directly with your thoughts ([e-mail]). Thanks!

Dusty Garison

[dustyg]

I have posted this in the "Layout" forum, but I'd like to hear from more members on this subject:

I model in N scale. At present, the only space I have for a layout will be in a coffee table that a furniture-making friend is building for me. The internal dimensions are roughly 27 1/2 inches wide by 48 inches long, by about 6 inches high.

I'm currently drawing the track plan, and am trying to decide between keeping the track on one level, and letting the scenery rise and fall around it, or doing some kind of folded dogbone arrangement and having the track cross over itself - a similar arrangement was featured in the Sept., 2001, MR.

I'd like to hear opinions about the aggravation and complexity of multiple levels, but gaining twice as much mainline distance, versus keeping a simpler but shorter, one-level track plan.

I'd love to hear from you through a forum, or e-mail me directly with your thoughts ([e-mail]). Thanks!

Dusty Garison