Layouts and layout building

Hello again. The room is finished and I am beginning construction. My track plan [more or less] can be found in the 2000 issue of MRP. It's a modernization of a plan of Linn Wescott's done by Joe Taylor. You will find it on page 81. Since it would be difficult to put a meaningful size track plan in this post, I'm hoping that some of you will have that issue and can use it to answer my question. There are 3 return loops that send trains down to a lower level of the layout for staging purposes. If I am using open grid benchwork with angled braces to support both the upper and lower shelves and do not want to build any sort of helix, I am at a loss as to how to structure a grade of less than 2% that will penetrate the benchwork along the back side of the layout and not interfere with the upper and lower level staging shelf supports. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks

I don't have that issue anywhere close, but will give a stab at it. A grade of 2% will need 225 inches to fall 4.5 inches. That's 18'9" of run. Is this a plywood or foam board surface or a riser and spline layout?

The answer to your question is yet to be decided. My great conundrum is how to support the grade and lower it through the back of the grid benchwork without compromising the integrity of the table support. I can start the incline at the beginning of the turnback loops, but the distance between the grids will be close enough to prevent a 2% decline. I see layouts in MR all the time that have staging and return loops for continuous running below the layout but no photos of the benchwork supporting them. Thanks for your response.

If hidden consider up to 3% - 16' for 4" -I used that it works fine for me.

Ratled

_______                                              __________

             !          CUT OUT                   !

             !          FOR TRACK              !

_____ !____________________!__________

                        EXTRA SUPPORT

_________________________________________             

I've been conditioned to think in 1" by 4" lumber for table support but your art work gave me a new idea. I could use 1/2" plywood as sort of a giant gussett for the table support instead of 1" by 4" and cutout the proper grade angle as I move down the wall. This would solve the grade support problem while still providing solid support for the main layout table above. The plywood gussett would be screwed to the 2" by 2" vertical support mounted to the wall and supported on the outer end by the angled brace. I'm just in the beginning stages of developing the benchwork and my motto is 'wood is not my friend...' so I need to have a pretty clear picture in my mind before I take saw in hand. Thanks for your help.

There may be better options for that much space, but if you like the layout plan, good for you.

Where I find people sometimes get confused with open grid (and with benchwork generally) is thinking that a flat plywood top goes directly on the grid -- and that all the grid framework must be at the same elevation. Neither are necessarily true -- and that's not the way to get the most out of open grid. There may be areas where a section of grid is lower, to permit the visible layout level, staging, and the ramp between to all be supported by risers from below.

Here's an example derived from a custom project that's not exactly like what you are considering, but may help with some ideas. Remember that one side or section of the room could have a grid at a different elevation than the rest.

Byron
Model RR Blog

There appears no difficulty to construct the roadbed using conventional methods.  The layout can be readily constructed with all roadbed above the framework.  There's no need for solid sheets of plywood covering the framework or a solid deck needing to be pierced.

My 200-seconds analysis of this layout plan discloses several problems.  First the grades.  The two mainline routes leading to their respective staging staging (and unfortunately the staging tracks are not shown) twist vertically over and under each other, creating the necessity of steep, short, up-and-down grades which defies prototype engineering and makes operations problematic.  In one eight-foot stretch, each mainline must duck under the other and then climb over the other!  One route should start low from staging and rise on an easy grade to the yard, the the second route leaving the yard and rising to its staging, hidden behind a low backdrop until it drops out of sight.  If the mainline grades are kept minimal, the grade between the upper mainline staging can drop down to the connection at the yard at a still-reasonable grade.  Some visible trackage would need to be shifted a couple of inches to give room for that connection.

Second, unless there is access from both long outer edges of the layout rather than just the central aisle, there will be serious access issues as distances to some turnouts and track will be between three and five feet.

Third, almost off of the industries, mostly large and with multiple tracks, cannot be switched without fouling the main track.   This smakes operations inconvenient with multiple trains operating while switching industries.  At least two or three of the largest industrial complexes should have switching leads.

Good luck!

Mark

Thanks for your diagram. Read my response to markpierce below as I will give everyone a better idea of where I am heading with this layout plan.

You have indeed seen as I have the many issues with this track plan. Perhaps what I am about to tell you should be posted under another subject title but... I intend to make this into a representation of Spokane WA circa 1958. I will need to take great modelers license to acomplish something believable but I think it's doable. There will be no aisles on the outside, so that stub-end passenger yard will be relocated and those double crossovers really don't make much sense in the scheme of things. I agree the grade issue is terrible and I intend to re-work the scenery to accomodate a smoother main line all around.

I have looked at track plans for the last ten years. My 14' by 24' space is finally finished and this plan seemed to offer the best conceptual idea for what I want.

1. Around the walls with concealed staging.

2. An Eastbound main and two Westbound (one to Wenatchee for the GN and one to Pasco for the SPS)

3. A reasonable freight yard with an engine servicing facility and a large passenger yard (after moving it and re-working it into a pull through style yard)

4. Several industries to switch.

5. And lastly the option of continuous running. This plan would let me send a train Eastbound to Chicago and have it emerge as an Eastbound from Seattle after an adjustment in the staging yard. Likewise for Westbound trains.

Well there you have it. I am willing to talk about any aspects of this track plan if you are so inclined. This is an open invitation to anyone else too.

P.S. Mark, I grew up in Oakland CA

Wendel in Kingston:

You have indeed seen as I have the many issues with this track plan. .... Mark, I grew up in Oakland CA

Sounds like we're on the same track.            ......At the rate California is going to ...., there won't be any retired native-born Californians living in this state by mid-century.

Mark