Trains.com

I've officially gone Nuts! ...just consider my new track plan

4840 views
31 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: North, San Diego Co., CA
  • 3,092 posts
Posted by ttrigg on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:40 PM
 vsmith wrote:

I am considering this for my outdoor layout, its R1, & has 5% grades.

.......Sorry, but that's what I really like and have always wanted to model.

Now rolling stock will be small lokies hauling smaller ore cars, I've been testing my stuff on a 7%+ grades and its been A-OK so far.

The voices in my head keep encouraging me Tongue [:P]

Knowing that you fully understand the draw backs of high slopes mixed with tight curves, and are willing to play within that very limited rule set. Plus the fact that you have established "test track" to check the functionality of your equipment, however, you did not state if you had included any R1 trackage in this "test slope". If you did not include the cure in your test, then I would ask you to go back and test it again.

With your extensive Loco bashing skills, I'm sure you could easily "bash in" a "cog/rack" gearing system. Much as I plan on doing for the streetcar/tram line to the top of Rosebud Falls. When I did my "slope testing" I included a 6.5 ft diameter curve in my test track, as that was the predetermined curve leading into the grade.

Why apologize, if this is truly what you want to do then go for it.

Think I've been hearing the same little voice!  Tongue [:P] Tongue [:P] Tongue [:P] Tongue [:P]

 

Almost forgot - The plan - looks like a lot of fun packed into such a small place! 

 

I know Ian is going to lambaste me for tell you to go for it, but I believe you have enough experience in this hobby to fully understand the limitations you are imposing upon yourself. Go have fun!!!!! Want lots of pics!!!!!!!!!!! 

Tom Trigg

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 6:41 PM

Vic;

Don't do it mate, i have 4 % with an R2 curve and several R3 curves and i wish i didn't have them, many problems as time goes on and you wish to different things.

Even having these types of grades is a good argument for MTS, ie maximum voltage improves totque and the MTS memory function will stop runaways.

You will find the amount of waggons you can pull will be reduced and the effect of dirty tracks will be amplified out of all proportion. As well you will have your trains tend to run backward down hill if you stop and take the power off.

Would you like to send me your details and i will see what i can do to offer alternatives.

Rgds Your mate Ian

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
I've officially gone Nuts! ...just consider my new track plan
Posted by vsmith on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 1:29 PM

Been discussing this elsewhere, thought I'd share my insanity over here as well...

http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/vsmith/HOUSE-Outdoor%20Layout%201-27-07.pdf

I am considering this for my outdoor layout, its R1, & has 5% grades.

I should point out that some of my favorite RRs are the Uintah RR, the Gilpin Tramway, the Mt Tam RR, and the Darjeeling Himalayan RR. All renown for their insane trackage and grades. Sorry, but that's what I really like and have always wanted to model.

Now rolling stock will be small lokies hauling smaller ore cars, I've been testing my stuff on a 7%+ grades and its been A-OK so far.

Max. vertical distance should be about 20 inches total. Stepping stones will be placed throughout during construction and yes that is a fence behind. I should have easy access to most all of the layout.

The way I envisioned operation, Heckaweh is the mining center, Borracho the freight center. I want to keep the trains short and light. At Heckaweh the ore trains (Loco & 3 or 4 empty ore cars) would be assembled at Heckaweh, run up the mountain, and then switched onto the siding and leave the string there at the mine. If I had to pick up a string of loads while delivering empties, the "brakes" (an icepick jambed in the ground behind the cars) would be set, the engine uncoupled, then when the loco has picked up the "loaded" cars, they would couple on the empties on the end then drag then up and switch them onto the mine siding for loading. Then the train would either back down the hill to Heckaweh to drop off cars on one of the sidings, or continue over the mountain to drop off the car at the mills near Borracho. The 'loaded' cars dropped off at Heckaweh would the be moved either back over the mountain or thru the tunnel to the Borracho mills. Freight trains (larger loco & 2 or 3 freight cars)would be 'assembled' (actually or just set down like a staging siding) at Borracho and run up the mountain to make 'flag stops' (stop for a short time) at the various places on the route, occasionally to drop a supply car off at a mine using the switching 'technic' described above. the train would then run thru to Heckaweh, where if I chose the engine would transfer to the back of the train and would then pull it back over the mountain back to Borracho, or just thru tunnel 4 back to Borracho.

Tunnel #4 is the 'cheat' point. If I want to run a more prototypical point to point operation the thru point of the tunnel doesnt exist. But if I want to run continuously, tunnel 4 is my way to do so. Best of both worlds? I still have some more trackwork to do at the Borracho yard, namely a passing siding. I'll figure it.

I also have some real issues with just what am I going to do under the track, I think I might want to consider either a wood or concrete substructure to give the track additional support although the rock 'mountains' might be more than sufficient support, well see.

 

The voices in my head keep encouraging me Tongue [:P]

   Have fun with your trains

Search the Community

FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER

Get the Garden Railways newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Garden Railways magazine. Please view our privacy policy