Hi guys not sure how to address this topic, I'm building a new layout with open grid benchwork which is all new to me. My previous layout had alot of what I liked but at the same time I have limited myself to having more of a operations and scenery oriented layout. As it stands I have a few main industries as well as a wharf town setup on my plan. I figure the top of the grid benchwork with a chunk of 1/2 inch plywood will be the lowest point of the layout which will be the water for the wharf. The wharf water will be the lowest then about 1.5 inches up to the board walk to the wharf buildings and rail on the wharf. Behind the wharf there will be a second rail which will be service for stuffies breweries this track and realestate will be a bit higher maybe an inch then behind that will be the mainline which I want to be not any higher than the stuffys brewery track and area so that the train will not stick out like a sore thumb. This is where my problem and RR layout design block comes inas I'm new to the grid type layout. What reason would you raise or lower a rail on this type of layout? Can an interesting layout be created more with keeping the mainline at a certain level and have the spurs off the main go down a decline to towns and industries and still have an interesting effect compared to having inclines and declines of the same mainline go up a grade ( say 2% ) and back down a grade to level bechwork?I included some photos of where I'm at with the benchwork , basicly I have the wood roadbed for the track all attached and its ready to be raised if need be but I'm hopeing some ideas and or direction will come from you guys before I go in the wrong direction.Thanks guysLynn
Lynn
Present Layout progress
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/290127/3372174.aspx#3372174
Elevations add visual interest to a layout. This is particularly true when trains can climb to a higher level and cross a high bridge, or perhaps run above a steep cliff, or cross over other tracks below. They can also add operational interest if you need to add "helper" engines to get trains up a grade, and then take them off again once their help is no longer needed.
But, they are not without problems. It looks like you've got enough space to add realistic grades, but many modelers try to add grades on layouts that are too small, and end up with slopes that are too steep. Instead of steep grades, I opted to keep my track flat, mostly, and raise and lower the surrounding terrain to give the illusion of changing elevation while maintaining level track.
Your idea of having sidings slightly higher or lower than the main line is a good one. Sidings don't have the same slope restrictions, because you're only going to run an engine and a car or two on them. I put my turntable and roundhouse a bit lower than the main, just for visual interest, and I don't have to worry about hauling freight trains there.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
This is a good approach when there's little need for vertical elevation because the prototype, real or imagined, is in relatively flat terrain. And fixing on the water as the Zero elevation is good, too.
Once that's done, keep in mind it is a limit. Realistically, if the track is in the same room/span of vision as a water feature, you can't really go below water level if the eye is able to make a ready comparison between the two features.
That's a good reason to favor gaining elevation over downward grades. You do have plenty of running room to gain or lose elevation, so it might be worth considering at least a modest grade as the track moves away from the water and vice versa. It is possible to do grades that are visually useful, but which don't impose significant limits on train length/weight.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Though elevations create never ending headaches, I love them! As I'm modelling sections of Nova Scotia that are very hilly and rocky, elevations help me to keep it realistic as well as allowing me to incorporate a multitude of rivers and bridges. Yes very complicated but definately not boring! When complete I will have approx. 20 bridges of various size and design.
Fergie
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=5959
If one could roll back the hands of time... They would be waiting for the next train into the future. A. H. Francey 1921-2007
I should have said earlier that your benchwork so far looks very, very good.
You can also get "elevation" with roads. You can have those bridges, overpasses and underpasses, without forcing your trains to climb mountains. Your vehicles don't care, and you can get away with very steep climbs that a railroad wouldn't think of building.
Lynn:
My layout looks to be smaller than yours, so not all observations apply.
Your seem to have some industrial buildings and to want to do some switching/operations. It is very tricky to hold a cut of cars on a slope while you work an industrial siding. I have read of methods that will work for the layout owner/regular operators, but might not for visitors.
You will need to climb a bit away from the harbour, but after that as many big level stretchs as possible, with scenry rising and falling around your track work might be worth considering.
Dave
Good comments from everyone so far, so I will add to the discussion.
If the railroads had a preference, they would all be flat. That being said, grades are used when the terrain is not flat. Typically, the land rises up from the sea to the mountains. So, on your layout, the terrain that you have, or are modeling, and its location relative to the sea or mountains, would determine if your railroad line is higher or lower at different parts of the layout.
For our planning, we modelers start by making our railroads (main line) as flat as we can, using as shallow grades as we can, to get the effect of the trains running realistically through the scenery. Planning out the type of scenery you want to build has an effect on what the elevations of the track will be. Because these things interact with each other, planning out the scenery AND the railroad main line should be done together, at least on paper. Sometimes the scenery is modified on the fly or as it is being built because we have a track that crosses over another.
Sometimes we plan the scenery before the tracks, and then try to fit the track to our scenery plan. This doesn't work all the time, but it is a different approach that can be used at times.
Since you are using open grid-work for your benchwork, you have the option of trying one elevation, and then changing it if it doesn't work out like you thought it would. This is the beauty of open grid benchwork and the riser system.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
Nice explanation MisterBeasley for once I feel like I conveyed my thoughts perfectly because you just confirmed what I was trying to get across.My previous layout had the sloped track crossing a rail below but then it was obvious the train was on an elevated track and hard to hide.
Thanks Mike for contributing that. I will have to keep in mind what goes up must come down eventually. It isa real art to fool the eye.
Thanks Fergie for your comments. If your doing that many bridges and that type of terrain have you not thought of lowering benchwork in areas? Either way I will have to check out your link on Trainboard.
Thanks again MisterBeasley I here what your saying with elevation with roads, I guess I'm just having a bit of a time getting past setting up the innitial track elevations so I can then move onto road setups. Some reason my imagination isn;t kicking in like in past layouts. Which is probably why my past layouts ideas were incorporated in a cluster and force fit.
Dave although the track to the end of the spurs will incline or decline a bit I think I can mange to have it preety flat at the end. I want this layout to be more operations and scenery oriented.
Thanks Elmer for some great explanations and input . So what are your ideas or thoughts for open grid with a very slight elevation with the rail and utilizing the grid style benchwork? Are you suggesting I lay the track slightly elevated about the lowest point being the wharf water and then removing or should I say lowering portions of the benchwork for added effect?
Thanks everyone
Hi Lynn
Trainboard has not been updated, though I'm hoping to add pictures once the back facsia is finished (tomorrow, maybe). Going lower was never an option as the initial layout was done piecemeal (sic). What started out a gift from someone who wanted rid of his 4x8 has slowly morphed and everything is grown from that. The original layout also established a minimum height so the area underneath could be used for storage bins.
MisterBeasley Elevations add visual interest to a layout.
Elevations add visual interest to a layout.
See the "Photo Gallery" and "Kelly's Scenery" at the Utah Colorado Western with track elevations similar to yours -- Note how some foam sculpture and cheesecloth scenery provided the visual interest.
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
You do not need to have the track go higher or lower, other then maybe very little. Make the scenery around it go higher or lower, giving the effect of elevations.
There are many HO and N-scale layouts that I have seen that do this. Yet all of the mainline track is more or less level.
Ken G Price My N-Scale Layout
Digitrax Super Empire Builder Radio System. South Valley Texas Railroad. SVTRR
N-Scale out west. 1996-1998 or so! UP, SP, Missouri Pacific, C&NW.
Thanks guys I think I'm going to stick to fairly level grade all around other than the rails that come off the mainline to the industries.
I don't want to spoil anything, but I would shore up that one room with the wood panel before I would even build a layout in the room. I can't imagine you leaving the walls and ceiling in that condition. And you certainly don't want to work on the room after you completed the layout. As for the track entering the other room that is well above the roadbed, I can see major issues with that grade unless you have that track on something solid. But as another member on this forum says, "what the hell do I know.
Joe C
dominic c I don't want to spoil anything, but I would shore up that one room with the wood panel before I would even build a layout in the room. I can't imagine you leaving the walls and ceiling in that condition. And you certainly don't want to work on the room after you completed the layout. As for the track entering the other room that is well above the roadbed, I can see major issues with that grade unless you have that track on something solid. But as another member on this forum says, "what the hell do I know. Joe C
Joe I'm not sure what your referring to with the ceiling, its actually new suspended ceiling, I had to push the tiles aside to run a new ethernet cable. As for the wood panel I'm not sure what I'm doing there but what ever it is it will be done before any scenery is added.As for the grade entering the room it will be leveled off with risers.
With your track plan I wouldn't put any grades on the main track. I would figure how far below the main track you want the water level and then raise all the main track above the water level by that much. I would only put the industries maybe 1/4" below the main track unless there was a specific need for something lower.
On my open grid benchwork has the main track about 8-9 inches above the grid.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Thanks Dave for the comments. I've been working on this and decided to do some modifications to the plan. There were too many things it took years to include in my last layout that I've decided to include in this layout, this will include an incline but the rest will be about the same other than I'm adding a bit more realestate onto the benchwork.
wickman Thanks Elmer for some great explanations and input . So what are your ideas or thoughts for open grid with a very slight elevation with the rail and utilizing the grid style benchwork? Are you suggesting I lay the track slightly elevated about the lowest point being the wharf water and then removing or should I say lowering portions of the benchwork for added effect? Thanks everyone Lynn
gandydancer19 wickman Thanks Elmer for some great explanations and input . So what are your ideas or thoughts for open grid with a very slight elevation with the rail and utilizing the grid style benchwork? Are you suggesting I lay the track slightly elevated about the lowest point being the wharf water and then removing or should I say lowering portions of the benchwork for added effect? Thanks everyone Lynn Not really suggesting you do anything. Just saying it is easy to set the elevations using open grid benchwork, and they can be whatever you want or need them to be. On my layout, the track drops at industries and yards, but the drop is minimal. The mainline track is on roadbed material. When the track goes to an industry or yard, I don't use roadbed material, but lay the track on the 'ground' or directly on the subroadbed. So the drop is only one-quarter inch or so. The railroads usually do this so a loose car won't roll out on the mainline.
You are quite correct on how easy it is to set elevations with open grid although dealing with the openess of the rest of the grid is a whole new learning curve,it was so much simpler having a solid surface to work off on the old layout.
My last layout was larger than the one I have now, and it was open grid. It was actuall L-girder construction. Filling in the areas between the sub-roadbed was not hard at all. You need to plan areas for your mountains and valleys. What you do to fill in is make a cardboard webbing that is built between your tracks. If making a mountain, attach a couple of 1x1 sticks to your benchwork sticking up as high as the mauntain is going to be, or at the top of a slope up. Then use that to start the webbing from. For a valley, just leave the webbing a little long and let it sag. Once you have made your web, you will see how the general shape of the terrain is going to look. If you don't like it, change it before you go further. Once you are satisfied, lay at least two layers of plaster cloth over it. That becomes your scenery base. If you know where your buildings are going to go, you can use pieces of foam for the flat areas and build them into the webbing.
Here is a photo of the start of a mountain side that I built on my present layout using cardboard webbing. It was latter covered with red rosin paper and plaster castings. Hot glue was used to build the webbing. There is a road going up that is going to be cut into the rocks.
gandydancer19 My last layout was larger than the one I have now, and it was open grid. It was actuall L-girder construction. Filling in the areas between the sub-roadbed was not hard at all. You need to plan areas for your mountains and valleys. What you do to fill in is make a cardboard webbing that is built between your tracks. If making a mountain, attach a couple of 1x1 sticks to your benchwork sticking up as high as the mauntain is going to be, or at the top of a slope up. Then use that to start the webbing from. For a valley, just leave the webbing a little long and let it sag. Once you have made your web, you will see how the general shape of the terrain is going to look. If you don't like it, change it before you go further. Once you are satisfied, lay at least two layers of plaster cloth over it. That becomes your scenery base. If you know where your buildings are going to go, you can use pieces of foam for the flat areas and build them into the webbing. Here is a photo of the start of a mountain side that I built on my present layout using cardboard webbing. It was latter covered with red rosin paper and plaster castings. Hot glue was used to build the webbing. There is a road going up that is going to be cut into the rocks.
Thanks that was very helpful.
Looking at my layout, the first thing that you notice is that no two stations are at the same level.
If you consult a map of the area that I'm more or less modeling, you'll notice the same thing.
When the scenery stands on edge and rivers are only navigable by kayakers with death wishes, grades (and tunnels, and bridges) are the name of the game. The visible part of my mainline climbs a 2.5% grade, broken by two stations which are level between the home signals. My privately owned short line (JNR is a government monopoly) climbs a mountain goat trail to the colliery at the top of the valley. What goes up, comes down - by retracing the route in the opposite direction.
However, all of my modeling is based on a plan now half a century old. The grades are the ones the prototype climbed. The schedule is the one the prototype ran - all 146 trains per fast-time 'day.'
I don't count rivets in my modeling, but I do count minutes in my operations. Others have other approaches and different priorities. Each is valid for the individual. None are valid for everyone.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - to the best of my limited ability)
tomikawaTT Looking at my layout, the first thing that you notice is that no two stations are at the same level. If you consult a map of the area that I'm more or less modeling, you'll notice the same thing. When the scenery stands on edge and rivers are only navigable by kayakers with death wishes, grades (and tunnels, and bridges) are the name of the game. The visible part of my mainline climbs a 2.5% grade, broken by two stations which are level between the home signals. My privately owned short line (JNR is a government monopoly) climbs a mountain goat trail to the colliery at the top of the valley. What goes up, comes down - by retracing the route in the opposite direction. However, all of my modeling is based on a plan now half a century old. The grades are the ones the prototype climbed. The schedule is the one the prototype ran - all 146 trains per fast-time 'day.' I don't count rivets in my modeling, but I do count minutes in my operations. Others have other approaches and different priorities. Each is valid for the individual. None are valid for everyone. Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - to the best of my limited ability)
Thanks for the input . where can I view your layout ? You have my full attention.