hi Colin,
the ratio between the longest car/engine you are using and the minimum "main/branch" line radius you apply.
1:2 is pushing against technical limits, if possible at all
1:2,5 might be used in industrial areas, with very short trains and very low speeds
1:3 still toy like, but ok
1:4 good looking, it is what we all would like to have
1:5 for probably hands-off (un)coupling
In a time when 40 and 50 feeters were the longest cars (max 7 inches in HO), in the 50's and earlier, a 30" radius was great.
Today coaches and freightcars can be as long as 89 feet (12" in HO), so applying a 1:3 ratio is leading to radii (36" in HO) way to large for small layouts.
It is pretty rough, but divide the prototype length of your car by 10 and you have an idea about the appropriate switchnumber. A 50 feet long freight car will do well on a #5 switch, a #4 is not impossible, nice for spurs (low speeds) while a #6 would be great for crossovers. A modern 89 feet car will need #8 to #10 switches.
Having said this, you will have to understand that some guys around here are able to lay down their track so well and are able to tinker with their cars so much, they are coming away with smaller radii and switch numbers. The length of the train, pushing or pulling and a soft hand on the throttle are beside the quality of the trackwork important. The combination of short cars next to long ones is killing, even real RR companies had rules against it.
I did not invent those ratio´s my self, the NMRA has pages with it. It is always hard to read between the lines. A short passenger train, pulling only, with 3 or 4 coaches might do well on small radii. European trains with couplers fixed to the boogies, not to the body, can run well through almost any curve. A 1 to 1.5 ratio is the minimum here. But running through it and looking well is something different. Give and take a few inches (John Armstrongs words) the 1 to 3 ratio is a great starting point for any design, especially for newbies.
Even I have week knees in the local hobby shop, i just bought a lovely RDC, one foot long, way to large for my 18 inch min radius.
Smile
Paul
Paulus Jas ... And accept good practice, like the 1:3 ratio and keeping some distance from the edge of the layout.
... And accept good practice, like the 1:3 ratio and keeping some distance from the edge of the layout.
What's the 1:3 ratio?
Cheers,
Colin
PS Chad, sorry for abusing your thread even more... but IMHO this is turning into a very valuable discussion.
Colin 't Hart Frösön, Sweden http://www.flickr.com/photos/cthart/
hi mike,
no bad feelings,
i do not agree with your remark about the car before the horses.................
Often enough i make a drawing to make my ideas visible. But i am not designing someones railroad, but giving some thoughts. It is up to the OP to take them or not.....if i have to do the whole design work, i want to get paid for it. You used the words: "hard to envision"........sometimes it really is for me or for someone else. A good drawing might be more enlightning then 1000 pages of words.
Newbies are facing more problems, even the questionaire of John Armstrong will be like Chinese to them. They do not have a clue what operating means, let alone what staging means. And how can they know what they will be liking a few years from now. Beside being often unable to think beyond a 8x4.
A middle of the road approach is needed......starting the build soon, not learning for years, but also not starting now. And accept good practice, like the 1:3 ratio and keeping some distance from the edge of the layout. It may sound rude......accepting that you might learn something worthy means you have to be willing to listen. Try out alternatives and set a deadline.
BTW, i am abusing Chad's thread now, i hope he will be posting soon.
Paulus, I'm sorry if I was rough with you. I need to remember to keep my thick skin on.
__________________________________________________________________
Mike Kieran
Port Able Railway
I just do what the majority of the voices in my head vote on.
Two other things that should be added are equipment already owned and finances (budget) for the layout. Like it or not, this can be an expensive hobby.
When layout builders are designing a layout, they often start with what's known as a Givens & Druthers. Now I know what Chad listed as what he wants, but this goes even further to narrow down the design. John Armstrong used to use this to guage his clients when it came to a trackplan.
Remember, designing a layout without a full knowledge of how it's going to be used is putting the cart before the horse (I know I'm a real cliche hound, but they are really appropriate and pertinent). Here it is:
Givens and Druthers(Railroad Name)Scale: Gauge: (Std, Narrow)Prototype: (the railroad you want to model)
Era:Region:Railroad:
Space:
Describe Space e.g. basement. Provide diagram showing Overhead clearances and any obstructions or limitations.
Governing Rolling Stock: (Biggest planned)Relative Emphasis: (move the V)|______________________V_______________________| Track/Operation .................................................. ..Scenic realism|_________________________V____________________| Mainline Running .................................................. ........ Switching Operation Priorities: (rearrange as required)
Typical operating Crew: ______ Eye Level (Owner) ___In.
Mike Kieran Doughless, LNAc runs an SW7, right? I'll tale a better look at the map when I get home and put on my reading glasses. Another one industry railroad is the Kendallville Terminall Railway (KTR). They switch the Kraft marshmallow plant. in Kendallville, IN. I mentioned it on one or two threads. I found out about it on Carl Arendt's website. Who doesn't love marshmallows?
Doughless, LNAc runs an SW7, right? I'll tale a better look at the map when I get home and put on my reading glasses. Another one industry railroad is the Kendallville Terminall Railway (KTR). They switch the Kraft marshmallow plant. in Kendallville, IN. I mentioned it on one or two threads. I found out about it on Carl Arendt's website. Who doesn't love marshmallows?
Mike,
Any OP on a public forum should expect banter that strays from his primary topic. I also consider the benefit to the many lurkers my posting may have. But, I don't want to turn Chad's thread into one about short lines.
So, unless Chad responds with specific questions or comments here, I'll leave you with this:
The LNAC is an all ALCO railroad. They run an S4 and a RS36 (still in IAIS paint). If they had an SW, it was for a short time years ago:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=258224
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?city=Corydon&country=Indiana,%20USA
http://www.locophotos.com/~locophot/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=78799
If you, Chad, or any lurker wants to model the LNAC in HO, Atlas's product would be a great start. It even has the right road#
http://www.atlastrainman.com/Images/HOLoco/HORS32/0309/10000577_TQ.jpg
OTOH, the KTR uses an SW8:
http://www.fwarailfan.net/community/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2220
Now back to Chad's thread.........I hope he found something here useful.
- Douglas
hi Chad and Stein,
thx for the information, was the door at the lower left corner? On the drawing the size of the room is just under 11 feet by 8 feet.
A question remains is the height of the layout, when build for standing during operation, you could easily have shelves on top of a desk or printer.
I agree with Stein, it will be hard to walk around 3 sides of an 8x4. Your desk and printer will be in the way and the remaining aisles are just 24", so rather narrow. So i do understand why you are choosing for a L-type layout. When using narrow shelves and a lift-out along the other walls a continuous run is possible. But again it depends on the height of your layout.
For buildings, like IO said, Art Curren came up with a great plan to build double sided buildings. His first article was in RMC and he made it so there were 2 story structures on one side and 3 story structures on the other.
Mike Kieran Hey Doughless, What Railroad is that? It's like the track plan for someone's O scale layout, The New Castle Industrial Railroad.http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4UXG2ZPMWGw/TSaBsUOlMNI/AAAAAAAAAdI/ivYTvVMgLR8/s1600/NCIR+Trackplan+Final.jpg If there are any runarounds on your map, I didn't see any, but that's OK because then you have a reason for a caboose as a shoving platform. I agree, the room is a little tight for a 4x8. The trickiest thing to balance for a switching layout is to justify enough cars for an eight hour shift. Scott Osterweil's Highland Terminal does this in 6x1 feet. There's also David Barrow's Domino plan that he did in Model Railroader (I think it was called the South Plains District). Great starter layouts.
Hey Doughless, What Railroad is that? It's like the track plan for someone's O scale layout, The New Castle Industrial Railroad.http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4UXG2ZPMWGw/TSaBsUOlMNI/AAAAAAAAAdI/ivYTvVMgLR8/s1600/NCIR+Trackplan+Final.jpg
If there are any runarounds on your map, I didn't see any, but that's OK because then you have a reason for a caboose as a shoving platform.
I agree, the room is a little tight for a 4x8. The trickiest thing to balance for a switching layout is to justify enough cars for an eight hour shift. Scott Osterweil's Highland Terminal does this in 6x1 feet. There's also David Barrow's Domino plan that he did in Model Railroader (I think it was called the South Plains District). Great starter layouts.
Its the Lousiville, New Albany, & Corydon, (LNAC) one of the oldest original railroads (survivor, non merged) railroads in the U.S. That industry on the map made auto parts and, sadly, has closed its doors, leaving the railroad's future in question. Just to the SW of that spur are the shops of the railroad. The runaround is just to the east. It may be visable in the SE corner of the picture. Its a short runaround. Looks to me like the spur is storing a bunch of cars; the cut being much longer than any runaround on the railroad.
Anyway, as far as a 4x8, something like that is doable but I would use an industry that was more robust and add more spurs for a layout. With the low flat building that dominates the area, I'd be spending all my time modeling the roof top!
I don't know if a layout like that would be the best use of Chad's space, but it belongs in the discussion of 4x8 layout's IMO.
Ain´t it great our hobby can serve so many different interests?
I quite like the way the OP "matured" from a more toyish looking 4 by 8 to the layout design he now favors. Not that I am against building a 4 by 8, but I´d rather go for a switching layout than trying to incorporate continuous running on a "small" foot print like the 4 by 8 is. Even if you put a scenic divider right through the middle of it, it won´t prevent that feeling of a loco chasing the caboose. Just take a look at MR´s feature layout of February 2011. See how dominating the trains are?
Uhhhh...My computer shows that Chad supplied the dimensions of the room, and a drawing thereof, on the top of page 2. He pretty much has supplied drawings of his proposed layouts in the room, as well as a desk and printer stand, in just about every post thereafter.
Hmmm...A 4 x8 that unfolds into a shelf layout.? The result.... a noncontinous run layout with a lot of sharp curves. Uhh... no thanks. The MR beer line layout worked, but not that greatly, IMO.
In addition to having sharp curves, the problem with a 4x8 is the inablilty to really scenic the layout in a way that convincingly looks like something other than just one town. Unless you put a backdrop down the middle.
If I were Chad, and wanted a 4x8 for continous running, I would think about modeling just one large industry. A brewery receives a variety of cars. It could operationally be a switiching layout, but also have one of the corners of the loop hidden by a massive mill structure. The structures could also hide some staging or car storage areas. Access would be an issue but as long as there were no turnouts, derailments would be minimal and access holes could be cut into the plywood under the structure. There are plenty of prototypical examples of large industries that are accessed by rather tight loops, and MR once did a series of trackplans based soley upon this concept.
Google Map 3400 Cline road NW, Corydon, Indiana, as an example. http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=3400+cline+rd+nw,+corydon,+indiana&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=3400+Cline+Rd+NW,+Corydon,+IN+47112&gl=us&ei=SbyITbKzIsmugQfGyPTCDQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ8gEwAA
Gentlemen --
Let's not get into a food fight here, eh?
Chad has posted a drawing of his room in this thread, Paulus. It is just that your browser cannot display the image format he used.
Here is a jpg version (from a screen capture):
I have no idea of the room actually is drawn to scale, but if it is, and knowing that the L shaped track plan is on 2 foot deep shelves and that the two wings are respectively 7 and 8 foot long, indicates that upper part of the L-shaped room is about 8 x 8 feet, and the lower part of the room is about 4 x 11 feet or so.
If we assume that the upper part of the room is 8 feet across left to right, you could fit a 4x8 into this room - say 2 feet down from the upper wall across the room. It would pretty much take crawling under 4 feet of table to get to the rear aisle, but it is marginally doable.
Would I recommend doing a H0 scale 4x8 in this room? No. For a continuous run loop on a table I would instead have recommend N scale on a hollow core door.
Or a U shaped layout with turnback blobs at the lower ends around three sides of the upper part of the room, with a 2 foot aisle at the narrowest point (by the turnback blobs) and a 18" to 24" deep layout with 3 - 3.5 foot aisles for the rest of the U.
Or if you wanted to go wild hog - an N scale narrow layout around four of the six walls of the room, with turnback blobs at the ends, and possibly under layout staging. Or a H0 scale shelf like that, without the turnback blobs.
There is usually more than one way to do things. The key is to understand what the goals of the layout builder/owner is, and to look at what trade-offs you are willing to make.
Smile, Stein
mike,
you are using someone elses thread for debating the merits of a 8x4. You your self called it playing the devils advocate, is IMAO a waste of time, why should you?
And if you can't win on arguments you are using the words rude and pushy. Never seen a better reason not to use Chad's thread for this.
I would love to give the dimensions of Chad's room......that is up to Chad, not your problem.
Paulus, first you accuse me of hijacking the thread, then you tell me to stop playing devil's advocate, and then you tell me to start my own thread for 8x4s because I mentioned that there is a place for 4x8 layouts.
You're being rude and pushy.
I would love to give you the dimensions of Chad's room, but I don't even know where he lives.
i never told Chad what to do. Read better please.
Both you and Chad refused so far to come up with a drawing of your room, although i asked for it. So some alternatives like using a cassette couldn't be discussed. Without knowing the space ........yes you carefully took care of it.
You your self mentioned the Beer Line, not a typical 8x4, since it was built in sections. And yes, IMAO these sections are way easier to transport and stored then a whole 8x4. As stated earlier by me, building in sections or building along the wall seems and is more complicated then buying two sawhorses and a sheet of plywood. And i did admit this might be a very valid reason for a newbie to go for a 8x4.
The HOG is build on the same quantity of wood as a 8x4, has way bigger radii, longer straights and can be build for about the same amount of money. The 4 parts are easy to transport and stored, it could be a nice alternative, though the build is a little bit more complicated. Setting up the smaller and lighter parts is way easier however, if you have included legs in the design.
Steinjr,
I agree with your post. 4 2x4 sections would be even better. After they are taken apart, they can be stored on shelves and out of the way. I'll even build upon your thought, if I may.
In one of the Model Railroader Planning issues, Linda sand had a design for a 4x8 (patience people, patience) that was cut down the middle. This gives the layout owner options.
You can run it as a conventional 4x8, you can run it in an L configuration, or you can run them end to end in a 16x2 foot configuratio. The Beer Line built upon than idea by using smaller modules tht could also be gonfigured in a g, f, or a t pattern as well as the above mentioned configuruations.
The only problem I have with a backdrop down the middle is visually, it can be distracting. Art Currens idea would be more appealing because your buildings alond the center line are double sided, so they appear to be 2 different buildings. Don Mitchel did something like this with the Union Terminal plan, but with staging included.
I am a big proponent of the domino layout because you can always take it with you. Some people have a problem with sectional layouts because they don't want to put turnouts over a seam on the modules or just the sight of seams on the layout. That's the reason why people keep the 4x8 whole. I actually knew someone that put their 4x7 not only stacked up on it's end, but behind a bookcase. He had a wide doorway next to the bookcase and slid it behind. He had felt on the end to make it slide.
Paulus,
You need to read my threads more. I have not been saying that a 4x8 is the only way to go.
What I am saying is I'm not picking one over the other. I'm just trying to point out that there are a lot of factors in building a layout. If one is going to invest time and money, one must consider all of the options in the give and take that is a Givens and Druthers.
You, on the other hand, seem to think that 4x8 layout are not a viable alternative. Chad originally started out with a 4x8 for whatever reasons that he had. I'm not saying that he must build a 4x8. You on the other hand are telling him that he should build a shelf layout with out knowing the space that he has to work with.
Chad --
For whatever it may be worth, I think the modifications Paulus suggested are worthwhile - in particular dropping the short runaround in the upper left corner (turning that into a single ended industry spur), and connecting the longer inner runaround to the middle track, so you won't have to move away cars at Clyde and Dale's barrel factory in order to use the inner runaround.
Maybe combine your idea for a switchback industry off the yard, and the bridge/water feature Paulus suggested?
Anyways - your layout, no matter what you end up doing and how you construct it: the rest of us can make various suggestions, but in the end it obviously is you who will have to decide what you want to do, and how you want to do it.
Please if you want to debate the merits of a 8x4 start your own thread.
(reformatted)
Mike KieranA 4x8 is easier to transport and set down in a new space than a shelf layout.
In my humble opinion, what probably is the easiest to transport and set up in a new location is a sectional layout with relatively small sections - say 4 feet long x 2 feet deep or so.
You move the sections you want to keep, stove away sections if you need to fit it into a smaller space, add new transition sections if you need to go around corners and so on and so forth.
Up to you whether you put the sections on legs in the middle of a room, put them up as a 4x8 foot table, or hang em from a wall, and whether you form a continuous loop or not.
I think transportability is a function of how things are constructed. Not of what footprint the layout has.
Smile,Stein
Chad, whetheryou build a 4x8 or a shelf, just enjoy it. You know what space you have available, you know what you want, and only you can decide what will work. There's a lot of different routes to take toward your enjoyment of the hobby.
Wrong! Model Railroader is presenting 4x8 foot layouts because they are simpler to set up, easier to envision, and affordable for those entering the hobby. Over the years, Model Railroader has taken polls, and it seems that modelers are more likely to build the Beer Line than the Franklin and South Manchester (which started out as a 4x8 layout) or the Gorre and Daphetid (which started out as a 4x6).
I’ve been told on this thread that I’m trying to force my views of a 4x8 on people when it appears that there are people forcing their views on shelf layouts.
The bottom line is each layout design has its faults. and merits. Some people want a continuous run because when someone comes over, the visitor could care less about seeing the engine shunting back and forth. Some people go with a loop because they want the continuous run in order to break in locomotives. Others go with the loop because they just want to see the trains run while they sit down and veg out.
A loop can also have the curves double as switch leads, interchange tracks, and running tracks. A 4x8 can be stored against a wall either as is or placed on a side or end to allow mixed use in the room. The footprint of the layout depends on the Givens & Druthers of the layout’s builder.
The problems with a 4x8 loop are that you are limited as to what kind of locomotives and rolling stock that you could use, you are limited in the size of the industrial customers on the layout, and it’s a space eater because you need at least 2 feet of space around each side (unless one end is against a wall).
With a shelf layout, you can build a layout anywhere between 9 inches deep to 30 inches deep. You only need about 3 feet of space in the middle. In theory, you can build a shelf layout inside of a 4x8 foot space. Industries can be enormous because you are only modeling the area served by the railroad and the structure isn’t viewed from a 360o perspective. Curves don’t look as sharp from the inside as from the outside. Curves can be wider, thus lowering restrictions on rolling stock.
On shelf layouts, getting in often requires a duckunder or a removable section of track if you want a continuous run option. If it’s a shelf switcher layout, you need to have a switch lead (and runaround) length long enough for a locomotive and 2 cars to appear somewhat prototypical. For 40 foot cars, that’s 18 inches, for 50 foot cars, that’s a minimum of 22 inches. Shelf layouts must also blend in with the room’s decor if it’s for mixed use (unless it’s a portable, modular layout).
My layout is a simple loop. I don’t have wall space for a shelf layout (which l would prefer). It’s going to sit on my dining room table when in use. While it’s only going to measure 61 inches by 45 inches, between track, structures, lumber, scenery, rolling stock, locomotives, and track power, it will cost around $500 when it’s finished. A larger layout costs a lot more than that. It will come apart with removable structures. Rolling stock will be stored. Not my dream layout, but it's a necessary compromise.
As much as 10 years ago, layouts were simpler and cheaper, now it takes a lot more financial assets to build a decent pike. Even with deep pockets, one has to consider the time needed to build, operate, and maintain these layouts. I've gone to well detailed layouts with a layer of dust on them because maintainance is time consuming.
In this ever increasingly mobile society, people are often finding that they are moving more often than they have in previous generations. A 4x8 is easier to transport and set down in a new space than a shelf layout.
hi chad,
if you want to expand your layout later it is time to make a drawing of your room and some kind of a master-plan. You are talking about classification, but i have no clue what is happening on your layout. Where are trains coming from, could be virtual, and how and why are they rearranged?
I do not see much "scenic" opportunities, cause the whole layout is rather track-heavy.
It would be great if you would save your plans in jpg or a bitmap format.
Smile Paul
Ok, so I like this. It has more of a "main line" in and out to it for future expansion with only a short shared segment.
Pluses:
Minuses:
Inudustries:
C
Doing more gets just as boring
51% share holder in the ME&O ( Wife owns the other 49% )
ME&O
UncBob Watching them go forward and then having to back up is not as fun fun as watching them go round and round
Watching them go forward and then having to back up is not as fun fun as watching them go round and round
Which probably is why most people who choose to build a point to point layout also choose to do something more than just sitting there watching trains run from one end of the layout to the other end, and then come back again.
Different strokes for different people, Bob.
I personally think you will miss continuous running