I have completed alterations on Level#3 to remove the Reverse Loops to allow a train to operate throughout the layout without the need for an operator. At this level I have setup removed the two facing Reverse Loops are replaced it with a loop that has a Double Cross-Over to allow change of direction when desired. I have also changed the Right/East Helix into a Double Helix for alterations to Level #4 that will also be needed. Overall, Level#3 has not realy change visually from the old design. Before After
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
Testing, one, two, three.
Halleluia. Firefox did the trick. Thanks, Darren!
What's your layout building experience?
Rick Shivik
HO D&H Champlain Division
I started my first HO layout before heading to collage that was a simple 6x12 oval with a figure 8 within it as a mountain route. The track got put down and was operational without scenery and then it got ripped up by my parents and what was salvageable they put into a box. Many a year has passed since. I built a small N Scale X-Max tree layout that is very basic that I put away in storage that holds a 4' tree in the middle and no scenery was done there either. It was setup as two blocks so I could run two DC trains or one over both sections using the crossover between them. It also had a siding that a third train could sit on. The below photo has some of the track already removed (elevated section) before it went into storage.
So yes, this HO design will be way out of my league right now but I will get a chance to start on my first real N Scale layout plan in the basement in the next year which has plenty of space and it's inside so no HVAC concerns. The space that I plan for the N Scale is not conducive for the HO at all nor will it be anywhere near as complex. It will though give me lots of time to learn skills needed to build the HO in whatever layout design in gets finalized in this nasty / tight space...
The N Scale layout is not yet design but I thinking it will be more based on true D&H routes
Yep,......scary!
Three quick suggestions:
Get Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong
http://www.kalmbachstore.com/12148.html
and Designing and Building Multi-Deck Model Railroads by Tony Koester
http://www.kalmbachstore.com/12148.html and
see if you can find a round-robin model railroad run session group or a model railroad club in your area.
More later
Thanks Again Rick!
I do hope that when I get closer to real construction to join one of the many clubs in the area
Also, you can see that the layout has not changed much from the visitors view with the Level#1 Alternative alterations. Might have to rethink how I might use the WEST side shelf area now that trains will little use it; but, can still be a nice Era diorama that I can choose to pull trains through while staging operations are in effect. Maybe a modern Station design such as Denver Union Station that I can add a siding track into where passenger cars can sit without being in the way for switch/staging operations. Hmm, not a bad idea that just hit me for that spot! Before After
The latest issue has a track plan I think may work well for you because it has the potential to be expanded to three levels. IIRC, it's the B&M/B&A one.
Champlain Division The latest issue has a track plan I think may work well for you because it has the potential to be expanded to three levels. IIRC, it's the B&M/B&A one. Rick Shivik
Thanks for the tip, I will look for it...
With the space the only way to have a long main-line is to go vertical but also wanting to run my D&H 4-6-6-4 Challenger with Heavyweight Passenger cars as well as my PA fleet with their passenger cars I need some sort of helix in the design yet keep the radii as tight as I can get away with.
Poor Plan #1 was one continues winding helix trying to do dog-bone figure 8's but the grades got out of hand trying to not double back along the same path. Trying to fix the grades I exceeded my height limit so I scrapped it for this crazy design that is at least closer the feasible but creates some access nightmares...
Do to the alterations of Level#3 though, the landscape did have to change some on both Level#3 as well as on Level#2. Mainly because of the creation of the Double Helix on the East/Right side where only a single Helix once was. The new design has the Outer Helix apprached from over the River/Waterfall so I have extended the mountain outward there which slightly alter the location of the Level #2 tunnel below it. Also the High Bridge on Level#2 was shorten given the Double Helix slope so the train will enter the tunnel there much sooner then before. The River/Waterfall has also move North/Up a few inches again do to the Double Helix. Before After
Stourbridge Lion this crazy design that is at least closer the feasible but creates some access nightmares...
"Not Accessible" is "Not Feasible".
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyama "Not Accessible" is "Not Feasible".
I agree
So, how does one access all sides of a Helix and yet keep it hidden from view. Does the access have to be from below to get into the interior? This is what I think is my biggest access nightmare...
Stourbridge LionSo, how does one access all sides of a Helix and yet keep it hidden from view. Does the access have to be from below to get into the interior? This is what I think is my biggest access nightmare...
Well, it's not your only access nightmare.
These layouts are impractial on my many levels, pardon the pun. Even if they could be built as drawn, which is unlikely, they couldn't be maintained. And much of the track couldn't be seen from normal viewing angles. Just because CAD allows you to draw something or view it, that doesn't mean it will work in real plywood and plaster.
Since you identified yourself as a beginner earlier, these explorations of incredibly complex layouts seem nonproductive to me, but that's just my opinion.
Seems like it would be better for now to focus on building a small layout in whatever space and time you have available. Get some experience with what it takes to build, scenic, and maintain a layout.
This will tell you a lot more about model railroading than a thousand hours in CAD revisions, IMHO.
I won't interrupt your flights of fancy again. Edit: If you think this is a fun exercise on its own, of course, have at it. But in my opinion, this is not the best path to actual model railroading -- if that is your goal.
Good luck.
Stourbridge Lion wrote: "So, how does one access all sides of a Helix and yet keep it hidden from view. Does the access have to be from below to get into the interior? This is what I think is my biggest access nightmare..."
A hidden helix must be built for crawl-under access and service from the inside only. It is best generally to build it with at least a 1/8" thick by 1.5" tall hardboard/masonite/cardboard/plexiglass fence or guardrail attached to the outside edge of whatever sub-roadbed material you choose to use to prevent trains from tumbling off levels to the outside during inevitable derailments. The best way, though, is to wrap the structure like a cylinder in any of the aforementioned materials and forget about accessing it from the outside. (Crawl-under" access is generally defined as being built to allow a person to pass underneath on hands and knees. This bottom of the layout height is generally 30".)
Further, if you build your levels to allow a hand to reach in over a stalled/derailed train on 30" radius curves this will work out to a spiral grade of between 2.3 and 2.5%. A quality HO diesel, reasonably weighted, can easily pull six passenger cars or 15 freight cars weighing in at NMRA specs up such a grade without string-lining.
Finally, build it so you can either sit comfortably in a swivel chair inside it or fully stand up to service and operate it.
Also, let me make this abundantly clear.......the equipment you're desiring to operate is going to require a minimum curve radius of 30 inches, especially in a helix. You'll need "bullet proof" track work in there too. In fact, any hidden track must be built to the highest standards to ensure reliable operation.
My dollar three eighty on that,
Thanks once again Rick as this is EXACTLY the useful constructive critique of Plan #2 I'm looking for before I begin Plan #3. Being 6'5" / 265 I won't be standing up in any Helix but the "Chair" idea is wonderful! The tough part in Plan #3 will be trying to see if / how I can work in a 30" plus helix. Also hearing the base of the layout should start at 30" is also useful because trust me I was wondering how I would access the inside of helix at a baseline of 24" and then get up onto my knees within it give the radii. That extra 6" might also push the upper limit of the Right & Middle sections so I wil have to watch that in Plan #3 as well.
Trust me too cuyama I understand how CAD can mislead you but when this will likely be my one and only build for my HO layout I am willing to put hundreds of hours in "What If" games using CAD before I start any build. I live near the Tunnel District in Colorado that is just west of Denver and Level #1 and #2 are deliberately designed to have the train vanish into the mountain side before showing up again so yes there will be lots of "hidden" track to accomplish that. By design Level #3 is the only "flat" area where track is exposed to represent a Roundhouse era setup. Level #4 which has extreme limited space is to be a "Mining District" that if only short engines / cars can reach it that's fine since that would have been true in the Gold/Silver rush days of Narrow Gauge short-lines.
I have a place in the basement where my N Scale layout will go which will get started well before the HO and does not have the crazy space issues. So, I will have a chance to learn track work skills there as I fully understand that for the HO layout to work in such a tight space will require solid track work to limit derailments. Since all this will likely be my Model RR Hobby time for the next 20+ years this is why I'm designing around DC since technology can change allot in that time so not putting in $$$ for DCC stuff that would be out of date by the time I get to that point. Besides, if this is just going to be a operator-less loop one does not need DCC to operate it.
Further exploring the Bottom of the Layout subject:
Assuming you'll use commercially available dimensional lumber, that means a 1x4 horizontally on its side with either 1/2" or 3/4' plywood sub-roadbed on its top edge, then cork roadbed, then track. This will set your minimum lowest possible track elevation, at the railhead, at 34 3/8". I personally will rip my 1x4s on a table saw and cut them down to make them exactly 0.75 x 3" which will enable an elevation of 33 7/8" using 1/2" sub-roadbed. For the reason of minimum benchwork thickness I stay away from L-Girder construction and use primarily Open Grid. L-Girder adds an extra 3/4" of benchwork thickness that I neither need nor want.
My layout is multi-level with track elevations ranging from 28" to 80". I have five levels: Lower Staging at 28 & 30", Level One 30 to 45", Level Two 45 to 60", Level Three 60 to 75" and Upper Staging 75 to 80". That's Lower & Upper Hidden Staging with three sceniced levels sandwiched in between, each separated by an average of 15" in track elevation. It enables me to achieve a mainline run of at least 300 feet on the sceniced levels alone. This is in a 12' x 25' basement garage. I think you can see why I strive to make each level to a minimum thickness.
However, I don't want to hijack your thread, so I won't post my track plans as attachments. If you want to see my plans I can email them to you if you, or anyone else, would like to if you'll contact me offline.
Please feel free to post away anything that might help me work on Plan #3 given my tight space.
There isn't much more of Plan#2 Alternatives to post, just have Level #4 to go...
With the exspansion (Single to Double) of the Helix from Level#3 to Level#4 I found I needed to basically rebuild Level#4 from scratch while still trying to maintain this level as a Mining District. Now, any train can enter/ext Level#4 as part of the overall Main Line in an operatorless mode. I kept the one siding in place to leave Ore Cars at. The Inner Helix is at the 22" Radii to keep that as the mimimum radii throughout the layout. Before After
With the redesign of Level #4 based on a Double Helix hiding under the mountain now, also came the redo of the topography and where the tunels will likely get placed. I also placed three (3) colored boxes as potential place holders for major Minging Operation structures. The tightness of space will likely mean the upper tracks will be supported by vertical retaining walls rahter the slopes. The Inner Helix climbs higher then the Outer Helix such the Inner can cross over the Outer and exits onto the Layout west bound out of the mountain at the high point. The Outer first enters onto the layout heading north within the mintain and then exits onto the Layout west bound out of the mountain at the low point. So, we still have the "S" curve in place with a straight section in the middle the is inside the mountain. So, no matter what direction of travel, when the train it reaches Level#4 it will exit the mountain in a western direction, turn south then east, and then turn north back into the mountain before it hits the "S" curve. From there the train will pop out of the mauntain two more times before exiting Level#4 down the other part of the Helix and return to Level#3. So, I can now place a train onto the mainline in DC operation mode and let it run the full loop over all four levels without the need for an operator to throw switches at various points for reverse loop operations as there are no more reverse loops in the design required mainline travel. So, what do you think now??????? Before After
Boston & Maine and Boston & Albany share the rails on this double-deck HO scale plan
URL: <Click Here>
Rick/Others,
Yes, this and another track plan I was looking at that was similar is what my crazy design basically simulates. Looking at the December 2011 issue, that plan is based on a "4'-8" x 16'-8" using a minimum radii of 24" and a 2.6% maximum grade; mainline of 150'. So, it looks like it is using a 24" radii inner helix with 4" clearance between track levels. Do you agree? Is the outer helix 27" radii?
My space is "8'-8"x17'-8" so I have about the same length and almost 2x the depth to work with. So, do you think Plan#3 should use a Double Helix on the right vs. the Single at each end that Plan #2 had?
What do people think about the B&M / B&A plan for access, etc.
Stourbridge Lion In honor of reaching my 500th post here I bring you my HO Dream / Nightmare; you know the one, BIG DREAM, little space...
In honor of reaching my 500th post here I bring you my HO Dream / Nightmare; you know the one, BIG DREAM, little space...
Well, here's my dream....just about fifteen miles north of yours over by City Park and the Natural History Museum!!! (I've gotten some more done since this time, but I haven't had time to take pictures....too busy raking leaves for one thing!)
The St. Francis Consolidated Railroad of the Colorado Rockies
Denver, Colorado
Cool!
Looks like you have a bit more space and less restrictions then I'm dealing with but would sure like to hear and see updates about your build. I hope you plan (or have already) cut down that 6" tree next to the foundation! What's you plan for HVAC as it look like you might be a South facing house as well given the shadows?
Most my leaves left for Kansas after that wind storm that came through the other day. At least no damages at our house but one up the block as gotten a few broken tress...
Stourbridge LionWhat do people think about the B&M / B&A plan for access, etc.
As noted multiple times in this thread, many experienced modelers have found a 24" radius in HO problematic for long trains. The combination of steep grades and friction from the tight curves has led more than one builder to tear out their 24-28" radius HO helixes and replace them with something larger.
Also, there are tracks on that layout more than four feet from the layout edge and tucked under the upper deck. That's unworkable.
Neat concept and appealing graphics from the Kalmbach artists, but unless your crew includes Elastigirl, not so practical, unfortunately.
Byron
I understand the helix radii issue from previous posts and I still plan to see if I can work in something wider.
As for the access concerns in other areas, if the back of the layout could be accesses via rolling the layout from the wall, does that help eliminate that issue?
Stourbridge Lionif the back of the layout could be accesses via rolling the layout from the wall, does that help eliminate that issue?
I personally think it's unwise to count on routinely rolling around a large multi-deck layout that will likely weigh hundreds of pounds. Everything on the layout would likely be derailed every time you heaved on it to start it rolling.
Let alone seeing anything back there when it's against the wall.
But maybe that's just me -- the layouts I design must be built, viewed, operated, and maintained by mere mortals.
Thanks Byron!
Trust me, I very much appreciate you trying to save me from me on this. I would rather make the major mistakes in the conceptual design that you and others are catching. That way the only thing lost is a few hours of CAD time and even then I'm leaning things at basically zero cost.
I have also been sharing the issues with the wife and we have been talking about potential solutions to allow for the larger helix by possibly allowing for a "bump-out" in the North/Top and/or East/Right walls. As in allowing the helix to be tighter to the NE poll or even go around it where the poll itself could be part of the support.
She might also be open to reducing the hallway along the South/Bottom side from 4' to 3' which might allow me to create a access zone behind the layout rather then the roll-out idea. The hallway would be used multiple times daily to get in/out of the garage (white door on the left of the opening photo) so it has to be a usable path. That hallway is also the main viewing area so I would not want it too tight either. That's also why I had the notch in the layout so a person could step in and allow someone to pass as well as get a bird's eye view of the tunnel district and get closer access in that area...
How about just making a simple dogbone walk-in-layout, and let the operations provide the interest, instead of making the mainline zig-zag all over the place:
Your trains move slowly (making the layout seem bigger), and take sidings to wait for train meets, making it take even long for trains to go through the layout.
You have some scenes with industries to switch, some with just scenic running, and you walk alongside your train around the layout.
You have some under table staging - so you can have trains come from elsewhere, and go elsewhere.
The point is not to squeeze in the maximum length of track wound back and forth like a string of cooked spaghetti. It is to create something interesting for the trains to do.
Smile, Stein
Thanks Stein!
Having that drawing also gives me some ideas on where to go with Plan#3 using the same space; BIG THANK YOU for that effort!
Still would like to go with 2+ decks to increase the mainline as I have D&H 4-6-6-4 Steam Era passenger trains in my collection that would be quite long and I am looking for this to be Mountain/Tunnel centric in design.
The D&RGW Tunnel District near my home is about 22 miles and 30 tunnels crossing the river here and there and it's this feel I'm looking to get into the core design. I'm also looking to have scenes where I can have shorter trains for "Photo/Video" fun shots too such as old western depot type setups as well as have my modern D&H diesel fleet pull freight/coal trains through.
For those that don't know this section of the D&RGW, Tunnel #1 is at 39°52'47"N/105°16'32"W and the East Portal of Moffat is at 39°54'08"N / 105°38'45"W. Before the Moffat Tunnel was built, the Moffat Road had to go up and over the Rockies in this area via Rollins Pass 39°56'19"N / 105°39'50"W which adds more tunnels and bridges as in snaked through the valley and over the top of the mountains.
Historically there were only a few small towns and their depots and nearly nothing for industry...
Looking for the 1880's feel in the Colorado Mountains that has been maintained into 2000 using D&H equipment from all those eras as if that railroad was here.
Thanks Again! That drawing has my wheels tuning with new ideas!!!!!!!
Stourbridge Lion Still would like to go with 2+ decks to increase the mainline as I have D&H 4-6-6-4 Steam Era passenger trains in my collection that would be quite long and I am looking for this to be Mountain/Tunnel centric in design.
Going back to 2+ decks is what keeps getting you into plans that are unbuildable.
Those minimum curves in my plan is 24" curves. If you insist on running 80-foot passenger cars and 4-6-6-4 engines in H0 scale, you need to dump the walk-in design and go to a doughnut design with 30+" radius for your cars and engines to look good.
The most intelligent solution in your case (if your main goal is run long passenger trains) would be to go to N scale.
Now you know my pain with the space and why I'm only using CAD to try concepts until I can find something that is working enough for my personal pleasure. I'm not looking for this to be a walk-in design, I'm more going for a Figure-8 design to climb through a mountain and use the helix to get back down to start the trek through the mountains again. Each Figure-8 in Plan#2 got the train higher and I pushed in the crossing each pass for terrain using bridges where I needed to escape from the mountain side.
Level #2 - A double Figure-8 Climb from Level #1 to Level #3
I have another place in the basement where my N-Scale will go that will not have these complex design issue...