Darren,
Stein and I are trying to get you to understand a major point.
24" radius curves will not work for your 4-6-6-4 Challenger and full length scale 80 & 85 foot long passenger cars!!! The derailments and stringlining you will experience on your planned curves will drive you absolutely crazy even if your trackwork is bulletproof and perfect. The standard minimum everywhere mainline curve radius for that kind of equipment is 30 inches. Four axle diesels and cars and steam not over 4-6-2 in arrangement is the largest equipment you can expect to operate reliably everywhere on your plan.
This is why I made the suggestion that you obtain a copy of Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong from Kalmbach Publishing. It is an indispensable book of layout planning standards that many consider tantamount to didactic scripture (ie; The Bible!) for our hobby. I can't suggest any stronger than that.
Rick Shivik
I am 100% on-board with the radii issue so when I work Plan#3 I will try to work with 30" radii and also work with the wife on alternatives that might help add space. I'm just trying to get as much info from all of you as I can before I do another conceptual design later this winter. I have the book on my X-Mas wish list so if it does not show up under the tree then I will look to pick up a copy in January.
All's good guys and trust me I very much appreciate all this feedback as this is exactly what I was wanting to get back from this topic.
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
Too much ambition for that scale in that space. A hundred more CAD revisions won't alter the laws of physics, sadly. Good luck.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
OK, Lisa and I have talked a bit about the challenges and if you recall I mentioned we are talking about gaining some space by "bumping" out the walls using a Bay Window concept.
So, I have done a rough draft of Plan #3 that I hope has addressed "most" of the issues but there is virtually no Switch/Turnout in it but just track overlays as I need some help in those areas with the bigger curves. The biggest changes is moving the Mainline to a minimum radii of 30" and in many places I went to 34" radii and the "Access" areas are larger and better positioned. I've done no Grade or Topography as this is purely a rough draft to check if the concept is better and ask a few more questions using the updated plan. First is Level #0 which is by design to be strictly a hidden Staging area and "DC" Reverse Loop that can be used during manual operation. Lisa and I have added "space" to the area by considering "bumping" out the walls using a Bay Window concept and if I need to creep a bit into the planned hallway by a few inches that's OK too. So, the "Gray" areas on the North/Top and Right/East are an extra 12" push beyond the foundation but obviously the plan now has to get around the support polls (black squares) and their potential positions.
Level #1
Like before, the Left/West will be setup as a Diorama with tunnel portals at each end. A train coming up from Level #0 will enter Level #1 just below the left access hole via a tunnel portal and can loop around this level indefinitely. The minimum radii is 34" so I believe based on feedback the 4-6-6-4 with the 85' passenger cars should move through the level without issue. I display a 30" helix on the right but is not accessible by the train from Level #1 but loops around it and past all three access holes. The train can then be switched to head to Level #2a using the the Right/East track heading North/Up.
Level #2
I've broken out the diagrams into 2a and 2b to better show this level. Level #1 enters onto Level #2a on the right end. It starts a slow steady climb through the Tunnel District in a Figure-8 type structure. The train will pass along the North/Upper along hidden track (and optional staging/passing track) and pass along the Left/West side for another Diorama setup with tunnel portals at each end. Come back into the main section and head around the Helix (No access to it via Level #2) and continue the climb to Level #2b; all still using 34" radii curves.
The train continues upwards via Level #2b again using Figure-8 style path. On this level the radii tightens to 30" over most the the trek widening to a 34" radii curve around the Helix (again to access to it). The train world then exit Level #2 to Level #3.
So, combining Level#2a and 2b the train will make a constant climb through the Rocky Mountains darting in/out of tunnels via two Figure-8 style paths around the various access holes and tunnels.
Level #3
The train reaches the top level (North Yard) where it can one again stay at this level looping around the track at this level in a simple Oval / Dog-Bone pattern. On the Right/East side their is access to a Yard but the "Red" tracks are at 26" radii so nothing "long" should enter this area. The Helix on the Right/East side is also an option where the train can choose to head all the way down to Level #0. Like Level #2b most the curves here are 30" and the otter track around the Helix is at 34" curves.
Again like with Plan#2 a Roundhouse setup would be set on top of the access hole the hide it from view. The back rectangle access hole will likely have buildings on it to hide the access hole. The left access hole will be an alternative location for the Roundhouse or a Mining setup. Level #3 is also setup such that switching can occur to reverse the train as well via manual operations.
Overall though, I can set a train in motion and let it travel from Level #0 to Level #3 and back again via the helix as an operator-less display or optionally have one one Level #1 and one on Level #3 running their loops.
More Feedback Please...
One of my questions with using the 30" and 30" radii, what Switch/Turnout would I use as they would have to get worked into this updated plan and thus could toss a new space issue into it?
Have I gotten closer to a 10 lb bag?
Stourbridge Lion Have I gotten closer to a 10 lb bag?
Not really.
Smile, Stein
steinjr Stourbridge Lion: Have I gotten closer to a 10 lb bag? Not really. Smile, Stein
Stourbridge Lion: Have I gotten closer to a 10 lb bag?
Can you help by telling me why?
Stourbridge Lion Can you help by telling me why?
No. I don't think anyone can help you.
Just try it. If it works, I'll eat humble pie.
Hmmm...I have always noticed this thread, but never really read it. I now remember reading the first page back in September and thinking that what the OP was trying do seemed unrealistic. Two months and five pages later, and finally reading it all, my original thoughts haven't changed much.
It seems to me that the OP's main goal is to watch his 4-6-6-4 locomotive pull long passenger cars and trains through mountain scenery. By designing a multiple deck layout in such a small space the way he has, he will not see the trains very much. He will spend much time and money building a layout that does not allow him to accomplish his goal any more than if he just went with a single level donut with 36 inch radius curves.
Do you really want to watch the train travel a short distance, pop into a tunnel, wait a while for it to travel up the helix, pop out of a tunnel a few feet higher and travel through scenery a bit, pop into another tunnel, another helix, pop out of another tunnel, travel a few more feet in the open.......?
A simple oval can be divided into 2 or 3 or 4 scenes and can provide you with the same scenic vistas as what you would see with your complex design. Not to mention, multiple levels prevent much verticle scenery since the spacing between them is so narrow, unless you're going for the whole layout to look like one big mountain with a bunch of holes and tunnels running through it. You know...kind of like an ant hill. That would be a waste of a good 4-6-6-4.
After five pages, and very cordial attempts at redirecting you, simply put....you need to kill the bug that's crawled into your head and is demanding that you build this double helixed mess.
That's just my opinion. I hope you find it constructive.
- Douglas
After all the permutations you've gone through at this point, I would have to agree with some of the other posters, you're not going to get the panoramic views of your Chyallenger in that amout of space, nor can I really agree with semi-outdoor setting for an HO mr, you'll still have to deal with a lot of moisture, not a good idea.
You mentioned:
"As for trains, my train room is 24' x 27' in what used to be a classroom on the third floor. It has plenty of windows, and nice steam heat in the winter. But I cannot work up there in the summer due to the heat. "
That's a nice sized room. Put in some window AC and you can use it year 'round.
Jay
C-415 Build: https://imageshack.com/a/tShC/1
Other builds: https://imageshack.com/my/albums
modelmaker51 You mentioned: "As for trains, my train room is 24' x 27' in what used to be a classroom on the third floor. It has plenty of windows, and nice steam heat in the winter. But I cannot work up there in the summer due to the heat. "
Wrong Lion :-)
The former classroom on the third floor is "Broadway Lion", who apparently lives in Monastery in North Dakota, and has what he calls the biggest subway layout in North Dakota.
"Stourbridge Lion" (Darren) is the guy in this thread who wants to turn enclose his back porch into a semi-insulated three season room, and built a 4-layered wedding cake with two helices side by side as his first layout.
I'll answer and say #6 turnouts would be best. #8s are better, but they'll eat up more space. As far as the 10 lb bag is concerned, I'll say "yes, but".
You're heading in the opposite direction. Sure 34" will definitely work for the larger equipment, but 30" (The Armstrong Standard) is considered a "broad" curve. Going larger is venturing into "super-broad" curvature. Such radii start upping the space eating aspects of track planning. (Not to mention factoring in easements, if desired).
Compromise is the name of the game in track planning. It's all a process of balancing "givens" and "druthers" (A contraction of the words "I'd rather"). Your two biggest givens are your available space and intended equipment.
Even if you were only doing a basic oval, you'd still need 30" radius curves as a minimum, but it is also a more than adequate maximum for planning purposes. It keeps things manageable. Therefore, keep your minimum as your maximum. Major given there.
You'd rather have mountain scenery with lots of tunnels and bridges on several stacked levels or layers. Great goal, but it may not be possible in your given space, especially when you factor in benchwork construction which, near as I can tell, is uncharted territory for you so far. Remember, you have hidden staging and two helixes which must be accessible.
Where access hatches are concerned for where you want to pop up through the scenery, let's make this a given and say that there must NOT be any trackage, wiring and turntables associated with any such hatch. Therefore, as they MUST be relatively lightweight, a heavy roundhouse scene on an access hatch on top of a helix is unacceptable.
Let's return to a previous discussion and I'll suggest that you make this scene permanent on top of that one helix with the elbows and knees crawl-under to seated in swivel chair access to handle any derailments inside the helix.
We need to establish something else here. Observing that you are using the term "Level" when referring to different track elevations, are you saying that you want these to be clearly delineated deck levels with their own benchwork and facia board? (I seem to recall another poster mentioning this.) This is a major Given decision you need to make as the benchwork for multiple clearly delineated levels is radically different from that of an area between your two helixes that is an open grid table bench with various tall risers holding up your different levels between helixes. This is commonly referred to as "bowl of spaghetti" construction.
You're only going to have 35 to 40 inches to play with depending on your height (knee level to eye level). Considerations for track railhead elevation and associated benchwork thickness of each deck versus clearance above and below to those deck's elevations pretty much dictate nothing less than ten inches between deck elevations. You gotta have room to get your hands in there to work on scenery, switch cars and handle derailments, etc. Also, the less clearance you have the more difficulty you encounter trying to make mountain railroading scenes look convincing. On the other hand, "bowl of spaghetti" construction definitely lends itself to that goal.
So, you've made some strides, had some questions answered and you need to make some decisions. Fun, huh?
Doughless Hmmm...I have always noticed this thread, but never really read it. I now remember reading the first page back in September and thinking that what the OP was trying do seemed unrealistic. Two months and five pages later, and finally reading it all, my original thoughts haven't changed much.
Like Doughless, I have always noticed this thread, but never really read it.
Now that I have read through it and read all of the discouraging comments, many of which I have to agree with, I say Go For It.
It may succeed and Stein will eat humble pie.
It may utterly fail, but even if it does, look at all of the experience that you will have gained and the tremendous learning curve that you acquired along the way to make your next effort a complete success.
It will probably fall somewhere in between total success and utter failure. You have gotten a lot of good advice, but it is still your layout, perhaps your Dream Layout, so build it. Where will you be if you literally follow all of this good advice? Nowhere. You won't try it and then you will have to start planning and drawing all over again.
Dream it, plan it, build it.
Rich
Alton Junction
Champlain Division Darren, I'll answer and say #6 turnouts would be best. #8s are better, but they'll eat up more space. As far as the 10 lb bag is concerned, I'll say "yes, but". You're heading in the opposite direction. Sure 34" will definitely work for the larger equipment, but 30" (The Armstrong Standard) is considered a "broad" curve. Going larger is venturing into "super-broad" curvature. Such radii start upping the space eating aspects of track planning. (Not to mention factoring in easements, if desired). ... Rick Shivik
...
Thanks Rick!!!!!!!
I will mess around with both #6 and #8 turnouts and see what that does to the conceptual design. I knew I wasn't at the 10lb bag yet but it's at least encouraging that I getting somewhere in the right direction.
My main thought was since I had a curved track going around the 30" helix that I should then go to 34" but if I'm reading you right I should stick with 30" and just add straight tracks to expand the curve around the helix? Thanks also for passing on the Access Hatch weight issue, that's the first feedback in that area that I recall getting so I will toss the Roundhouse idea out. Level #3 is this conceptual design would be truly it's own fascia board level as this would be the simple Oval layout that most folks are pointing me too. Level #1, #2a, and #2b would be a joint Mountain view with the tunnels / bridges to take advantage of the space below Level #3.
The Colorado Rocky Mountain Tunnel district that Level #1 and #2 are loosely based on has many tunnels over a short distance that UP / Amtrak trains darts in and out of. Between Tunnel #2 and #16 in this area the track-age is only about 3.25 miles; so roughly a tunnel ever 1/4 mile.
Here is me at 39°55'19"N / 105°17'40"W with West Portal of Tunnel #8 in view, the scared area is where #9 used to be and just to the right of the photo in the East portal of Tunnel #10; a span of 0.35 miles. Trains in this area can be inside several tunnels at the same time around here. That is the feel I am trying to capture in Level #1, #2a, and #2b as a joint scene in the South/Bottom view point.
In the older abandon sections of this Moffat Route tunnels would even pass under bridges. The Tunnel portal here is since gone from access but the old trestle still survives. ( 39°53'57"N / 105°42'29"W ).
You should usually plan for 3" track centerline separation when planning parallel tracks on curves. With that separation you can get away with 27" radius on an inner track in a double track helix, but I wouldn't go higher than 33" radius on any outer track. Just make sure your minimum radius is 30".
Defining slightly further, whether you use 27"R or 30"R for your inner helix track, make absolutely sure you build in enough sideswipe clearance between your inner track and the edge of any benchwork or helix structural supports. 3" usually does this, but 3.5" ought to ensure it. This also applies to the outer track. Your resulting sub-roadbed width comes out to a safe 10".
I was in a run session on an n-scale layout. The dispatcher nor myself was aware of the layout owner's prohibition of full-length equipment on his inner helix track. The resulting sideswipe and stringlining tossed three passenger cars to the floor below with a sickening shatter and much profanity. You see, barring specific slow orders, most folks will increase throttle to maximum track speed just to get their train up or down to where they can see it again as fast as possible. Ol' Murphy lives inside helixes and he'll lower the boom of his law on you faster there than anyplace else on a layout. Build with him in mind!
Just build it! I gotta see this.
Thanks Again Rick, your advice is extremely helpful!!!!!!!
*********************
NorthCoast RR,
I wish I could get started on this but our home improvement $$$ right now are focused on at least two other major projects that need done first. So, until those projects are done and funds for this room addition are there it's still just a dream but at least I'm learning what is somewhat feasible in the space via the advise I'm getting through this topic. This is why once we can clear out my basement room where my N Scale layout will go it will get started before this HO one will.