OK, I'm starting to get serious in designing my future N Scale layout but need a few pointers. The MOH and I still need to work out some ROW limits but basically I'm heading into a basement bedroom and maybe an extension into the family room that will either be just the Double-Helix or Double-Helix & City/Yard area between the Helix and Bedroom.
So, I have a few upfront questions that will likely lead to more questions. My initial question is Minimum Radii given my roster of equipment I've been collecting over the years (Click Here) as I will want to go as tight as I can. My main area of concern would be my passenger consists (Adirondack Consist #1, Laurentian Consist #1,and Montreal Limited Consist #1) which would likely be pulled by multiple 6-Axle PA's.
I'm looking at a Loop Style "DC" layout that is a walk-around using two of the physical walls leaving the other two open as aisles. I will also plan to go vertical with either 2 or 3 levels. Track #1 / #2 would be on Level #1, Track #3 / #4 on Level #2. Would like to have a Double Slip switch setup so a trains can either us each track separately or have a single train use the Double Slip to use both tracks as one. The Inner Helix would be for downward travel from Level #2 to Level#1 and the Outer Helix for Upward travel.
So what would be your recommended minimum Curve Radii, and Turnout #. I've been messing around in CAD using 13.75", 15.00" , 16.25" and 17.00" curves and #5 and #7 turnouts to try different designs but now I need to know what is reality for my roster.
Also feel free to ask questions of me as well and yes I will post room floor plans as well soon too...
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
Curve radius rules-of-thumb from the Layout Design SIG
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Based on the statement from one of those links "This measurement is based on the length of your longest car (coupler to coupler)", does that apply to both Body Mounted and Truck Mounted couplers?
Stourbridge Lion Based on the statement from one of those links "This measurement is based on the length of your longest car (coupler to coupler)", does that apply to both Body Mounted and Truck Mounted couplers?
Generally speaking, yes, IMHO. Truck-mounts might lower the radius requirements slightly. But if any of your long cars will be body mount, that's the worst case for which you should plan.
Here is the current ROW limits being discussed (in yellow) and "I hope" to expand over to the window on the far right passing the bench-work "over" the desk. So the Helix right now would be to the left of the Fireplace (38"x38") and the track would pass through the wall onto the main layout area in the "Train Room". We don't use the Fireplace so having the bench-work pass over/near it's opening is not a concern. The "Train Room" has two small windows that are up near the ceiling as the basement is underground and the room is already Heated/Cooled year around. If I can get the additional ROW it would be gaining a 38" deep bench-work all the way over to the window on the right and I would move the Helix over to the far right next to that window. So, basically I have a solid 8ft x 9ft zone to work with plus the 3ft x 3ft behind the door as well as a 3ft x 3ft area outside the room for the Helix that would have easy access to it and doesn't need to be hidden by scenery given it's location.
Welcome to the Forums.
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.
Visualize a Grid Label system for the squares as "A" through "N" across the top and "1" through "9" down the side. I'm thinking about using a 9-12" deep bench-work from A1 to H1 where it would have 4 tracks. Two of them would be Track #1/#2 for Left-Bound and two of them would be for Track #1/#2 Right-bound. Either the Left-Bound or the Right-Bound would be at the same elevation for the one and only Cross-Over for the level. The other direction for Track #1 / #2 would have a ~3" difference in elevation with Track #1 potentially "hidden" under Track #2 so only three of the 4 tracks would be visible. Access to the hidden track would be a simple reach under the bench-work. The 3x3 Area of I1 through K3 would be for a 180+ degree turn of Track #1/#2 as well as allow the Inner Helix to enter onto Track #1 (downward path) and for Track #2 to exit into the Outer Helix (upward). The Inner-Helix would make one more rotation to give me a 2+ inch clearance to go under the Outer-Helix and thus give elevation difference for Track #1 and Track #2 to use the same space. Continuing this thought using a 9-12" deep bench-work from A1 to A8 would also have 4 tracks; likely the same part of Track #1 being hidden and potential one direction of Track #2 also being in a "Tunnel" it entered in A1. At "A8" the four tracks separate onto the main bench-work in the middle of the room. I'm thinking having a View Block between A8 / A9 through F8 / F9 so viewing from the "Shelf" Area one would see two tracks exit tunnels at different elevations around B9 / A9 and head along a 9-12" depth using Row#9 of the grid. Both tracks would eventually turn upward onto the main bench-work in the middle of the room.. Using B2 through C7 as a Aisle the other two tracks now turn in-front of the Dead-End Aisle at different elevations with one of both tracks heading from D8 to D4. At some point the two tracks that passed in front of the Shelf Area behind the View Block would meet up with the two tracks that stayed in front of the View bock to complete the loops of Track #1 and Track #2. Below is a quick image of how that described bench-work would start to take shape within the ROW area. Note the Aisles will be roughly 24-30" within the interior of the Walk-around which I know is a bit tight but this is an "Operator-less" DC design and mainly only Lisa and I being the Viewers. Helix traffic to Level #2 would have a similar / identical bench-work and concept for Track #3 / #4 and if there is a Level #3, Track #5 would be up there by itself without any Cross-over so Row "1" and "A" would likely only be 6-9" in depth since it would only be two tracks not 4 in those areas. I'm not sure how much separation I will have between levels so that will dictate in Level #3 happens or not and the separation between levels will be 100% controlled by the Helix Entrance / Exit elevations. After that Track #1/#2 and Track #3/#4 will have an elevation difference of 2-3 inches excepted where they need to grade to a common Cross-over at an elevation between them so the Cross-Over will likely be somewhere near the Upper-Left corner either before or after the turn.
OK, based on comments I get earlier from various forums, right now I thinking about a Double Helix at 16.25" / 15.00". Remember I'm thinking DC thus the Inner Helix would be Downward traffic only and the Outer for Upward traffic. I'm thinking Level #1 for a 2-Track design that will use a Double-Slip allowing a single train to travel over both tracks to double the length of the loop of two trains traveling each track separately. Track #1 would be lower then Track #2 except where they meet at the Cross-Over. Looks like I will need to go no lower then a 15" curve, use #7 turnouts w/ a 71" curve for side track switching and user #10 Turnouts with 11.25 crossing for the Double-slip design. I'm not hard set on the heavy track design but trying to see if the space can support the concept With that here is a potential design showing a Double-Helix and the Side Track; one that would attach to Track#1 (Inbound) and the other to attach to Track #2 (Outbound)
As I have N scale I have to say that the largest possible is what you go for. You have been reading these forums for a long time (and N-scale forums at least some) so an 11" or more in yards and industrial switching areas is a must. On mains then 15" plus. Unless you are running only 6 axle diesel engines or long steamers (which I believe you are doing) then even larger if you can. Of course any long passenger cars or long flat cars look better on wider curves.
Looking at the picture you have linked to it seems you have some 50' rolling stock. I also have some longer cars..
Most likely you will do as many have and redo parts of the track when you find out it is not what it needs to be. I have some sections that I had to use 11" to make it fit. All engines and rolling stock do fine, just more over hang the I would like. Though I am more concerned with operations then perfect looks.
I hope this makes sense. Oh, and have fun!
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.
Darren, I did not know you did N scale until this post. Since nothing in your post (at least that I read) or your end tag said N scale I always assumed it was HO.
If I see some one saying "blog" I almost never bother to click on it. I have read about other modelers saying the same. The feeling being it is just the same as their forum post.
You need to add that you modeling is in N scale. Or is it you are ashamed of doing N scale?
LOL!!!!!!!
My D&H RR Model collection is just under 650 pieces of various scales. I think folks just got use to my HO Space dilemma and they have just assume I was purely HO but the collection covers many scales.
Currently the Scale break out is:
Here is a potential beginning of Track #1 that I have been playing with and also a placement of the Double-Slip switch to get back-n-forth to Track #2. About 50% of what you see of Track #1 would be hidden that I will show later and nearly all the track behind the entrance door from the Family Room wouldbe hidden so the door being open would just be part of the View Block; at least that is where my head is at currently...
Here is my potential beginnings for Track #2 and how it would hook up with the Double-Slip. Track #2 would be on the same Level as Track #1 but higher except were they meet at the Double-Slip. About 50% of this portion of Track #2 would be hidden (will show later) but mainly the track behind the door as it enters a tunnel making the 180 degree turn and the section of Track #2 that passed under itself is what is hidden.
OK, here are a couple of diagrams show both Track #1 (GREEN) and Track #2 (BLUE). This first shows all the track in this section and the second is how I think the hidden track might look. Note the Helix is just an option to get between levels and thus Track #1 and Track #2 would turn behind the door to allow a train to stay on this level. If it's better to have the Outer Helix be the downward and the Inner be the Upward I might have to adjust things a bit but that is exactly the advise I am looking for!!! I've zoomed in a bit so it's easier to see what tracks are at what elevation with respect to each other. In this first view you can see the four tracks heading down the left wall but the two closest to the wall will be hidden. Allot of the Top wall will also be hidden so the "Track Heavy" look in this view should lighten up in the next diagram...
Here is the Hidden Track view of above. There is track at three (3) elevations with Track #1 (GREEN) being the lowest near the edge of the benchwork. About 2.5" above that is the Double-Slip where Track #1(Green) and Track #2 (Blue) can be combined for a single train to use both tracks as a larger loop within this level. Finally Track #2 (Blue) closest to the wall is higher yet and the most visible in this section. The "Access" hole would be 100% behind a View Block / Scenery and a panel behind the door could also be removed for access too. After that, access to remaining hidden track would be from below
Have you considered first creating an operational schematic? Generally, this step comes before the actual track plan and determines "why" tracks go where they are going.
Here is an example from another MR forum member:
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/129072.aspx
Alan
Freelancing the LK&O Railroad
OK, here is as far as I have put any serious thought into the Level #1 and hopefully these next two diagrams show the concept I am hoping for down the dead-end aisle. Track #1 (GREEN) and Track #2 (BLUE) head Up/Down the South Wall. Track #2 reaches the end of the Box Canyon and then makes a 180 turn back up the other side while Track #1 pass into a tunnel; that might represent the look along the Moffat Route where a trestle passes over a tunnel.At this point the 4 tracks (2 Hidden) along the South wall separate with two appearing on the far side of the View Block and two travel back up the edge of the Box Canyon. Note the hidden portion of Track #1 from the South wall is the track that appears on the opposite side of the Canyon and the hidden potion of Track #2 from the South wall is the track that appears on the opposite side of the View Block.Here is how it might look with the Hidden Tracks not showing...Does this help explain my current thoughts for the South Wall
hi Darren,
i have been going a step ahead.
a few remarks.
* the helix area does triple duty, a small part is used as a return track for the upper oval, while the space under the helix is used for staging or a passing siding of the lower oval.
* I made a very long mainline run possible. Going down from the helix you make a lap on the upper oval first. Using the double cross-over (Highcross-Basecross) you can enter the lower oval; after a lap on it you could reverse the direction of your train in the yard or by using the reversing connection. Then you could head back to the helix and eventually a second floor.
* Because the helix has dedicated up and down tracks the plan can be operated in loop to loop fashion. So the cross-over in the helix area does double duty too.
* On both ovals some passing sidings are added. Some old tricks would be great to work in. Like two trains on one oval, in different directions passing each other. All done automatically using a computer or relay's.
*By having the return loops in the helix area the "loops" on the peninsula can be made 2 ft longer.
*I did not pay much attention to scenery....it was more about creating independent ovals that can be used as one very long main as well.
Paul
OK, before I step back to take a serious look at what folks have offered as suggestions on various forums, this is the point I'm a bit stuck... One item for a Multi-Level layout, what is the best way to support the Upper Desk(s) while wanting to maintain a L-Girder design throughout. What I would like to avoid is having any outside supports that blocks the view of the mainline so how does one support Level #2+ from within. I assume I will need some support posts in the middle that will need to be considered in the design plus I plan to pull in the electrical for lighting from the ceiling light which is basically dead center in the room...
Paulus Jas Paul
Paul, I can not THANK YOU enough for putting in the time on these diagrams as they truly are helping me understand the possibilities of the space while achieving the goals I am looking for. Don't worry about the scenery as I can adjust that later to be more Rocky Mountain rouged like and I can toss in a tunnel here or there to fir into that landscape vision as well.
Questions:
Hi Darren,
here is the detailed helix you were asking for.
*One remark however, if you look carefully you will see that the spacing due to the crossover is not correct. You will have to trim the left-hand turnout a little bit.
* IMHO the most sensible action is to buy a book about multi-deck layouts by Tony Koester.
* Since going down is often causing the most of the problems in a helix, you could use the outer track for downwards moves. The difference in grade is very small, only when you are running long trains or trains with light and heavy cars i do not think you will encounter much problems due to the choice of direction. However:...............................
with the 15" radius the grade will be 3,1%, adjusted for the curves the drag will be comparable to a 4,2% grade; pretty steep indeed. The radius in the helix could become the difference between a working or a not working design. To find out you could set up an experiment or ask Byron Henderson about this issue. I do not have first hand experience with this radius/helix combination.
Smile
Thanks again! I tried to rough out what I thought I was seeing in the smaller view and things didn't seem right so now I know where I went wrong. How easy would it be to shot me the detailed view of the whole thing?
Also, pointing out useful reference material is great and it gives the wife something to buy me for B-Day / X-Mas, etc. that I can use which is a bonus!
here it is
What software package are you using?
Paul is using RTS
That's what I am hoping and thus maybe he can send me the RTS file itself rather me trying to reconstruct it from the JPG...
Stourbridge LionOne item for a Multi-Level layout, what is the best way to support the Upper Desk(s) while wanting to maintain a L-Girder design throughout.
Most people don't use L-Girder for the upper deck. It's just too deep for an upper deck. In fact, I can't think of a single layout I've seen built with an L-girder upper deck, although there might be some somewhere. Thin open grid and/or some type of wall bracket are usually much better choices for an upper deck.
L-girder is just one means of benchwork support, I don't think there's a reason to force-fit it where it doesn't work well, as much as I like L-girder for lower/single decks.
Stourbridge LionWhat I would like to avoid is having any outside supports that blocks the view of the mainline so how does one support Level #2+ from within. I assume I will need some support posts in the middle that will need to be considered in the design
You seem to be on the same path as with your earlier sunroom layout, where you picture the upper deck nearly completely covering the entire surface of the lower deck. As mentioned at that time, few (if any) layouts are built this way because it would make the lower deck nearly impossible to view and maintain.
In the majority of cases, the upper deck on most layouts is generally more shallow than the lower deck and is often supported by wall brackets or something similar so that nothing impinging on the lower deck is needed. In a few cases I've done designs where a support for the upper deck is hidden in a mountain or structure on the lower deck, but this is not common.
Good luck.
Well, it's the style of layout that interests me for a personal train room
Here is one of my favorites of such a design that is HO that is inside a Shed
Here is video of some of the action from Level #1...
watch?v=sCNC0H8hWU0
Note from this angle the Island is being supported by a small center section only and I'm talking with others that do this same design on how they support Level #2+
Here is how another is doing there center island supports using 1x2's and 2x2's
Cliff's shed is 14 feet across (and 32 feet long). There is 18" of spacing between his decks, with the lower scenery deck at 40" from the floor and the upper scenery deck at 58" from the floor. His aisles are about 3 - 3 1/2 feet wide. Most of his switching is on the upper deck, where he models parts of NOLA.
In contrast, you have narrow aisles and a mountain run. You do not need deep shelves - you can create plausible looking scenery on a narrow upper shelf and a wider lower shelf, and avoid the hassle of bending over in a narrow aisle to get at things on a lower deck tucked in under an upper deck with less clearance between decks.
Your layout, your choices.
Smile, Stein
Stourbridge LionNote from this angle the Island is being supported by a small center section only
Exactly.
The structure to hold up the second deck is hidden by a double-sided backdrop, dividing the lower deck. And the upper deck doesn't seem to be nearly as wide as what you are contemplating.
Stourbridge LionHere is how another is doing there center island supports using 1x2's and 2x2's
Note that it's not L-girder on the upper decks in order to keep the benchwork as thin as possible.
If you're satisfied with your approach, who am I to quibble?
Best of luck.
Hi gentlemen,
Cliff Powers's layout is covered in Great Model Railroads 2007 (page 84) and in 102 Realistic Track Plans (#97). A big part is devoted to the New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal (NOUPT) with lots of staging tracks on the lowest desk of the 3 Cliff has built.
I do agree with Stein, with the wider aisles it still is possible to have a nice man-space between the tracks.
Before going further i would advise Darren to gather more information about the minimum radius and vertical clearance especially in the helix. The desired train-length and kind cars or coaches might be to much for the 15" minimum radius in N-scale. The grade compensated for curves will be just over 4%. Darren's whole plan will depend on getting a good working helix.
When a second room is involved, beside the second deck, your layout to be will have numerous trains popping up at various spots. Maybe a bit to much to really enjoy watching them. Remember you can have 2 or 3 trains on every oval. With 5 or 6 ovals your will not have a sufficient number of eyes to watch the whole parade.
My ideas only, not necessarily yours