Currently the room is being used for storage and I got some stuff cleared out which allowed me to get better measurements and to my welcomed surprise I have a bit more room. So, here is the revised space and based on earlier conversations I think this is what the Aisle might look like for doing another concept design within the space.
I won't have the exact location of the interior wall studs yet but I believe I have the approximately placed well enough for conceptual designing. I have also marked off 1" on the exterior walls for supports and backdrop board. The wife and I are still not 100% in agreement on where I might place the Helix in the Family room but right now the conceptual designs will be using the 38x38 space the the left of the Fireplace but keeping in mind I might get the entire 38" depth space all the way to the right of the Fireplace
The Light Blue Walkways are 30" wide all the way through and still thinking a Multi-Deck design with 2 or 3 decks with the scenery focus being rouged Rocky Mountains with little to no structures. Depth of Deck #1 will be between 12" to 24" so View Blocks (also used for Deck #2/#3 supports) will break up the island area accordingly
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
Paul posted this diagram in another forum topic helping out someone else that looks to be something I need to also consider. What do folks typically do for their Vertical Easements to make the transition from Grade back-n-forth to level' as in how long and at what angle?
Note: Paul used some extreme % Grade in the diagram to better illustrate the point...
As requested / promised, here are the relative elevations of Track/Oval #1 which would be the bottom oval of Desk #1. Note the Cross-Over is a "+4" which is where Oval #1 and Oval #2 meet. For Track #2 / Oval #2 of Deck #1 it's a bit harder to read but the Cross Over is the lowest point at "+4" and the tightest clearance is under 3" but more than 2.25". The area listed at "+6" has a "+4" under it but I rounded the numbers so it just looks like 2" clearance. The other are that is tight is where the "+8" is heading for "+7" going under a "+9" "+10" but it has a 2.5" clearance. Both these area can be tweaked in elevation if 2.25" clearance is not enough as I was shooting to keep grades at 2% or less.Comments ???????
Hi Darren,
some food for thoughts about a helix
Paul
No problem my friend, I think many folks are having issues with the vision of my layout plan which is why I am more hoping folks can help me past the technical / maintenance issues of the design. You and others have been a great help so far and I look forward to more feedback.
I have a friend who is actually been working on doing a Proto "Tunnel District" from Tunnel #1 to Tunnel #23 as a Walk-In design and it takes a lot of space to build it. He has spent allot of time hiking the route to get photographs of everything to get it just right in all sorts of weather
Me on the other hand have hike only limited sections; but it's why we are called Tunnel Junkies
Point taken!
Ulrich,
This is exactly the scene the layout is meant to be as trains here do pop in and out of tunnels to battle their way up 6,000' feet in elevation change to get through (not around) the Colorado Rocky Mountains. The layout is also meant to run without operators and be more of a display museum case with primarily one train running on each oval. The Cross-Over and Helix are there as options to let a single train travel over more track; hence the "DC" block design.
I am looking for folks to look at portions of the layout and say that reminds me of "X" in Colorado and then see another portion and say that looks like "Y"; hence Deck#1 is all about being a Tunnel District for trains to slowly wind their way through. The Helix can be seen as just one long tunnel where a train would vanish into for a longer period of time to come out miles later like trains do today when they vanish into Moffat tunnel that is 6.2 miles long...
Darren,
this may be just my taste for simple configurations, but that last concept of yours looks a little too much of a Swiss cheese with lots of holes (i.e. tunnels) to me. It is one of those layouts, where a train disappears in a "hole", then just miraculously appears from another one, one you did not expect that to happen.
Could be that I missed that info in your previous posts, but how many trains do you plan to run simultaneously by how many operators. Will the focus be on seeing trains run through the mountain scenery you envision, or will it also be operation, switching etc...?
What I am trying to point at is the simplicity of the N scale UP Oakville Sub layout featured in the July 2012 issue of MR. Now you don´t have that much room, but the basic idea is certainly adaptable to your space.
Grades
I will work to get a couple of diagrams put together next to show relative elevations and grade information to see what feedback that might also bring in...
At 6'5" / 275lbs I am not small fry myself...
I was just thinking about my own waistline
Based on feedback I have gotten from one or more forums I have tweaked Level #1 (Deck #1)
Does this resolve the access issues in the nook without causing other issues?
So, with the location of the View Blocks, how do folks feel about the nook now given the reach would be about 3 feet to the far corner. I could always move the tunnel portal forward/up a bit so it's just scenery back in that corner?
As stated earlier, Level #2 needs to be supported and in this design would be done using two 4″ wide View Blocks where supports can be raised from the interior where wall supports can’t reach. My roughed Rocky Mountain scenery also needs a canyon. My initial plan was to have a thin aisle but folks have made be rethink that; so, I moved it to the Bottom / East section where a viewer would look downward over Track #2 (BLUE) to Track #1 (GREEN) and use the View Block as the far side of the canyon wall with a river passing between the tracks. One could also view the canyon from the Right/North side lengthwise. Another View Block would extend perpendicular to support the remained of center section of the bench-work. Again this being a roughed Rocky Mountain scenery, Tunnels will be a plenty. To hide the Heavy Track of the Double Slip area it would be hidden (with removal access) via say a simple say old-time Depot / Water Tank often found in remote areas. Also in these deep /remote roughed Rocky Mountain it was not uncommon for tracks to loop back under themselves using Tunnels and/or Bridges and having to cross water ways forged by White Water and Waterfalls
So, feedback on this alteration of Concept #1 for Level #1
Putting these two track plan diagrams together (below) now shows the track plan concept of Level #1. The Inner part of the Helix will need to make extra rotations downward so the track can pass under both the ramp toward the Outer as well as the Return Loop for Track #2. One can now trace the train path where two trains can operate independent on separate tracks, a single train can operate over both tracks using the Double Slip, and a train using Track #2 and optionally Exit/Enter Level #1 via the Helix.
Now lets hide Track #1 (GREEN) for a bit and show Track #2 (BLUE) next as well as the HELIX. With the Double Slip Track (RED) in its place from above, Track #2 builds from that placement. Again since this is a planned multiple deck “DC” design, Helix traffic must be able to Enter and Exit Level #1 via a Double Helix. I believe we can squeeze in an Outer Loop using 17.50″ Radii track and thus use 16.25″ for the Inner Loop. There has been some debate as to direction of travel on a Helix so for now I will design based on the Outer as being Upward and the Inner as being Downward traffic. Given this concept, Track #2 would operate in the direction as shown which in turn dictation the diction Track#1 took. Like with Track #1, Track #2 will have its Return Loop under the Helix and Track #2 would also be the touch point to/from the Helix. So, here is how Track #2 might look on Level #1.
With the bench-work adjustments here is what Track #1 might look like with the Return Loop underneath the Helix. I also show where I believe the Double Slip would need to be for this design.
I have made a few track sections BROWN where potential Bridges / Trestles would be placed. Track #1 would be the LOWER Track line so this conceptual design would stack upward from here as shown below.
If I do find I need to widen the little nook area you can see that I could easily add some straight track below it to get a bit more space by reducing the aisle on the right side that amount. I would like to keep the right aisle at 36" but I might find I have to cheat the space down a few inches to say 33" or 30"
I did look to put in an optional Reverse Loop track but the grade was too steep. It's not critical to have one in the design based on how I plan to use the layout. If I get the extra ROW space in the Family Room, I can look to put a Reverse Loop there for either Track #1 and/or Track #2.
No problems Ulrich, I kind of anticipated someone might point out that area. I have a 80" wing-span and can easily reach 36" ahead of me so it's not as impossible as one might think; BUT, I have kept in mind that I might need to widen it a bit by reducing the 36" aisle along the wall too...
I don´t want to appear to be nit-picky, but there are some reach issues with that footprint. That nook on the lower left is impossible to get into.
The next noticeable change is in the potential bench-work by nearly eliminating the back 24" narrow aisle and a wider top aisle. In the old design I would have rounded off the corners (I too have enough bruises) but note the wider sweeping line of the edges to the center island. This concept now has close to 30"+ aisle all the way around. I have not given up on my "Canyon" but there has been changes there I will get to in another diagram.
OK, after taking in feedback from folks across various forums, I've redone my diagrams for Concept #1 / Level #1 with the first noticeable change allowing the door from the Family Room to the Train Room to open ~30 degrees wider by moving the Return Loops underneath the Helix rather then being right behind the door...
Thanks All
Just to clarify on the possible ROW extension, it would be used two fold. First, to enlarge the Helix to reduce the grade by going more oval. Second, it would be an extension of the mainline out of the Mountain Zone and into a City Zone and not to add more active consists.
So, for say this potential Level #1 plan using Paul's plan, the tracks going through the wall from the Train Room to the Family Room would not immediately hit the helix put just exit a tunnel and pass through either a Freight/Passenger Yard or a City Scene and then reach the helix / return loop at the far end. I might even get away with wider radii at that point.
Again, nothing is 100% in stone as I am truly just now looking at ideas and how to maximize the space but I am a fan of a Multi-Deck design (hence helix centric) that is based on rough mountain scenery.
I do believe I can squeeze the shelf depth down to say 12" to 18" and still achieve these kind of scenes with two tracks after slightly different elevations (~3") and hide the "return" tracks behind the rocks.
Also, I have not settled on how high Level #1 will be above the floor and will likely be "higher" then traditional. How high Level #2 will be above, well, we are just working Level #1 right now and just keeping in mind internal bench-work support for Level #2 needs to exist in the island.
Time will tell and again this is just potential plan #1 being kick around...
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
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.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
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
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
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.
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...
Paul is using RTS