I'm doing a little armchair model railroading and have come up with an around the walls, HO, steam era track plan for an 11x17 ft room. However of course the staging issue is tight. The design has hidden staging tracks underneath the yard planned along the 17 ft wall. For the trains to get to the staging, I have 1 foot or so of 24" rad curve before a 5 ft straight section of track. A total of 6 or so feet to get to 3" of clearance with some 5% grade. After that there would be another foot or two of 26" curves going into the symmetrical staging yard that can be used for some vertical transition. All of this will be hidden. The maximum train length will be 8 ft total running connies or mikes.
Would these trains be able to climb out of this hole?
You don't mention scale, but 5% grade with steam engines is not recommended, combine that with hidden staging and you have the real potential for an operating problem.
You want the track in staging to be 100% reliable, espectially with minimum vertical clearance. If there is any chance of things stalling out, it would be bad.
I would suggest making the grade less steep, 2% would be a good start.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Gidday, NO !!!
To my mind you're talking about a train length consisting of 13 or 14 40 foot cars. On a 4% grade I would not put any more than 7 or 8 40 footers behind one of my Athearn BB diesels and expect it to "behave".
While we're in armchair mode, how about a twice round the room descent into the staging??
Cheers, the Bear.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Simple answer: No.
I am rising 10" from my staging to "main level" with a grade of about 2.25%. I will probably use diesels to enter/leave staging, if the steamers can't handle it. Train length to/from staging is expected to be in the 8-10 car range.
Brad
EMD - Every Model Different
ALCO - Always Leaking Coolant and Oil
CSX - Coal Spilling eXperts
Hi EC,
I tend to get stuck in the chair a bit these days.
You're going round the room, ok. How about dropping the levels opposite your yard a bit, giving you a climb of about 2.5% up to the layout yard and a drop down the same to the fiddle (staging). A stub-end yard's not so bad, if you plan a 2 way through yard it gives some real interesting scenic possibilities.
Been there done it. Think on, 3" ain't much clearance tho, if you've hands like shovels like me and board framing has to be counted in the calculations.
Gonna come back later on this, the boss's shouting. (wife)
Be in touch.
pick.
WAY too steep.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Hi!
I've been playing with HO trains since 1960, and have built a few layouts, and experimented a lot with this and that. My previous and current (11x15 two level) layouts all had 2 percent grades going from the main level to the lower level staging/storage.
Obviously, the steeper the grade, the fewer cars that can be pulled, and the less realistic it appears. I have found that 2 percent is the best compromise for my situation, and looks just fine.
Anything over 3 percent would be extremely limiting. And, wherever there is a curve on a grade, the effect is more pronounced (than on graded tangent track).
I realize the urge is great to make that reduction in level fit into your available space, but it may cause you more trouble than not.
Oh, by the way, I've had "runaway" cars on my 2 percent grade more than once. Thankfully, I caught them before an accident. A 5 percent grade would likely throw the cars off the track on the first curve they met.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Thanks everyone, looks like I will need to abandon this one!
BTW, for 3" over 72", it's closer to 4%. But, the 24" radius is tough and an effective adder, so it will feel like more to the locos. You could add a helper or two and make for some interesting railroading. NS's Saluda grade is around 5% and I have some pics when they did it in steam. I also remember 611 buckling on the climb, needing some help. Easy rolling trucks will help too, make sure everything is super easy to pull. If the locos are brass, it will be easier--if they're plastic add some weight to the boilers and maybe even the cab.
Richard
I learned something about me and the way I most enjoy running my trains during the life of my last layout, now a year undone. I learned that staging and the rest of the railroad are under the same laws of physics. If I don't want to handle my trains, shoving them by hand, adding locomotives to shove them, or finding other ways to get my trains out of a jam caused by grades or curves, or their combinations, then design those grades and curves so that your trains can handle them in the first place. That includes any hidden trackage and any trackage hard to access or to view without getting down on my elbows and knees.
I set out to improve my grades and train handling this time. No more 3+% grades for me....been there. My worst spot is about three feet of 2.5%. I wanted under-the-layout staging. I built its access ramp into the helix. The helix is 2.2%, just like the standard grade on N. American railroads. Similarly, my staging ramp, about 25' long, is exactly 2%.
I figured a train struggling out on the layout should not have to work even harder to get up out of staging. That just invites the elbows and knees problem.
Crandell
Hmmm. An eight foot train length in HO is probably 14 cars plus the locomotive. I ran a test train up my 4% grade (the layout is normally operated point-to-point, but this section allows continuous operation when somebody just wants to see the trains run).The locomotive was a Bachmann Consolidation with 14 cars trailing, six of which would be considered free-rolling, and the track is mostly straight except for the 34" radius curve at the bottom. Only about 2' of that is actually on the grade. The train had no difficulty climbing the grade, with no wheelslip.
The limiting factor on your layout is that 24" radius, and it effectively increases the grade to about 5.8%.
I re-ran the test, this time using 20 cars, with 12 of them free-rolling. While the loco did manage to pull them up the grade, there was some wheelslip, not something you'd want to experience on every trip. I think that it may be time to go back to the drawing board.
Wayne
5% is a sticking point more for the vertical curves it'll cause than anything. You'll have to make sure that doesn't cause pilots to drag, etc. Being short and if you have MUed diesels, not so much a problem so long as you keep adding units. With steam, probably significant issues.
Not sure exactly how you're calculating clearance and grade, but if you need 3" clearance, then you'll actually need 3.5" to account for roadbed and track. That's enough difference it'll really trip you up in tight situations.
But I don't want to be discouraging, either. I have a 24" radius helix on 3% that is actually embedded in a corner of the room so half is in staging and the other half is under the layout. It feeds a 2-track staging yard under the center of my layout long enough to accommodate two of my shorter narrowgauge trains on each track, so can handle a total of 4 trains. It works almost perfectly, with any issues almost always being operator error. You need flawless track and very high standards in construction to get reliable operation, however.
Maybe a longer approach will make this work for you?
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Sounds like a good candidate for some kind of train elevator!
With the exception of one stretch of 2.5%, operated downgrade only, my hidden thoroughfares are all 2% or less (versus 2.5% maximum for visible mainline.) 5% grades are fine if you have a couple of N&W Ys to push those short trains uphill. You could use Bullfrog Snot (or locos with traction tires) but the risk of overloading motors isn't just theoretical if the drivers can't slip.
When trying to figure out how to get loaded coal trains back to the top-of-the-layout colliery (empties in, loads out) the closest I could come was about a 200 mm (8 inch) height mismatch. So I eased the grades and included a hidden elevator with a 300 mm lift in the operating scheme. Nice thing about an elevator, once you commit to the idea, is that you can get even more separation between levels. Designing for a 24 inch lift is no different than designing for a 4 inch lift.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - thinking outside the box)
Thanks everyone. Here's the track plan.
As mentioned by John Pickles, it probably could be done at around 2% if the main line goes downward from the main yard. However, I'm not real crazy about trying to do the grades. The crossover at the lower right might be problematic. Also, the layout my father and I built years ago had lots of hidden tracks. I vowed never to do that again Cant help but to want the staging though.
I thought about maybe building a vertical cassette behind the large yard, but I would lose the corner buildings and again, buried trackage, and a complicated device.
I may be leaning towards this one without hidden staging. Rather, the smaller town has a couple of tracks for staging. Sort of hidden in plain sight? Maybe a little bit of a boring track plan but has the bigger bridges I want and plenty of space for models. Simple enough that I may be able to get it built in whats remaining of my lifetime?
Another possibility is to put the staging tracks at the bottom of your drawing with a removable view block in front of them. That way you eliminate the grade problem altogether and have easier access.
Enjoy
Paul
Another option, you don't have to make it double ended and by starting on the left hand side you can get a little more distance to make grade. You could actually have the yard tracks below go around a decent sized radius curve on the right, which will give you more run for your rise.
Now I'm seeing some light, the gap at the bottom is a duck-under (ouch me back) I'd move all these tracks up the plan closer to the dase-board edge. Might need to shorten the bridge on the left a bit, if you put a L/Curved point in there, OK the loader will have to reverse and go cross the gap. As mentioned, with a scenic break you could get 2or3 tracks round the corner and along the back to the gap.
There again if the bridge piece over gap semi- permanent, you can loose the loader take the tracks straight across to another C/point and you've got your yard.
Great artwork by the way(clever dick) Didn't do all that in the armchair looked like you really burned some dark oil
Thanks everyone I appreciate the input. And thanks Wayne for making some test runs!
The entry at the bottom of the drawing has a door that opens into the room. So that duck under would be removable. I tend to think that door limits the number of tracks and such that I should put there.
Not sure a hidden stub staging yard is for me (or a point to point given this small size). I'm not sure I want to be either digging trains out of there, or backing trains out to restage.
Mr. Pickles: I'm not sure I'm following what your saying. L/Curved point? reversing loaders? C/point? But it sounds very railroady and entertaining! I might have an idea of what your trying to say. Let me draw it up.
Thanks again.
ec
Well, I think I'm liking this much better. Letting the tracks begin downward grade after the yard, I measured the actual lineal feet of run and have some 27' to get to 3" which comes out around a 1% grade. This plan seems to me to at least look like the trains are actually going somewhere, almost.
Yes, that's definitely a more viable situation now, both for grades and access.
a vertical clearance of 3" does not seem enough; 6" would be better in case of underground problems.
BTW this solution is spot on!! Bravo. (if the run of the route along the wall also is 27 ft long, not counting the station close to the lower wall)
Smile