Agree on the 4-5 hour delay. Posts from new members are moderated but it seems like you should be past that now.
You probably will get a variety of opinions on how to build the design that you are developing. But I think it will be very hard to get all your elevation changes worked in starting with a flat sheet of plywood on a basic frame (another lesson learned from my 4x8 layout years ago). Maybe this will help get some discussion started.
Since I also have a lot of elevation changes in my plan I am using L-girder style construction. Depending on how your existing benchwork is built you may be able to re-work it into L-girder. Pull all the plywood off, add "L"s to the existing grid, and lay support beams across the L-girders. And then use the plywood that you have to make cookies. Before jumping into this though I suggest that you do a search on L-girder benchwork and look at the variations.
Does the club layout that you mentioned have a lot of elevation changes? If so take a look underneath to see what they did. And you could probably get some good advice and ideas from members there.
Huntington Junction - Freelance based on the B&O and C&O in coal country before the merger... doing it my way. Now working on phase 3. - Walt
For photos and more: http://www.wkhobbies.com/model-railroad/
I was thinking of using the Wood land scenics foam risers for 2% or 3%, i dont have to cut ply and do guess work.
My 13x9 L Shape Garage Layout build
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/225242.aspx
I have done this I O gauge and I will caution you it gets expensive. I went with this method because it is the only one I knew about. Also scenery below track height has to be planned well in advance when using the woodland scenics foam risers and sheets of foam for scenery base. You also need to pick a starting or "0" height above the plywood just in case you discover that you need a bit more wiggle room for getting your track below another (bridges necessarily take up space below the height of the roadbed, quite a bit depending on the type of bridge. Also just buy foam board instead of using the foam risers for level track, it was cheeper and easier for the grades the foam inclines worked really well. You still need to be careful about vertical easements when transistioning from level track to incline and vice versa. You may have uncoupling problems if you dont, especially in HO scale. A good hot wire cutter (and good ventilation!) is necessary for the foam method of construction.
Ive done the bolt on method before and it is workable. I over engineered by O guage layout (I can walk on it), but it started life as an L-shaped N-scale layout. Bolt on becomes unworkable when you go to try to diassemble it for moving after youve put down scenery. I made this mistake on my O guage layout. I have angled pieces of steel holding the sections of the layout together. The angled steel is attached with counter sunk bolts in the top and nuts on the bottom, and run the length of the 4x8 pieces of plywood. I have 2in blue foam board glued and screwed down on top.
I do not reccommend my method of bolting on sections.
And some food for thought:
How are you planning to access the parts of the track that is in the tunnels for cleaning and re-railing derailed equipment?
yeah so what i did for the first section was 4x8 built the way worlds greatist hobby built there benchwork. then i just bolted on addional sections when i wanted larger 10x5. Now that i been thinking about it all day, I think its just better I start from stratch for benchwork. I made the whole table with just two sheets of ply that I cut into strips for the cross sections, saved money. i was thinking of reusing the wood, but i used nails and wood glue. I think if I try to rip it aparts its going to pull the ply apart.
I also have a Ply tabletop, but I used 2inch blue foam ontop which i semi glued with DAP 220. I was going to hotglue gun the risers ontop of the blue foam.
wow, so it seems after 15 post I can post instantly. YEAH!!
Congrats on reaching the instant post approval!
No simple answers to how you should approach benchwork. I think you will have to decide for yourself depending on your sitution. I like L-girder because it is very flexible and easy to build in elevations for both track and landscape, ply sub-roadbed naturally forms vertical easements, there is better access to hidden track, and its much easier to install under-track switch machines and wiring. But there are downsides- design details take some thinking, you end up cutting and fitting a lot of wood (a good mitre saw comes in handy), and the finished structure is more-or-less permanent. My layout would be a real bear to move without totally destroying it.
Suggest you be patient, do searches here and on other internet resources, and see what others have done and are doing. Then select a method that makes the most sense to you. It will be easier for everyone here to respond to specific questions once you get going with it.
For you "new" design i would start from scratch. Since this layout is still somewhat crammed into a working garage, it should be moveable if ever needed. Open grid w/ locking casters would be an option. MrB has posted many times his benchwork, this may be a great idea for your use as well. You could use foam over 1x or use cookie cutter. Don't fear those inclines in cookie cutter, as the grade will be actually easier to construct and the "bending" of the plywood subroadbed will automatically give you the grade upeasements/ overeasings as you "flex" the plywood into the grade.
Like your latest concept far better.
Modeling B&O- Chessie Bob K. www.ssmrc.org
Your Lucky. My wife gave me half that space. Great Job !!!!
So it's been awaile since I last was on here. I bought all the building materials, then I started to rethink. My first plan seemed a bit hard to build. so I came up with this
Let me know what you think. I need to give credit, found this in the layout section, but I fliped it vertical to look correct and added a rail from the lumber mill to the barn for a turnaround.
So two questions come to mind looking at this one:
1. What are the radii of the end loops? The scale grid makes me think this plan was designed for N, since the ends are only 3' and 3.5' across, too small for anything but the absolute tightest HO curves. Are you planning to blow this up to a larger-sized base?
2. Is the layout going to be in a corner, and if so, how are you going to access the staging tracks and that tunnel on both long sides for derailments, cleaning, etc.? If you are expanding the size, this becomes even more important-- you'll need an access hatch if you can't get to that far corner by walking around.
P
Looks like a good plan for the space you have.
Well last night I was using the computer program Anyrail to try to replicate this to HO scale for my space given in garage. Both ends are 5 feet and the long side is 13 ft. So I can keep to a 22in minimum so that larger locos like sd70ace have no issue, I think I should be ok. So far only the inside loops are 22in and outside it 24 or 25. So not so bad. I bought all this Woodland scenic’s foam risers because I thought it might speed up the process, so I’m going to use those.
I also have mostly Atlas Snap turnouts and switches, also going to be using a DCC NCE powercab. I don’t know if I will need the larger power pack for this layout or if the basic one can handle it.
That's definitely an N scale plan, although I can't remember the issue. Note that the vertical clearance is only 2 1/4" where tracks cross one another.You'll need to check the grades in your expanded plan with HO clearances. Note also that if your inner radius is 22", your outer radius for double-track will need to be at least 24.5".
You'll probably also want to check your reach distance into the corner. It helps that you can reach from both sides, but typically folks cannot reach more than 30" across a scenicked layout.
Best of luck.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
i was planning on using atlas code 100 flex track, is there any reason not to use this? also atlas snap switchs #4.
Proctous i was planning on using atlas code 100 flex track, is there any reason not to use this? also atlas snap switchs #4.
Snap-Switch frogs are much tighter than #4. They aren't a good match for radii larger than 18". The Atlas "#4" turnout is actually about a #4 1/2, so it works well with radii in the 22-24" range or so. The Atlas #4 is different from a Snap-Switch.
If you want to use the Snap-Switches because you already have them, then you'll be limited in the length of cars and locos that will run reliably, but that's a decision only you can make.
I guess I dont know what a #4 is then. I have the Atlas #850 and #851 turnouts, and they use the remote snapswitch machine to turn them. is this what you are talking about.
Also I like running modern locos like SD70ACe for mainline and shorter stuff for indus with GP35 or something. shouldn't be to much a problem right?
#850 and #851 are Code 100 Snap-Switches, they have tighter frogs than a #4.
#281 and #282 are #4 (actually #4 1/2) "Mark IV" turnouts (another name for track switches).
Snap-Switches are not #4s. The numbers come from the angle of the frog, lower numbers are sharper. Snap-Switches are about a #3 1/4 to #3 1/3.
ProctousAlso I like running modern locos like SD70ACe for mainline
That longer engine probably won't work well through a Snap-Switch. It may depend on the length of the cars to which it's coupled how reliable things are. Since you have the parts, you can try it out before you build to see if you are satisfied with the way it works.
Here is the Anyrail layout of the same thing, just blown up to HO size. all curves are 22in and 24in+. only thing was giving me issues was the two turnouts needed more curve, so i used a Pico curved turnout. Though I really wanted to use the Atlas ones i already have, just do know how to make them work. Im only 29 and this is my first layout other than a oval I used all atlas snaptrack with. I know my trains work on these turnouts as i used them before. this time mostly everything will be flex track.
What is the tallest piece of equipment you are running?
What's your plan for accessing the back? The distance to that bottom left corner is going to be close to 8 feet(!), so even with a corner access hatch of some kind you may find it hard to access all of the track if something derails, stalls, etc. You might consider a couple of hatches here to get to the rear tracks, especially if they will be staging or in tunnels.
I forget-- did you specify the height in this thread? That will factor in, of course, but I think consensus seems to be 30-36" max comfortable reach.
EDIT: I just found the image where you show the layout's placement, so scratch the access issues above. I'd still worry about the center, though-- it might be just far enough to be problematic accessing the track you added to make the wye, especially if the bottom two sides are relatively high.
thanks for leave coments, i do read them. I already have the bench work and foam board ontop and I can reach every inch of this. I dunno, maybe my arms just long or something. I raised the table to able 42in high. allows me to have more eye level viewing and allows for shelves underneath.
The only thing that is stoping me now is figuring out a effective and quick way to lay track and slopes for 2-3% grade. mostly the bottem side where the staging tracks are. Not sure how to build this so that they are under the moutain but ontop of table.
S
BMMECNYC What is the tallest piece of equipment you are running?
ProctousI can reach every inch of this.
Many people have been disappointed to find that they cannot reach as far over a scenicked layout with structures, trees, etc. as they can over bare plywood, but perhaps your experience will be different.
Note on the original plan that it was NOT designed to go into a corner - it says "open access for staging tracks" along the 'corner'. Now, if this is going to sit int he middle of a garage so that at least SOME time (the second car is not in the garage) there will be access to the back side, then reach in will be marginal but doable. If it's going in a corner agains walls on 2 side, there will be absolutely no access to the lower left, even if you're NBA pro in height.
Definitely check the clearance, and the grades. Seen that a lot when N scale plans get blown up to HO - X and Y dimensions get scaled up to fit the curves but the Z dimension gets forgotten and only an unloaded flat car can get under the overpass.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinker Note on the original plan that it was NOT designed to go into a corner - it says "open access for staging tracks" along the 'corner'. Now, if this is going to sit int he middle of a garage so that at least SOME time (the second car is not in the garage) there will be access to the back side, then reach in will be marginal but doable. If it's going in a corner agains walls on 2 side, there will be absolutely no access to the lower left, even if you're NBA pro in height. Definitely check the clearance, and the grades. Seen that a lot when N scale plans get blown up to HO - X and Y dimensions get scaled up to fit the curves but the Z dimension gets forgotten and only an unloaded flat car can get under the overpass. --Randy
It's not really in a corner, Here I updated the picture. The top side by the bench isn't exactly, there is more then 2 feet to work in.
So far what I did was take my track plan to UPS and get it Printed to 166 pages so I know exactly where all the track goes, so no guess work. Also the only inclines i have are 3% grades. and for only running about 6-12 cars max due to size, this shouldn't be an issue. All curves are greater than 22in also. the only spot that is going to be a pain is the top wall side against that wall locker. But I already have a way around that. I have a painters scaffolding that can go ontop and allow me to lay on top and work quite easily.
Scaffolding
So it's been a while since I have worked on this layout. Club layout needed more help than mine own :) But I now have time to start working on this again. So I wanted to post an update on what I have done so far.
So I had someone else that makes layout plans make some adjustments and tweaks. Should ensure smoother operation now with turnouts on flat surfaces.
Next I laid down my paper track layout and put down the foam risers.
Track is just to visualize the look, it’s not glued or anything.
Also was messing around with tunnels, had to use a double wide one to fit at an angle. Think it works nicely. Havn't seen one like this.
Next step is to Plaster over risers and make hills I guess.
Proctous:
I would like to suggest a small change to eliminate an 'S' curve in the lower right corner of your layout.
You have a right hand turnout coming off of the main line. The track off of that turnout is then curved back to run parallel to the main. Then you have a second right hand turnout leading to a third line also parallel to the main. If you are running from the main to the third track your train has to go through an S curve. That might cause some derailment issues. I would suggest changing the second turnout to a left hand. A left hand turnout can be connected directly to the diverging route of the first turnout and then both tracks can be curved to parallel the main. No S curve.
I'm trying to remember how to post a diagram of my suggestion but so far all I have managed is a series of brain farts. I'll keep trying.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!