Attached, here is the future Train Room. I have decided upon the gauge -HO. I have kicked about four layouts to the curb and became very dissapointed in finding the PRR yard in Emporium all gone. Even the old homestead is gone from across the street (Google Earth). I had given thought to the Royal Gorge however to capture the realism of the depth the bridge would be plumb up to the ceiling so it's out. I love the 50's to 60's style of trains but just can't put my finger on the area or layout. I have reviewed many online (real) but being so new to this it's a daunting challenge.
I had posted the room with an initial layout but it didn't meet with much approval so I am submitting the empty room for thoughts. I'd like a blend of some passenger and freight with mountains. I'm very open to suggestions.
TIA,
Nick
That is a very nice sized room with which you can do a lot.
LION has a somewhat smaller room 24'x27' and him runs on the walls three levels, and him has two blobs between which the trains run and find their helixes. Everythng is within easy reach of a LION.
So what ewe haves is a room full of possibilities. Think like a CAT. Think Vertically.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Thats a respectable sized room with enough space to build a decent layout with some good operating possibilities, especially if you can double deck or at least have a sizable staging yard.
As for era and RR, that of course is your preference. I noticed you mentioned Royal Gorge; as a D&RGW fan thats a cool idea and great for scenery but for operations ... not as much save for railfanning. If you like 50's and 60's D&RGW, the Joint Line would be less on scenery although there is a Front Range mountain backdrop but more variety as the Santa Fe, CB&Q and D&RGW, and MoPac and Rock Island was around too. Some industry in Denver for switching and Pueblo, Colorado Springs. If you remember Doug Tagsolds articles, they included a little of that although they concentrated on the mainline up to the Moffatt tunnel, he did have Denver action, might have had Pueblo too. See old issues of MR for that - one my favorite layouts - RIP is D&RGW layout.
Jim
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Wow Nick, that's a lot of space! What an excellent challange. I know how dissapointed one can get to learn all that you once remember is now gone, but, why not bring it back! You sure have the room for it. When I did my quick research into what you had in mind, and the PRR, looking at how the rail lines follow the rivers and streams through the hill / mountains, I was thinking what a great area to model. You could use the track schematics, Google Earth, and your memories, to recreate it all. The line to Buffalo was a major mainline, and from what I have read, the lastest "runaway" train movie, "Unstoppable", with Denzel Washington, was filmed on the Buffalo line. I think it would make a fantastic layout, and just about every kind of freight traffic you could imagine went through the area. Just be prepared to make about a zillion trees!
Just my thoughts.
Mike.
My You Tube
Thanks Jim. I have no problem with multiple decks/levels at all. Speaking of them, I see so many layouts and notice either oval or circular transitions built to gain access to the next level. What's the radius on those things? With wanting to mix freight and passenger would it be prudent to allow for the longest cars? I hate having to go out and purchase items just to determine clearance and radius, is there some charts or data banks that contain mins and max?
mbinsewi Wow Nick, that's a lot of space! What an excellent challange. I know how dissapointed one can get to learn all that you once remember is now gone, but, why not bring it back! You sure have the room for it. When I did my quick research into what you had in mind, and the PRR, looking at how the rail lines follow the rivers and streams through the hill / mountains, I was thinking what a great area to model. You could use the track schematics, Google Earth, and your memories, to recreate it all. The line to Buffalo was a major mainline, and from what I have read, the lastest "runaway" train movie, "Unstoppable", with Denzel Washington, was filmed on the Buffalo line. I think it would make a fantastic layout, and just about every kind of freight traffic you could imagine went through the area. Just be prepared to make about a zillion trees! Just my thoughts. Mike.
Exactly Mike. I looked at Google Earth last night and could see right where the old house was. I remember my Uncle John taking me to the yard on s many occasions and getting to go north up to Buffalo and back as a kid. Memories I'll never forget. It darn near destroyed me seeing it all gone. Just the bare imprint of the round table and a few other things remain. Even the line that went through town, gone.
Trees! Gawd I hadn't really given that part a lot of thought! Maybe Mount Saint Helens post explosion would be better - (may they that lost their lives there rest in Peace).
I think you have something there (Buffalo to Emporium). Time to research some more.
As an aside, backdrop. Is it possible to take photographs of landscape, have them printed to scale and lay them up like wall paper on the back drop?
My room has about the same issues with the doors in similar places. Your counter/bench is where I have a large opening into the room, plus I had a fireplace and a large window to deal with. Your room is much larger than mine (lucky guy).
I will just post a few pics of how my benchwork ended up and it might give you a couple of ideas. As far as trackplans go I will yield to the experts. I found after trying to make a trackplan for the room that I could never quite get to work, that I just designed the benchwork and made the trackplan to fit that. I am happy with the results.
In the corner on the left by the large window I am going to put a canyon to the floor with a bridge across.
Looking forward to your progress, post pics.
Looking the other way, note the notch cut out for the door.
My canyon to the floor.
My next house will have a basement. They are better for layouts.
An early video tour.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
That 21+' dimension allows you do do what I had been doodling about hoping to find a house with an empty basement. Alont he top and bototm walls, 18" wide shelves. Then, a 4 foot wide aisle. Then 2 penninsulas, as much as 4 feet wide (2 feet with a center backdrop, more reasonably) and another 4 foot aisle in the middle of the room. Offset the ends of the penninsulas since you will need to widen them to manage decent radius turns, but you can get well over 30" radius turnbacks without restricting the aisles to less than 3 feet at any point. That will get you a LONG main line run, even with just one level.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
NickPPJRI have no problem with multiple decks/levels at all. Speaking of them, I see so many layouts and notice either oval or circular transitions built to gain access to the next level. What's the radius on those things?
That is something called a "helix."
Yep, goes round and round until you get there. The min radius in HO should be around 24" BUT it really should be larger than that. The issue is the drag when you climb your train through one is that you not only have to lfit the train , but you encounter further resistance from the curve and it's continuous. It's better to go with a larger radius and ideal to have something at least 36" minimum radius.
Another factor is the relationship between the radius and the grade. The result must allow enough room to clear the cars and other equipment, reach in for maintenance and fixing derailments, etc.
Helixes are godo for a lot of things. They can be a bit of a mystersy to operate, since your train may disappear for a long time, so having a way to visually monitor train movement is good. Done right with a large enough min radius, they take up lots of real estate.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
A 30" radius? Dang, that's a 5' circle. Will I need that much?
Yeah, you sorta do. Otherwise the grade gets very steep and the trains very short. I n cases where all the trains are short, not a problem, otherwise it can be a big problem.
You can figure out what you need by figuring how much clearance is needed to clear your rolling stock PLUS the height of the track and roadbed. Pick a diameter, then calculate the circumference of the circle. Use that number to figure out the rise over the run. That's why larger diameter helixes are favored, because they have a relatively long run over rise, keeping the grade within acceptable limits.
Taking in this information then, would an oval (more like a paperclip) shape be better if room alows it?
How comfortable is the room?
This might be a good time to consider all the stuff that would be difficult or impossible to add later - heat, air conditioning, lighting, outlets, carpet and such. My trainroom has them all, and I'm very happy for that.
One thing I do not have is properly painted walls and backdrops. That's a sacrifice I had to make, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "...to promote domestic tranquility."
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
The space was a sound room years ago. Full HVAC, sink and built in cabs. This room is attached to my Hotrod shop and away from house proper. Hotrod shop has a potty, shower, beer frig and Kitchen. Hotrod shop is 1800 Sq Ft with an adjacent machineshop area of 750 Sq Ft. Compressor room adjacent to Hotrod Shop. 240 and 120 Electricity. Just about all a man could need.
When we moved to De Queen I had my list and Deby had hers - We both won!
A couple of comments on layout benchwork forms.
You might look into the mushroom design if you have sufficient overhead clearance. That puts upper surface aisleways in dead space between lower level scenes and allows you to stack two levels of layout one above the other but with no visual connection and widely separated access. This is the method Joe Fugate uses, quite successfully.
A variant designed by, I believe, Paul Mallery, put the layout above the 'walking around' aisleways at floor level. Operating aisles are accessed by short staircases. Space under the raised walkways is available for storage, sit-down work areas and such. This design has the advantage of quick access to exits in case of fire. (It was designed for public display. See The Model Railroad Club for details, including original 40 x 40 track plan.)
You might consider a spiral aisleway arrangement, which will give a very long once-through main line at the expense of easy access to an exit. John Armstrong's Canandaigua Southern layout was of this design, in a similar space and larger scale. (John had the advantage of a center staircase.)
My own design is along the walls and then rolled back into the center of a room 19ft 4in square with some immovable impediments. The aisleway is E-I shaped with the central bar of the E reaching the I. Entrance door is at the bottom right of the I. (Top of the I is a water heater. Additional comments deleted.)
If you want to run long (passenger) cars and long (typical Class I) trains you want to use the biggest curves you can live with. IIRC, Joe Fugate rebuilt his inter-level helix to 40 inch radius after having tracking troubles with shorter radii. (I would have settled for one meter, but that's because I work in metric measurements.)
Just a few thoughts from someone who avoids thinking in rectangles.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
NickPPJR Thanks Jim. I have no problem with multiple decks/levels at all. Speaking of them, I see so many layouts and notice either oval or circular transitions built to gain access to the next level. What's the radius on those things? With wanting to mix freight and passenger would it be prudent to allow for the longest cars? I hate having to go out and purchase items just to determine clearance and radius, is there some charts or data banks that contain mins and max? TIA, Nick
If you are talking about a helix, those would have radii mostly in the range of 28-36 inches. Of course the larger radii is giong to be a major space eater but too little radii places a lot of drag and also increases the grade. It's all about compromise but probably a good happy medium would be some where around 30 or 32 inches.
It would be prudent to design your track plan with the longest cars in mind, and that usually means 85 or 89' freight cars. Most people these days go with a minimum radius of about 30 inches or a bit more - in my case my minimum is 32-inches and even on those radii the long cars make the curves look sharp, but they will operate well on anything north 28-inches.
Hi Nick:
An oval 'helix' allows you to reduce the grade a bit so you can get away with somewhat smaller radii, but not much. You can get away with 26" in HO if you are only running 40' or 50' cars , but if you are going to run 89' cars 26" is way too small. The most important point is that the helix has to work properly. No options.
A couple of other points to keep in mind:
You cannot do a 30" radius 180 degree curve in 5' (60"). "30"" refers to the track center, not the outside radius of the bench work. To do an actual 30" radius track curve you need at least 63", plus whatever space is taken up by the helix support structure and the space required to clear the overhang on longer cars and locomotives as they go around the curve.
There is also the concept of a 'no-lix'. Instead of having a dedicated helix to go from one level to another, the track rises more or less continuously as it goes around the layout. You start out at the bottom level and by the time you have reached the other end of that 'level' you have climbed to the starting point for the next level. If you want continuous running you will still need reverse loops but building a loop at each end of the layout is still easier that building a helix, and you can put a scene in the middle of the loop.
Are you familiar with the National Model Railroad Association (NMRA)? They offer a wealth of free information about how to design a model railroad so you can avoid mistakes. One of the charts they offer relates to minimum track clearances. You can use that information to figure out how much space you have to allow from the track center to an obstacle, be it another train or structure or whatever. Just take the recommended distance between track centers and divide by two.
Here is a link:
http://www.nmra.org/index-nmra-standards-and-recommended-practices
Scroll down to 'Clearances'.
I will congratulate you on your decision to not go buying things willy nilly to see if they will fit, or just because you like them. Lots of those who are new to the hobby buy too much stuff on a whim only to discover later that the items don't fit into their plans.
Looking forward to watching your progress.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
DAVE!!! Wow! I'll be reading for a month now. This is so cool. Good stuff!
Thanks!
riogrande5761 If you like 50's and 60's D&RGW, the Joint Line would be less on scenery although there is a Front Range mountain backdrop but more variety as the Santa Fe, CB&Q and D&RGW, and MoPac and Rock Island was around too. Some industry in Denver for switching and Pueblo, Colorado Springs. Jim
If you like 50's and 60's D&RGW, the Joint Line would be less on scenery although there is a Front Range mountain backdrop but more variety as the Santa Fe, CB&Q and D&RGW, and MoPac and Rock Island was around too. Some industry in Denver for switching and Pueblo, Colorado Springs.
I'm another one who is looking forward to following your progress. I'm an Eastern guy, so I lean towards a PRR layout based on Williamsport/Emporium/Keating Summit/Olean, NY. Of course, that whole area won't fit into your space. You would have to do some editing. There is a lot of information available, but it will take persistence to find all you need. Of course, that is true for any line you might want to represent, no matter where it's located. There is also a lot of appropriate PRR equipment available.
Whether you choose that area or not, the idea of a "no-lix", mentioned above, is something you should consider. You have said you would be willing to consider a multilevel layout. The no-lix is basically a layout in which the whole layout is a helix. Instead of having one space-eating helix, the track would follow a gradual upgrade that wraps around the room until it comes back to the original point, but the track has risen high enough to justify a second level. This is how the well-known layouts of Tony Koester, Bill Darnaby, and others are designed.
I think I would set up a workbench in the lower left corner near the cabinets that can't be moved. For the rest of the room, I would use as much wall space as possible, with peninsulas jutting into the center of the room. Those Pennsylvania mountains dictated a lot of curves. Keep your aisles as wide as practical. Try for 36" wide aisles throughout. You might be forced to make some aisles narrower, but try to avoid that if you can. Your longest straight wall might be the best place to put your major yard. I assume that would be Emporium.
As for curves, on a layout this big, it is probably best to stick with curves of at least 30" radius. You should have enough space to do that. Wider if possible. Your 1950-s-1960's era means most freight cars will be in the 40 to 50 foot length range, although some longer freight cars were in service before the end of the 1960's. There was regular passenger service in that time period, and full-length passenger cars will perform best on curves of at least 28" radius. I rode the Baltimore Day Express over the line in the mid 1960's, and I remember the train's consist being a pair of E units, one or two baggage cars, and two old P70 heavyweight coaches.
Good luck!
Tom
hon30critter Hi Nick: An oval 'helix' allows you to reduce the grade a bit so you can get away with somewhat smaller radii, but not much. You can get away with 26" in HO if you are only running 40' or 50' cars , but if you are going to run 89' cars 26" is way too small. The most important point is that the helix has to work properly. No options. A couple of other points to keep in mind: You cannot do a 30" radius 180 degree curve in 5' (60"). "30"" refers to the track center, not the outside radius of the bench work. To do an actual 30" radius track curve you need at least 63", plus whatever space is taken up by the helix support structure and the space required to clear the overhang on longer cars and locomotives as they go around the curve. There is also the concept of a 'no-lix'. Instead of having a dedicated helix to go from one level to another, the track rises more or less continuously as it goes around the layout. You start out at the bottom level and by the time you have reached the other end of that 'level' you have climbed to the starting point for the next level. If you want continuous running you will still need reverse loops but building a loop at each end of the layout is still easier that building a helix, and you can put a scene in the middle of the loop. Are you familiar with the National Model Railroad Association (NMRA)? They offer a wealth of free information about how to design a model railroad so you can avoid mistakes. One of the charts they offer relates to minimum track clearances. You can use that information to figure out how much space you have to allow from the track center to an obstacle, be it another train or structure or whatever. Just take the recommended distance between track centers and divide by two. Here is a link: http://www.nmra.org/index-nmra-standards-and-recommended-practices Scroll down to 'Clearances'. I will congratulate you on your decision to not go buying things willy nilly to see if they will fit, or just because you like them. Lots of those who are new to the hobby buy too much stuff on a whim only to discover later that the items don't fit into their plans. Looking forward to watching your progress. Dave
So, taking your infoormation, for the layout to climb 3', a helix would be something along these lines (Sketch) or am I missing the boat?
Looking at the No-lix, using what I see (2 to 2.5% grade) as the max grade in the length of the room I am only able to get up about 1'-6" and that's no turns.
Aparently I'm clueless on the No-Lix. Jump in here guys - LOST!
Nick:
Your math on the 'No-lix' is fairly close, so if you do want a three foot separation between levels it won't work unless you can go around all four walls at a constant grade, or a distance similar to that if you use peninsulas. Even then you will only basically have one visible level for most of the layout, so forget about the No-lix.
As for the extended helix, if my math is correct (don't count on it!), your extended helix would require three full loops @ 2.5% grade to climb roughly 3 feet (33.8" actually). It would also give you about 11.25 inches between levels of the helix which is plenty. Alternately, you could go with 4 loops @ 2% to get 36" elevation with 9" between the levels. I'm basing those numbers on a calculation of a total of 451" per loop in the helix (40" radius x 2 = 80" dia. x 3.14 = 251" circumference for the curves + 9' 4" + 7' 4" for the straights = 451"). Somebody please correct me if my math is out to lunch!
Bottom side is that the extended helix will take up a lot of space, but since you aren't exactly short of space, that might be acceptable. Also, with your very generous radii you could easily double track it and maybe even install a third (and fourth) track for hidden staging.
I don't understand why you think you need 3 feet between levels. Assuming you're 6 feet tall, that means your upper level is at 5 feet elevation and your lower level is an impractical 2 feet. A more practical dimension is about 30-34" lower level and about 48-54" upper level. A no-lix means there would be places where the actual dimensions would be different. Most double deck layouts have the two levels separated by about 18 - 24 inches.
Tom I used 3' only as an exercise to determine what might be required and to visualize the idea. I had given thought to a lower area where transitions (unseen) might be able to take place. I like to maximize the space available. I could have this helix on a lower lever just to move a train into a different location or park it out of sight if need be. I can spend days in AutoCad developing ideas that cost me nothing but time - a great cold weather placation devise.
Nick ---
Now you're talking about hidden staging. Hidden staging yards have been successfully built and operated at extremely low levels, but the exposed areas where switching and coupling/uncoupling are done, really ought to be at more convenient levels.
Frankly, I think you might be a bit too anxious to jump into this thing. I think you need more exposure to the factors that influence the design of a big layout. So here are my recommendations for a slower approach:
First, start building a railroad yard and a circle of track. The track can circle your entire room, or it can be much smaller. This will give you some practical experience. That yard can eventually become part of your future layout. If you don't use it as a yard module, you may be able to use it as a hidden staging yard.
While you are doing this,
1. Visit as many large layouts as possible. Clubs have open houses. Meet other modelers at your LHS and visit their layouts.
2. Join the National Model Railroad Association (NMRA) and get involved in the Layout Design Special Interest Group (SIG).
3. Try to obtain as many issues as possible of Kalmbach Publishing's Model Railroad Planning Magazine, and study the track plans of large layouts in Model Railroader.
4. Study the railroads and geographical areas that you want to model. You have mentioned the Joint Line in Colorado and you have mentioned north central Pennsylvania. I inferred that there may be other candidates as well. If you know where you plan to go with this project, it will be easier to plan the journey.
5. Get the help of a professional layout designer. These guys know what they are doing, and they know the mistakes to avoid and how to avoid them.
I wish you well with the project.
Thank you for the information, Tom.
NickPPJRThanks Jim. I have no problem with multiple decks/levels at all. Speaking of them, I see so many layouts and notice either oval or circular transitions built to gain access to the next level. What's the radius on those things? With wanting to mix freight and passenger would it be prudent to allow for the longest cars? I hate having to go out and purchase items just to determine clearance and radius, is there some charts or data banks that contain mins and max?
Sometimes the room and or the table dictate the radius of the helix. LION built the helix of him on a 5' wide table, so a notional 30" radius which is not bad, until you relize that this helix carries the four track mane lion of the layout.
30", 28", 26", 24" ... it is a good thing that this is a subway layout with 50' mu cars.
The grade is also dictated by your geometry. The helix is made of 1/2" OSB board salvaged from a shipping crate. You need a good 2.5" minimum just for the train, add the 1/2" for the deck and you have a 3" minimum rise (railhead to railhead).
C= Pie x dia... 60" diameter = 188.4 inch run to raise 3" (1.59% incline)
C= Pie x dia... 48" diameter = 150.72 inch run to raise 3" (1.99% incline)
OK, someone mentioned 89 foot freight cars. Sorry, but not in the 60's. I believe the normal or average length for freight cars in the 1960's was 50 foot. Passenger cars are 80 foot as a general rule. Everyone always wants to tell you to go with large radius curves. However, it depends on what you want to do. My era and year for my layout is 1965. I run mostly four axle diesels, and 40 & 50 foot freight cars. I run 60 foot passenger cars. My minimum mainline radius is 18 inches. I have no problems, none, zilch, zip. I am not saying that is right for you, but I am also telling you that you don't NEED 30 inch radius curves. Maybe 20 or 22 will work for you.
A no-lix is a track that gets to the upper level of a lyout by going around the walls of the room. My layout uses a no-lix, and you can see what one is in the two photos below.
What I do for layout design (have done so far) is define my area and bench work first. Next I decide on a theme. (Mainline running, with a branch line(?) or other special interests.) Then I put in a mainline. I am fond of single track mainlines that run twice around the room types, divided by scenery and grades.
Since I have gotten into operations, I also have a staging area of some sort, whether it is a lay-over for entire trains, or a yard that simulates an interchange yard. One track in staging can be a through track for continuous running. If I put cars on it, the layout becomes point to point for operations.
Next I try and determine how many small towns I can have, and possibility one city with a yard and loco facilities, without them crowding one another. Usually small yards and facilities, unless I have the room for larger ones. I will try to fit in a way-side industry or two just for variation as long as it won't crowd things.
Then I go looking at plans for switching layouts and small modular railroads. I look for ones that would make good towns or cities because their track plans are usually fairly compact, and most of the way they will be switched is already determined with a good track plan themselves.
Because I freelance, I don't worry about town and city names etc., but if you want to model a specific prototype, you can name the towns as the railroad you are modeling would, and build or plan you scenery to suite the area you want to model. Also, you can model some of the industries that may be recognizable in a town that you choose to name from a real one. These may have to be scratch built or otherwise implied to achieve the "feeling" of the real town.
When the actual layout building starts, I try and get all of the bench work built first. Then plan where the towns will go and install the mainline to get some trains running. Then I work on one of the yards so I can store stuff when not running. Then I plug along on the other track work and scenery design and continue from there.
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.
Well, I have been digesting all of the great information provided and feel like I may have come up with the beginning of somethin. I took a lot of the suggestions regarding bench height and other item and developed this mostly exposed feature to obtain a transition from 0.00 to an acceptable height I think.
Don't hesitate to rip it if you see an issue. There is 9 1/2" TOT to TOT at the X. I can build all sorts of openings to allow access but right now, I'm more concerned with the transition from entry to exit. AutoCad time is cheap compaired to any oops or gosh darns.
Again, many thanks in advance,
Nick,
I can't make out the minimum radii or the maximum grades in your picture. Can you list that info?
gandydancer19OK, someone mentioned 89 foot freight cars. Sorry, but not in the 60's. I believe the normal or average length for freight cars in the 1960's was 50 foot. Passenger cars are 80 foot as a general rule.
Incorrect. To start off with, the 89' flat cars were introduced in 1961 so there were indeed, 89' long cars in that time period.
http://www.ttx.com/corporate-information/history.aspx
From ttx.com website:
1958: 85’ flat cars equipped with trailer hitches became the state of the art in piggyback service. Without the trailer hitch, the securement of trailers was a labor-intensive and time-consuming task. 1961: First 89-ft cars entered service.
1961: First 89-ft cars entered service.
In addition, most passenger cars were 85', not 80'. Bottom line is, if you want to operate mainline freight trains in the 1960's, you'd be including some 85' cars and very likely a few 89' TOFC flat cars unless you just don't want to "go there" and want to avoid them all-together. While you can shoe-horn many 85' passenger cars around 22-inch radii, it ain't pretty. Many modern manufactured 85' passenger cars recommend minimum 24-inch curves - but just like a computer, you really really don't want to operate at the minimums recommened. Windows 7 - 64 bit works much better on 4 GB of RAM and 85' BLI passenger cars work much better on 30 inch curves. ;-)
Everyone always wants to tell you to go with large radius curves.
It's very good advise to not skimp on curve radii - why put yourself in a straight jacket if you have easily enough space to include 30-inch minimum curves as the OP does? "Need" is a matter of perspective, but based on the earlier discussion - the need of a reasonable minimum of 30-inches is well justified. As an aside, I've noticed from reading many MR magazine articles since the 1970's, that 30-inch radius had become a standard minimum for most modest sized layouts - and for all kinds of good reasons.
As the OP calculate a no-lix will get him up 18 inches, which IMO is a workable separation for a 2nd level with decent access, certainly more than adequate for a staging yard!
Cheers, Jim