Hi,
So I've cleared a space in my apartment, a 15' wall and about 5' on the adjoining two, so I've got a widened U shape. I am planning on making the U edges along the adjoining walls about 4' deep, and the center section 2 feet deep(though it could go less comfortably to 3 feet)
So given those dimensions, I have a blank slate, but I have some questions/desires:
I'm mainly modeling UP, and would like to do a push/pull passenger operation on one track. It will be E9s and 85 foot cars (or if dimensions call for it, 72 foot cars from Con-Cor) Was push/pull prototypical for them? If so, would it be better to have a turnaround track or just buy a turntable so that the yard looks less crowded? I am afraid to have single-ended push operations with 85' cars. My other idea was just to get another E unit and run them A-A.
Should I even be doing grades in this small of a space? If so:
Are there any ways to do grades other than cookie cutter through the actual plywood? I've watched the videos on MRVP but I am not grasping the 3-dimensional logic of how you create with that method.
Can I do the cookie cutter stuff using foam subroadbed instead? I had planned on making squared off pieces and just having Home Depot/Lowes make the cuts.
I would like to have plenty of sidings and run some frieght and industry as well in this space. Suggestions?
I'd like to get some elements of mountain terrain around Echo/Weber canyon in there too if it's possible. but again, that requares grades to not look silly.
Anyway, looking forward to your help. Thanks!
Julian
Modeling Pre-WP merger UP (1974-81)
fieryturboI am planning on making the U edges along the adjoining walls about 4' deep,
Sounds like you'll have reach problems.
If you're planning mountainous terrain, why go with plywood with a sheet of foam over it. Try using open benchwork with risers.
Steve S
To amplify on what Steve said. Laying track or rerailing cars a few inches from the back edge of a four foot table is very tricky unless you set it quite low, or else are a slender seven footer yourself.
Woodland Scenics sells foam ramps in 1, 2, 4 percent grades. Remember to go up one inch at 1% requires 100", and if you have a loop you must come back down. Parking a cut of cars (no loco) on a slope is also tricky.
Dave
Are you interested in point to point operation or continuous running on at least one track?. As stated above, reach would be a problem on the 5' by 4' sections. If the ends of the 5' sections are open that would help. If you are interested in point to point only then 4' wide can be reduced.
You have a small space for what you want to do, that being said you do have room for a type of dogbone with a loop at each end and the two tracks being close together for the main drag of 15'. You can put a yard in one loop and industry in the other and as many industries as you can fit off the main.
Welcome to the forums.
As mentioned, reach problems with a 4' top. If you cut an access hole in each back corner (a triangle out of each) would help as long as you could reach over your backdrop.
Good luck,
Richard
I think I'll stay with the 3' all around. I'm using Atlas' software to lay out the track though, and I'm having a hard time designing sidings. I really don't know what turnouts to use. I wanted to have a roundhouse and turntable at one end of the U, with a bunch of siding but it seems like this is going to be tough. I really don't have any idea what I'm doing when it comes to track planning.
Given the length of the cars that you are looking at using, I would suggest that you use at least #6s. The radius on the curve is larger and would look better with the longer passenger cars.
The best way to start with track planning is to determine your minimum radius. With 80'+ HO passenger cars in the mix, it will have to be at least 24" but a couple of inches larger would really help. So the minimum diameter of a turnback circle is 48"+ if you want to do continuous running. Plus some additional space right along the outside edge, too.
Keep in mind if you can reach across from either side or have a pop-up in the middle, you can have areas wider than 3' to accommodate that so long as you aisle remains large enough to get through. Making the layout wider and narrower to accommodate both track and humans is what you're after. Don't get trapped by thinking of a table top to set the layout on. Instead, draw a layout to fit the space, then a structure to support the layout.
If you do go with point to point design, i.e. no turnback loops, it does make it easier to design using a tabletop approach. You can then depend on adjusting elevation to gain a sense of distance, for example, but that works better with swicthbacks and freight ops. Point to point with full size passenger cars in that small a space may be disappointing. An exception might be to simply model a passenger terminal as a series of modules, anticipating it could be reused in a larger layout that will eventually really let your passenger cars get out on the main to stretch their legs.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
fiery,
I'm with Mike. Go with the largest radii you can with those passenger cars. You won't regret it. Keep in mind also that if you cover up the end curves with tunnels you'll need to create accesses for when (not if) those passenger cars derail.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Which specific cars are you looking at? I'm sure someone here has experience with them and may be able to give you insight into how accurate the advertised min R is. Keep in mind that unless you're talking cars that are actually short, making long ones go around a curve like that is more hit or miss than it sounds.
Also, if you do go with 18" min R, then you'll need a table about 40" wide. Between the width of the track and roadbed and the overhang of cars turning sharply, you'll need that extra 2" on each side -- then you'll still want something to keep them from hitting the floor if they derail.
You basic concept of covering up the less than optimal appearance on sharp curves is good. You don't want to take it too far though or you'll find like many do that operation at min R is unreliable.
mlehman Don't get trapped by thinking of a table top to set the layout on. Instead, draw a layout to fit the space, then a structure to support the layout..
Don't get trapped by thinking of a table top to set the layout on. Instead, draw a layout to fit the space, then a structure to support the layout..
I fell into this trap. I still get a huge amount of enjoyment running trains on my layout, but I won't do it again. I built it in 3 sections for convenient storage/moving but I have no desire to take it down. If we move I'm starting over. I think if I did as Mike mentioned above, the space allotted could be used more efficiently.
One thing I did right was to measure my reach at the height I wanted the surface to be. I'm a bit over 6' so the track 31" back is the absolute max. Presumably you'll need to get scenery back there too.
I'd encourage posting pics of your track plan. You'll get good info back.
T e d
fieryturbo Can I do the cookie cutter stuff using foam subroadbed instead? I had planned on making squared off pieces and just having Home Depot/Lowes make the cuts
Can I do the cookie cutter stuff using foam subroadbed instead? I had planned on making squared off pieces and just having Home Depot/Lowes make the cuts
I think this is where I started thinking table. I missed the mark. My apologies.
Are you able to post a screen shot from the atlas software? That may help with more accurate feedback.
fieryturbo a 15' wall and about 5' on the adjoining two, so I've got a widened U shape.
Texas Zepher fieryturbo a 15' wall and about 5' on the adjoining two, so I've got a widened U shape.
For clarification, is the footprint of the layout space 15'x5' or 15'x7'? Can you upload a drawing of the layout space (entire room with obstructions). Have you given thought to putting the layout over the top of obstructions (book shelves, television, dvd racks, stereo, etc.)
tedtedderson fieryturbo Can I do the cookie cutter stuff using foam subroadbed instead? I had planned on making squared off pieces and just having Home Depot/Lowes make the cuts I think this is where I started thinking table. I missed the mark. My apologies. Are you able to post a screen shot from the atlas software? That may help with more accurate feedback. T e d
Yeah, maybe I made an assumption based on that, too. My apologies, as was unintended. But the bigger point was just a reminder to think in terms of where the track needs to go to work best in space that is limited. Nothing will look square if you need to run passenger cars in that space as the circles of minimum radius that will defined where they can turn back are limited. The design will be all curvy to fit, but pretty sure it can be done.
This is where a drawing of the available space will help. Even just a phone pic of a handrawn sketch would be good -- as it would limit the assumptions we have to make in offering suggestions.
OK, sounds good. Maybe something like a C-shape is what it's sounds more like? Looking forward to the drawing.
What you'd probably want to do is try to turn the very ends of the C, if that's what it's shaped like, into somewhat wider blobs to let you get closer to 24" where you turn back at each end. You may have restrictions that won't permit that, but if possible overcoming them will result in a more satisfying build.
One thing that might be possible is to run out of staging on a lower level at one end, turn back at the other, all while climbing to end up on top of the lower level back at the other end. You may have enough space to do that, if you keep trains short, but best to see a drawing before we get too far in speculatin' all over again.
fieryturboI haven't really laid it out. What I can do is give you a blank shape, but it can easily be described as a 9x3 section laid lengthwise along a wall, and then on either side of that, two 5x3 sections set perpendicular against it. You end up with effectively a 15x5 foot space with the center 2x9feet cut out of it to one side. I will try to lay SOMETHING out this weekend, so you all can have more of a visual.
For a U shaped point to point layout you should plan on having the yard on one end. Have your sidings and spurs on the other side. Have a crossover at both ends so a pair of diesel locos can run around trains and go the other direction. You need to have a turntable to turn steam locos.
18” min radius is too small for most scale models including six axle diesel locos. I would have at least 22” min radius. Passenger cars by Walthers and Athearn will run on 22”, so will six axle locos. Most experienced modelers would recommend 30”-36” for passenger cars. #4 turnouts will be tight but will work. #6 are better for the sidings but they take up more space.
I don’t know if UP had any passenger service which ran backwards and forwards. Modern commuter trains do, like Metrolink, Tri Rail, Metra, etc.
I say, Forget the point to point design. Change the size of the cut out space from 2x9 to 3x7. You don’t need a layout 3 feet deep. Make it only 2 feet deep or less. Make the sides 4 feet deep so you can make 44” diameter curves. (Leave a bottomless pit access hole so you can reach the back.) Now you can make a dog bone loop or a gerrymandering figure 8. This will give you twice as long of a mainline plus you can climb up a couple of inches into the mountains across the back if you like.
Okay, my plans have changed. I now have a much bigger space. I have a screenshot of SCARM and a SCARM file where I started laying out something, but I'm in no way committed to it.I may even be able to go another 2 feet long ways, but I don't want to commit to that at the moment.
Link to SCARM file
Except for areas where you have to be wide enough for a loop for continous running, you really don't need 3' wide benchwork. I'm using 16" wide shelf components along the walls and that seems good for up to 5-6 tracks for like a yard area.
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/m/mrr-layouts/2290019.aspx
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/m/mrr-layouts/2289588.aspx
I think that's what someone mentioned earlier about doing a 'waterwings' (sometimes called a 'dumbbell'). Think of an oval of track, and 'squeeze' the middle together so it looks like a double-track mainline, just widening out at the loops at the end.
Hmm, what I am now considering is building two 4x4 sections that mate together in a 4x8, and then when I am finished with those, split them, and separate them with modules. They'll end up as the "dogbones" or "dumbbells" in the layout.
I'm at the point where I am trying to figure out how I can run trains and build a layout without breaking the bank, but I really only want to do this once, and correctly the first time, for each module I build.
I know you probably already have your design down, but have you considered a bridge with a 4.5'x4.5' overlapped dogbone? That would give you your 24" curves and only a small section would be "out of reach" where you would have to crawl under the table to get it. It could also give you a staging area.
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
fieryturboCan you elaborate on what you mean by overlapped?
Let me explain this layout before people start yelling about reach issues. And this is a 15 minute mockup.
The dark green represents most of the framework. The shelves are 30" at the back and right. The left side is 54" wide. <Insert where most people will yell about reach issues here before the read the rest>. The only area where you will likely have reach issues in the area in Light Green (left back corner). And there is a solution to this. Create an elevated city area about 6" ABOVE the main track and have your train disappear into a tunnel. You can then have an open area under the elevated city under the layout. If a train derails here, all you need to do is duck under the layout and fix it (as it's bottom accessible)
The gray benchwork is 6" wide and contains two tracks. It also contains a swing access or duckunder to allow entry. As the train crosses the gray benchwork, it lowers at a 3% grade from 3.5" to 0". Steep yes, but this leaves a large % of your layout flat for switching work. The train enters into another pair of tunnels at 0" height then crosses into another loop UNDER the layout (loop over loop)...first loop is 3.5" and second loop is 0"
The relative heights of the tracks are indicated on the picture.
Thanks for that explanation. However, if I wanted to use this layout, I'd have to cut things into a different shape. I need to do some measuring and see what parts of the room I can rearrange to make this work.
So, I've decided to go with 2x4' modules to build my layout. This is basically what I'm stuck with due to limited tools and space to work in my apartment. (I don't have a jigsaw to do cookie cutter benchwork) this will also let me assemble a 4x8 in the meantime, and then break it apart to add more modules when I have time/money.