For as long as I can remember, Ive had a love for the B&O's Sand Patch grade in western Pennsylvania. I've gathered dozens of books and DVD's about the line, and know it like the back of my hand. I have a spare 9 by 7 foot bedroom in my house that I like to build my representation of the line in HO scale from Cumberland to summit on a 3 deck shelf layout circa 1990-1994. The shelves would be connected by a helix in the corner of the room. I've been told by many that HO is a daring choice to go with for the room size and the length of cars I'll be operating (89' autoracks and TOFC), and N scale is the way to go. I'd be okay with N, but I prefer HO as the detail is much better and overall it just looks better. What is your opinion? Should I do N? Let me hear your opinion!
baltimoreandohiofanI have a spare 9 by 7 foot bedroom in my house
baltimoreandohiofanThe shelves would be connected by a helix in the corner of the room.
baltimoreandohiofanI've been told by many that HO is a daring choice to go with for the room size and the length of cars I'll be operating (89' autoracks and TOFC)
A reliable multi-turn helix for those cars in HO will be around 30" in radius. With clearances and supports, that's over 5' square. This would leave you with an L-shaped space 2' wide on one side and 4' wide on the other where the aisles and all the rest of your visible layout would have to fit. And you need to enter the room.
HO for those cars and that prototype in multiple helix-connected decks in that space seems like a non-starter to me. It would even be challenging in N scale, IMHO.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Welcome to the forums!
Afraid I'm going to join the N sayers. Even a 22"r on a helix will take about 4' each way out of your corner and I'm not sure your choice of rolling stock would even operate on such a small radius.
Just mock up some pieces of cardboard or whatever to mock up the width of your shelves and the size of the helix. See what kind of space that leaves you for aisle space in the center.
If you are thinking of multiple operators or visitors, a 7'x9' room, with an 18" wide shelf, only leaves you a 4'x6' space, less whatever space the helix takes up,
Are you planning a complete loop around each deck? How high will the bottom deck be? How will you get in to the center, lift out, duck under, swing gate?
Good luck,
Richard
Just by way of comparison, this design for the Clinchfield in HO took advantage of the prototype "Loops" to make much of the deck-to-deck climb in the open in a 12'X13' space. The track plan was described in Model Railroad Planning 2013.
The client was OK with many crossings of the door, so we went twice-around on each deck and then climbed between decks on the peninsula. Note that this is 2½ times your square footage.
baltimoreandohiofan The shelves would be connected by a helix in the corner of the room.
The shelves would be connected by a helix in the corner of the room.
In HO, the helix would pretty much BE the room.
HO is better than N. And O is better than HO.
Except.
If you don't have the space.
You can either get the space or do N, as far as I can see. Also, consider that you didn't say that you yearn for switching and the like. The bigger the scale, the shorter the trains, and so small layouts in large scale tend into the switching style. Going the other direction, as scale gets smaller, continuous running becomes more the way to go.
So it looks to me that N is the best choice. Which pretty much endorses what the other guys said.
Ed
Has anyone ever determined what the absolute steepest grade in HO scale could be? 4%? 5%? 10%? I've seen some pretty steep overpasses (on 4'x8' Figure 8s). I'm talking an engine and perhaps a few cars. Not really operating; just transposing from one level to the next.
In this particular instance, by utilizing three walls a steep single-track 2" wide shelf might be able to make it nolix style. By putting the ramp at the very back of the layout hard against the walls, the track might be able to negotiate a 23' long climb. That's 9' plus 7' plus 9', minus a little for minimal radius curves at the corners. Or maybe a 20' climb. That's 7' plus 9' plus 7', minus a little bit. 24 feet at 5% would be a 12" rise; 20' at 6% would be about the same. It would look like the Duquesne Incline or some Swiss cog railway or something, but it could be done. Maybe.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
ROBERT PETRICK Has anyone ever determined what the absolute steepest grade in HO scale could be? 4%? 5%? 10%? I've seen some pretty steep overpasses (on 4'x8' Figure 8s). I'm talking an engine and perhaps a few cars. Not really operating; just transposing from one level to the next. In this particular instance, by utilizing three walls a steep single-track 2" wide shelf might be able to make it nolix style. By putting the ramp at the very back of the layout hard against the walls, the track might be able to negotiate a 23' long climb. That's 9' plus 7' plus 9', minus a little for minimal radius curves at the corners. Or maybe a 20' climb. That's 7' plus 9' plus 7', minus a little bit. 24 feet at 5% would be a 12" rise; 20' at 6% would be about the same. It would look like the Duquesne Incline or some Swiss cog railway or something, but it could be done. Maybe. Robert
With two loops you would have 2' of clearance. Has anyone hidden loops behind backdrop panels? Worse case senerio, you would have to remove a panel or two if there is a derailment. But the track would be straight and level (not flat, but a constant grade). I could see putting rerailers at the entrances of the loops and in the middle of the walls in case anything derails, just so it wouldn't cause a mess in the tunnel.
ROBERT PETRICKI'm talking an engine and perhaps a few cars. Not really operating; just transposing from one level to the next.
That doesn't remotely fit the Original Poster's design concept, which is for a heavily-traveled multi-track mainline (Sandpatch Grade) with long trains.
cuyama That doesn't remotely fit the Original Poster's design concept, which is for a heavily-traveled multi-track mainline (Sandpatch Grade) with long trains.
I agree. Long trains are gonna be problematic however you slice it. Even in N scale. Nine feet and seven feet are not a whole lot of feet. Life would be easy if airplane hangars and gymnasiums were available.
I was (am) trying to ponder how the helix can go along the outside of the layout with the humans and the heavily-traveled trains in the infield, instead of occupying at least a quarter of the room as a tight coil in one corner. Somehow.
ROBERT PETRICKI was (am) trying to ponder how the helix can go along the outside of the layou
About the very best one can do, even in N scale with smaller curves, is 27' per lap around-the-room. This is a little trickier because the prototype is a mix of 2-track and 3-track mains, so the climbing shelves will be a little wider. At 2.5% grade, one gains about 8 inches with each lap, so you'd need at least two laps between decks, even increasing the grade a bit.
As I showed above with the Clinchfield example, it's possible to climb to multiple decks with multiple laps around the room -- but it likewise requires multiple crossings of the room entrance. And if the door swings in to the Original Poster's space (as is typical for bedrooms), then things will be more challenging.
Hi baltimoreandohiofan!
Welcome to the forums!!
I know nothing about N scale, but I'm afraid that if you want to go with HO scale then unfortunately, IMHO (In My Humble Opinion), you are attempting the impossible. The helix alone, if it is to be large enough to accomodate 89' cars reliably, will take up almost all of the room.
Is there a possibility of someone moving into the small bedroom from a larger bedroom so you can use the larger bedroom for your layout? I suspect not. I think I can hear the howls of protest from the affected family member already.
Another option is simple patience. I have been planning my soon to be started HO layout for 13 years. Why so long? Because I chose to allow my son to occupy my future layout space in the garage so he could have a space of his own for his exercise equipment. His physical and mental developement was far more important than my model trains. In the mean time, I have gotten a huge amount of satisfaction from working at my workbench scratch building structures, installing decoders, building kits, tuning many BB and other assembled kits.... and doing just about everything else involved in modelling other than constructing the layout. Now my son has his own house so the the space is finally mine. Your small bedroom would make a perfect workshop while you patiently wait for a larger space to become available, if that is a possibility.
I wish I had a better solution to your dilemma but unfortunately my magic wand is broken and I'm keeping all of my lottery winnings for myself!
Good luck! Don't give up on your dream.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Switching doesn't really do it for me. The purpose of this layout rather is to simply run trains and simulate helper operations on the prototype from Hyndman/Cumberland to Sand Patch.
The door barely swings in to the layout space, its not a problem. Crossings of the entrance I don't care about. I'm only 5'6.
Hey B&OFan -
Is it possible to access some space in an adjoining room? Say, a closet or something? Enough room to build an adequate helix. Or are you strictly limited to the room as indicated?
Building a single independent level is not a problem. Or even several single levels. The real challenge is connecting the levels with continuous running fully consisted prototypical trains. Or even shunting a few cars from one level to the next.
Designers here often use the phrase 'Givens and Druthers'. Have you pondered exactly what you want, what you need, and what compromises you are willing to make? Once you have a flexible list, there are many on this board who can provide info and advice to get to the getting.
baltimoreandohiofanThe door barely swings in to the layout space, its not a problem. Crossings of the entrance I don't care about. I'm only 5'6.
Posting a sketch of your room with the entrance and any other obstructions noted would help others help you.
There is always TT & Z scale which would be tiny compared to N. Is your eyesight OK? Do you have the shakes? If so, stick with RTR cars & engines.
Dennis
baltimoreandohiofan ... on a 3 deck shelf layout circa 1990-1994. The shelves would be connected by a helix in the corner of the room.
... on a 3 deck shelf layout circa 1990-1994. The shelves would be connected by a helix in the corner of the room.
I had a friend Christine she was modeling the Chesapeake and Ohio in the 1940s-1950s. And the Chessie System in the 1970s.
I forgot the location of the area but she was going to a quad deck and helixs on both sides all in HO Scale. With almost the same dimensions.
Unfortunately it's been 9 years, she basically quit building it and started replaning. Christine said she'll redo it with a single shelf layout.
Amtrak America, 1971-Present.
I was in O scale until 1987. I considered switching to N, but ended up going with HO. If I were making the choice now, it would be N. N scale equipment now is at least as well-detailed and smooth-running as HO was then, probably better. I'd use Kato Unitrack, pretty amazing how many products Kato makes now for N (that I wish they made for HO too!); not just track but fine running engines.
7j43kHO is better than N. And O is better than HO.
That´s a pretty meaningless statement unless you add better in or for what.
HO scale certainly offers the chance for better detail for people with less than a watchmaker´s dexterity and O scale even tops that, but any lack of detail becomes more apparent the bigger the scale is.
It finally boils down to one´s own intentions and givens and druthers.
wjstix I was in O scale until 1987. I considered switching to N, but ended up going with HO. If I were making the choice now, it would be N. N scale equipment now is at least as well-detailed and smooth-running as HO was then, probably better. I'd use Kato Unitrack, pretty amazing how many products Kato makes now for N (that I wish they made for HO too!); not just track but fine running engines.
News Flash - KATO is, and always has been an N scale company that occasionally dabbles in HO.....
For me personally, N scale is simply way too small to be of any interest. With enough space and money, two rail O scale might be real nice, and if more was available S would appeal to me as well. But after 46 years in HO, I think I'm were I need to be for my modeling style and goals.
Sheldon
n-scale
if you have a ramp that runs along the walls with 12 Rad at the corners you get about a 345" run. at 2 percent grade you climb 6.9" per lap. so 2 laps around would get you to 13.8" which would be a nice seperation between decks. You can hide the ramps behind the a removeable backdrop.
There would still be plento of room for scenery in front.
Steve
It seems to me that an n-scale adaptation of the Clinchfield plan that Byron posted would fit fairly easily into the space you have. If you don't like "the loops", you could put your helix on that blob.
Folks have mentioned the space a helix takes up, but you have to remember that only the space on the lower level is lost. The space above the helix is still usable.
Full disclosure... Byron's Clinchfield plan is one of my all-time favorites and was a huge inspiration to me in planning my own layout.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
Sir Madog 7j43k HO is better than N. And O is better than HO. That´s a pretty meaningless statement unless you add better in or for what. HO scale certainly offers the chance for better detail for people with less than a watchmaker´s dexterity and O scale even tops that, but any lack of detail becomes more apparent the bigger the scale is. It finally boils down to one´s own intentions and givens and druthers.
7j43k HO is better than N. And O is better than HO.
What I was trying to get at is that I believe that, if a model railroader had enough time, space, and money, he would go large scale. It's more massive than small scales (railroads generally being known for massiveness) and, at the same time, more intimate, in that, for a given sight distance, you can see more. And you will be closer, in scale feet. And things work better, too. Like better electrical contact.
Of course, there really are constraints in the real world. Lack of enough: time, space, money.
Note that in the discussion in this topic, the point of superiority for N scale is it will fit where HO won't. Not that it is in any way better, otherwise.
I suppose the only thing, in my theory, that would keep a model railroader from going humongous is that it would be too difficult to turn the model over to apply the trucks and couplers.
carl425 Folks have mentioned the space a helix takes up, but you have to remember that only the space on the lower level is lost. The space above the helix is still usable.
Yes. And the uppermost revolution of the helix can be exposed in the open disquised as a Tehachapi sort of loop. Another inch or two can be picked up by incorporating a Broadway Limited Horseshoe Curve type of alignment on one level or another.
All kinds of ways to chip away at tight spots.
Here's another option - elevator shelves. see http://ro-ro.net/ According to their site, comes in 4' & 6' modules and can be joined up to 18'.
You could put the elevator behind a removable backdrop and squeeze in as many levels as you want.
I have also seen similar home-made units detailed in MR, one was curved.
Jim
I have a 9x7 bathroom in my house.
I just can't picture an H.O. scale railroad in that small of a room.
I model N scale and my 11 x 25 foot room in the basement is too small now that I have my trains up and running. But thats because I was too impatient and didn't even think about hidden staging for all my equipment that for some reason continues to grow.
I run autoracks and TOFC on a double track mainline. In N scale, The autorack is 7 inches long. I have 18 of them and with a couple engines you are looking at an 11 foot long tran. And on my railroad it looks decent but would look better if it was longer.
In a 9 x 7 foot room , the same train would be along 2 of the walls at the same time.
So IMHO , if you want autoracks and TOFC , go with N scale. If you want autoracks and TOFC and better detail that you get with H.O. , then look for a bigger space.
Craig
For a 9x7' room, with the goals given, N scale is your only option. No debate on that one. Put a fork in it and get started.
I've got a 10x18' basement room with an around the walls layout and a 20 car train is pretty long for even that layout.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
CraigNI model N scale and my 11 x 25 foot room in the basement is too small now that I have my trains up and running. But thats because I was too impatient and didn't even think about hidden staging for all my equipment that for some reason continues to grow. I run autoracks and TOFC on a double track mainline. In N scale, The autorack is 7 inches long. I have 18 of them and with a couple engines you are looking at an 11 foot long tran. And on my railroad it looks decent but would look better if it was longer.
I have a space similar in size to yours, about 23'x12', that I'm struggling to envision having H0 in. Granted, I do not think I will have long autorack trains, but I do like longer trains, so comes to the same.
Do you have any photos of your N railroad to share?
YouTube Channel
Website
ROBERT PETRICK Has anyone ever determined what the absolute steepest grade in HO scale could be? 4%? 5%? 10%? I've seen some pretty steep overpasses (on 4'x8' Figure 8s). I'm talking an engine and perhaps a few cars. Not really operating; just transposing from one level to the next.
Coincidentally, I just tested out maximum grades yesterday. My Bachmann GP7 can climb a 7.5 degree (that's 13%) grade while pulling two cars in a straight line. Not having a kitchen scale or anything, I couldn't weigh the cars, but that would be a useful data point.
Though you also have to consider the maximum change in grade that the locomotive can accomodate. The front pilot/cowcatcher or whatever usually has pretty low ground clearance, so when going directly from level ground to a steep grade, that could hit the rails. I'm estimating the GP7 could increase its grade by 2.5 degrees (thats 4.4%) per its total length.
I'm currently testing these things because I'm planning a small size HO layout of my own... trying to jam in a lot of stuff into 4x6.5 feet :)
TrainzLuvr I have a few posted on a different train related website but not of the whole railroad. CraigN I model N scale and my 11 x 25 foot room in the basement is too small now that I have my trains up and running. But thats because I was too impatient and didn't even think about hidden staging for all my equipment that for some reason continues to grow. I run autoracks and TOFC on a double track mainline. In N scale, The autorack is 7 inches long. I have 18 of them and with a couple engines you are looking at an 11 foot long tran. And on my railroad it looks decent but would look better if it was longer. I have a space similar in size to yours, about 23'x12', that I'm struggling to envision having H0 in. Granted, I do not think I will have long autorack trains, but I do like longer trains, so comes to the same. Do you have any photos of your N railroad to share?
I have a few posted on a different train related website but not of the whole railroad.
CraigN I model N scale and my 11 x 25 foot room in the basement is too small now that I have my trains up and running. But thats because I was too impatient and didn't even think about hidden staging for all my equipment that for some reason continues to grow. I run autoracks and TOFC on a double track mainline. In N scale, The autorack is 7 inches long. I have 18 of them and with a couple engines you are looking at an 11 foot long tran. And on my railroad it looks decent but would look better if it was longer.