Schuylkill and SusquehannaI agree that in general a "G" is preferable, but using it as part of a no-lix design becomes problematic.
When John Armstrong first used the no-lix, it was on a G shaped 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.
I agree that in general a "G" is preferable, but using it as part of a no-lix design becomes problematic. To complete the no-lix, the track has to run along the north and east walls, back around to the south-east corner of the room to re-emerge on the sceniced portions of the layout. Personally, I don't like long stretches of hidden trackage, and trying to no-lix a "G" shaped layout is going to require 35+ feet of hard to access hidden track.
A lift-out or swing bridge can be a problem, too. Lift-outs tend to wear and eventually lose their alignment, and swing bridges need to be rigid enough to maintain vertical alignment at the open end. There have been some nice articles published by Kalmbach on building lift-outs and swing bridges that are rigid, durable, and have easy alignment adjustments.
Ideally, we could use a teleporter to get inside the layout, but for now we'll just have to compromise. Between inaccessible track and a possibly finicky but easier to access swing gate, I'd choose the gate, but that's just me.
S&S
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
I still think the g shape will give you the best results. multi deck or single deck.
With the e shape you don't get the long straight runs. There are turnbacks everywhere. The whole east wall is almost useless.
As far as the duckunder or bridge I would be against it. Looks like the room you are puting it in is nicely finished and you will want to show the layout to friends and family. reliability of removeable bridges is debatable but it will never be as easy as walking into the layout.
Steve
You can get 6 tracks in at 2" spacing, but that assumes that you intend it to be a staging yard and not a fiddle yard. If you want a fiddle yard, I'd suggest having 4 tracks so you have plenty of room for not-quite-scale fingers.
Have you determined how long you would like your trains to be? I took a read through this thread, and I don't recall seeing it. I like trains that are 12 to 14 cars long, plus an engine or two and a cabin car (caboose for those who are not Pennsy-literate). In HO scale:
Remember to do the train length calculation using the dimension over the pulling faces of the couplers. Afterwards fudge a little extra to allow for oversize model couplers and operational flexability. For example, I'd probably design the sidings and yards for an 11 foot train rather than the calculated 10.5 foot maximum train length.
Dimensions for various cars and locomotives are available here (sorry, PRR only): http://prr.railfan.net/diagrams/PRRdiagrams.html?sel=&sz=sm&fr=
I feel that the track plan for CSX's KD subdivision, as previously mentioned in this thread, gives a good idea of what can be done with a very similar space. The CSX plan is 15'x22'3" while your space is 14'x22'8", and it appears to be designed for roughly 10-11 foot long trains.
I would suggest avioding a pair of turbacks like you show in #40. It's going to make the no-lix a bit harder because you will be doubling back instead of maintaining a gentle spiral, and it adds an area in the top left corner of the room that will require a lift-out or duckunder to access.
I agree with rrinker that #41 could cause you problems trying to place sidings and yards. Coupling on curves that tight is quite possible, but only with near-equal length cars and locomotives. If you want to put more curves in the track, perhaps incicative of a line that had been cut into the side of a mountain, then some gentle curves in the track, combined with a gently undulating fascia can provide that effect without having to add peninsulas. Had I been the one to build the KD Subdivision, I would have cut the layout edge along the top and left walls to follow the tracks to give it a more fluid feel.
You can easily get 5 staging tracks in 12" width and still have space away from the edge of the table - although since it's staging you can also put up a small fence to prevent 'issues' since it doesn't have to look as nice as the visible part of the layout. In fact, a removeable full height 'fence' made to look like furniture may help the acceptance factor. Is 5 staging tracks enough? You need to come up with some sort of operating plan to determine that. Plus that's 5 trains the full length of the longest wall, just about. Too big to run on the layout. On at least 2 if not 3 of the 5 tracks, you could easily stage 2 trains per track. Either back to back, one staged to run east, the other staged to run west, or serially, both facing the same way. So that's 7-8 trains staged. Also, having the staging outside of the main layout means you could have a workign staging yard - here's where the removable cover comes in. Normally the cover is on, makign the room look nice. When it's tiem to operate the layout, someone could stand or sit in that hallway to actively shift cars on and off the staging tracks to make up new trains and break down ones that finish the run, making for unlimited operation. Like mole staging but since this person wouldn't be buried behind the benchwork I wouldn't call them a mole. This may make for a good compromise between having enough tracks and not using prime real estate for staging.
That second one with 2 short penninsulas - personally I nope out on those because everything is then curved, no places for sidings or anything. Someone gave me a similar suggestion for my old space (I had 50+ feet of linear space but only about 15 feet wide) and while I've sure something could be done liek that, it just didn't register with me. Rather than sharply defined blobs, some gentle curving of the benchwork so it's not all square improves the appearance and just one penninsula seems to me a more effective use of the space.
#42, if the staging is outside the pillars, that interior, if you don;t mind the duckunder entrance, gives you more than a scale mile run just with a simple single lap and no double decking - it's actually more because I didn't calculate curves by circumference, just diagonal blocks - which is also off because diagnonal on a 1' square block is 1.4', not 1'. On the inside of the pillars you could run a bypass track that bypasses the staging and gives a completely visible continuous run. You could do a twice around design with only slight height difference (not a true double deck - so you can get back down to have just the one staging yard) and get something like 2.5 miles or more of main line running.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
You can certainly get a few staging tracks into a 12 inch space, but I'm afraid I can't make the judgment of how many or few staging tracks would be adequate for what you are trying to accomplish. You probably need professional design help for that, in that a person would have to take the time to discuss your goals and wants probably in more detail than what can be provided here.
It why making suggestions on a forum is tough, since it impacts a bunch of other decisions you may have already settled on.
- Douglas
I've gone beyond the columns for 12" and that's probably the most I can get away with. That space is basically a hallway through the basement and has to be kept clear and accessible.We also plan to add a closet space below the left column on the opposite wall. With me taking those 12" there and the closet space, it's making that part of the hallway fairly narrow at 3' or so.
Would it be worth while putting staging there into the 12" of space, considering that I don't have much space on the opposite side of the columns for a pass-thru track, or a no-lix incline?
I did see the CSX KD Sub plan and its shape is similar to my #42. This brings me to a question whether it would be better to go all the way around the walls like #42, or two turnbacks like #40.
Also have this variation made
YouTube Channel
Website
have you studied the latest issue with the HO scale CSX's KD Subdivision? It is very similar to what you want to build.
I've lost track of your overall concept so I apologize if my observation muddied the waters.
My thought was that you are able to access the layout from both sides of the columns, even though the room allowing south side access isn't part of the normal operating space. When operating the layout within its confines, I thought the track beyond the columns might be difficult to scenic and might not be very efficient operationally. Using it for staging hidden from view from the operating ailes, but yet totaly accessible from the south, could be a useful situation.
Devoting a few more inches of benchwork to the south side might eliminate the need for below or above grade staging and the complexities thereof.
Thanks for the suggestions guys!
I was going to either put the staging on the peninsula (lower level) or on the top wall, that's why I kept it at 30".
I'm not sure there's enough room for staging in the space below the columns - just 12" there and the no-lix track was going to pass there with perhaps one siding. I did not put it but yes a backdrop was going to go just below the columns all along to the right wall.
What about left and right walls, should I keep them as is or thin down too. Again, need space for the no-lix track and I'm not sure of the best way to incorporate it into the rest of the layout so the trains don't go missing for long periods of time.
Speaking of which, how do you come up in the benchwork when you have a climbing track, assuming I build with open-grid or L-griders frameworks?
TrainzLuvr So something like this: I made the top wall portion 30" instead of 24" so that the yard can go at the front and main can pass behind, as well as the no-lix track could climb around the wall. Or would you have some other suggestions, I'm open to anything...
So something like this:
I made the top wall portion 30" instead of 24" so that the yard can go at the front and main can pass behind, as well as the no-lix track could climb around the wall.
Or would you have some other suggestions, I'm open to anything...
The space on the south side of the columns is perfect for hidden staging. Run a backdrop between the columns.
And I agree with Randy. 30 inches is probably overkill, and the base of the peninsula is probably also too wide
You probably don't need 30" there. I have 6 yard tracks, 2 AD tracks, plus a 2 track main in 2' and the spacing between the main and AD tracks and the AD tracks and the first yard track are somewhat excessive as I haven't gone back and totally cleaned up the first draft yet.
On the opposite side - maybe go down to 18" wide instead of a full 24". You can still get plenty of scenery and even sidings in that space. Those two changes save a full foot, which if you adjust the penninsula menas each aisle can gain 6" of width. Without really sacrificing any layout.
@fender777
#17 was a suggestion from one of my club members. He figured that to utilize the two columns at the bottom, make that portion of the layout wider so that it could be operated from both sides of the columns.
That bottom arm could facilitate a larger yard etc. while the top arm would be more scenic with track overlapping at various heights, and a fold down turnback section in yellow, to allow access to the electrical panel.
The last two plans I posted (#37 and #40) are walk arounds, although #40 has two turnback loops, I still favour it more over #37.
Would you not put a peninsula in the middle? Just a 24" walk around would leave a lot of space unused in the middle of the room and would end up looking like #29.
@Choops
I tried the G and it has a shorter mainline than what I posted above in #40.
Plus the G has these narrow areas that really do not help much with putting anything on them beside just scenery...didn't really look that hot to me.
@DSchmitt
thanks for reposting the image.
At least your ceiling appears taller than mine, and there's much more trackwork and scenery, too. :)
fender777Here is a link and pic.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
A folded g shape will give you the same amount of main line with one less "blob" and a straight run along the east wall.
I have come up with another layout plan. The #34 (G shape) was an inspiration to start with, then it was morphed along side with #37 into what it is now. It's really a variation of #18/#19 that I lost track of.
I feel that I'm getting closer to the finish line as I can see more meaning in how things should operate.
Here's #40 in shape and track (v1, with v2 being worked on already). This is a double deck layout with lower staging.
Mainline is about 140' long!!! The larger turnbacks are 29" radii while the center one is 26". I'm open to suggestions whether I should alter them to 28" and 27", having in mind that 24" is the smallest choke point I'd contend with and would prefer 30" there, if I could.
The way I see this operate is as follows:
Staging would be below the center peninsula and trains could leave going either eastbound (right, then down towards the columns in gray) or westbound (right then up towards the upper wall) while climbing up to the main level. They would emerge somewhere on the bottom turnback (location TBD) or upper wall (location TBD) and merge the main line. They would have to traverse the entire main line, to reach their respective yards on the north/south side of the peninsula.
When trains leave the yard, they can either go to the other respective yard, or to the opposite staging, through above established route.
Industries and towns/stations would be somewhere along the main, and I hope I can fit them with a decent spacing in-between.
Originally, I thought I would put a helix in the upper turnback and was ready to settle for losing that space. Then today while surfing the web I stumbled upon a linear/curved elevator concept that I totally lost track of (I've seen it before).
To reach the upper deck, trains would take the linear elevator in the bottom, just below the columns, symbolized with the light green box with the track in it.
I have not connected the track yet, but I plan to have two sidings to the main line there, one of which will be the elevator.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, aisle are very generous, aside from the two chokepoints around the center peninsula.
Still much more to be added, but as I said, I feel I'm getting really close to something I would build.
I won't post the v2 of the track because I'd like to hear any feedback first and whether this makes sense or not.
Please and thank you.
I am going with H0, I actually changed the title of the thread to reflect my final committment, too.
Do you have a layout plan of your layout you can show, and some photos perhaps?
EDIT: I'd love to see how you managed your space because we are almost identical in size.
My only suggestion is go HO' Why because their is so much more stuff to pick from and it look so much more real compared to N' I have never has a person at my place pick N over HO. I keep some N scale trains and when I ask them what they like better they all pick HO. N scale looks toyish compared to the detail on a a HO Loco or car. Yes we all wish we had tons more room to work with. But in the long run it is the quality not the size of a layout that counts. Also some like just to run trains around a long mainline though the country side and some like more of a switching layout with many business and industries' Its hard to have everything but with your room which it very close to my size room 11ft by 22ft one can do a very nice HO layout. Now start building.hehe
I was going upgrade going counter-clockwise. Staging ladder under bottom leg, above the pillars, witht he tracks extended back along the right wall if the length is needed. Actually pushed back as fas as possible, so you have room after the ladder to start the climb. It climbs up and around the left pillar, and slimbs all along outside the pillars, around the bottorm right, and climbs along the back wall (the outside track). Level throught he liftout so that's not an engineering nightmare, then climb again along the wall behind the yard. If necessary - since this is staging, you might be able to stop climbing along the right wall and have enough room to reach in to rerail cars in staging. You don't need the same headroom you'd need to install full scenery. The track going across the back wall behind the yard might then be alternately visibile and hidden, say running under some buildings and stuff. You start climbing again around the left corner behind the roundhouse and along and around the middle leg to get the yard level high enough over the line coming out of staging. Yard area is all level, across the liftout, witht he staging line under it. Think vertically, under, not one track in front of the other, but one above the other. If you then make part of the right wall flat and part climb, same witht he bottom leg, and then once again climb all the way around the pillar and across the bottom and up the right side, and this time climb along above the yard and left curve, you should be high enough over the yard for a true second deck. Climb on the right wall again and you cna put staging over the bottom leg.
Don't forget to calculate track length properly going around curves - you get a lot more track in even a half circle than you might think. What I did was all based on the climbing parts having a 2% grade, which isn't killer.
I'm trying to visualize what you wrote, before I put it on paper/screen, and it sounds like it would work but the piece I'm missing is the direction - which way are you climbing up (leaving the lower level staging on the right wall and going down (west), on the outside of the pillars then around the turnback, or...)?
I really do not like my upper left corner, and I'm wrecking my brains trying to figure it out. That turntable/roundhouse was just a placeholder but even putting them there as in my non-G plan still does not feel right.
Alternatively, I've been trying to figure out what part of the room is the least useful, so it can house a helix, and that's proving a bit difficult. Around the right pillar; in the upper left corner; or in the lower left on the diagonal...
Thanks!
You need a lot less width for two tracks seperated vertically than you think - at least at the beginning of the grade when the difference is small. Retaining walls work well. Just don;t use the same trick EVERY place.
On the G shaped version - if the isnide the pillar side ont he bottom is level, allowing for easy sidings, and you start climbing where the loopback goes, and climb all along the edge that is on the other side of the pillar (place for mountain scenery visible from the hall side), and along the right hand wall where you have it depicted as hidden, leveling off as it hits the lift out. just that distance there, allowing for vertical transistions, gets you 10" of vertical at a 2% grade. Once across the liftout for the electric box, since that track is buried in the back, it can continue to climb behind the yard. By the time it emerges on the pilla side of the middle penninsula, that's another 5+ inches vertical climb. Level here along the length of the penninsula (I'd make this side the wider part of the penninsula, for locating industries - if the industries are on the same side as the yard, you will have crowded operating conditions). If needed, you can gain another inch or two along the turnback curve of the penninsula and a few more inches along the yard side of the penninsula. From the curve around behind the roundhouse to the liftout, all level for the yard and facilities. Along the inside of the right wall, you can mix in grades and flats. You are, at this point, some 18" above the starting point on the bottom leg. Which would have been the staging yard. A full 18" clearance (less benchwork thickness) isn;t always necessary for staging, so grades could be reduced or other areas made level. Now that you've gone from staging once around the room, repeat to get the second level of the layout. Perhaps witht he climbing and level areas switches up a bit since you aren;t going to have another big yard above the first one. ANd when that loop comes around the room, you are now high enough to put the opposite end staging above the second running level on the right side wall - the right side ends up with 4 levels of track - bottom is the staging for one way, then 2 operating layers, and the top desk is the staging for the other way. Upper staging may need stepstools to easily reach equipment, especially on the rear tracks, but considering the trade off is you get to wrap the layout around the room twice... the center penninsula and the yard area would have 2 levels of track, the lower penninsula and the right side wall get the 4 levels.
As for supporting the center of the middle penninsula - you worry too much. You have a > 5 foot wide anchor piece at the turnback curve, plus the wide section wedged into the corner at the room of the penninsula. The shank is not going to be unstable. Either make the legs L girders, or use plain old 2x4's and that will keep weight down low. The wider parts at the two ends will keep it stable.
I can't really go more beyond the pillars as that's a hallway - already into it 6-8" in the plan.
The non-G plan has a no-lix in the peninsula.
I keep trying to figure out how to no-lix the G shape but not coming up with anything. I thought about around the room but some places are very narrow and taking up space for the incline would make them even less useable or anything else.
Also, where would I put towns and industries in the G shape anyway, most of the areas are very narrow (counting that I would need to have a mainline, siding, industry spurs and a no-lix incline in the space)?