ATLANTIC CENTRAL some people can build things knowing they are temporary, and others can not. Only once have I ever dismantled a layout with a plan to build a new one in its place. Every other layout demo was the result of a move. I could never build a layout already knowing in advance it might be temporary.
some people can build things knowing they are temporary, and others can not. Only once have I ever dismantled a layout with a plan to build a new one in its place. Every other layout demo was the result of a move. I could never build a layout already knowing in advance it might be temporary.
For sure, the OP should not build this layout knowing in advance that it will only be temporary, but there is no reason not to build this layout, recognizing in advance that some elements may later need to be removed or simplified.
Rich
Alton Junction
richhotrain Doughless I second that opinion. From a freight train perspective, the industrial spurs are too short to not have scenes look toy like too. JMO. Simply too much going on in the space. Eliminate some things. I am going to be a contrarian here. I find the proposed track plan intriguing. I say, build it as proposed. See how you like it and how it performs. You can always cut back later. Rich
Doughless I second that opinion. From a freight train perspective, the industrial spurs are too short to not have scenes look toy like too. JMO. Simply too much going on in the space. Eliminate some things.
From a freight train perspective, the industrial spurs are too short to not have scenes look toy like too. JMO.
Simply too much going on in the space. Eliminate some things.
I am going to be a contrarian here. I find the proposed track plan intriguing. I say, build it as proposed. See how you like it and how it performs. You can always cut back later.
I think the benchwork itself seems complicated, with three? levels including below staging. He would be pretty committed to the plan after the benchwork is done, IMO.
- Douglas
Well, some people can build things knowing they are temporary, and others can not. Only once have I ever dismantled a layout with a plan to build a new one in its place. Every other layout demo was the result of a move. I could never build a layout already knowing in advance it might be temporary.
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRALNo offense to the OP, but I will be more direct than others who have tried to steer him in the direction of larger curves or compressed passenger equipment. I think the proposed track plan tries to put too much, in way too little space, and will be a construction, operational, and maintenance disaster. It is hard for me to understand the OP's goals, but trying to run 80' cars on 24" radius, and squeeze in all these different elements seems destined to look toylike and not operate well.
I think the proposed track plan tries to put too much, in way too little space, and will be a construction, operational, and maintenance disaster.
It is hard for me to understand the OP's goals, but trying to run 80' cars on 24" radius, and squeeze in all these different elements seems destined to look toylike and not operate well.
I second that opinion.
MurBall Sheldon that makes perfect sense, i can picture it. I'll have a go transferring it into anyrail. Using a DBL main throughout means I could railfan 2 trains at once which while not as enjoyable as 3 is just about enough for me. Operationally it makes sense too. And I can see the benefits of avoiding a terminus and turntable . It does include a second gradient to staging which is a added complexity but perhaps worth it . One issue in your plan that I have tried to avoid in mine is that all lines include running on a gradient. Now I have a 2.5% gradient on my current layout and most all trains can navigate it fine however from reading forms like these I heard alot of people saying to avoid gradients at all cost as so many trains can't get up them. I will be running a diverse mix of US, British and European locos old and new so I liked that on my current plan I could at least rail fan any loco on the flat loops. Your plan would work great for a strickly focused modern diesel era layout maybe?
Sheldon that makes perfect sense, i can picture it. I'll have a go transferring it into anyrail. Using a DBL main throughout means I could railfan 2 trains at once which while not as enjoyable as 3 is just about enough for me. Operationally it makes sense too. And I can see the benefits of avoiding a terminus and turntable . It does include a second gradient to staging which is a added complexity but perhaps worth it .
One issue in your plan that I have tried to avoid in mine is that all lines include running on a gradient. Now I have a 2.5% gradient on my current layout and most all trains can navigate it fine however from reading forms like these I heard alot of people saying to avoid gradients at all cost as so many trains can't get up them. I will be running a diverse mix of US, British and European locos old and new so I liked that on my current plan I could at least rail fan any loco on the flat loops. Your plan would work great for a strickly focused modern diesel era layout maybe?
You should be able to stretch the grades out and keep them under 2% and have some level areas. 2% or less is usually friendly to the kind of train lengths you will be running.
MurBall Sheldon is there any element specifically you would remove because it will be a pain to build or maintain? Like perhaps the gradient to staging on a lower level? Or a scene like the urban industrial section or reduce size of the yard? Keeping the Highline is a must for me as I love watching trains pass above and below each other, winding in and out of view. -Ray
Sheldon is there any element specifically you would remove because it will be a pain to build or maintain? Like perhaps the gradient to staging on a lower level? Or a scene like the urban industrial section or reduce size of the yard?
Keeping the Highline is a must for me as I love watching trains pass above and below each other, winding in and out of view.
-Ray
Ray, how about an approach like this. Move the passenger station to the long side of the room at a highest elevation like you have it now.
Put the freight yard in front of it at a lower elevation, leaving the passenger station go around the room in one direction and come down to the freight yard.
Provide a mainline bypass, which could be hidden under the station to save space.
Leaving the freight yard from the other end continue aroundd the room down grade and disappear into a tunnel down to the staging.
Make the staging a thru yard under the passenger terminal and freight yard.
Leaving the staging continue up grade back to the other end of the passenger station.
And for me, I would make the whole mainline double track.
Then leave the yard, on the end that goes up to the passenger terminal, with a separate level track to industries in front of the other trackage on the end and far long side.
Skip the more complex dead end branch in favor of these industries close to the yard.
These yard connected industries will not cross any tracks at grade and can be worked while trains travel the mainline.
Skip the tuntable, skip the loop, look for a way to squeeze in a wye if you must, for turning stuff.
Hope this makes sense.
MurBall,
A few things I should add.
In case you are not aware, if you click on my track plans it will take you to a larger view.
Even with my large curves, I choose to run lots of selectively compressed passenger cars like those from Athearn.
Understand, that even 36" radius represents a curve in real life that would only be found in a restricted speed situation.
Yes, I am interested in "big picture" realism, so overall effect is more important than each piece of rolling stock being exactly correct.
I also model a very narrow space and time, the Mid Atlantic region of the US in 1954.
Take care,
ATLANTIC CENTRAL crossthedog MurBall Thanks Matt, some good news there. I do like the bachmann spectrum carriages and the level of detail (I'm not knowledgeable enough to be a rivet counter!), do they always tend to be shorter than the prototype similar to the athearn cars? No, I believe the Spectrum and Branchline passenger cars I have are not as short as the Athearn equivalents. To my lights, they look like standard length heavyweights, but I am not well schooled in this matter. I always forget how to figure the math, but if 1:87 means you multiply inches by 87 and then divide by 12 to get scale feet, I figure my cars are just shy of 80' in length. I think the Athearn shorties are more like 65' or 70'. Someone here would know offhand, I'm sure. -Matt OK, I have been reluctant to comment in thread for a number of reasons, but here goes. In the real world of North American railroading, heavyweight steel passenger cars from the early part of the 20th century came in a wide variety of lengths. Yes, many were 80' (+/-), and most sleepers, diners, obsevations built by Pullman road on a semi standard 80' frame. BUT, head end equipment (baggage, RPO, express, etc), and coaches, and a LONG list of other exceptions came in an endless selection of lengths from 60' (or even less) up to 80'. So, to assume that a model in incorrect based on length alone would be incorrect thinking. EVEN early streamlined/smoothside cars came in various lengths. The B&O Columbian, a great many of the first SP "daylight" cars, and a variety of others were less than 80' long, typically 75' to 78'. While the newest streamliners built in the 40's and 50's were typically, but not always, 85' long. Now that we have cleared that up. Each of the Bachmann Spectrum heavyweight cars are correct models - maybe not for all the road names offered, but they are correct models of cars that existed - including their length. The coach and combine are PRR prototypes and are 78' long. The Pullman is a unique floor plan Pullman built with a vestiblue only at one end, it is 80' long, the diner and observation are also Pullman plan cars that are 80' long. The Athearn heavyweight cars are 72' long, except the RPO/baggage which is 67' long. They are completely freelanced using "typical" Pullman company construction details. That said, the baggage, RPO/Baggage, and coach are very close matches to cars that did exist, including their 72' length. To go deeper into this requires a BOOK, or two. Now, as I said above I have been reluctant to comment on this thread. No offense to the OP, but I will be more direct than others who have tried to steer him in the direction of larger curves or compressed passenger equipment. I think the proposed track plan tries to put too much, in way too little space, and will be a construction, operational, and maintenance disaster. It is hard for me to understand the OP's goals, but trying to run 80' cars on 24" radius, and squeeze in all these different elements seems destined to look toylike and not operate well. Maybe the first consideration is not a concern? And the broad scope of subject matter the OP hopes to cover? I realize that I have considerably more space than the OP, but his space is not exactly small. I am posting my track plan in an effort to explain the concept of modeling "one place" and having the trains come and go from/to continous thru staging. layout facts: Minimum mainline radius - 36" radius with 16" long easements Minimum mainline turnout - #6 Design train length of most staging tracks - 20 actual feet, 1740 scale feet. Again, the OP's plan mat well be right in line with his goals and that is fine. We all do in this hobby what interests us. But from an engineering standpoint, I think he has a lot of engineering challenges with this plan. Sheldon
crossthedog MurBall Thanks Matt, some good news there. I do like the bachmann spectrum carriages and the level of detail (I'm not knowledgeable enough to be a rivet counter!), do they always tend to be shorter than the prototype similar to the athearn cars? No, I believe the Spectrum and Branchline passenger cars I have are not as short as the Athearn equivalents. To my lights, they look like standard length heavyweights, but I am not well schooled in this matter. I always forget how to figure the math, but if 1:87 means you multiply inches by 87 and then divide by 12 to get scale feet, I figure my cars are just shy of 80' in length. I think the Athearn shorties are more like 65' or 70'. Someone here would know offhand, I'm sure. -Matt
MurBall Thanks Matt, some good news there. I do like the bachmann spectrum carriages and the level of detail (I'm not knowledgeable enough to be a rivet counter!), do they always tend to be shorter than the prototype similar to the athearn cars?
Thanks Matt, some good news there. I do like the bachmann spectrum carriages and the level of detail (I'm not knowledgeable enough to be a rivet counter!), do they always tend to be shorter than the prototype similar to the athearn cars?
No, I believe the Spectrum and Branchline passenger cars I have are not as short as the Athearn equivalents. To my lights, they look like standard length heavyweights, but I am not well schooled in this matter.
I always forget how to figure the math, but if 1:87 means you multiply inches by 87 and then divide by 12 to get scale feet, I figure my cars are just shy of 80' in length. I think the Athearn shorties are more like 65' or 70'. Someone here would know offhand, I'm sure.
-Matt
OK, I have been reluctant to comment in thread for a number of reasons, but here goes.
In the real world of North American railroading, heavyweight steel passenger cars from the early part of the 20th century came in a wide variety of lengths. Yes, many were 80' (+/-), and most sleepers, diners, obsevations built by Pullman road on a semi standard 80' frame.
BUT, head end equipment (baggage, RPO, express, etc), and coaches, and a LONG list of other exceptions came in an endless selection of lengths from 60' (or even less) up to 80'.
So, to assume that a model in incorrect based on length alone would be incorrect thinking.
EVEN early streamlined/smoothside cars came in various lengths. The B&O Columbian, a great many of the first SP "daylight" cars, and a variety of others were less than 80' long, typically 75' to 78'. While the newest streamliners built in the 40's and 50's were typically, but not always, 85' long.
Now that we have cleared that up.
Each of the Bachmann Spectrum heavyweight cars are correct models - maybe not for all the road names offered, but they are correct models of cars that existed - including their length. The coach and combine are PRR prototypes and are 78' long. The Pullman is a unique floor plan Pullman built with a vestiblue only at one end, it is 80' long, the diner and observation are also Pullman plan cars that are 80' long.
The Athearn heavyweight cars are 72' long, except the RPO/baggage which is 67' long. They are completely freelanced using "typical" Pullman company construction details. That said, the baggage, RPO/Baggage, and coach are very close matches to cars that did exist, including their 72' length.
To go deeper into this requires a BOOK, or two.
Now, as I said above I have been reluctant to comment on this thread.
No offense to the OP, but I will be more direct than others who have tried to steer him in the direction of larger curves or compressed passenger equipment.
Maybe the first consideration is not a concern?
And the broad scope of subject matter the OP hopes to cover?
I realize that I have considerably more space than the OP, but his space is not exactly small. I am posting my track plan in an effort to explain the concept of modeling "one place" and having the trains come and go from/to continous thru staging.
layout facts:
Minimum mainline radius - 36" radius with 16" long easements
Minimum mainline turnout - #6
Design train length of most staging tracks - 20 actual feet, 1740 scale feet.
Again, the OP's plan mat well be right in line with his goals and that is fine. We all do in this hobby what interests us. But from an engineering standpoint, I think he has a lot of engineering challenges with this plan.
Thanks Sheldon, I am looking for more experienced opinions on this forum . I do worry that my proposed layout is too ambitious from an engineering point of view. Will I ever get it actually built and finished!
And that I am stuffing too much into my available space. However avoiding a toyline look isn't as big a concern for me as it probably is for you, prototypical realism is not very important to me. As long as things don't derail I am fairly content. I do want my operations plan to work when I choose to run operations. Alot of my time might well be spent railfanning though!
Thanks for you layout plan , I'll study it.
MurBall So in my track plan I would need to ensure 12"easements where I have circled red where straights meet curves. No where else right?
So in my track plan I would need to ensure 12"easements where I have circled red where straights meet curves. No where else right?
Not exactly. The crossover situation at the top of the plan should just be modified to elimintate the "S" curve thru the crossover. The top track should just change direct the the same amount as a turnout and other track shoul just run straight into it.
A curved turnout at the other end of that siding would make the siding longer and make both routes "smoother". Most North American style model turnouts have a built in "easement" effect.
That's interesting Kevin. The ones I have have had the horn hook replaced by knuckle couplers and they don't mind being pushed, even through points. If I buy any more of them I'll replace the horn hooks with Kadee #508 conversion couplers
Again, the OP's plan may well be right in line with his goals and that is fine. We all do in this hobby what interests us. But from an engineering standpoint, I think he has a lot of engineering challenges with this plan.
Returning to model railroading after 40 years and taking unconscionable liberties with the SP&S, Northern Pacific and Great Northern roads in the '40s and '50s.
MurBallAlthough I do currently run 12" IHC cars but get away with it because of the bidie mounted couplers.
I have a long string of unmodified IHC passenger cars. Truck mounted horn-hook couplers and all. They are silky-smooth with no problems being pulled through a 22 inch radius curve.
They do not like being pushed at all, even on straight track.
My problems arise when trying to install touching diaphragms. It is jut not going to happen for these cars on my 24" hidden curves.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
MurBallWhen you say 'even better would be 23.5" radius with a 12" long easement.' do you mean that most derailments happen in the transition from straight to curved track?
Correct. A direct "no transition" from straight to curved track creates an initial side lurch. Watch a Lionel train some time to see this lurch in action. This is common with Snap Track and fixed radius curved track pieces. A transition from straight to curve at least as long as your longest car/engine is highly desirable, and mandatory on the prototype.
The transition will mostly eat into your straight track approaching the curve, but only adds 1/2" or less to the radius in HO. The prototype surveys cubic spiral transitions. In our models, Atlas or other "springy" flex track naturally creates transitions for you without much effort. The more difficult part of using springy flex track is getting a consistent curve radius. The curved side of a model turnout usually has short straight segments connected to generous radius curved segments, so these already have pretty reasonable transitions.
Truck mounted couplers, wide swing couplers, removal of underbody detail, moving trucks closer to the car ends, and adding transitions are all time-honored ways of getting our models around impossibly tight curves. May be unsightly, but it can be made to work well. OTOH, there are those among us who really value appearances, so 4+x curves are in order for them. Free-mo recommends 48" minimum radius for HO.
Fred W
fwright MurBall Yeah I hear a lot of grumbling about the longer passenger cars. Even though they are beautiful models they seem to be unreliable on the track? I have a few Hornby British coaches and they track very well. I have one older IHC Rio Grande passenger set that nadkes curves flawlessly thanks to their bogie mounted couplers, they even allow themselves to be pushed over turnouts without complaints. There is a thread on the General Discussion about minimum radius. The Layout Design Special Interest Group (LDSIG) has related physical car length to minimum radius. A car that is operated on a curve with a radius at least 3x its length will not have any problems with the curve being too tight. For a scale 85ft model that measures 12" actual over the couplers, that means a 36" minimum radius. A 70ft passenger car would want 30" radius, and a 60ft car wants 25" radius. Now how do we get cars to get around a lower radius curve without issues? The necessary coupler swing and length has to be there. The trucks must rotate further without hitting any underbody details. Trucks may be moved closer to the car end than is prototypical. And there has to be extra clearance to possible obstructions - structures, parallel tracks, scenery, etc. MOST of the time, passenger car manufacturers take care of this for us so that we can use them on 2.5x or even 2x curves, typically by moving truck location and getting rid of underbody detail around the trucks. A lot of model passenger cars are also shortened from their full prototypical length. Walthers does not do as much of this as others, so their passenger cars often struggle on 24" radius where other makes do not. And if you don't like the LDSIG's findings, the NMRA Recommended Practices (RP) has always recommended 30" radius (broad) curves or more for full length passenger cars. Not what you wanted to hear. With a 24" min radius, my recommendation would be to happily run shorty passenger cars (60ft). If you don't run 85ft cars at all, very few people can tell that your cars are short for lack of a comparison. Even better would be 23.5" radius with a 12" long easement. If you are going to go ahead with full length passenger cars, pay attention to which makes have reported problems on 24" curves - Walthers is one. Test each passenger car to see if anything rubs on a 24" curve. Test to make each car to make sure the coupler has enough swing when coupled to other cars - both short and long. I sympathize because I have 18" radius curves. I run Overton-size passenger cars - full length models of a 34ft unique prototype. Or I have some models of 50ft prototypes, which works out to about a 2.5x ratio - generally doable with testing. Fred W ....modeling foggy coastal Oregon in HO and HOn3, where it's always 1900....
MurBall Yeah I hear a lot of grumbling about the longer passenger cars. Even though they are beautiful models they seem to be unreliable on the track? I have a few Hornby British coaches and they track very well. I have one older IHC Rio Grande passenger set that nadkes curves flawlessly thanks to their bogie mounted couplers, they even allow themselves to be pushed over turnouts without complaints.
Yeah I hear a lot of grumbling about the longer passenger cars. Even though they are beautiful models they seem to be unreliable on the track? I have a few Hornby British coaches and they track very well. I have one older IHC Rio Grande passenger set that nadkes curves flawlessly thanks to their bogie mounted couplers, they even allow themselves to be pushed over turnouts without complaints.
There is a thread on the General Discussion about minimum radius. The Layout Design Special Interest Group (LDSIG) has related physical car length to minimum radius. A car that is operated on a curve with a radius at least 3x its length will not have any problems with the curve being too tight. For a scale 85ft model that measures 12" actual over the couplers, that means a 36" minimum radius. A 70ft passenger car would want 30" radius, and a 60ft car wants 25" radius.
Now how do we get cars to get around a lower radius curve without issues? The necessary coupler swing and length has to be there. The trucks must rotate further without hitting any underbody details. Trucks may be moved closer to the car end than is prototypical. And there has to be extra clearance to possible obstructions - structures, parallel tracks, scenery, etc. MOST of the time, passenger car manufacturers take care of this for us so that we can use them on 2.5x or even 2x curves, typically by moving truck location and getting rid of underbody detail around the trucks. A lot of model passenger cars are also shortened from their full prototypical length. Walthers does not do as much of this as others, so their passenger cars often struggle on 24" radius where other makes do not.
And if you don't like the LDSIG's findings, the NMRA Recommended Practices (RP) has always recommended 30" radius (broad) curves or more for full length passenger cars.
Not what you wanted to hear. With a 24" min radius, my recommendation would be to happily run shorty passenger cars (60ft). If you don't run 85ft cars at all, very few people can tell that your cars are short for lack of a comparison. Even better would be 23.5" radius with a 12" long easement.
If you are going to go ahead with full length passenger cars, pay attention to which makes have reported problems on 24" curves - Walthers is one. Test each passenger car to see if anything rubs on a 24" curve. Test to make each car to make sure the coupler has enough swing when coupled to other cars - both short and long.
I sympathize because I have 18" radius curves. I run Overton-size passenger cars - full length models of a 34ft unique prototype. Or I have some models of 50ft prototypes, which works out to about a 2.5x ratio - generally doable with testing.
....modeling foggy coastal Oregon in HO and HOn3, where it's always 1900....
Thanks Fred, I think I will have to limit myself to shorter cars. Although I do currently run 12" IHC cars but get away with it because of the bidie mounted couplers.
I will try and revisit the plan and add 26"R minimum curves if possible.
When you say 'even better would be 23.5" radius with a 12" long easement.' do you mean that most derailments happen in the transition from straight to curved track?
I'll have to figure it out when building I think. The door swings out so I was intending to swing the multi level bridge inwards, there will be about 1.6m or 60" available which should be ok.
cowman I'm not familiar tith IKEA shelves. I am only doing a single shelf layout and plan to use a swing up gate, which would not work with a multi level layout. Which way can your gate swing? A swing out would be better I think, as a swing in would be limited by the width of your narrow center aisle. Good luck, Richard
I'm not familiar tith IKEA shelves. I am only doing a single shelf layout and plan to use a swing up gate, which would not work with a multi level layout.
Which way can your gate swing? A swing out would be better I think, as a swing in would be limited by the width of your narrow center aisle.
Good luck,
Richard
MurBallDo you think 24 is wide enough for most larger passenger cars to stay on the rails? I think Walthers often cite 24 inch as a recommended minimum but maybe it's not enough in practise?
richhotrain MurBall Thanks Rich, I doubt I can go as wide as 30 so I'll just swapp the couplers for longer armed ones, that should stop derailments? While reducing realism i know Using longer couplers should help a lot. All of my passengers are good jumpers, and none have ever fallen between the cars. Rich
MurBall Thanks Rich, I doubt I can go as wide as 30 so I'll just swapp the couplers for longer armed ones, that should stop derailments? While reducing realism i know
Thanks Rich, I doubt I can go as wide as 30 so I'll just swapp the couplers for longer armed ones, that should stop derailments? While reducing realism i know
Using longer couplers should help a lot. All of my passengers are good jumpers, and none have ever fallen between the cars.
Does anyone have any comments on the track plan? Anything seem in workable?
richhotrainIn my experience with the Walthers 85' passenger cars, 24" radius curves are a bit tight and can cause derailments, particularly by snagging the diaphragms on adjoining cars.
I have pretty much given up on 85' cars after several experiments.
I have secured sets of both "Standard" and "Streamlined" Athearn passenger cars, and almost a dozen Roundhouse "Harriman" cars. I think these are all about 60'-65' long.
I also have some old plated Tenshodo shorty passenger cars that I got for a song, but not enough for an entire train.
My "Mail Train" is all brass, but none of the cars are over 65' long.
All said, I think I have six complete undecorated passenger trains now, and I have not painted a single car for one of them.
I might never have an SGRR passenger train.
In my experience with the Walthers 85' passenger cars, 24" radius curves are a bit tight and can cause derailments, particularly by snagging the diaphragms on adjoining cars. Longer couplers can go a long way in solving this problem.
For me, I use 30" radius curves minimum, and the longer passenger cars can negotiate these broader curves with ease.