question on N guage room size layout in the latest Model Railroader mag.

[Anonymous]

i am just getting back into model railroading after 16 years. I have selected N guage as my choice and after looking at many layouts, i like the 11' x 13' room sized layout in the latest Model railroader magazine. i am modifying a small portion of it but i have a question about the layout.

now i do not know much about N guage so forgive me for my ignorance. if you look at the sketch drawing of the layout, there are numbers from 0 to 6 or 8 listed over portions of the track. they have the " ( or inch) designation about them ( for example 6") does this designate that the track is 6 inches above the track surface?

i plan to model this layout and i am going to start on the table this week. i would like to know what these marks mean. also what is the max grade that i cam use (what is the recommended max grade also)? also any other tips might help.

thanks

john

[dgwinup]

Hi, John, welcome to the forum and back to model railroading.

Usually, the numbers you're descibing on a trackplan are elevation levels, similar to what you might find on a topographical map. They indicate the height of the rails above an arbitrary "0" elevation. Most layouts are designed with a level surface and that constitutes "0" elevation. All other measurements are based on that elevation. That 6" number you mentioned means that the track is 6" above the base level of the layout, and the 0" number is the base level.

As far as maximum grade is concerned, that will depend on what what era you are modeling and what equipment you plan to operate on your railroad. An early 20th century layout would have small steam engines (4-6-0's, 2-8-0's, etc.) and short rail cars (36' - 40'). Train lengths would also be short. In N scale, using equipment like that, your maximum grade could be as much as 4%. Some logging operations operated on grades even steeper than 4%.

Later era layouts, with larger and more modern equipment, should have lesser grades, 2% being more common, 1 - 2% being ideal. If you like running longer trains, try to keep your grades at or below 1%. Prototype railroads went to great lengths and expense to keep their grades low, sometimes even re-routing tracks by many miles to lower the ruling grade. (Ruling grade is the steepest grade on a section of track. A 20 mile long section might have 1/2% grade for most of its' length, but bump up to 1.1% for a mile at some point. That entire section would have a ruling grade of 1.1% and equipment would be assigned that could handle the ruling grade.)

I need to look at the current MR trackplan again. It looked like a pretty good layout as I recall. Hope you have fun working with it, and don't forget where to come to ask questions.

Darrell, gradedly quiet...for now

[Anonymous]

thanks for the welcome!

the track plan seems nice and simple for me to build, yet has lots of options for industry and track side buildings that i have always wanted to model (silos, consolidation yards, grain elevators and such). i am not sure about the sub-terranian staging areas. that may be above my level of expertise right now but i will give it a shot.

also what is this DCC stuff. from the little i have read about it, it seems like a way to digitlly control different locomotives on the same track while providing uniform power to the layout.

i have to read more about this. where is the best place to get info on this technology?

anyway. thanks fof the help. i will be posting many questions here in this forum!

john

[Anonymous]

Just a small clarification to what Darrell said, track at 6" is laid 6" above track at 0". You measure from the same point of the track, whether it is the top, bottom, doesn't matter.

There is much DCC info here:
http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=36389

[dgwinup]

Yeah, what Jeff said!

And thanks, Jeff, for clarifying that point. I wasn't clear on that.

John, DCC is the best operating system for model railroading. It's as close to R/C control as you can get. Unfortunately, there are quite a few different systems that won't work together. With DC, if you wanted to operate two trains, you used block control and 2 powerpacks. Three trains, 3 powerpacks, etc. With DCC, you can't just add anyone's booster, although for the most part, ALL decoders work on any system. Some systems can't utilize all the features of the higher priced decoders, but the decoders will still work with that system.

Read through the link Jeff provided. It should answer a lot of your questions and those questions it doesn't answer can be asked on this forum. Warning! Don't ask which system is best. No one can truly tell YOU what is best for YOU. They CAN tell you what worked best for them and offer suggestions, but it will still be up to you to decide what will work for you.

Sure glad you're back into model railroading.

Darrell, still quiet...for now

[Anonymous]

i bought some of the model railroader books (one was on wiring-and it does not cover DCC), but i am laking one one DCC. what are the BASICS of the set-up? is there power sent through the tracks like in the DC systems and the digital controller just tells the train how fast to go, when to slow down etc? i am just in the dark on this technology-- but it sounds AWESOME!

i can't wait. the layout table is going to start going together this weekend!

also, does anyone thing that the grade on the layout in the recent model railroader is too steep? some one above said that the max grade should be no more than 1-2% for a more modern style railroad (i am planning on a present day style of engines and model set up for my layout). some of the grades seem to be close to 3-4%. i am reading the elevations incorrectly?


john

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by riv1973

i bought some of the model railroader books (one was on wiring-and it does not cover DCC), but i am laking one one DCC. what are the BASICS of the set-up? is there power sent through the tracks like in the DC systems and the digital controller just tells the train how fast to go, when to slow down etc? i am just in the dark on this technology-- but it sounds AWESOME!

john

Basically, there are two wires that feed the rails, one on each side of the track. They connect to the DCC unit. Like DC you want to connect to the track every couple feet to prevent power drop.

DCC constantly powers the track and sends a carrier wave signal to the train. The only limit to how many trains you can run is the amp draw from the DCC unit. Bigger is better. Some units start small and are expandable. Others are not expandable.

[Anonymous]

Thanks!

that is how i thought that it worked. it is makes sense. what seems to be the best DCC unit for a layout in N gauge that is 11x13 (the one int he Model Railroader mag). it is only going to be used by me (not a club layout or anything). i am new to thins hobby like i said and do not want to be over whelmed by technology.

i have seen the MRC unit advertised but what is the best unit for my above stated use.

thanks

john

[SpaceMouse]

You want to get an expandable unit. What works for you now for yourself may change as you grow. Although it is just appearing and is not widespread yet, sound is coming to N scale. That means more power draw.

I chose the Digitrax Zephyr. I have run four trains on it on my layout, but my club president uses one on a 25 x 25 layout which we once had 10 trains running on--quite a few with sound. It has a max 2.5 amp rating and is expandable. I got mine for $150.

There are others as good. My deternming factor was not the performance, but the fact that my club uses Digitrax and my controllers can be used at the club.

There will be lots of argument as to which is DCC better, but no one will tell you you made a wrong decision with the Digitrax.

[ahuffman]

One thing I noticed about that layout as how close together the layers with staging tracks were to the layers above. Deduct something for roadbed thickness and I don't see how you can maintain the layout. My hands wouldn't fit in, let alone hold a pair of pliers or some other tool.

[SpaceMouse]

I just took a look at the plan in MR. I'm surprized at how many MR layouts require a duck under. I don't know how young and spry you are, but crawling under as often you will have to as you are building the layout will get old fast. Remember, it may be 5 years before your layout it done if ever. How will you feel about ducking under 5 years from now.

I can duck with the best of them, but i'm about as anti-duckunder as you can get. Use your brains and plan better. You'll thank yourslef later.

[ereimer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ahuffman

One thing I noticed about that layout as how close together the layers with staging tracks were to the layers above. Deduct something for roadbed thickness and I don't see how you can maintain the layout. My hands wouldn't fit in, let alone hold a pair of pliers or some other tool.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Spacemouse
I just took a look at the plan in MR. I'm surprized at how many MR layouts require a duck under.

both points are 100% right on the money .

there are 2 types of layout articles in Model Railroader , the ones that are about an existing model railroad and the ones that are about a 'railroad you can model' . the 1st type will have a trackplan that actually has been built , is working , and may have info in the article about what the owner likes and dislikes about the trackplan . the 2nd type gives info about the prototype railroad and presents a trackplan that most often hasn't been built by anyone , and often seems to be overly optimistic about what will fit in a given space and how easy it will be to operate and maintain . not enough space between levels (as in this case) , turnouts that would have to be hand built to match the track configuration , grades that only a shay or climax could manage in real life , duckunders or maintainance 'popups' that only someone under 40 could get to etc. these layouts need a lot of careful inspection before starting construction , thank goodness you asked here first !

i think you'd need to add at least 2 inches (maybe more) to each level to make them usable , then of course you'd have to adjust the grades leading in and out of the staging tracks to see if they aren't too steep . depending on where the door to your room is it should be possible to replace the duckunder with a lift out section that is removed when entering or leaving the room .

i hope this doesn't discourage you too much because it's an interesting trackplan that will allow nice long trains and plenty of switching . continous running , which would allow you to let one train run by itself while you do some switching with another , will require automation of the single turnout leading into north end staging , but that's not difficult . you could easily have 2 or more operators and the isles are wide enough to handle that

good luck , and keep us posted on your progress [:)]

[dgwinup]

Hi, riv1973.

I just spent some time carefully reviewing this layout and I did some calculations. The grade from Aptakisic all the way around the room to Lake Villa is about 1.5%. This is an acceptable grade for modern-era mainline operations because you will be able to operate fairly realistic-length trains up the grade.

The grade from just past Lake Villa down to the north-end staging level is about 3%. Going into staging will not cause a problem because it's downgrade, but what goes down must come up and you will be facing a fairly steep 3% grade and that will severely limit how many cars you can pull up that grade without having to add helper units. It looks like the only reason to have the 8" elevation at Lake Villa is to provide enough separation between the levels to shoehorn in the middle level. And I do mean SHOEHORN, because that's what it will be like trying to get in between those levels for anything!

It MAY be possible to combine the north-end and south-end staging on one level at 0" elevation. You could limit the high elevation to about 6" (maybe 5") starting at the Metra rail connection and proceeding DOWN to Lake Villa rather than up. Allowing for a level area at the end of the Lake Villa peninsula will give you a grade of slightly more than 2%, not much more than the grade up from Aptakisic, but still the limiting factor for train length. It would also give you only two levels to deal with in terms of separation, although you will have to modify the track plan on the staging level. If you continue the down grade from Lake Villa around the end of the peninsula instead of having a level area in that location, you would have a grade of slightly more than 1.5%, almost matching the original grade coming up from Aptakisic.

As drawn, the south-end staging is really a reverse loop, but only if you go into the long siding. The only way out of the long siding is to reverse loop to the mainline (the heavy black line on the trackplan). Without going into the siding, you end up in the mostly dead-end area at Leithton. You would have to eliminate that reverse area on the south-end so the tracks can be separated enough to squeeze the north-end staging into the middle of the south-end staging, all on the same level and with maybe 5" (or a little less) clearance. Still a close fit, but much better than the three-level plan as drawn. The reverse loop that you eliminate in the south-end would have to be re-located to Aptakisic to preserve continuous running capabilities.

I wish I could use any of the software planning programs, but I haven't gotten them figured out yet. I hope my description was sufficient to convey my suggestions.

I am looking for a layout plan for a room about this size and I liked this plan when I first saw it, only rejecting it because the lower section along Mundelein would have to be located in front of the door into the room and straight across the closet on that wall. Since my closet is also my workbench and storage area, I can't block it.

The plan has great potential and I like it very much. Maybe someone on the forum who is comfortable (and quick) with a software planning program could try the modifications I suggested to see if it was feasable. It would take me weeks to do it and I know there are some on this forum that can whip this out in an hour or two. Try begging! (And, if someone DOES volunteer, see if you can accomodate an angled door in the lower left corner (approx. 3' wide and angled up about 12" from the corner), and make a provision for a 5' closet on the lower Mundelein wall located about 18" from the right wall.[:D][:D][:D][:D] I could really use a plan like that!!!!! PLEASE? PLEASE? PRETTY PLEASE? (Am I begging hard enough? Maybe a bribe? [:D][:D]

Let's hear from some others on whether my suggestion has any merit at all.

Darrell, begging hard, but quiet...for now