Well the wife finally got a section of basement cleaned up and is allowing me to start building my table. With the space she gave me. I'm leaning toward a L shape that would be against 3 walls. I have what I think could be a problem in one of the corners. That being reaching across the table into the corner. I know that it is better to use 22"R than 18"R curves. ( I've got on loco that doesn't like 18"R curves) The method of alternating 22"R and 18"R pieces would work in the layout I'm working on. Will that help prevent possible derailments? Thanks, Morgun 30
Morgan
Not a real problem. In one corner of my layout I have Mountains where I cut a hole under the mountain for access.
If no mountain you can always have a section of your layout that you can lift out for access to scenery or your loco's and track.
Jerry
Morg-
Alternating 18" and 22" radius sections does seem to help some locos make it around curves but there is still the problem of an 18" limiting radius for most locos which want broader curves, not to mention how long locos look on tight radii. If possible, use 22" all of the way. That's usually not a great problem in the corner but it will make the blobs on the ends larger.
As far as access goes, you can have a lift out panel built into your mountain or leave the corner open so you can pop up to get at your track or any kind of train malfunction.
-- D
Dear Morgun,
According to the AnyRail.com track CAD program (download is free for first 50 track pieces) , your method will save you 2" in each direction of the corner.
Instead of alternating radii, try a "pseudo-easement" pattern:
22"R 22.5 deg.
18"R 30 deg.
Half 18"R 15 deg.
22"R 22.5 deg.
Total: 90 deg.
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Joe Satnik
Thanks to all. I do have and use anyrail. I am going to make that end big enough for 22"R, but I am going to experiment with the 22-18, etc. pattern. Will share info as the build goes along.
Finally have a plan on anyrail. If someone can instruct me how a post, I will. ( may not till later tonight)
Doctor Donaldon et al;
I have seen little if anything on these posts about easement curves; and no, it isn't rocket science. They will work pretty good-not perfect-but good-when dealing with long rigid-frame locomotives like a Mike or Berkshire negotiating one of these curves. The prototype uses that approach, as have I, and it is good. Linn Westcott did a whole write-up (I think it was Linn) in a way past issue of MR.
Rich C.
morgun,
you can save your anyrail plans as a bitmap (.bmp) then upload that to photobucket or flikr. photobucket will automatically generate an image code you can copy in your post here. it's a lot easier than it sounds.
Quote from: jward on November 10, 2013, 11:56:32 AM
morgun,
you can save your anyrail plans as a bitmap (.bmp) then upload that to photobucket or flikr. photobucket will automatically generate an image code you can copy in your post here. it's a lot easier than it sounds.
I'm sure it is, but I don't have an account with either of them at this time.
Morgun,
Photobucket I know is free to use and in just a few minutes you have an account.
http://photobucket.com/
Here's the link in case you are interested. We would enjoy watching and helping with your the progress to your layout.
Jerry
Thanks, Jerry.
I must be more computer illiterate than I thought. signed up (at least I thought I did) but get user or password incorrect message. ???
Morgan,
Go to sign in and click on forgot and they will e-mail you your account log in info.
Will work on it. Start 12 hr. days tomorrow, so might not have free time to work on it
Quote from: electrical whiz kid on November 10, 2013, 11:32:50 AM
I have seen little if anything on these posts about easement curves; and no, it isn't rocket science. The prototype uses that approach, as have I, and it is good. Linn Westcott did a whole write-up (I think it was Linn) in a way past issue of MR.
Rich C.
Rich-
The prototype
always uses transition curves to reduce wear and tear on wheels, locomotives and track. They don't care what their trains look like going around curves; their concern is the cost of maintaining their moving and fixed assets. And it's not just railroads that use easements. Every road we drive on, whether a narrow county road or an interstate, will have transition curves at the beginning and end of every curve unless physical obstacles a the location prevent them.
I think that easement curves are underutilized in model railroading for two reasons: First, most track plans and track planning programs use sectional track and there is no way to do genuine transition curves with pre-curved track. You must use either hand-laid or flexible track for the real thing. Second, although starting curves with broad radius sections which tighten to the ruling curvature can effectively mimic easements, the resulting irregular curves modify the overall geometry so much that fitting the rest of the tacks together becomes a real challenge. It can even be difficult to reach an exact 90
o or 180
o curve due to the fact that different radius curves have different degrees of rotation. These
ersatz transition elements also complicate calculating the actual sizes of curves.
-- D
Dear All,
Some old threads on pseudo-easements:
http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/board/index.php/topic,8875.0.html
http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/board/index.php/topic,6564.0.html
Throw the recipes at AnyRail.com track CAD program to see if they fit your table or bench top.
Easements and pseudo-easements only add a few inches to the length and width.
You could make a 3/4" frame around your 4'x8' sheet by nailing 1 by 2's flush with the top....
Yes there are complications, but they can usually be ironed out using symmetry, and if necessary, fitter straights.
Again, AnyRail.com to check the fit before buying track.
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Joe Satnik
Not to hi-jack my own thread, but Joe makes a great point. It seems like newbies, like me, often feel that because plywood is 4' x 8', we feel that we have to build a track that fits the table when 4' 6" X 8' 4" might give us a better lay-out. In my case, I'm still negotiating with the "property owner" for right of way :D
Morg-
Negotiations with the general manager are the unseen and ugly underbelly of model railroading. All of us have, and will continue to have, discussions related to securing, maintaining and expanding our rights-of-way. We don't necessarily have a great deal of power in these negotiations so it's imperative to get the children involved in the hobby. This can go a very long way in the space allocation discussions.
That said, you have noticed a significant fact: Many new model rails do, in fact, start with a 4x8 because it seems like a natural thing to do and because there are so many published layouts that size. Of course, the main reason there are so many 4x8 layouts already is at least partly an artifact of that inclination to start with a layout that size.
This isn't all bad. The truth is, a 4x8 is easy to frame up, build trackage on and scenic in a way which is pleasant to look at and fun to operate. It's also true that starting with a small layout like a 4x8 helps to keep newbies from bailing out because the layout is small enough that the project isn't too intimidating. And, a 4x8 can have trains running soon enough to hold a modeler's interest which might well flag were s/he to be building a large layout which wouldn't be ready to run for many months or even longer.
Your post also seems to perceive some other things about 4x8s and that's very astute of you. A 4x8 is actually a rather poor use of space because it requires so much space all around for access to the layout. One can pack in a good deal more railroading by running the tracks around the room with access from the inside rather than the outside. A 4x8 requires a space of at least 8x12, allowing a minimum two feet all around the outside. An 8x12 room with a 30" linear layout running around the outside offers about 80 square feet of layout space whereas the 4x8 sitting in the middle of the same room has just 32 square feet. All of those measurements ignore questions about access to the room, windows, doors and so on, but you get the idea.
Welcome to a great hobby with something new to do or learn all of the time. That's what has kept me in the hobby for nearly 60 years. Please keep us up to date on your progress.
-- D
Maybe I finally got it to work, we'll see.(http://i803.photobucket.com/albums/yy318/bundy52722/table6_zps714b7d97.png) (http://s803.photobucket.com/user/bundy52722/media/table6_zps714b7d97.png.html)
Ok, I did get it to work, so give me your constructive criticism please.
Did I create a loop and a short?
Morg-
I like it. It's good that you have two long sidings so you'll be able to run more than one train on your main. And one of the sidings can function as a great drill track for the right-end yard. That's a feature too often overlooked on model pikes. I don't see any turn-back curves. Your S-curves appear to have adequate tangent track between them. I might add a spur on a corner or two and a second turntable feed so I'd have a ready track but you appear to have a layout which will be fun to operate and pleasant to watch.
The only change I would consider is not having all of your tracks parallel to the edges of the layout. That's a bit of an appearance problem that actually seems to make a layout appear smaller, and it's at its worst on the long straightaway at the front of the longer leg. If you don't plan to put spurs or scenery in that space, run the main at an angle to the front edge. That will improve appearance generally, while making your main look more functionally separated from the siding and terminal tracks above.
All-in-all, it looks great. When do you begin track laying?
-- D
Dear Morgun,
The design looks very nice, perhaps even 'elegant', if that is possible.
What is your minimum radius, and your minimum turnout number?
The only "gitcha" that I can see is arm length reach / access.
The rule of thumb is no track further than 24" to 30" away from an edge where someone could stand.
If your layout was mounted permanently to the walls,
you would need to crawl under the layout and pop-up through an access hole (with lid)
cut in the bench top near the hard to reach portions of your layout.
You might have to move track to avoid having it run over a lid.
As you age, the bench top seems to get lower and harder to get under, even though you are not necessarily getting taller.
If the layout is small enough (compared to the room), you could put it on large caster wheels and roll it away from the wall(s) to get far side access.
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Joe Satnik
Edit: grammar
Don and Joe, Thanks for the advise. I'd rather have the problems spotted and fixed (as much as possible) before instead of after it is set up.
I do appreciate all suggestions, and may send each of you a pm for more info on your ideas.
The min. radius is 18" and the turn outs are #'s 4,5, and 6.
As it stands right now, 3 sides butt up against a wall. Yes, I am very aware of the problem with reach and could end up making big changes to the design.
We are remodeling the basement, and while my design is based on the space the wife has allocated me, I may gain or lose space once we finish the remodel. On the plus side, she has a lot of junk, er, ah, I mean valuable items, that she will story under the table, and she is not an unreasonable person. If fact, she was going to surprise me with a DCC system, but didn't know what to get. So, depending on how much money we had left in the budget, I might just get DCC and a loco or two.
Morgun
Quote from: Morgun 30 on January 18, 2014, 04:41:54 PM
We are remodeling the basement, and while my design is based on the space the wife has allocated me On the plus side, she has a lot of junk, er, ah, I mean valuable items, that she will story under the table.
Morg-
How well I understand. I, too, had to get an easement for my right-of-way, and I have
junk while she has
stuff.
-- D
Here's a couple donut designs I'm working on to fix the reach problem. As always, comments welcomed. (http://i803.photobucket.com/albums/yy318/bundy52722/donut4_zps65b94ecf.jpg) (http://s803.photobucket.com/user/bundy52722/media/donut4_zps65b94ecf.jpg.html)
(http://i803.photobucket.com/albums/yy318/bundy52722/eggshape_zps2eee9abd.jpg) (http://s803.photobucket.com/user/bundy52722/media/eggshape_zps2eee9abd.jpg.html)
Dear Morgun,
Looks great.
Add some facing point and trailing point spurs for operations,
and you'll be ready to go.
Joe
Morg-
That looks pretty good to me. I like twice-around plans.
Most layouts have problems with corners. There's only so much you can do with them. But you always have to either scenic them or build a curving backdrop. If you can work out the access, corners can be good spots for industries, interchange tracks or other justifications for the railroad's existence. They can also be a great place to tuck in a roundhouse. Doing so with your plan would save a lot of prime space along the aisle.
-- D
just one small suggestion. I would try to break up the long straight sections with a curve. try angling them in from the ends with a slight bend in the middle. this would be a great use for the larger radius ez track sections.
Dear Morgun,
Just thought of a few more things.
I see that you are using crossovers.
That pretty much restricts you to DCC unless you modify the crossovers
(cut rails and foils) to isolate their 2 main lines for DC-Block operation.
It helps that the curves (including the diverging routes of turnouts) on any loop or
closed section of track add up to as close to 360 degrees as possible.
Clockwise around a loop, right turns would add degrees, left turns would subtract.
The middle loop of the upper layout has me wondering....
A simple way to check is to temporarily delete a straight or small straight fitter
anywhere on the loop, then click on each disconnected end
to measure its angle.
Ideally the two angles should be exactly 180 degrees apart.
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Joe Satnik