I am still in the process of designing my "permanent" layout, and I would like to do a double layer layout due to space constraints.
The lower level would be the turn table and yard while the upper level would be the main runs and some accessory sidings.
To really get the full view of the lower level, I need to use a full 4% slope with a fairly long transition run to seperate the two levels by almost 8 inches in height. I would be assembling a train on the lower level using switchers and pulling it to the upper level with the main engines. I would like to use about 10-15 cars in a train. I will be using either the EM-1 steam engine or consists of 2-3 Bachmann and/or Bowser diesels.
I know when I was young, pulling anything up any slope was not a good idea, as the engines did not have great motors and all but the real expensive ones had rubber band drive.
Today's locos seem to have much more powerful motors and all have gear and u-joint construction.
Am I smoking Crayola Crayons to consider this or is this something that today's designs of engines can handle?
Also, is there any problems with using even more than a 4% slope in the downhill direction only?
4% is pretty steep. However, 2 or 3 diesels should be able to handle your train lengths. Not sure on your steam. 6 axle diesels generally pull better than 4. What I have found to be a small problem is not working trains upgrade but going down grade. Some engines suffer from cogging. the weight of the train pushes against the engine forcing the worm gear forward. Shouldn't affect you unless you're running longer trains. Phil
I understand your comment. I did feel fairly comfortable with the consisted diesels myself, but not really sure what the pulling power of the EM-1 (2-8-8-4) really is. One member in our MRRC have told me that his actually pulls better than the Big Boy, but I have not been able to try mine yet with a train load. I do have a jar of Bull Frog Snot I can put on the traction wheels if it starts to slip (well, not the whole jar!).
This may be way out,but it is something to think about. If the main line train is going to stay on the main line, why not bring five cars up to add to the front of the train, and take 5 cars off of the rear. After three times you would change out the whole train.
rb-
Eight inches really isn't enough separation between railheads for a multi-level layout. By the time you have space under the upper level for lower-level lights, upper level wiring and the upper level itself you're lower level will be only a few inches (three or four at most) which won't allow for viewing or reaching in, much less scenery and structures. For HO, 14 inches seems to be the minimum. That much separation, of course, presents a real grade challenge.
I suggest that you increase your level separation and do whatever it takes to reduce your grade. One way is to run the tracks between your lower and upper levels as far as possible to stretch out the grade. If that is truly impossible, and it might be depending on the configuration of your available space and your track plan, consider a helix. I'm not a fan of helices myself, but I recognize that there are times when one is needed. Of course, the helix will take up quite a bit of space itself. However, one long (tall) helix can have three outlets allowing you to stack up three levels while only surrendering space to a single helix.
That might sound a bit grand but I've seen it done effectively. You can still have a yard and engine terminal on one level with your railroad's mainline on the other levels. Perhaps your yard can be the middle level, allowing you to run trains both ways to the ends of the division you're modeling. Or, use one level for flatland and the other for mountain scenery. Or run two railroads on separate levels and have them interchange in the middle where they share an engine servicing facility or rely on yet a third railroad to handle engine service, interchange service and local industrial service. Thin Chicago or Kansas City where Class One railroads used short bridge and terminal lines for connections. The options are almost unlimited.
-- D
Phil, RAM and Doneldon,
Your points are EXTREMELY well taken. You have brought up several things I had not taken into consideration, two being the lighing and wiring access, which makes my 8" separation plan look like I really am smoking Crayola Crayons! ;D
Your suggestion to move 5 cars up in each trip is something I would really not prefer to do, but you did get me thinking about another idea. The real space taker which makes my layout on a single level is not necessarily the yard, but the turn table. The turn table itself is not small, but when you add in all the track it takes to hold all the engines sitting around the turn table, the thing triples in size. However, it's not only the turn table, it's all the track it takes to get the turn table to connect to the main line and back down again without having to use a reversing loop. Either way, with or without a Reversing Loop, this really chews up real estate.
HOWEVER, if I just put the TURN TABLE on the lower level, the engine with no cars in tow can easily handle 4% and I can use all the real estate I need to get the engine itself to the upper level by having the engine exit the turn table, enter a tunnel and emerge on the upper level. Everything inside the tunnel area would be hidden and easily accessed from below.
There is now plenty of extra space on the main level for the yard and much more scenery.
Excuse me while I fire up Anyrail and design a totally new layout concept.
Thanks again for the input.
Bob
i have successfully used 4% grades ob numerous layouts. some engines, such as the bachmann gp7, will pull very well on a 4% grade. mine is rated at 11 cars on this grade. two of them would more than pull 15 cars up the grade. i would not recommend going steeper than 4%.
that said, there is another solution to your problem which not only adds operating interest, but also is common on the real railroads: helper engines. what you do is to add an engine to the back of the train to help it up the grade. at the top, it cuts away from the train and returns to the yard. with dcc, you can even control the helper engine independently of the other engines on the train. my dad has successfully used helpers to move 25 car coal trains up a 3% grade, for over 20 years.
How about a Helix in one corner?
Jeff & Stephen and every one else!
All good ideas, but I think I have solved my dilemma with the turn table on the lower level and the rest of the layout above. Designed what looks to be a nice set of conditions, where only the engines are ever on the lower level. All the rolling stock and my switchers are in the freight yard on the upper level. I have achieved 27 linear feet of 3% slope, where 24 feet of it is inside a tunnel or mountain (lower level).
It's sort of difficult to explain, but the layout is shaped like a "T" due to the room's constraints. The upper level will consist of a low section in the center and 2 elevated sections at the bottom and top of the "T". The section which would resemble the horizontal part of the "T" is high and mountainous, the center is lower and residential. The bottom part of the "T" is again higher, will be part industrial and part "Parks and Recreation", and will be positioned above the turn table.
The track leaves the turntable on the lower level and immediately enters a tunnel portal, then travels sort of like an oval shaped helix where it is not visible from the outside, but accessible from underneath to hide all the wiring and to deal with any problems should any occur. The mountainous upper level land contour then drops off to the lower center section, which reduces the height the track must rise to meet the upper level section. It then exits another mountain portal and joins with the upper level track in the center section. The upper level consists of 3 levels of track elevation connecting the 3 sections, all different, all within 2% slopes and connected with the land contour and several extended trestles and bridges. Amazing what you can do with a lot of foam!
After all the crap I went through on our Christmas layout making and grading inclines by hand, forgive me, but I'm just getting a lot of the Woodland Scenic incline kits for the track inclines.
Well, I have more to plan and analyse before I call it the Plan, but so far, it looks do-able. Might be a while before photos are available!
Roundhouses and turntables take up a lot of space. My engine terminal - which actually models a relatively small prototype, but which caters to the largest steam locomotives - consumes nearly all of a 4x8.
From the sound of it, you have a disproportionately large amount of space dedicated to the terminal. The other tracks that it seems that you have moved elsewhere are probably almost illogical if set too far away. Tracks such as the ashpit/inspection, wash rack, coaling tower and water plugs, etc are always found very, very near the roundhouse and turntable in the prototype. (I'm sure there were exceptions, for example in very narrow river valleys.) But consider carefully how far you want to go here. Many smaller layouts simply don't have the space for a large steam-era engine terminal.
Years ago I realized that I liked engine terminals better than almost anything else, so I built a small layout that was essentially ONLY engine terminal! Everything else was staging! But I got to show off lots of steam locomotives!
The turntable area is only about 3 ft by 4 ft, and it includes two spurs for coal/water loading of steam engines, an ashpit and 2 oil tanks for the diesels. Hope to be able to work in a coal hopper dumping station as well. The freight yard is actually on another level, but not far from the turntable.
With the elliptical helix not being in view, it removed much of the clearance problems I had if I had wanted to show all that area.
I have one layout I really like, but I am also working an a totally different approach as well. When I'm done with both and the hills, valleys, mountains and waterfalls are situated, I'll pick the one I like best and go for it. Probably start laying real estate in November.
From your opening statement regarding rubber band drive, I'm guessing you are an adult of around my age (ancient) and not a teenager.
Buy a book or books on track planning!
NOT the ones produced by people like Bachmann, Atlas et al for their "set track" range of trackage but books on real track planning and how to design a model railroad. Books produced by the makers of "set track" are all just plans for what can best be described as roundy go roundy "toy train layouts", not "model railroads". Yes, I'm biased but I did the roundy go roundy thing back when I was a teenager and quickly grew out of that stage, as you will as well. You will also soon loose interest in anything other than a "model railroad" plan. Once you go "model railroad" rather than "train set", you will find that the set track you purchased will now look out of place so my advice is to ignore set track, of any make, and go straight into flex track and avoid all set track.
For the best books, go to sites like Kalmbach Publishing and purchase copies of their books on layout design and track planning. Look for the latest one by Tony Koester on building a multilevel model railroad as that seems to be your goal.
However, feel free to ignore the above if that's your wish.
Rogertra,
I got a nice chuckle with your comments, and I agree with them. I do not have any train "sets" or "track layouts". I'm not desiring a roundy round layout in any way, in fact trying real hard to not have one. My real problem is, I don't have a gymnasium to build in, and there are only so many curves I can make within my constraints.
I have already looked at some of the "toy train layouts" and have quickly discarded them. I'll look where you suggest this evening, as, I pretty much know what I would like the model to include, just don't know the best way to accomplish it. What I don't desire is a really dumb combination of everything just to have everything.
Maybe I should look for a gymnasium!!
Take a look at the below link. Layouts for different scales but some may offer an idea. You can scale some up or down to the scale you want.
http://www.thortrains.net/
Rich
given an ideal situation, i prefer a loop to loop type layout, with staging yards on the loops at each end. that way, the layyout is self staging, and if you are fortunate enough to be able to add a third staging loop you bring some intersting problems with equipment shortages and surplusses into play.
that said, given the space most of us have, we have to make some compromises. in an average room, you can build a layout with only one line through each scene, ala pelle seborg, and not have much operating interest, or you can double up on the trackage, disguise it to look like two parallel railroads, and have twice the layout in the same space.
I have looked over scores of track plans, and either do not like them or they do not fit my area's geometry, mostly the second. Also, I do not want a point to point layout.
Below is where I am so far, and have already imagined a few revisions as well. The layout area is 9'-6" (vertical) and 10'-6" (horizontal).
The turntable is at the lowest level. The track from the turntable enters a tunnel and proceeds up the dashed pink rail to climb to an elevation of 8". It exits a tunnel and joins the light orange "Industrial" section which varies between 8-1/2" and 9" in elevation. One change, the pink dashed track section at the very top will not be concealed like it is shown, but will exit a tunnel above the green track section, become visible, reenter a tunnel above the green track section and finally re-emerge from the mountain where it links to the Industrial track section.
The green and violet track is a passenger/freight line in a mountainous region, where it is between 9" and 12" in elevation, the violet region being the 9" portion and merging with the Industrial scenery. A station will be there and the siding will be extended to be long enough to hold an entire freight or passenger train.
The portion of grey track between the two green sections is a 24" long trestle spanning a gorge between the two mountains.
The dark orange section of rail is around a town and which will be slightly lower than the Industrial rail (light orange) and will contain a small lake which will be fed from a waterfall down the mountain and pass under the mountain and industrial rails.
Again, still lots to work out, but the grades are all at or below 2% everywhere except the concealed section where it is 3%, but again, it will only be traveled by unloaded engines. Also, ample headroom is available for materials and trains where tracks cross over/under each other.
Well, that's where I am so far.
(http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab80/rbryce1/TrainCapture-A.jpg)
just a suggestion. i'd put some connecting tracks between your different loops. it will add interest when you can shift entire trains between lines.
I have been looking really hard at that, but I'm finding it's not very easy due to the different elevations and track radius, which includes 15"R, 18"R, 22"R, 26"R and 28"R. Some 33.5 partial sections as well to make things work. Very few of these seem to blend well with Bachmann's turnouts.
Actually, there may be two points where I can go from the Mountain rail to the Industrial rail and back. I will try this this evening with Anyrail and see how it fits and works with the desired scenery. Good suggestion though!
Again, not finished trying yet.
rb-
Itlooks like you'll have a busy and interesting layout. I agree with Jeff's suggestion about installing some crossovers. I also think you can put a significant staging yard on your lower level as long as you don't have it too much under the low overhead. Your new grades will tolerate moving whole trains up and down.
I am a little concerned about having any 15" curves. I'd avoid them at all costs.
-- D
No possible extra room on the lower level. The visable area has just enough room for the turntable, structures and planned scenery and the non-visable area is consumed with the track getting up to the upper level, which consumed far more real estate than I imagined at a 2-3% slope. Also, I will be extending the siding on the purple track all the way around to allow much longer trains on the siding, and the purple track section is 9" higher than the turntable level, with a sharp landscape dropping down. I'm good with that though.
As far as the 15" curves, I share your concern, but there will only be 3 track section at 15", all within the stock yard where there will only be two small switchers and freight cars. Everything else is 18" R and longer. The only engines I will be using on the 18" R area will be two 0-6-0 steam engines I have for nostalgia, one looks like it was used at Disney. Also, may use my newly DCC converted San Fransisco Cable Car. Definitely nothing over 6-7 inches in length on the 18" R sections.
Did some more work on my plan and this may be the final run, at least for now. I loaded two pictures from Anyrail with one showing the tracks, one showing the tracks with scenery and one picture in basic 3D.
The only change I made to the tracks was I took the 4 sidings in the Industrial Yard and made one of them loop back onto the Industrial main line. I tried to connect two of them, but using just Bachmann track sections, the geometry just was not available. If I decide to try this, I will need to use some flex track and two different style roadbeds, which is not impossible, just unlikely. Also, I made use of the #6 double crossovers (shown in light blue) I have to link the Industrial main line with the Residential main line.
I did notice after I shot the plan views photos of the layout there were two small track pieces missing from the Industrial line. They were mistakenly placed on the landscape layer which was turned off for this photo shot. They are really there, just not visable on the plan view photo, but are seen on the plan view with landscaping.
Finally, I tried to link the Mountain Rail line (purple) with the rest, but could not. Everywhere I tried, there just was not the right geometry or the elevations between the two rails were too different. I was able to extend the secondary siding on the far right enough to hold a very substantial second train and locos. The scale of the drawing is every dark grid line is 6", every light grid line is 2" and again, the shape is dictated by the parameters within the room (doors, closets, etc).
(http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab80/rbryce1/TrainCapture-CCC.jpg)
Pink dashed lines show the rail to transport engines from the turn table level up to the main lines (without any rolling stock) and are hidden under the upper scenery and mountains. Again, the lime green track section is a 24" long trestle spanning the gorge between the two mountain ranges.
(http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab80/rbryce1/TrainCapture-AAA.jpg)
(http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab80/rbryce1/TrainCapture3D-03.jpg)
Now back to finish building the Christmas layout so it is done in time.
how were you able to colour the tracks?
To color the tracks in Anyrail, first you must create a "Section" of tracks.
A section is a stretch of track with a specific function or purpose, as defined by you. You can turn any stretch – that is a connected group of pieces - into a section, as long as both ends have an isolator.
Select the stretch of track click on "Create Section" to make them into a Section.
Once they are a Section, you can change the color to practically any Windows color by selection the color icon. You can also give the Section a name and/or specify it's usage. If you add a new piece of track to the section, it automatically assumes the sections color.
rb-
Unless I'm forgetting something from an earlier post or misinterpretting your layout plan, you are building an island layout in the middle of your room. That is generally not the best way to configure a layout. Around the walls looks and works better, provides longer runs, minimizes reach-in distance and allows better clearance/access to the pike. Doors can be a challenge with an around-the-walls plan, but not an insurmountable one. Low windows can also be problematic but windows at normal height aren't much of an issue. I think an around-the-walls plan would solve most of the problems you've had so far, as well as giving you the real estate necessary to connect all of your lines together.
-- D
As I said before, I do have limited room use and several obstacles. This is all the space I have to work with due to the room's constraints. I am well aware that if I could use all the walls, it would be better, but I can't! This room is a Den. It has a closet, a bathroom and some other furniture.
Here is the space I have to work with, and only this space.
(http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab80/rbryce1/TrainRoom.jpg)
So again, this is the room, it is 12' X 20' and these are the dimensional constraints and geometrical constraints of the layout. I appreciate all suggestions, but some things are just not options, and the shape and size of the layout here are my limits. And before someone suggests that if I crossed over the closet doorway and crawl under the layout to get into the closet, which would allow me to use the entire wall, I remind you I have a wife who will happily tear your guts out (and mine) if that idea is even suggested!!! So, as they say, Happy Wife, Happy Life. This is IT! I've been scanning the papers for an available gymnasium, but they all have model railroads and/or boats in them already! And, here in Florida, due to the high water tables, a basement is also called an indoor swimming pool!
But really guys, these are my limits and I've pushed them already. There are some accesses being built into the center and outer edges to provide some operational access to the center areas as best I can.
it really does help to see the layout in the context of its surroundings. thanks for posting.
rb-
Aha! I see that your circumstances really do prevent an around-the-walls layout. However, I'll still offer one sugestion: Put an opening near the back corner or perhaps in the middle of your large town so you can reach the tracks along the two walls. You won't need that access all of the time, just when there's a problem, so you can probably use a lift out section which won't mess up your structures and scenery. I suggest that you do it in the town area because it won't disturb any tracks. Assuming you'll have power to the town area for lights or other accessories, you may have to unplug a couple of things, but that won't be an issue as long as you put the plugs in from the start.
By the way ... I like your plan.
-- D
Thanks for the suggestion and the compliment.
If you look at the plan, there is a triangle at the top left and a square in the left center that will be my main access locations. Also, the town in the center of the loops will be made from 24x24 sections which will be removable to provide access to the center if needed. Plan on covering the 24x24 squares with just ceiling tile covered with grass in the beginning to simulate land, and then replace each with a finished developed block, just like developers do it in the real world! (at least that is the plan!). Man's gotta have a plan!
For the grid work, I am contemplating using 24x24 suspended ceiling grids to hold 24x24 thick foam sections in place. The grid will not be visible once the scenery is in place, but I hope it will make it real easy to install and remove as necessary the 24x24 sections.
Again, at least that is the current PLAN!
rb-
That corner looks too small to actually get up in to access the tracks there. A removable hatch or two, like you described, will give you access to that corner area, the rectangular area at left center (without disturbing the tracks) snd the trackage between the town area and your engine terminal.
-- D
The triangle corner is 1/2 of a 24x24 square. I have tried it and it does work. I was an engineer on US Navy Nuclear Submarines for 21 years, and I if I was able to get to some of the areas there, I can get to practically anywhere! 8)
i would strongly advise against using ceiling tile grids for support. your layout is only as good as its foundation, and those grids will be way too weak to do the job. remember they are designed to support relatively lightweight tiles. trains, buildings and especially scenery will add alot of weight. build a wooden or steel frame with strong materials. i usually build my tables from 1x4 pine, and they are strong enough to walk on.
If you plan on doing mountains and heavy scenery the water used in most scenery detail will absorb in the tile weakening it also.
Jerry
OK guys, a little more explaining. My field of profession is actually structural and architectural engineering. Currently I am a Commercial Building Plans Examiner for Pinellas County, certified by the State of Florida, which means I deal with loads every day.
First, you would be surprised at how much weight the suspended ceiling grids can hold when only spanning 24-30 inches. Not the "L" shaped edging, but the commercial grade "T" shaped main grids. I agree, they are not that strong when spanning 8 feet, even with suspension wires, but even then they hold the weight of 2-3 24x48 inch four tube fluorescent light fixtures. If they are only spanning 24-30 inches and are supported from the bottom side with wood (like placing them on top of the ceiling joists, not suspending them from the bottom of the ceiling joist), they can easily carry 40-50 PSF, weights which my scenery in the town area will never see on my layout. I have actually tested this by supporting 2 of my 20# dumb bells with no problems between my garage trusses. The main purpose behind using the grids in that location is ease of removal and reinstalling the scenery panels as needed.
Second, I will not be using actual ceiling tiles, but 3/8" plywood squares under a layer of 1.1/2" foam. Without the height of the foam, the grids would be taller than the plywood squares and stick up at each joint. All the mountains, track and anything else needing extra support will be of 3/8" plywood base with 1.1/2" foam over a 1x4 wood frame.
At least I believe that will be strong enough. If you guys still feel it may be a problem, I will definitely think it again, as there is no substitution for experience, something you guys have much more of in model railroading the I.
After many unsuccessful attempts to tame the "size monster", I have come to the realization that I was trying to cram too much diversity into the given space. Being fortunate enough to have a room over the garage to dedicate to this hobby, I have discovered how easy it is to let things get out of hand; then it becomes a bitter enemy doing EXACTLY what you tell it to do. My thought has gravitated to planning not from what I think I ultimately want, but rather from an explicit theme 9suc h as a freight yard, et al), and working out from there-all on paper first, I might add!
This layout I am planning is taking a great deal of forethought-and I am glad it is-to do right. All i know is I am tired of finding I have made many and sundry mistakes by approaching it with nothing more than a gleam in my eye.
As was said, 4% grade is a wee bit on the heavy side. I have factored into my planning about a 2% mainline grade, and none on "work" tracks. Keep it simple? Oh boy, yes!
RichieC
Bob;
Be careful what you say in here! The T-sections may be strong, but you cannot install flourescent fixtures-or any other kind of fixtures for that matter-without independantly supporting them by wire, chain, etc. from the grid! This is a building, electrical, and fire code mandate. I know you probably wouldn't do it, nor would I, but someone else reading this just might. Innocently... Enter disaster...
Rich
Electrical Whiz kid,
Don't really know where this is going, but I do believe I referred to ceilings supported with wire. I didn't think I suggested installing fluorescent lighting on my layout, or in a ceiling without proper support. I think you are reading far more into my post that there is there.
I am going to use the suspended ceiling grids in the manner I described unless someone points out why this is a bad idea. Some have raised their concerns, and I appreciate it, but I do not feel those concerns are a problem for the way I am installing the grids in my layout. I feel I have an extremely buildable plan, well thought out for what I want to do and not overly complex for the area I have. When I am finished with the design on paper, every piece will have fitted to the 1/8th of an inch, which is why I am confident my layout will work structurally, physically and cosmetically before I ever start. I have no grades over 3% where engines only will be used and no grades over 2% where rolling stock will be used.
Hopefully my approach will prevent me from making the mistakes you indicate happened to you before they happen to me. Once my plan is done in all these areas, I will then start construction, not before...without fluorescent lights!
Many have provided me with invaluable concerns which did result in both minor and major revisions to my plan. I am really trying to do my homework on this, but as I said before, this is still new to me, and I appreciate you sharing any items which caused you problems in the event I have not considered them. As I frequently say at work, it's a lot easier to fix paper than concrete ;)!
rb-
Yes, subs will teach you all about tight clearances, even the big nuclear boats. I've never been in a
nuclear sub but I had to clear others for sub duty when I was a psychologist in the Navy.
-- D
Doneldon,
Sorry to get personal, but were you in Great Lakes, in the early '80s?
Regards,
Jonathan
No, but I was in the early 70's, going to Engineering Propulsion School. Early 80's I was stationed at KNOLLS Atomic Power Laboratory in Windsor Connecticut, then at the US Submarine Base in Groton, Connecticut, USS Daniel Webster.
Hi, Bob;
Not wanting to get into a dumb argument, I am retracting my last comment, so consider it never written .
Richie C.
No, I never took it that way. You had some good points, I just didn't think you were following what I was going to build. Sometimes it's hard to understand how others will interpret something you write, because I know what I am saying and doing, but others reading it may not read it the same way or understand it up front. If you have a comment, please write it. If I think you are misunderstanding my post, I'll need to explain it better.
I take it from your handle and email address you are an electrician. :)
Quote from: jonathan on September 30, 2012, 09:53:52 AM
Sorry to get personal, but were you in Great Lakes, in the early '80s?
Jonathan-
Yes. I was at Great Lakes from mid 1973 until Sptember 1975 when the Navy kicked me out.
-- D
Ah,
Just wondering. I went thru boot camp at Great Lakes 11/83-1/84. Started off in the Nuc Power Program, but had subsequent eye issues, and ended up in an administrative rating. There was a chance that we may have met and didn't know it. Sorry to get off topic.
Regards,
Jonathan
jonathan-
You wouldn't have wanted to meet me. My job was throwing people out.
-- D