A little help would be appreciated...


K

kurtg2020

New Member
I am getting ready to start my layout, and I have an idea of what I want the track plan to look like. I found this one on the web, but want to modify it a bit, some feed back would be greatly appreciated. Where I have labeled A I assume is a tunnel, I want to delete the tunnel and maybe elevate the section of track. I would like to run a double mainline, my son who is 4 and my daughter who is 7 wants to run passenger trains, I think they just want to yell all aboard, but if that is something they enjoy, then I am going to try and accommodate them. I am doing a modern day railway, and would like to add a small yard to service the local industries. So I need to clean up section B and either put my yard there or if anyone else has an idea, I am all ears. I also have a "garage" for some of my loco's and my son says, buy I am not sure if I can make that work or not. I am doing this in DCC, and want to keep the wiring simple, simple is better for me when it come to that. My thought was to run the passenger service on the outer rail, and try to put the station in the back, because where I am putting this in my basement, there is a built in self behind my bench work that I thought about trying to incorporate into the railway somehow. At this point, I am open to help and suggestions. I downloaded SCARM, but have not spent much time sitting down and playing with it. Thanks for the help in advance.
trackplan1.jpg
 
This is going to be HO..as soon as I hit submit I knew I left that out. According to the original plan is was just over 9 feet in length and just over 3 foot in depth and I would like to keep to the original size. Thanks for pointing that our number9.
 
kurtg,

The two things that jumped out at me, as I read what your intentions were, were the following:

1. The radius of the curves for double tracking, and
2. The ability to run Passenger Trains with those radius curves.

The radius to begin with - the largest radius curve you MIGHT fit in those dimensions will be 18" - absolutely, positively no greater than that but will be most likely closer to 16" or 17", and that is for the outside track. IF you can get an 18" radius curve to fit for the outside track, the inside track will be no larger than 16" or 15". Those radii are going to restrict what you can and can't run, and that brings me on to point 2.

The majority (if not all) of the "Modern Day" Passenger Cars will not run on such small radii. The minimum recommended for most, if not all, modern Passenger Cars is 22" Radius as a result of their length.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that is what you are facing unless you can (fairly dramatically) increase the size of your MINIMUM radii. Even if you run freight only, you will probably be restricted to 50' cars or maybe a little longer for the 18" curves; however, the 15" curves that you would have for the inside tack would most likely reduce the maximum length of your rolling stock to 40' cars.

If you want to go ahead with the double tracking and/or a modern railway then you are going to have to find away of increasing those radii fairly significantly. That means changing the dimensions of the bench work.

Not wanting to treat you like an idiot but, just in case you weren't aware - if you want 22" radius curves, you need to double that figure and then add at least 2" for the size of your benchwork. Adding the 2" gives you a 1" border between the edge of your layout and track work. Most people would recommend a 2" border.

I know this doesn't help, but best to know what you are facing before you start anything or make promises to your kids that you may not be able to keep :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Several things............first of all, if you place this against a wall, you are going to have problems reaching 3 feet across the layout to deal with any problems like derailments at the back. 2 ft is generally considered "safe" reach and your kids will definitely have problems unless they crawl up on the table.

I agree with Wombat that you need to go with another foot of width to run modern passenger equipment, which would further magnify the reach issue. There are "old time" passenger cars that would handle the tighter curves............ your call.........bigger layout or older time-frame.

Your other option is a big jump, which would be going down a scale to N. You could build that basic plan in N and have lots of room for extra track/yard, scenery, ect. But if you already have some HO stuff, that may not be an option.
 
Dave,

You pretty much hit the nail on the head with the options presented, change of era plan, larger layout/benchwork or N Scale. I don't, necessarily agree with the 24" reach thing though - that is determined by the individual and height of the benchwork and one thing that cannot and should not be given a "standard" so to speak. The size of the bench work is really irrelevant, so long as the track can be reached. Anyway, that's getting of the subject.

I will say one thing though - I have a couple of the old Overton 50' Passenger Cars for my layout, and they "barely" make it around my track work, which is closer to a 19" radius. Basically, I have the same situation as the OP - 19" outside track radius with a (smidgen over) 15" inside track radius. Anything over scaled 50' is a case of hold your breathe and hope sort of thing :)

To be honest, I think the only way of being able to run almost anything you want is to have a minimum 24" radius for your smallest radius, ie inside track and then a larger radius paralleling outside track, for double tracking that is. I know if I were to build another layout, I wouldn't go any smaller than 24".

Someone wanna check on Kurtg - I think he maybe contemplating something that isn't worth contemplating!!!! :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tony,
Thank you for the posts, I was worried about the radius of the curves. After doing some looking, for some reason in my head the passenger train that I was going to try and find was a smaller Amtrak that runs in state only, and I was thinking they where not as big as the superliner cars like on the California Zephyr and others but after doing some looking, that is not the case. I really don't mind running smaller equipment (50") if I can find it.
I could always change the dimensions of the bench work a little, I have more room to go deeper, but my length is close to max.
Attached is the measurements of the area I have available. Just an FYI, you can see that it is a pretty nice drawing, I am available for hire if you guys need anything drawn:eek:
The thought of N scale has crossed my mine, but I am afraid in might be too small for my kids.
Again..thank you for the help and thoughts, I really appreciate it.
Dimensions.jpg
 
I envision a 48" X 101" table with a 24" X 72" operator opening in the center of the table. you would stand in the center of the table and operate the trains around you. No reach issues. This will allow a double main line with largest radii possible for the space. you can put a station on one long side an industry on the other and an "engine garage" in the 18" X 19" space you have.
Here is something similar for inspiration. http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tocrTcYS7ck/0.jpg

HTH
Steve
 
Kurtg,

The area you have available is a much better size and will give you greater flexibility, but I would also do as choops has suggested and have an opening cut in the middle of that 48" X 101" area so you can stand in the middle. Only draw back with that kind of thing is the loss of that amount of space to do something with for the layout. Its pretty much swings and roundabouts and up to you which way you went.

Another option maybe to keep the rectangle and have a step stool handy should you need to reach the furthest distances on the layout, track wise. That distance would be something like 50". I can make that reach standing on the floor but am 6' with a fairly log arm reach anyway. You could off set some of the reach problem by lowering the height of your benchwork. That wont help your kids though.

Hard to say what you should do, it really comes down to what you are comfortable with.

Okay, I just did a check for sizes of radii on a 48" X 48" layout. The largest radius you could get into that is a 22" radius, which is still good and will be large enough to run 90% of loco's, rolling stock and passenger cars. So in short, with the new dimensions you have posted, you would get a 22" radius comfortably.
 
kurtg2020 said:
I could always change the dimensions of the bench work a little, I have more room to go deeper, but my length is close to max.Attached is the measurements of the area I have available.
Click to expand...
So this is the total area the layout must fit into? Is there space all around it or is it up against the wall except where it says "open space"?
 
The only part that is against a wall is the "back" of the benchwork which is the top of my drawing. The rest of it would be open and I could walk around. The drawing I put on was the approximate dimensions of my benchwork. Clear as mud?
 
kurtg,

If you can walk around 3 sides of the layout, then reach wont be an issue at all, other than maybe a 6 to 10 section in the very middle rear of it. To get around that, have the track plan an inverted dog bone sort of thing. Basically, flip the original track plan shown and that should solve any reach problems.
 
Thanks for the help guys, I am just finishing up a few track plans and once the kids and I decide which we like best, we will start building.
 
Just to put my 2 pence-worth in: I have just finished track laying on my test-track layout which has a minimum radius of 24". Guess what: my expensive Walthers Budd passenger fleet don't like it, derailing virtually every time. They are fine on the 28" curve though....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
struck2soon said:
Just to put my 2 pence-worth in: I have just finished track laying on my test-track layout which has a minimum radius of 24". Guess what: my expensive Walthers Budd passenger fleet don't like it, derailing virtually every time. They are fine on the 28" curve though....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Don't they recommend a minimum of 24" for those cars? Might be getting them confused with another make.
 
wombat457 said:
Don't they recommend a minimum of 24" for those cars? Might be getting them confused with another make.
Click to expand...

They do. The point they derail is where the curvature reverses. I guess their 24" radius would be a perfectly laid new track example. Upshot is: I will be lifting that section of track and relaying with 28" radius. Pain in the arse, but needs must...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
The secret to "S" curves is the tangent between them. You don't want the train leaving one radius and immediately slamming into an opposing radius.
If you were to decrease both of your radii by one inch and create an easement between the two opposing curves, it will perform considerably better than your current radii running straight into each other.
The problem with S curves is that the end sills of coupled cars are pushed in opposite directions. If the coupler side swing can't accept the offset, one of the cars will be forced sideways up and over the rail. So the radius depends on the rolling stock - short for ore jimmies, longer for 40' box cars, much longer for auto racks and full-length Pullmans, humongous for two NYC Niagaras coupled tender-to-tender.
Steve
 
Steve,

Before I ask the question, can you confirm that I understand what an easement is first.

In layman's terms, an easement is an area that follows the track but that varies in width depending on the radius of the curve and is designed to provide clearance for a car, at the top of the radius, to clear that radius. ?

If I am close in my understanding of an easement, then an easement is automatically created by the amount of the radius used. If that is true, then reducing the radius will increase the easement but also apply more pressure to the cars at the couplers. The sharper the curve, the more sideways pressure is applied in the curve which would increase the chance of one car pushing the next off the rails wouldn't it?

Wouldn't increasing the radius reduce the side ways pressure and; therefore, reduce the risk of a derailment, even though the easement will also be smaller?

I am not questioning what you have said, just trying to understand it.
 
He is saying to have a straight section between the curves. Doesn't have to be very long, just enough to let the loco enter the second curve without still being on the first
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top