Layout/Bridge Help


V

varillon

Member
Here is an accurate layout I drew up with a ruler and compass. Since I want to get the maximum radius on every curve, it looks a little funky, at least to me, but I don't mind as long as it's functional. The only problem I have is with the 2 bridges. The "T" is open space where I will be walking. As you can see, there are 2 tracks that must hang in the air. I've read through the forums about hanging bridges, but they all were straight. I'm curious about how to handle these. Also, it would be really nice if I could lift them out in case I need to work in the far corners of the layout.

The image didn't scan perfectly since there's some sort of preset scan size for my printer, but I think everyone can figure it out. To give you guys an idea of the layout's size, the back wall is 133". The squares are 52.5". The shelves are 20". The left side gap between parts of the bench is only 12" with the other at 17". It looks misleading, so I thought I'd include that.
 
In stores right now is the new 102 Realistic Track Plans. There are some 30+ plans for a room your size. I'd take a look at them.
 
I'm not too concerned with realism, just flow. The aesthetics will keep me more entertained than "A" having a purpose in conjunction with "B", if that makes sense. I plan to run 2 or 3 dozen cars eventually depending on space and won't be dropping them here and there all that much. I do want a lumber mill with simulated water and a logging camp though. Maybe a general store and saloon.
 
You already have to not 1 but 2 very difficult problems. I think it’s time for a redesign.

NYC_George
 
Even if I dropped to 22" curves, I still don't have a way of getting back from either circle. I don't have much of a choice but to cross the "space" in two places unless I do a straight through at the bottom edge which will bring me down to one bridge.

Edit: To be more clear, because of the shelving area, I can't bring a full curve up from the squares. Between the left square and the back wall, there is only 32"...37" from the right square. The heart of my problem is not having enough depth for a return run from either side.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am basing my observation that follows on your claim that the diagramme is accurate and to scale:

You will be very unhappy the first time an expensive item, most usually a locomotive, falls to the floor and breaks into several pieces because your track centreline, as you have drawn it, places curves at the extreme edge of your bench surface in at least two places. If this is of no concern to you, then fill your boots....but I believe you will regret your insistence on this plan.

Curved bridges are easy to build. Ducking under several bridges in order to get to a problem, such as an engine derailed and causing a short at a turnout beyond both bridges from where you happen to be will be a recipe for damage, often to you and the bridge(s). I have impacted my own duckunder many times...perhaps 40 by now. I haven't caused it permanent damage, but I have had to realign it once so far, a not insubsantial undertaking.

Your plan, if my opinion is to be of any value, is beautiful in its symmetry. If symmetry were worth a master's certificate with the NMRA, I'd be voting to have you passed immediately. But, I think, instead, that you are heading for a disaster of disappointment and disuse. Sorry, but I have to call 'em as I see 'em. Ethically, you are due no less from me.

-Crandell
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey Crandell,

I can always take a critique. :) Would it help if I mounted baskets all around the sides to catch the locos? lol Seriously though, with 24" curves I would still only have 2" all around. How much is enough? What would you do in my shoes even if it included adding something to the bench? And if you say "go N scale," I'm gonna cry.

Thomas
 
Have you considered that track radii are measured from the center of the track?

There are many layouts designed for railfanning. You mentioned aesthetics, does that mean locos running through well-done scenery or are you looking for synchronized trains running opposite patterns?

Check out this contest, There were 11 HO entries.

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/10x12Contest.html
 
SpaceMouse said:
Have you considered that track radii are measured from the center of the track?

There are many layouts designed for railfanning. You mentioned aesthetics, does that mean locos running through well-done scenery or are you looking for synchronized trains running opposite patterns?

Check out this contest, There were 11 HO entries.

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/10x12Contest.html
Click to expand...

Aesthetics as in well-done, automated scenery. Things that move and have lights. I do plan to run 2 trains eventually, but I haven't considered opposing or matching patterns.

Disregarding the bridge issues for a moment, what if I added a 3 inch railing around the open areas? I don't think it would hurt the look too much. I can always paint it.
 
The problem here is that you are trying to do too much in your space. Everyone shares this problem.

The real answer is one bridge at the door. One that is removable so that you can walk around the room. You won't be able to do all the loop-to-loops.

Here's something it usually takes building and tearing down a layout to figure out.

More track doesn't equal more fun. It's what you do between the mainline rails that creates the enjoyment.
 
I agree with Chip. You obviously want a grand layout, the grandest you can get in your space, something with a really long mainline run. Unfortunately, if you pursue this course, your track plan will be an over and under spaghetti bowl, even if symmetrical as you have drawn it. If you do a sinuous path around the general perimeter, including the lone bridge to get past the door, as Chip suggests, you will have a nice long mainline run. That will occupy you, and thrill you, about 40-60% of the time. But what will happen for pleasure the rest of the time? You must have some switching, some storage capacity in the way of a yard, even if it is as little as three parallel tracks each about 4' long.

There is room in your space for hills, bridges, tunnels, culverts and such, and room for a small town. The town should have at least one major employer, who, funnily enough, happens to be served by the railroad. Somewhere out in the boonies, on the opposite side of the room, there is a small molybdenum and copper mine, or a coal mine, or a brewery, or a farm or sawmill...something that will require a few cars set out and some filled ones to be taken back to the yard for distribution forwarding to points elsewhere...the market. Once you have had your 10 solid minutes of enjoying your trains whizzing along the main, you will find yourself wanting to break up a train, make a new one, and then do some industrial servicing. What you have depicted makes no provision for it. Instead, you have a very complicated series of whorls and overpasses that are meant to get the widest curves possible and the longest run with which you will hopefully never have to interfere. After it is built, it will still amount to an under-the-Christmas-tree roundy train set that goes nowhere.

There is nothing wrong with having a firm resolve to include an important, even critical, component in your layout, and mostly so in your first. If nothing else, it will teach you a lesson...it was a great decision or a poor one. Most people accept, at the last, that cramming a long single-purpose main into a defined space was not the best decision...not then, not later.

Really, the best track plans are analogs of the wiring that serves them. If you think of the heavier gauge wire that runs below the main line, with feeders up to provide a service here and there....that is precisely how a railroad looks from the satellite's view. It doesn't fold back and cross over itself five or six times only to form a closed loop so that the "owner" never has to turn his locomotive to run the other way...once in a while. Engines are designed to, and do, run in reverse for extended distances when they must.

If you'd like a loop, use the bridge at the door and run around the perimeter, or build a dog bone with the two lumps. Dog bones can be folded so that you have the neat grade and single overpass if that is desired, almost always at the midpoint between the two bulges at the end. It has been the resort of thousands.

-Crandell
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's funny you replied today because I was thinking about typing an update just last night. I bought enough track and roadbed to cover the main line. The roadbed is down, and I've just started laying track. The main line has 30" curves, but I decided to add a second line with 24" curves for a small passenger loco. The roadbed is down for all the switches and crossings. I've been making sure to put those in regardless of running out of track to complete the second line, so the track doesn't have to be pulled up and re-tacked. I built a bridge from scratch that adds a lot of character to the layout. I want to stick with pre-1930's, so some not-so-straight beams make it look really old. The only thing I measured when building it was the length of each stick of wood. I didn't level anything or attempt to keep it all perfect. It has that settled-over-time look.

I purchased an NCE DCC system, the cheaper one, so in another week, I should at least have the engine running around to test things out. I'm taking everything really slow and not worried about any deadline. It makes for a lot more fun, and fewer mistakes is definitely a bonus. Oh, I also picked up three small books that have been a tremendous help. They have a lot of common sense type stuff with good illustrations. So, I'm plugging along nicely. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top