My ONE and ONLY project ...


A Virtual Trip around the Layout

While I am not a big fan of virtual anything this video of the Layout, using SCARMS Engineers View, does offer an insight as to what the layout will/might/should look like in reality. Obviously some of the parallel track needs a bit more separation and the tunnels seem to impact on the track in places (according to SCARM) but just as obvious, those issue won't occur on the actual layout.

https://vimeo.com/240431230
 
Well that was a pretty cool video and certainly gives a clearer view of hopefully what your after. Although you know I'm a believer in less is more when it comes to parallel tracks I think you can pull it off if you can somehow raise and lower the elevations a bit more so that they aren't so banky looking.
 
Lynnb said:
Well that was a pretty cool video and certainly gives a clearer view of hopefully what your after. Although you know I'm a believer in less is more when it comes to parallel tracks I think you can pull it off if you can somehow raise and lower the elevations a bit more so that they aren't so banky looking.
Click to expand...

Lynn,

Thanks and just keep in mind that the vid was a virtual thing. The track will be laid with a greater clearance and will be spread out a little more than the scarm rep suggests. I basically use scarm as a "guide" for where things will go and, as I know you know, things do change during the actual construction.

The grades are (on ave) 2.4%, I could possibly increase them to 3% but think that is getting to the extreme. My bench work (ground level) will start at 3". My highest point is 6" and my lowest point is 2". With the length I have to work with, I can't get too much more variation without compromising what I might want to run, I don't think.
 
Your near downtown looks very welcoming, a type of town I always like to stop in when touring. The DPM buildings are really nice to build and use and fit in so many different era's.
 
2% is a nice grade to manipulate but more than that the inclines and declines become quite noticeable , I think you will have your work cut out for you to get all the rails flowing nicely and raising the terrain around the rails will be a great help to make it come together.
 
Lynnb said:
Your near downtown looks very welcoming, a type of town I always like to stop in when touring. The DPM buildings are really nice to build and use and fit in so many different era's.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, like a lot of towns, it is on the decline with an aging population and a decline in the economy for his area. The DPM kits are nice to build, at least the HO ones were and I don't see any reason to think other wise of their N Scale kits. Only thing I may have an issue with is creating the same fine detail in N Scale as I "almost" got in HO. Hopefully by the end of this week I will have some of the kits and will be better placed to find that out.

Lynnb said:
2% is a nice grade to manipulate but more than that the inclines and declines become quite noticeable , I think you will have your work cut out for you to get all the rails flowing nicely and raising the terrain around the rails will be a great help to make it come together.
Click to expand...

From what I have researched, N Scale is quite a bit different to HO in terms of grades. The populist belief is that N Scale can negotiate "up to" a 4% grade pulling 15 cars of rolling stock. IF that is true, then negotiating a 2.5% or even 3% pulling up to 15 cars should be very doable, especially with the engines I will be running. I am only stating that as a result of what I have read and been told. The proof will be in the layout.

I take your point concerning something greater than 2% being noticeable though, and you are most likely right, that is were the scenery will play apart (if needed) to tone down the appearance of steep the grades.

I have to disagree with your point about getting smooth grades. I am only increasing the grade by .4% over what my HO layout was and have an extra 160 or so inches (with the extension) to do that with. I think the grades are going to flow nicely and will not be all that "in your face" so to speak.

Remember, what you saw in the vid does NOT include the actual terrain as it will be on the layout. SCARM only includes terrain that matches the track work and not the entire picture. Granted, I could create the entire picture to reflect mountains and valley's etc; however, scarm is very animated in that respect and doesn't really replicate the "lay of the land" well.
 
Tony actually what I meant with the grades or banks is the sudden drop next to the rail ballast slopes and then continuing down close to another set of rails. You will see when you get there but making your terrain flow up and down will make or break the scene to keep it looking non-believable, kind of the issue when we attempt the spaghetti type rail layout, probably the reason I " bend the rules" for benchwork reach depth, I like to spread things out. When it comes down to figuring out the height of the separate rails just take your time and keep raising or lowering each until you get a satisfying height. When you make your risers ( probably out of 1x2's ) I would suggest you leave them long to start with so it gives you option to raise or lower. :)
 
Lynn,

I don't think I am explaining myself clearly - ignore what ever you see in SCARM in terms of the terrain and how SCARM renders where the track is in relation to other tracks and the landscape. That is SCARM's rendition and not the way the terrain will be or the track laid in reality. I can't emphasis enough that I only use SCARM as a guide and not as a definitive plan. Parallel tracks will be situated with the proper spacing between them (unlike how SCARM has rendered them). Terrain will be built around the track work as I visualize it not how SCARM renders it. So, where you see "sudden drops" beside the tracks - ignore them, that is SCARM and not how I perceive those areas to be. With that being said, there are going to be parts of the layout where the track does run through a cutting and/or up narrow valley's, that is intentional on my part.

Bending the rules for reach - what rules, there are none in my opinion as everyone is different, and NO one arrogant "reach rule" applies to every one. If I have to have a 40" reach to accommodate what I want, then I'll have a 40" reach - period. Running trains is what the hobby is fundamentally about BUT, for me, it is the scenery side of the layout that interests me more. I don't care if my track plan is 1000% diametrically opposed to reality, I do care if my scenery is not realistic as it is the scenery that makes the layout. The more room I have for the scenery, the better and how much room I want or need is dependent upon the type of scenery I am thinking about. Unlike my HO layout, this layout is going to focus on two towns rather than lots of open spaces. The area between the two towns will consist of mountains, valleys and gorges as if the railroad had to be "cut through" to join the two towns.

Not sure if you saw the post but I am leaving the HO ply in place and will be using 2 X 4's cut to the appropriate heights as risers. Risers will be cut at 1/4" heights from 1/4" to 2 1/2" and placed appropriately atop of the "sub-sub roadbed". Essentially, I will be laying the "new ply" on top of the old ply and cutting the track plan through both pieces of ply. The current ply will remain fixed to the bench work while the new ply will become the actual sub roadbed for the track. The risers will sit on top of the sub sub roadbed and support the sub roadbed. None of that may make any sense, but it will when you see it in place and it still gives me an open grid to work with and; therefore, access to all parts of the layout from beneath.

The above method has a few benefits as well. Firstly, I can reduce the number of cross members for attaching risers in the conventional manner. Secondly, grade adjustments can be made simply by moving a riser one way or the other and allows me to make small adjustments to attain the best grade. A lot easier to slide a riser 1/4" left or right than having to put in another cross member. It is also a lot easier, and more accurate, to cut a piece of 2 X 4 or 1 X 3 or whatever is being used for a riser at a given height and sit it on something solid - it isn't going to drop or tilt while attaching it to a cross member - it will stay in place and will always remain at the height it was cut. To me, this makes sense and reduces some work.

I take your point about the need to perhaps adjust the height of the risers to adjust the grade. That can still be done, and done much easier, the way I am intending to construct the bench work. Theoretically though, if I have a grade that is 2.0% then all that should be needed is a 2" riser placed 100" from where you want the grade to start, allowing for the grade transition. Then it is only a matter of placing a 1" riser at the 50" mark, a 1/2" riser at the 25" mark and a 3/4" riser at the 75" mark. If more risers are needed for support, they can then be cut and "slid" along the sub-sub roadbed until they make contact with sub roadbed. I will most likely cut my risers so they fit every 12". It may sound complicated or a lot of work but for me, I think it will be easier this way and I still have the benefit of open grid.

Anyway, I think once the layout starts getting built you will see how it all comes together and that the way SCARM depicts it (in the video) will be very different to the end product :)
 
Doesn't sound complicated at all , bin there done that. I really can't wait to see this progress but yes I know it's coming. Mean while I'm plugging away with a water scene structure for my layout. I already went out and got a few buckets of rocks before the snow flys here so I will be ready when I feel the need to again take a slam at the layout.
 
Lynn,

Glad it was clear mate. I can see everything in my minds eye so, for me, it is easy to picture. Trying to explain it sometimes gets a bit messy.

Argh that word - the "S" word ... yeah, it's coming all too quickly and, from what we hear, it is going to be a "hard winter". None of that "S" stuff in our forecast yet or for the next couple of weeks so maybe "they lied", fingers crossed.

That is something I am going to try on my layout as well, using "real materials" like stones, although I don't know how successful that will be in N Scale, I may have to stick with fabricated stuff.

What sort of water scene are you putting in, river, lake, waterfall? No matter which it is, or something different, I'll look forward to seeing it come together and watching the continuation of your layout. Have you made a choice of product to use for your water yet? The last water scene I did, I used Real Water and was very surprised at how good it looked. Only downside to it was it took forever to dry, from memory around 24 hours before it could be touched let alone anything else, but it did look good.

Creating water scenes has been a challenge for me from day one, getting the water to look right color wise - nothing ever really did look realistic enough for me. I know color is a matter of choice and dependent on the skies and surrounding terrain, the type of base the water sits is on, meaning a mud river bed or a sand beach or a rock stream - but I never did seem to be all that successful with them. Hopefully this time I might have better luck or "steal" some of your ideas :)
 
wombat457 said:
If you had your way Lynn, the entire track would be on a "trestle bridge"....

My intention is to have the furthest track in the N/E corner as high as I can possibly get it, be it one or two tracks and with enough "open area" behind that/those tracks (back toward the walls) that will allow me to have a mountain with a water fall.

The water fall will be on the wall side of the track/s in that corner and will cascade down beneath the highest track into a gorge that the next tracks down will also cross and turn into a river that will run some where. THAT was going to be the "WOW" portion of the layout, the focal point as you put it.

...big gap in thread here ...

The last water scene I did, I used Real Water and was very surprised at how good it looked. Only downside to it was it took forever to dry, from memory around 24 hours before it could be touched let alone anything else, but it did look good.

Creating water scenes has been a challenge for me from day one, getting the water to look right color wise - nothing ever really did look realistic enough for me. I know color is a matter of choice and dependent on the skies and surrounding terrain, the type of base the water sits is on, meaning a mud river bed or a sand beach or a rock stream - but I never did seem to be all that successful with them. Hopefully this time I might have better luck or "steal" some of your ideas :)
Click to expand...
Oh oh oh, I have an idea I wish I could let you steal, but I've got to get it published first. I had this idea almost 10 years ago, bought a bunch of stuff to do it with, and just can't find time to get a prototype done and story written about it. Now your pressuring me to get back to that project so I can share.... AHHHH! the last thing I need is more pressure. :p
 
Tony - As I posted before, I also like working with the DPM kits. I cannot imagine the prospect of painting those tiny windows in N scale though. I would have to go up to a #7 (2.75x) lens on my optivisor Looking forward to seeing your upcoming progress.

Willie
 
santafewillie said:
Tony - As I posted before, I also like working with the DPM kits. I cannot imagine the prospect of painting those tiny windows in N scale though. I would have to go up to a #7 (2.75x) lens on my optivisor Looking forward to seeing your upcoming progress.

Willie
Click to expand...
Willie I need to use my optivisor plus my readers at the same time and that's for HO scale, N scale is insanely too small for me, but man the realestate to play with.;)
 
Iron Horseman said:
Oh oh oh, I have an idea I wish I could let you steal, but I've got to get it published first. I had this idea almost 10 years ago, bought a bunch of stuff to do it with, and just can't find time to get a prototype done and story written about it. Now your pressuring me to get back to that project so I can share.... AHHHH! the last thing I need is more pressure. :p
Click to expand...

No pressure mate - just hurry up and it done! :p

santafewillie said:
Tony - As I posted before, I also like working with the DPM kits. I cannot imagine the prospect of painting those tiny windows in N scale though. I would have to go up to a #7 (2.75x) lens on my optivisor Looking forward to seeing your upcoming progress.

Willie
Click to expand...

Agreed, I'm not looking forward to doing the windows either. I was doing an N Scale Laser Cut model and trying to paint the trim so it looked "acceptable" was a pain in the you know what. I'm going to have to come up with a way to do the windows on the DPM kits. As someone said, some where at sometime, it'd be nice if the windows were separate on the DPM Kits.

Lynnb said:
Willie I need to use my optivisor plus my readers at the same time and that's for HO scale, N scale is insanely too small for me, but man the realestate to play with.;)
Click to expand...

I also use a optivisor with my reading glasses and it does help a great deal; however, seeing what I am painting is not as big an issue as actually painting where, and only where, I want to paint. That is the challenge for me and one that I am both looking forward to and NOT looking forward to :)

Real Estate ... oh yeah, I have lots of that to play with as well ;)
 
Lynnb said:
When you start building I would highly recommend using a cheap plastic primer.
Click to expand...

To prime the kits first you mean? If so, I have always used either Tamiya or Model Master Acrylic Spray Primer. That will be what I will be using on these kits as well, unless there is anything better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top