5' x 10' layout - keep it flat or enough space to add elevation
- Thread starter brubakes
- Start date
NYC_George
Well-Known Member
Grade or not to grade
Your goal is what Brubakes ? If it's HO? Do you what to run long trains without any trouble? If that’s the case then I wouldn’t do a grade. I did a grade on my first HO layout. I had to get the grade up and down fast. It looked good but it was to steep and the engine was going down the grade before the all the cars were up the grade. It was a lot of fun to build but it didn’t work until I moved the whole layout down to the basement where I had enough room for grades. The photo below is of the layout when it was a 41/2’ X 10 1/2 ‘. That whole layout is now within my new layout except the bridges on grade had to go and the grade track radius was extended 1 ½ inches and grade reduced to 2%. Old layout photo below.
NYC_George
Your goal is what Brubakes ? If it's HO? Do you what to run long trains without any trouble? If that’s the case then I wouldn’t do a grade. I did a grade on my first HO layout. I had to get the grade up and down fast. It looked good but it was to steep and the engine was going down the grade before the all the cars were up the grade. It was a lot of fun to build but it didn’t work until I moved the whole layout down to the basement where I had enough room for grades. The photo below is of the layout when it was a 41/2’ X 10 1/2 ‘. That whole layout is now within my new layout except the bridges on grade had to go and the grade track radius was extended 1 ½ inches and grade reduced to 2%. Old layout photo below.
NYC_George
brubakes
Member
Sorry, I guess I should have included some details. I am going with HO. I would like to have one if not two trains that I can set and forget so to speak. Just let them run. I then want to have space for a switching operations. Maybe thats asking to much for the space I have?
I was looking at the Du Bois and Punxzy 4'x8' layout made by Spacemouse. I was going to use that layout as a jumping off point for my layout and just expand it a little.
I was looking at the Du Bois and Punxzy 4'x8' layout made by Spacemouse. I was going to use that layout as a jumping off point for my layout and just expand it a little.
You realize that there is an alternative to using track grades - you create the impression of a rise and fall through your terrain instead. Real railroads generally employed very minimal grades whenever possible, often less than 1% over great distances. Taking your layout's terrain below and well above the height of the tracks can create that mountain railroad look, while the train is actually travelling on a perfectly level roadbed.
With regard to the Di Bois & Punxzy trackplan - way too much trackage in my opinion for the modest size of the layout.
NYW&B
With regard to the Di Bois & Punxzy trackplan - way too much trackage in my opinion for the modest size of the layout.
NYW&B
lmackattack
old school
Personaly I like a little elevation if you can make it fit. but I think you will be tight on space to have 2 trains run wile you switch with a 3rd on a layout with grade changes? I have a simmilar sized layout and can run 1 train and switch with a 2nd but any more than that would be difficult. You dont need any over under figure 8s but a bridge over a creek or a spur that is lower than the main makes the layout have some depth. I think it also all depends on the era and type of trains you like to run.. If 3 six axel engines with late model coal cars or intermodal is your cup of tea than your layout space is kinda small to get any sort of high elevation that looks normal. If you stay with small/med steam and 4 axel diesels with short 10 car trains it would look better in your space.
But this is just my opinion so do as you like Its your RR!!!
Trent
But this is just my opinion so do as you like Its your RR!!!
Trent
Selector
Well-Known Member
A couple of considerations. You can split the difference. Instead of making one track do all the rising and then the reducing, why not make one rise half-way and the one it passes over fall half-way? After the overpass, they reverse and come back to grade. This way, you can achieve your grade and not have to make it onerous for your engines.
If it were me, I would place a greater premium on wider curves, all things considered. If you had been struggling to fit 22" curves into your space, but the new addition permitted 25 or 26" curves, I would be all over that...and forget any grades if it was a choice between them. (It may not be, particularly with my suggestion above... but...). The reason I would opt for broader curves is that the grades won't provide much longevity to your layout, but your wider curves will allow you to acquire longer rolling stock and bigger engines as time goes on. If you really are not going to be in a position to alter your track plan easily, including building a whole new, larger, layout, then build into the current one as much time as you can...time and growth.
If it were me, I would place a greater premium on wider curves, all things considered. If you had been struggling to fit 22" curves into your space, but the new addition permitted 25 or 26" curves, I would be all over that...and forget any grades if it was a choice between them. (It may not be, particularly with my suggestion above... but...). The reason I would opt for broader curves is that the grades won't provide much longevity to your layout, but your wider curves will allow you to acquire longer rolling stock and bigger engines as time goes on. If you really are not going to be in a position to alter your track plan easily, including building a whole new, larger, layout, then build into the current one as much time as you can...time and growth.
brubakes
Member
My heavyweight cars require a minimum of 24" radius. I was going to either do 24" or still hoping for 26" radius, which should be doable on the out most track.
The layout is going to be started on a 2" foam base, so I could cut into that to give some depth and of course build up around it.
The layout is going to be started on a 2" foam base, so I could cut into that to give some depth and of course build up around it.
Selector
Well-Known Member
I have the Walthers heavyweights. Twenty-four inches can be a tad optimistic, in my experience. To be clear, if every car is identical, and identically assembled to specs, and if your track skills are excellent and consistent (whew, a lot of contingencies have to be in place there...), you may find consistent reliability with 24" curves. If I were a betting man, though.....
My point is that you should anticipate, if you are an average modeller, having to do some adjusting, probably to both your tracks and your heavyweights at the same time, in order to get reliable performance on your minimal curves. If you would really like to avoid that likelihood, and would just as soon get to running trains as soon as possible, then the easy answer is to try very hard to get another inch or two out of the radius. It's like using a bigger hammer; if you can use bigger curves, it almost always works better.
The trouble with the heavies are two chief ones: the trucks get hung up on frame-hung details underneath, or they bind on the electrical contacts meant to permit lighting inside the cars if you go for that option. The problem does appear on the odd car...hence my comment about consistent assembly to specs. Secondly, the diaphragms between the cars, at the vestibules, are somewhat stiff. As they compress on one side while the cars negotiate your close-to-perfect 24" radius, they get stiffer...and stiffer...until they actually force one or both ends out of the tracks....."pop" and rumble. The less swing in arc that you force the trucks to take, and the less compression you impose on one edge of the diaphragms, which means necessarily wider curves, the less likely you'll be to have to reach over, with gritted teeth, for the third time that session and rerail the car(s).
-Crandell
My point is that you should anticipate, if you are an average modeller, having to do some adjusting, probably to both your tracks and your heavyweights at the same time, in order to get reliable performance on your minimal curves. If you would really like to avoid that likelihood, and would just as soon get to running trains as soon as possible, then the easy answer is to try very hard to get another inch or two out of the radius. It's like using a bigger hammer; if you can use bigger curves, it almost always works better.
The trouble with the heavies are two chief ones: the trucks get hung up on frame-hung details underneath, or they bind on the electrical contacts meant to permit lighting inside the cars if you go for that option. The problem does appear on the odd car...hence my comment about consistent assembly to specs. Secondly, the diaphragms between the cars, at the vestibules, are somewhat stiff. As they compress on one side while the cars negotiate your close-to-perfect 24" radius, they get stiffer...and stiffer...until they actually force one or both ends out of the tracks....."pop" and rumble. The less swing in arc that you force the trucks to take, and the less compression you impose on one edge of the diaphragms, which means necessarily wider curves, the less likely you'll be to have to reach over, with gritted teeth, for the third time that session and rerail the car(s).
-Crandell
Crandell already gave you a good answer to the first part of your question. Yes, part of the reason for using foam as a base is so you can carve rivers, ditches, and other below grade features. You can also use foam to build up everything from a small hill to a big mountain. My layout is completely flat but, by having creeks and ditches as well as hills and railroad cuts, it looks like it's not.
Cjcrescent
Master Mechanic
If you're really intent on following someone else's trackplan, I think that you'd do better with a plan from Kalmbach's "102 Trackplans for Model Railroaders". This is a copy of all the trackplans MR has had the the mag the past several years.
There should be something in there that is more to the size you're wanting to build and not have to take a 4x8 and enlarge it.
There should be something in there that is more to the size you're wanting to build and not have to take a 4x8 and enlarge it.
