Layout Guidance

[Smitty49]

I know this is a poor image but I have a Two-fold question.
Is there a way to insert this image track plan onto XTrkcad . It's a very old layout but I'm not proficient enough yet with XTrkcad to completely lay it out piece by piece.
Another question is, in using this plan, I'm thinking of an late 1800's or early 1900's era layout and would like to know if anyone could recommend a book or site for track signals and signage to fit that railroad era.
Obviously I'm new to the hobby and have tried to read through this forum for many ideas but I'm really unfamiliar with the history aspects of railroading but I've always like the old steam locomotives and that particular era of railroading. I've picked up several books on the fundamentals along with wiring , scenery and bridge construction, just need further guidance.
Thanks all for the help.
Smitty CECS

 

[lmackattack]

not sure if you can transfer the image to Xcad or any other software. I would highly dobut it. That layout looks like it has some 15" radius witch is very tight and you will only be able to run the very small steam from the era you mentioned. It also has a elevation change that will limit the about of cars to be pulled by such a small loco. But being back in the early days 3-4 small cars would look perfect. signals if used on such a small railroad back then might be found only at busy junctions or where rail roads crossed and a switch tower or office was. back then trains ran along and stopped often to get orders by tellagrah (sp?) what kind of signs were you asking about?

Trent

 

[malletman]

would probably make an nice logging layout with shays, heislers and climax geared locomotives. Definatly not a layout for anything bigger than a 4-4-0 rod loco or SW series diesel. Mike

 

[UP2CSX]

Smitty, there's no way to import a JPEG into XtrkCAD or any other track planning software I know of. You'd have to recreate it yourself, which isn't a bad idea, because you may want to make some changes.

Signals of any type were not common until after 1920. Before that, train orders handed up to the engineer by station operators or schedules governed train movement. Telegraph was used at each station along the route to update other stations about when a train passed if one or both of the trains were off schedule so new orders could be handed up about where to meet. About the only common signals were train order semaphores at each station to let the engineer know if he had to make a stop for new orders or could continue on to the next station.

If you're asking about railroad signs, they weren't much different than they are today except in materials and shape. Most signs were made of wood although mile posts and whistle posts were sometimes made of concrete. Some of these are still around today. The familiar crossbuck was more often a diamond shape pattern. Other than the fact that most signs today are made from metal or plastic, they still say pretty much the same things...yard limits, no trespassing, railroad crossing...most of the need for these signs haven't changed. I don't have a book to recommend but google for historic railroad pictures and you'll find tons of sites with pictures of signs and signals.

 

[SpaceMouse]

While this layout has a nostalgic charm about it, there are some real issues to deal with. First of all, the outer tracks are higher than the inner tracks and it is a pain to be always reaching across your work to do things in the center.

Second of all, it buys into the myth that more track is better. What people have found out over the years, it is what is between the main lines that makes the layout interesting. The multiple loops and crossunders will give you a layout something akin to the Thunder Mountain ride at Disneyland. In other words, no matter what you do it will give you a toy train feel.

Most people who make it into the hobby to stay need more than that. They will grow in their interests and usually work down one or two paths. They will become interested in either operations, or they will become interested in railfanning. In the first case, the goal is to model the function and business of the railroad--the delivery of merchandise. In the latter case, the goal is to move a majestic train through beautiful scenery (or maybe something reminiscent of home.)

With so much track, you have room for neither. Your layout is a dead end you will most likely tire of before you get built.

Take a look at my Beginner's Guide. Also look at what some of these people did: 4 x 8 Design Contest.

 

[Smitty49]

I want to thank everyone for the replies and advise. I know this is a small layout but I think I can add enough features to it for My Grandson to enjoy and if the space is available later on maybe we'll be able to expand from it.
I didn't think of looking through the search index for Historical Railroad Photos but found a 'Ton' of great sites:
So far I think this is one of my favorites- http://www.railpictures.net/

http://www.wsrhs.org/hphotos.htm

Thanks again for the help,
Smitty CECS

 

[SpaceMouse]

Did you happen to notice that you will have to custom build a hand-layed curved turnout? Not beginner stuff.

Building a layout for someone else has it's pitfalls.

If you are really building it for yourself, you neeed to think about yourself in the plan. I built a layout "for my son" and he lost interest. Luckily, I had help in designing my layout and I was able to convert it for not a lot of money to something I could enjoy. You might not have that option with your plan.

Your turns are so tight very few engines can handle them. The grades are so steep that little 1880's engines will have a tad of trouble with them. You have grades shown at 6% on a 15 inch radius curve and my some of my 1880's engines couldn't pull a single car up a straight 3.7 % incline. Now maybe you can find something other than a geared unit that will climb that, but I doubt it.

Layouts typically cost $50-$100 per sq ft and take 50 hours per square ft to build. To me it is worth it to have a good plan going in, even if it takes a little thought.

For all intents and purposes, this is not a workable plan.

 

[Smitty49]

Did you happen to notice that you will have to custom build a hand-layed curved turnout? Not beginner stuff.

Building a layout for someone else has it's pitfalls.

If you are really building it for yourself, you neeed to think about yourself in the plan. I built a layout "for my son" and he lost interest. Luckily, I had help in designing my layout and I was able to convert it for not a lot of money to something I could enjoy. You might not have that option with your plan.

Your turns are so tight very few engines can handle them. The grades are so steep that little 1880's engines will have a tad of trouble with them. You have grades shown at 6% on a 15 inch radius curve and my some of my 1880's engines couldn't pull a single car up a straight 3.7 % incline. Now maybe you can find something other than a geared unit that will climb that, but I doubt it.

Layouts typically cost $50-$100 per sq ft and take 50 hours per square ft to build. To me it is worth it to have a good plan going in, even if it takes a little thought.

For all intents and purposes, this is not a workable plan.

I appreciate your input and surely Glenn Wagner calculated The appropriate Fundamentals in this layout. I may add that this is a Module of a multiple layout so other aspects will be added to enhance and enlarge its capabilities.
From what calculations of grade I have figured 2.5% to 3% is well within specs' at .31 per Ft on straight grade and a little over 3% on the curved grade at a 360 degree run of 0 to 3".
As far as the architectural aspect is concerned, I'm quite familiar with modeling having a modeling hobby of Nitro Scale Airplane flying, 1/8 & 1/10 scale nitro RC trucks as well as a 40 year backround in furniture design and construction which included proto type models of minature scale.
All intent purposes of this is to entice a younger individual to explore his imagination and broaden his education of past and present of which I feel is the most important in todays society. Whether he clings to the hobby is at this point irrelevant to his manual building and knowledge skills .


I do appreciate the feedback and links to the sites given as they will fully be used.
Smitty CECS

 

[SpaceMouse]

3'' will clear a small engine, but you must also calculate in the height of the track and the depth of the bridge. NMRA standards are 4".

While it is true that you have 11 9" sections, you must add to your calculation that you cannot go from zero to 3% grade without a transition. And since you must adjust your grade to compensate for the turnout, you may need to adjust your calculations by 5 sections of track. If you do that you are looking at a 4" climb in 63" or 6.34%. But we can assume that 4 of those transitions will get you an inch, so I will adjust that to 4.75%

Now I tested 15 different 1880's engines on 3.1% and 3.7% slopes. The engines pulled 6-15 cars on the 3.1% climb, but that dropped to 0-3 cars on the 3.7% grade. One of the engines tested was a Heisler, a geared locomotive. As you can see, the performance drops significantly with only .6%. Add to this the friction of the 15 " radius turn and well...

I know you are bound and determined to build this layout, but for the sake of your pocket book, why not see if you can duplicate that climb and turn and test a few engines before you spend a lot of money.

You have a box here. Only the small engines will make the turns, but the small engines don't have the ommph to get up the grade.

I know you are determined to build "this" layout. But there are other designs that can please your grandson and not push the limits of engine performance.

 

[Selector]

This is all good advice. It really does pay to be realistic...that sounds contrived or trite, but in this hobby...oh, boy...testing theories has a long history in it. We try to teach newcomers to learn to accept hard realities, and one of the most brutal is grades. If you find yourself yearning mightily toward a given configuration of tracks, despite some misgivings borne of advice from others, the settler is doing a mock-up and trying it out. Find out for sure if your favourite engine will pull your favourite passenger car consist up the grades you feel you'll need in order to make the plan you're stuck on work.

Don't forget, though, that as a mean (average) grade gets steeper of necessity, the longer the easement into and out of it you'll need to keep your steamers from doing a face plant into the change of grade. The pilots (cow catchers) are often low to the rails, and on some finely scaled engines a sudden change of grade will have the pilot scraping on the rails, and even lifting the front of the engine until the drivers behind it begin to lose traction and spin....not good.

That is why the other gentlemen are whispering soothing words to you and at the same time trying to pry your fingers from around this sentimental track plan.

This needn't be a grand, complicated, two-year project for the intended user. But, it also has to have a basic utility, even to the child. A layout constrained by self-imposed restrictions inherent in a track plan that could be considerably improved is surely not the ideal one to have. Make a successful plan by making it usable and fun and interesting. Especially usable and fun....but don't forget interesting.

Lastly, and I hope to successfully difer from Space Mouse, but while the NMRA standards say one thing, they are recommended practises. In many cases you have room to manoeuvre. This is true in the case of overhead clearances and in clearances to the side of the rails. Before I go on, this is also where doing the mock-up, including the real buildings or items acting like rock cuts or abutments should be placed in the mock-up to prove the concept. But what I was going to say was the real (there's that word again!) clearances are not dictated by the NMRA...they're dictated by the little gizmo wending its way around your tracks. I have several large articulate steamers that were all good on my side clearances. I then got a Rivarossi H-8 Allegheny that scraped the adjacent terrain in at least four different places the first time I ran it around my large outer main! Gads! I had to get out my small steak knife and start paring away ground goop.

This same monster engine that dwarfs any other on my layout by a hefty margin (making me wonder if it is to scale) will easily go through my reduced Woodland Scenics stone portals. I cut them down because I thought they looked huge otherwise. My point is that I did check with all the engines before I decided how short they could be. For you information, they are all only 2.75" off the rails at the apex.