New layout after a 25 year vacation

ModelRailroadForums.com is a free Model Railroad Discussion Forum and photo gallery. We cover all scales and sizes of model railroads. Online since 2002, it's one of the oldest and largest model railroad forums on the web. Whether you're a master model railroader or just getting started, you'll find something of interest here.


not only will it keep the grandkids entertained he will be entertained for weeks while building it. then he will like it so much he will wanna try another one lol. resistance is futile when it comes to model railroading. lol
 
Trying out ideas for the upper yard

I'm trying to lay out my yard, and even though the table is about 24x68", it sure doesn't give me much room. Here's a picture that shows what I've come up with so far. I had to stitch 2 photos together. I have a bunch of oddball turnouts that I'm going to replace with something better.
I've just laid the track in place. I got some ideas from this site:
http://www.housatonicrr.com/yard_des.html
He has a lots of good ideas, it's just that everything takes up so much room. I'm glad I'm not modelling HO!
 
Watched your video...looks good. I can't wait to see how this progresses. We like to see pictures...lots of pictures, and videos are nice too.
 


A diamond in the rough (very rough)

I came across a site, http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/782, where they talked about designing a "diamond" shaped yard. I was frustrated last night with my efforts, but I tried the diamond concept, and I'm fairly happy with the results. I need to buy some more turnouts for sure, as they're all LH. I'll leave it sit for a couple of days & see what transpires. I really can't do much more on the FWC until the upper level is built.
I just had to stick a few building on the layout.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do a search here on "compound ladder". You'll see a way to get a lot more yard track in a smaller space and still have room for a double ended yard.
 
Upper yard is now in progress

I added a staging track beneath the upper yard. It's long enough for an entire train. I envision the surprise it will bring to viewers when they least expect to see a train exit a tunnel. Here's some pics. I'm going to try laying out a compound ladder yard vs a diamond design, to see what fits better.
The upper yard is 7" above the lower level. One one side, I have 120" of running track to accomplish this. On the other, I have 90"
Do you think this is too extreme?

Oops- no pics- the site doesn't seem to allow uploads tonight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
trying upload function again

I forgot to reduce the file size of my pictures- anyway, here they are, showing what I got done this past weekend.
 
On the 90" section of track, you'll have about an 8% grade. On the 120" section, you'll have about a 6.5% grade. This doesn't take into acount any curves or turnouts, both of which add flange friction and increase the apparent grade. Since you're planning a mainline raliroad and not a coal or lumber hauler, you'll have to find a way to either reduce the rise or increase the run. Grades this steep will severely limit the amount of cars you can haul upgrade and will cause stringlining problems with trains you are hauling downgrade. It's your layout, but I wouldn't attempt to run into a yard with grades like these.
 


UP2CSX said:
On the 90" section of track, you'll have about an 8% grade. On the 120" section, you'll have about a 6.5% grade. This doesn't take into acount any curves or turnouts, both of which add flange friction and increase the apparent grade. Since you're planning a mainline raliroad and not a coal or lumber hauler, you'll have to find a way to either reduce the rise or increase the run. Grades this steep will severely limit the amount of cars you can haul upgrade and will cause stringlining problems with trains you are hauling downgrade. It's your layout, but I wouldn't attempt to run into a yard with grades like these.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input. By reading your reply, it appears that for every rise of 1" in about 12" works out to a 1% rise. Is this correct?
If I lowered the height of the upper yard to 5", do you think this would be doable? I'm not planning on running trains with more than a dozen cars.
Norm
 
Grades are easy to understand if you break them down. A three percent grade for a car is a 3' drop in the road in 100'. That of course is too long for a train layout but we can use the same equation if we reduce it to inches...3" rise or fall in 100". So if we break it down...
3" in 100" =
1.5" in 50" =
0.75" in 25" =
0.375" in 12.5" =
0.1875" in 6.25" (raise the track 0.1875" every 6.25" of track to keep a true 3% grade)
So you would need 100" of track to do a true 3" rise in the track for say a crossover. Of course we usually don't have 100" of space to do this so sometimes we have to exceed this either the whole path or at least in some of it.

Here is a link to a thread I started on this subject.

Grade Thread

This way you can read others comments on the subject. By the way a 1% grade would be 1" rise in 100". A 1" rise in 12" is greater than an 8% grade.
1" in 12"
2" in 24"
4" in 48"
8" in 96"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, it would be the same, as percents are constants, so a 1% grade is a 1% grade. 10 feet of rise in a thousand feet of run is a 1% grade.
 
Correct on all counts. Grades don't change, regardless of scale. Using the base of 100" of run up 1" of rise being equal to a 1% grade, you can calculate any other grade by dividing the rise by the run. If you want a 5" rise with a 90" run, 5/90= .055, or a 5.5% grade. Any grade greater than 4% is very steep, and 5.5% is getting near the limits of steel on steel traction. It would take at least two and maybe three engines to move a dozen cars up a 5.5% grade. N scale actually makes grades a little worse, since the mass and tractive effort of an N scale engine is not equal to larger scales. Even though N scale cars are lighter, the problem of friction remains about the same, regardless of scale, so N scale engines can haul less cars up a grade than an HO engine of the same relative tractive power. I'd certainly try for a 4% grade as the absolute maximum. A 2% grade would be ideal.
 
the maximum grade in the entire state of pennsylvania is 6 percent i forget where it is because i learned this info ten years ago i am currently 19 so it is a little fuzzy
 
There's a big difference between maximum grades and ruling grades. The maximum grade is the steepest part of a ruling grade. For example, the old C&S branch to Leadville had a ruling grade of about 3%, but had a maximum grade of almost 8% just before the end of the line, at the Climax Molybdenum Mine. The train had to tie everything down and then haul two or thee cars at a time to the mine. That wasn't a problem at the end of a branch used by a single train a day, but it would be mighty tough on a mainline railroad. :)
 
I finally have all (I think) track laid for my lower level. I'm not sure about where the upper yard will be. I was going to cover part of the lower level, but I think I would regret that later, when a loco stalls or derails & I have to squirm underneath! I'm thinking now of a stand alone yard with only one attachment to the lower level, and a "fake" mainline going the opposite direction.

I'm having a few issues with locos (steam & diesel) going smoothly thru SOME turnouts. They stutter on the insulated frogs. I know that some people say the Peco ElectroFrog switches are superior, but my budget can only afford Atlas.

I'll have to do some research & see if anyone has had luck in eliminating the occasional "dead" spot, because that's what it seems like. The loco slows, stutters, & in some cases stops altogether. Not very satisfying, to say the least. What is meant by "point cleaning"? Maybe this is my problem?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i have had this same problem with some of my atlas switches and i am finding that it is not the frog because locos are designed to not die over a frog "normally"

i actually traced my dead spot to be the point the whole moving assembly is loosing contact i am still not sure how or where to fix this problem at i havent tried yet since the one i am currently haveing problems with is nailed fast to my test bench. also atlas suguests not putting in any tacks or fasteners of any sort for holding down the turnout they would rather you leave it float being held in by the surrounding track this reduces binding.
i have found that with atlas turnouts when they bind they dont switch and they dont make an electrical connection leaving them and your loco dead.
i did however wedge an instruction manual under it and it isnt so dead anymore. go figure
 


I removed the upper yard totally, and made a stand alone yard

I made a 24X48" yard that is 7" higher than the rest of my layout. I have approx 270" of running to raise up 7", or approx 1" every 40". I figure just under 3%. Here's some pics showing what I mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.




Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)

Back
Top