I'm helping my father design a HO scale layout, for the space we have to work with, it will probably be a point to point with two large "off-stage" staging yards at either end. Now, the question is, to incorporate continual running, I had the idea of added a loop around the yards at each end. Since it's "off-stage" looks on the turnaround curve aren't important, but since we both have a love for passenger trains, long freights and big steam engines, what's the absolute minimum that we could get away with? Would 22" or 24" work? Would I have to go up to 30"+? What exactly am I looking at here? And yes for the "on-stage" portions of the layout we'll be using 40" minimum radius, but having to use almost a full 4'x8' sheet of plywood for an end loop doesn't appeal to us that much with this design in mind, and in the space available. Appreciate any input you guys have since it seems much friendlier here than other, more HO-centric boards. I did a quick search of old topics, but almost all of them mentioned appearance, I just want to know operational.
Occam - The easy answer is as large a radius as possible. I have just relaid a section of my passing siding which had a 22" radius on the inside track, 24" on the outer track. Now, with a little bit of fudging, I will have 25" on the outer - the 22" (due to my wonderful pre-planning), will have to stay. One thing I have noticed in the product reviews for big steam (especially articulated engines) is that the manufacturers are doing their darndest to make big engines "fit" on small layouts. I seem to recall some of the largest articulateds (2-6-6-2's, 4-8-8-4's, etc.) being capable of handling 18" curves??!! Normally, the caveat is "of course they look ridiculous doing it." Since I take it that these staging areas will be "hidden", this probably wouldn't be of concern to you. You might want to join the "Model Railroader" web site and review some of these engines. Passenger cars are an entirely different subject. Athearn (and I'm certain other makers) offer a fairly complete line of "shorty" passenger cars. These will handle 18" radius curves - this from my own, earlier experience. To me, these cars look good, other people have ideas absolutely opposite mine, and they insist on scale length cars. However, I believe, subject to correction, that even scale length cars with either talgo-mount or "adjustable" couplers will probably take a curve down to 22"-24". Again, reading the reviews will be a big help in your selection. If possible, see if you can extend a run completely around the room. With some planning, and possibly a few off-sets in the corners, you could maintain a 30" or larger radius. Hope this has been of some help to you and your father.
Thanks for the reply and information. Around the room is an option, just wanted all the facts beforehand. I am a member at the model railroader site. IMO trainboard is friendlier lol, not too mention my personal preferred scale is N and there's more N people here. I'll go back and read some reviews though. Thanks again.
Occam, I would concur with Dave the larger the better. 30" should perform well. Will the return loops be hidden? If so the larger the radi the better the performance of loco's and rolling stock and less chanch of derailing. Anytime you have stright trucks rolling against curved rail you have binding. Might I suggest haveing a look at John Armstrongs "Track Planning for Realistic Operations" A wealth of information and a good read, Well worth the price. IMHO I consider it to be a cornerstone go to reference that every serious modeler should have. I hope this helps you out and behalf of the others here thank you for the complement. "Still Training After All These Years"
The ends would not be hidden just un-sceniced. Just was trying to debate between point to point or continuous loop and wanted to know how small radius I could go to add return loops around the staging areas so that if we wanted we could just have continuous run. With that large a radius it would limit our space, so it looks like in this situation a around the walls loop with a duckunder and a lower level hidden staging would work well. To that end question time again. I hate helixes. Won't have one. So if I want hidden, lower level staging, I'm thinking 8" would be enough clearance. Math isn't my strong point, would an 8' downgrade be space enough to have a realistic grade down? Would I be making a huge mistake in not having more than 8" height difference? I'll post a tenative plan once I learn my way around XtrkCAD well enough. Thanks for answering my silly questions. Last time I built an HO layout I was about 10, and we just used sectional track, and since then I've been working with N scale, so a project of this scope (roughly 24'x24'? Will have to measure again, lost my notes) in HO is really bewildering me. Edit: And yes I realize I'm nuts for working on three layouts at once, (Door sized "practice N Scale", 12'x12' N scale for the new house bedroom, and this HO layout...oh and early planning for the garden railroad when I get around to landscaping the new yard.)
Occam, There is nothing silly with your questions, it's only silly when you don't ask any. If 30" won't work try smaller 26" or 24". Use the theroy of squares in your drawing stage. Grade is figured as divide the rise by the run As far as 8" in 8 feet (96") rise or fall for grade and clearence is 0.083% grade and enough clearence abit tight depending on the size of your 0-5-0 hook (hand) should you have to rerail stuff. If there is any way to avoid a duck under you should! Your back and forehead will thank you. A 24' x 24' layout is a fair size pike and not knowing where access points (windows, doors) are it's tuff to tell what will fit. Would like to see a drawing once you get XtrkCAD up. As far as you being nuts, that's subjective given the company you are in. Many would consider all of us a little off for being in this hobby, but hay! What do they know. Hope this helps out. "Still Training After All These Years"
Good points on the duckunder and clearance. The top layer will be at 5' or thereabouts, which isn't bad, but I'm 6'5" so I may just make a lift out section, and make sure the staging level doesn't run past the entry. Thanks for the input!
and multiply by 100. 8" in 8' is an 8.3% grade, quite unworkable. You should expect three times that horizontal distance for that much climb, if not more.
Triplex, Noted and stand corrected. I didn't move the decimal point to the right. "If you need to figure out how much of a grade there will be between two points and a certian elevation change, divide the Rise by the Run and you will have the Gradient as a decimal percentage (.01 + 1%, .005 + .5%, ect.)" from da trains "Still Training After All These Years"
What is the "biggest" locomotive your planning to run? Trouble free operation for large wheel diameter loco's and full length passenger cars is pretty simple with about a 36" radius. 30" will handle the passenger cars quite well but any large drivered Northern or Hudson types might have problems. #8 switches are best for 85' cars..........with #6's in throat areas you run into the potential for a great many S-curves..........
