Please help with some layout issues

thrawn5499 Mar 18, 2014

  1. thrawn5499

    thrawn5499 TrainBoard Member

    44
    0
    4
    So I think I am in over my head. I have been building a 65" X 120" HO layout. I have done a lot of reading and studying and just when I think I have it all worked out I come across something that makes me question the whole thing. 1st let me say I know there are other better uses of space than a tabletop layout and this is a work in progress. I do plan on expanding in the future but adding to this If I can. I am limited by my wife on the space I can use. Thus there is not the extra walk around space on my layout one 120" section is against a wall and there is not much room on the 2 65" side. But I did put it on wheels so it can be moved out into the space to access it on all sides and with the help of some steps I can reach any point on the layout though it is a pain in a few spots. There are a few things I want to do, and I feel like I have pushed the limits of my design and am probably trying to do too much in too little of a space. But if this was easy or I had a lot more room I would not be looking for some help. I am building right now the mountain section of what I hope will be a larger layout, but that remains to be seen if I can convince the wife to let me build larger. if not this will be the completed layout not just a section. I will list some things I am trying to do and some things I am worried about along with the reasons I am doing it the way I am. I hope some of you out there a lot more experienced than me will be able to help.

    I have some steep grades due to needing elevation and not enough space and I have some curves on the elevation. The only good (if it can be called good) is I have kept all inclines at 4% and less. yes I said 4% steep i know and that combined with the smallest 22 inch radius turns will probably make a few of you shake your heads and want to slap me. I did put a few flats along the way to make it a little easier on the engines. But I did also say inclines... in two places to get back down where I need to be I have to drop to an 8% decline. I did put an easement of 4% on each side but that is the best I could do. I know 8% may be a huge problem but it is a short section and it will always be a decline no train will ever climb it. I have tested the incline and decline with engine only and all can make it though I don't plan on only running a engine. I of course want to make it even more complicated by throwing in some 85' passenger cars :) I am open to thinking realistic though and I am starting to think that there just might be no way they will work on this section of track. I do have a part of the track that has 26 and 28 inch radius and only a small section of 4% incline. I realize I might have to except the long cars will never make the mountain pass, but I want to try.

    So My problems are large engines and passenger cars with steep inclines and even steeper decline with 22" radii.

    Things I have done to try to help.. Make sure all my engines and passenger cars can handle 22 inch radii. most say they can do 18. and on the flat they have all be tested fine on 22 radii.
    Make sure my engines are strong enough to pull the 4% grade. (I am still working on this one) hard to do as not all of the track is tacked in place yet for testing.
    Make sure I have the clearances around the turns for over hang.
    use #10 curved turnouts to help with space and still be able to use large turnouts.
    2 #8 normal turnouts. had them used them.

    so that is how I see it so far. I will post a pic of the track plan I made though it was modified slightly on the fly when I started laying the track. I also printed this out full scale on our plotter at work so I taped 3 rolls of 24" wide paper together then laid the stuff on top of that to help.

    Plan1B_01.jpg

    I will explain what areas are incline, decline flat ect.. when I get a chance to modify the image but quick and dirty the inner figure 8 is using the 22 inch radii and the 4% incline starts around the bottom left turnout goes up to a flat to the bottom right turnout then climbs again to a flat at the upper right curved turnout. then the upper track drops and the inner climbs at 4% until the flat bridge that crosses over the track then climbs to go up around the last curve. then has a 60 inch trestle bridge flat then drops back down to 4% decline then 8% then 4% to go under the first bridge.

    Thanks
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 18, 2014
  2. thrawn5499

    thrawn5499 TrainBoard Member

    44
    0
    4
    Map color Key
    Green = Decline
    Red = 4% incline
    Blue = Flat but not all on same level
    Plan1B_02.jpg
     
  3. RatonMan

    RatonMan TrainBoard Member

    532
    1
    24
    65X120 and you're building this?
     
  4. thrawn5499

    thrawn5499 TrainBoard Member

    44
    0
    4
    yeah as I said I hope to expand later but I wanted a mountain layout to start. I already have a yard planned but I will have to work it in, if space allows. I am not worried about sidings here. there won't be many structures mostly rocky mountain theme. I know it is not what alot of people if any would build but it is what I want to build. thanks for posting ;)
     
  5. PaulBeinert

    PaulBeinert TrainBoard Supporter

    622
    1
    13
    Thrawn,
    You don't actually say what your issues are.
    Some people would think that the entire layout is the issue but if you can run your trains up and down all of those inclines, then you should be having fun!
     
  6. thrawn5499

    thrawn5499 TrainBoard Member

    44
    0
    4
    Sorry I guess I have no know issues just worries and I was hoping for some tweaks. not a layout redesign but maybe something i missed. I am worried mostly about the long passenger cars with the 22 inch radii and them coming unhooked on the steep decline. I have read that some will get pulled off the rails instead of making the turns. also the length of train I will be able to run due to the incline. not that I need a 50 car train on this size layout but more than 3 or 4 cars would be prefered.

    I guess I was hoping for something like well if you increased/changed this then you could do this/that and then you could change the grades and still achieve the overall layout ect. does that make sense? And I knew I would not get much love on the layout. I know alot of people would want more to do. but like I said I hope to add to it later. The upper and lower left sections leading off the layout go to a train yard with 135' turntable and roundhouse and other misc stuff.

    Thanks
     
  7. MarkInLA

    MarkInLA Permanently dispatched

    1,970
    80
    29
    Thrawn, sorry, I don't understand your space problem. Is it the total space ? Or, is it the overall shape which appeases you wife ? If you can, why not make it a, say 3' (+-) benchwork X say, 15ish ft. (narrower but longer). Would this work for your spouses needs ? Reason I ask is that if you make what is called a 'roundy-round' MRR, where trains go through trackage and unrealistically return to where the began, you can. But ,later on when you start to expand, the existing layout will pose a great challenge or problem attempting to do this. So, could you consider a layout which will be user-friendly in the future ? What I mean is design a layout which will become a natural leg of new areas, that, until new areas, you will either have to run in reverse or turn loco/cars on a wye or turntable to head back. Then this existing portion will become a natural, explainable section when connected to new portion(s) later on... Mark
     
  8. thrawn5499

    thrawn5499 TrainBoard Member

    44
    0
    4
    Hi Mark, thanks for the idea. I will definitely give it some thought. as for size it is just the over all size she is freaking out over. Mind you it is in the basement in a storage area. the only thing the space is used for is to walk through to get to the washer and dryer. I could make it 16' X 9' and still have a 4' walkway past it, but I thought she was going to loose it when I went from 4x8 which was her Idea, to the 5x10 because it is so much bigger now she regrets even letting me start it :) the idea of having to turn the train around would be more to my liking instead of having it return to the start and i am sure she would be happier with the 3' idea but i know it will be a year or 2 of suttle suggesting and her seeing how much our 2 boys enjoy it before i can expand. heck it took 4 years building up to her having the idea we should do a train layout for the boys :)
     
  9. PaulBeinert

    PaulBeinert TrainBoard Supporter

    622
    1
    13
    Thrawn,
    You might consider posting a diagram of the entire space including all doors, windows and any other obstructions so that we can see the space you have to work with.
     
  10. thrawn5499

    thrawn5499 TrainBoard Member

    44
    0
    4
    Ok here is a rough estimate. and shelves can not be moved. drawing not to scale dimensions are in feet. room.jpg
     
  11. thrawn5499

    thrawn5499 TrainBoard Member

    44
    0
    4
    Also I did some more testing last night on the grades. My DDA40X and Big Boy can both go up the grades pulling the passenger cars. I only tested with 4 85' cars on each since the use different couplers. the DDA40X can actually pull the 8% with the 4 cars without slowing down much. I tried taking off on the 8% grade and it started to move then slipped the wheels. not that It will need to climb it anyway, just wanted to try it out. I do have a feeling some of the smaller engines won't pull much up the 4% grade... The flats on the grade really seemed to help a lot too since with the DDA40X pulling 4 Passengers, the engine was almost alway on a flat or not more than 1 foot away by the time the last passenger was off the previous one.
     
  12. thrawn5499

    thrawn5499 TrainBoard Member

    44
    0
    4
    As I stated before the more I read the more issues I run into. Last night as I was hooking up cars I noticed a lot of my fleet including the older Big Boy have the old style horn hook couplers. I need to replace them. I do have some Bachmann stuff that has the E-Z Mate Mark II on them. I was considering trying to switch out to use them until I used the search function here. I will now be using the Kadee couplers. I have looked on their site, and they do have a good database with how to convert to use their couplers. it looks like I will need a mix of different ones. but I don't know if I need short medium or long shanks. And for some of them there is more than 1 option. for the DDA40X I can use style 38, or 158 (some others too) but is one better than the other? also will they all work together? maybe I should have started another thread on this...

    ok I guess I did not read enough the chart on Kadee site shows that say a #158 is a medium center shank. I now see each part number determines the shank. I was first under the impression that the number was more of a style with the end user deciding if you wanted to use long medium or short...
     
  13. MarkInLA

    MarkInLA Permanently dispatched

    1,970
    80
    29
    This still doesn't define exactly where the layout will be amongst these things. In any event, good to hear you considering a 3-ish X 15-ish. One reason alone is the ease of reaching across from front to rear for problems. Also, by employing these dimensions you will naturally be forced to design something other than a circle to reverse equipment on the road. Plus, this lends itself to an easier built/designed extension later on. Great enjoyment can be had running in reverse to return or go to somewhere. There are hundreds of examples of RRs which do or did this. Especially bucolic branch or short lines. I love running a steam train in reverse, picturing the engineer's back against the armrest, his right arm still on the throttle, looking toward the train, caboose and track ahead ; the danger involved. Mark
     
  14. PaulBeinert

    PaulBeinert TrainBoard Supporter

    622
    1
    13
    Thrawn,
    Attached is something for you to think about as it makes better use of your space and will actually look like it uses less space than your current rectangle.
    HO 15 x 8.jpg
     
  15. thrawn5499

    thrawn5499 TrainBoard Member

    44
    0
    4
    Thanks! I actually was originally planning something similar, but it sticks out in the room to far. btw my layout in the pic is in the middle top section of the 16' along the wall between the sump and the shelf. I even offered to always do the laundry so she would not have to walk past it, but that was a no go too lol. I did get the Ok for a shelf layout as long as it was at least 7' high and did not stick out more than 1 foot. btw the ceilings in our basement are like 7'6" :) I do think she will come around once I get the layout finished, but that just means more future work and money... I think I am going to try to do something like a combination of my proposed layout and the one Mark mentioned which means it would be similar to the one you mentioned Paul. :)

    Ok new question about the layout though. what ever layout I do, It is looking more and more like I will upgrade to DCC in the near future. partly because I got 2 new DCC engines with sound for a present. They do run on DC and have sound, so they are the dual mode ones. But I would like to run them tandem, and they are not speed matched. plus now that I have some DCC trains it makes me want DCC more... SO question is how do I wire the track to make sure it is DCC friendly, and what is a low cost dual mode DCC decoder (no sound) that I can put in a few engines to start the upgrade process? thanks.

    I think the only difference in DCC wiring would be making sure to have DCC friendly turnouts is this correct?
     
  16. PaulBeinert

    PaulBeinert TrainBoard Supporter

    622
    1
    13
    Thrawn,
    This reduces it to 15 by 7 and leaves a 5' walk way to get to the w/d (you should start doing the wash now to earn brownie points).
    The blue track is 20" radius, everything else is 22" and could be reduced to 20".

    HO 15 x 7.jpg

    Here is a good site to learn more about DCC www.wiringfordcc.com/index.htm
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2014
  17. thrawn5499

    thrawn5499 TrainBoard Member

    44
    0
    4
    thanks. And I have been reading some on that site. I do the laundry as much as she does lol.
     
  18. Backshop

    Backshop TrainBoard Member

    360
    1
    12
    A good thing to have for layout planning is an idea of what kind of railroading you want to do -- it greatly affects what kind of plan you come up with. Beginners often are just anxious to get track down and see trains run (esp if they've had the trains sitting around a while waiting to be used). With this decision "made" their next concern is to see how much mainline and "stuff" they can cram into the space available. After a while, the thrill of just seeing their trains go around and around a very crowded layout (esp if every spare track is crammed with rolling stock) fades away, then they realize they didn't plan any other way of using the layout except as a glorified X-mas tree set-up. Then comes the "sadder but wiser" chapter of tearing it down and building another.
    If you have any faint ideas of maybe running a passenger train schedule or having locals work switching industries along the line you should probably take some time to expand and explore exactly what those wishes are -- it will help you plan a layout that will last longer and be more satisfying.
     

Share This Page