Stew, Check out the NMRA standards http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/gauge.html. The 4" is from surface to surface and if you use 1/2 plywood as the road bed, you are looking at about 3.25" from railhead to the bottom of that plywood.
Thanks for the advice and kind words Rick! Paul......that explains why I had read 3"-3.5". What I had heard must have been talking about clearance and NMRA railhead to railhead. Good news too, looking again at the gradient layout that u did in Anyrail yesterday (so nice of u BTW) and thinking about having to level out my switches (Thank you for mentioning BTW, I did NOT know that). Most of the switches off of the main line are on the outer loops of the double figure 8, where I have more room to play. Then, on the inner loops, the right one has room for .3% less grade than the left. Conveniently, I am planning on two switches on that inner loop to give us a run around/ freight yard. Were those measurements based on a 4X8 table or the larger radius that we were going to run? u guys r the best!! Stew
Stew, I am doing it based on your radii of 22" & 25.5". I will put in the left side switch leading to the yard and then put in the yard and we will see how it goes. I gather you are going with Peco Insulfrogs so I will use them as I lay it out. The 3% grades are not optimal but with shorter trains and double heading them, you and your son should be good.
Stew, The Peco curved turnouts will not work for the inner track on the right and there are height consideration for the spur coming off the upper center. I will look at them later. Oops! I made it 120 x 78 instead of 120 x 70, so I will need to rework the yard. Track lengths SL-100, H0 Peco Streamline Code 100 SL-100. Flex 36". (wood) 115'-2 9/32" SL-86, H0 Peco Streamline Code 100 SL-86 Right curved turnout 12º 4'-11 55/64" SL-87, H0 Peco Streamline Code 100 SL-87 Left curved turnout 12º 1'-7 61/64" SL-91, H0 Peco Streamline Code 100 SL-91 Right turnout 7 1/4". 4'-10 7/64" SL-92, H0 Peco Streamline Code 100 SL-92 Left turnout 7 1/4". 4'-10 7/64" SL-95, H0 Peco Streamline Code 100 SL-95 Right turnout 8 5/8". 1'-5 13/64" Total track length: 132'-11 33/64"
Hey Paul. dude, that layout looks awesome!!!! Thanks so much man!!!! the thought with that spur was that it was coming off the track, almost at it's dead mid point, about two feet away from the middle (double) bridge. Then it was coming back to pass over the lower track, that the double bridge does anyways; and under the highest track, that the same double bridge does anyways. If anything, I will match the slope of the main line and be within a 1/2" or less to pass between the two mains. That 1/2" would come from being a foot (or so) away from that double bridge and each of the mains are moving towards the spur. He is not putting inter modal in there. He was going to do a passenger station (Amtrak) and a factory or something. Backing into the station was a bit of a concession. Originally he wanted the station to be on the spur which curves into the right set of curves off the mainline. Once he saw that the passenger cars that he liked, needed a 22" radius, he changed it around. He was also saying that we would have the station closer to the front (nearer to the main line) so that a baggage car (or dining car) could be pushed back past the station while the coaches unloaded. Maybe not 100% prototypical, but it will work in his mind! As for that inner spur, I had two choices. The Peco st245/244 have a 19 7/8" outer with a 17 1/4 " inner. Having drawn out a 22" radius (ready for an overall 1:1 scale of the layout as a whole) the 19 7/8" outer is so spectacularly close that I would work it into the far side of the curve. I double checked my 22" radius template (knowing that it is measured to the center of the track) and I am spot on with a 44" diameter. I lined up the st245 (already bought one of each since i could not find a template for them like I could the others). The space in the middle of the HO track was .663" (at least with my quick measurement). With lining up the switch that we have on my template (I am working off of a pencil line....but it was a sharp pencil! LOL) the track (in the center of the curve) is less than .030" off (that's also being REALLY conservative...probably less), with each end dead center and measuring the variance at the middle of the apex. The option that I was kinda leaning towards was working each of those switches into the 22" curve. Other option, may not have room, is to use the sl-86/87 with a 60" rad outer and a 30" inner as part of the easement into the 22" rad curve. Problem here being that it is such a difference (60"-22") that I will not be able to make up the curve once I have pushed it that far out. Once I penciled in the 22" and worked my way over there from the center, I was going to see which looked better. Thoughts?........ Discussion?....... Once again Paul, I assume that plugging all our stuff into your computer is not a 2 minute job. Thank You so much for all your time with this. Really, thank you!! Stew
Stew, Doing track plans is mental health breaks for me. I was using the Peco HO Streamline Code 100 and the st245 is from the OO/HO Setrack Code 100 series, so I will have a look at that. This may save the yard
Stew, There is not enough space for all of the yard tracks. Here is an alternative design that is 16' wide and 6' deep but can be built in 3 sections. Also, it would be easy to add reversing loops to this layout.
Not great news Paul. Table is built to 10'X5'10" and since it is in the garage (where my impala definitely takes precedence, she can't get any bigger. We don't have a basement to set up the train's own room. So those would have had to be huge slopes to have made that layout work on the 4X8 that it was designed for. It was off of trainweb. org Trainboard will not let me post links yet. It was called Twin Peaks D I will look at it with the boy tonight. Thanks so much for your help Paul!!
now that should depend upon what year the Impala is I can get the grades down a bit by moving the turnouts.
'95 Impala SS I drag race the snot out of it. Actually do a bunch down by you, Englishtown and Island. I got a best of about 3 weeks ago 12.76 second qtr mile at 107 mph. And it's a 4400lb car which seats 5 with functioning AC too. no NOS, naturally aspirated and a stock bottom end 350. street legal, passes emissions, 19mpg on the highway Way more money invested in that then I could ever put into trains (unless I had a club size table of course) I am sure that it will sneak it's way into a train table picture or two.
Okay, so the Impala will not be relegated to the street ... The vibrations from Raceway Park shake the walls of my house ....
Sorry Paul!!! LOL are you THAT close to Englishtown? does this mean that u r not going to help with the track anymore! LOL!!! Stew
Paul...............or others please jump in. Why does everyone shy away from switches being mounted on a grade? I just spent about an hour reading what google had to offer. One guy even said that it is because his track layout program will not let him. I found a TON of people who say that if the rails are level (left to right) and the slope is a continuous grade before and after the switch (a good foot most say) that they have a bunch mounted this way with no problems. I also found a bunch of prototypical photos with switches mounted this way. Please advise! It could solve some problems...that's for sure! Thanks for all the input everyone!!! Stew
Stew, I do have a few turnouts that are not 'level' on my N scale layout and they do not give me any trouble but I have 2% or less grades - ymmv What do you think of this? I am less than a mile from Raceway Park. The noise problem keeps getting worse because developers are ripping out the trees that made a great sound barrier.
I have used switches on grades and broke all the rules and had no issues; however I was using Kato Unitrack in a climate controlled environment. When you are using flex track and sectional track with cork or on foam roadbed the results could change dramatically due to quality of track work and layout environment. Layouts on paper always run smoothly! I know I mentioned using a double ended yard; however I still say your best bet is a stub end yard. I think you should investigate this option before settling on a design. Two things to consider is a loco escape from the A/D track or just make the A/D track double ended (from / to the mainline) for run around moves. Paul has just posted a great track plan that you could build on. Jerry
Jerry, Are you thinking of something like I did on the bottom right? This also would be a reversing loop so it would require an PSX-R (or similar) assuming DCC.
Yes, that was my thought, (bad thought in this case). The figure eight design blows the run around concept and the reverse loop turns a train around that can never re-enter the yard unless by backing into it. Your prior design with escape crossover would be the best design. Jerry
I can do the same thing in in the upper left giving it two reversing loops. The tricky part of this layout is the ever changing elevation of the figure eight.
The concept of turning the main to an angle looks so cool and is something that we never would have thought about!!! Looking at that return off the lower yard, thinking about Paul's comment on elevation got me to looking at that specifically. The elevation between the entrance of the yard and the spot where it re-entesr the main would have close to 4" of grade difference based on the fact that the entrance of the yard is where the grade is on it's way up to the mid point (double wide bridge) and the entrance back into the main is just before the grade gets to the highest point. {{{I am less than a mile from Raceway Park. The noise problem keeps getting worse because developers are ripping out the trees that made a great sound barrier.}}} OMG that stinks Paul!! What was not bad when you moved in keeps getting worse...by no fault of your own.....and you can do nothing about it! sorry man. Started laying out contractors paper and figuring track before you guys posted these new ideas. I figured that within a day or two, that I could post a pic and see what you thought. Worst case scenario, we wasted a couple of nights and about $5 worth of paper. Not quite done with the main yet. Figured out that the left inner loop has a 3.1% grade. Then, while measuring an old bridge to use as a guide line for the double bridge, something came to me. We figured a 4" rise for each level so as to not hit the 1/2" plywood and roadbed which both extend down from the upper track. While the bridge does have thickness on the bottom to hold the track. It is no where as thick as 1/2" ply plus roadbed. So taking out the 1/2" plywood but leaving the thickness of the roadbed (to account for bridge) gives me a 2.71% grade. Planned bridge for the middle is a Micro-Engineering 75-523. (going to ditch/move/replace the posts under the bridge) Don't know about the top bridge yet. Knowing that underside clearance is an issue, we will shop accordingly!! One of the reasons that I ran the return from the yard, back to the main all the way around the back was to 1) not have much of a grade difference and 2) be in the same direction. Thoughts? BTW Jerry.....I hate for my questions to get even dumber, as if that was possible......but....what the heck is an escape crossover!?!?! Just doin my best to keep up some days! LOL Thanks again for everything you guys are doing!!!! Stew
Your track plan looks good angled or not angled. I like your original design with the longer yard lead. It allows for longer stub end yard tracks. The angled design however allows for two yards. I prefer your first design and make the yard stub ended. In the end it is your choice. I should have mentioned earlier about not using sub-roadbed under your bridges in order to save height and lower grades. A crossover near the end of the A/D track allows the loco(s) to escape and run around the train; otherwise the loco(s) would be trapped by the train. Jerry
