Plan #3 - Looks like it might be needed I recently ran this same topic on another forum just to get other feedback and it seems the #1 issue is concern for the tight radii and access related to derailments. Well, there isn't much I can do about access to the Upper-Right corner other then allow the layout to move on wheels. That is feasable but I will need to watch the hight rescritions for the room by not increasing the track / mountains doing it... As for the radii concern it's related to running a 4-6-6-4 Challenger with long passenger cars; mainly through the helix. Basically it's my worst case train consist so if I can get it to work then everything else in my fleet should work. Problem is, the tight space so it looks like I might need to build Plan#3 and try to work in a wider radii while still working towards the dream of a long mainline with a DC operatorless layout. The feedback I got wanted me to go with radii that can't be used in my restricted space but I will review what I might be able to do with a bit wider radii. :tb-nerd: :tb-nerd: :tb-nerd: :tb-nerd:
Looking for more feedback MRR December 2011 Issue: A joint branch line on two decks By Michael Tylick Boston & Maine and Boston & Albany share the rails on this double-deck HO scale plan URL: <Click Here> ********************* All, This and another track plan I was looking at that was similar is what my crazy design basically simulates. Looking at the December 2011 issueof MRR, that plan is based on a "4'-8" x 16'-8" using a minimum radii of 24" and a 2.6% maximum grade; mainline of 150'. So, it looks like it is using a 24" radii inner helix with 4" clearance between track levels. Do you agree? Is the outer helix 27" radii? My space is "8'-8"x17'-8" so I have about the same length and almost 2x the depth to work with. So, do you think Plan#3 should use a Double Helix on the right vs. the Single at each end that Plan #2 has? What do people think about the B&M / B&A plan for access, etc. :tb-nerd: :tb-nerd: :tb-nerd: :tb-nerd:
