the start of my 2x3' layout

It's just a oval with a single spur on it. I'm not sure on the curve radius as I just soldered 3 pieces of code 80 flex track together and eyeballed it. At the top portion I'm going to glue down some track and after I'm done ballasting it I'll remove the rails and leave just the ties with the rail off to the side weathered. I THINK the tightest radius is around 9 1/2" or so.

I've been running a gp9 on it for the last 45 minutes with no problems sofar.



This is about the longest set of cars that fits into the spur




and a short video Untitled on Vimeo

 

Before you get too deep into things, I suggest addressing the radius of the curves. You will be very limited in what you can run on the layout. It looks like at your tightest point they may be as small as 6" radius and I'm afraid to guess at the curve in the siding.

Plan and draw things out with a compass to make sure your curves are smooth and uniform.

Attached are some options drawn using 9 3/4 as the minimum radius.

 

I plan to run a small steamer from around 1916-1920 with 36' cars as my max length. I took another picture of the completed track and highlighted the rails in mspaint. I did however have to fix the curve in the bottom right because leading into the switch it was kinked.

 

I used sectional track on my 2 x 3 foot N layout just to prove to nmyself that I wasn't getting any sharper than 9 3/4" radius.

 

I had the right side glued just to the wood so I unglued it and let it spring to its natural shape which rides right at the edge and the largest steamer I currently have is a 4-6-2 pacific and that one didn't like it. but the 0-8-0 I've got didn't seem to mind. I could redo the left side possibly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQPj115qMIA

 

I have some experience with steam on tight radius......



That layout is 17" x42". It was built to run in a display case at the shop I work at. The minimum radius is 6.5" on the right side. The only loco's that will run on it are the Bachmann 0-6-0, Bachmann 44T and Atlas GP15. I ran a Bachman H16-44 on it for a while but it prematurely wore out due to the tight radius. The Bachman 0-6-0 is the only steam loco that I have been able to get to run on it and it takes some fine tuning. When right, the loco runs great though. I have had two of them go over 4500 hours each.

 

I removed all the roadbed and let the track take its natural shape. heres the result.

 

All you need is a flat stick with two holes in it to make a usable tracklaying compass. When you're making small layouts, you really have to be sensitive about curve radii. I've made several, and when it gets down to 11" or tighter, I solder up sectional track rather than use flex - most C80 flex either starts to kink or gets tight in gauge. Peco C55 flex doesn't, but it is so stiff its difficult to keep smooth without something to follow. If nothing else, I'll use a chunk of 9 3/4 sectional as a template to slide around the rails upside down to monitor the radius.

The Hickory Valley gets down to 8" radius.... on 18x36 inches... and that's Trix "R1" sectional on the worst reverse loop curves, between 7.5 and 8".

I'm running some 6-wheeled steam (including Atlas 2-6-0's) on it, Atlas shay, and many Kato shorty rebuilds. A Life-Like SW and Kato NW will make it, Bachmann 44 tonner, that's about it.

And the Ross Run logging module gets down to 9 3/4" on 22x42:

The lower hidden reverse loop is 9 3/4 sectional, the upper visible stuff is mostly Peco C55 flex. There's Trix R1/R2 curved switches in there, and some of the 9" Peco SLI switches. On the original HVRR I used Trix R1, those are not only scarce but had to be rebuilt significantly to be reliable and I wouldn't recommend them.

The Atlas Shay is much happier over here.

By itself that plan makes limited sense (it is standalone) but it actually completes the original module, and also sets the stage for additional modules beyond it.

Flex has a tendency (good) to make a natural spiral into the curve, but it kinks at the center of the curve as well. If you're trying to fit switches in you need all the tangent you can get.

Don't let the 'room sized' layout turkeys get you down, let alone the body-mount ninjas.

 

I KNEW that layout looked familiar. I know where you work kind sir.
your location in ohio confirms it.

 

You could just spend $25-30 on a Kato Unitrack starter set. On a 2' X 3' layout, you can use 11" radius curves but it will be close to the edge. Just a suggestion for someone starting out.

 

ok well I've thought about all your input and came up with this. the tightest it gets is 9 3/4"
I'm not sure on the grade but thats why I started it way back. it goes over the tunnel connecting to an invisible layout I have planned.



I kind of like this one better

 

If you are going to try to do grades on this layout where one track goes over the other, you will have a pretty steep grade due to the size of the layout. Just something to take into consideration.

 

I tweaked it some more and got this.

I tried to make it so it intersects later so there is a less of a grade then in the other two above.

 

Oh, you can do the 'over and under'. On a 2x3 with tight design criteria and MINIMIZING overhead clearances (no roadbed, no excess height rolling stock) you can get the grades down to around 4% if you're willing to put both tracks on the grade - not one flat and one climbing. That's how the HVRR and the Ross Run works - the overhead crossing(s) clearance is reduced to the absolute minimum and every available inch of track is used for climbing to get the clearance for two tracks crossing. That's also why I use cookie-cutter roadbed on a girder base - so the grades can be adjusted and tested. Study how Ross Run was done - multiple overhead crossings, and nothing exceeds 4%.

On the HVRR that makes a typical train a 2-6-0 and no more than 5 40' cars - and the locomotive is equipped with traction tires.

Ross Run is about 1 car better than that, but that's only for testing purposes.

You'll do a lot better with small diesels than small steam with any grade issues. But it still is doable. You're not trying to run autoracks and 20 car trains here.

The entire concept of my tiny layouts was that they fit together to make a bigger one, and they run stand-alone as well. The original HV had to fit on top of a dresser.

You can do quite well on a small layout concept this size with a couple basic tricks - put a scenic divider on it down middle (a classic example here is Mark's Thunder Ridge) or dedicate it to a single scene/heavy industry (my HVRR lumber mill, a steel mill, coal processing plant, dock scene, etc. At least you have some room to run, and if you do want to develop the concept into a detailed layout, it's very possible in N.

 

On your layout, where they cross would be the LOWEST point on the layout for the bottom track.

On the bottom track, then both tracks start climbing up to where the two switches are at the front.

The front switches are probably about 3/4 to 1 inch higher than the lowest point, and on a flat spot - about the only flat spot!

Then the track over top starts climbing from there on its grade, so that the clearances between the top of rail and the bottom of any obstruction are at least 1 3/4 inches.

You can't get enough grade to do a separation by only making the 'spur track' climb, its too steep. You have to have grades on the 'main loop' and the spur.

Calculate your percentage by rise/run and remember you need 25 inches of track to get 1" of climb for a 4% grade, basic rule here. But for little layouts, those 'rules of thumb' should help your designs.

 

Indeed, great suggestions from randgust but that doesn't mean you must do it that way. Here are some photos showing grade testing for our new layout plan. The grades we tested? 7 and 8.25%. And while the 8.25% grade was still workable, it was clearly tough for a loco and handful of cars, so we dropped it to 7% and will also lower the grade on the mainline to compensate a bit more for the bridge crossing. Also, it should be noted that the purpose of this particular spur is a coal mine feeder and will only feature short trains (loco and 2-4 cars). And another note, that's a 1970 Bachmann F unit there, with dry-rotted traction tires, not some new Kato unit!

We used Lego blocks... er, um, "scale interlocking construction materials" to smooth the grade under the flex track. So while shooting for less than 5% is DEFINITELY the way to go, don't let that limit you. But TEST, TEST, and TEST AGAIN before building. :tb-biggrin:

Oh, and one more thing for the rivet counters. YES, I know it will not be prototypical. I'll be using theater tricks to hide this track in plain sight (trees, shrubs, scenery, a retaining wall, and maybe even a billboard).

​

 

I plan to run a max length of 4 maybe 5 36 foot cars and probably go with a logging theme as I have a unbuilt mabry saw mill kit begging to be built. I keep tweeking the file in anyrail and as some one else pointed out, the siding on the left would be better suited if I flipped it around so I could back into it and build up the mountain more. I'm probably going to have to use 1/2" foam ontop of the wood so I can cut into it.

I added some straight sections to the hill and I rechecked the board I'm using as a base, it turns out its 23.5x36.5"

I've got 4 feet of track before it crosses over the bottom track.

 

This just keeps getting better. Is the lower track going to be inside a mountain when the upper one crosses over?