I will have a 12' x 16' space available for a layout and I started thinking how I wanted the layout to look. I want the track to loop so I can let it run continuously but at the same time have a small switch yard where I can keep some static cars or locomotives or switch trains if I choose to do so. The layout is fictional but I borrowed from some actual locations. From right to left, the Williams Loop, the Keddie Wye, and the Goat Canyon Trestle bridge. I like bridges,... The helix is a 4 turn with a 12.4" exit height; the grade is about 2.5 degrees. The exit at the top I'll try to hide so that it might appear the train could be running straight at a higher elevation instead of exiting a tunnel. The lower exit is at the 2nd turn of the helix with a height of 5.35". The outside loop is a 0" and is a reversing loop. I've tried to keep the minimum curve radius at 22". The large loop on the right has a 2.5 degree grade and goes from 6.2" to 0". Where the Wye and the curved trestle bridges are I will try and create canyons with some depth. I will use a 4" deep base under the track so the canyon depth at the far trestle could be 14" deep. OK, what do you think?
Well, I am not seeing a switch yard and I think a layout this size may benefit from some hidden staging. What is going on with the helix and that track at 5.35" elevation? I can't tell for sure if that is a stub end or joins the loop... If it is a stub end I feel like it may be a waste as you essentially have a long spur or branch line that goes nowhere and serves no purpose. If it joins the helix then you have a curved turnout on a grade located on the inaccessible back potion of a hidden helix and that would be a design problem.
The track at the 5.35" elevation is a turnout branching off the helix at the second level. My terminology probably isn't correct with the switch yard, what I meant was the area where the track branches and dead ends. What would you suggest with hidden staging? Would I bring something up from under the level shown? Thanks for the feedback!
With the corner trestles at 5.65" and 10.1", I assume most viewing will be from the inside of the L-shaped footprint. Will the legs of the L be 12 and 16 feet long (12x16 L against the wall); or do you plan to give yourself 18 to 20 inches of aisle space on the outside of the L to ease access for maintenance/repairs (9x13 L away from the wall); or 24 to 30 inches aisle space for an operator to follow a train around the layout (8x12 L).
STEVE, anyone responding negatively to your thread is doing it in your best interest, which, in the end you'll be glad for after we've called out some weaknesses in your schematic. First flaw I saw was very same as Dameon's; the curved TO on a grade. An important rule in this hobby is all switches (TOs) must always be on dead-flat sub-roadbed (usually the .5" ply ). They can be on a grade but can not be right where the grade ends or starts or they tend to become (very slightly) bent. This plays havoc with derails and stall-outs. In HO, if a switch is say, 10" long, and is on a grade, there needs to be track on either end of it, on the exact same plain of it, roughly 5"- 8" before track goes to level. The two TOs on the upper right of the helix look like trouble spots based on the above. NEXT, the entire scheme some how just seems too redundant in that it feels like it doesn't accomplish proto activity. Even (to me) the helix really isn't a helix. It's simply a looped curve on a grade, not so different than the looped track in the upper right. A helix is to hide a funnel of track which lifts trains up to or down to/from a second or even third layer MRR. Here you are simply climbing while looping around a hill in a one level MRR. (which is perfectly fine [I personally don't like helixes or double/tripple layer layouts, becoming so common now. The questionable visual quality of this vs more running time isn't worth it.] ). Next, this RR has no connection to the outer world. There is no interchange or depot to pass off goods or people going to, coming from places 'unknown' to us. I'll say this and check out for now: For me (THAT'S ME), I prefer to and have a point to point MRR; Simply put, trains are made up or broken down at either end or ends, engines serviced at at least one end where engine house and offices are, turned on a table, wye or loop, OR run in reverse back the other way. I get much more fulfillment having these prototype duties than seeing same train over and over running around the circuit. Not a thing wrong with it . A greater percent of MRRs probably don't have point to point either. It's just not for me. Also, of course, there is an interchange at one end and a depot at other end to trade with other lines connecting. I do hope I am not being too harsh on you. Again, all this is food for thought, not an order from the god of MRRing...
I was planning to place it up against the wall to maximize my available space. I was thinking of having a circle cut inside the helix so I could access it from below, and having the side of the helix scenery facing opposite the 12' wall as a flat removable panel to give helix access as well. Yes, the viewing would be from inside the L. If I take great care in installing the track, how many derailment issues should I expect?
I have no problem at all with criticism. I welcome it. As a new comer to the hobby I want to make my initial large investment a satisfying one. I have made a second layout that eliminates the helix, but as you mentioned, the reason for the helix is to have multiple levels of track. I thought it might add some interest and some depth. This layout with its multiple levels, bridges and tunnels really appeals to me. I think it is very interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ofZKVYjG_I&list=PLE81235CC28A642CF&index=11 As a new-comer to the hobby I don't have a very good understanding of the prototypical process of switching cars and planning scale routes. I've always enjoyed watching full scale trains if one was nearby but was never very deep into learning the different companies, locomotive and rolling stock types. When I first became interested in beginning this hobby it was all about the Santa Fe and its EMD E and F's. Now I think I prefer the Southern Pacific and in addition to the E and F's the GP9. I expect like anyone who gets deeper into an interest there is always more and more to learn. I will post my other layout idea and would welcome opinions on it. In the future point to point might interest me but having a layout that has multiple loops and at least one reversing loop is important right now. I can definitely envision myself sitting in a chair and just watching it run, and if I can switch turnouts from a handheld controller more the better.
After pulling a train through the reversing loop at 0 inches elevation in the left leg of the L a single time, the only way to reverse a train or loco again will be by backing through the entire loop (or removing cars/locos from the track to reverse them by hand). You may want to consider adding a second reversing loop at the other (high) end of the run...probably on the right leg of the L. If you have a small town, siding, or spur on the front half of each loop, and put a river in the middle of the L running into the corner, conceptually, your RR could be crossing back and forth over a river as it follows the river valley from a low elevation up toward the source of the river at a higher elevation. And if you use hills, trees, or buildings, etc to hide the back half of each reversing loop, you could use the hidden track for staging a second train to run the opposite direction. For continuous running back and forth between the two reversing loops, some people are very "hands on" and want to be involved in the business of actually running their layout by frequently assigning electrical blocks and aligning all turnouts, as needed. Others are less hand-on and would rather automate as much of their operations as possible by installing automatic reversing devices, and, even setting up detectors which automatically switch a turnout to correct alignment when trains approach from certain directions.
Thanks for the input. I will look into adding another reversing loop, I don't want the train stuck going in one direction anywhere in the layout. I like the reversing loops because it's like you can seemingly "double" your layout's size by running the trains in two directions. I like the idea of hands off. So, automatic reversing and maybe some sort of automatic control of turnout switches would be great. I don't know if it is available, but running your train while controlled by a PC would nice. If the PC could control switches, locomotive speed, etc., and if you could program a routine where it would run a circuit, then change to a new circuit all while manipulating switches, speed, etc. If you could build layer on layer of routes, you could have the train run continuous while not seeming to be overly repetitive. Just thinking out loud with all that. I hadn't really thought about using many buildings or people. I thought where the dead end track is I could put in a maintenance shed and a small dock and maybe a water tower that could have been in use during the steam era. While on a Route 66 road trip a while back, a friend and I drove the original Route 66 east of Winona and came to a very long T in the track. My friend said it was once called Angel Station. There was a concrete pad where a building once stood and the footers where a water tower once stood. I got the idea from that place for my water tower and maintenance building. I'll attach some photos.
Photos from "Angel Station" The photo is of a small bridge you see when approaching the Wye. The second photo is some bridge detail from the top. The third photo is of the signals near the wye. The forth photo is where a large building once stood. The ties and rails are on the building pad. The crossing sign leads to the wye. The fifth photo shows my friend walking where the wye turns out to a dead end where I think the water tower once stood. You can see the main line to the left. The sixth photo shows the dead end track and what I think was once the water tower foundation. The seventh photo is looking back into the track where the wye meets. The eighth photo is the end of the wye. The ninth photo is nearing the turn out tracks and a train just happened by. The last photo is of Padre Canyon Bridge. I think it was built in 1913 and is an example of the beautiful "bowling pin" bridge of that time. I think it would a great addition to any layout!
