The STORY: With all the wires soldered up finaly, today I decided to start on the control board for my layout. After 2 hours sitting there lost, I decided to have a go at it... <language removed>.. As I stood up, dad in his usual helpful wise voice said "... that would be better off as double track round there".. As the title of this thread says, DONT THINK - ITS EASIER.. ... it got me THINKING.. I have started to rip some of it up, and starting part of it again. mainly the elevation (which lookin over my shoulder at it, will leave about 1/10th of the whole thing) I am getting rid of that crap woodland scenic foam, it seems good in theory, but just dont lean on it or the like. I will be using ply this time, going double for most with a bit of triple track for the complete elevated section, and changing that complex double cross over (http://members.optusnet.com.au/~biggus2/pics/nscale/may04/layout.jpg right section of track here) thing to.. dunno yet. I hoped to make it so I could run 2 seperate loops, but maybe I should be born before attempt to jump the grand canyon with no legs. I'll probably be adding some extra tracks, and other things... THE QUESTIONS *Warning, I am pi$$ poor at describing things* 1) Any tips on a smooth transition when the elevation and the baseboard, and the elevation and the top board meet? --> The way they are now the elevation and the baseboard meet, its not a SMOOTH transition - my mallet wont run, the front and rear wheels are on track, the center ones appear not to have good contact unless you have some pace up. Same as where the elevation and the top flat section meet, its like almost a bit of a hump. maybe stop the elevation a tiny bit below the top board. 2) Why do we do this to ourselves? [ 15. October 2004, 04:37: Message edited by: virtual-bird ]
VB: Maybe I don't get this, but... The vertical transitions and the horizontal transitions are the same in that they should boht have an easement. Horizontal easements have been much discussed and are failrly easy to do. For a vertical easement, make sure you have enough room. Just like the horizontal easement, they take more room. Maybe the best way would be to use one piece of baseboard and make it horizontal at the bottom; then horizontal at the top. It would make sort of a vertical S turn. Always be smooth, smooth, smooth as you do the transition. Probably not explaining this too well. Please keep asking questions.
What I mean is when the elevation comes up, I am using one part of board for the baseboard, one part of board for elevation, and it meets up with another piece of board for the flat part on top. Ignore the dots it wont let me do it without them, but this is basically what I mean. .................... ____________ ___________/ Like that. but when the elevation and the top meet its an angle that doesnt give a smooth transition to the top board, even with 3% grade. Also starting from the baseboard up onto the elevation board - the one you will be using to elevate, whats the best way to start an elevation so that the track is a smooth gradual start upwards.
What you need to do Bruce is as Flash recommends - use one piece for the transition from base to height. The board will find it's own transition from flat to elevation (he easement) then back again when you level. (If one piece is not long enough, then join close to centre of the elevation so one piece make the flat to elevation, the second elevation to flat transition.) Don't force the board to bend overly or you will have too great a curve (or bend if you like) in the board and possibly lead to derailments, particularly with steamers and long wheelbased diesels (like SD90's etc.). The downside - it takes space to do unless you are doing it (partially) on a curve. Here is a calculation for easements onto and off a curve from straight track. As Flash has already pointed out, the same should apply to your situation. http://www.trackplanning.com/nl/easements.htm
Well, today really got stuck into it... probably a little too much. Theres nothing left of the old layout LMAO ripped up everything, and going to try something else. I didnt like it once it was laid out infront of me ... The size board I have (7.5ftx4) isnt big enough for what I want I'm depressed... Basically I'm resigned to dull old roundy roundy with a spur or 20 (Zzzzzzzzzzz..).. I dont know really what I expect... but yea, thought I could get more than I did... I've searched the web high and low for something interesting that isnt extremely complicated with 400+ different levels/elevations/under/over/under/over/over etc (to me they are a PITA, real mission to get right and to keep at 2%, which is the other reason I scrapped the old one at 4%), even 101 track plans has let me down. Theres lots there, but some are under/over/under/over/over/over/under/under/under and you need to be a genius to stand a chance of followin the plan, let alone build it... Anyway that was my day.. Watched the MotoGP after than, its at the island next week, 1 hour from home.. looks like little will happen next weekend on the layout too...
Bruce What are you doing again, HO or N? I ask because I found a really cool (well I think so ) HO plan for an 8x4 in an early MRR. Never seen it before and it is way better than most I have seen. Let me know if you would like to "see" it Cheers
Working in N Scale. If you can post it, or mail it go for it.. might inspire me. At moment Im getting dangerous levels of the CBF's. is 7x4 in N scale really enough to have elevations? Working out at 2%-3%, you need a long drag to get up that 3inches to clear the track below... Thanks Mr.
VB, if you run the low level track down at the same time as you run the high track up, you only need half the distance to get your 3" clearance..... 7x4 should be heaps of room in N.
disisme Got any good plans Theres a layout on ebay for cheap, but its in Qld... its based on one of the Atlas plans N19 I think, but looks too complicated for me to build :'( but I like it.. Aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh
OK...try this for a thought.... Assuming you are using a flat board, like MDF, on a pine frame..... You cut slots in the mdf each side of the lower track for the entire length of the area you want to 'depress', then join those 2 slots at the lowest point of the depression. This w3ill let you push the mdf that the track sits on downwards. If the pine frame is in the way, cut that entire section out, then chisel / route out some of the frame to support the MDF when you put it back in. The low track can now go 'downhill' to the crossing while the high track goes uphill.... takes half the distance.
I wish I knew what ya was sayin.. need to get together for a coffee and a chat... with pen, paper and lots of audio tape to record it all.. LOL
VB - my layout is only 6.5 x 4 and N scale. One thing I did (I know you said no foam) was a 1/2" foam layer on top - if you did 2 of them, that's a 2" seperation (one going up and one going down at the same points). Also, I think you need to remember is at the start and finish of the WS grades, even a 2% transition is huge in N scale.... I say that from experience. The only thing you can do for those transition points is allow a 6" or so additional transition point using foam putty, goo, or sculptamold type stuff and sand it down for a better (translated rounded and smoother) transition.
VB.... Get a piece of cardboard and cut to parrallel lines in it about an inch apart, then at the center of those 2 lines, cut across between them... you now have 2 'flaps' kinda thing..... Cut another 2 parrallel lines that intersect those 2 (at 90 degrees or any angle ya like). Now, if you want one inch seperation between those 2 pieces of cardboard, push one set down, and lift the other set up..... Now imagine that carboard is your MDF baseboard....... By making one track go down, while the other one comes up, you only need half the room to achieve your 3" seperation.
VB, another thought is to get 1% incline for the transition areas, then use the 2 or 3% in the middle sections. If the mallet you speak of is that monster long steam engine, then you must make those incline percentages as small as possible. As a diesel runner, I don't have that much problem... Have you had a look at my layout? 6.5" x 4" Look at this web page link to see how my elevations are done with mine; the inner line has been removed - too tight of turns and I didn't linke the tunnels, you'll have to just imagine it's not there. But you can see what the plan WAS. Also, the other page links on that page show a bit more of my process.
I see what your saying, but still looking for the advantage, as you still need the same distance to elevate to have 2% Nscale: 2% is a lot in N.. My first layout was 4%! I was going to do the 1% upto 3% I was thinking. Ive looked at yours, looks really busy! Lookin at the atlas site, code 80 tracks, theres some nice things there, shame the drawigns arent marked in a grid style of thing... Thanks anyone else with ideas or plans for n scale 7.5ftx4 YELL PLEASE [ 14. October 2004, 05:13: Message edited by: virtual-bird ]
Since I've taken the inner line out, it's really not that busy. I need to take a new pic now that I look at it!!! Basically mine is two ovals, with connections from inner to outer, and outer to inner (flyover) and 2 staging tracks. With an extra foot like you have, I'd be a very happy guy... lots of potential for nice and long switching yards for sure! Anyways, not sure what else I can do to help... what kind of operations are you planning on? [ 14. October 2004, 04:19: Message edited by: nscale_lover ]
Just took a look at all your pics... that is a monster grade! I would definately think about reducing. Also just a few questions, what is the purpose for your top level and would it be enclosed or just exposed? I'm trying to envision how the scenery transition would be in that area. RE; previous posts; here's a quick diagram about using the up and down theory to cross tracks - hopefully it explains: Using the 2% risers (bottom illustration), you'll get a 4" rise using all 8 pieces = 16' but if your base is elevated on (let's just say) a 2" piece of foam and you cut a "ditch" on one side and use the same 2% risers to both raise and lower your track at the same time (top illustration), you get that same 4" at 8' Hopefully that's what you were asking - sorry if you already understood it [ 14. October 2004, 04:14: Message edited by: nscale_lover ]
Hi Mike Thanks for the help.. I didnt realise what people was saying was for the cross over! I thought it was just to elevate the track.. I sorta get the meaning now.. but Im starting to think about just nailing down 1xlength straight piece of flex track and leaving it at that.. What am I would like to be modelling, basically will have a coal mine, and general freight area, there wont be much passenger work, probably 2 stations. The elevation at the far side would be a cutting, but not with the trains being totally blocked out, probably going in and out of view, then into a tunnel (the outside could double as the mine?) and out, proably having the track rising within part of the tunnel.. As you can see, Im lost.. I suppose it all depends on the track plan.. if I ever find one.
