Sometimes I think myself into a place I didn't want to inhabit. I'm sorry rkcarguy, it just kinda' evolved. Maybe we should take this up in layout design rather than here? Sometimes things behave linearlly(sp), sometimes it's logarithmic. I think increasing the garage height is my best idea.
There are many thoughtful answers already. Doubling engines is a huge investment in realizing your desire to manage grades. This applies in the real world as much as it does on our models. But grades are, as I have said on another forum, the gift that keeps on taking. You only have a finite amount of room, but you must also build an easement into and out of the grade. Now you have about half of what you thought you had if your grade is steeper than 2% and can only be about 10' long. An easement, by definition, starts as no grade at all, then accelerates, and then decelerates until it defines the grade. That whole process takes up a lot of room. Then there is the skill at laying the entire affair, but mostly I would worry about the true incline itself. Undulations and uneven track on a side-to-side view are just going to add to the troubles of your motive power, particularly steamers having rigid driver wheelbases that are longer than a pair of axles. How well tuned are all those trucks trailing behind the engine, including the tender if it is a steamer? Is every axle well-lubed and free-rolling? Are all cars weighted the same for type? And so on. Grades take some thinking. One of the best investments is to mock up what you think you'll eventually need, and then see how your motive power does with trains of a given length. Proving your plan will ensure you enjoy the fruits of your labours, not to mention the monetary investment.
Crandall; You make some very good points. But you are using the term easement in a way that I've not seen it used before. I've always understood it to mean a decreasing/increasing radius curve in the horizontal plane. You seem to be using it in reference to the vertical. Wikipedia makes some reference to the vertical plane in their article, but not being a mathematician it's rather obscure to me. Any further light you can shed on the subject will be appreciated. Woodland scenics grading foam certainly allows for changing radius curves in the horizontal plane, but not in the vertical plane... unless you glue together offset pieces of grading foam. My argument in favor of steeper grades is for people building small layouts who don't have ten feet in which to build an over/under. I'm not in favor of the argument that no over/under is better than a steep over/under... as long as the modeler understands the limitations it places on his/her trains.
For two deck layouts, don't forget the vertical turnout and an elevator. There's not only the helix to get some spacing. Wolfgang
Discussion with the Great Chief and I'm excluded...grin! Lownen, As do I, have respect for you. But leaving me out of your discussion with a higher power...grin! Mike remembrances with the Great Chief, to be expressed here. I will request a larger area for you to build your dream railroad. Now back to, under the bed layouts. Just some interesting history with regard to my son and two nephews. My son and two nephews grew up with tight curved HO layouts that they could pull-out from under their bed. Focusing on my son. He operated his with a SW7 switcher and some 40 foot cars. Most of the time it was used as a high speed raceway with crashes and all the fun stuff. Eventually, the equipment broke down and it became more and more difficult for him to operate. Fifteen inch radius curves and etc. He kept spending his allowance on longer freight cars and eventually some Athearn Shortie passenger cars. When I bought him his first GS4 Daylighter, it wouldn't make it around the curves. It wasn't long before the GS4 and most of the layout was laying in pieces, on or near my work bench. I've often wondered what it would have been like if I had insisted he build his own layout and repair his own train cars? I damaged plenty a locomotive as it took wings off the layout. Or should I say it didn't take wings. My son was always good with his toys. It just seems to me that once I'd built my own layout, I respected what I built and cared for it. At some point my son and the two nephews... gave up disgusted with the overall performance. To give you some idea of their reaction. All three love trains but to this day but none of them have made an effort to build their own layouts. With the arrival of my grandson almost five years ago I've heard talk from my son, of a train layout. Every time, I talk to him he wants to confine any layout he builds to something less then a 3x3. Yes, that can be done in N Scale or Z scale but you have to remember the little hands that will be handling these trains. Wondering how careful this little guy will be? Perhaps a larger beginners O-27 set would be appropriate. I help build all three layouts initially knowing full well this wouldn't last long. I couldn't be there to keep up with the maintenance or solve and fix every problem. If we are talking toy trains then by all means let's suggest O-27 as a first timers layout and let the little ones play "Crash Trains". However, on a Model Railroad forum with the idea being to get future model railroaders started then I have to wonder and question the advise shared. Lownen, I know you mean well and pardon me for rattling on but I have a vested interest in a number of youngsters interest in model railroading. The ones that stayed with it had layouts that reflected wider curves and appropriate grades. I don't know...something to think about I suppose. I think the issue boils down to "Toy Trains" or "Model Railroads". And where do you want to start? See how much fun we can have. Grin! Now... do I dare tell you about a friends layout, who is ten years my senior, that will perhaps negate the point I've been trying to make? Shall I share with you that he has an HO railroad with tight curves and steep grades? Naw, that would give you the wrong idea. Actually, he knows what he has and it's limitations. That's why you find him operating N&W Y6 articulateds and full length passenger cars. ""What? What? What?"" Quoting David Letterman. Big Grin! Did I include? That his railroads have all been with tight 18" radius curves starting from his first layout as a youngster AND he's always built his own layouts and repaired his own equipment. It can happen! LOL!
This is why I think that it is important for parents to know and communicate to the child what will and won't work. I think children may grow out of small layouts at some point, and if they have the space great. Little hands likely can handle little trains better. I have a list of reasons why O scale is bad for children. Remember Rick, homes are smaller today and many children live in apartments. But look at all the door layouts and modules being built today. Many people just don't have the space anymore. I think Z scale is great for adults, but it's too small... and too expensive for children. The best child's set I've seen... and I actually bought one recently... is a Tillig TT scale set from Germany. It cost $70 and its quality is much closer to Kato and Atlas than to Life-Like. Toy trains is my preference. I also don't believe in gluing down a child's track. They love experimenting with different layouts in Brio. Why when they turn five or six should they be taught to glue their track down and learn operations. They can learn something about operations as they experiment with different layouts. They can learn more about radii and grades and what works and doesn't. I never grew up. I love trying different layouts on a 4x8 covered with felt. And I've had a lot of fun doing it.
Wolfgang suggests a good idea, an interchange/staging yard in the middle of a layout, if I'm following his thought correctly. Lownen; if x is depth, and y is width,z is height.WOW a three track vertical turnout in the middle,ausgezeichnet.
I am running 28" radius's on my mainlines with diesels. I have 9 GP's, 3 C44-9W's, 2 SD40-2's, 1 SD9, 1 Amtrak F7A/B, and 3 SW1500's. Yes I am thinking of raising the garage portion(longer legs), and running a more friendly grade. I am also thinking about running a 2nd track thru the wall connected in a wye, and have the track on grade elevate over the other one. I will get a sketch in here soon of what I currently have and the proposed additions so everyone can better see what I am looking at doing. Btw off subject, but I found out yesterday I'm going to be a daddy. Maybe we'll have the next model railroader in the family.....
Who Me? rkcarguy, Congradulations. Oh how lucky you are. If you can see him swinging his arms back and forth in the ultrasound...he's already playing trains. Big grin! Proud of you! Lownen and everyone tuned in, I'm not as good as you might think. Having learned some bad habits along the way. We are very lucky to have the internet and see first hand how someone details a locomotive or structures their scenery. So, I'm unlearning and relearning. Thanks for the compliment...I do appreciate that. My dad used a catch all phrase that went something like this, "No matter the age, young or old you can always learn something new from somebody else". With regard to "Toy Trains", I think every child should have one. Marx, Thomas the Tank, Lionel's O27 and American Flyer just to name a few. I remember my first toy train a Marx tin plate freight, wind up and operated on O27 track. Actually, it wasn't my first as my Great Garandpa Stan and Grandpa, went in together to purchase an American Flyer set. I just didn't know it at the time. The Marx, wind-up was the easiest train for my little hands to play with. It was easy to set-up, easy to tear down and I had hours of fun with it. Today, that train would probably go for big bucks. Instead, I gave it to some kids I thought needed a Christmas present. "They have no trains and I have two, I'l share one train and we'll both have one" (hrrumph) a jingle my mother used to sing in the cradle room at church. She kind of got to me with it and I had to do the right thing...or so I thought. The kids...for whatever reason... decided to hammer it to death instead. Go figure. I originally found it in the trash and proceeded to clean it up, repair it and actually got it running. I suspect my dad may have looked in and performed some midnight maintenance. He denied it saying that although, I destroyed his HiFi looking for the little people inside, I managed to fix this train. I never did find those little people in his mysterious sound machine. Honest, he said they were there. Well fellow model rails, friends and enema's that's enough disclosure for now. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Have fun!
Randall, it seems that the transition into and out of vertical curves gets called many things. I have heard it called transition, easement, and at least one other name that escapes me at present. As long as we are meaning the same thing in terms of its intended function, I guess that will suffice. I, like you, resist casting a druther, particularly a strong one, aside when it seems the idea is only ever going to be a fancy. In the case of very limited space, and a strong druther to have an overpass, I tell folks to split the difference; a rising grade, but shallower, passes of a descending grade. Where they actually cross over each other, the height clearances have been met, and as a happy result, each engine has to do much less work. You can actually have that longer train you were willing to forego due to the 4% grade that is now happily only 2%. It's a thought. It's more work to get it in because you now have to fashion four grades versus two. But that (different) cake will still taste pretty good. :tb-biggrin:
Crandell, this is exactly what I am doing on my 24x66" layout. The town will be at 2" elevation. The over ascend to 3" and the under will descend to 1". But given the tight space I have to use 4% grades to even do this. Before doing it, I am testing my rolling stock on 4% grades around the tightest turns Kato makes to ascertain what will and won't run on the final revision. Best!
On the topic of toy trains versus Model Versus curves and grades. I kinda see it from both perspectives, but I'm not sure that in the end it makes sense to treat N-Scale like a toy train. With the exception of the older Bachman and Life Like sets, We're talking about high fidelity scale models They are designed and built with the intention of being used on a more traditional layout. I have no problems with children having free form layouts and experimenting and having tight curves and all that, but the product, particularly in N-Scale could not be more poorly designed to handle that. Tight Curves and large grades don't cause frustration, because Physics just won't allow it at all ever, but because the models are designed assuming a very different standard. There simply isn't an appropriate product for that space. So, I would never suggest someone not do those things, because it's unprototypical, I would suggest it, because the models can't and won't handle it and they're too expensive for that kind of frustration. I would encourage the discussed restrictions, because I think It will make the trains run more reliably. Also, as a bit of an aside, I would never by a child any of these "Model" quality products to "play trains." I would by them these products to "Build a layout" and more specifically to Scenic a layout. Putting the track together in new and wacky ways is not something that I think is going to foster a strong connection to model railroading or real railroading. The diorama/artistic aspects I think offer so much more both in appeal and in intelectual stimulation. If they want to make wacky track plans, well, Brio and Thomas already do that way way way better than any model ever will.
Lownen and all tuned in, In all due respect me thinks you are using to much adult logic and reasoning and applying it to a youngsters thinking. I've thought this over all day long and every youngster that got started out wrong, within the scope of my knowledge and life experience has eventually given up the hobby. Here are some examples...aside from the ones I've already given you. I built a N scale for a five year old. His father and mother insisted it be put on a less then a 3X3. They didn't want an oval so I shared the idea of egg shape. The little fella couldn't put the cars and engines on the track. When he finally talked his mom or sister into putting them on the track... he ran it full speed ahead and it would leave the track on the narrow part of the egg. He eventually destroyed the train cars and loco and ceremoniously removed the track. Never mind a very irritated mother and sister. Did I mention dad...he wouldn't touch it...seems he was told by a certain builder...this would happen. To this day he doesn't have a train layout. Another youngster, I was told he had a terminal disease. I built him an HO scale layout on a 3X4. It had scenery, streets, buildings w/lights a tunnel, water fall and bridge. The track was ballasted. Perhaps the nicest little train layout I've built to date. Turns out I was suckered into building it and the stinker did not have a terminal disease. However, the layout did... and died an ugly death, as the youngster could not put the train cars on the track nor could he operate his trains at realistic speeds. Did I mention I put in working flashing crossbucks. To date he hasn't made the effort to build his own layout although, I hear he's still using the same M.O. to get someone else to build him one. He was 6 years old when I built this layout. His parents were advised to go another direction by the same builder. These may be exceptions or this is more common then you think. In one case N scale was way to small and delicate and HO didn't fair any better. O-27 has a circle equivalent to the diameter of 27". Easy to set-up on the living room rug...although, I'd never recommend that. Fibers that can bind up the gears and axles sucked up into the locomotive from said carpet. Somehow Lownen, you've assumed a position of authority on the subject. That's ok by me. However, I thinks you are lacking some experience with the younger set. I would advise you to rethink this and rewrite your presentation on tight curves. And rethink the 0-27. If you can't tell by now I wouldn't advise a parent putting money into HO or N scale as a beginners layout. Based on my life experience I would recommend "Thomas the Tank" in O-27 or the wood craft, pull the train around the track by hand... equivalent. See how the child does with this and then allow him or her to graduate to other model railroading interests, when and if they are ready. As a further recommendation... only if the interest persists at about the pre-teen age of 9 through 11 years old. Just my two cents. Take what you will and discard the rest and know I will do the same with yours. Said, In all due respect and no offense meant. Have fun with your blog!
Gotta agree with the esteemed BarstowRick, You're making a transition from Toy Train to Models. That's a significant transition which implies a number of things about the youngster in question. There are rules, not hard and fast, not enforced by the model police, but governing assumptions about what a model railroad is that affect these things. And I'll tell you this, The La Mesa Club down here, the club with the huge prototypical Tehachapi loop layout that's all over magazines? Well I'll tell you, I see the middleschool set running trains on this layout every time I'm there. They run at proto speeds, they have the CTC enforced. They run according to rules and they love it. That's part of the fun of "Model" railroading. The restrictions you place on yourself. That's probably true of any hobby. The fun is in the restrictions as much as anything. Consider radius and grade 2 more restrictions. If the child isn't ready for that? Well, then Brio and Lionel offer some excellent products. that don't have the poor quality of Bachmann/Life-Like. If you think that space is an issue, then perhaps the right thing to do is petition the manufactures to make smaller true toy trains.
Having said all that, I don't think 18" radius curves are too out there for a small child's layout especially with preballasted track. It has limitations for equipment, and I've elsewhere suggest that modern relevent protype starter sets are needed, but as far as small entry level layouts, I think 18" for HO is fine. 15" radius track should be thrown out though. Heck, I have 22" radius track on my "adult" layout. Everything runs on it. I just have to hide the overhang by distracting the viewer.
Operating on Club Layouts...Marvelous Idea...For A Child! YoHo and all tuned in, Thank you for the kind words. I operate (when and if I can get off this hill) on the Carriso Gorge Railway, right next door the the Loop layout and Tony Burzio is over on the N scale equivalent. I sneek-out under penalty of defecting, claiming to be spying and watch with envy the action going on. I've seen the kids operating these trains like pro's... of course with adult supervision. The look in their wide eyes is priceless. And, every so often I note a kid handling a train just like the big guys and with the same determined, skillful and persistent look on their face. Got to be fun. A marvelous idea...for a child! What a way to mature into Model Railroading. See you in San Diego, Ca...I hope! Have fun!
Smaller radius's look really bad when you get some bigger loco's or longer rolling stock on them. I use a pair or 60ft bulkhead flats rolled around the layout by hand to find trouble spots on my layout.
Rick, I'll tell you, I like both those other layouts, but my biggest problem is that they both have a distinct lack of action. It's always kinda disappointing. The other thing that always throws me on the N-Scale one is that I only ever see short trains. and like one train at that. I want to see 100 car trains and such. Maybe I should join one of them, but I've always been a fan of more woodsey scenery, so I'm never sure how much interest I'd have.
YoHo and of course all tuned in, The group I go down the hill to San Diego, Ca., with is, the Roundhouse Gang. We used to have a layout in Redlands, CA., however, we were evicted and now operate once a month on the second saturday. Steve and I haven't been able to get down off this hill. He works for CalTrans and during the snow season he's blowing snow. So we haven't been able to get down for a number of months. We hope to make the trip sometime in the fall. I think the best layout with the most action, except when we are in town, is the Tehachapi Loop. I think it's safe to say they operate their trains about as prototypical as you can get. With regard to the subject at hand "Maximum Grade". I limit my mainline to a 2% to 2.5% and on my industrial or auxillary lines there is a 3% grade. Have fun.
