Here is a new layout design posted by Jesper on Rec models was wondering if we could help him with any comments? ------------------ Regards Paul #1-Moderator & Member number 50 SPAD Investigator #1 ICQ 61198217 http://users.bigpond.net.au/railroad2000 [This message has been edited by Colonel (edited 13 January 2001).]
I'd like to apologise to Bill Rhys for removing his post while I cleaned up this topic Bill had asked the following question about the mainline grade between the "coal mining area and the elevated town" and if this layout was to based on a prototype ------------------ Regards Paul #1-Moderator & Member number 50 SPAD Investigator #1 ICQ 61198217 http://users.bigpond.net.au/railroad2000 [This message has been edited by Colonel (edited 13 January 2001).]
I have the same concern. 3 1/2 is steep. That's what I have at one point and the number or cars that I can pull are limited. In my case, that's all right because I'm a short line and will generally pull no more than 8 to 10 cars at a time. I think he's building in future problems on an otherwise very nice looking design. 2 1/2 tops. Roger Roger Hensley - rhensley@anderson.cioe.com == http://cid.railfan.net/eci_new.html == == East Central Indiana HO Scale Railroad ==
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel: 3.5% grade on the mainline. I feel this may be a little to steep and will definately require multiple units for any length of train. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <font color="336633">That might not be a problem, my dad has 3% grades and tightish curves on his layout and we can still run 40 car trains, need 3 or 4 locos though</font>
You might want to ad another couple of switches connecting the mainline with the branch at the top of the drawing. This would provide you with a run-around or small siding. I couldn't tell if you had different grades at that point, but I think it might make operation a little easier.
With a layout of this size I can't understand why the grade is so high. It should be able to be cut to 2% or less. Good design otherwise. I am sure each of us could find a reason to make a change here or there but then it's not my railroad so leave it at that. ------------------ Robin member #35 Maberly and Tayside
This looks like a good plan to me except for that grade.I wouldn't more than a 2% on a mainline and preferably any where else.But then I'm a freelancer. ------------------ Catt!#118 - A proud member of NARA & A freelancer to the very end
Ok, one question- does he have any building/ clearance restrictions that require him to have 3 1/2% grades? And are these grades just on the branchline? I must agree with a 2 1/2% maximum grade- the branchline's getting close to Saluda Hill's steepness. Perhaps with a little redesign, he may come up with grades that aren't so steep. Otherwise, it's a good trackplan. ------------------ Southeast....Southwest.. Ship IT on the Frisco! Bob T. Member # 362 http://hometown.aol.com/slsf1630/myhomepage/profile.html
No body asked me. Will I comment anyway? They don't call me the outlaw for nothing! OK. First of all, Jesper has obviously put just some time and thought into this complicated a track plan. He has the potential for a lot of action, and the room to store enough engines and cars to keep it going even in steam. If God had wanted no more than a 2% grade, then He would have made it. Just like the Union Pacific, the mountain grade of 3.5% is there, so Jesper will just have to live with it like a real railroad would. Jesper will just have to put on helper engines to get trains up, and pump a lot of air and ride the dynamics screaming all the way down. I certainly am not going to tell God he can't put His hill on my layout just because "it isn't done"! In my day and before, steam trains sanded the tracks and pulled 8% grades. Go for it Jesper, enjoy your layout. If you outlaw on the grade, fire your engineer and add another engine. ------------------ Watash #982
But he HASN'T built it yet so he doesn't have to live with it! He can change it now if he wishes. That's why the design is here, to get comments. I built mine and I live with it and it is a real pain at times. Why do that if you don't have to? One of the obvious suggestions is to drop crossing tracks as you raise others to achive the grade percentage that you want. In any event, he has a good basic plan. Roger
First of all thanks to you all for your comments. I will go back to the drawing board and change the grade to no more than 2.5% for the mainline. It's only a few places I have 3.5% anyway, so it shouldn't be too hard. Thanks Jesper
God was on your side this time Jesper! Roger's suggestion to make both crossing tracks have some grade is a good one. Maybe God will allow you to move his mountain, a little. You do have a nice layout. Take photos as you go, they will be valuable to you in later years. Enjoy it!! ------------------ Watash #982
Jesper, nice to have you on board at trainboard. I hope you enjoy trainboard as much as I do. I'm sure the guys here will help you with the layout design. It is much easier to make changes on paper than once the benchwork is in place. ------------------ Regards Paul #1-Moderator & Member number 50 SPAD Investigator #1 ICQ 61198217 http://users.bigpond.net.au/railroad2000
The only real problen that I see is the isle widths. 2 ft. is really a bit to small, I would try for 3 ft min. Try moving the center yard to the other side, and have the coal mine and sawmill on oppisit sides of the peninsila with a two sided backdrop between them. With the 2 ft isles I think you will end up brushing the sides of the layout as you walk past, and any electrical switches on the facia will be liable to be damaged.HTH....Mike [This message has been edited by Mike C (edited 14 January 2001).]
Jesper, I too had 24" isles on one layout, but I recessed my switches for just the reason Mike C mentioned. Another reason to consider a little wider isle, is for two people to pass eachother during a running night. Another is someone may put on some weight, and not be able to fit. Suggest you "C" clamp a couple of 1x4's at 24" apart, set about table height, then walk between them, turnaround and come back. It is cheap "proof of the pudding!" ! ------------------ Watash #982
I have no problem with the 24" isles on my layout, but that's because I operate solo. If you plan on having other operators, then try at least a 36" minimum isle width.
Dave, You may not have problems with the 24 inch wide isle right now, but I have a hunch. I have seen this scenario more than once. Once your lay out is up, and at least the track work done, you are going to meet some very nice people who would love to help you and run on your lay out. I'm sure you have met people who collect engines etc, with no layout to go to (poor them). Layouts (good ones) attract people. Also, you are operating solo now, but you need people on that layout to make it come alive, unless you have an unlimited budget and are really good with computers. But even with computerized running, it will be more fun with others. The social side of model railroading is excellent most of the time so take into account unfound future friends. Trust me on this...lol... nice layout...and get the grade down to 2% if you can (yes, lower than 2.5%).
