New N-Scale Layout - Mountain Based

Mad_Mader Dec 16, 2011

  1. hoyden

    hoyden TrainBoard Supporter

    755
    399
    22
    I didn't consider the L configuration at the time I was laying out the new pike. Now I have the roadbed in place and I am very close to laying track, so the L is no longer an option. I added two tracks that allow me to go off the main layout and there I have left open the possibility for an L extension.
     
  2. RatonMan

    RatonMan TrainBoard Member

    532
    1
    24
    Mad_Mader‎: Check your mail.
     
  3. Mad_Mader

    Mad_Mader TrainBoard Member

    47
    0
    6
    Ok guys here is a revised look at what I am thinking about doing. The turns are all 12 radius except for the two turns in the far left. They are 11 radius. This will allow for better turning without worrying about derailments as much. I have also eliminated most of the switching points that are hidden in the mountains. The ones that I do have under the mountains are going to be easily accessed view doors on the backside of the mountain cover on the edges of the layout. I am sure that the grades are not too bad, but any critiques of the grade will be helpful. Let me know what you guys think and if this layout is more reasonable and is possible. I went ahead and made sure that I made the track 1" wide so that I could get a more accurate take on what the track will actually look like when laid out.
    IMG_20111220_141637-1.jpg
     
  4. mr1967

    mr1967 TrainBoard Member

    95
    0
    9
    What do you want out of the layout? 12 inch radius curves will be tight considering the grades involved. This looks like a roller coaster and not a railroad.
     
  5. Mad_Mader

    Mad_Mader TrainBoard Member

    47
    0
    6
    I want to have a lumber mill that is fed by train from a mountain logging operation. I want to have the ability to have a turntable and roundhouse along with the ability to just put my trains on the move and have them traverse the entire layout without having to switch. That is the modified figure eight in the layout. It will allow trains to run from one side of the layout to the other without having to worry about switching and constand watching. I think I am starting to get what everyone has been saying. I am trying to incorporate too many things into this small space. It needs to be more simplistic. Back to the drawing board to see if I can find a simpler way to accomplish what I want.
     
  6. paulus

    paulus TrainBoard Member

    290
    0
    10
    i want..............................., you should do your home work better.
    Not the first time i have to tell you. Labeling altitutes is easy, calculating the grades is the job.
    With grades as steep as 7% or some impossibilities your plan is just a dream.
    A rollercoaster it is.
    Paul
     
  7. Railroad Bill

    Railroad Bill TrainBoard Member

    327
    0
    11
    Just noticed your thread, but, if you've laid roadbed maybe trackplan comments are over. Nonetheless (!)

    I note each of your "wants" require some significant real estate and that you seem to require portability of some sort. Free running, longish runs (so the roundy-roundy effects are minimal) is one goal in itself and could consume most of your space. Logging mill interfaced with the logging operation could also consume a lot of your precious space. Roundhouse & turntable are neat things, but again, require some significant space to do them well. Of course, those space allocations are your personal judgement calls. Don't forget your portability need; make sure you have separability of the key elements.

    Something I would add is a staging area. I always like to have a few nearly assembled consists to move out or lay to rest. Your round house operation might lead to a yard to allow for building your consists. This could double as a staging element.

    As some have said, that's a lot of stuff to squeeze in. Think some wants need to go. Your call.
     
  8. RatonMan

    RatonMan TrainBoard Member

    532
    1
    24
    Ragu, or Prego?
     
  9. mr1967

    mr1967 TrainBoard Member

    95
    0
    9
    i'm sure it would be Classico.
     
  10. Mad_Mader

    Mad_Mader TrainBoard Member

    47
    0
    6
    Yea I was using the Atlas program I downloaded and a roundhouse with turntable takes up significant room when done properly. I am going to abandon that idea for this layout and keep that in my to do list for add ons in the future. I have been toying with some ideas in my head to incorporate just a lumber mill and lumber operation with rolling hills, farm/ranch. Time to re-configure my layout and see what the best trackplan will be. I still want to have my mountain, but as far as a turntable and roundhouse, they are out of the question with the amount of space they take up. I need to focus on a few key elements instead of trying to incorporate everything that I like into one small area. On another note, I finally got my 4-8-4 Northern in today. It will be the largest loco I will be using, and it needs easy radii turns to keep from derailing. 11.25 radii derail it everytime so I am going to look into keeping my radii in the 15-19" range. Well, I am going to go and start reading up on some things, and hopefully it will inspire me to figure out how I need to set my layout up. Thank you all.
     
  11. Mudkip Orange

    Mudkip Orange TrainBoard Member

    235
    26
    15
    That is a crazy track plan, I love it, although I'm not sure now the grades would work out, especially along the right side there.
     
  12. Mad_Mader

    Mad_Mader TrainBoard Member

    47
    0
    6
    Ok so I have scrapped my idea of trying to create my own track plan for the time being and will be working on a layout that I saw in the recent MR magazine. It has what I want, coal mine, yard and continuous run loop with the ability to add an extension later. Well, until I can get supplies for my layout I started working on building a Thomas the train layout with my two sons. We started on it tonight, not sure where in the forums that would fall into though.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 30, 2011
  13. HemiAdda2d

    HemiAdda2d Staff Member

    19,018
    9,831
    242
    Mad_M,
    Don't scrap the plan just yet... The grades are difficult to accurately determine on your plan, but they are steep. What I would suggest is open up the curves to 15" rad or bigger, and limit the grade to 2%. That is slightly less than 2" rise in 8' of run. The steeper it is, the more it might resemble a logging line, but the more difficult and frustrating it will be to operate.
    Here's something I whipped up quick. It's just an MS Paint pic of a simple layout with more operating interest, and losing the overly busy spaghetti track plan.

    15" approx mainline curves, level mainline.
    Branchline can be tighter and more curvy if you wish, 2-2.5% max grade. The switchback will add operating interest, and can continue to climb. The mountain will conceal the mainline around the back corner (make it accessible!). The mountain can be as large as you want, too. #6 turnouts on the main, the branch can use #4's if you want to go tighter.
    Drawing not to scale.
     

    Attached Files:

  14. paulus

    paulus TrainBoard Member

    290
    0
    10
    Hi gentlemen,
    just between Christmas and New Years Eve it is hard to read the lines by Hemi.
    I would suggest him going back to kindergarten, let me explain.
    Designing grades is not that difficult, though doing just a wee bit of homework is needed.
    Hemi, you propose a 15" curve, the length between the upper and lower station is less then 45" in your drawing.
    To get your track from 0" to 3"" will take a 6,67% grade, not counting space for vertical easements.

    The text you provide in your drawing is 2% up.
    Adding space for vertical easements and compensate for the curve in the grade will lead to a grades way above 10%.
    Please add serious comments next time.
    Paul
     
  15. Mike C

    Mike C TrainBoard Member

    1,640
    145
    39
    The way I see it is the very end of the switchback is at 3 inches, NOT the end of the curve. .....Mike
     
  16. Mad_Mader

    Mad_Mader TrainBoard Member

    47
    0
    6
    I will post soon as I get a chance to start working on my layout. Thank you guys for the help. Check out the Thomas the Train layout that I am building with my kids. We are working on that until I can get together the supplies to start my layout.
     
  17. paulus

    paulus TrainBoard Member

    290
    0
    10
    Mike,
    it would be nice if passing sidings and spurs are built horizontal.
    Paul
     
  18. NIevo

    NIevo TrainBoard Member

    352
    0
    11
    Wait, you come on here and try to put Hemi in his place and instead show your lack of simple layout design comprehension? Maybe you should learn to look better before spouting off. It's not hard to see that the end of the spur is only at 2.5" which judging by the drawing is a easy 100+" of track and then the spur goes up a bit to 3" from there. I agree that spurs and sidings are better if level, but hardly are we talking 10+% grades. If it is around 100" then you are only talking a 2%-2.5% grade max.

     
  19. NIevo

    NIevo TrainBoard Member

    352
    0
    11
    Wait, you come on here and try to put Hemi in his place and instead show your lack of simple layout design comprehension? Maybe you should learn to look better before spouting off. It's not hard to see that the end of the spur is only at 2.5" which judging by the drawing is a easy 100+" of track and then the spur goes up a bit to 3" from there. I agree that spurs and sidings are better if level, but hardly are we talking 10+% grades. If it is around 100" then you are only talking a 2%-2.5% grade max.


     
  20. JamesHetzel

    JamesHetzel TrainBoard Member

    37
    0
    10
    What Paulus put together looks really cool. Can I seal the idea for my 8x8 n layout i'm planning?
     

Share This Page