Layout Pre-Planning stages

[6axlepwr]

I am in the pre-planning stages of layout design. I have a few questions.

1. What is the minimum desired radius for a helix?
    - I understand the bigger the better because it makes it easier on the climb. I have seen kits down to about 36" max diameter with an outside track radius of about 17.5".

2. on a double or even triple deck, What would be the desired space between levels?
    - I would like it at a minimum of 12" with a max of no more than maybe 18". But is 18" to much for the climb on the helix. I figure my levels have to be in increments of 6" to keep a 2% grade and a reasonable space between levels on the helix. I think to get the depth of scenery I want, I would have to put the levels at 18" apart.

3. What would be a reasonable minimum diameter for a peninsula loop?

These are the only three questions I have right now. From here I can start the plan.

Brian

[Cajonpassfan]

Brian, that really depends on a lot of things, starting with what kind of equipment you plan to run and how long your trains are going to be. 40' boxcars and small steam, or doublestacks with modern multiple units. The size of your space is also important. I wouldn't make the helix radius any less than your minimum visible mainline radius, you don't want to discover equipment issues inside the helix. As to deck separations, that also depends on a lot of things. Walkaround control on both levels? depth of benchwork necessary? Yards or simple mainline? Obviously the greater the separation, the longer the helix and hidden running.
I would also encourage you to not think of a two level design as two flat fixed decks with a helix connecting them, but rather as a climbing mainline that punches through to another elevation. That way you can minimize or even eliminate the hidden helix and design you railroad with greater separations where needed and lesser where necessary and acceptable.
Planning a new railroad can be very exciting, but it is complicated if you want to do it right
Good luck,
Otto K.

[ednadolski]

Brian, from the numbers you mention it sounds like you're coming back to N scale, is that right?

To address your questions I think Otto is right that it would be helpful to know more about what your goals and constraints are -- available space, era, operations, train sizes, etc.

One other quick thought: for a multiple deck layout, plan on how you will want to light it. The strip LEDs are becoming more popular, but I think a lot of installations have the light that comes straight down onto the models which can make for undesirable shadowing for taking pics.

Ed

[6axlepwr]

It is why I come to this forum. For help.

I have never built a piece of bench work or put down a strip of track. So this is all a new experience to me.

Otto, thanks for the input. I understand there are a lot of considerations as well as some I probably have no idea exist. I have a layout plan in mind and it is at least not trying to fit 10 lbs of crap into a 1 lb can. It is more like 10 lbs of crap into a 9 lb can.

Ed, I have two options. If I can make the layout I want fit into the room in N-Scale, I will build it in N. If not, then I will build the plan I have for HO and stay with HO. I am trying VERY hard to get the N-Scale plan in place.

The layout has to share the room with my model building area. So my model building desk will be under the layout or at least the back 1' of the desk will be part of the layout. The layout has to be a U shape. The right side is 17' long. The left side is 12' long and the width is 9'. I am trying to fit a peninsula in also, but it is closing up my isle space to much. My work bench is your standard counter top depth which I think is 32" which would be under the 17' side.

My modeling era is late 1960 to early 1970. West Virginia Coal hauling. This is the layout I am trying put into my room.

http://appalachianrailroadmodeling.com/co-cabin-creek-sub-wv-track-plan/

It is in HO, but for N I just half the dimensions except for the helix. If it was not for my work bench, I could probably fit it in just fine. I was thinking if maybe I move the end of the 17' section. I am trying to get as much linear feet of run in the layout as possible. I would like to keep the peninsula if at all possible. I do not know yet how to make it work with a gradual climb instead of a helix. I am looking into that.

Brian

[ednadolski]

Brian, to be perfectly candid, that looks to me like a very ambitious track plan for a first-time layout: two levels, a hidden helix, numerous structures, and (quick counted) over 60 turnouts. From the pencil sketch I cannot tell whether OTS turnouts will fit or if they will have to be custom hand-built.   Either way I would strongly recommend re-drawing the sketch into a layout planning program like Anyrail (just what I use) in order to get a better idea of what will fit.  Also try to get a good idea of the length of that helix run since it has the potential to be a significant bottleneck as the only link between levels.

JMHO I think that the plan would work better in N than HO for the same given space.  You don't necessarily have to just cut the HO dimensions in half.  Putting an N scale layout in the space for HO means that the curves and turnouts will be more broad and will better handle a wider variety of rolling stock, plus you will have more room proportionately for the scenery.

That being said, I would also suggest considering a simpler plan for a first-time layout.  You might choose to simplify this one, or go with something else on a shelf or HCD approach.  Importantly, you will learn what not to do as well as what to do.  If you really want to go with this plan, then another possibility is to design it so that it can be completed in operational steps/stages, with the option to continue building the next step in sequence until the full design is realized.

Just another $0.02 FWIW 

Ed

[C855B]

Nice plan. I am guessing you're thinking of a maximum train length of about 30 cars or so.

Are you figuring on half the HO max radius, or 15"? That's slightly tight for good appearance and trouble-free operation in N. I'd recommend a minimum radius of 18" for this plan.

For the helix, like Otto said, go no smaller than the mainline radius, you don't want "little surprises" in a space with compromised access. An 18" helix with 2" separation (clearance + 1/4" plywood) works out to about a 2% grade, so consider if that is a reasonable target for you. Go a little larger if you can, and more clearance if you can. Smaller radii and grades can conspire into stringlining problems should something happen inside the helix.

18" between levels is hard to do, and leaves a train in the "black hole" of a helix for a long time. The 2% helix @ 18" radius works out to ~10' per lap, so with 8 laps to make the climb, at 30smph your train is going to vanish for five minutes. That could add a fun operational twist (...no pun... ), but in sole operator situations the out-of-sight, out-of-mind might be a liability.

A gradual slope ("no-lix") is unlikely in your space. Visualize my layout room - to get a 12" separation @ 2%, I have to get a 6' head start and then it takes the entire length of the room - 44' - to make the full climb. 50 feet. That's what you'd be compressing in the helix.

For peninsula lobes, you saw what I did with the big lobe on my layout. Probably whatever you do will need to bulge relative to the peninsula width to reasonably accommodate the curve. 18" radius + 1/2" for the roadbed + some reasonable margin to the edge (3"?) adds up to a 43" diameter for the lobe.

I wonder a little about the 18" between levels. I would suppose you're figuring on 40-42" for the lower and 58-60" for the upper. After years of running N-Trak at 40" bench height, a relatively "helicopter" view, I personally prefer 45-48" for the main operating level. Add 18" to 48" and then (for me, at 5'10") the upper would be above eye level. My planned upper level, if it ever comes to fruition, will be separated by 12".

Anyway, a lot of this is a matter of taste. Operationally, again I recommend 18" min. radius, and 2% max grades.

Brian, to be perfectly candid, that looks to me like a very ambitious track plan for a first-time layout: ...

I'm all for Brian biting off this one. He is a modeler extraordinaire, and anything he does will be a masterful execution. He has the skills for sure, it's just going to be a slight variation in medium. Once he has basic operating parameters down we should be confident of a great outcome.

[ednadolski]

I'm all for Brian biting off this one. He is a modeler extraordinaire, and anything he does will be a masterful execution. He has the skills for sure, it's just going to be a slight variation in medium. Once he has basic operating parameters down we should be confident of a great outcome.

Wholeheartedly agree, my only point is that knowing what to build can often be a substantially greater challenge than figuring out how to build it.  It isn't a matter of skill or capability, rather that it is an all-too-common trap to take on too much at once in a first-time layout.   That is a path to frustration, lost time and money, and discouragement.   Not trying to be preachy here, just wanting to see this go as smooth as possible.

Ed

[MVW]

That being said, I would also suggest considering a simpler plan for a first-time layout.  You might choose to simplify this one, or go with something else on a shelf or HCD approach.  ...  If you really want to go with this plan, then another possibility is to design it so that it can be completed in operational steps/stages, with the option to continue building the next step in sequence until the full design is realized.

Ed

My initial thoughts exactly. Mike's endorsement does away with the "it's too ambitious" notion, but I'd underline Ed's comment about building in stages. It's great to have something running (and operationally interesting) early on. And I'd also be interested in seeing the plan get a CAD treatment.

Good luck! This looks and sounds interesting. 

Jim

[6axlepwr]

Ed,

I truly appreciate your opinion. I am 53 years old. By the time I get a layout done, I will not want to be building another and simply wanting to enjoy the one and ONLY layout I will ever have. Be it N or HO. It will be the ONLY one I will ever have. So this one has to full all or nothing. I will have to learn as I go and lean on all the experience in this group which I know will be given freely with genuine enthusiasm.

As I mentioned before, if after countless design implementations to fit this Cabin Creek layout in and not being able to. Then I will go with this HO layout.

 http://appalachianrailroadmodeling.com/winifrede-railroad-track-plan-ho/

I'll be able to lengthen it by two feet, but it will be narrowed by a foot.

The Cabin Creek layout would be a prototype setting with a freelanced operation, but the Winifrede would be a prototype setting and prototype operation.

Mike, thank you for the confidence. I have built only models and diving into a layout is to say the least a bit intimidating. But, I want to start running trains now. I appreciate your input as well. It is very valuable. For N-Scale, it is a must for me to run longer trains and have more length of layout to run on. So the two decks has to happen. I may have to rethink my workbench placement though in order to get the two levels in as well as the peninsula. Thanks for the minimum radius recommendation. I was wondering about that as well.

As the subject title says. I am in the pre-planning stages. Ironing out what I "can" do and what I "cannot" do. By this time next year though, my goal is to have the bench work complete and the track going down. I do not want to sacrifice my model building area, I really need it. I also do not want to limit the possibilities of what empire I can build. For me, N-Scale demands longer trains. HO demands the ultra fine scale modeling. Either way, both are a win situation for me.

Brian

[wm3798]

If this is your first rodeo, start with a smaller horse.  Build a Hollow Core Door layout, learn some basic skills of carpentry and track work, wiring and scenery.  See what you're good at, and what you're not.

Taking on a huge project like this at your stage will be at best overwhelming, and at worst, a disaster.

Visit large operating layouts and talk to their owners, understand what it is you're undertaking before you dive into the deep end.

Keep that plan in your back pocket, though, and revisit it after you've accumulated some experience.

Lee

[6axlepwr]

Lee, that is not going to happen.

I want this layout built quickly. It is not going to linger for years as a bunch of wood. What I do have going for me is a really strong local support group of modelers as well as many friends I have made across this country who DO have experience building layouts. Carpentry, laying track, wiring, DCC experts, structure and scenery. All willing to lend their knowledge. I am not flying blind.

I've got my room drawn up in autocad right now. Now I need to lay in the bench work options. Just to see what fits and what my isle ways will look like. Will the peninsula fit or just be to much. Stuff like that.

I have a friend in Durham, NC that is good with 3rd PlanIt software that can help me put the design down so I can see what the track would look like on the bench work.

[wm3798]

Sounds like you have a good network, but keep in mind that model railroading is a game of millimeters, not even inches. 

You have to think like a chess player, whatever you do when you're building benchwork can impact everything from the smooth operation of the layout to the placement of key scenery elements.

Best wishes, but I wouldn't count on the help of others all that much.  And as for doing it quickly, better keep focused on the quality of the work, and not just the speed at which it gets built.  My rule of thumb is that if you don't think you have time to do it right, what makes you think you have time to do it over?

Lee

[MVW]

Ed,

I am 53 years old. By the time I get a layout done, I will not want to be building another and simply wanting to enjoy the one and ONLY layout I will ever have. Be it N or HO. It will be the ONLY one I will ever have. So this one has to full all or nothing. I will have to learn as I go and lean on all the experience in this group which I know will be given freely with genuine enthusiasm.
Brian

I get that. I was in the same boat (52 years old) two years ago when I started my room-size layout, knowing it will likely be my last chance at something this elaborate. But I'm glad I planned to build it in stages. In a little more than a year I had some rudimentary ops going. It's only a fraction of what I want to have, but it's great to operate while I tinker with other facets of the hobby (including continued construction). Now, nearly two years in, I'm not quite as far along as I'd like to be, but I'm close. And I'm fairly certain that within the next year I'll be able to run ops sessions with 80% or so of the freight traffic I envisioned. If all goes well, two years from now I'll be running just about all of the freight and passenger traffic that I want ... and I'll still only have completed one of two planned decks.

It sounds like you have a great support network, while I'm lone-wolfing it (except for the advice and inspiration I get here). So by all means, go for it. But I think you'll be happiest if you build the layout in stages.

Jim

[Missaberoad]

Brian,

As far as height goes since an ideal height is so subjective perhaps make a mock up to test different heights for the different levels. (As simple as using the adjustable shelves on a bookcase)

Excited to see how this progresses and to see you back at it...

[wm3798]

I'm 52, I built my room-size empire in my 40s, got divorced and moved on... Now I'm building the smallest layout I've ever built, and having a ball doing it, because I know I might actually get to finish it!

Lee