|
Post by dutch245 on Jul 2, 2012 6:40:52 GMT -8
Okay, sounds good. We didn't work on it this weekend, it was my fiance's birthday so we went out to the closest amusement park this weekend, I'm planning on working on it some more tomorrow, if not tonight!
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jul 2, 2012 8:50:43 GMT -8
Something to keep in mind if space is not too tight - rather than going with an inner loop of 18 inch radius, which is extremely sharp by modern standards, it might be worth expanding the diminsions of the table enough to be able to add a loop outside the existing one - 18 and 22 inch curves are very restricting - unfortunately many track plans are still in the 1960's and people end up building layouts based on them and then finding themselves having limite what they can run and are often asking if this loco or that loco or car will manage to squeeze around 18 inch curves or what have you. Maybe a little late now but food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by dutch245 on Jul 3, 2012 4:52:41 GMT -8
The radius of our loop is 22", so hopefully that'll be big enough to get some 6-axles on!
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jul 3, 2012 8:40:59 GMT -8
22-inches will handle many/most 6-axle diesels from popular makers such as Atlas and Athearn, although they may look quite long on such sharp curves.
Keep in mind that a lot of the longer freight and passenger cars made in the past 10 years tend to have minimum radius requirements of 24-inches. So basically you'll need to just run 50 and 60 foot freight cars for the most part, and if you run passenger cars, there are shortened cars which work well such as the Athearn RTR steamlined based on mainly AT&SF cars but chopped down so they will work on sharp curves.
|
|
|
Post by Donnell Wells on Jul 3, 2012 8:43:53 GMT -8
Well dutch, with 22" radius curves the largest six axle loco that you'd be able to run and look somewhat okay is an SD7/9, SD35, or an SDL39. Anything longer will look awkward, and will operate just as awkwardly...
Donnell
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jul 3, 2012 13:50:57 GMT -8
I know it's maybe too late this time around, but the 4x8 layout is like a straight jacket to trains. Even if one doesn't have a lot of room, if you can break free of the 4x8 by just a small amount you can maybe do a double track loop with 24 and 26.5 inch curves and be able to run most commerical plastic trains. I realize what looks good is another thing, heck, I remember my 89' autoracks didn't even look great on 36 inch curves on my garage layout. It takes some pretty broad curves to get long cars to look good, somewhere in the upper 40's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2012 15:12:52 GMT -8
Well dutch, with 22" radius curves the largest six axle loco that you'd be able to run and look somewhat okay is an SD7/9, SD35, or an SDL39. Anything longer will look awkward, and will operate just as awkwardly...
Donnell
Donnell is spot on. I have 22" radius curves on the outside loop on my massive 5'x9' layout and six axle units larger than an SD35 or SD7/9 have troubles. For some six axles the trouble is they pull the train off the track because of the huge coupler swing. For others the trucks don't track properly and derail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2012 15:15:54 GMT -8
I know it's maybe too late this time around, but the 4x8 layout is like a straight jacket to trains. Even if one doesn't have a lot of room, if you can break free of the 4x8 by just a small amount you can maybe do a double track loop with 24 and 26.5 inch curves and be able to run most commerical plastic trains. I realize what looks good is another thing, heck, I remember my 89' autoracks didn't even look great on 36 inch curves on my garage layout. It takes some pretty broad curves to get long cars to look good, somewhere in the upper 40's. For the long stuff like auto racks, TOFC's and scale passenger equipment the minimum is 42" with 48" being a good number without getting into even bigger radius. My former layout had a minimum radius of 42" with most of the curves laid with 46" & 48" radius. Sixteen car brass passengers easily snaked through those curves.
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jul 4, 2012 5:33:24 GMT -8
For the long stuff like auto racks, TOFC's and scale passenger equipment the minimum is 42" with 48" being a good number without getting into even bigger radius. I think the best most of us can do if we have space for something bigger than a 5x9 is to go with 30 inch minimums and have a few "cosmetic" curves - as John Armstrong called them, for the long cars. My garage layout when I was in graduate school was 16x19' as a hollow L shape had 30-inch minimum mainline curves and a couple of larger curves, but best I could do was a 36-inch curve and a 42 inch curve (at the back where it couldn't be enjoyed as much). Yes, for passenger cars to snake well, you do need large curves. I've seen some nice looking trains on YouTube but the ends offset from each other in unpleasant ways on lessor curves, and I imagine even in those video's they seemed to be not tight either. The thing to avoid the most - as John Armstrong preached - the evil S curve!
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Jul 4, 2012 16:24:46 GMT -8
Thought I'd show the original Gorre & Daphetid track plan. I always liked it. Though the curves are pretty sharp. But then that part of the railroad is pretty small-time, anyway:
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jul 4, 2012 16:59:23 GMT -8
Small detail about the Gory & Defeated, the engines and train cars that ran on it were alot shorter!
|
|
|
Post by dutch245 on Jul 5, 2012 19:33:02 GMT -8
Okay, we'll do our best to keep with the smaller end of the 6 axle engines. In the mean time, we started looking at putting in some elevation. Here's the elevation sitting in place, not quite glued down yet:
|
|
|
Post by rhpd42002 on Jul 6, 2012 16:35:13 GMT -8
Ed, thanks for the G&D plan "refresher". Been a while since I last saw it.
Dutch, your picture didn't make it. Would you try to post it again? If you want to make sure it's going to show, before you hit "Post Reply", click on the "Preview" button and it should show if your picture or link works.
Glad you're having fun and making progress and even changes as you go along.
|
|
|
Post by Donnell Wells on Jul 6, 2012 17:12:20 GMT -8
Not to hi-jack the thread, but you know what would be interesting? A modern-day interpretation of this classic plan!
Instead of wooden trestles and Howe Truss bridges, there would be steel girders and though through truss structures. All the old wooden buildings would be replaced with modern steel or concrete tilt-ups sturctures. Roads would be paved and in clude sidewalks with current model autos.
Motive power could be SW1500s, MP15s, GP7/9s, or GP15s. Freight traffic would include boxcars no greater than 50' in length, and short tanks, gons, coil cars, and covered hoppers.
I think a modern interpretation would be neat!
DonnellThought I'd show the original Gorre & Daphetid track plan. I always liked it. Though the curves are pretty sharp. But then that part of the railroad is pretty small-time, anyway:
|
|
|
Post by shoofly on Jul 8, 2012 0:01:34 GMT -8
Donnell man, I think it would be cool to see a modernized plan! I used to have the ol 5'x9' granite gorge northern layout. I often wondered if i should modernize it with circa 1990 right of way improvements. Needless to say like most of my attempts, got scrapped be for i could do anything with it. Ah well i guess i played out the unfortunate real scenario of rail america taking over and eventually abandoning the right of way. Just modeled a little too close to prototype "hey where the track go?!"
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Jul 8, 2012 7:16:04 GMT -8
The recent Virginian sorta-4x8 in MR reminds me of the G&D plan. I suppose either plan might work as some sort of western mining thing--with maybe Alco RSD5's and those neat little modern ore gons that Athearn makes. Of course, the Alcos aren't exactly modern anymore, so maybe the SD38 from Athearn or SD38-2 from Kato would be nice. No, no, I got it--a cow and calf version of an SW1000!! Oh, yeah! Or maybe, dare I say it, a pain of 70 tonners.
Those 70 tonners reminded me: Logging. You could either go with geared steam and Kadee log cars, or the modern version with the 70 tonners and some freelanced modern 40' flats.
Ed
|
|
|
Post by Donnell Wells on Jul 8, 2012 7:56:52 GMT -8
Donnell man, I think it would be cool to see a modernized plan! I used to have the ol 5'x9' granite gorge northern layout. I often wondered if i should modernize it with circa 1990 right of way improvements. Needless to say like most of my attempts, got scrapped be for i could do anything with it. Ah well i guess i played out the unfortunate real scenario of rail america taking over and eventually abandoning the right of way. Just modeled a little too close to prototype "hey where the track go?!" Hi Chris,
I always thought that the GGN was a good plan ever since I first saw it the Atlas track planning book. I too had dreams of building a version of it, but to no avail.
Lately, it's even been hard getting started on the Free-mo curves I have planned. However, I have acquired some new power tools that should make construction a bit easier. First, I have to build shelves in the garage to free up floor space. Then, I need to build a workbench so that I can use it to build other projects!
Donnell
|
|
|
Post by dutch245 on Jul 9, 2012 8:02:52 GMT -8
Sorry about the broken picture link, I'll do one better and link to a video of the train running!
The engine is pretty small, so it has some troubles making it up the incline, but we're planning on getting a different engine, so hopefully it will be able to make it up the hill without too much of a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Donnell Wells on Jul 9, 2012 10:57:07 GMT -8
You should consider starting your railroad from an elevated position. This way, you can model scenery below track level, and do away with the steep grade.
Donnell
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2012 11:30:48 GMT -8
You should consider starting your railroad from an elevated position. This way, you can model scenery below track level, and do away with the steep grade. Donnell Donnell is 100% accurate. That steep grade on a sharp curve is going to give you NOTHING but trouble. The train struggles up one side and races down the other at 200 mph around another sharp curve with the train going from table to floor.....and I will guarantee that you will dump the train on the floor and will be picking up the pieces. Don't take this personally, but your layout is totally toy train. Even Lionel with magna-traction would have trouble holding on before hitting the pavement. If the toy train side of HO is your interest fine, but from a realism and smooth operation side, that up and over has to go. I'll give you a couple of months with the up and over before the frustration of derailments and smashed rolling stock makes you either change the layout or give up. Sorry, but the layout with the roller coaster mainline stinks.
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Jul 9, 2012 12:07:55 GMT -8
The grade looks to be about 10%. Which is AWFULLY steep. 4%, which is commonly viewed as a steep branchline grade, would be an inch and a half rise in back.
Still, if Dutch is going to stay in model railroading, this will certainly not be his last layout--note the absence of a run-around track. He's gonna learn either that he doesn't really like trains that much, or that there's a whole lot of neat new ideas that he's gonna try on his next layout--the "good" one.
Ed
|
|
|
Post by dutch245 on Jul 9, 2012 13:44:06 GMT -8
It's a 4% grade, they're the foam risers from woodland scenics. I'm thinking about getting a hot wire foam cutter to shave the foam down to a 2% grade. I would just remove the 4% inclines, but we already glued them down and I don't want to risk ripping them up to put down new ones. As for the run-around track, I have never heard of that before. It seems like that is something you use for running realistic simulations, but I think we are planning on doing this layout more for the pleasure of making something with our own two hands, well in this case four!
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Jul 9, 2012 17:07:55 GMT -8
Not 10%? "Must'a been the sun glinting in my eyes." Lowering the track does sound like a good idea, anyway. Ya might could put in a bridge in the back and or one on the industry track. It's kind fun watching a train cross a bridge. Here's an Atlas #590: And the # 592 Ed
|
|
|
Post by dutch245 on Jul 10, 2012 4:34:42 GMT -8
It's interesting that you bring up the bridge, we're actually in the process of building one from scratch. I got an associate's in Computer Aided Design and Drafting, so it's about time that I can use it!
We're building a bridge outta 1/4" by 1/4" balsa, covering a span of 14", 2.5" wide and 4" tall.
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Jul 10, 2012 7:00:30 GMT -8
Excellent!
Ed
|
|
|
Post by rhpd42002 on Jul 11, 2012 16:56:58 GMT -8
I'll definitely be looking forward to some pics of a scratchbuilt bridge!! I'm with Ed..... Excellent!
|
|
|
Post by dutch245 on Jul 12, 2012 5:30:01 GMT -8
Here's the rendering of the bridge, we've started putting the sides together, I'll try to remember to take a picture when I get home hahaha.
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Jul 12, 2012 8:25:58 GMT -8
Dutch,
The National Model Railroad Association (NMRA) sets the main standards for model trains. It's more complicated than that, but it's a good summary. Anyway, standards of concern to you when you build the bridge is a vertical clearance of 3" above the rail tops and a width clearance of 2 1/16". You can clip the corners some if you need to. To get those dimensions, I'd recommend getting an NMRA clearance gage from your local shop.
As a been-there-done-that moment, I'll mention that I built a really nice two stall enginehouse and couldn't get some of my engines in. Great sadness during that learning moment.
Ed
|
|
|
Post by dutch245 on Jul 13, 2012 8:53:23 GMT -8
I think we should be okay, the top of the bridge is at 4", and I don't think I dropped the angle down too much, so we should have plenty of clearance. We'll see what happens when it's all put together!
|
|
|
Post by dutch245 on Jul 16, 2012 11:03:40 GMT -8
As promised, here's some pictures of the scratch build in progress. I'm posting them as links instead of direct pictures, otherwise they show up huge hahaha: Here's Gina cutting some of the balsa i.imgur.com/gfG9B.jpgHere's one of the sides, gluing the pieces together i.imgur.com/tt1zp.jpgWe got ancy, so we ran our engine over it before prettying it up just to see how it looked i.imgur.com/UhT7S.jpgHere it is with some cosmetic improvements, I'll try and post some painted pictures tonight i.imgur.com/FQ9Ya.jpgWe're going to try and finish it tonight, then glue down our roadbed to the foam and maybe start looking into a paper mache mountain!
|
|