Model Train Forum banner

21 - 35 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,115 Posts
Take the outside main with the turnout and move it closer to the edge of the table. Widen the table a couple of inches if you have to.

Now you have room to move that turnout farther to the left to decrease the gradient.

The upper left curve on the outside main could come off the curve at a straighter angle and that would give you more spacing for the turnout a bit farther south. You could place that turnout on the outside main on that angled piece of track, that wouldn't be so angled. That would give you a lot more distance for the grade.

Your mainline tracks would not be parallel at that point though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter #23 (Edited)
Please excuse my beginner-ism's!! So if im understanding this right, did I modify the split correctly? Just hoping to get this right so when i have track in front of me, I have somewhat of a "something" to follow, as my brain doesnt work like y'alls :eek: . I have to figure out how to make that gradient too, this is all a 1st for me. Thanks again!!



**EDIT**

I just placed my 1st order of track to get something started. Think this will get a little something going? I forgot to order the 3ft sections of flex track, so ill get several boxes of that next order. In no rush, this will obviously be a several month to years project.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,115 Posts
Yes, but to make room for the turnout you should straighten the outside track on the left a bit and run it slightly away from the inner track.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,788 Posts
I didn't realize you have another thread dealing with a prospective track plan.

About grades:

In the real world, the prototype, it takes just over 3 times the horsepower to pull trailing tonnage up a 0.5% grade if keeping the same speed. Think about that. With each increase of a half-percent of grade, and desiring to keep to the timetable for trains in that district, the locomotive must generate a bit over three times the initial horsepower. This means a locomotive running on level tracks that encounters a 1% grade must generate six times the original horsepower if the engineer needs to lose no speed on the hill.

It's not much different in our scale models, believe it or not. For our models, though, power is rarely a factor. Instead, they don't weigh quite the same 'way' and they'll simply lose traction because the motor inside has enough torque to overcome the traction at some point. While not actually stalling on a grade, our model locomotives have enough power that when they lose traction they'll just spin. Spinning coated tires means they'll lose the nice shiny coating in a short time. So, the upshot is we have to consider the work we want the locomotives to actually do without losing traction due to high tonnages trailing or to excessive grades...or a combination of both. Most of us enjoy longish trains on a given layout, if they'll look okay, so we have to worry about excessive grades.

That's one. Two is that you can't expect locomotives to climb into grades that are abrupt at the bottoms and at the tops, with a sharp change of angle. Instead, you need a gradual onset, what is called a vertical curve. Positive at the bottom of the grade, and negative at the top. These take some pains to fashion well enough that they work. Cookie cutter technique does this very well, and we can get into that in another topic or another post.

But, the point about vertical curves is that they start and end at 'zero'. They take up length. By taking up length twice on a curve, at the bottom and at the top, they cut short the distance between them that you can use at a reasonable rate of climb, the grade, to get the height you need. When you have tracks crossing over other, as you have in that initial plan, you need a minimum overhead clearance above the bottom rail tops for a supporting roadbed/bridge, whatever. Minimally, for modern double-stack containers on well cars, you're looking at about 23' or more, which you must factor in scale on your layout. So, when considering changing levels in a given space on a train layout and track plan, you have to keep in mind the vertical curves, thickness of the supporting structure overhead and where its bottom edges will be, and then how much higher still the rail tops on the structure itself will end up being so that it all works realistically and reliably. It could end up being an elevation change of close to 6" for the two rails in question. If you want to have longer trains, you'll need less severe grades, and less severe grades need longer 'runs' in order to stay reasonable and still attain the clearances you need for items rolling under the structure.


Let it not be said that this hobby doesn't afford its members amply opportunity to learn.....stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
I didn't realize you have another thread dealing with a prospective track plan.

About grades:

In the real world, the prototype, it takes just over 3 times the horsepower to pull trailing tonnage up a 0.5% grade if keeping the same speed. Think about that. With each increase of a half-percent of grade, and desiring to keep to the timetable for trains in that district, the locomotive must generate a bit over three times the initial horsepower. This means a locomotive running on level tracks that encounters a 1% grade must generate six times the original horsepower if the engineer needs to lose no speed on the hill.

It's not much different in our scale models, believe it or not. For our models, though, power is rarely a factor. Instead, they don't weigh quite the same 'way' and they'll simply lose traction because the motor inside has enough torque to overcome the traction at some point. While not actually stalling on a grade, our model locomotives have enough power that when they lose traction they'll just spin. Spinning coated tires means they'll lose the nice shiny coating in a short time. So, the upshot is we have to consider the work we want the locomotives to actually do without losing traction due to high tonnages trailing or to excessive grades...or a combination of both. Most of us enjoy longish trains on a given layout, if they'll look okay, so we have to worry about excessive grades.

That's one. Two is that you can't expect locomotives to climb into grades that are abrupt at the bottoms and at the tops, with a sharp change of angle. Instead, you need a gradual onset, what is called a vertical curve. Positive at the bottom of the grade, and negative at the top. These take some pains to fashion well enough that they work. Cookie cutter technique does this very well, and we can get into that in another topic or another post.

But, the point about vertical curves is that they start and end at 'zero'. They take up length. By taking up length twice on a curve, at the bottom and at the top, they cut short the distance between them that you can use at a reasonable rate of climb, the grade, to get the height you need. When you have tracks crossing over other, as you have in that initial plan, you need a minimum overhead clearance above the bottom rail tops for a supporting roadbed/bridge, whatever. Minimally, for modern double-stack containers on well cars, you're looking at about 23' or more, which you must factor in scale on your layout. So, when considering changing levels in a given space on a train layout and track plan, you have to keep in mind the vertical curves, thickness of the supporting structure overhead and where its bottom edges will be, and then how much higher still the rail tops on the structure itself will end up being so that it all works realistically and reliably. It could end up being an elevation change of close to 6" for the two rails in question. If you want to have longer trains, you'll need less severe grades, and less severe grades need longer 'runs' in order to stay reasonable and still attain the clearances you need for items rolling under the structure.


Let it not be said that this hobby doesn't afford its members amply opportunity to learn.....stuff.
Thank you for that reply and the time out of your day to write it, much appreciated.

I have decided to scrap the listed layout, and ive spent the most of this day learning "SCARM" so im gonna spend the next few weeks making a layout from scratch... Think this is the best way to go about this hobby. Appreciate each and everyone of you people for all the help so far.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
721 Posts
OP --

You want to pay special attention to post 6 above.

Marklin is 3-rail track, and most "American" HO 2-rail stuff isn't going to work with it (I believe).
(If you're going to be running 3-rail Marklin equipment, well, that's different)

Also, the plan you posted has curves and switches that are almost "toy-train" like with their geometry. The turnouts diverge too sharply. This could cause problems with 6-axle engines and longer equipment.

The plan is just "too busy" in my opinion. Also, having an elevated section "in front" with all the yard work "at the back" is going to make "reaching for things" difficult, and sightlines will be obscured.

My advice (sorry if it's blunt):
Find a better track plan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
That plan is 9' x 16' but how big is the room? If you can't walk all around that layout there are some VERY LONG reaches for both building it & running trains much less fix1ng derailments, etc. Think about going around all four walls and maybe a peninsular down the middle. Since you just want to run two trains around, you must be thinking of using just DC. Look into a DCC system. There's plenty of info on the internet. Plus check your LHS, local clubs & home layouts that use DCC. Some people say it's too expensive, but it takes a whole lot less wiring & make running trains a whole lot easier & simple!
But if you have to go with this, it's a sectional track plan. Just count all the sections (both curves & straights) & multiply by 9". That will give the total length of the tracks needed. But definitely recommend using flextrack. They are 36" long so equal four sectionals. There's plenty of literature on sectional track plus all the info on the internet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
Hi newls1,
Think you are gonna really enjoy this hobby!! So many facets...
A couple of which you are already battling!!:laugh:
My 0.15 rmb is that you need a better idea of what you want to do before purchasing track! You might change your mind several times before deciding what you would really like!!
I'm not sure if you have spent much time on the "givens and druthers" yet. Maybe you should put a loop of track on a 4x8 and run a train, just to satisfy your sweet tooth!!!
Then decide if you will depict a real area, a specific era, if you want your layout to run continuously or do a lot of switching, etc., etc., etc. Think about "around the walls" vs tabletop! (like Andy said!!) Industries, cityscape, mountains, tunnels, water, all possibilities affecting you plan!
It just seems to me that buying a slew of code 100 track at this point is somewhat premature. but it's your railroad, so your rules!!:thumbsup::thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
It is a nice big layout.
Well if you connot going around your layout from all sides how you will reaching derailed trains in areas who are more far away of the front?

The Arm length is important. It is 4 Inches shorter than 1 Yard in most causes.

On european model railroad layouts the modellers using a fiddle yard below the main board base to store their trains inside it..."shaddow station".

Steep grades are on model layouts the same problem like by the prototype operation...the steeper the grade...the shorter the trains and the more motive power is needed to a train.

Some model train manufactures of europe using traction tires to their models like Maerklin or Trix, so the trains could run onto steepest grades you never had been seen before.

The lower the steep grade the better. Ideal will be a percentage between 0 % and 1.5 % but up to 2.4 % it is acceptable onto hobby layouts.
The middle range of 2.5 % and 3.9 % is well OK for Engines using traction tires but not well onto layouts.
An absolutely No Go are steep grades of 4 % up to 7 % except your choosen prototype used the same.
By more than 7 % and up to 35 % you need additional Chainwheel driven locos like from Fleischmann as example.

Plan your layout by not having steeper grades of more than 1.5 %.

1.5 % means that a train is climbing 1.5 cm or 15 mm on a distance of 1 m or 100 cm or 1000 mm.

You will need around 11 m or 14 yards of model railway track for a well low steep grade to across other railway track.

Most of my own Locomotives does not have traction tires so my maximum steep grade to be used is 1.5 % or lower.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,115 Posts
So far, all of the European models I have purchased have traction tires. ACME, Roco, TRIX, etc. The mountain grade on my ÖBB branch line is over 5% down and over 4% up.

Grades on the mainlines are 2.5% to almost 3% effective grade. Those traction tires make easy work of these grades and the locomotives have no problem pulling the grades with a string of passenger carriages.

I have more of an issue with coupler arms returning to center due to the car weight close to the locomotive after coming out of a curve on the grades than actually pulling the grades.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
Hi Michael,
About the Coupler Arms here are named as KKK (Kurz Kupplung Kulissenmechanik --> Short Coupling Arm Mechanics)
The KKK does not well with the NEM 362 Kadee Couplers.
Better you will use NEM 362 Knuckle Couplers from Bachman or Accurail.
The KKK is requiring a rigid connection between two cars.
The Kadee NEM 362 Knuckle Couplers have a joint between Coupler and Shaft, so if you will use these kind of couplers to european cars than you need fixing the centering arm to its middle position.
Use working spring buffers in addition for running through curves. The couplers now working like body mounted couplers.

For using NEM Shafts with centering arms you need to use couplers without joints better are all kind of rigid couplers like from Roco or Fleischmann (GFN).

Ya Ingo
 
21 - 35 of 35 Posts
Top