Be nice its my first layout

[t8hants]

I have an area 16' x 4' in which to build my first layout, which will be a collision of South Wales and the Isle of Wight, or the Llanryde to Aberventnor line. 

As I only plan to run small tank engines, i am hoping the 17" radius curves will be ok, and I hope to raise the line by about four and half inches from front to back to the middle of the single track which will represent a side of a valley. 

Apart from a village station and some form of goods/mineral yard at the right hand section, with a quarry to the left everything else has yet to be decided.

I hope I have left sufficient room for a few buildings and some scenery, which my good lady is desperate to model.

I would be interested in any comments on my plan, and suggestions welcome.

 

Gareth

[class"66"]

Wil follow this,

looks good from your plans..

 

cheers neil..

[RBAGE]

A gradient up to 4.5 inches in 8 foot would be between 1:20 and 1:25. That's a bit steep and you might struggle to get trains up it. If you used the 17" radius curves at each end to start the gradient trains would struggle even more because of the curve.

 

I recommend you decide how long trains are going to be and then do some gradient trials to see what they can manage. For the gradient you might have to use, get a piece of timber (say 3" x 1") and make it 4 foot long. Raise it at one end by 2.25" with the short side across the top to put your rail on. See if you train can manage it. If so, great. If not you'll have to shorten your trains or reduce the gradient.

 

And don't forget, any curved section will increase the drag so the train will struggle more.

 

If all goes well, you would end up with the summit at 4.5 inches. You should really have a short section of level at the top so that you are not going directly from steep up to steep down. This will reduce the length you have for the gradient so it would need to be steeper.

 

Good luck and keep us all posted.

 

Bob 

[Spannerman]

On the gradient theme it may well be worth investigating the use of Dcc concepts powerbase to increase the traction up the gradient.

The good thing is you're at the planning stage so it would be easy to install these before track laying.

 

I would've included a link but it seems an impossible task on my mobile.

 

All the best with the layout

 

Nk

[peter220950]

Do you have access all around the boards? otherwise you might find issues with reaching to the back, or have to have some form of trapdoor/access through the middle of the layout.

 

Good luck with the layout and keep us posted on progress.

[Chimer]

Instead of making the track across the back higher than the station area, you could raise all the track above the basic baseboard datum, and have "ground level" falling from the front to the back, so the track at the back is raised on embankments, bridges or whatever without the need for any gradients.

 

I  would second the point about reaching the back though.

 

Good luck ... 

[t8hants]

The layout as planned only has access on one long side, the bottom edge of my plan.

I was considering narrowing the width down to about 3' 6" once clear of the return curves to assist in reaching the back, and also easy passage in the room in which it will be based. Also being 6' 1", i have a high gibbon factor in arm reach.

I think I allowed about a 2' level section for my raised track.

I like the idea of raising the track and features above basic ground level, something I will explore in greater detail.

I have a friend who has an inclined curve on his layout which I thought was not so far off my planed type, and I hadn't noticed any particular failing of my likely stock and locos, except for an Airfix 14xx, which I was duly informed was missing its traction tyres. I wonderd what the grooves were for, never had those when I was a boy.

 

Construction isn't planned to begin until mid September.

 

Thank all, keep the comments coming, and I will keep you posted in time.

 

Gareth

[Les1952]

Even with a long arm reach think carefully about height above the floor.  Too high and you won't reach the back without putting the front at risk, too low and you'll lose the effect of the slope.

 

As an alternative have you thought about putting part of the back into tunnel with an access to the tunnel from underneath the board.  That would allow you to put the layout at a higher level and give more scope for uninterrupted scenery to the layout back.  It would allow the gradient to be shallower and more manageable.   Might also allow you a loop out of sight to hide a train and increase operating interest.

 

Just a thought.

Les

[SRman]

I was thinking that if you use commercial set track, the minimum radius could be expanded very slightly to 18" or so, which is referred to as second radius or radius 2 by most of the major manufacturers. The reason is that, regardless of what locomotive types you wish to run, the vast majority of ready to run locos will go around radius 2. Most would probably cope with your 17", but if you can squeeze the extra inch it would be that little bit more flexible.

I agree with the comments from others regarding the gradients. Especially for a first effort, the gradients could cause you some grief.

I also agree with the idea of narrowing the straight sections so the boards become more of a dumbell shape. I am a similar height to you and find that around 3 feet is the absolute maximum practical reach, once there is stock and scenery to get in the way as well.

 

P.S. I like the overall plan, though. It should give you a fair bit of scope for operation.

[RBAGE]

I like the comments of post 8 and 9 and maybe you could expand on that.

 

Move the station and goods facilities further back and cut in the baseboard front to give you better reach access.

 

Use the rear section as a fiddle yard, with a couple of loops.

 

However, you said you planned to have a section running along the valley side. Why not run a line from the goods facilities, on a gradient (about 1:50 or shallower), behind the station to the other end of the layout. Put in a reversing loop, then run the gradient all the way to the other end of the layout (1:50 or shallower). Put in another reversing loop and continue the gradient up to the final destination (small station, mine or slate loading). It would be interesting operation and to see the line zig-zagging up the valley would look great.

 

Just a thought.

 

Bob

[RBAGE]

Very important though, make sure you test your trains on the proposed gradient before you build them.

 

Bob

[t8hants]

I don't think I had considered how much 'mocking up' might be needed in order to avoid costly mistakes and disappointments, and I think that it will be vital to do so. 

As timber no longer seems to grow on trees these suggestions on the basic baseboards are very useful. I am going to mock up a small section and see just how easy it is going to be to reach the back, from the front.

 

Because of the other uses of the room I had hoped to put storage under the layout, which may have to be re-thought if a portion of the back track is to be 'tunnelized'.

I will take comfort from the fact the track plan is thought workable though, I wasn't sure how much space to leave for buildings, roads, etc.

 

I am waiting very impatiently for my Kernow Adams O2 to turn up; I want to see just how many 16 ton minerals Calbourne can pull.  I believe the Havenstreet Railway shop have nearly 200 on pre-order; hope it’s a big container!

 

Gareth

[SRman]

You could put the layout and the storage units on casters to allow easier access.

I am using Alex drawer units from Ikea for stock storage and these come with casters already. DougN, who built the basic structure for my boards included casters as well, so, while it is heavy and not moved regularly, I can pull the whole layout away from the walls for access from behind.

[Gwiwer]

I like the basic plan and the thinking.  The fusion of South Wales and the Isle of Wight has produced a couple of credible place names as well.

 

I will add my weight of experience, such as it is, behind those above suggesting you ease the curve radii to the largest you can get away with and seriously consider reducing the climb to about half what you plan making it around 2 or 2½ inches at most.

 

Many small locos struggle to climb even modest gradients with short trains because the locos are lightweight and in some cases the balance is very precise.  Taking the M7 as an example as soon as you tilt it onto the slightest gradient you effectively alter the centre of gravity on the loco and reduce the traction available to one pair of wheels.  In other words instead of four driving wheels doing the work only two will do most of it.  Add a couple of coaches or more than a handful of short wagons and the locos can slip to a standstill.

 

Far better to cut the gradients to below 1:30 which will at least give most locos a fair chance with typical trains.

 

Remember too that the sharper the curve (i.e. the smaller the radius) the greater will be the drag caused by wheels rubbing rails and train weight; you have to overcome gravity to produce motion.  Excessive drag will lead to the loco slipping and / or the train derailing.  

 

If possible build a dummy of the track plan you intend for the layout using track placed onto lengths of board and rested on solid objects to gain height.  Then test your locos to see if they climb.  

 

Don't forget to test them coming downhill as well.  If the gradient is too steep the train will push the loco along and you won't be able to stop it sliding down hill.  That can also lead to coupler over-ride and derailments as well as embarrassing collisions.  

[t8hants]

I have found with AnyRail its quite easy to have track going all over the place, but as this is supposed to be a lived in working landscape.  I found it difficult to judge just how much 'free' space to leave for the buildings, roads, even a river would have been nice. 

 

I tend to the 'less is more' school, my good friend has a layout where every inch of space is filled with dozens of vehicles, and other objects, which much as I admire it, for me it’s too cluttered.  I do like the idea of losing half the line within the hill. Such an idea does produce problems for the perceived storage utility underneath, but these are not insurmountable.

 

The size of radius was chosen solely for the perceived need to put the line in a landscape, so there would be room for embankments, and other structures.  The only fixed dimension is that in must fit within a 48" baseboard width.

 

.

[RBAGE]

How about the layout being on both sides of the valley bottom, so the ground rises towards the front and the back.

 

The main part of the layout, on the valley side nearest to the operator is on a bit of a ledge.

 

The curved sections at either end bridge the valley bottom and a steam or small river. The track then disappears into the valley side on the opposite bank of the river. This leads to storage siding out of sight.

 

As I suggested in post 10, a small mineral line could leave the goods facility, crossing the river on another bridge and then zig-zag up the opposite valley side via a series of passing loops at the end of each gradient section.

 

I wouldn't over do it with buildings. Just station, goods shed, maybe the odd cottage on the valley side and something at the end of the zig-zag section to justify the line.

 

Bob 

[class"66"]

Ive got long gradient section on the branchline on Banks road

most of my dcc locos pull realy well up it!!

apart from class60s and 66s,which struggle.

[RBAGE]

Ive got long gradient section on the branchline on Banks road

most of my dcc locos pull realy well up it!!

apart from class60s and 66s,which struggle.

Diesels tend to pull much better than steam outline models because of the weight and the number of driving wheels.

 

They're also much better at pulling up gradients than steam (same reason).

 

I think I read somewhere (probably here) that for a 1:50 gradient you might expect a steam loco to pull about 5 coaches. A diesel would pull about 8.

 

Bob 

[Gwiwer]

Diesels tend to pull much better than steam outline models because of the weight and the number of driving wheels.

 

They're also much better at pulling up gradients than steam (same reason).

 

I think I read somewhere (probably here) that for a 1:50 gradient you might expect a steam loco to pull about 5 coaches. A diesel would pull about 8.

 

Bob 

 

Again it depends on the individual models and set-up.

 

I have video clips to prove that the Heljan parcels car will start and haul 36 Mk1 vehicles including into a gradient and around easy curves and also that a Hornby "West Country" will start 17 without a slip while tackling an S-bend on a 1:25 gradient.  But the T9 and the M7 won't manage the same S-bend gradient with just three on and a running start!