The last item I need to resolve before saw hits lumber is my operating plan for staging.
Right now, my plan for staging is a stub ended yard off of a wye that is under the main level. In order to turn trains it will require them to back up the 1.5% grade that comes down from the main level. I’m concerned this might cause problems.
I could put a reversing loop under my blob, but I really wanted a deep trestle in that location that I would have to give up.
What is your advice? Give up the trestle or back trains up the grade to reverse?
Been there, done that. On my previous HO 11x15 layout I put in a staging/storage area on a lower level, reached by a convoluted 2 percent grade. Built into it was a reverse loop. Trains could disappear into a tunnel complex, go down to the lower level, hit the reverse loop, and come back up. Or, it could bypass the reverse loop and go to one of the staging tracks.
It worked, but was more trouble than not. I was with DC at the time, and often my polarity was wrong or the turnout was wrong. With DCC it would have been easier.
Four years ago I tore that layout down and built a new - although very similar one. This also has a 2 percent grade to a lower level, but no reverse loop. There are 6 stub end tracks to store trains.
What I have been doing is backing the trains down the grade and storing them “ready” to come out to the main level.
Oh, some advice… take the time to make the hard to get to track “bullet proof”, and make it as accessible visually as possible.
I have something similar to what you describe, except my grade is closer to 2% by the time it gets to the diverging routes of the two turnouts that connect to the high main. I routinely back five or more Walthers heavyweight passengers cars up the grade to turn a train. The heavyweights trail one or two reefers which are closest to the tender, so all their resistance and weight is placed onto the reefers, and then the whole onto the tender. I even back strings of hoppers and boxcars as long as 7 feet up my wye grade.
The trickiest, or worst, part of my scissors turning wye is the 30 degree Walthers crossing. It was poorly constructed. I have had to run the edge of a Dremel cut-off disk through all the routes to clear them of flashing and also the guard rails on all routes sit higher than the running rails. When the metal wheels ride up on the guards, they lose contact with the power. In fact, I still haven’t finished with it. Several rails need more grinding.
Backing up a grade is not an issue but I would try to keep the grade as straight as possible and wide curves with easements in it. We tested our clubs tunnel by backing an 80 car train up the grade with four locomotives pushing. This is the capacity of the staging tracks under the layout. Depending on how long each train is each track can hold about 80 forty foot cars. We generally store several trains per track and have 2 receiving and 2 departure. At the end of an op session it is easy to back the trains out one by one and take them home.
How long are the trains going to be and what is their mass? Are you going to be using NMRA weighting standards? I would think that those issues would drive the decision.
I don’t think I would want to attempt to back up a 65 car NMRA weighted train up such a hill. I have done it but I always feel like I’m walking on thin ice. On one layout I operate on there is a grade up to the ore doc. It is closer to 2.1% but it is almost impossible to back the entire 80 car ore train up there. One has to make it into three blocks and back each block onto the dock separately.
On John Armstrong’s Canandaigua Southern, every train that entered high level staging had to back upgrade, then take the more tightly curved side of a facing point switch on a curve. He ran that way for close to a half-century. For some years of that time, the curved turnout was hidden behind a solid piece of fascia, on which he had sketched cut lines wth a magic marker.
On my layout, every freight with a catenary motor has to back up a 2% grade, go over a summit and then down to level track before proceeding UP to Tomikawa. Fortunately the facing points are taken through the straight route and the minimum radius turnout on a curve is a trailing point move for a backing train.
Of course, all of my cat-motored passenger consists have to take that route in the opposite direction to swap ends. I figure that’s easier than trying to have the motor make a runaround move on all-but-invisible inaccessible track.
For steam powered trains, that same track is just a normal reverse loop - facing point through the sharper side of that minimum-radius curved turnout…
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - TTTO, 24/30)
One solution is to carry the portion of the loop behind the “gorge” (hidden) and the return section (at the front) allow to pass out of a portal across a bridge and back into a portal on the other side of the “gorge” This would allow you to still use that steel viaduct or trestle across that ravine on the upper most portion of the benchwork. The supporting benchwork of the loop may be a tedious design/ build, but would work. Curved arcs of 3/4" ply supported by threaded rod would be the easiest configuration. We have a 40 ft long, hidden double track under an entire portion of the club layout, and it has work successfully for years. Detection is really a must if the track is quite long.
I have a rather large staging yard on a lower level that also has an auto reverse so when a train bridges a gap the switch changes. I think I have 7 or so tracks, may even be in my layout link in my signature. I rarely use it only because theres always so much building and construction going on. A deep tressel is a real nice feature that I for one wouldn’t want to give up. Backing any train up can often cause issues.
If you can route the deep tressel closer to the edge of the layout you may have enough room for a narrow area of staging tracks going into a larger end of a dog bone loop leaving room for the tressel.
Can you post a pic of your track plan or pic of present set up?
John could get away with that in O scale. I suspect that it becomes trickier as the scale gets smaller.
Having a lot of, i.e. too much for my tastes even with generally reliable operation, hidden track. I was conscientious about keeping most of it as level as possible. This has served me well. I can see backing DOWN a grade, although this depends on reliable couplings to avoid a runaway. I see can a loco leading upgrade, with the same caveat about dependence on couplings. But I would think three or four times before having design that assumed backing a train upgrade.
We all like to think our track is perfect. And it can reliably operate on it and thus “prove” it. But when you’re pushing uphill, you’re applying considerable force to lift that train. When you hit a slight “issue” in the track, that extra force can cause bad things to happen with greater frequency.
So I won’t brag on my otherwise reliable track, insisting there would be no issues if I try this. I’d urge an abundance of caution if planning on this and ensure the track is built bullet-proof and accessible. And then I’d think a little bit more.
I have heard that some people use turn tables to just turn the engine around, you could pull the train onto a stub track , then uncouple, then backup on a run around track. The turn table would be on this run around to turn the train around, and then you just finish “running around” and couple back up.
This is a good opportunity to point out some general issues involved in assessing “special” design features used to enable hidden trackage…in addition to the specific question Kyle had.
This can work, but your operators need lots of visibility to get comfortable with this. I have a snow-shed-covered turntable at Animas Forks at the end of one of my branches. I left out boards to give minimum visibility needed to work it, but have removed more several times and finally am just now where the fellow who has operated it most is comfortable with it.
Looking inside, it’s lit with LEDs. You spot the K-27 so its dome is right under that and you’re positioned right. Fortunately, it’s an Atlas TT with Geneva motion, so it has a wide band of “aligned” as it nosily grinds around to turn the loco. I can do it about 99% of the time. Others struggle with it to varying degree. Keep in mind that any special complication on your layout is one one more thing a visitors has to learn before they are comfortable enough to run it themselves.
I can see using CCTV to monitor. Got several of those in my staging areas, but again the issue is the learning curve for each individual operator.
Things that can’t easily be represnted visually by some sort of monitor are even harder for new operators to get the hang of. It’s all about “trusting” things, like backing up grades, will work and folks are understandably nervous about that with the price of locos and rolling stock these days. Whatever you do, make sure your hidden tracks are set up to catch any wayward equipment…because the only alternative is the floor.[xx(][*-)]
Seriously, I know guys(including me sometimes) that have trouble backing psgr. trains just around 30"+ curves on level track–due to diaphragms on psgr cars pushing sideways on the next car with a diaphragm.
Can be done and we do it, but for psgr cars I would recommend tangent track or close to it for the grade. I guess there’s no way to turn and back down? Sometimes backing uphill the relative weight of cars is such that the ones next to the pushers/locos are too light vs the ones being shoved–happens in the real world too.
I was waiting for the email saying that the moderator had approved my post and only just noticed I’d gotten all these responses.
Thanks to those who shared their thoughts and experiences.
To answer some questions…
The layout will be DCC so wiring will be less complicated and the minimum degree of automation will be the reversing sections.
I’m stuck in the 70’s so turning locomotives is not an issue. I’m more concerned with having the caboose on the right end. I’m afraid a runaround operation hidden track would be difficult if not impossible.
My typical train length will be 2-3 diesels, 15 40-50’ cars and a caboose. I haven’t decided on weight yet, but I’m leaning toward 80% of NMRA recommendation as I’ve seen argued for in one of the other forums. I will use only quality metal wheels and body mounted couplers.
I have the tracks arranged so the up grade backing movement will be on the straight side of the wye (straight side of one facing point turnout and the straight side of one trailing point turnout). The final backing movement into the stub yard will be on the curved side of the turnouts (one facing one trailing), but this will be down grade.
I also plan on using detectors and having the tracks in plain view if you bend over enough to see under the 40" main level. Staging will be at 34". Upper level at 60" which is why the main is so low. My day job is as a computer geek so I’m optimistic that I’ll eventually be able to issue a command at the computer to reverse a train on a specific track and have the whole process automated.
No need to be stuck there unless you want to be. [:$] Join the 19th Century movement! Brakie can correct me, but I believe it was not uncommon to push a caboose in front until a runaround could be reached. Push-pull operations are quite common in passenger operations - even more so today than in the past.
With 2-3 dismal units pulling/pushing 16 cars, going full NMRA RP weight would be my choice. But I like sprung trucks, too.
For the caboose, you have a another run around track so the engine is turned around , it then goes to the front of the train, then take the caboose and put it on one of the run arounds and run around the caboose, and pull it to that back, and then run the engine around and hook it up to the front.
LION runs subway trains. OK, you already knew that. The power units are in the middle of the consist. No matter which way it is running is it pushing something.
LION has read lots of comments in this thread, but none addressed the couplers. I guess we are all big boys here and assume that nobody had truck mounted couplers. but get rid of the truck mounted couplers, those will always push something off of the track, even on the flat. Couplers by their nature have three pivot points. One on each car body and one at the face of the couplers. Subway cars can use draw bars, thus eliminating one of these pivot points, on freight cars you can not do this, but you may be able to get tighter couplers.
You already know that one truck should be tighter than the other so that the car will not wobble, but can flex a bit with unevenness in the tracks. Well guess what? (Maybe-- LION does not know) you should have similar geometry at each joint so that trucks are free to wiggle a bit under buff forces.
If a car derails frequently, LION just puts more weight in it.
