My top level will need a grade down to the bottom level. the benchwork will be the same construction as the bottom level only 12" deep.
Do I just screw it on the wall at the correct grade, or down in steps like this.
Thanks, Ken.
I think you’re better off using the riser method. You already have the supporting cross members in place. Beside, if you ever need to move it, it won’t have more connections to the wall.
Seems to me that if depth isn’t an issue, then the simplest thing would be to build as much benchwork as possible at a single elevation and use risers to make your grade.
Then again, judging by the quality of your work so far, making multiple stepped levels as you’ve shown wouldn’t present much challenge for you. That option would give more under-layout space, shorter risers, and perhaps more flexibility with the fascia.
Will the upper layer have angled supports underneath it? That might interfere with your lower level and preclude you from “stepping” the upper level.
How far above the lower level do you want the upper level to be? That height and the length of your run will determine your grade.
What grade do you want to maintain?
Not knowing the answers to the above questions leaves me only guessing at what might work for you. Were I in your situation, I would prefer shallower grades at the expense of length of run. I would use a combination of graded risers AND stepped benchwork. This might give an added benefit of having mini-dioramas on each step as the grade ascends.
Sounds like an interesting concept.
Darrell, quiet…for now
I would keep the benchwork level and use risers. The higher benchwork portion is effectively a “riser” in the corner where the layout transitions down. You will definitely require risers on the lower portion (if you decide to leave it) to decrease the slope as the track departs from the upper level benchwork.
Ken,
I would definitely go for the risers, but not in steps as you show in the drawing. Just a long ramp supported by risers.
From the look of your photo “just screw it on the wall” is not an option. The "wall’ is a window, or am I missing something?
For my money a long ramp supported by risers and built into the scenery as a rock ledge or similar. However, I would like to see the plan to see how it fits from a bird’s eye view and how long you have the run and consequently how steep the grade would be.
I’ve just remeasured the benchwork heights, it comes down from 70" at the coal mine around three walls (the windows will be filled over) down to the gate I’ve built which is 64". The Grade is only 0.8%
Seems like you guys like the riser method and stepped benchwork, it makes for nice level fascia’s too.
The gap between the top of the bottom fascia and the bottom of the top fascia (try saying that fast!!) is 17" at the gate which is the smallest gap. I’m planning either shelf brackets or angled braces on top of the benchwork hidden in the scenery, or a combination of both.
Thanks, Ken.
It all depends on what you plan to include along the grade.
If you plan to place structures or level track along side your grade, then go with the stepped benchwork using risers to form the grade. This will give you level areas for the structures and track, while allowing you to incorporate a grade.
If you plan to place nothing else there (just the track down to your lower deck level), then it might be simpler to install the benchwork at the 0.8% grade and forget using risers. This method eliminates the need to do tedious calculations to determine the heights of each riser. Each riser will have only a slight difference from the next; and a mistake in cutting or installing can make your grade uneven. The facia can be installed horizontally, disguising the fact that the bechwork is actually at a slight angle.
The grade is 1" rise in 10’ is that right? So I could just build the bench work and screw it to the wall and put some sidings/industries up there too. 0.8% isn’t going to make cars roll on there own? Or I could have some level areas and increase the grade between those areas. Oh decisions!!!
Ken.
1" in 120" (10ft) is 0.833%
Yes, you could easily double your grade to 2% (2.4" rise in 120") and allow yourself some sidings/industries. A 2% grade should be easy for most locomotives to climb.
As for whether your cars will roll on their own with a 0.8% grade… probably. But how well they will roll will depend on how freely their wheels turn; their weight; the cleanliness of the track/wheels; etc.
I agree. Sometimes we have way too many choices. [sigh]
Thankyou Timothy, Everybody. I think I’ll go with the level areas and increase the grade too.
Ken.
1% is 1" in 100". or about 8 ft (96")
If you want to bend your mind on gradients and gradients for various curve radius have a look at the link http://www.angelfire.com/clone/rail/GRADE81.html
The author notes that he would like comment on whether his calculations work in practice, so have a look.
For me it seems that the ramp to the second level should be designed into your first problem of how to set/ anchor the second level across the windows. Is there any issue as to the exterior appearance of blocking the windows? If a shelf runs across w/o any backdrop the glare and asthetics of the layout will be affected.
As far as the ramp, I would go with the riser and 3/4" ply as mentioned by many already. Just need to be careful of the grade. Don’t know if you have any room to incorporate a helix.
Bob K.
Bob, I have posted the track plan etc(somewhere in these pages!!) the windows are painted over now (look great from the outside) The windows will be framed over and the layout/backdrop attached to that.
I have a Helix in the next room that returns the trains to the top level and coal mine for loads out empties in operation. A train comes out of the mine down two and a half levels and up the helix again
Ken.
Ken,
Will have to check out your track plan, sounds very interesting and great of operational purposes.
Bob K.
Top
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kenmackay/afe.jpg
Middle
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kenmackay/aff.jpg
Bottom
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kenmackay/afg.jpg
It’s changed a bit from these but haven’t updated railimages yet.
Ken.
Mate! That is what I call a layout. Colour me green.
I found your other thread about “It has begun, the Midland line”. I have not seen anywhere whether it is HO or Sn3.5 or HOn3.5. I assume since it runs through Christchurch station the trains are NZ prototype. Just curious because I am wondering what track you intend to use.
I will also be building a layout soon, and have not settled on the brand of Code 83 HO track. However, I would not be game to show my modest plans after looking at yours. Do not have so much real estate to work with for one thing. Also could not match your construction skills. [sigh] {Could not find a jealous smilie}
PS. What is bar stool racing? Can’t see how you find time for much else with that beauty you are building there.
Wow that’s a goof!! It’s HO running on code 100 budget brand of flex and peco turnouts.
American loco’s, Norfolk & Western ( the coal mine is north west from here ) and Sourthern Pacific ( New Zealand is in the south pacific )
A freelanced RR based on my local prototype using US rolling stock!! Cool aye!!
Ken.
Sounds good Ken. The North American scene is a good one to model.
It’s up to you what to spend your money on. Something that rings a bit of a warning bell is the “budget brand of flex”. All that good (excellent) layout work and then you take a risk on “budget track”. Your choice though, I should not interfere.
For what it’s worth I reckon the track makes or breaks the appearance of the layout. But then your “budget” track might look just as good as the expensive stuff once you lay it and ballast it. You need a few yards of track. Maybe the Peco dealer would give you a bulk discount? You say you are using his turnouts.
I see from your name that your ancestors came from a place to the north of England, and people from those parts have a reputation for being thrifty.
Sorry to pull your leg.