I had trouble creating HO scale size tracks layout on layout software. Not too good on computer wise. I had a vision of Sloping Mountains with gullies or ravines. Land bridges over encircled 3rd tier track. There will be no buildings of any kind except tunnels. I’m trying to keep middle of 4 by 8 free of tracks except single track which I’ll have encircled back to tunnel. I’ll be using HO animals, if I can find them, all over the 4x8 model. I’m wondering if I need to use several thick styroforms creating incline somehow. Not sure what size I need to look into. I’ve never done railroad model and doing preplanning and jotting down things down on what is needed. I have no idea. Is double tracks on first and second tiers too much?
1st tier ~ double tracks on outer edge of 4 x 8 all round. 1st tier entrance tunnel and 2nd exist tunnel on the end.
2nd tier ~ double tracks coming from 1st tier tracks on the long side climbing up incline and then bridge over 1st tier then into 2nd entrance tunnel top of 1st entrance tunnel. Not neccessary on top of the 1st entrance tunnel but near by. Coming out of other side of 2nd tier exist tunnel also top of 1st tier exist tunnel or nearby the tracks splits. One track will go down the incline and merge into 1st tier tracks. Other track will encircle into 3rd tier single track
3rd tier ~ single track climb up incline and bridge over 2nd tier tracks then into 3rd tier entrance tunnel top of the 2nd tier entrance tunnel or nearby. At 3rd tier exist tunnel the track come down the incline and merge into 1 tier tracks.
What equipment are you planning to run? It seems likely you will have issues with smaller track radii, having double track and making the rise to the top on a 4 x 8. And with three levels in a 4 x 8, you are likely to get into issues of extreme grades (slopes). A 3% grade (3" rise in 100" run) is considerable. Many strive to hold mainline grades to less than 3% (I have 2.4% and it’s ok). Each track crossing another requires a rise consisting of the clearance for the lower track train (around 3") plus the track & bridge height crossing the lower track; say, 4" total. At 2.5% grade as an example, that requires 4 x 100 / 2.5 = 160" of run (plus transition into the slope at top and bottom.
Can you add a sketch of what you are planning? (There is a General tab item on how to post a photo from a hosting site such as Photobucket.)
At least draw a sketch and estimate what radius you need on your curves as well as the run and rise to crossings and estimate the grades. Note what radius (check on the makers websites) various longer equipment will require; e.g., a 6-axle diesel or long steam loco may or may not require 22" radius vs. 18".
You might also peruse the MR layout to see what can be accomplished in a 4 x 8, including the radii in those layouts.
A 4x8 means a maximum radius of about 22" which puts the tracks right on the edge of the layout. Assume 2" track centers (very tight on sharp curves). Tier 1 would have radii of 22 and 20", Tier 2 would be 18 and 16". At those radii you would be limited to 4 axle engines and 40 ft or shorter cars. If tier 3 has any curves in it, it would be at 14" radius or smaller, which pretty much limits you trolleys or VERY short engines and cars and very slow speed.
You need nominally 4" between tiers. The slope to get between levels is call the grade, and is expressed in %, how many inches (units) of rise in 100 inches (units) of run. Typically, the max grade recommended for most situations is 2%, that is 2" of rise in 100 in of run. To climb 4" from tier 1 to tier 2 it would require about 200" of run or about 17 ft of track. You could jack that up to 4% which would allow you to go between levels in about 9 ft of run but that would require a grade so steep that an engine could only handle a few cars Combine sharp curves with that and you will be lucky to get a 3 cars up the grade.
Scenically, the railroad you have described would look like a chocolate wedding cake with a railroad theme. With that much track crammed in and the entire perimeter verticl cliffs or retaining walls it will be very difficult to scenic, and will not look realistic.
If you want to go to N scale you can do pretty much what you have described and make it work. HO, nope, too much in too little of a space.
I have no idea what equipment, grade or radius to use … http://prntscr.com/c4gdx1 … This is rough sketch. Just want to know if anything can be made workable if right train, tracks, and grades.
I think if you eliminate the connecting grades to the different levels and just have seperate loops at each level you can accomplish the look you are going for. There have been a few smaller layouts designed this way that have a dramatic look to them.
It can be done with a single track and 18" radius, but barely and the return track would be aroud the primiter, proubly have to be on peirs and not very relistic. You can run some big engines on 18" radius curves like Proto 2000 2-8-8-2.
If you run very short cars (24 foot ore jimmy size) and very short wheelbase locos you can run on curves down to 14 inch radius. The same, in very short (4 to six cars, doubleheaded locos) can handle four percent grades with rather short vertical transitions. My layout isn’t 4x8, but my coal-hauling mountain goat trail is built to those standards. Locomotives are a motley collection of six driver teakettle tanks.
If you want to run a longer train, just head it with a Mantua 2-6-6-2T. The prototype was designed for very sharp curves and the model is good down to 12 inch radius.
I’m puzzle by this video. It said it is small HO scale layout. Is that really HO Scale size? Or is it different type of HO size? I see three engines pulling 22 cars around and up the incline and then cross another track. Seems short incline than I expected after reading this post so I’m puzzle. Does having three or more engines help hauling more cars?
That layout seemed bigger than 4X8, so I looked at the builder’s other videos. In another video of the same layout, the owner says that it was 4’ 8" X 12’, so it was larger than a 4X8. That additional size allows a longer run to climb – and that track climbed only enough to cross over one track. The wider benchwork also allowed broader curves than would be possible on a 4X8, of course, which makes any grade on the curve relatively easier.
Ahh! Now that really make sense … 4’8" x 12. I made an assumption thinking its 4 by 8. My mistake! Thank you for bringing that up.
I was so puzzle and was googling stuff about grades. I wonder if I should go bit wider benchwork such as 4’8" maybe 5’ wide (Hmmm … actually I do need to have 5 feet wide on the end) … not sure about going longer than 8 feet but I’ll keep that on my mind. Will it work with ideas I had above if I go 5 x 8? Or there will still be a problems with grades?
Honestly, I don’t completely understand what you are trying to do. But from the diagram you linked (shown below), I don’t think so – not with reasonable grades. For your first-ever layout, I think it might be pretty challenging. But I may not understand your goal.
As others have said, leaving the various laps unconnected would allow you to place them at whatever elevations you wished.
You really need to draw this layout to scale. Your corners look like they have radii of 1 or 2 inches. If you don’t want to be bothered learning a computer program, at least draw it out using graph paper and a compass.
This is what a typical 4x8 looks like with 19.3" and 22.6" curves. You can see that there isn’t nearly as much room as your plan implies.
Seems I have to make little bigger than 4 x 8. It’ll be something like this ~ http://prntscr.com/c99557 I’ve not double check grades if it is doable or not. I’m still learning using that software and could’nt quite connect tracks yet. Will keep working on it and trying out different track softwares.
Sorry, it’s not remotely possible as drawn in that space when you consider grades, transitions from level to grades, and the distance actually needed between concentric curves. The track is also much too close to the edge of the benchwork.
Personally, I think that it’s a waste to spend time on CAD drawings of plans that aren’t physically possible. I’d suggest that you figure the grades first, and then draw. Probably a lot less will fit than you hope, unfortunately.
Take a look at the Atlas HO layout packages (code-100 or -83) for ideas. You might also study the Woodland Scenics Grand Valley or River Pass HO Scale Layouts.
As a fellow modeler that is constricted to a 4’x8’ pike; not by my choosing, and table-top style (no under layout access), I have found ways to incorporate features that many have scoffed at or outright ridiculed (see my signature disclaimer).
Realize that on a pike of this size you won’t be able to run that Big Boy steamer or six-axle diesels. Also, those sleek and sexy streamliner passenger cars or those 89-foot intermodals might work but won’t look “right”, especially through the turnouts.
I run four-axle diesels: GPs; 40s, 38s, 30s along with F-units and RS-units. Four MUed GP40s pull the main coal drag. Three GP30s are MUed to take the 36-foot hoppers up the incline to the unload platform.
For switching duties there is a 70-tonner along with a 40-tonner and plenty of “Critters” and a trackmobile. For heavy-switching duties a cow & calf unit of SW7s is also available.
The “Olde Tyme” excursion train is pulled by a USRA 0-6-0 and a 0-6-0 Side Tank Porter as a helper along with a 0-4-0-T “Lil Donkey.”
With few exceptions, all the rolling stock is under fifty-feet.
You will find many threads debating the “minimum” radii of track. On my pike I successfully use 15-inch radius sectional track and Peco #2 turnouts.
