I really cannot improve on the comments regarding the track plan. However, what I really like about the proposed layout is that there is plenty of scenery.
Only trains is not natural in my opinion, therfore I choose to have a industrial part with tracks, and a town which has two tracks, the Branchline in front, and the mainline with station.
O btw, can someone tell me when this moderated period of my posts is over. Moderating is ok, but the wait to see my comments back I don’t like.
Gerard - usually, your status will be changed after 5 - 10 posts, so you can expect to be “unmoderated” very soon, if not today.
For the 4-4-0 you mentioned, what size of turntable I would need, the diameter (what length is the 4-4-0 with tender, could not find anything about the length.
Last night I reworkt a part of the layout.
I change one of the mailline staging tracks, it comes down to level 0 and on te right it goes back up to end up on the second bridge, I do like this change very much, but what do you, my much appreciated fellow railroaders?
Free space when track go over each other is greater or equel to 85mm (3 11/32 inch) I think that should be enough.
First picture just the tracks, second complete with scenery.
Gerard,
4-4-0’s like that are generally 7-8" (18-20cm) long. An 8" diameter turntable would be just right. You might choose to go a little longer, at 9" (23cm).
I do not understand the two round things at the potential turntable location. The small seems to be 5.6" (14 cm) in diameter, and the larger 15.5" (39 cm) in diameter.
I think you should put back the fueling track that you removed. And place a 9" turntable at the end of the other track. From the turntable, run one track for a small enginehouse, plus perhaps two “open air” tracks for miscellaneous useage.
A good size for the enginehouse is about 10" (25.5 cm) long, and about 4" (10 cm) wide, with the track partially offset to one side to provide workbench space.
Ed
These are just roads. The size I know have displayed is a 220mm (8 21/32 inch) 9" would be 228,6mm [;)]
My goodness. Yes, my conversions are incorrect. I will go back and correct them.
Ed
No problem, it’s early at you part of the world, and it’s late at my part of the globe, so I head of to bed, it’s an early start tomorrow, again. But I changed the track and put back the fueling track.
Thanks for you much appreciated input, learning all the time, you never to old to learn, just 53 years of life experience. 14 more years to retirement (sighhhhhh 
Along with the Atlas HH660 and Stewart VO-1000 switcher suggestions I’ll add the slightly smaller Stewart VO-660 and Walthers SW1 switcher.
The Stewart VO-660 comes with the terrific Buehler motor and pulls very smoothly. There are two versions of the SW1. Walthers first released it in the early 90s then re-released it in 2014 as part of their WalthersMainline line. The older version is smooth, heavy, and a great puller. (Even 25 years later it can still fetch the original MSRP on places like eBay.) The newer version has nicer detailing but it isn’t as heavy.
Along with the above, the BLI NW2/SW7 or Kato NW2 would be another great choice for a smaller diesel switcher. If you are interested in modeling smaller steam then the Proto 2000 USRA 0-6-0 or 0-8-0 are quite nice and smooth runners, as well. All should fit a 90’ turntable with ease.
Tom
An SW1 would be a nice choice–so darn cute:
Converting an old Walthers to DCC might be a problem for many people. I think the newer one is supposed to be easier.
Those two steam switchers, especially the 0-8-0, are nice looking locos. I just don’t see them in this kind of service. Especially the 0-8-0.
Bachmann also makes a 4-6-0 that I think would work–a bit bigger than that beautiful 4-4-0. I guess you could get both???
AND. It comes with a footboard pilot–just the thing for switching purposes.
Ed
I totally agree with you, Ed. They are cute.
Yea, the newer ones are “DCC-ready” - i.e they come with the 8-pin NMRA socket. Converting the older Walthers SW1 to DCC wasn’t that bad. The primary challenge was extending the milled channel on the chassis to help isolate the bottom motor bushing from the frame:
I had the advantage of having access to a bridgeport at a former place of employment so it was a fairly seemless modification. I think I did this a year or two prior to Walthers re-releasing their SW1 again.
FYI: If anyone is interested in converting their old Walthers SW1 to DCC, as well as adding a rear headlight to the cab, click on the link in my signature below and go to the “How To” Series tab where there is a step-by-step tutorial for the process.
Tom
I too like the track plan in general. Good ratio of scenery to track, and the track “flows” nicely. Personally, turntable or turntable is really a personal preference. The bridge when coming into the trainroom looks really great, but will be difficult to construct, and be prone to damage. I would probably go with something smaller, more sturdy.
One area that hasn’t been discussed and where I would have some concerns are the declines and inclines on the ramps. From the diagram, it is difficult to see what the track levels are. Considering you plan to run steam (and in particular small steam - 4-4-0’s, maybe 2-6-0’s etc.). I plan to run these types of engines on my own layout under construction. I would make sure that you are not going over 2.5%, preferably not over 2%. In an earlier layout, I tried to go to 3% and as soon as I added 3-4 cars, I had slippage and stalling.
Also remember that your (relatively) tight curves add additional friction to any incline. The rule of thumb (developed by way of experiment by a guy named John Allen) is that the additional grade percent created by the curve equals 32/radius. So in the case of a 20" radius, the additional grade is 1.6%. That means that a 2% grade turns into a 3.6% grade in terms of drag.
Could you post a track diagram with track heights and or grades for us to take a look at?
The minimum radius on the layout is 500mm (19") the incline or decline is 3% to reach a level from 0 to 100mm (about 4") why you may ask I used 3%, well that’s what people told me to use, even 3% is a standard value in AnyRail.
If you tell me that will be to steep then i need to redesign these inclines and declines i could lower it, but i like to have at least 80mm (3") of free space between levels.
I thought i did read somewhere you should calculate with 1% incline per meter, is this correct?
The percent of grade is independent of the measurement system. A 1% grade is .01 inch per inch. And .01 foot per foot. And .01 meter per meter.
I would worry about a 3% grade. And agree that it would cause problems for small engines.
Ed
One other thing about grades that many newcomers to design do not realize is that one should not change grade within or right at a turnout. I usually allow at least one longest-car-length from the turnout
In addition, a vertical transition is needed from level-to-grade and back for reliability, this is even more important for steeper grades.
Once you have allowed for distance from turnouts and for the vertical transitions, your grades may be shorter (and thus, steeper) than you hope.
Good luck with your layout.
Byron
Ok, i will redesign the in- an declines and take at least 85mm free space between levels, i will manage. But thanks to the guys who advised me poorly.
The NMRA (National Model Railroad Association) calls for 3" (76.2 mm) vertical clearance above rail top.
Real railroads in the US have also used certain standards for vertical clearance. A very common one is/was “Plate B”. It WILL NOT clear large modern cars. BUT. None of those ran in 1950. I am convinced that everything that would have run on “your” railroad in 1950 would fit Plate B.
And the Plate B vertical clearance above rail top is 2.08" (53 mm) in HO.
There is/was also Plate C. It is slightly larger, and accepts many/most modern cars. That vertical clearance is 2.14" (54.5 mm).
Please keep in mind that your train will fit such a clearance. Your hand + your train probably won’t. So you have to be very careful where you use such a minimal clearance. DO NOT use it where you will have to spend time rerailing your train.
BUT. 53/54.5 mm is much smaller than 85 mm.
AND. Heed my warning about where and when to use this minimal clearance.
ANOTHER AND. Add a few millimeters to the PlateB/C numbers. For “safety”.
Ed
Thanks Ed, that’s why I wil use a minimum 80mm.
DiGTrack, make sure that you add the height of your rail profile (incl roadbed plus your sub road bed) to those 80mm. In the planning of my own layout (see separate thread on this forum), I had a similar discussion about level clearance. I realize you are not going to run double stack container trains, but you want a minimum of 3" clearance between the top of the track to the sub roadbed of the level above. I have implemented just that, and it still is tight, in particular if you would ever have to reach in there with your hand.
Also, I realize there are plenty of model railroads around that run on 3 or even 4% grades (after all, Woodland Scenics sells a 4% ramp), but if you want to run small steam engines, they will struggle. I know from experience - Bachmann Spectrum 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 which are otherwise great running engines. I have a Roundhouse 2-6-0 that behaves a little better on such steep inclines, but only marginally. I settled on max 2% on my current layout, and have no problems, including through 18" radius curves.