I am beginning the design process for my new layout. Since I model the BNSF, and like busy mountain railroading I will be modeling the 120 mile long Pikes Peak Subdivision which runs south from Denver to Pueblo.
The area available for my new layout is 47 X 25 feet (1190 square feet). This will allow me to have a multilevel layout with a lot of track to run on. I intend to first single track the layout and then add a second track at a later date. I will use the open grid design.
Caldreamer
This is a huge home layout. By multi level do you mean superimopsed levels, or hills that the track climbs?
Dave
Wow I will call you space man. With that kind of square footage why would you need to even think about multi-level.
You sure have enough room to keep grades prototypical. I do not consider over-under with different levels and bridges multi-level. I know you have plenty of room to do that.
Some of us have to envy you and your space. I just wish I knew what you are planning[swg]
A little more explanation in text would paint a clearer picture. That would be helpful[swg]
TF
PS. Pikes Peak is low on oxygen on top. I learned that on my visit when I was young. I won’t be going back anytime soon[:-^]
Since I am short, the new layout will start at Devner at 40 Inches climb over the continental divide and decend to Pueblo with lower level in front of the upper level at 36 inches. Having the lower level under the upper level restricts access to it if necessary. By moving lower level out will allow me to reach all trackage easily. Since I run N scale the layout will be planned so that I can be on the outside or inside as necessary. I will keep the grade as close to the prototype of 1.25 percent per the BNSF employees timetable for the subdivision as possible. This should give me a good climb over the divide. I may increase the grade to an absolute maximum of 2 percent based on what I think the grade looks like. The new layout will be a modified and expaned version of the March 2019 The Rock Island Lines layout without the two helix. The area for the staging yards for both Denver and Pueblo will be totally different. There will be an intermodal yard at Denver and the steel mill in Pueblo.
I have now roughed out the design of my new layout. The next step will be to scale it out on tracing paper over graph paper then make any final changes to the design. I will be modeling only the major towns on the subdivision.
47’ x 25’ in N scale! That’s going to be quite a layout! Please keep us posted.
Dave
There is no continental divide between Denver and Pueble directly, at least unless you head west through the Moffatt tunnel (continental divide) to Dotsero CO where the D&RGW lines from Pueblo via Tennessee Pass (continental divide) meet in a wye configuration. So if you do that, you’ll be crossing the continental divide twice to get to Pueblo from Denver. [:P]
With a large room, and modeling in N, you should be able to cover a lot of ground, especially double decked.
I have mixed emotions about double decking - I’ve read quite a few people say they had had double decked layouts and have decided they didn’t like it and returned to single deck for subsequent layouts.
My plans are to be partially double decked, only so I can have a large staging area and a branchline - something like 3/4 will be have two levels and only a part of that scenic’d.
With your large room at N scale, you chould be able to use a nolix design to get to the other deck without a helix unless you want continous running so maybe one helix to return to the other deck.
I don’t recall seeing your March 2019 track plan, can you repost it?
I hate helix, so by having the lower level in front of the upper level I will have a double deck using the nolix method of construction. The continental dive is just north of Palmer Lake where the track is at 7980 ft according to the BNSF subdivision timetable. I will begin carefully scaling out the layout today. Will keep you posted.
Did you mean east of Palmer lake. The D&RGW trackage between Pueblo and Denver follows the front range of the Rockes somewhat paralleling Rt 25. No continental divide along that route unless my brain is cheeted by a spell.
On the standard gauge D&RGW the continental divide occurs in two places - Tennessee Pass and Moffatt Tunnel.
Fantastic news about the layout. I too can’t wait to see what you develop. Pls post pics and keep us updated!
Not sure if this will post, I’ll give it a try.
https://mrarchive.mrr.trains.com/mrr/mar-2019/flipbook/42/
It’s the RI track plan from the March 2019 issue.
Mike.
It worked. That is quite the layout plan - expect it would take a long time to build.
It’s huge! A very ambitious plan. 30 years ago, something like this was my “dream layout”.
Hopefully I didn’t break any rules by posting it from the archives.
Mike.
That is the track plan that I will be basing my railroad on. Picture the lower level on the inside, in front of and below the upper level using the open grid construction method. I am modifying the design quite a bit, since a 40’ X 30’ HO layout works out to 21’6" X 11’4" for N scale. I will have more than twice the rquired space for my layout.
Well, I will offer a few thoughts. I remember reading that article, nice layout.
But I will offer a mild critique of the HO version as built.
I would never build a layout with aisles that narrow, he has places that are only 24" to 30", especially not with having two scenic decks.
I would never build a layout that size, in that kind of space, and use curves that sharp. You may think 30" curves are big, but they are not. 36" radius is my HO Class I railroad minimum.
I built a layout with two scenic decks, hated it before it was complete. Never again.
I have designed and built several layouts this size or bigger, some for myself, some I designed and helped build for friends. It is a project that requires commitment.
BUT, there is a BIG difference between large and complex. I have talked about this a lot on here, including in a thread outlining my new layout which I hope to start on by spring.
Complex and large - that’s a lot of work, a lot of money, and a lot of time. But simple and large is not much more than building medium sized…
My classic example - an eight track double ended freight yard. It can be 12’ long or 20’ long, but the cost and complexity are pretty close to the same either way - if you have the room, which would you rather have?
My new layout will fill about 1600 sq ft, it will stage 30 trains, it will handle 35-50 car trains in my 1954 era, it will only be one scenic level. It will have a visable double track mainline run of 250’. Most of my scenes will be 3-5 feet deep, no more “shelf” scenery for me.
If work calms down just a little, I will get the details done on the track plan and get it posted on this forum.
Good luck with you plans, sounds like a great concept and the right amount of space to do it justice.
Sheldon
Thank you Sheldon. I will continue to post as I progress on the design and constructon of my layout.
Hey Cal-
I’ll wait until I see your track plan before making any comments, but if you want some free unsolicited advice before you begin . . .
I agree with most of Sheldon’s comments. Particularly his suggestions regarding aisle width and curve radiusses (radaii). Make both as large as you can stand, and then grit your teeth and make them a little larger. A specific design criteria for my layout is a minimum aisle width of 36". Two-thirds of my layout has 36" and one-third has 48".
You’ve said you do not like helixes (helices) and would install a nolix instead. You haven’t mentioned what sort of deck separation you intend to use, but have you calculated the actual length of a nolix using the maximum 1.25% grade you listed? including the up- and down vertical curve transitions?
Looking forward to your progress.
Robert
PS
Robert:
Due to the fact that my layout is N scale, 12 1/2 inch radius is considered average for most locomotives. I intend to make my minimum mainline radius 16" which is considered wide for N scale. When I scale the layout onto grid paper, I can figure the length of the run to the maximun height just before Palmer Lake and and down to the Pueblo. Since I will be able to work Denver yard from the outside of the layout and Pueblo yard from the inside they will be within easy reach. I intend to have Big Lift (the intermodal yard) and all other tracks within arms length. Learned this lesson from my last layout. NEVER again.
Not really. Take a look at the NMRA Recommended Practices for curvature.
https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/rp-11_2018.03.03.pdf
BNSF to me implies modern, 70’ long 6-axle locomotives. The recommended radius for those is at least 17-3/8".
A 16 inch radius is roughly equivelent to a 31 inch radius in HO, which is not considered wide by todays standards. I realize John Armstrongs Track Planning for Realistic Operation lists HO curves as follows:
Sharp = 18 inches radius
Conventional = 24 inches radius
Broad = 30 inches radius
I’d estimate N scale equivelents at 9.5 inch radius for sharp, 13 inches radius conventional and 16 inches as broad; but those are old school conventions and with more detail and more rolling stock made to scale length, more longer rolling stock.
A modern relabeling of curves might be HO/N (in inches):
Very Sharp = 18/9.5 R
Sharp = 24/13 R
Conventional = 30/16 R
Broad = 36/19 + R
The above are somewhat arbitrary and modelers may chose somewhat different curves by those descriptions. I’ve read a lot of articles in MR magazine during th 80’s and 90’s and 30 inch minimum curves were a recurring theme in many many layout articles so it’s probably a good benchmark for conventional curves, that or maybe 32 inches.
Some years back there was an article re-evaluation of curves as a ratio of rolling stock length to curve radius. For example in HO an 80’ passenger car may track ok on a 19 inch radius curve but look very toylike with extreme overhang - and that’s assuming there is no detail to interfer with the trucks or ends of cars. A table was given with some generalized comments at 2.0x, 2.5x, 3.0x, 3.5 x and so on. An 80 inch passenger car with couplers would be 11.5 inches long so the curve radius at 2.0X the length woud be 23 inches. At 2.5x radius would be 29 inches and at 3.0x radius woud be