I have a HO layout on a 8X6 set up. I have been reading a lot about grades, and I am looking for a way to amke a track rise ofer another one in the space provided. The layout is an oval that leaves about 6-8 inches between the rail and the edge of the board. It then has a section that loops inside of that about 1/2 of the way down the narrow lenght of the track. So, what I was planning, before Istarted learning on this site, was to have another loop going the long way that would rise the train up over the loop inside the join in the other end. But for a 4" rise, to allow the train to pass underneath, is there a way to do this in the space I have, Or am I going to have to just use a crossing, or eliminate this all together.
My train is a 2-6-2 mikadoo from IHC.
It’s kind of hard to picture this, but with the space you have available I’d say that you’re going to have to go with diamonds and skip the grades. Getting an N scale train to do an overpass in that space would be tight, and that only requires 2 inches of clearence. I don’t think HO is going to happen, but maybe someone here will have an idea. I tend to think in N scale, ya know?
That’s kind of my feeling. I plan on doing a 6 X 12–I think this is small enough that having any significant grade/elevation would be difficult, if limiting to 3% or less. I’m modeling 50’s era Frisco in Missouri, so having elevation isn’t that critical anyway, though I’ve always thought that visually it’s a great thing to do. An alternative would be to put in a helix, but that’s a fairly involved/detailed process for us newbies, and also requires a significant amount of space.
Hello “blakestate,” Railroad grades are expressed in “percentages” which really mean the number of units of rise for 100 units of travel. To apply this to your model railroad, measure the number of inches of travel you can allow for your climb up to four inches in elevation. Then divide that number into four. You should end up with a decimal fraction, and then you can move the decimal point two places right and read the result as the grade in percent. On small layouts, a 2 percent grade is relatively easy, a 3 percent grade is steep, and a 4 percent grade is about the limit for reliable operation. Even a 2 percent grade will seriously limit the length of your trains, and you may want to make some tests by setting up some different grades on a length of 1 x 4 and seeing how many cars your locomotive can pull. Good luck, Andy
My first trainset was a HO figure-8 that did over/under. I think it was a Bachmann, all I remember was it had a black bridge with a light on top. to get up to the bridge, the train would climb up as it was going around the curves…
The whole thing fit on a sheet of plywood, and I think my dad even cut it down a little bit… maybe 40" wide(?) x 8’…
True. What our friend must bear in mind is that he can’t just place a plank at a vertical angle and hope that the train will climb it. The locomotive will need transition into and out of the grade, or it will wobble and loose traction. So, he must factor in about 12" in total for a transition, and that is for an easy grade of about 1%…in N scale, not HO. If he is determined to get some sort of overpass, then he will have to configure the approaching grade so that it meanders enough to get him the “run” he will need. That will impart its own set of problems both for the overall trackplan and to the locomotive which will not only have to climb the grade, but drag the train through all the curvature to do so.
To our asker, if you can use a folded loop in that meets your needs, and can accept using either spline roadbed or extruded foam, you can have the overpass in such a way that the lower track has actually descended for several feet, while the track passing overhead has climbed for some distance, and you will achieve your separation that way.
Do not forget that you must also get the height over the lower track for the bridge and roadbed. Also, do not forget the transitions at either end…they will have to be there.
Ok,
Now I get to find out what a folded loop is. It sounds like some testing is in order. I am on a 2" foam base, so maybe cutting down is a good idea I had not thought of. I looked at helix, and on one side that would be ok, because it will be a mountain scene, and the train could loop the mountain. but the other would be a desert scene, and I would have to build a huge (long) tressle. While that sounds cool from looks, I am not sure I can build a tressel yet, espically something that large. I bought the WS approach kit for the transition to the climb, and the 4" high block. I think I need to find something inbetween for the rest of the grade then I will do some testing.
I will also see if I can get a photo or a drawing.
So it is now obvious that this will not work, Now I am thinking about removing the cross track and installing an N scale in the center and have 1 loop for each train, Or lift the whole N scale and have it cross the HO. Or will this look way out of place?
The folded loop is where you take a loop in two hands, and turn on hand to rotate that half of the loop 180 degrees, and then let it fall flat. You will see the overpass where the one part crosses the other.
Woodland Scenics makes a foam grade kit, but I am unaware of transitions. You can build a transition out of a thin piece of masonite or counter-top arborite. Fasten one end to keep it flush and parallel with your main surface, and then place a couple of pieces of masonite under the other end. It should bend nicely to give you your transition. Maybe slip one piece halfway along the curve to support it there. You only need about 12" in HO for up to 2%. This is give or take, and you should test your engines on that setup to make sure before you add it to your layout.
As to your second post, where you mix scales, it has been done, but I cannot comment on how it looks. I feel it would look odd unless you were highly skilled at making the smaller scale seem farther away, say 400 meters or so, to give the impression of distance and perspective. Having them run in concentric circles would not be something that I could recomme
Having been there/done that I’m going to strongly urge you to avoid this. I think any over/under setup you create in that space will result in a less than satisfactory experience. I know that I tried several times to do this in an 8x6 space. The “several times” is because none of them worked out well. While I understand the desire to avoid an unscenicked roundy-round oval as boring, I also know that if you end up ‘fighting’ your layout you’ll likely be equally unhappy.
As someone mentioned before, a crossover “diamond” is probably the way to go if you really must have the tracks cross. There are a plethora of track plans in this size range available, either to build or use as inspiration, and the vast majority do NOT use grades for good reason. I think the assortment http://www.thortrains.net/4holayx.html is pretty good, and you can find quite a few more by going up to thortrains.net home page and looking over the index.
If you really want grades, stick to smaller grades and rises for visual impact only. If you don’t need to clear enough space to go over another track, it’s amazing what a slight grade and maybe 1-1.5"of vertical variance can do visually.
I will check out those plans as well, I just wanted more train track, for more train running even if it was two differant trains on two differant levels. And thought that may be a way to get it. So a doubble HO would not look good either I guess.
I will check out some plans, and find something more doable, untill I get a better (bigger and permanent) space.
Thanks
Doug
If you don’t mind having two separate tracks, why not use a 4" WS riser kit on one track and have the other train/track on the table top? You can get a 1% incline system to put on top of the riser which should get you above the lower track plus its road bed.
I also believe that WS has a transition kit too. I think they call it an incline starter system/kit. The WS subterrain book shows them using that to get an incline going and even using several of them in conjunction with differing height risers to stair-step to a higher elevation.
Even better (but costs more) would be to put one track at a 2" elevation and the other one at a 6" elevation with a 1% incline. That way you can put a river, pond, etc. at the table top elevation.
Of course…if you want both tracks to connect at some point then my idea above is moot. Just a thought.
Actually, some of the nicest smaller layouts I’ve seen have had multiple non-connected tracks, so I wouldn’t dismiss the idea as “moot” necessarily. In some ways, the need to have all the tracks on a layout “connected” is a convention only, and breaking free of it can open new options. Heck, consider the NYC and PRR mainline - they ran right next to each other for something like 300 miles and (Gawd Forbid!) didn’t ever connect. Another nice “not connected” concept might be a ‘train’ track and then a traction line with a trolley, interurban, etc…
FWIW, I dug into the old files and found a copy of the smallest multi-level layout I ever found to be ‘successful’. This was actually a really nice layout and it broke my heart to pull it down… I hadn’t built it modularly and an unexpected move hit me. Unfortunately, it as 10x14 which is bigger than what you have to work with… But maybe there are some ideas here for you. If nothing else it will show you how even in that size space, multiple levels create quite a squeeze and some definite design effort to get room for non-obnoxious grades.
We have a crossover here, in HO, on a 4x8 layout. The grade is 5%, and it imposes severe limitations on steam operation. Single engine trains are lucky to pull three or four cars up the grade, while two engine trains can pull 5 to 7 cars reliably. This not a problem here, as we model an 1890’s mining railroad which actually used 5% grades, and operations are close to what was real back then.
We also run diesel equipment from time to time, the kids like the variety. Partly because it is so steep, the grade is short enough that two diesels can pull most any train we care to run up it without a problem. Bottom line, if you’re going to put and over and under layout together in a limited space, plan on running at least two engines per train.
Wow, Much more space than I imagined is needed to make this work correctly.
I have the track now on a 2" foam board, so it sounds like it would be ok to run another, seperate track on an elevation inside of what is there now, even crossing it, because they would be seperate, and the grades used would be minimal for looks, not for transitioning from one level to another.
A trolly sounds intersting, I had not even considered that. Or maybe steam, old world, on one level and modern similar on another? Many options to think of. Or if they went into tunnels you could immagine that it changed levels even.
So would it be best to use risers, or just lift the entire center, kind of making a mountain of the board?
I’ve been quietly lurking on this forum for a few months now, just watching and learning. Being new to the hobby, I figured that’d be the best approach till I learn enough to ask any sort of questions. I’ve been back to the drawing board on trackplans a time or dozen. See, I’m one of those plan as I go types and have a difficult time putting my vision on paper and then build it from there. I’d just as soon build it directly from vision.
Anyway, your plan here is nearly exactly what I’ve been envisioning. The grades, reverse loop, pretty simple operation, continuous running. I’ve got benchwork built because as explained before, that’s what I do but this will work out perfectly. Just a few tweaks here and there but by george, I think we’ve got it! Thanks!
Regarding your question on risers vs. the cookie cutter method…go with whatever your pocket book and building skills allow. Your layout design will help dictate which way to go too. Bottom line, go with what is easiest and within your budget.
There is a book called How To Build Model Railroad Benchwork by Linn H. Westcott that is invaluable to any train or slot car enthusiast. Amazon has them for about $12 and I go back to mine constantly.
In HO scale you need to rise 4 inches to clear another track, as you have already calculated. Trying to rise 4 inches in only 8 feet would be slightly over 4 percent.
As long as you intended to run only short trains of no more than 5 or 6 pieces of rolling stock, you might be alright with diesel engines, but it is doubtful with an IHC Mikado because they are too light.
Problem is I would want to cross a track that is cutting across the 8’ oval, So I would have to do it in about 3.5’ grade of almost 9%. I do not think this is a god idea. I am liking the idea of a mountain with the train around it and reaching out over the other onto risers then back to the mountain,Completely seperate trains. Still thinking about the trolly idea, kind of a mountain tour thing. I live close to MT. St. Hellens, so this could prove to be an interesting thought. A trolly tour of the eruption?
Thanks for putting up, and helping me with my idea session. Being new it is hard to see what can really be done and what is too much of a strech.
