I am not modeling anything specific, nor will there be a lot of “prototypical” elements. No era, but will probably pick more modern scenic buildings. That may change over time, but right now the goal is to make trains move. I am going into this with the mindset that it will never be complete.
I am at least trying to keep my locomotives and rolling stock to things that operated on the East coast (with the exception of a Thomas loco that my son wants). I’ve always loved modern locomtives but I did purchase a Rivorossi C&O Allegheny after stepping foot into it at the B&O museum
Current status of the layout. The portion with cork is mostly done. I have a few spots where I’m going to put a spline or at least double up the plywood to strengthen it up. I got a lot of plywood for free from a model railroad guy that passed, unfortunately very little of it was 1/2 inch. I’m making it work though. 1x4s cost enough money so I wanted to save where possible. I need to get a sheet of 1/2 to finish out the yard section that will be laid as mostly a full sheet.
I need to do some benchwork modification before working on the section with no ply yet. I have to angle the corner right before the bridge to give myself room through that portion of the layout. I also need to extend the benchwork under the ply on curve that is passing under the bridge. The original plan had the turn extend out further than it does, but what looked good on paper to me didn’t work from a comfort standpoint with the walking space.
I do regret going 12" oc for the grid. I can fit, but it’s tight. With the 1/2" ply I see no reason for any further strengthening though.
There will be at least 1 scenery divider (definitely on the section with the cork complete), I’m letting my son come up with the plan. He wants far too many tunnels. This current plan only requires one section to be fully covered.
Original plan was to not have any walking space around the layout, but ultimately, I like this better as it gives more scene options. I did my best to keep one line at a min of 24". I keep saying, I should have went N scale… I’m not an expert in design by any stretch of the imagination, but I didn’t like what I was coming up with in ANYRail when trying for 26" min around the room.
Looks great. How big is the room? It looks like you got a really nice long run in for your main lines. I definitely hear you about the 26” minimum it becomes quite restrictive when you’re in a tight space.
It looks like you have a bit of straight sections in your S turns. Im just trying to finalize my track plans and am wondering how much is recommended..?
I can’t recall the exact room dimensions at the moment, I’ll respond later. I do not have a whole lot of straights even on the S. I wish I had a little more, but it is better than nothing.
What a very technical person told me about S curves is if you have a straight section of track, as if not longer, than your longest car, you are OK in having this curve.
The alternative for reverse curves is transition spiraling to reduce the ‘straight’ length between fixed-radius sections. I’d still recommend some unambiguously straight track in between transitions, though.
My superliners are my long cars. They barely fit and where they don’t fit is going to be very much eased into. I could eliminate 1 of my curves If I have to.
That’s why I added the one on the edge of my layout. When I first put a straight piece of wood there, I felt this was too boring. Sadly, condensing the layout from my original plans made the distance between turns shorter. I “think” it will be okay. I may get to lay a few pieces of track over the next 2 days.
It means something slightly different for models than it does for the prototype.
In real railroading, you want a careful control of lateral acceleration as you go through curves. If you go directly from tangent track (zero average lateral acceleration) to a curve of constant radius (with constant angular acceleration) there will be ‘jerk’ as one acceleration changes nearly instantaneously to the other. This is a Bad Thing. You avoid it by having a ‘transition’ section where the lateral acceleration starts gently and then is smoothly raised up to that of the continuous curve. The required track curve can be a mathematical clothoid spiral, and we call the corresponding track a ‘transition spiral’. (There are transition spirals for vertical curves and for superelevation, too…)
For models, the transition can be much shorter, and much of its effect is visual, to give a smoother appearance as trains especially of long cars or with long overhangs negotiate curves. But they become significant where you otherwise would have two opposite-handed constant-radius curves butted against each other. That sharp reversal can cause enhanced opportunity for truck derailment as well as sharp and unnatural action between adjacent car ends. The general ‘rule of thumb’ to address this with snap track is to insert the straight stretch ‘at least as long as the longest car you run’ between the curves – but many layouts don’t have the room to do this.
The alternative is to face two model transition spirals so that they just approximate straight track as they butt into each other. You can then insert straight track of any manipulable length in between if you want better appearance.
Now I am worried about my one set of curves, I’m not quite ready to put down any track. I intentionally shortened up my straights there to make room for a 3rd line that was originally going to be a reverse loop, but my condensing of the plan is going to make that extremely difficult.
Thanks for that great explanation. I think now though @MikeS_VA has it easy as he is only worried about one corner in his unlaid track plan. Now I’m worried about every corner. Maybe a redraw with slightly larger radius that allows a little extra room while laying flex track to the original radius planned will buy me enough room.
Hi Mike and Woke,
I first discovered ‘Transition Curves’ in my very early Draughtsman years, when an Engineer I was working for asked me if I had allowed for them on my Model Railway.
I had not even heard of TCs but he showed me them in ‘Kemps Engineering Year book’ and suggested I try have a go at calculating one (he knew he was having a laugh)
Eventually, I concluded that I could not fit a TC on my layout and stopped right there.
I think the established method of calculating ‘Easements’ as well as having a Straight Section fits the bill, because you can make them suit each individual location.
In two places on my layout, I have Straights between S-curves that are the length of an HO SD70 Truck.
Paul.
When I was still relatively young and naive, Model Railroader published an article on transition spirals. I was delighted to find that, right there in the magazine, they had published an effective spiral for HO that could be used to make a track template. Right there… on one page!
When I actually started looking at transitions for real high speed, a few years later, I realized the real import of the distinction I made above between reasons for prototype and model spiraling…
