I have built an around-the-walls layout to the level of finishing the track work. I built a wonderful hinged lift up gate that works great. The joints are smooth and the trains run across it flawlessly. The layout design is A large double track loop with yards, sidings cross overs etc. I operate using Digitrax DCC. So far, so good. But I am starting to feel that I would be happier converting it to a single track dog bone. It will require a lot of work, but I’ leaning that way. Double track seems like a lot for a one person operation and I’m worried that in time, I will grow tired of the lift up gate. Has anyone got any opinions to share? Is there someone in the forum who “loves” their lift out gate layout?
For a one-person simulation of a high-traffic Class 1, double track is almost mandatory - if it’s arranged so that one train can orbit while another gets lots of hands-on attention. OTOH, if you’re leaning toward a laid-back shortline or branch, where one train is all the action, then a dogbone makes more sense. If the object is to squeeze a dogbone to look like double track when it isn’t, then you’re heading into a place where I wouldn’t care to go.
My happiest day was the one when my wife gave me title to her half of the double garage - and enabled me to do away with the planned but unbuilt bascule bridge across the access aisle. Not having to deal with a moveable section - priceless. The new benchwork design is a long dogbone, folded and rolled to fit - sort of like a double-G.
Just my [2c], Other opinions are sure to differ.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with clear access to the whole layout)
I have a closed in room that has two doors. I have four lift-up bridges. I come in the room to operate and run trains. When I am done, I leave the room. While I am in the room, the bridges are down. When I am out of the room, the bridges are up. No big deal. What seems to be the problem?
My track plan was to have a single track main line that circles the room twice with a few passing sidings, and that is the way it was built. I have found from experience that is what works best for me. I am having regular operating sessions with three other people, and that arrangement gives us plenty to do.
Look in my signature block at the bottom for a link to my small web site, then go to the Chesapeake and Atlantic HO RR page. If you look under Layout Progress, you will find another link to lots of photos while building the layout. (It still isn’t finished, but a work in progress.)
A dogbone is only necessary if you intend to have continuous operation. This isn’t necessary for fun, realistic operation. Simply add enough industries and/or yard space to operate the layout point-to-point when the drawbridge is up. No need to modify the layout to accommodate a kind of operation you wouldn’t see on real railroads anyway.
I’ve recently returned to the duck under concept for my own layout. The tracks in the entry to the room are at three different elevations and the lowest one is a curve. After mucking about with several attempts and consultation with other MRs, I’ve decided to simply go with a short (about 10") duckunder after all. My layout will be principally for switching operations but a gate of this complexity (it would have to be in three separate pieces!) would really slow down ops and although it was really hard to let go of “no duckunders” this time, (I’m 60) it’s not bad. Even my older 6’3" buddy can do it. Besides even my carpentry expert buddies couldn’t figure out a way to pull off the 3 lift gate sections.
If I had a straight tracked gate area I’d go with a lift up gate in a jiffy. I had no room for a dogbone layout.
Oh well, it’ll either keep me young(er) or I’ll get a wheeled stool later.
I’d be curious, in this thread, to hear from anyone else who’s abandoned a lift or swing gate idea and gone back to a duckunder. Misery (?) loves company [B)] If a dogbone fits the OP’s needs it would be nice to not have to deal with either a gate OR a duckunder. Just walking in to the train room without any thought or effort is priceless and quick!
My layout plan had too many diagonal tracks on a 2’ wide bench to facilitate a reliable gate or lift. Therefore, I chose to build the benchwork relatively high above the floor: there is 45-1/2" clear to the bottom of the benchwork. I am 5’-9" + tall and 76 years old and can manage that duck-under easily, at least for now!
Following a suggestion posted elsewhere (by Charlie Comstock, I believe), I cushioned the bottom edges of the framing (1x4s) at the duck-under with foam pipe insulation, and that certainly helps if I rise too soon when passing through!
In addition, an un-forseen happy circumstance developed. I am using Sievers benchwork, and the legs system provides for horizontal braces at the legs. These braces run perpendicular to the benchwork and are located near the floor. I can lean on one or both of the braces that are on each side of the duck-under and find that the leaning makes traversing the 2’ deep duck-under much easier. In addition, I applied foam pipe insulation the the top edges of those braces to make the maneuver even more comfortable. Try it-you might like it!
I love my duck-under to a central operating pit. I hate how low it is now on six years. I would do it again, but it would have to be more like a nod-under. I have left too much skin under the duck-under entrance at right and under that diagonal bridge that completes my reversing loop. Once inside, the scenery is wonderful.
I built the sliding lift and pivot gate described in the May 2014 Model Railroader. It works great. I had a swing gate that I tore out becuase of continuous alignmment problems. The mending irons, which have to be very carefully attahced are key. I used pop rivets as he discussed. Fig. 3 is confusing and could not figure it out until a fellow railroader explained it to me. Email me if you have the same problem. jimcubie@gmail.com Cut the three sections out of one board/homasote sandwhich and ballast before you cut the track so it does not move.
