I am designing my first layout, and was wondering about staging areas. I see MR designs where they are on the same level as the layout, and other are under the layout on a secondary lower shelf/table. My question is, if you stage on a lower level, and do not use a helix, how much of a linear length do you need to decline to the lower level ( and rise up again) without having trouble? In other words, 3% slope, 4% slope?
Helixes take up considerable space, but allow for neat transition. I am leaning towards declining at a designed slope along my longest wall (17 feet) and placing the staging under the tables.
Thoughts from those who have been there/done it either method?
Generally speaking, a grade on a curve adds a lot to the “effective grade” depending on the radius of the curve. So for example, a 2.5% helix with a 24" radius will have about 1.5% additional “effective grade” drag because of the curve, making the 2.5% grade act more like a 4% grade.
For Class 1 mainline railroads, anything over 2.5% will be unlikely. Grades of 3%-4% will be more what you find on a branchline.
If you can possibly avoid the helix, it would be a good idea to do so. If you put the staging underneath other benchwork, you need to allow at least 8 inches of clearance so you can get your hand in over the rolling stock. If the staging yard is very wide, something more like 12" of clearance would be better.
A helix eats up a lot of real estate and is darn hard to scenic realistically without being hidden inside a mountain or something. If you read my comments on the “helix” thread that’s been posted today, you’ll see that I am not at all fond of a helix. I’ll use one if I have to, but I’ll try to put 4 or less tiers in it, with 2 tiers being about as good as you can get if you can swing it.
Good info Joe, I didn’t want to go the helix route at all, only if I could not find/design a way on my layout. I am trying to design the main lines with 32" Radii. I wanted to run a turnout off the line at the head end of the first 4 X 8 table, and run this down to the 2nd level staging area. I will have 2 4x8 tables in a row, and a 3rd table that will have an additional 2 feet at the end of the 2nd 4x8 table, for a total run of 18 feet. As the tables are 4 feet wide, I should have plenty of room underneith, and I also will take your advice and paln for at least 12" of space for reach-in.
A helix is a great way to build vertical distance - But, they do take up a lot of ‘real estate’, gobble up lots if flex track, and many times produce an unusually long distance between 2 of your ‘towns’.
That said, I avoided a ‘helix’ on my present layout and the ‘staging’ is ‘open’, behind & above a small town There is a small ridge that rises about 2+ inches to block one’s view of the staged trains. Standing on a Rubbermaid step stool/tool box one can see the staging tracks, and be able to ‘work’ on any possible problems.
When I first decided to go with ‘open’ staging, I got a lot of negative comments. When we ‘operate’, most folks really like it! The turnouts are accessable, any track cleaning is easy, and ‘swapping out’ of cars is not a big deal. The only thing I have done is change out the old ‘twin-coil’ switch machines with Tortoise motors(should have done that from the start).
Jim Bernier
Thanks Jim, I have been really wrestling with this, as I have a room 10.5 feet wide by 18 feet long, and I really don’t want a helix, both for size and for un-natural design for RR.
I am not crazy about having the staging area under the main level either, as that is where wiring is, and to TS or make mods, it could get very uncomfortable crawling under the tables. This is a home setup, and it will be quite a long time before I can afford a large fleet of cars, it will take me lots of time buying one or two at time over the year/s. I like your idea of hiding the staging area behind a mountain/hill, it is REAL life, you can get at it too.
Hi,
I had a friend who built his staging underneath and between all the effort to create enough grade to finally get down to the proper level and the difficulty of working underneath the layout and trying to spot cars on a grade, I decided to build my staging at the same level as my whole layout, underneath my city scene. My city is elevated actually behind my main yard; enough so that it’s easy to reach into the 3 staging tracks and place engines/cars on the tracks. The staging tracks are long enough so that I can stage 3 trains coming in from the “east” and 3 more coming from the “west”.
If you’d like more info on my staging, email me and I’ll be glad to discuss. I’ll provide my phone number is you’d like to talk on the phone.
Hope this helps.
Mondo
My layout I am planning uses Two Staging yours decked underneath the main layout level, To provide 12 inches of railhead to railhead clearance I was going to use Woodland Scenics 4% inclines. That would give me a run of 24 feet in the incline. I am fortunate that The two walls Im planning run my staging are 60 feet long. and given that the staging inclines go around one 90 degree corner Im figuring on a space of 3 feeet by 50 feet for staging yard proper. The corners at the opposite end are big eneugh I can make a turn back loop with a 24" radius curve. The way I have my staging yards planned, They can support the X factor staging discussed in Model Railroad Planning in the 2004 issiue if i so choose.
I have looking into the possibility of adding a second staging deck below the two I have planned which would effectively double my staging yard capacity. (Like John Armstrong said, You can never have to much staging.)
James
Grayfox,
If at all possible, I would avoid building a table type layout in the middle of the room. You say that you have about 10x18, which is plenty big enough. Around the room/walls style will allow for your larger radius curves and for the possibility of “surround staging”, which does away completely with the need for either a helix or a long, long grade from a lower level.
This is an example of “surround staging”:
http://www.ovar.ca/Mike%20Hamer/Hamer.htm
I have operated Mike’s layout, and I can say that it runs great, you do not miss the “extra” space taken by the staging, and that his bomb-proof trackwork has eliminated any derailments (therefore the somewhat awkward access is not really needed).
You should be able to do something comparable with your larger space.
Andrew
Hi Andrew, no, I did not intend to place staging in the “middle” of the room, but along the long walls BEHIND hills/mountains, on the main level. I will always “have” the option later of going beneith when and “if” I ever get a fleet that big that I need the room. With cars running $18 to $25+ dollars each, on retirement income it will take me some time to build a fleet that big. I love your layout, very well done to allow access to every part of the layout.
I was going to say… I’ll throw a spanner into your planning… why are you looking at two 8x4 tables when you have so much wall to go round… far more length and much easier to not look like a trainset… but I’ve been beaten to it.
If the space is free you might put a dead end spur down the middle as well… That should confuse things!
GRADES… Don’t know what scale you’re working in… but…SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHAT SORT OF GRADE IS MAXIMUM FOR H0??? I’VE READ 4% WILL STOP MOST H0 LOCOS… WHAT IS THE STEEPEST PRACTICAL OVER LENGTH… WITH 30 CAR TRAINS???
My personal opinion is to avoid staging on a different level unless absolutely necessary. The reason is the inordinate amount of hidden running it requires to get there. I’ve read many comments in many magazines about how a builder wishes he had done something different but I have yet to read one that said he was pleased with all that hidden trackage.
By building your layout on a slight incline so that the visible portion has both a high point and a low point, you can reduce the required grade to your staging area by making the entrance point at the lowest part of the layout. E.G. Building your visible layout on a 2% upward slope and descending to your staging area at a 2% grade gives you an effective grade separation of 4% even though no train actually sees more than a 2% slope.
This layout will have what I call a “Critical train length mass”, similar to the critical mass in a nuclear reactor that becomes self sustaining. Any loop of track on this layout will have an ascending porting and a descending portion. Because of this, you will reach a point where adding cars to a train will not require any additional locomotive pulling power since a portion of the train will always be descending and pushing the rest of the train. Once this length is reached, you can add cars to the train until you reach the front of the locomotive at the head end.
David, you can get away with 3% for practical purposes, but the prototype rarely exceeded 2%, and then pushers were required for the typical train lengths. You will find that pushers are going to be needed with 30 car trains and grades greater than about 2.5%…usually.
If you were to conduct a poll (aagh, I used the ‘p’ word!)…and PLEASE DO NOT…you would find a range of between 1% and 4% on long-served (successful) layouts, but the best/favoured/slickest/least problematic roads would run between 1% and 2.5%.
Of course, if you are into mountain industries and low-speed haulers, like tank and geared engines, then you can safely add up to 4% more.
Bottom line, Ma Nature and her little tyke, Gravity, will have the last word.