I’m brand new here. Been planning on starting an HO layout for the last 6-7 months. Lots of reading and talking, but now my father has given me a real inspiration to get-my-butt-in-gear. He gave me a Rivarossi UP Challenger 3985, all set-up for DCC. So, I’m ready to actually put down some track…My question revolves around the size of my layout table. I currently have a table 14ft X 7ft. Nothing on it at this time. It’s an old storage table we’ve had for twenty years or so. I’d like to cut it down the middle and have a long mainline on the outside (about 28ft on each side) and freight yards, buildings, etc. on the inside. This is a kind of general idea that I have. I have smaller engines for the inside curves, yards, etc. However, will the Challenger be able to go around the curves at the end of the table on the outside mainline, where it will primarily run? After receiving and seeing this engine, I have no doubt that I want to use it. I’m just wondering if I can make the curve at the end of a table approx. 3 1/2ft wide. I guess an alternative would be to cut a hole in middle and operate from there, but I love the thought of a long, long mainline for a big frieght and passenger trains… Any suggestions, etc. will be greatly appreciated.
A 3 1/2 foot wide platform will only accomodate an 18 inch or 20 inch radius curve, an incredibly tight curve for a 4-6-6-4 Challenger although some manufacturers like Athearn provide a pivot engine platform to negotiate curves as tight as 18" radius.
I would recommend you stick with the 14 x 7 table so that the curves can be as much as a 40 inch radius. Also, why cut a hole in the center of the table? Then, you always have to duck under the table to gain access and you lose valuable space. Leave the table intact. Y
I suggest you try it first. Set up an 18" radius oval with snap track and see if the engine will run around the curve.
I’m not sure what your table is like but maybe you can cut it in other ways. One would be to cut a 2x14 strip off one side, cut the remaining 5x14 in into 2 5x7’s, put the 2x14 in between and have a 28ft layout with 5 ft width at each end where the curves are. Add legs where needed.
Enjoy
Paul
This is such an emotional hobby in so many ways, and that is because it appeals to us in so many ways. One way is the visual look of what we create and how we run things once we are running trains. It seems that some people can overlook ‘toylike’ looks, such as long mighty engines negotiating turns that would be grossly impossible on the real railroads. So, this can become a source of dissatisfaction for you, if not right away, in time.
What I am suggesting is that it is likely your Challenger will be okay on those tighter curves you appear to be limiting yourself to, but I am not confident you will be happy with how it looks. Most of us, by far, are much happier when we subject long steamers to wider curves, say 24" and up. Not only do they look better, but they actually perform better, too.
So…I would think long and hard about any decisions you commit yourself to at this early juncture. The larger table is something quite a few people, particularly in Europe, would commit sinful acts to acquire. Why not keep them envious? [:-,]
-Crandell
Hi,
you have a big table and an even bigger space if you can accomodate a 28 feet long pike.
The best start you can make is making a drawing of your room. In 102 Realistic Trackplans Andy Sperandeo tells you how to do it. And make a lot of copies.
Try to make different trackplans, going by the squares keeps you from overly optimitic planning. This subject is also covered by Andy Sperandeo in the very same book.
In general a walk around pike needs no duckunder, but the prize is way smaller radii and way shorter straights. It is your choice. As always without really knowing your “space” you can talk for ages.
Maybe there are more ways to cut up your table. IMHO your father gave you a difficult engine. It is a beauty, but it is not at home on a 18 radius. Multiply the length of your engine (without the tender) by three and you have a acceptable minimum radius.
BTW the LDSIG and the NMRA are using the following ratio’s
1:5 for easy and handsfree (un)coupling
1:4 for looking good
1:3 the compromise most of us have to live with
1:2 pushy towards technical limits
If you like to share those
Compared with the cost of engines, rolling stock, track, electronics and scenery, a proper layout table, or “benchwork,” as it’s more commonly called, is a relatively small, one-time expense. So, I’d advise not tying your plans to this table. Instead, examine the shape of the room, including doors and windows you need to get to, and design your layout to fit the room. Then, build a layout shaped to fit the room. It sounds like you have a lot of space, and you can better accomodate that big engine by building an “around the walls” layout rather than a “table” layout.
The commonly accepted “reach distance” is 30 inches, by the way. If any part of your layout is more than 30 inches from the edge, you will have trouble getting to it, even to build static scenery.
If you’re planning on cutting the table in half to 3 1/2’ width, why not add ‘wings’ to the width at the ends of the 28’ long table? This would allow you to have wider radius curves on the ends. Adding a 2’x5’ wing at each end would give you a 5’x5 1/2’ blob at each end, plenty big enough for a 28" radius.
Just a thought.
Darrell, quiet…for now
Without knowing how the table is built or what your space is, one option is to cut the table into two 14’ x 2’ pieces and one 14’ x 3’ piece. then cut the 14x3 into two 7x3 pieces. Arrange them in a big square with the 14x2 pieces on the top and bottom and the 7 ft pieces either on the ends or in between the 14 ft pieces. That gives you a 14 x 11 layout with a 7x8 pit in the middle or a 20x7 layout with a 3x14 pit in the middle. If you are going to operate it from the outside or only have one, maybe two operators the 20x7 might be better. If you are going to have more than 2 operators or be operating it from inside the layout, you might want the 14x11 one.
I would agree that a 24 inch radius would be the minimum radius for that large an engine. As to your table, is it one solid piece or can it be broken up into smaller sections? Also, are you looking for continuous running, such as around in a loop or would you go for a point to point layout. The last question that you must ask yourself is, what area do I have to set up my benchwork? This should go a long way into answering your questions. The larger the radius you use the better your locomotives will run and the more realistic they will appear. Craig
There is absolutely no question that your Challenger can negotiate an 18" radius curve, how do I know this because I have 2 of them and 7 big boys left from my old UP extension layout which was 50’x100’ So I know this to be fact. The reason is the same reason why they were created originally, they are whats known as articulated locomotives, two separate sets of drivers with a single boiler. The original name for such a locomotive is Mallet after the Frenchmen who invented the concept. Plain and simple the center hinges so the extremely large boiler could negotiate curves. Nothing new and innovative from any model manufacturer such as Athearn or Rivarossi etc.
The question is will it look good/right no of course not. It’s like squeezing your size 12 foot into a size 10 $300 pair of shoes yes you’ll squeeze it in there but that will be about it. You will encounter problems with placing signals, signs telephone poles etc. too close to the track. One thing we all need/want /crave in this hobby is more space. I don’t care what anyone say if there is one thing you could have without consideration of cost etc. what would it be 99% would most likely say more room.
If you can’t acquire more room and you have to work with the space your given then thats what you got, sure run your challenger but don’t make it your only locomotive, consider adding some other one to your roster, maybe something of a 4-8-4 configuration, a 4-8-2 mountain or northern type, 4-6-2K4 Pacific’s are an excellent “smaller steam locomotive. there are Berkshire’s , consolidations just to name a few so your not limited to just one or two types of wheel configurations I will tel you this that your articulated challenger will negotiate tight curves such as 18” easier then a 4-8-4 or a 2-10-2 type because of the “hinge” frame design.
Good luck building your new layout and have fun thats what it’s all about.
Great ideas. Thank you for all the suggestions. From everything I’m reading, I think I’m going go with the wide curves. I like the idea of a long mainline, so I’ll probably cut the table down the middle and add wings at the end, as someone suggested… I want the big engine to look good and run well. I went down today and laid-out some track. The widest radius curve I currently have is 22 inch. Nothing is wired-up, but the Challenger looks pretty good sitting on the curve. I’ll try to get something drawn-up, but I"m sure I’ll do a “continous running” layout. I might add-on to the table. I’ve got enough area for at least three of these tables cut-up and arranged most anyway I can, so space isn’t really an issue for me. It’s approx 1/5 of a large basement. Thinking about an L shape too. This is going to be fun, and interesting. …I do have 4 other engines. They’ll run on 18 radius without a problem. One of the other engines is the diesel for The Southern Bell passenger train of the KCS Railroad. I took the engine in today to be set-up for DCC. The others I might try to do myself…Briefly, about myself------I’m a former “wargamer.” I spent years painting 25mm lead soldiers. Primarily ancient armies…Romans, Han Chinese, Greeks, Painted literally thousands of them and hand-made all the scenery for the battlefields, built three walled cities, complete with dozens of buildings in each. I’ve still got alot of trees left that I can cut-down to scale. Anyway, I sold all of that several years ago, and now that the grandkids are here, I figure it’s time to finally get the railroad going…I’m off work for two weeks at Christmas and will be able to get alot of things done with the railroad. I’m truly glad I found this forum.
Wait a minute !!!
You have a “large basement” and you can fill 1/5 of it with three tables ???
That means you can have a total of 15 “tables” filling your basement.
What kind of model railroader are you anyhow? Get going, man, and start filling up that basement with your layout. I initially felt sorry for you, limited to a 14x7 table, with so many noble ambitions.
Where do you live? I will come over and help you get started. [:P]
I remember when I built my first HO layout in my huge empty basement on a 4 x 8 piece of plywood on four legs just over six years ago. It quickly grew to a three-table 12 x 8 layout with two duckunders. Then, a bridge leading to another 4 x 12 annex.
My brother-in-law came with my wife’s sister to visit. He was an avid model railroader with over 30 years experience. He visually surveyed the rest of my empty basement and waved his arm in a sweeping motion and
I think i can use your help.
Careful, though. It might look great sitting on the curve, but I can guarantee you that it will look lousy derailing as it runs around it. Wire up a test rig, with a 22" curve at each end and some turnouts in the middle. Make sure it’s going to run smoothly around those curves and transitions before you build it. You will potentially save much time and aggrevation later if you take some time to test now.
If I go with a wider than 22 inch radius curve, do I need to use flex-track, or does someone make a wider curve? I really like all the ideas about the Challenger on the curves. I’ve got the room, so I don’t want to put it on a curve that works “okay,” while I could instead have used a wider curve which would make it look and run great. I’d rather be safe than sorry. Thanks again for all the advice.
Hi Mp,
I wrote the following three lines to you a week ago:
"you have a big table and an even bigger space if you can accomodate a 28 feet long pike.
The best start you can make is making a drawing of your room. In 102 Realistic Trackplans Andy Sperandeo tells you how to do it. And make a lot of copies.
Try to make different trackplans, going by the squares keeps you from overly optimitic planning. This subject is also covered by Andy Sperandeo in the very same book."
So many advices, what to do? What I would do, and I am not a newbie, is post a drawing of my space and ask for ideas how to fill that space. And specify what you really like, e.g. big engines pulling long trains over miles and miles of track over big curves through flat rural area’s. And I would also ask which part could be done next year, so a bit of nice running is not lightyears away.
The difference is you can see the alternatives, see what people envision. And then make your choice.
BTW you have a big engine that pulled big trains over big curves on a very big railroad. If you have the space why ask questions about a small 22" radius. Please believe me, laying down flextrack is no (real) problem. But it takes some time, a good book on tracklaying and maybe some help from this forum. How do you think all those nice layouts have been built in the last decades? By people like you and me, they just started in good faith and with a little of help succeeded. You are allready looking for posssible problems of tomorrow, while your attention for the plan is still so much needed.
Paul
Going back to the original post…you know a mainline isn’t all straight track. Curves count too!! Cutting the table in half to have a 28’ long straight section isn’t necessarily the best use of the space, especially if it makes you use very sharp curves. (In real prototype operations, the tightest mainline curves would work out to over 30" radius in HO, and would require trains to slow to 15-20 MPH.) With the space you have you could have a double-track mainline using 36-40" radius curves. Your large engine will look great going around those curves, and you can run long passenger cars and freight cars with no problems.
Another option would be to cut the table in two the other way to make two 7’ by 7’ tables to use as end pieces, then put some 2’ or 3’ wide sections between them. That way you can have the long straight mainline run but still use large radius curves.
Hinges? Actually, only the front set of drivers would articulate…only ONE hinge. The rear set was rigid to the boiler…
Yes, model makers did artiucate the rear ones as well…and would be considered a new and innovative concept from model makers.
David B
Designing a layout around one locomotive. Hmm…there was always the givens and druthers, but the space is a very stubborn given. Did we get the size of the space yet? I’m only half paying attention. Twin one is under the weather and two is being a pest.
Atlas makes a 24inch curved sectional track. Anything larger would have to be flex track.
Bachman EZ HO curved track comes in radii of 26, 28, 33.5, and 35.5
Kato HO Unitrack has 28.75 31.125 and 35.125 radius curved sections.
Alan