# Please give comments on this proposed layout



## craigmccormick (May 18, 2010)

I am new to the hobby and am planning my first layout and I would appreciate any comments on the attached sketch from more experienced modellers. Specifically I would like to know if you see any pitfalls with this layout. Here are the specifics;
- DCC operation only.
- There are no reversing loops.
- There are two separate loops that can be switched into one long loop.
- I have allowed for 3 1/2" between over/unders (from rail to rail)- is that enough to accommodate most bridge decks?
- All curves are min. 22" radius.
- Max. grade is 2.5%
- Horseshoe shape with the following clearances; 16" top, 6" right, 24" botttom.
I would like to suspend this from the ceiling with pulleys to raise/lower - is this a good or bad idea?

Thanks for any advice.
Craig


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Craig,

I'm no HO pro, but I seems to me like you're doing your pre-layout planning quite diligently and accurately.

If you haven't already done so, I suggest you explore the NMRA layout standards for their excellent guidelines on clearances, radii, turnouts, etc. Here's their spec for overhead clearances:

http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/s-7.html

In your layout, you show at least one elevated switch (turnout) that's immediately adjacent to an overpass crossing. How do you intend to support this elevated switch ... on raised solid ground, or via trestle support? The former OK, the latter possibly quite tricky.

I didn't take the time to map out your track run lengths and elevation changes and check to see that they yield your stated grades. Have you done that?

As far as raising the whole layout via cables, I'd say it's possible, with some underlying criteria ...

1. Layout base needs to be adequately stiff and yet light.

2. I strongly suggest that your lifting cable system is designed to raise all lift points (the corners, for example) exactly in phase, with zero chance of tilting or skewing. I.e., tie your lifting cables into one common tail, or something equivalent to this.

3. You'll have to consider the "floating layout" impact on wiring, obviously.

Good luck!

TJ

EDIT ... good info on turn radii specs: http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/rp-11.html


----------



## tooter (Feb 26, 2010)

craigmccormick said:


> I am new to the hobby and am planning my first layout and I would appreciate any comments on the attached sketch from more experienced modellers. Specifically I would like to know if you see any pitfalls with this layout. Here are the specifics;
> - DCC operation only.
> - There are no reversing loops.
> - There are two separate loops that can be switched into one long loop.
> ...


Hi Craig, 

I like it... 
It has flow, and lots of third dimension...height. Are the raised tracks going to be in the hills, or trestles. I think that hills with tunnels would look really cool with maybe a little bit of trestles to go with the bridges.

You also might consider a switch yard area with some sidings to park your rolling stock.

You also might want to consider a theme for your layout. Like freight, passengers, mining, logging. And maybe a timeframe, like old time, or modern. And desert hills or forests. Rocky or sandy. And any water features. Trestles over rivers are always dramatic.

If you use ropes to raise the table you could do it by joining two roped corners on each end into one rope like an upside down Y. Unscrewable legs would also be a good idea so that when the layout table is lowered, you could simply spin on the legs to support it, and then remove the ropes. 

Keep in mind that if you have a ceiling light, when the table is up, it would block it out.

That's about all I can think of...
Your layout plan is an ambitious project for a first one, but if you start small and first experiment with plastic trestles to see how the track plan actually works when trains are running on it, you can refine your skills as you go. 

Take Care,

Greg


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

choo choo said:


> You also might consider a switch yard area with some sidings to park your rolling stock.



:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## tooter (Feb 26, 2010)

Yeah, tj... 

I think that half the fun would be shunting around the various rolling stock in a switchyard to make up different trains that you want to run.


----------



## stationmaster (Dec 7, 2008)

A few tings I noticed. One, no yard. A yard can be used to store unused cars and engines and provide a viable alternate operation. 

Two, what is the radius of your turns? Too tight and you limit yourself to what can be run. Too wide and you don't have enough room.

And third, a 2.5% grade may not sound like much but may limit your head end power to huge 6-axle engines or short consists

If this layout is going to be 16'x8', you've got a lot of engineering and designing to do to be able to lift it any height to be of any consequence. And the cables only get in the way when operating the layout.

As they say, "It looked good on paper."

Bob


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Craig,

Two other thoughts re: your floating/lifting layout ...

1. You've got a pretty long arm reach to be able to access stuff towards the middle of the layout ... you might not be able to easily access some areas. Maybe consolidate things a bit?

2. If you do build the base as a floating/lifting panel, I emphasize that stiffness and low weight will be critical. In that light, I think you should consider building the "main deck" as a SIP type panel ... Structurally Insulated Foam. The name is coined from panels that are used in modern home construction ... especially modern "infill" walls in post and beam houses. Essentially, a thick core of foam sandwhiched (glued) between an inner and outer layer of plywood or OSB or similar. In your case maybe something like 1/4" ply top and bottom sandwiched around 4" of polystyrene (?) insulation foam. It would be very important to completely glue all mating surface ... both the foam to the ply, as well as any joints between foam panels. Once done, the 4" separation between the ply skins of the panel will offer an "I-beam" effect, increasing what engineers call "section modulus" and "moment of inertia", and increasing overall stiffeness without sacrificing an undue amount of weight. Something to consider, anyway. (My thicknesses are for EXAMPLE, only ... if you get serious about this, I can run some quick stiffness / deflection calculations to offer a more diligently engineered solution.)

TJ


----------



## tankist (Jun 11, 2009)

you will find quick that no staging area is big downside. clearances are good. grade is not to bad, while Bob is correct, IMO flat layout is not as exciting. it seems that you color coded each rail so you would notice reverse loops if any (i didn't but i didn't look too closely ). i don't like the snaking lines on the upper part of the diagram. but up to you of course but watch to not create S turns, use a straight section as long as your longest rolling stock piece between opposing turns.

hoist up is doable but make sure you anchor properly - eye srew into your ceiling joist will not do. these werent designed to carry that kind of point load. also build your table so it "lands" on retractable feet instead oh hanging on cables full time, will be impossible o work on otherwise. but even before hoist up, consider making it as 3 modular pieces for easy break down instead.




just my 0.000002


----------



## bradimous1 (Mar 3, 2010)

my concern that nobody mentioned would be your switches... they can be a pain even when flat and it looked like you may have had one or two on an incline... will take a ton of work to get them to work... I have been fiddling with mine for some time to get them to work.

I too, like the idea of the yard!!


----------



## stationmaster (Dec 7, 2008)

Anton!!! You surprise me talking modular. I guess I never thought of you as an "ally of the modular mind". Nice to have a bit of company, I thought I was alone, or of a minority breed, on here. 

I agree that this layout is a prime candidate for modular construction. When not in use, the modules could be placed in "racks", custom made for them. And if using the formula of the modules being only 24"-30" in depth, not much room taken for storage. The formula I use, except for my main yard in which the modules are 36" deep and 6'-8' in length, is pretty much common practice with modules being 48"-72' in length. Rather cumbersome(the yard), but still manageable for one person to deal with if the need arises.

Bob


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

bradimous1 said:


> my concern *that nobody mentioned *would be your switches... they can be a pain even when flat and it looked like you may have had one or two on an incline... will take a ton of work to get them to work... I have been fiddling with mine for some time to get them to work.



Ahem ...

"In your layout, you show at least one elevated switch (turnout) that's immediately adjacent to an overpass crossing. How do you intend to support this elevated switch ... on raised solid ground, or via trestle support? The former OK, the latter possibly quite tricky."

Ahem ... Ahem ...



TJ


----------



## tankist (Jun 11, 2009)

stationmaster said:


> Anton!!! You surprise me talking modular. I guess I never thought of you as an "ally of the modular mind". Nice to have a bit of company, I thought I was alone, or of a minority breed, on here.


why? mine is also modular. or at least somewhat... for this one it definitely seems like modular is the way to, go albeit for beginner it can be not very easy...


----------



## stationmaster (Dec 7, 2008)

Anton, I think building the proposed layout as a modular would be MUCH easier than standard L-girder construction. The trick would be to start with one module(of course) and build adjacent modules, building your way "out" to insure matches in elevation. 

Bob


----------



## bradimous1 (Mar 3, 2010)

tjcruiser said:


> Ahem ...
> 
> "In your layout, you show at least one elevated switch (turnout) that's immediately adjacent to an overpass crossing. How do you intend to support this elevated switch ... on raised solid ground, or via trestle support? The former OK, the latter possibly quite tricky."
> 
> ...


hmmmm... I think my computer only selectively sees your posts... has nothing to do with me 

jk, sorry bout that


----------

