Now I'm Gettin' Too Big For My Britches

C

Cannonball

More Trains Than Brains
Dec 4, 2006
1,564
0
36
56
St. Joseph, MO
The more I tinkered with Jesso's desktop layout, the more I realized it was starting to look a lot like the scenic ridge. (Well both of them being folded dogbones anyway....) So I figured lets go with that and see what happens. I enlarged the layout to 3 x 6 and went to town.

Now I really wonder why the Scenic Ridge layout messes with 9-3/4 turns as I got the whole thing with 11's and managed to add an outside loop. Check the layout and let me know if my thinking is flawed here but it seems to me they are compacting a lot that doesn't need compacted with those 9-3/4 turns.... :confused:
 

Attachments

  • SuperSenicRidge.jpg
    SuperSenicRidge.jpg
    109.2 KB · Views: 23
Your thinking is not flawed at all. That layout is almost identical to mine, with the outer loop and crossover added. I also have some sidings and a small yard. I was able to do the layout with 11 inch radius AND easements, which get rid of the straight sections in the middle of the curves and smooth the whole flow out.

Mike
 
mistressmotorsp said:
Your thinking is not flawed at all. That layout is almost identical to mine, with the outer loop and crossover added.
Click to expand...

Well, it's good to know I'm not completely cracked then. :D

As much as I like the outer loop, I removed it due to cost.
It would mean extra track, extra tunnels, extra roadbed and ballast, etc, etc.... and more time.

Were going to go with the 11" curves and buy our own track to go on a Scenic Ridge kit. Since this trackplan is more or less reveresed from Scenic Ridge, we're gonna pretty much throw the plans out the window.

This should be fun. :twisted:
 
Sounds like fun. I'm having a hard time working on my layout, spend too much time just watching the train go around. :-) Plus I drew the templatefor my flat area, but I need to get it cut out and made so that I can finish. Your plan looks nice,I just made mine a weird shape because I didn't want it to be a rectangle. Just remember, the prettier you make it the more you'll watch it.
 
M'kay.
I think this is it.
3 x 6 reversed Scenic Ridge.
I put in rerailers where the road will cross over although at this point, I'm not 100% sure of the terrain.

Would it be benificial to put a rerailer in the far back tunnel or will that cuase more problems than it solves?
 

Attachments

  • ScenicRidgeReverse.jpg
    ScenicRidgeReverse.jpg
    89.9 KB · Views: 15
I have rerailers in my tunnels. Don't often have derailments, but the few times it happens, the rerailers have been nice. Also, make sure to have access holes in your tunnels so you can reach anything stuck in there.

Mike
 
Some folks just can't get beyond that 9 3/4" radius for N scale like some folks think that 18" radius is big enough for HO scale.As for myself my Z scale layout has a 10" radius and that ain't big enough but it will do for now :mrgreen:

Oh and I have two curves on my N scale layout one has a 48" radius and the other is a 42".My smallest is 22".
 
Dang.
He srunk on me. :curse:

Now we're down to a 3x5 with no switches again.
Apparently that extra foot of track and one switch was more than he wanted to put into it. :rolleyes:

Fortunately, I was still able to use the 11" curves.

My only question now.... can I still get a 3% incline in there?
I really don't want to go up to 4% if I can help it.
I would prefer a 2% but I think 3 might be tight.
 

Attachments

  • 3X5ScenicRidge.jpg
    3X5ScenicRidge.jpg
    56.6 KB · Views: 10
Catt said:
Some folks just can't get beyond that 9 3/4" radius for N scale like some folks think that 18" radius is big enough for HO scale.As for myself my Z scale layout has a 10" radius and that ain't big enough but it will do for now :mrgreen:

Oh and I have two curves on my N scale layout one has a 48" radius and the other is a 42".My smallest is 22".
Click to expand...


John,A 2x4 foot layout can use(if my math is correct)11" curves..That is better then the 9 3/4" curves but,until modelers learn how to design a layout WITHOUT putting 10 tons of track in a 5 ton space those curves with play a large factor.
 
Cannonball said:
Yeah. I know.
He's turning me into a lunatic.
Verbally whip away. I can take it.
Click to expand...

Redesign that layout and kill the 3% incline and 9 3/4 curves..Use larger curves in case you want to run long wheel base engines and cars.Add industries and a small yard for variation in operation-unless you like to see a train go round and round and round with nothing to do-that gets boring.

See I wasn't to brutal after all.sign1
 
What you need to solve all your problems is anther overpass where you have the crossover, Going from the switches in a counter-clockwise direction, underpass, underpass, overpass, overpass. That will leave you the maximum room for gentle slopes.
 
brakie said:
Redesign that layout and kill the 3% incline and 9 3/4 curves..Use larger curves in case you want to run long wheel base engines and cars.Add industries and a small yard for variation in operation-unless you like to see a train go round and round and round with nothing to do-that gets boring.

See I wasn't to brutal after all.sign1
Click to expand...

There are no 9-3/4.... My version is all 11" curves.
Scenic ridge uses 9-3/4.

I avoided a yard and any switching due to $$ that he doesn't want to spend on switches until he decides he wants to build a larger layout. This is more about the build process than anything else.

And to be truthfull, I kind of like the roundy rounders. ;)
 
GeorgeHO said:
What you need to solve all your problems is anther overpass where you have the crossover, Going from the switches in a counter-clockwise direction, underpass, underpass, overpass, overpass. That will leave you the maximum room for gentle slopes.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is an overpass where the tracks cross over in the back. I just couldn't figure out a way to signify that on the track plan. :D I can run a 3% there but I'm wondering about the smaller loop coming off the bridge and back down under. (Or up, depending on which way the train is running.)
 
Woodland Scenics 4% foam risers take 4 feet to go up 2 inches, 3% risers take a little under 6 foot (at 3% the six foot risers go to 2.25 inches at 6 foot), in RTS, disconnect the track that is going to be on the riser and then select that track and go to the special pull-down menu and select Length of Tagged Track and that will let you know if you have enough room for your risers.
 
jesso said:
Woodland Scenics 4% foam risers take 4 feet to go up 2 inches, 3% risers take a little under 6 foot (at 3% the six foot risers go to 2.25 inches at 6 foot), in RTS, disconnect the track that is going to be on the riser and then select that track and go to the special pull-down menu and select Length of Tagged Track and that will let you know if you have enough room for your risers.
Click to expand...

Cool.... I didn't know that about RTS.
Going by that, I have just a little over 5-1/2 feet if I run the riser right from the edge of the bridge.

Looks like I had better stick with 4%. :(
 
I don't think 4% will be that much of a worry on a layout of this size. There would almost have to be a tail-chasing train for that to be a concern-- or a really puny locomotive...

On the rerailer question, I use them generously in staging areas and anywhere there is hidden track. They've saved me from major pileups several times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom