That's my problem. I used to be in HO. Nowadays, I consider that impractically big. I don't know how much space I'll have in the future, but my goals are large, and my dreams so grandiose that they would be impossible in HO or any larger scale. The problem is, I love odd locomotives. I'm entirely dissatisfied with steam availability in N, but fortunately my interests lie in the diesel era. However, try finding, say, a plastic GP60B in N. And don't get me started on electrics...
You've heard it 1000 times before But....
- Thread starter fuzzyloggin
- Start date
I would definitely stay away from that water heater. Check your building codes-- you may be too close already, although that's a matter of "discovery" in terms of residences.
(The apartment complex I lived in had a "four foot rule" based on fire codes and frequent inspections by the Fire Marshall; nothing within four feet of a heat source. This was later expanded to "nothing in the room with the water heater and furnace at all, period.")
Based on what I see the vertical distance between the main and the upper section where the water heater would require a helix not a simple grade. It looks to be a foot and a half or more; if it's a foot or 12 inches you'd need (pause to take off shoes and socks) 600 inches, or 50 feet, of 2% grade to make that rise.
(The apartment complex I lived in had a "four foot rule" based on fire codes and frequent inspections by the Fire Marshall; nothing within four feet of a heat source. This was later expanded to "nothing in the room with the water heater and furnace at all, period.")
Based on what I see the vertical distance between the main and the upper section where the water heater would require a helix not a simple grade. It looks to be a foot and a half or more; if it's a foot or 12 inches you'd need (pause to take off shoes and socks) 600 inches, or 50 feet, of 2% grade to make that rise.
umtrr-author said:
This is when you build a 4x4 "room" round the water heater and furnace then say, "There. Now they have their own room."
umtrr-author said:
yeah i think your right, im in the process of trying to establish a trackplan to fit the helix in , this is probably the hardest thing about model railroading for me(trackplan) i love the hands on side of things ie scenery,benchwork,tracklaying,scratchbuilding all of that but when it comes to working out a plan i get mental blocks trying to make it work how i imagine it
the elevation difference is 14 inches over about 19 ft so i guess i have no choice but helix.i was hoping to have a steady rise up the mountain then a level run back down to the garage door (which would be a run through the top,and side of the mountains) then into a helix to bring it back down to the lower level but i guesshwat your saying is ill need the train to go both up AND down the helix for that much elevation.
on thinking about this perhaps i need to aquire more realestate :thumb: im thinking building another peninsula coming out 90 degrees from the wall in which i could snake the main line in such a way that i could climb the elevation required. perhaps increase the grade to 2.5 % (not sure if thats acceptable)??
hmm not sure i think ill go post in the trackplanning thread this afternoon when i get home and post some more pics and a bench diagram and see if i can get any ideas ill post here when ive done that and if you get any ideas to help be sure to post...
ps hey george ive never been to concerned for building regulations sign1 sign1
My suggestion is to hold off on the bench work until you decide which scale you want to work in. If you do decide on HO, there may be a major re-design in the works to make things work. If you go N scale, you should be OK.
yeah , ive made my decision now , im going N scale. i really would be dissapointed in myself if i went to all the effort of the layout and sat back at the end and did not achieve my primary goal .... ie:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaparral
So, if you want believable grand views, large vistas and sweeping panoramas of a rail line carved from the wilderness,go N.
this is exactly what im after hence the decision to go N.
by the way thanks chapparal i love the way you put it.
Originally Posted by Chaparral
So, if you want believable grand views, large vistas and sweeping panoramas of a rail line carved from the wilderness,go N.
this is exactly what im after hence the decision to go N.
by the way thanks chapparal i love the way you put it.
also as for the benchwork jim i really had no choice up till now, i made a comprimise with my wife that i would create storage under the layout which i have done , its only what i do from here on in that is negotiable at least this way i pretty much get half the garage ....
at least this way i pretty much get half the garage ....You know it may seem quite odd but why don't you just raise the whole layout up to the highest point and eliminate the whole problem alltogather? I know it may seem odd but there are many people doing it this way ( an almost eye level layout ) for the preception of depth and ground level vision.
yeah i hear what your saying but i want mountain scenery to rise well above bench level and if igo much higher it will really make working on that part of the layout awkward, what i could do tho is to use 2 inch foam plus roadbed and track all over the lower level which would narrow the elevation difference to about 11 inches over 19ft... hmm ill get some more acurate measurments on all of it and report back to see if i can work out exactly what grade im looking at.