Less grade is better, IMHO

In general, the gentler the grade, the better.   I don't see any reason why you have to model the grade accurately, since in my experience it's hard to see a prototype grade anyway, unless you're on it looking up.  If you like, use a few visual tricks, like sloping roads, rivers, and the top of the fascia in the opposite direction, to enhance the illusion of a grade.  Another possibility might be to have the 2.2% grade, but make any towns or other switching along the way level, which would make switching and spotting cars there a lot easier.  If half of the stretch is level, then it would average out to a 1.1% grade.

hmmm ...

Never been a fan of the helix, but do understand why they are used.  If your scenes can support eliminating it, I'd certainly be looking at that option.  Perhaps you could reduce the helix, allowing more of the climb on the visible upper level? Or, as suggested before, the entire upper level does not have to be 2.2% grade ... areas with sidings could be on flatter areas, allowing more areas with the ruling 2% grade.

Mountain railroad?

If I had the space and wanted to model a mountain railroad I would use the visible grade instead of a helix. Why hide part of the run when it could be viewed?  Make sure the equipment can handle 2.2% for the length of trains and curve radius you want to run and make sure you can design a route that is easy to access for construction, maintenance, and operations. Many mountain railroads end up as access nightmares. and make sure you enjoy building trees and carving rock before you commit to such a large amount of it. Do you have a location and era in mind? ..DaveBranum

Much to think about...

Thanks folks for the helpful feedback.

The N-Scale layout is to be in a 16' x 24' room and represents Monatana Rail Link's 3rd subdivision from Helena to Blossburg, with a couple of smaller viginettes on a middle shelf. I wanted broad 22" curves and long trains in the 10' to 12' range, helper ops, and a fair amount of switching. Most trains entering Helena would be run-throughs, with the yard there mainly supporting local traffic.

My main druther is for the room to be completely open, without obstructions or duck-unders. Modifying the plan to keep the trains in sight will either introduce a nolix with shared scenes, or a lift-out that may impact operations. The latter is not a big deal if I was the only operator, but I like the idea of an open plan that does not subject visitors to gymnastics. However, the former is harder to get my head around visually, as the portion where trains are supposed to share scenes are all on the upper shelf, and why I opted to include a helix.

Below are my drawings for the bottom, middle, and upper decks, respectively. My concern is for the area in the lower-right of the plan from Tobin to Austin. A nolix here would have both Tobin and Austin sharing the same shelf, and also force me to remove Fort Harrison. The additional helix on the left is to be left as is, so as not to conflict with the westbound downhill from summit with the westbound uphill from Helena.

A few extra notes:

• The shop has doors on all sides, including the small bump-out on the plan. Any door not considered the main entry point will be sealed, as will all windows.
   
• The electrical panel shown on the drawing is a relocation from its original location, and as with the main entry point, is not yet cast in stone.
   
• An additional 4th shelf would be staging at approximately 32" and represent Livingston, MT to the east of (and under) Helena. Trains from there would cross under the MT City Branch and enter the layout from a fictional road overpass on the end of the peninsula at the bottom of the plan. I may be able to do this with a single-turn helix and a long grade.
   
• The MT City Branch, on the lower level, is still being tweaked, but is shaping up nicely. The idea is that part of the branch will be obscured by a low relief hillside so that the Ash Grove cement plant will fit in the allotted space and be easily accessed.
   
• The middle shelf is mainly to keep an eye on trains as they travel from Blossburg to staging. Part of the run will be in a helix, however, but not a major concern at this point. Bearmouth and Nimrod area was chosen due to the nearby tunnels, and these were worked in where Greenhorn and Austin Creek trestles are on the shelf above.
   
• Austin (upper deck) is to be open without a backdrop separator, which gives operators a view of their trains climbing the loops along the back wall as per prototype. This is also where grades will be most evident.

Thanks again to all who have responded.

Levels

If you want that much city scenery in addition to the mountain running then you might have to keep the grades flatter to avoid getting too high. Looks like there would be a crowd of levels on the upper wall, east staging ,Helena yard, Missoula staging, and the mountain scene? Seems like a lot to fit in and still maintain access and visual separation? ......DaveB

Yes, a lot of levels.

Hi Dave,

There are four levels along the top wall, and that too concerns me. The scenery shelves there are 20", but I suppose I could make the staging ones 16", or squeeze the tracks toward the wall some to gain more aisle space. Right now the pinch point is 30", but with some tweaking, and perhaps reduce the curve minimum to 20", I could probably gain another 4"~6" everywhere.

Helena scenery would be minimal at best - there's not very much of anything within a stone's throw of the tracks. With an even/odd operating idea, not all industries would be served in a single session, and switching might be handled by only one crew.

Heights seem OK at 32"~34" @ Livingston staging, 42" @ Helena, 57" @ Missoula staging, and 65"~67" @ the mountain shelf. I may have to mock up a few areas in the shop and see just where everything should go, but early tests indicate I would still see the backdrop of the lower Helena shelf. Also, the open area @ Austin allows crews to view their train coming up or down the hill all the way from summit without having to enter the yard aisle if clogged with bodies. Another thought was to remove the MT City branch in favor of a simple mainline siding, enter a helix up, and combine staging as Livingston/Missoula, or wrap the combined staging tracks around the bottom peninsula, thereby keeping only two shelves along the top wall.

Grades

I would keep the plan as is with the grades reduced. As others have said the grades will be less noticeable, also N scale has never been known to be great pullers so maybe a 1.75% grade would be about the max it could handle anyway. 

One thing I would change is the location of the middle staging area. Why not move the middle staging to the unused peninsula. this would make the area above Helena yard just a single or double track shelf. A longer run of hidden track, but at least you would not have that wide shelf sticking out over the yard, so more room there, and also more light on the yard. Always an issue with multi deck layouts.

Love the design. 

Single Staging Yard

Hi Neil,

I don't have a lot of horizontal room to work with, and thus far can only squeeze in 7 looped tracks (inside track at 16" radius). However, each track can hold two 12' trains (6 each way), and with so much through traffic, I'm worried I'll come up short. If I draw tracks that don't loop around the peninsula, the resulting space eaten up by the turnouts makes for very short trains. I might be able to use your idea though to redraw the whole plan with a single staging area in mind. I'll keep tinkering.

Just a very stupid idea that I can't get out of my mind

Hi,

this is off-topic, but for quite a while this thing is "bugging" me and I cannot get it out...

The basic idea is to have a layout that has three "levels" on one shelf. Obviously the shelf would be high in the background and low in the foreground.

Take a 1.5 turn helix and stretch it the length of the layout.

Practically it would start on the bottom left with a city / yard. It would be mostly level until it reaches the right side. Going through a return loop, the middle track goes upgrade until reaching the left again (but above the scene, possibly just short of the scene). Another return loop takes the track on to the upper level run back to the right. There would be a terminal there.

Sure the "middle level" is rather narrow, while the upper and lower are broader. The middle level curves back and forth, giving more room to either the top or the bottom level. Also, the middle level and parts of the loops would have tunnels

The scenery would blend everything together while providing visual separation. Don't know how I would accomplish that, but then I'm only able to get a few minutes a week to build...

Hope the concept is clear.

Have a nice weekend (and forget what I posted

necromod?

Bananarama, it appears you've gone back and modified each of your posts in this thread from 2013. What's up? Was the whole project on hold all this time and you're now reactivating it?

Wow

Try for Nolix

Based on experience on my own SP Cascade Line, try for a Nolix solution.  This may mean trimming out a siding or two, but will be much more workable.  Are you planning on mid-train helpers?  If so, are you considering manned--separately controlled--helpers?  If manned and separately controlled, the helper engineer needs to keep track of slack action.  That screams for mostly visual routing.

My own RR is HO scale, but has similar planning factors once you consider the scale difference.  Twenty feet sidings in HO translates back to your 10-plus feet in N.  I use my prototype's 1.8 percent grade. You might cut back to something similar.  As I recall from my own rail fanning  on your line, the scene at Austin provides a wonderful example of multiple layrers of track in the same scene.  The Cascade Line has a similar situation in the general area of Salt Creek Trestle. I was able to use this to good effect with two lines in the same scene along the wall that serves for the major portion of my mountain grade.  

Take it from someone with over 200 switches on RR--you WANT to simplify!

Bill Decker, McMinnville, OR, https://espeecascades.blogspot.com

Life Changing Events

Hi EW,

Just some life changing events is all. I did not intend for the posts to rise to the top. 

I've switched gears a bit from my original convoluted idea and settling on one which should be more appealing, both visually and operationally, and thankfully, grades, curvature and aisle space won't be an issue. The only thing in flux at the moment is what era to model (early '50s, mid '70s, or modern), as each have their strengths.

I vote mid-1970's.  Here are

I vote mid-1970's.  Here are some pro's:

- cabooses still normal

- cool 2nd generation diesels but you can still have a few 1st gen running out their last miles.

- no ugly graffiti, graffiti at that time consisted of a few chalk drawings like the Mexican napping under the palm tree!

- 40' box cars still running in freight trains

- fallen flag paint schemes still common such as Frisco, Great Northern, Northern Pacific, Western Pacific, Erie, B&O, Chessie etc.

- TOFC and COFC 85 and 89 foot flat cars common in brown TT and the newer yellow TT.

- Auto racks consisted of a lot of open auto racks but starting in 1974 early enclosed auto racks were introduced

- Early Amtrak phase 1 pointless arrow and some private RR schemes found mixed in on some passenger trains.

- A few private passenger trains still running such as the Rio Grande Zephyr, Southern, Rock Island

- if you stretch into 1978/1979 you can add in those colorful per diem box cars like McLoud River, Yreka Western, and many others.

Thank you!

All excellent points, thank you!

Helper grade

The Elkhorn grade on the NS Pocahontas Division at its steepest is 1.4%.  Most every train going up it gets a helper.

@dark2star ...brilliant idea

@James B

Hi,

always happy to inspire

Have fun!