Track Plan.

Andy:

Do the modules follow any standard (oNeTrack, for example) or are you actually just building a sectional layout?

This is N scale, right?

You did not say, but is continuous running a requirement?

Have you considered a two-deck design?

Some observations:

1. Hidden trackage is wasted trackage, since you cannot watch the trains run. Hidden running is as boring as the dickens. The best designs minimize hidden trackage.

2. Looks like you have a turnout buried down on that hidden trackage in the back of the upper left on the plan. Bad idea. I'll say it again: 90% of your trackwork maintenance will be at turnouts - and hiding a turnout is just asking for it. Turnouts on hidden trackage are only workable if the turnouts are at the front of the benchwork and you have at least 6" (so you can get your hand in) and better 12"+ so you have room to work.

3. Three things about duck unders: they start out annoying, you'll grow to hate them, and you'll never build another layout with one I can guarantee you that.

If I were you, I'd give this some more thought. Four feet wide in N scale is wide enough that you can do a complete turnback loop or helix and have room to spare.

Hi Joe

Thanks for the  input.  Yes the layout is in N scale.    The main reason it is sectional is so that it can be moved easily. since I do a lot of the construction off-site then bring completed modules back to my apartment. 

Two deck design might be a bit beyond my abilities.  Also i dont want to be mounting any benchwork directly into the drywall walls of the condo bedroom.    That is why i am using a free standing modular design.    If it is possible to make double deck modules with legs that might be an option.   Wouldn't they be top heavy?

Continuous running is not an absolute requirement, but would be nice for a 'sit back and watch trains run by' option.   In the prototype.  Trains originate from Vancouver via Chetwynd in the south and end at Fort St. John.   Some will continue north to Fort St. John which is the northern end of the entire BC rail system.  

The only reason for the hidden wrap around track is to keep the LDEs in prototypical order.  Fort Nelson - Fort St John - Taylor - Peace River Bridge - Chetwynd

Yes the one part I will likely revise is the staging.  I will only place turnouts in the accessible staging shelf part of the layout.   My reasoning for putting some turnouts in the hidden section was to lengthen the staging, but access would be a huge pain in that location if derailments occurred.

I have played with a number of different plans but this seems to be the only one where I can get Fort Nelson, Fort St John, Taylor, the Peace River Bridge and Chetwynd in my space; as separated scenes; all in the correct order.

If I did an L shaped dog bone in the same area I am not sure where all the LDEs would go, or if I could even include half of them.    Staging would logically be along the walls, but access would be a huge problem.

Thanks for the input though.   Its good to have a fresh opinion.  I have been wrapping my head around this one for months !

Andy

Hi Joe,

I'm gonna disagree with you a bit on the duck unders and say it depends an awful lot on height. The BC&SJ mainline crosses the entry door at an elevation of 63" with benchwork extending about 4" below railhead height for a duck height of about 59". This is a little lower than a nod under but definitely higher than a bend-over-and-waddle height (at least for me and I'm a bit over 6' tall).

I'd agree with Joe for lower height duck unders anywhere other than infrequent access points. My pseudo nod-under has been workable so far. I will note however that I've recently applied a layer of foam - the kind hard ware stores sell to wrap hot water pipes to members of the duck's underside so that the occaisional 'early riser' doesn't take home a scab as souveneir from a layout visit. This duck is also on a swing bridge so as to make it easier to bring large stuff into the train room when needed.

Although not my favorite feature of the layout, I'd probably build another like it if it was needed to make a track plan function should I ever build another layout.

When thinking about duck under heights think first of yourself now, then of yourself in 10 years (or 20 years), then think of all your train buddies and how they'll deal with a duck under of that height (there's an 82 year old in my Tuesday group with a crawl under that he scampers merrily through without problem - but no one else in the group is happy with 'the tunnel' to his operating pit).

Cheers,

Charlie

Well after sleeping on it I think i may be able to pull off all I need in a two level trackplan.   After some thinking I realized that, yes, you can in fact build two level stand-alone benchwork sections without mounting them into the walls.   The upper level can hang over a lower level balcony-style with the right riser and cross bracing construction techniques.      That discovery, combined with a point to point plan and a single helix changes everything.    

I have heard that some companies make 'helix in a box' kits.  This would be ideal for me as building my own is probably too advanced for me.  

The new plan places all trackwork in view for accessibility and actually opens up the room for non-train functions even more..  Best part is I can retrofit all the benchwork I have already built with an extra top level.     I will draw up some plans in the next week or so and post them again for input.

Thanks

Andy

Andy, I saw an article in an old model railroad planning (I think) where the guy built shelves then placed the modules on the shelves. Basiclaly, legless modules on a cantilevered shelf system. He used a rubber matting on the shelves to keep them from shifting. When I get home tonight I can try to find the reference if I remember.

I was thinking something like that might help you where you need to take pieces to work on off-site. You could make the helix and the shelves relatively permenant, then take the module pieces on and off to work on.

Something to think on. Otherwise I think doing two levels could be a challenge for a layout where pieces regularly need come and go for work.

Chris

Basic Model Railroad Benchwork by Jeff Wilson has several ideas in there for double deck and different types of benchwork.  I'll bet Tony Koester's new book on double deck layouts has a few ideas, too.  Seems to me I read something not too long ago about different methods for a second deck, but I can't remember where I read it.  It may have been Jeff Wilson's book, but I can't say for sure.

Oh, and Linn Westcott's How to Build Model Railroad Benchwork might have some useful information, too.

Great input guys.

I should state that I use the term 'module' not to refer to any Ntrack specs. but simply a standard design I came up with whereby i have a series of 12 x 48 or 18 x 48 inch self-standing benchwork units  (self-standing in that they have built in folding legs that retract 'aircraft landing gear' style up into the L girders).  Part of it is so I can do the messy work in a friends workshop.  The other part is that i want a layout that I do not have to destroy to move it out of this place if i move somewhere else.   An added bonus is that, technically the entire layout could be put in the back of a big truck or SUV and set up at a train show.   We only have one large annual train show in Calgary so thats not really a massive design requirement.

Once the layout is essentially at an operational point, there won't be any need to take down the benchwork units so I don't anticipate any issues with trackjoins across baseboard sections at two levels.

There was a great quote on a recent model railcast episode referring to two level layouts  ...' I don't like two level layouts, but I like what they can do for me".    I can't remember off hand who said it, but his point was that a two level layout enabled him to operate it prototypically, which was his main goal. 

That exactly summed up my feeling.   Once i looked at my original plan (see my first post) and saw that I could essentially include all the LDEs in a double deck layout that actually took up even less floorspace I was convinced it was worth the extra effort in construction.  

My original benchwork had been 42" high but i had started adding 10" risers simply to raise the height of the roadbed on my planned single level layout.   By widening some units and relocating risers i can now have a lower level at the original 42" and the upper level at 12 - 15" above that ( I will retrofit the 10" risers).   I already have the new plan in my head.  All i need to do is sketch it out.  I will do this whenever i have some spare time. Hopefully should have that posted in a week or so.

Oh and yes you can buy a 'helix in a box'.  Check out Ashlin Designs at

http://www.ashlintrains.com/servlet/the-Helix-elevation-system/Categories

I have no desire to build one myself.  I would rather buy a kit to ensure a lifetime of trouble-free operation.

Andy

Tony Koester's new book defintiely has information on how to build a second deck for layouts. It's wortha  look. But if you want to avoid destroying your walls you are going to need to find a way to avoid that. One way could be artifical studs behind your lower level and anchored to that level. The only problem with this that I can see is that it will take away otherwise useable space. It will also make it problematical to make upper level wider than a foor without requiring some kind of visible bracing towards to front of the layout.

Irv

Charlie, I would imagine your pseudo-duck/nod under now looks something like this (yes I found out the hard way--literally!--as well). Jamie

Want to see more of that great benchwork