Raising a mountain in the lower right:

First attempt with roads:

I've gone this far, I might just as well add some trees:

Impressive, three reverse loops in a 5'x9' space. Nice design. Wiring the upper reverse loop with one PSX-AR-AC is easy and the reverse loop segment is long enough to hold a reasonably long train. On the lower elevation all the track making up the center"X" can be isolated and wired through a single reverse loop controller. Max train length through the "X" would be an engine and four cars if the last car is illuminated. Fortunately the S gauge 90deg FasTrack crossing has an insulated center diamond. Are you planning to build and operate this layout?

@AmFlyer posted:

Impressive, three reverse loops in a 5'x9' space. Nice design. Wiring the upper reverse loop with one PSX-AR-AC is easy and the reverse loop segment is long enough to hold a reasonably long train. On the lower elevation all the track making up the center"X" can be isolated and wired through a single reverse loop controller. Max train length through the "X" would be an engine and four cars if the last car is illuminated. Fortunately the S gauge 90deg FasTrack crossing has an insulated center diamond. Are you planning to build and operate this layout?

Thanks AMFlyer, I am toying with the idea, I just now ordered some track to play with and a command control turnout.

Agree, the elevated reverse loop is straight-forward for detection and reversing.

On the lower section, I am not sure.  Would it work to wire the oval in two halves horizontally, ending at the crossing.  Then two reverse units would detect and reverse each half.  That would handle longer trains?

Not sure about this, the yellow and green would both be subject to reversing on a polarity detection across the gap.  Only one should fire, depending on direction of travel.  May need some more thought.

I am thinking four reversing units total?

I worked up a circuit some years ago, to control a block signal that shows red when the two track sections are opposite polarity.  Have not revisited the idea recently.

Or is this what I need:  the black never reverses, but the green and blue reverse on a polarity mismatch.  That would work if power is AC.

Ken, my layout has a hidden staging yard/reverse loop under the layout that looks just like your red plus blue track. Mine is wired such that the reverse loop segment, your blue track, would end at the point end of the upper RH turnout. I am not sure if four PSX-AR-AC's are necessary but what you drew should work. My concern is there are two reverse loops touching each other and I am not sure how the controllers will react.

I would first try combining the red and yellow and connecting that to the transformer. Connect the green through a reverser board and the blue through another reverser board. I think that works.

The advantage of the way I first suggested with the entire "X" as a reverse loop is that you can operate engines to move cars on and off the sidings without constantly triggering the controllers. When the pilot wheels move across that insulated junction there is a pretty big spark when the board is triggered. Not like the HO DCC system. 10A from a ZW-L channel can make a big spark, that is one reason why the AC version of these boards have such a big heat sink on them.

I have 5 PSX-AR-AC's on my layout and after four years one just failed. It is the one that powers the points/diamond in a 22.5deg mainline crossing. It is frequently activated because of the crossing location in the track plan. I have two new ones in the mail to me from Tony's Trains, a replacement and a spare. It is unusual for these to fail so I have someone who will look at the failed board to see what happened.

Hi Ken nice layout on your elevation could you tell me how many feet going from 0 to 4 1/2 inches and what height are the supports and spacing?

The length of the grade can be calculated from the 3.9% and 4.5" rise. That is almost exactly 10', plus some additional distance for the required vertical easements at the bottom and top of the grade. That would make the total grade between 11' and 12' depending on the easements used.

@AmFlyer posted:

Ken, my layout has a hidden staging yard/reverse loop under the layout that looks just like your red plus blue track. Mine is wired such that the reverse loop segment, your blue track, would end at the point end of the upper RH turnout. I am not sure if four PSX-AR-AC's are necessary but what you drew should work. My concern is there are two reverse loops touching each other and I am not sure how the controllers will react.

I would first try combining the red and yellow and connecting that to the transformer. Connect the green through a reverser board and the blue through another reverser board. I think that works.

The advantage of the way I first suggested with the entire "X" as a reverse loop is that you can operate engines to move cars on and off the sidings without constantly triggering the controllers. When the pilot wheels move across that insulated junction there is a pretty big spark when the board is triggered. Not like the HO DCC system. 10A from a ZW-L channel can make a big spark, that is one reason why the AC version of these boards have such a big heat sink on them.

I have 5 PSX-AR-AC's on my layout and after four years one just failed. It is the one that powers the points/diamond in a 22.5deg mainline crossing. It is frequently activated because of the crossing location in the track plan. I have two new ones in the mail to me from Tony's Trains, a replacement and a spare. It is unusual for these to fail so I have someone who will look at the failed board to see what happened.

Many thanks for your help, Tom, I appreciate your experience and insight!

So, is this idea worthwhile to allow trailing-point switching of the spurs without tripping the automatic reverse units?

I divided the top green/black straight section in half, thinking either side might need a place to set out a car or two while interchanging with the spurs.   The little curving tail past the spur's turnouts on each block, might allow a car or lighted caboose to be set out there, at 9.5".

The bottom green/black straight I assigned it all to the green block, in case a locomotive working the green spur with a short train needs some length to move a train back and forth while switching.   The black block has the length on grade running up to the elevated that gives it more length/space to work with.

@AmFlyer posted:

The length of the grade can be calculated from the 3.9% and 4.5" rise. That is almost exactly 10', plus some additional distance for the required vertical easements at the bottom and top of the grade. That would make the total grade between 11' and 12' depending on the easements used.

The run on grade from turnout to turnout is 110".   I would use Woodland Scenics inclines for simplicity and ease of construction to make the grade.   Their 4% grade is 8 feet, 96" (actually a bit over 4%, but close) with a rise of 4".  The additional 0.5" rise requires another foot of run.   So to reach 4.5" at 4% (approx), is 108 inches.  No length for easements.

So instead, if I lower the rise to 4.25" from 4.5", then the run on grade needed is 96+6=102".  Leaving 8" for vertical easements, which I would give equally 4" at the top and bottom, so there would be 8" at both ends at 2%.  Perhaps not enough easement, but better than nothing.

Woodland Scenics has 2%, 3%, and 4" foam curve-able inclines.  Its pretty easy to cut an 8" section of 2% for both ends, and run 4% in between.

4% is the maximum grade I will work with in O.  I am thinking that will work fine for short S trains as well?

NMRA S Scale Vertical Clearance recommendation is 3 3/16" to 4 5/16", so 4.25" seems doable.  From that 4.25" you must subtract the height of the roadbed and rail under the bridge, and the depth of any bridge support.  Seems like that will be fine, in the middle of NMRA's recommendation. (Perhaps won't allow double-stacks ).

I am looking to purchase a LionChief Northern as the "big power" running this layout, needing S36 minimum.

In this version I added a tunnel to the mountain in the lower-right.  It features a sheer rock face (dark color).

@Ken-Oscale posted:

The run on grade from turnout to turnout is 110".   I would use Woodland Scenics inclines for simplicity and ease of construction to make the grade.   Their 4% grade is 8 feet, 96" (actually a bit over 4%, but close) with a rise of 4".  The additional 0.5" rise requires another foot of run.   So to reach 4.5" at 4% (approx), is 108 inches.  No length for easements.

So instead, if I lower the rise to 4.25" from 4.5", then the run on grade needed is 96+6=102".  Leaving 8" for vertical easements, which I would give equally 4" at the top and bottom, so there would be 8" at both ends at 2%.  Perhaps not enough easement, but better than nothing.

Woodland Scenics has 2%, 3%, and 4" foam curve-able inclines.  Its pretty easy to cut an 8" section of 2% for both ends, and run 4% in between.

4% is the maximum grade I will work with in O.  I am thinking that will work fine for short S trains as well?

NMRA S Scale Vertical Clearance recommendation is 3 3/16" to 4 5/16", so 4.25" seems doable.  From that 4.25" you must subtract the height of the roadbed and rail under the bridge, and the depth of any bridge support.  Seems like that will be fine, in the middle of NMRA's recommendation. (Perhaps won't allow double-stacks ).

I am looking to purchase a LionChief Northern as the "big power" running this layout, needing S36 minimum.

Looking forward to seeing this built.

BTW, the FlyerChief Northern will run on R20 (original Flyer curves.)  There is no so-called "S36" in S sectional track.  The common curves are R20, R24 and R27.  The "S36" is a result of Lionel's cut-'n-pasteitis from the O gauge FasTrack.

Rusty

I made two curved plate-girder bridges as approaches to a straight long steel bridge, on concrete piers.

Could be a long trestle instead, with a short bridge over the crossing and turnout.

i cant use the woodland incline because my incline is off the table im using angle brackets screwed to the side on the table it starts 36in on the table then goes on to the brackets with a piece of 1/2 ply under the fasttrack i can adjust the bracket height to what ever but i dont know what ever is i have trouble with percents i was looking for height /inches /length 

           thanks

Wayne:  don't know if this helps:  But just calculate 1/2" rise for each foot at 4% (close to 4% - 4" rise in 96" run - 8 ft).

If you want 2%, then 1/4" inch rise every one foot.

If you want 3%, then 3/8" rise every foot.

This is what Woodland Scenics uses, for convenience.  The actual grade of their inclines at 4% is 4"/96" = 4.166% grade.

The actual for 3% using this "heuristic" (rule-of-thumb) is 3/96 = 03.125%.

Actual for 2% is 2/96 = 2.083%

If you are not concerned with the variance, this is an easy way to calculate and plan grades.

For instance, using these approximations, if you want a 4% grade with vertical easements of 2%:

• leading (lower easement) of 1' at 2%= 1/4"
• 4% rise over 8 feet = 4"
• crest vertical easement at 2% of 1' = 1/4"

So that gives 4.5" of rise over 10'.

[by comparison, 10' of constant 4% (actual 4.166%) gives 5" of rise.  10' of true/precise 4% grade gives a rise of 4.8"]

Years ago, I built a layout with a grade this way:

• 1' of 2% = 1/4" rise
• 1' of 3% = 3/8" rise
• 8' of 4% = 4" rise
• 1' of 3% = 3/8" rise
• 1' of 2% = 1/4" rise

Total rise over 12' was 5 1/4" (for an O layout).  I put two little 4-wheel "Beep" locos at the head-end, and they pulled 11 cars up the grade just fine.  Fun times!  That was the length of my passing track, so all good.

@Rusty Traque posted:

Looking forward to seeing this built.

BTW, the FlyerChief Northern will run on R20 (original Flyer curves.)  There is no so-called "S36" in S sectional track.  The common curves are R20, R24 and R27.  The "S36" is a result of Lionel's cut-'n-pasteitis from the O gauge FasTrack.

Rusty

I wondered about that, wondered if Lionel really tested or built the loco for 36" diameter rather than 40" diameter.  But I didn't want to assume, so just posted what Lionel claimed on their website.

Thank you Ken now i have the numbers i can fix the elevation.

@waynef posted:

Thank you Ken now i have the numbers i can fix the elevation.

Wonderful!  Glad to help, and thanks for the discusson!

Ken, your redesign of the sidings looks good to me, it is quite well thought out. If I may, I have one more suggestion for your consideration. It appears almost all the action is around the center diamond. Consider making the oval and diamond the upper level and the long reverse loop with parallel tracks the lower level. This way none of the turnouts will be obscured and some nice industry and city buildings can be positioned around the sidings without being obscured by track and other viewblocks.

One other minor point, the rise to run numbers in an earlier post include some rounding which shortens the actual horizontal distance required. For example a 1% grade is .12" in 12", so a 4% grade is .48" in 12". A 4.8" rise requires a true 10' w/o any vertical easements. At 4% some Legacy engines and some AM engines will require a short vertical easement. I have them on my 2% grades for flawless operation.

@AmFlyer posted:

Ken, your redesign of the sidings looks good to me, it is quite well thought out. If I may, I have one more suggestion for your consideration. It appears almost all the action is around the center diamond. Consider making the oval and diamond the upper level and the long reverse loop with parallel tracks the lower level. This way none of the turnouts will be obscured and some nice industry and city buildings can be positioned around the sidings without being obscured by track and other viewblocks.

One other minor point, the rise to run numbers in an earlier post include some rounding which shortens the actual horizontal distance required. For example a 1% grade is .12" in 12", so a 4% grade is .48" in 12". A 4.8" rise requires a true 10' w/o any vertical easements. At 4% some Legacy engines and some AM engines will require a short vertical easement. I have them on my 2% grades for flawless operation.

Thanks AmFlyer, I will think about your idea of reversing the elevation, that could be interesting!  That would have a long tunnel through the center of the layout in-accessible - could be a problem.

I addressed the approximation/heuristic for easy grade caclulation in a long post to Wayne, above.

Regards, Ken

Using the approximate grades X"/96" discussed above, for Woodland Scenics inclines of 2%, 3%, or 4%; you can work the problem backwards:

Say you need 6" of rise, and you have 17' of run.  And you want 2' of 2% easement at either end:

• Leading easement 2' of 2% (approx) gives 1/2"
• Crest easement 2' of 2% (approx) gives 1/2"
• That uses 4' of the 17' of run (13' of run remaining), and leaves 5" of remaining rise to achieve.
• So you can make that 5" more with 4% (approx) in 10' of run.  Leaving 3' of run available at the crest or leading into the grade.

• To see if you could make the main run 3% instead, for the remaining 5" of rise.  13' of run at 3% (approx) is 3/8" per foot, or 4.875".  
• At that point, you can choose to stay with the 4% main run (approx) with some run left over, or if you can reduce your height goal to 5.875" from 6", and do the main run at 3%.

If after consideration, you like the 3% grade, and MUST have 6" of rise in 17' or run, you can decide to reduce the length of the easements to hit your target.   [This is STILL using the approximate ?/96" grades that Woodland Scenics uses for their inclines]

Your equation is 6" == X*1/4" (2%approx) + Y*3/8" (3%approx).  [X is the feet of 2%, Y is the feet of 3%] 

• And you also know that X+Y == 17   or,   X=17-Y, substitute for X.
• Working the algebra with a substitution, yields"   6"==  (17-Y) * 1/4"   +   Y*3/8"
• 6" == (4.25 - 1/4Y) + 3/8Y
• 6" - 4.25" == 1/8Y
• 1.75" = 1/8Y
• 1.75" * 8  == Y
• 14 = Y
• Since X+Y=17, then X must be 3 feet.
• So, you conclude that you can do exactly 6" of rise in 17' of run using these approximate grades, with 14' of 3%, and 3' of 2% easement (or 1.5' of easement at each end).
• You might have guessed reducing the easements from 2' to 1.5' to see if it would work, and it does, the trail-and-error method would have saved the algebra, in this case.
• Fun for me, I hope your eyes didn't glaze over!

Ken, I look forward to your final configuration. You have packed a lot of action into 5'x9'.

For info, the minimum vertical clearance on my layout is 4.5". The rail head to rail head distance is 5.25". It runs everything with the possible exception of the OldTimer engine and the Gilbert reel car but I have not tested those, they may clear as well. The track is MTH flex on cork roadbed on plywood.

@AmFlyer posted:

Ken, I look forward to your final configuration. You have packed a lot of action into 5'x9'.

For info, the minimum vertical clearance on my layout is 4.5". The rail head to rail head distance is 5.25". It runs everything with the possible exception of the OldTimer engine and the Gilbert reel car but I have not tested those, they may clear as well. The track is MTH flex on cork roadbed on plywood.

Thanks Tom, and thanks for the info and your help!

I suppose NMRA standards are based on scale equipment, rather than traditional equipment.  To get a larger vertical clearance I would need to increase the grade, since I can't increase the run (much?).   Re-shaping the outside loop/grade would only gain an inch or two, so this layout can't go much higher without steeper grades.   Traditional O layouts would use 6% and more grades, not sure I want to go there.

So, the layout as planned is for S-gauge SCALE equipment, not traditional/Gilbert. 

I wonder if I should redo the grade with 6% max to accommodate some traditional/Gilbert stuff?

• I could do 1' easement at each end at 2%  (2' for 1/2")
• 1' at each end at 4% (2' for 1")
• and the rest at 6%.
• I have 110" of run.  Subtracting the 4' for easements total (48"), leaves 62" that can go at 6%.
• Woodland Scenics doesn't offer 6% inclines, but you can stack a 2% and 4% to get 6% (I have done a 2% and 3% to get 5%).
• Its 6" of rise over 8' of run (6/96 = 6.25% actual).  6/96 * 62" remaining run = 3.875" (3 and 7/8").
• So my total rise would be 1/2" + 1" + 3 7/8" == 5 3/8".

That might work for traditional/Gilbert equipment!

I reworked the grade to get a bit more length, and put the first turnout at the top on the 2% easement grade.  I was able to get the total run to 130+".

• leading easement at 2%:  12" * 2/96 =   0.25" rise
• 4% grade:  100" * 4/96 =    4.17" rise
• 2% crest easement at 2% =   16" * 2/96 =    0.33"
• Total rise = 4.75"

I put the grade % changes at the track section connections.

I have measured the thickness of S FasTrack, and its right at 1/2", leaving 4.25" of vertical clearance.  Tom reports his layout has 4.5" minimum vertical clearance that clears most everything that he runs.   So this is 1/4" less than Tom's standard - maybe OK. 

The thickness of the bridge beneath the track can perhaps zero - FasTrack is strong and rigid, and the bridge sides can be at the bottom of the roadbed, glued to it.  The long part of the bridge is a 30" section - a couple additional piers can maybe support the weight without sagging.   If contrived this way, then the vertical clearance can be 4.25", close to Tom's 4.5".

I suppose its possible to shave off 1/8" from the bottom of the plastic roadbed, to gain a vertical clearance of 4 3/8".  Not too hard to do.

After some clean-up:

For continuous running, I would probably run one train reverse-loop to reverse-loop.  The second train would stand on the passing siding, extending back into the mine spur.

Checking some train lengths to see how they would fit on this small layout:

A try with a small creek:

The layout needs staging tracks, placed here under the elevated passing siding.  The hidden turnout is accessed from the siding side, which is open.

Looks like it would be worthwhile to support 2-train operation, to connect the staging track to make a hidden passing track.  Both turnouts are easily accessible from the open passing track side.  Cool!

Ken, the tallest item on my layout is the oversize S gauge Big Boy. it needs 3.5" clearance. All the other equipment running on my layout will fit under a 3.25" clearance. The 4.5" clearance I have was set because we could, not that it was absolutely necessary. It also looks good at the tunnel portals etc. There are a few (hidden) places we had space issues. The track above the lower track crosses with the flex ties sitting directly on 1/8" aluminum plate to save space. I recommend avoiding steeper grades if you can.

I like the staging tracks.

@AmFlyer posted:

Ken, the tallest item on my layout is the oversize S gauge Big Boy. it needs 3.5" clearance. All the other equipment running on my layout will fit under a 3.25" clearance. The 4.5" clearance I have was set because we could, not that it was absolutely necessary. It also looks good at the tunnel portals etc. There are a few (hidden) places we had space issues. The track above the lower track crosses with the flex ties sitting directly on 1/8" aluminum plate to save space. I recommend avoiding steeper grades if you can.

I like the staging tracks.

Thanks Tom!

If the entire 130" of 4% grade plus 2% easements were at 3% with no easements, the vertical rise would be 4". [X/96 grade approximation that Woodland Scenics uses.]  An option.

With 15 S20 turnouts, I am glad that S FasTrack is considerably less expensive than O FasTrack.  I ordered a command control R20 for about $60, correction: $82.95,  where as a command control O-FasTrack is around $100.

Wow, that is quite a discount. The Lionel MSRP for a 20"R command control turnout is $109.99.

@AmFlyer posted:

Wow, that is quite a discount. The Lionel MSRP for a 20"R command control turnout is $109.99.

Correction:  Checked my invoice this morning.  The turnout price came in at $82.95.  

Very nice work Ken as always

Thank you Doug!

I suppose we can take the hidden staging/passing siding idea further, and do something like this:  Its all close to the edge so easily reachable.  This argues for the higher elevation at 4.75", with 2% easements and 4% main grade for ease in reaching and seeing the hidden tracks beneath.  This certainly makes two-train operation easier.

The single-track grade can be protected by block signals at the top and bottom.  I like that look, one of my favorite train experiences is camping at the end of a long siding in the mountains, where a train had to stop on the siding and wait for an opposing train to pass.   The fireman got out of the cab and did a visual inspection of the passing train(s).  The oncoming train was coming downhill behind a ridge, so we could hear the train, but not see it, but at night we saw the headlights playing against the ridge across the tracks long before.

Between trains, we were entertained at night by three deer running across the tracks and across a babbling brook, being pursued by two coyotes, with more coyotes calling in the distance.  No idea how that turned out, probably not good for the deer.  It was a full moon with a clear sky, and the scene was well lit.

Space for a loco storage track in the hidden trackage:

I swapped the elevated mine over to the other side turnout, so that the right side elevated turnout and spur can be used to hold or stage a train that is longer than the passing track, with the loco pointed down the grade and the train backed into and extending down the spur.

When the second train climbs the loop and takes the turnouts over the bridge and around the curve; as it clears the easement turnout, the waiting train can then proceed.

The right side spur can be built without the lighted bumper, and considered a connection to another RR, generating cars and trains.  The spur could be used as a interchange track.

Next, added a second tunnel, place-names, and the rotating beacon: