Benchwork - Wiring - adding elevations

@Darrell posted:

With a slight modification the track spacers could come in handy to trace out the track for cutting the sub roadbed!

For a single mainline that is, they are perfect for a double mainline as is!

Let me know if anyone needs something modified, I will draw up a single track version for sure as I am getting close to cutting sub roadbed. Thanks for the input! Let me know if you have a particular modification you would like.

ok, here is a couple of pics of the roadbed jig. I made one a little too small, envisioning it being hung up on curved track. The larger one has no problem with 072 curves or 054, if I need tighter curves the small one I am sure will do the job. In the mean time I will make some small revisions to make them more durable and user friendly. I will then post the .stl files to the 3d forum. enjoy

Stills

Pic of longer sub roadbed jig

Wow that is just great! Have you thought about selling them? You know some of us slower folks like me could sure use one! LOL 😆

I’d be interested in buying also; both for single and double track.

@RubinG posted:

I’d be interested in buying also; both for single and double track.

I have track spacers with outlining pencil, and single track pencil jigs. Let me know the track spacing dimension you need, as these can be made to any spacing. These have only been developed for Gargrave track, as that is all I have to measure and test them on.

@mike g. posted:

Wow that is just great! Have you thought about selling them? You know some of us slower folks like me could sure use one! LOL 😆

Hoping to just post the .stl files on 3D forum, if someone doesn't have 3D access then I could make some extra's to send out. Don't want to make any money, rather share and give back to this community for every one's help.

I will be looking forward to when you post the files,  my printer is looking for something to do!

Very nice, John!!

I uploaded the files yesterday and awaiting approval before they will be posted. I do not know how long that takes, but patience is a virtue! I'll print some up for anyone without a 3D printer. Just PM me.

Update on printing production (that is stretching it) it is taking 18 hours for a set to print. Hmmm I would be printing for centuries to make a million dollars LOL Neither me nor the printer will survive that long...

@Darrell posted:

I will be looking forward to when you post the files,  my printer is looking for something to do!

Hi, They were just posted yesterday!

Belated Merry Christmas All and Happy New Year.

I have been suffering from analysis paralysis these past few months. However I may have gotten out of that with having added a trolley track. It is still in imaginary stage, however I feel good about how much interest this may add to the entire layout. Scarm has been dusted off and I am getting a good sense of how it will look. While I have been spinning my wheels with layout stagnation, I printed up some elevated supports that will have either one or two tracks at any height I choose. I'll post some pics on the elevated sections and a preliminary scarm when that gets completed.

Again Happy New Years to All !!!

John belated Christmas and I hope you have a wonderful New Year!

It is nice to hear that you may have a trolley system to add to your layout! It will give me something else to drool over on your layout! I can't wait to see how it grows into profusion!

Take care and don't let the gears sit idle to long!

John, I think analysis paralysis can hit all of us at some point.  The trolley line sounds like a good idea.  Have a blessed New Year!

Hi Mark,

Hoping you and the entire forum had a Happy New Year!!!!

Love all the work you've done on your layout. Fantastic work! I am hoping to attain 1/2 of what you have done.

Here is the preliminary scarm dwg. I know it is VERY preliminary, however I wanted comments and suggestions on all the rules I have broken. LOL I will also upload some pics, I do not have two 30 degree crossings so I moved one for picture taking.

Here are pics with a rudimentary layout, using paint cans for elevated lines etc. lol

Happy New Year, John!  I'm not really up on yards.  I don't think you need so many leads to the turntable; two is good.  That point may have been discussed before, but it's been a while so I may be thinking of someone else.  The tracks that cross over others look to be 4.75" above the 0 level tracks.  I don't recall if you are running any high modern equipment.  How thick will your roadbed be for the upper tracks?  I had one place where I had clearance, but used a screw that was too long on the top and it stuck down too far.  Oops!  I fixed that and didn't really damage anything.  The preliminary tracklaying is a good idea.  I'm not the only one who has laid track and found a place where tracks don't meet and need modifications.

Hi John I really like the layout plan. There are a few things that I would think about right off the bat.

1) I noticed that most of your layout table is 4' wide. I know that could be a problem for me, unless I had an overhead creeper.

2) if  you removed the inner siding on the side where the TT is you could lessen the width down to around 36" which would leave you room for a service road!

3) I see you have a lot of O-32 curves. I know most of my engines are meant for 0-54 or bigger.

I also see the separation from the main table it only 4.75" I don't know anything that can go under that except an empty flat car.

I know one thing if we get a house with a room close to that size I will be asking permission to use some of your plan for my next layout!

Happy New Years!

@Mark Boyce posted:

Happy New Year, John!  I'm not really up on yards.  I don't think you need so many leads to the turntable; two is good.  That point may have been discussed before, but it's been a while so I may be thinking of someone else.  The tracks that cross over others look to be 4.75" above the 0 level tracks.  I don't recall if you are running any high modern equipment.  How thick will your roadbed be for the upper tracks?  I had one place where I had clearance, but used a screw that was too long on the top and it stuck down too far.  Oops!  I fixed that and didn't really damage anything.  The preliminary tracklaying is a good idea.  I'm not the only one who has laid track and found a place where tracks don't meet and need modifications.

Happy New Year too!

Thanks Mark for paying attention to the details. The elevations were ignored as I wasn’t sure where things would go. I have enough track to keep all inclines to under 3% I just need to now go back through and fix those issues. My goal is for a 6 inch clearance

I was excited about the trolley addition and want everyone’s feedback, so it was rushed to posting lol

thanks

@mike g. posted:

Hi John I really like the layout plan. There are a few things that I would think about right off the bat.

1) I noticed that most of your layout table is 4' wide. I know that could be a problem for me, unless I had an overhead creeper.

Happy news years !
yes I am struggling with reducing the width of the layout, I do have an overhead creeper, however it will not be fun to work from, so I may be following your sage advice

2) if  you removed the inner siding on the side where the TT is you could lessen the width down to around 36" which would leave you room for a service road!

3) I see you have a lot of O-32 curves. I know most of my engines are meant for 0-54 or bigger.

as far as the 0-32 curves, that is the trolley run

I also see the separation from the main table it only 4.75" I don't know anything that can go under that except an empty flat car. Yes I will get elevations sorted as soon as I get some more time on scary

I know one thing if we get a house with a room close to that size I will be asking permission to use some of your plan for my next layout!

you have been a tremendous help for me for sure!!!

thanks

Happy New Years!

@Aegis21 posted:

If that is just starting, your way ahead of the game! I can tell now that this is going to be a special layout! I am so glad I am fallowing along!

John, to piggyback on Mark's post, I don't understand the track that curves across the TT. Is that an elevated track and part of the trolley line? If it is, can I assume the O32 curves will only be used by a trolley?

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, to piggyback on Mark's post, I don't understand the track that curves across the TT. Is that an elevated track and part of the trolley line? If it is, can I assume the O32 curves will only be used by a trolley?

Happy New Year’s

yes all 0-32 curves are trolley only and that section on the TT is operator error . Too many space bar hits I think, so it should stop much shorter and can be adjusted when I start laying out the yard area

thanks

@mike g. posted:

If that is just starting, your way ahead of the game! I can tell now that this is going to be a special layout! I am so glad I am fallowing along!

Starting after getting out of analysis paralysis lol. I have been procrastinating wayyyy to long

@Aegis21 posted:

Happy New Year’s

yes all 0-32 curves are trolley only and that section on the TT is operator error . Too many space bar hits I think, so it should stop much shorter and can be adjusted when I start laying out the yard area

thanks

That explains that.  I didn’t notice the 032 curves.  Yes, it is easy to have tracks sections show up unintended.

Im glad you are starting to flex your joints and get out of paralysis! 😃

John, you are so smart! I need to get some trolly cars so I can use the smaller curves I have that my bigger engiens wont run on. Would be a perfect idea for a upper loop between cities or towns!

Hi Mike,

Maybe not so smart, but desperate to have more interest in the layout. Also, I am starting the trolleys most likely bump and go. However I would like to switch to a command control and have trolley stops etc. That maybe biting off more than I can chew. Glad my escapade with the trolley inspired you for your future build. I am sure it will be a fantastic layout, given you had done such a great job before!

Well I am finalizing the track layout on scarm and I know I have read this answer several times around this forum. However I cannot remember the height of a track over another track for clearance??? I think my tallest train is 5" but may have visitors with taller engines. What height will accommodate modern trains? And what is the height for old post war conventional powered trains?

Thanks in Advance

john

The Fastrack elevated trestle set is 5.5" and what I use but I don't have any crazy tall rolling stock. I believe others would suggest 6" clearance.

Based on my experience, especially with today’s scale sized engines, cars and cabooses, you really need a minimum of 6” clearance from rail top to the bottom of the upper level sub- roadbed. And you want to limit your grade to no more than 3% ( 3” per 100”) plus at least a couple of feet of transition - gradual grad e until you reach the 3% grade) to avoid problems with loco pilots and loco length.
just as a side note, I’ve been working on redesigning my plan because I’ve learned that I really can’t work on track when it’s is more than 28” away from me due to short arms  and a gut. So I’ll need to narrow my layout to accommodate that limitation. I only mention this so that you take any similar limitations into account.
Thanks again to everyone in the group for their help and insights.
Rubin

@David_NJ posted:

The Fastrack elevated trestle set is 5.5" and what I use but I don't have any crazy tall rolling stock. I believe others would suggest 6" clearance.

Thanks David for your input, I will adhere to the 6" clearance as it seems reasonable and will accommodate most visitors running their trains. it maybe good to go 6.25", but I'll see what grades that poses.

Thanks!

@Aegis21 posted:

Thanks David for your input, I will adhere to the 6" clearance as it seems reasonable and will accommodate most visitors running their trains. it maybe good to go 6.25", but I'll see what grades that poses.

Thanks!

I went with 5.5" on my 5x9 layout. If I had an independent 2nd level, height/grade wouldn't have been a concern.

@RubinG posted:

Based on my experience, especially with today’s scale sized engines, cars and cabooses, you really need a minimum of 6” clearance from rail top to the bottom of the upper level sub- roadbed. And you want to limit your grade to no more than 3% ( 3” per 100”) plus at least a couple of feet of transition - gradual grad e until you reach the 3% grade) to avoid problems with loco pilots and loco length.
just as a side note, I’ve been working on redesigning my plan because I’ve learned that I really can’t work on track when it’s is more than 28” away from me due to short arms  and a gut. So I’ll need to narrow my layout to accommodate that limitation. I only mention this so that you take any similar limitations into account.
Thanks again to everyone in the group for their help and insights.
Rubin

Thanks for confirming the 6" min. clearance. And I will heed your sage advice on the grade with transition length. As far as reach goes, that will be an issue I will need to contend with for sure and am planning to have some removable sides to lengthen my arms and shorten my gut. I think going to a 32" table width after removable is taken out, will be the best that the layout will allow. I do have an overhead creeper which will help out in those areas.

Thanks for your input!!!

@David_NJ posted:

I went with 5.5" on my 5x9 layout. If I had an independent 2nd level, height/grade wouldn't have been a concern.

Yes two separate levels is a tremendous help with clearances. No grade/trasition worries!

John I think 5.5 is the lowest point on my layout.  I researched on this website I recall somebody saying the double-stacks auto carriers are the tallest stock.  

John, good advice from everyone.  I used 5" minimum and my grades are 4%, however, all my equipment follows steam/diesel transition era prototypes.  Those numbers work for me, but they won't work for you.  If I had your space, I would have gone with less grades and maybe an inch higher clearance.  I certainly won't be running an hi-cubes, double stacks, or pantographs on my layout.

@42trainman posted:

John I think 5.5 is the lowest point on my layout.  I researched on this website I recall somebody saying the double-stacks auto carriers are the tallest stock.  

Thanks for the information! I will strive for 6.0 lowest point, while keeping grade < 3% not sure if that is feasible, but worth shooing for. I wonder if it worth going lower to achive grade or allowing > 3% but < 3.5% grade at one or two sections and having a lower grade right when the incline levels out? Seems from reading the posts on this forum there seems to be issues with transitioning between grade and level track.

@Mark Boyce posted:

John, good advice from everyone.  I used 5" minimum and my grades are 4%, however, all my equipment follows steam/diesel transition era prototypes.  Those numbers work for me, but they won't work for you.  If I had your space, I would have gone with less grades and maybe an inch higher clearance.  I certainly won't be running an hi-cubes, double stacks, or pantographs on my layout.

Hi Mark,

I doubt I will be running hi-cubes, double stacks or pantographs, although pantographs could be a possibility. I will be striving for 6.0" clearance and less than 3% grade. Although if my grade has to go to 3.3% I feel I could live with that, or at least I am hoping to be able to live with it.

I actually prefer small molive power like a PRR H-6 2-8-0 or G5 4-6-0 or a NYC  4-6-0, but even in that case standard scale passenger cars may be 18” long and give you a hard time, especially if your vertical transitions are too sharp. I also have a bunch of of 60 foot (16”) shorties, but even those are 60% again as long as a 40 Foot scale box car. But on the other hand, I’m finding that 072 curves are tough to work with, even though I have more space to work in than I’ve ever had before. I guess the bottom line is try what you want to, see how it works and be flexible. Have fun and enjoy your railroad.
Rubin