Craig Townsend said:
I feel like I’m getting deep into the weeds with this conversation!
This is the type of conversation worth having.
Devon Sinsley said:
So when does the straight give way to the bend. Same question. At the point that the rail attaches to the frog?
Are you trying to figure out if turnouts have a spiral easement between the point rails and the closure rail, and the frog and the closure rail?
http://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/d3b1.pdf
http://www.ohio.edu/people/hermanl/ce311/route.survey.text/CE311.M-G.5.Spirals.pdf
Craig Townsend said:
Devon Sinsley said:
So when does the straight give way to the bend. Same question. At the point that the rail attaches to the frog?
Are you trying to figure out if turnouts have a spiral easement between the point rails and the closure rail, and the frog and the closure rail?
http://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/d3b1.pdf
http://www.ohio.edu/people/hermanl/ce311/route.survey.text/CE311.M-G.5.Spirals.pdf
No…(http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif) I finally got the answer I was looking for. You answered it when you said the closure rail begins its curve where it bolts to the frog. And continues its curve until it reaches the point rails (BTW the #9 switch diagram finally made it clear what you were calling the point rail versus the closure rail).
I don’t even want to know what the heck your talking about with a spiral easement. Easement in a curve I understand that’s the bit of track that “eases” or transitions the into and out of a curve. I play forza motor sports and understand easing into and out of a curve. Now I have no idea what a spiral easement is. I also don’t believe there is much room for an easement in a switch as you stated. If you want to go fast through the switch you need to lengthen it and make that curve gentle. I get all that.
Thanks for those links (well not sure about the second one, lots of ugly math in that one.)
Now one thing I had forgot all about is super elevation. At one time I was looking making a corkscrew track in N for use in a dual level layout. I was looking at making a very tight curve and super elevating (banking in case someone doesn’t know what this means). This is a whole different can of worms and while it helps with coupler alignment and helps keep the train from trying to yanking itself off the track in a curve, I don’t see the point unless your going to run really long trains through prolonged tight curves.
Easements ( I understand now what a spiral easement is in a curve, the ever tighten curvature of the easement until it reaches the desire degree of curvature of the curve it leads into, I knew this I just didn’t know it had a name) are another story. I believe and easement is very important and is one of the main reasons I have always used flex track as opposed to sectional in any scale. It just keeps the train from jarring into the corner.
Spiral easement is the same, it just tells you, your route will transcribe a spiral.
Actually there are 2 with out a section of radius between; into the curve and out of the curve.
Helps to differentiate from property easements…
John
John Caughey said:
Helps to differentiate from property easements…
John
Well what happens if your spiral easement happens to land outside your property easement. Now that could get really ugly. I feel and injunction coming on.
Now don’t tell the neighbor but when I built the fence with the old neighbors blessing it was built one to maybe even two feet onto the neighbors property. So it is entirely possible that when I do build my spiral easement it won’t land on my property easement. I will hold my breath on the legal action. Seven years and its mine ( well that doesn’t hold true in Idaho either in all cases).
OK
One thing I love about this group is all the people so willing to help a rookie. It is much to take in but it is very helpful. So taking into consideration everyone’s advice I have come up with a plan (that I am sure will change a hundred times and still not be how things actually get done). So I am happy with the most current plan above. It has addressed many of the issues people have raised. i have taken the switches off the curves, I have added straight track to the reversing curves, I have made it in a reversing loop fashion. It is constructable in phases.
I have roughly figured it out to about 200 feet of track total. Evenly split between both phases. The first phase would be to get all the raised beds in place and a rough path of the entire ROW.This would be one summer hopefully this summer.
Then the second phase would be to lay the outer two reversing loops first with only the two switches necessary to make it work. I like the turnout kit idea to at least give me one switch to play with while I learn about their construction. I figure I can buy one kit and the parts to make another and work them side by side. I would cut in the three sidings on that section in a later phase. This section is the lower section in elevation and requires no grade crossings and any bridge work would be only what I choose to add, none required. This will give me a continuous run and operational opportunity. I can get track down and start running trains. This would be the second summer.
Then the third phase I can work on bridges and what not since I know where they will be and build two more switches. This would be over a winter
Phase four would be to instal the third reversing loop and the two switches required to make that work. this would be a third summer.
Phase five would be to add in the three sidings and anything else I decide I need or want. this would be for the rest of the RR life.
So I realize nothing is set in stone but it nice to plan the work and work the plan. It is also nice to dream and have some direction. It also breaks up the work load into manageable pieces time and cost wise and will get me running trains faster (as Craig suggested) and keep me interested as I tackle the other parts.
Since I have such a small space to play with confined by the house and fences my layout will have to be accessed from inside as opposed to outside the layout. This brings up a concern. I have this planned right now where the lowest points of the track will be 18" above grade. I did this because I am not getting younger and know I wont want to kneel down at some point. But this means that I will have to climb over my track to access the entire layout. I had the idea of making a combination of stone and wood stairs/steps to cross over the track. For the lower paths I figured stone steps and stepping stones. For the taller sections actual wood deck type stairs with maybe the idea of incorporating the track into the deck as a decked bridge sort of affair.
But now I am wondering if I should lower the whole thing where the min height is ground level and only have steps or stairs where it crosses the upper loop.
What are your thoughts on this guys. Lowering it saves on a lot of construction as I don’t have to make the entire thing a raised bed. But I like the raised bed look. Which is the lesser of two evils having it low and needing to kneel or finding creative and safe ways to cross elevated track. As I am thinking on it since it will not be track power some of those tall crossings can be draw bridges that can be lifted and walked though and then lowered.
Raise it. Opinion alert!
2 years ago I raised half, property slopes. Now I want to elevate the rest.
Some folks hinge bridges so you can walk thru. I know of one fellow who has built wooden steps and a platform to get inside. He routed the tracks into the deck. Split jaw makes a walk on to any design you wish…
I’m tired of critters and nature making work when I want to play.
John
John Caughey said:
Raise it. Opinion alert!
2 years ago I raised half, property slopes. Now I want to elevate the rest.
Some folks hinge bridges so you can walk thru. I know of one fellow who has built wooden steps and a platform to get inside. He routed the tracks into the deck. Split jaw makes a walk on to any design you wish…
I’m tired of critters and nature making work when I want to play.
John
Since asking this question I am warming up to the idea of lifting bridges. I like the idea of the raised track and that would eliminate two potential problem spots where the deck stairs idea would give me a bit of trouble at the area to the right of the train shed. the entrance to the layout from the yard is in the upper right and I can see that being a deck/step thing with the lower outer track going into a tunnel and the upper inner track being a bridge that has the track incorporated into it.
If adding sidings is going to be the last phase, not the best idea, in my opinion, but we’ll discuss that another time, may I suggest that you decide where the turnouts are going to go, and install them as you install the track. You say that you will have them built, so not having them will not hinder.
Can you guess why I make this suggestion?
A bit more playing
the white areas would be ground level. Green would be lower tier gray the higher tier. So this wouldn’t all be stepped from one tier to the next much of it would be blended. but where the tracks run parallel it would be stepped. The brown thing would be a step/deck that would be steps on the left and run flat to the pavers on the right. The black things are stone pavers. The lower track would be a tunnel upper track incorporated into the deck. Blue would be a small stream coming from the mountain behind the mine which would be the tallest feature on the RR. between the water area and the shed would be tall trestles with lifting deck bridges. in front of the shed would be bench work.
All the white areas and and the black pavers by the stairs would be where you would operate from basically heavy foot traffic. All other areas would be would be landscaped an only meant for occasional access for problems and maintenance. looking at it I would need to have more pavers up to the mine area so operations could take place there.
Steve Featherkile said:
If adding sidings is going to be the last phase, not the best idea, in my opinion, but we’ll discuss that another time, may I suggest that you decide where the turnouts are going to go, and install them as you install the track. You say that you will have them built, so not having them will not hinder.
Can you guess why I make this suggestion?
I wasn’t going to build all the switches just as I needed them. But I can guess why you suggested that and I can see where installing them as I went would be way easier. So that is a good doable idea and then extend the siding later. I suppose trying to cut them in later would make for alignment issues of the existing tracks? where if I lay into and out of the switch then I can make the easements into the curves and easier than trying to do it after the fact?
Yes Devon, it can be a real pain redoing a section to add/move a switch. Plus, it puts your railroad down until the work is done. Thats a real bummer, being there, outside with a railroad you can’t run, trying to get the $#%^# switch cut in properly, and the track realigned, just so you can play again. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-yell.gif)
Turnout! Its called a turnout. Stick with me, Grasshopper, I’ll learn ya.
Yeah, pretty much. Besides, its a B-1-Tango Charlie Hotel to have to relay your whole RR every time you want to cut in a turnout.
Steve Featherkile said:
Turnout! Its called a turnout. Stick with me, Grasshopper, I’ll learn ya.
Yeah, pretty much. Besides, its a B-1-Tango Charlie Hotel to have to relay your whole RR every time you want to cut in a turnout.
I agree with Steve, put the turnouts in place as you build if you’ve got them completed. A lot easier to build that way.
Here’s another monkey for you to think about now that you’ve got your track plan and turnouts figured out. What type of subroad bed/track support structure are you planning? Cut and fill, ladder, etc?
BTW Steve thanks for calling it the correct term… After all we’re trying to be ‘mini’ civil engineers right? (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-foot-in-mouth.gif)
Well Craig I have been toying with how to lay the track. Originally was going to use the 1x4 inch wide PVC trim boards and pipe and go ladder. I figured that’s what you did in the great white north. However where I live there is very little issue with frost heave. I live on a giant gravel bed. The gravel is 200 feet deep +/-. Lets just say water drains and does not sick around long enough to heave. I know Steve does not use a fixed base (at least in part). And another guy in Post Falls I know lays his floating on a bed of gravel. So that said I am thinking about filling my bed will the local gravelly fill dirt and then trenching and filing the road bed with a gravel base and then free floating the track on that and ballasting it in.
But with that said I am open to any and all suggestions.
I didn’t even bother with trenching. I just laid down some weed block and then went to town.
If I was to start over, I’d use inch or inch and a half crushed rock as a sub-base, followed by 3/4 in. crushed rock as base, then 3/8 or 1/4 in. crushed as ballast, no fines. Fines seem to settle too much for my taste. All I used for my roadbed was 3/8 in. minus. It has done OK,but requires a lot of maintenance. I didn’t have any expert help. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-laughing.gif)
I did the 6 inch deep by 6 inch wide trench. If I were to do it again, I would go with a shallower trench, and fill it with larger gravel for my sub base.