Granite Gorge and Northern - Ohio

[GraGoNorth]

Here's my work-in-progress layout of the Granite Gorge and Northern railroad from the Atlas book "Six HO Railroads You Can Build".
The layer titled "Atlas Original" is obviously the (what I think anyways) original layout from the book, with red lines indicating the areas that don't connect.
The Benchwork framing is just a little off. I intend to measure my actual benchwork and adjust it where needed, but it should be pretty close. The dimensions need some massaging as well.
I'm still in the process of getting everything else placed.
I am planning (trying) on incorporating the improvements that Larry Amstrong showed in his book, "Track Planning for Realistic Operation".
One thing I should mention, this is all flat and on the same grade. I'll get to that once I get the track figured out. Which concerns me just a little, since the track on the grade won't be exactly the same as the track on flat ground. Does the software compensate for that when elevations are created? I guess what I'm saying is if I were to have a 1:1 template printed of the layout, lay it on my table with the grades in place, there will be some slight displacements between the template and actual track placement, correct?

[rlcross]

Thanks for posting that GraGo.  Couple of questions if I may?

1.  What is the space available to you in your modeling area/room?  This impacts on general layout forms and dimensions.
2.  Are you wedded to the benchwork/tabletop you have used to start your planning?  or is this a variable that can be changed as necessary?

The reason I ask is just to know what the variables are that you are able to play with?

For example, I am building my layout in the Arizona Room (4 season sunroom).  The dimensions of my room are about 8'x 28' or so, but I do not want to block a door on one wall or a sliding glass door on another, so I settled on three walls, 18'x 8'x 8' more or less.  Just to establish the outside parameters. 

I wanted to model logging and mining, mountainous terrain, canyon etc.  I wanted to include Shays.  I prefer the Steam era.  I also wanted to include some mainline running and switching.

From there I established my personal minimums for radius, reach distance, clearance from edges, etc. I decided that 22" min radius on mainline, 18" on branch.  I didn't want to reach further than 18-20 inches.  I wanted to keep all track at least 3 inches from edges/background.  This let me start to think what table shapes could fit within my area.  Dogbone, folded dogbone, round-the-room, etc.

Whether small or big, it's just up to you to determine what the parameters are that you can plan with.

Regards,
Richard

[GraGoNorth]

Hi rlcross. I already have the benchwork done (which I did 40 some years ago  ). It's a 5 foot x 9 foot (1524mm x 2743mm) table top that is split into two halves. So I'm sorta landlocked, and yes I am sorta wedded to what I've got, which I don't want to make any larger, for multiple reasons. I've also kept in the back of my mind that I could go to N scale on this same table, which many others have done. Especially if I were to decide to scrap all my previous work. Really all I have invested besides the benchwork in HO is track, roadbed, and a limited selection of rolling stock. But I would prefer staying with HO, and make what sacrifices needed due to curve radius, etc.
I worked on the AnyRail plan some more this afternoon, I've attached an updated ANY file and a screenshot.
I'm trying to get all the rail in place, then see where I have to make adjustments, etc. The one thing my layout doesn't show is where the cookie-cutter cuts are for the grade. I have to make this work with what I did 40 years ago, and I'm very close to some problems with that. I can still make some adjustments, but I'd much rather adjust track than woodwork.
I have a couple of curves on the right-hand side that are coming in a little shy of my 18" minimum radius that I set (19" and 20" are my other minimums). And I probably have tracks that squeeze in a little too close to each other. You can see from the layer of original Atlas Track that their layout was way outside the 5x9 tabletop (if I modeled it correctly). I'm trying to maintain a minimum of 2.5" between centers, but some places sneak in below that, at the moment anyways. Also, the two vertical tracks in the center of the layout have to clear piers for the bridges, so that's been a challenge. I'm not sure the bridges are in the exact positions they need to be, since the benchwork is already cut to accommodate them
So yeah, still working it all out. I'm not sure I will be able to keep the additional turnouts that Larry Armstrong added. I haven't yet tried to alter their positions, which might be an option. I can't find any listing of the turnouts that he added, just a graphic of the layout showing them.
One question I do have regarding curves. When placing a lot of these curves, I've been using the "smooth flex" option, so the majority of these curves aren't a constant radius. I would assume that is ok as long as I don't get too much below the minimum radius? And avoid "s" curve situations.

[rlcross]

Ok, so you've got space limitations and want to keep the 5x9 size.  Good to know so I wont be suggesting enlarging here, or there.

Regarding your plan, you've got the double mainline for lots of running.  And you've planned in 4 spur lines for industries/stations.  That's pretty good for limited space.

Regarding the grades it looks like you'll need 3% grades to be able to make the bridges 4" above the track below.  Thats 4" less whatever track bed or bridge structure you are planning.

Have you tried the easement function to create the easements into curves?  This creates a nice easing into constant radius curves.  Magnus and I have talked a bit about easements.  And I have compared the AnyRail easements to Armstrong easements.  I would say that we have come around to consider 15 degree easements a minimum, and 25 degree easements to best generate the Armstrong easements.  It can be said that you don't absolutely need easements, but they are better than just jumping into a circular curve.  They can reduce derailments and are more visually appealing in how they flow into a curve.

By the way, I started planning N scale, then planned a switch to HO to see if I could accomplish what I wanted.  I am still torn on which way to go, before I bite the bullet and invest one way or the other.  I love that N scale can accomplish more within a given space.  But HO has more available in Shays and branch line steam.  Plus my eyes and dexterity are not what they used to be and HO is a bit bigger for fiddly details.  We'll see.

[GraGoNorth]

Yes, there's a lot crammed in there. I'm not sure how long of a train I will be able to run. I haven't worked out the blocks yet. The original Atlas plan had 11 of them. Have some time before I need to do that. At least have until I actually start laying track.
Jerry Hesler has several YouTube videos of his GG&N layout running I think 6 trains at once. He was using DCC and Train Controller Gold and all was automated. I don't think I'll ever get to that level of sophistication (and cost). I also think he was doing that with a larger version of the layout, maybe something like 8'x14', so really can't compare.
For the grades, I'm not sure what percent they are. Looking at the benchwork diagrams in the Atlas book, it looks like the difference in elevation is somewhere around (guessing) 2.375 inches, but not sure with the cookie cutter design what that provides for grades.
Yes, I tried easement curves. I haven't completely figured them out, but the areas I tried didn't seem to want to work, although like I mentioned I don't have many full radius curves. I did see some good discussion on the forum regarding them.
I know what you mean about eyesight. I've gotten to the point when I'm doing close-up work that I will reach a zone within where I can't focus with my glasses on or off. Ugh. I've never actually handled anything that was N-Scale so can't say much about that aspect of it.

[GraGoNorth]

Here's what I've come up with so far. Everything is still flat and on the same level. The yellow squiggly line is the cut in the cookie cutter top, everything below it is on 0.00 elevation and flat; above the line the surface is increasing in height as it goes to the left.
I question my "yard". I don't know if the two lower sidings are worth having, maybe they are only long enough to hold just one car each, and I don't think a real railroad would invest in something that short. But this is still a work in process and that is something I need to figure out. It's just what I could get to fit in there for now.
I do have a mix of Atlas and Peco, but I think the only thing I used Atlas for were the bridges and end of siding bumpers.
One quick note: in the post above I mentioned the grades have a 2.375" total rise. That number should have been 2.75".

[GraGoNorth]

Too much fun, stayed up too late, may as well post the update now.
Everything now has an elevation, at least a close enough approximation to actual.
Had some track on the wrong layer, took care of that.
The right-hand side where three switches are located is going to be a challenge connecting, with all the compounded angles and slopes and general chaos going on in that area. Going to require some thinking (in other words, this is clearly beyond my capabilities. ha)

[rlcross]

I see you have up to 8% grades in some spots, and longer stretches with 4.5% to 5.2% grades.  Also you have 2.75 inches vertically from railhead to railhead.  From this 2.75" you have to deduct the height of track and bridge support structure to get actual vertical clearance.

To get a perspective on recommended maximum grade and minimum vertical clearance you can google them.  They are highly dependent upon your locomotives, train length, and what cars you are running.  Here are links to two discussions in Model Railroader that give advice: 

https://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/85685.aspx

https://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/212933.aspx

One useful function in AnyRail is smoothing the grade.   Select the track between two points and click on Smooth Grade, it will average the grade to give a consistent grade between the two points.

You have a challenging layout for grades to achieve your required clearance.  One design element that could give you some relief would be to get your three lower tracks that pass under the bridges in the center area closer together.  Trying to get the three to pass under 2 bridge sections instead of the current 4.  This gives you a bit more space to climb up to those bridges by concentrating them more in the center.

Also, to get a lower grade on your right side, you should consider starting to bring up the lower level immediately after passing under the center bridges to a midpoint at the right side turnouts.  This will reduce the amount that the track needs to climb from those turnouts to get to the bridge height back in the center.

Regards,
Richard

[GraGoNorth]

Hey Richard,

Yes, the grades in that area of switches (on the right-hand side) are goofy, and I think it has more to do with how I assigned elevations in Anyrail than how things actually are (or would be). It is a challenging area. The outer switch was part of the original plan in the Atlas book. Larry Armstrong added the switches connecting the two inner rails in his operating book.
I'm sure it will require some adjustments in the field.
I can't do much about the vertical clearance at this point. I'll just have to be mindful of the rolling stock that I purchase. I'm not planning on running double-stack or anything like that, plus those will be too long for the tight radii I'm forced to contend with.
I have to be careful here. The more I learn, the more confining I see this layout becoming. But I don't want to invest more time or money into anything different, I'll just make the necessary concessions to be able to use what I have on hand.
Thanks for the links on curves and grades. Good info there.
As far as getting the three lower tracks closer together, I had to account for the supporting piers of the bridge. As it is now, there is a pier under each of the three end-to-end connecting points of the bridge sections, which I have to clear. I could increase the span somehow; I will have to research what is possible there.
Thanks for your last suggestion, I'll consider doing that. I may have to raise the outer loop too, so I don't end up with a twisted turnout. I'll have to check what it looks like with all those turnouts at the same elevation.

Thanks again.
Joe

[GraGoNorth]

Now that I have the track plan mostly complete, I did a cost estimation for the Peco track and turnouts (not including anything for the bridges and the 2 crossovers), and the vendor whose website says everything is "available" totals over $750! Another vendor who has lower prices but not as much in stock totals over $530.
I did a cost estimation if I stuck with Atlas on everything (still using flex track), it comes in at just under $500, but almost everything is pre-order. Pre-order seems to be a normal thing with model railroad components?
Now I need to create a layout with Atlas components to see if it will fit, then do some more comparison shopping.
Yikes this is expensive.

[chaz]

A good friend (with no children) told me that it's not a hobby until you spend $10k per year in 1970 dollars.

Obviously not true, but it seems that way sometimes.
 

[rlcross]

The days are gone when it was a simple DC transformer, some track and rolling stock.  Just the cost of going DCC astounds me.  I refuse to do a cost estimate or I'd never go for it.  Ignorance is bliss.

[DougD]

Thanks for posting.  I will post soon and will have similar questions.  Quick one for you - How did you do the dimensions?  I haven't figured that out yet.  Doug

[GraGoNorth]

I used "Add Ruler" located in the "INSERT" ribbon menu. With AnyRail, the "dimensions" are just floating in air, they aren't attached to any geometry. Moving a line doesn't adjust the dimension.
If you were to look closely at the ones I did, you'd see that they are not quite "precise", but for me they are good enough to check that things are about where they should be.

[BadBanana]

I used "Add Ruler" located in the "INSERT" ribbon menu. With AnyRail, the "dimensions" are just floating in air, they aren't attached to any geometry. Moving a line doesn't adjust the dimension.

True, but if you select and move one of the endpoints of a ruler rather than moving the whole ruler at once, the end will follow any "Snap to" rule that you've set in the Settings, so it can still be quite easy to measure distances accurately if the items that you're measuring also follow the same grid.  And you can change the grid between sizes at any time depending on the needs of the items being positioned.