 |
| Posted: Thu Dec 29th, 2011 10:55 pm |
|
1st Post |
| Posted: Thu Dec 29th, 2011 11:48 pm |
|
2nd Post |
Paladin
Administrator
| Joined: | Tue Jan 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | Berwick, Australia |
| Posts: | 2404 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Firstly let me say On30 would be better in the given space.
What theme do you intend, Mining - logging - mainline. Now is the time to choose,
You will need to give a little thought as to how the railroad will operate, and position the industries to suit. All tracks need to serve a purpose.
Point to point or roundy roundy I prefer a mixture of the two.
Duckunders help with the track plan, but only you can decide whether to have one or not.
Bench height should be about 50 inches, this gives good clearance for the duckunder and puts the trains at a good viewing height
Bench width should not be more than 30 inches, Most of us cheat and go for just a bit wider. Yield not to temptation.
Turntables are nice. and give a interesting way to turn locos. But they chew up space, that being said if you decide to run smaller locos you will not need a large TT.
By selecting your locos now rather than later you will be able to set your minimium radius. Not fun if you later aquire a larger loco that has a minimium greater than your layout
Don
____________________
Don McL
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30th, 2011 12:58 am |
|
3rd Post |
Lucas Gargoloff
|
Don, those are good starting points to keep in mind!
I will go with 0n30, thinking about details, in this scale you can add much details as you want, is big, but at the same time is small if you think in Gn3. You have a nice room size for a good operative layout.
____________________
Lucas Gargoloff - Argentina
See My Facebook Page at:
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=tn_tnmn#!/ScaleDreams
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30th, 2011 03:57 am |
|
4th Post |
Narrowsteam
|
On30 would probably be alot cheaper in the long run too. hmmmm not sure if he misses will be happy if i say im selling the trains (one she brought) to switch to a smaller scale. maybe I should put them in plastic cases and keep them as display models.
____________________
Brett
“There is a fine line between hobby and mental illness.”
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30th, 2011 03:59 am |
|
5th Post |
| Posted: Fri Dec 30th, 2011 04:00 am |
|
6th Post |
| Posted: Fri Dec 30th, 2011 04:46 am |
|
7th Post |
titus
| Joined: | Thu Aug 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | Colorado USA |
| Posts: | 205 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
I'd agree with a lot of what has been said so far. You don't need to plan every detail, but get comfortable with how you'll operate your railroad. 50 inches for track height is a nice number. Some guys go up to 55". I went with 52" for mine as it felt comfortable. Even still, at 52" track height and a shelf width of 2 feet I still have to use a step stool to reach things over 12 inches in.
At the end of the day, having a railroad that works is really really important. Take the time to determine what minimum radius and maximum grade you're comfortable with. Generally speaking most scales share these numbers in common. I've been working on a layout in my basement for the past 4 months and I've settled on a minimum of 26" radius (30 where possible) and 0% grade because I don't want to fuss gamble with the pulling power of HOn3 locomotives. (My layout looks like this at the moment, so you can tell I'm not extremely far along: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UvmFoLYvq3I/Tvi0Ygv982I/AAAAAAAAA_k/7-wmzYqKUD4/s640/PC252899.JPG).
One last thing -- choosing a scale. Man oh man, that's a hard one. I think I spent the better part of 3 years trying to answer this question. I finally figured it out, but not without buying products in 3 other scales along the way. On30 seemed like the most obvious choice for me. It had so much going for it, however at the end of the day I found I preferred HOn3 better. The cars are the right length (30ft.) there are lots of kits and great manufacturers, the buildings feel more proportional, and really I found myself building HO structure kits and HOn3 car kits much more than I did doing On30 activities. The key thing was even though On30 "on paper" looked like the best fit for me, I found I preferred something else.
There are guys here on this forum that build in oddball scales like 1:35n2. On paper those aren't practical and they don't make sense, but the guys building in that scale really like that scale. Practicality and what seems like a good idea doesn't always stand up to what you really like. Before you jump into On30 or leave G, figure out a way to make sure that's what you really like. At the end of the day, even if On30 "fits" if you really prefer G and like G then you're going to wish you were building in G.
Also, there are more scale/gauge combinations out there than just On30. If you like large scale but want to stick to smaller track or smaller mechanisms there is 1:32n20 (1:32 scale on HO gauge track) or Gn15/Gn18 (1:24 scale on HO gauge track). Both of those options are limited a bit on prototypes but if you want big in a small space they are an option.Last edited on Fri Dec 30th, 2011 04:50 am by titus
____________________
Rock it like it's narrow gauge
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30th, 2011 09:44 am |
|
8th Post |
Narrowsteam
|
Thanks for the replys, Ran it past the boss, she said she is happy with what ever I want, She is awesome. 
Will most probably go the On30 direction. Give me more of a layout to play on I. hmmmm now to think about benchwork. Any tips?
____________________
Brett
“There is a fine line between hobby and mental illness.”
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30th, 2011 02:23 pm |
|
9th Post |
Herb Kephart
Administrator
|
Benchwork-
First, forget dimensional lumber. 1X3 or 1X4's are getting too expensive, and it is hard to find this wood in nice straight grained pieces. Buy 3/4" birch (or other) faced plywood and rip it down into the desired widths.
Second- If you are considering L girder, understand that it's sole good feature is the non straight edges of the benchwork--which you can attain with grid style construction. Understand that L girder (especially in the case of modular construction) is lacking in strength in the direction of racking. Also, if your space requires having a workbench under the edge of the layout, the extra "thickness" of L girder dictates either a too high layout surface, or too low a working area, necessitating a low sitting position, which is very tiring in a short time.
Just my opinion, of course---sorry Titus
Herb 
____________________
I get along very well with other people, as long as they leave me the @#*& alone!
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30th, 2011 03:14 pm |
|
10th Post |
titus
| Joined: | Thu Aug 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | Colorado USA |
| Posts: | 205 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Lol. Having built 8 L-girder sections I wouldn't exactly classify myself as a "fan" of it. Finding and using dimensional lumber turned out to be much more of a hassle than I thought and for someone considering which benchwork route to go I would suggest thinking long and hard about this piece. On more than one occasion I've visited my local hardware store, only to leave after not finding any dimensional lumber pieces that weren't twisted, warped, cracked, or even close to usable. A few places on my current benchwork I had to go back and replace something because the wood bowed or twisted after I had installed it (I see this on the joists a bit). I've built some smaller open grid type of things in the past and the dimensional lumber was the same weak link there.
If I were to do things over, I would have finished the basement first, with real drywall'ed walls, then built everything as a open grid covered with pink/blue foam supported by custom shelf brackets mounted to the wall (no legs). Instead of using dimensional lumber I would have used cabinet-grade plywood in 1/2" and 3/4" flavors, ripped down to a dimensional size. I'm pretty sure this approach costs more, requires more tools, and takes more time, but 1.) what's the rush? and 2.) I suspect it's a much better experience and final result in the end.
____________________
Rock it like it's narrow gauge
|
|
|
Current time is 04:00 pm | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
|
|
and that plan has change as we will need small patch of grass we have for the youngin.
