Switchbacks
- Thread starter jtilleyx
- Start date
That looks like it may work, though I was thinking about just 1 curve. Again not sure what you are trying to achieve and with what in regard to trains? Austrian solution was good and looked good before he sadly moved.
do not forget that one of the Spirals on the Darj is as far as I can make out in our scale the equivalent to LGB R1, the Sumpter line in USA had som pretty severs curves and gradients as well, so there are prototypical examples.
jtilleyx
Registered
Hopefully this will help with showing what I am planning long-term:
Will start with simple loops in 6x15 area in front of house labeled "A". Over time, would like to expand down side of house and into back yard - passing through area marked "B" and "C"
Moving from A to B is fairly level (or will be)
The biggest challenge will be transitioning from B to C. In between B & C there is an immediate 30 inch drop (retaining wall). I will have to decrease elevation by 30 inches in just the 15 feet available in "C". Challenge is compounded given that both "B" and "C" are only 5 ft wide. Once this drop is completed, there would need to be one more drop not as extreme then all back yard becomes a blank canvas
Rack, Helix, Switchbacks, and Loops have all been proposed. Would rather not need Rack loco - at least not now. As far as Helix and Loops - something as small as a 24in radius will push the boundaries of the small 5 ft width of B and C and force a unfavorable grade. It can be done, but will consume entire area (leaving very little for planting/scenery). A switchback seems a fair compromise, and if can be stacked as diagramed in last post, will take little width. Can most likely work it in near wall behind plants.
At least this is what's in my head - you are all way more experienced than I and I truly value your input and time. Really just colleting info from everyone and trying to weigh pros and cons of each
X- if you were standing at the x at the begining, you would have close to same view as attached picture
Will start with simple loops in 6x15 area in front of house labeled "A". Over time, would like to expand down side of house and into back yard - passing through area marked "B" and "C"
Moving from A to B is fairly level (or will be)
The biggest challenge will be transitioning from B to C. In between B & C there is an immediate 30 inch drop (retaining wall). I will have to decrease elevation by 30 inches in just the 15 feet available in "C". Challenge is compounded given that both "B" and "C" are only 5 ft wide. Once this drop is completed, there would need to be one more drop not as extreme then all back yard becomes a blank canvas
Rack, Helix, Switchbacks, and Loops have all been proposed. Would rather not need Rack loco - at least not now. As far as Helix and Loops - something as small as a 24in radius will push the boundaries of the small 5 ft width of B and C and force a unfavorable grade. It can be done, but will consume entire area (leaving very little for planting/scenery). A switchback seems a fair compromise, and if can be stacked as diagramed in last post, will take little width. Can most likely work it in near wall behind plants.
At least this is what's in my head - you are all way more experienced than I and I truly value your input and time. Really just colleting info from everyone and trying to weigh pros and cons of each
X- if you were standing at the x at the begining, you would have close to same view as attached picture
Attachments
PhilP
G Scale, 7/8th's, Electronics
If I have this right.. It look's like there is either extra width, for part of B and all of C, or B is narrow nearer the front of the property?
If the width is greater, that extra 15 (or so) inches will make all the difference to any loops..
Wondering if you could build a trestle, shallow slope, all the way down the left-side (looking from front of house) to get you down the plot?
Or perhaps a right turn, and a descending trestle across the back of the house (possibly below a patio / deck)? - This would have implications for access to garden from the house, though.
Could be a non-starter if young children, pets, or the Domestic Authorities are not onboard?
I am sure others will have different (better?) ideas? - Which is all these are..
If the width is greater, that extra 15 (or so) inches will make all the difference to any loops..
Wondering if you could build a trestle, shallow slope, all the way down the left-side (looking from front of house) to get you down the plot?
Or perhaps a right turn, and a descending trestle across the back of the house (possibly below a patio / deck)? - This would have implications for access to garden from the house, though.
Could be a non-starter if young children, pets, or the Domestic Authorities are not onboard?
I am sure others will have different (better?) ideas? - Which is all these are..
jtilleyx
Registered
Good eyes - part B has a chimney that is 5ft wide. It protrudes 2ft into the 5ft area of B - makes the approach to the drop just 3ft wide. Immedialy after drop is back to 5ft. More detailed sketch of B and C below
Bill Barnwell
Registered
Had a very good friend who lived on the beach side and his home was built on a sand dune he snaked his way from the bottom to the top about a 10' clime and in the last 6 to 7 foot area he built a 4 switch, switch back and it was a blast to use we ran small engines like scratch/kit bashed built forneys and it was a mine area, what great fun, BB
Hm just thinking out loud again, do you really need a complete ground level line? Judging by your dry wall skills if you can get the stone a slightly less drop to the back yard utilising the Switch Back concept would give you a nice raised line. Believe me you will thank me long term if you take in that adea, many on here would love a higher line for their aging backs. But of course it does rake more effort and fill to get all planted up.
jtilleyx
Registered
Edgar - no good reason. Mostly because I just built the dry stack stone wall on side and front and want to finish landscaping in front of the house. I have the small area in front (A) with no landscaping plans that I need to fill in. Our new son (1 year) likes to play near this area., thought he would enjoy the train. Plus, since this will be my 1st train, it gives me some practice in a small area before going too nuts.
I have some fairly extensive landscape plans in the back that will take another year or two. By then, hopefully I learned a little about trains and am better prepared to take on a much grander scale - while he will still be a bit too young, my son will be getting bigger and hopefully he can begin helping some and perhaps develop interest.
jtilleyx
Registered
Dunnyrail - I do not need all ground level. If/when I make it to the rear of the house, I plan to have it elevated in several raised beds and rock walls. But, there is about a 30-40% grade between front of house and rear yard - so, to minimize decline should start low as possible in front and go to high as possible in back. Just to give idea: if you walk in my front door, you are ground level. If you walk straight through and out back door, you are on 2nd level deck. When you go into backyard away from house a little, its about another 6-8ft change. Total area from front to where I would eventually get train is about 60 linear feet and about 20 feet elevation change. Most reasonable thing to do would probably just make two separate lines - but, as my wife would tell you, I am stubborn and far from reasonable once determined.
The rock wall you see I built on side is attempt to "step" this decline down in equal parts. You are correct though - I may need to adjust heights to make easier transition.
You have a very interesting garden for your line, when you have got it built I am sure it will be a thing of wonder.
EDIT just found this super spiral, may give you some inspiration for another area of your garden.
EDIT just found this super spiral, may give you some inspiration for another area of your garden.
Last edited:
PhilP
G Scale, 7/8th's, Electronics
There is some perceived-wisdom, that would say "Don't have your track in clear vision, of the rest of the world.".. 
There are those in society, who think it 'their right' to either destroy what others create, or take for their own gain.
Especially with your Son's age.. It may be better to consider the play-value of an oval of track, on the deck, out the back?
You can experiment with different arrangements of track, and get a feel for what look's 'right' and works for you.
By all means, dream and plan, but just get something running.. The 'play' value is good for your soul!
There are those in society, who think it 'their right' to either destroy what others create, or take for their own gain.
Especially with your Son's age.. It may be better to consider the play-value of an oval of track, on the deck, out the back?
You can experiment with different arrangements of track, and get a feel for what look's 'right' and works for you.
By all means, dream and plan, but just get something running.. The 'play' value is good for your soul!
korm kormsen
Registered
in real life they build switchbacks on mountains, to gain height, while saving length.
i tried to achieve that too.
but IMHO that is difficult or impossible to achieve in Largescale/G-Scale.
(for reasons of avaiable space we already "compress" the lengths of our lines too much.)
i'll explain, using my personal experience and logic:
my actual layout is the third, where i pushed grades as steep, as possible.
without using cogs, i reached 6% grades on straights. (that is 1 in 16.7 for the imperial educated) (or +- 20mm per 1'/300mm section)
but:
- it needs strong, short, heavy locos, best only with two axles and additional weight. (i destroyed a Bachmann 4-6-0, trying to draw just itself and her tender up the 6%) (i ended up with 2 1/2 pound total weight per driven axle)
- one loco = one Buhler motor draws up only three 1 foot/30cm coaches or cars. so, using LGB Stainzes plus LGB power tenders, i have trains of five cars being comfortably drawn up that grade. that is a train of 6 1/2 foot(195cm) length. (7 standard rail sections needed.)
- each grade needs gradual easing in and out at both ends. 0-4-0 locos and short roling stock can be acomodated with two half sections of 4% and 2% resp. at each end. (longer 4wheel cars (16"/410mm) need half a section more. - eightwheeled cars and longer locos need at least 4 half sections)
- curves add to the drag. LGB R1 curves at 4% grade drag as much as straights at 6%.
these facts here above are the result of decades of trial & error "investigation"
----------------------
let us say, there is 10 metres space. (near 32foot)
coming in from the left with a R1 curve 75cm - easing up 30cm - grade 6% 625cm - easing down 30cm - turnout 30cm - "switching-tail" 210cm. that gives us 625cm (plus 30 for the easings at half value) at 6% = 39cm height won.
we switch back from right to left from the mentioned "switching tail", turnout and easing. together 270cm - up the grade 460cm - easing, switch and left "switching-tail" 270cm. that gives us 460 + 30cm at 6% = 29cm height won.
leaving the left "switching-tail" to the upper curve on the right gives us another 39cm.
so, with one switching back and forth the absolute max heightwin for short trains as descripted above would be about 107cm(3.4foot) on a 1o metre (31.7foot) stretch. (at about 50cm (20") wide - if not allowing for landscape) ... or, said otherwise: one in ten. not bad.
but, don't forget:
you want more cars, you need less grade and longer "switching-tails".
you want longer locos, you need longer easings and (much) lesser grades.
--------------------------
in my case, i didn't do it. reasons:
on the space avaiable, i now have one upgrade, one downgrade and one flat line.
for the planned automatic traffic in two directions using simple DC, the switchbacks would have been a nightmare.
i tried to achieve that too.
but IMHO that is difficult or impossible to achieve in Largescale/G-Scale.
(for reasons of avaiable space we already "compress" the lengths of our lines too much.)
i'll explain, using my personal experience and logic:
my actual layout is the third, where i pushed grades as steep, as possible.
without using cogs, i reached 6% grades on straights. (that is 1 in 16.7 for the imperial educated) (or +- 20mm per 1'/300mm section)
but:
- it needs strong, short, heavy locos, best only with two axles and additional weight. (i destroyed a Bachmann 4-6-0, trying to draw just itself and her tender up the 6%) (i ended up with 2 1/2 pound total weight per driven axle)
- one loco = one Buhler motor draws up only three 1 foot/30cm coaches or cars. so, using LGB Stainzes plus LGB power tenders, i have trains of five cars being comfortably drawn up that grade. that is a train of 6 1/2 foot(195cm) length. (7 standard rail sections needed.)
- each grade needs gradual easing in and out at both ends. 0-4-0 locos and short roling stock can be acomodated with two half sections of 4% and 2% resp. at each end. (longer 4wheel cars (16"/410mm) need half a section more. - eightwheeled cars and longer locos need at least 4 half sections)
- curves add to the drag. LGB R1 curves at 4% grade drag as much as straights at 6%.
these facts here above are the result of decades of trial & error "investigation"
----------------------
let us say, there is 10 metres space. (near 32foot)
coming in from the left with a R1 curve 75cm - easing up 30cm - grade 6% 625cm - easing down 30cm - turnout 30cm - "switching-tail" 210cm. that gives us 625cm (plus 30 for the easings at half value) at 6% = 39cm height won.
we switch back from right to left from the mentioned "switching tail", turnout and easing. together 270cm - up the grade 460cm - easing, switch and left "switching-tail" 270cm. that gives us 460 + 30cm at 6% = 29cm height won.
leaving the left "switching-tail" to the upper curve on the right gives us another 39cm.
so, with one switching back and forth the absolute max heightwin for short trains as descripted above would be about 107cm(3.4foot) on a 1o metre (31.7foot) stretch. (at about 50cm (20") wide - if not allowing for landscape) ... or, said otherwise: one in ten. not bad.
but, don't forget:
you want more cars, you need less grade and longer "switching-tails".
you want longer locos, you need longer easings and (much) lesser grades.
--------------------------
in my case, i didn't do it. reasons:
on the space avaiable, i now have one upgrade, one downgrade and one flat line.
for the planned automatic traffic in two directions using simple DC, the switchbacks would have been a nightmare.
PhilP
G Scale, 7/8th's, Electronics
The chain supports the outer-end of the threaded rods.. These are screwed into the steel(?) uprights.
The track sections appear to be clamped, but I am a little surprised, there does not seem to be any support along the track?
One can imagine a lash up of 2 very heavy expensive US Diesels making a bid to dig the largest G scale hole ever when going round the top bit of the Helix.The chain supports the outer-end of the threaded rods.. These are screwed into the steel(?) uprights.
The track sections appear to be clamped, but I am a little surprised, there does not seem to be any support along the track?