Tony, Joe et al.--Agreed Tony!
I did seriouisly consider a "trench" system on the inside of the track at
one time but when I hit gold I quit, so now my track is an 36"elevated
oval with a ground level track in the center----for NG and battery
sparkies- that has structures, miniatures. pond, bridges etc. It's still a
mess in my opinion and takes over the whole small backyard. But as I tell
visiting garden clubs, the garden only serves the railway, or is incidental
to it.
Then I have that blinking 3-1/2" track encircling the house!
However, all in all, local GR club meets here are enjoyed ( particularrly
by live steamers) because of the elevated 45mm double track--only 110
feet (sob) which is elevated with a 3% grade down to the g/l. My
incredulous hindsight tells me that I should have put the track in the
much bigger front garden --as Tony has done. Then I would have had elevated
track on the low level which would have become ground level close to the
house due to the grade. More track and more compliments to the garden.!
One advantage, I must brag about --the present set-up is only 12 ft from
my hobby-work-mess room to the steaming spot. Good for the old folks!
At least the 3-1/2" track (12" elevation) in the front runs through flower
beds which disguises the track somewhat.
Like Tony, from my point of view, elevated is the best for running--but
don't do it as I did-if you want the garden and flowers to dominate. My
wife suggests that we should build on the hi-desert property we own between
Apple Valley (Roy Roger's museum ) and Lake Arrowhead! Not worth much---but
10 acres of track?!!!-- with a house stuck somewhere in between--built as a
GWR station?--Ah Dreams!!
Geoff.
>Hi Joe and all,
> I agree on the raised tracks issue. But also suggest its
>a matter of "horses for course,s".
> I also looked at the ditch digging idea,s and wrote them
>off very quickly.
>But no two landscapes are identicle, so maybe there are reasons
>to dig ditches for some
>layouts. I suggest much more convenient to achieve the eyelevel
>view by building up, not digging down. Also the drainage
>problems are eliminated.
> Reviewing my landscape and options
>gave me no choice but to build
>a totally elevated track. By careful measurements I found I could
> have two steaming areas at 36" high at the side of the house,
>with 18'" high "scenic runs" across the
>front of the house, (and not to imposing) without adding or
>disturbing to much landscape.
> Some guys may want waist high tracks for total length. I
>have seen several
>well landscaped waisthigh tracks
>also. Including one track that goes from
>knee high to an unreachable 14' . high . But sometimes to keep the
>rest of the family happy, the track should not
>be too intrusive. Also suggest easier for guests to step over
>a low track, than risk falling into a ditch?.
> I suggest the bottom line is to have a track immediately
>at hand 24 hours a
>day, which suits the owners pre-requisites, and can still be
>comfortably utilised
>and enjoyed by friends and associates.
> Tony D.
>
>At 03:48 PM 2/27/18 -0500, Jim Curry wrote:
>>Joe:
>>
>>My layout is elevated all the way around. With an undulating yard I vary
>>from 6" to 44" off the ground with the main steaming area 24"-30" up. No
>>site work necessary!
>>
>>Jim
>>
>
