Blackwater Canyon Line - April 6, 2024 - Sanky Wanky Coffee Co, Almost Done

Last evening I worked on enhancing DOUBLEDAZ Dave's SCARM rendition to get some GarGraves and Ross parts into John C's design.  I am new to SCARM, so it has been a struggle.  In fact, I have not even looked at how to add elevations.  This is starting to look like how I am envisioning John C's design.  I started substituting Ross curved switches in to make things flow better.  Obviously, I need to move the tracks out to make room for the access hole on the bottom of the drawing, but I will post anyway.  Any ideas or assistance would be appreciated.  I will attach the SCARM file along with this .jpeg.  Thank you one and all!!   

Good Morning Mark,

I'm getting ready to leave for the World's Greatest Hobby Tour in downtown Phoenix, so I don't have time to play with this right now. Not sure what time I'll get home, but I'll check in to see if anyone has taken a stab at it. If not, I'll work on it then.

Is my understanding correct that one of the turntables will be higher than the other? The one at the top? There is a Figure 8 in the center and I believe the idea is for the bottom half to be an over/under affair. Is that also correct? My concern is all those switches close to the intersections (circled in blue). You don't want switches on a grade, so it's going to be awfully hard to raise those tracks the 6" or more you'll need for clearance.

The tracks going across the top are too close, so that will also need some serious modification.

Widening the lower circle for access may not be too big of a problem, but I'm hoping we can get some regular switches in there, not the curved ones that are shown. I know you plan to use Ross switches, but how much trouble are their curved switches, especially since they will be in constant use?

Lining up with the turntables is probably going to require the use of flextrack, so I hope you're ready to learn how to bend GarGraves.  

Mark,

Not to rain on your parade, but let me caution you about track work behind scenery.  From my own experience , it's a disaster waiting to happen.  And putting a turntable there? 

You'd better be sure you can get to it easily and quickly without moving anything because you're going to spend more time there than you ever dreamed of (hope I am wrong).

Rest of it looks super!  Can't wait to see it.

George

Dave,

You are correct on all counts!  I realize I will need steep grades and level areas for the switches.  The prototype is steep, and I'll be running short trains.  I have never used curved switches before, even in HO.  Straight ones would be less expensive as well.  Yes, I have bent GarGraves before for a little jog in one wall on the Ceiling Central, and yes it is a bear!  I am up for it where necessary however, and I realize the yard and turntable area will need it. 

As to longer trains, I already started refitting one corner of my Ceiling Central RR with 072 to run them.  I agree with John C that trying to fit an upper loop for them in the adjacent train room would be just too much!

Thank you for taking a look.  I hope the train show in Phoenix was good!  Enjoy the weather.  It is 14 degrees here.

G3750 posted:

Mark,

Not to rain on your parade, but let me caution you about track work behind scenery.  From my own experience , it's a disaster waiting to happen.  And putting a turntable there? 

You'd better be sure you can get to it easily and quickly without moving anything because you're going to spend more time there than you ever dreamed of (hope I am wrong).

Rest of it looks super!  Can't wait to see it.

George

George,

Your caution is well taken.  You are correct, the place with the worst access will be the biggest trouble spot.  I want to see how this plan would work out in 3D.  It may be too twisty for the space.  I am up any suggestions of any kind, even some way to do it like my original idea.  This I know, I want mountain scenery, and the backdrops will be of great use.

BTW, my artist daughter was impressed with the backdrops.

Mark,
Had a little time, so I played around a bit just to see where we are. The outside grade is 4.6% and the inside is 5.8%. When I got to looking at the turntables, I realized there were no storage tracks (stalls), only complete runs into the TTs. So, I added some for you to look at and comment. I also used regular switches instead of the curved just to see what it could look like. If the grades are okay, then I can probably move the bottom switch inside the circle so the leads will hold complete trains. Looking it again, I'm not sure I widened that circle enough. I assume the idea will be to pull a train into the TT, unhook the cars, park the engine and bring another one out to takes the cars back.

Mark:  You need to practice bending some Gargraves.  :-)  It does take some practice, but it goes really easily for me.  I litterally hold a strip of flex against my chest and gently begin bending in around my torso...just a little at a time.  It doesn't take too long.  

Sectional pieces work...I've used several along the Glacier Line.  I just like the flex because it's more "railroadee" for the lack of a better word.  I really like you can make the curve go anywhere you want...anywhere....a little tighter here, a little looser there...as is in real life.  

As far as concerns, just make certain everything is under 30 inches in reach.  In the turntable area...I would leave uncovered and strictly go with buildings on the back-drops.  If you want 3D buildings, ensure you can easily remove there should you need to replace a track or work on an issue.  The turntable itself is 24 inches.  Therefore at a maximum from back-drop to fascia board would be 30 inches--meaning three inches from either side.  If you go with your 50 inches in height, you may stand on a step-stool (We have 5 on the Glacier Line) and you will easily reach the back-drop over a turntable.  

If you use sectional track, try and not make the track appear geometrically perfect...I'm talking about the "railroadee" thing again.  I think the track-work itself would appear more "real" if all the curves weren't exactly the same.  I realize that may not be possible but just think about what the curves on the line look like.  They are NOT uniform.

I realize that you have an averaged sized area, on the Glacier Line I have curves that are 42, 54, 64, 72, 80, 89, 96 and large smooth flowing flex curves.  Do the best you can do.  :-)  Regardless and most importantly, weather the track and roadbed.

This is going to be a great project.  I wish that I lived closer.  You did get the book didn't you?  I was guessing Thursday? 

Dave,

Ha, you were working on it, as I was working on another rendition, but there just isn't as long a run for trains as in this concept John came up with.  That is slick how you worked out the grades and switches.  You are mighty good at SCARM, as I know you have had lots of practice and I know I appreciate it very much!!  Yes, you got the general idea.  At each town, there would be a track for an inbound train and one for holding a few cars.  Other cars would be on shelves underneath.   And yes, I could keep turning and using the same engine, but it would be more realistic using different ones.  Even I have more engines of appropriate length than I need.  Also maybe a place for a dock/station for other cars, While the main traffic here would be coal, there was other freight as well.  The track flows very nicely, and it is good the heights work out.  John C. said they do, but I like seeing the 3D rendition.  The idea would be that the tracks go in and out of tunnels, so there wouldn't be any bridges where the track crosses another.  Thank you ever so much!

John and George,

Yes it would be difficult to do something over the turntable.  The problem is, I have so many neat buildings.  LOL  I have enough buildings to fill the space inside a 036 oval on the 4x8 temporary layout, that now has the Christmas buildings on it.  I can use some pieces and parts as flats for the first layer of streets, then suggest the rest of a town on the backdrop.  I will have to see what I can come up with when I get to that point.  I do want mostly rugged scenery, I always have liked that over lots of city areas on a layout.  I guess that is because I prefer living in the country.  There just is only so much you can fit in less than 144 square feet in O gauge.  No regrets, Even though I have had O gauge trains exclusively for 5 years, I think I still think spatially in HO.

John,

As to the GarGraves; I have seen others express the same way of bending GarGraves flex track as you describe.  I did not do that when I was using it on the Ceiling Central RR.  I tried bending it just with my hands.  I was thinking about the run up the Blackwater canyon as I drive up the road to my house from the main road.  The road is cut onto the hillside following a small tributary below.  It bends in and out to follow the curve of the hillside.  Come to think of it, that was the same on the road to our old house and numerous others here.  There is almost nothing flat in Pennsylvania compared to say Indiana.  I must confess I like symmetry too much.  There isn't much in the natural landscape that is symmetrical.

Actually I received the book on Monday and sent you an e-mail about receiving it.  I have the book almost finished.  Very good.  A lot of ideas I have seen in HO material, but not in material designed with the 3-rail O gauger in mind.  Look and see if you have an e-mail then, and if not, let me know, and I will send some comments again.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Mark,
Had a little time, so I played around a bit just to see where we are. The outside grade is 4.6% and the inside is 5.8%. When I got to looking at the turntables, I realized there were no storage tracks (stalls), only complete runs into the TTs. So, I added some for you to look at and comment. I also used regular switches instead of the curved just to see what it could look like. If the grades are okay, then I can probably move the bottom switch inside the circle so the leads will hold complete trains. Looking it again, I'm not sure I widened that circle enough. I assume the idea will be to pull a train into the TT, unhook the cars, park the engine and bring another one out to takes the cars back.

 

Dave,

I have to say, you do an amazing job helping people on this forum by taking their concept and then retooling or enhancing with some great ideas. And then you even put this into a visual representation.  All I can say is - Wow!  

I did have one question, though.  The figure eight loop with the siding (or run-around track) starts and terminates at two turnouts.  My understanding is that turnouts - and at least 10" on each side of a turnout - should always be flat and level to avoid operating issues.  Counting the sectional pieces, is there enough trackage in between those turnouts (plus 10" on each end of each turnout) to avoid an extreme grade to get the 6" or whatever of clearance needed before the underpass point? Thanks  

Peter

Mike CT has posted his method for bending GarGraves several times and while it's mostly half circles, the same concept can be used for other size arcs. I don't think he went as tight as O54, but I could be wrong. From what I've read here, the key to bending any O scale flex seems to be to over-bend it so there's less pressure to return to it's original position. My very limited experience playing around with ScaleTrax says bending the final few inches is the pits. Someone suggested bending most of it to the position you want and then cut off the end. I'm sure you'll figure out a way that works for you.

BTW, the bridges were just so you could see the 3D aspect better.

Dave,

Yes, even bending HO track was a problem at the ends.  I'll give it a go and eventually I'll get something acceptable.

 I thought maybe that was the reason for the bridges, but just wanted to clarify.  Thank you!

Peter, the short answer is "No". My goal was just to see what the grades were going to be like. My first try had a crossover there and the grade started after that. Unfortunately that resulted in a 10%+ grade and I knew that wasn't going to be acceptable. I wanted to see if Mark was okay with the almost 6% grade on the inside of the curved siding (which I think is still too steep) as well as what I did with the curved siding and turntables. I think there's still room to widen the Figure 8 a bit to put the connecting tracks on the same level as the switch, but GarGraves doesn't have anything less than 6.2", so I also needed to get an idea of how willing Mark is to cut and bend track. And since he's adding access hatches, I'm also wondering if he's willing to alter his bench work a bit, something like this. Trouble is he might have to use the hatches more often than he wants to.

Yes that is one thing I need to do is setup a 6% grade and see how it looks and how my engines perform.  Earlier I went back to a partial of my original design where there would not be any crossovers dictating the grades.  There certainly wouldn't be as long a run, but here is a screenshot of where it is at.

Also, the idea of closing in that small alcove beside the lower turntable is a bit scary.  I was initially hoping not to have any access holes at all.  Ones to get to an occasional derailment would be acceptable I think.  I'm pushing 61 now.  I am fearful with other obligations, I won't have this layout operational until I retire.  It's probably not the best idea to close off that alcove.  One thing in my favor, I am skinny compared to most men my age, so at least I can squeeze in sideways places others can't.  

DoubleDAZ posted:

Peter, the short answer is "No". My goal was just to see what the grades were going to be like. My first try had a crossover there and the grade started after that. Unfortunately that resulted in a 10%+ grade and I knew that wasn't going to be acceptable. I wanted to see if Mark was okay with the almost 6% grade on the inside of the curved siding (which I think is still too steep) as well as what I did with the curved siding and turntables. I think there's still room to widen the Figure 8 a bit to put the connecting tracks on the same level as the switch, but GarGraves doesn't have anything less than 6.2", so I also needed to get an idea of how willing Mark is to cut and bend track. And since he's adding access hatches, I'm also wondering if he's willing to alter his bench work a bit, something like this. Trouble is he might have to use the hatches more often than he wants to.

 

Dave and Mark,

I went back to re-read a chapter in my layout bible (written by John Armstrong) last night before posting, and have some - hopefully - good news.  Armstrong says that you can have an extreme grade and it is OK (he even mentions a 9% grade!) so long as the length of it isn't great. The rationale is that the weight of the entire train will not be on it, and therefore not affected by it, at the same time. In essence, the concept is that the locomotive wouldn't be struggling on an incline against the entire weight of the train.

For instance, it could be that the locomotive and a few cars are already on the level part past the grade by the time the last cars start up the grade.  Alternatively, while the locomotive and first few cars are going up the grade, the momentum of the last few cars on the level surface are actually assisting the cars up the grade. 

All this to say, one size doesn't fit all, and a 6% grade isn't necessarily a 6% grade - it depends on the situation and length of it. In this case,  the steepness might be overcome by its short length. 

Hope this helps,

Peter

Peter,

Thank you for this point from John Armstrong.  I have his books, and read them thoroughly back over 25 years ago.  Now that you mention it, I do recall this discussion of short grades.  I had already remembered his and others warnings about grades on curves which makes it tougher for engines to pull cars.  After my last post last evening, I was in the train room measuring out 100" to see what I need to make a 6" rise to do some testing.  I did that years ago, but it was with an HO Shay.  I will set something up to test, hopefully later today, then I will report back.  Again, thank you for providing this insight,  I'm glad you are following along!!

Mark,
I took your idea and played with it to add a reversing loop and reorient the bench work, see what you think. The first siding section (including the tracks on either side of the switches) rises to 4" and the grade is 2.6%. The switch (including the leading track) and turntable rise another inch to 5" and the grade is 4%. There are only 2 flex tracks that need to be bent, but there are a few straights that need to be cut. I also reoriented the single access hatch so you could put a lift-out landscaping element on it. The aisle in the lower left could be changed to give you more area for landscaping. I also think the bench work by the turntable could be bumped out to allow at least 1 more leg. The 2 tracks along the top appear to be too close, so some work still needs to be done there. Personally, I think a reversing loop makes more sense than 2 turntables, but that's just me.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Mark,
I took your idea and played with it to add a reversing loop and reorient the bench work, see what you think. The first siding section (including the tracks on either side of the switches) rises to 4" and the grade is 2.6%. The switch (including the leading track) and turntable rise another inch to 5" and the grade is 4%. There are only 2 flex tracks that need to be bent, but there are a few straights that need to be cut. I also reoriented the single access hatch so you could put a lift-out landscaping element on it. The aisle in the lower left could be changed to give you more area for landscaping. I also think the bench work by the turntable could be bumped out to allow at least 1 more leg. The 2 tracks along the top appear to be too close, so some work still needs to be done there. Personally, I think a reversing loop makes more sense than 2 turntables, but that's just me.

 

Dave, that is amazing!  And what a nice plan.  Long main line run, two reversing loops, sidings, AND a TT with whisker tracks - all in a relatively modest space.  

I'm getting close to starting to think about our next layout (wife wants to reclaim part of the basement so we will be downsizing) and keeping my fingers crossed for your input.

Peter 

Thanks, Peter. There's only one reversing loop though.

John C did the initial drawing and Mark just started learning SCARM. He also has a day job, so I'm just helping him get things done a little faster even though he's got some time before he actually begins construction.

I think the nice thing about this design is that he can have one train running to the loop and back while he uses the turntable to get another train ready to make the same run and even use the passing siding for them to pass each other. Truth be told, I'm not sure the entire siding couldn't be on a grade as long as he doesn't try to park any cars on the siding and just uses it for passing.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Thanks, Peter. There's only one reversing loop though.

John C did the initial drawing and Mark just started learning SCARM. He also has a day job, so I'm just helping him get things done a little faster even though he's got some time before he actually begins construction.

I think the nice thing about this design is that he can have one train running to the loop and back while he uses the turntable to get another train ready to make the same run and even use the passing siding for them to pass each other. Truth be told, I'm not sure the entire siding couldn't be on a grade as long as he doesn't try to park any cars on the siding and just uses it for passing.

Wondering if that bottom left LH turnout can be doubled up to link with a RH turnout that might be added to the return curve to create another reversing  loop?  Just a thought. 

PJB posted:

Wondering if that bottom left LH turnout can be doubled up to link with a RH turnout that might be added to the return curve to create another reversing  loop?  Just a thought. 

If I understand you correctly, the answer is "no" because the switch is at 4" and the loop is on a grade from 0". Even if they were at the same elevation, the reverse would be in the same direction as the current one and that wouldn't really add much to the operation.

However, if the RH turnout on the right end could be connected to the curve coming out of the current reverse loop, Mark could have an unattended loop2loop run, but again, that section is on a grade, so it's not practical.

Besides, Mark has the ceiling layout in the next room for unattended operation of his larger engines/trains. With this new layout, I believe he's more interested in a prototypical reason to go up to the turntable area, swap engines/trains and return to the valley. I just didn't like the dead-end on the bottom of the design he posted, so I added the reversing loop.

The way I envision things, if he stages a short train on the siding inside the revering loop, he can pull another train into the loop, stop, pull out the new train to head up the grade, pull the other train around the loop and park it to set up for the next run. Basically, he'd be taking supplies/empty cars up to the turntable and bringing down product. If he does things this way, he can be operating 3 trains at the same time. He'd stage one up top and one in the loop while another is running between the 2 areas.

Here's a view with some color and trains.

Wow Dave and Peter; you two have been busy!!  Well, this afternoon I setup my 6% track, Z4000, TIU, and some engines 0-4-0, 0-8-0, F3, RS1, and the largest the WM H9 Consolidation.  As I was finishing our younger daughter and her husband showed up to record my wife playing piano accompaniment for our daughter's voice students' recital this Friday.  She has some piano students as well.  Therefore, my testing was postponed so we don't have the noise of engines straining up the Blackwater Line on the recital recording.    I could tell Dustin to filter out the engine noise, but he is too good to our daughter to be nasty to him.    So I will check in here.

Yes Dave, you got the idea I was thinking of.  Thank you everyone for the suggestions.  Yes, my only reason for turning trains is to have a way to move loads one way and empties another, with throwing some mixed freight now and then.  No matter how we d it, I think there will be one pesky switch that I will have to reach from a access hole.  Even if I put the most money and the greatest care into installation of roadbed and track, my buddy Murphy will make sure that is the one that will give me trouble.    At least it should be at the end of the railroad that has the highest head clearance.  The biggest problem with this plan when compared with John's is that in John's the two towns are separated so that an operator's back is turned to one town when facing the other town.  That is the best part of John's plan, I think.  This plan doesn't need as steep a grades as John's If I desired, but the towns are almost side by side, just separated by elevation and whatever scenic features I can come up with.  I knew that when I was doodling in SCARM yesterday, but wanted to see an alternative where I didn't have to cross over and worry about vertical clearances.

The idea of even being able to run 3 trains at a time is something I wasn't expecting.  Yes, my plan is to have a train stopped on the passing track, for a passing train.  While it would be nice to be able to uncouple the engine to cut a train and double up the hill, it isn't practical on this small a layout.  Besides, if I really had the desire, I could rig up some sort of wheel chalk to slip behind the train manually.  I probably won't bother.  Short trains are the name of the game here.  I will run the long ones on the Ceiling Central RR in the next room.  Right now I have one 14-car train and one 15-car train I have been running there.

At this point, I think I have two nice alternatives to ponder.  I hope no one feels bad if I pick something over another.  I greatly appreciate everyone's ideas!!!!!!!!!  This is the first layout, other than the Ceiling Central, where I had someone to bounce ideas off of.  The Internet has made such a wonderful contribution in brainstorming with like minded folks.  I was totally a lone wolf until the time period between the last layout and starting in O gauge.  I don't know about Peter, but I know the rest of us started out before way before the Internet age.  One more thing, in either plan, I have to figure out how I will make the scenery of the grade resemble the Blackwater Canyon, since there are tracks lower.  Just something else to work on in a small room.

John,

I did finish reading the book after we got home this afternoon.  Very good ideas!  I like the information about the length of cars for each size curves.  While the concept is not new, I have never seen anyone actually produce a handy chart before.  I think the book is good for anyone, especially the folks who get bored with loop running layouts.  Let me know if you got that email Monday.  I will send another too, when I get a chance.

I will report back once I have had a chance to do the grade testing.  I plan to run an engine with no cars, then keep running back adding one car at a time and record what each engine does.  Here is the setup; some old Woodland Scenics foam grades, a 2% on top of a 4%.  No I do not plan to use them on the layout.  They are something I played around with 20 years ago, and still had.  Thank you again, everyone!!

Mark Boyce posted:

Wow Dave and Peter; you two have been busy!!  Well, this afternoon I setup my 6% track, Z4000, TIU, and some engines 0-4-0, 0-8-0, F3, RS1, and the largest the WM H9 Consolidation.  As I was finishing our younger daughter and her husband showed up to record my wife playing piano accompaniment for our daughter's voice students' recital this Friday.  She has some piano students as well.  Therefore, my testing was postponed so we don't have the noise of engines straining up the Blackwater Line on the recital recording.    I could tell Dustin to filter out the engine noise, but he is too good to our daughter to be nasty to him.    So I will check in here.

Yes Dave, you got the idea I was thinking of.  Thank you everyone for the suggestions.  Yes, my only reason for turning trains is to have a way to move loads one way and empties another, with throwing some mixed freight now and then.  No matter how we d it, I think there will be one pesky switch that I will have to reach from a access hole.  Even if I put the most money and the greatest care into installation of roadbed and track, my buddy Murphy will make sure that is the one that will give me trouble.    At least it should be at the end of the railroad that has the highest head clearance.  The biggest problem with this plan when compared with John's is that in John's the two towns are separated so that an operator's back is turned to one town when facing the other town.  That is the best part of John's plan, I think.  This plan doesn't need as steep a grades as John's If I desired, but the towns are almost side by side, just separated by elevation and whatever scenic features I can come up with.  I knew that when I was doodling in SCARM yesterday, but wanted to see an alternative where I didn't have to cross over and worry about vertical clearances.

The idea of even being able to run 3 trains at a time is something I wasn't expecting.  Yes, my plan is to have a train stopped on the passing track, for a passing train.  While it would be nice to be able to uncouple the engine to cut a train and double up the hill, it isn't practical on this small a layout.  Besides, if I really had the desire, I could rig up some sort of wheel chalk to slip behind the train manually.  I probably won't bother.  Short trains are the name of the game here.  I will run the long ones on the Ceiling Central RR in the next room.  Right now I have one 14-car train and one 15-car train I have been running there.

At this point, I think I have two nice alternatives to ponder.  I hope no one feels bad if I pick something over another.  I greatly appreciate everyone's ideas!!!!!!!!!  This is the first layout, other than the Ceiling Central, where I had someone to bounce ideas off of.  The Internet has made such a wonderful contribution in brainstorming with like minded folks.  I was totally a lone wolf until the time period between the last layout and starting in O gauge.  I don't know about Peter, but I know the rest of us started out before way before the Internet age.  One more thing, in either plan, I have to figure out how I will make the scenery of the grade resemble the Blackwater Canyon, since there are tracks lower.  Just something else to work on in a small room.

John,

I did finish reading the book after we got home this afternoon.  Very good ideas!  I like the information about the length of cars for each size curves.  While the concept is not new, I have never seen anyone actually produce a handy chart before.  I think the book is good for anyone, especially the folks who get bored with loop running layouts.  Let me know if you got that email Monday.  I will send another too, when I get a chance.

 

I will report back once I have had a chance to do the grade testing.  I plan to run an engine with no cars, then keep running back adding one car at a time and record what each engine does.  Here is the setup; some old Woodland Scenics foam grades, a 2% on top of a 4%.  No I do not plan to use them on the layout.  They are something I played around with 20 years ago, and still had.  Thank you again, everyone!!

I never got an email from you Mark.  

Well John, I am very sorry about that!  I sent two e-mails.  I wonder who I sent them too, the server didn't kick the messages back as bad address.  

Here is what I intended to send to you on Monday:

Mark,
There will be no hard feelings no matter which way you go, these are just to give you options to consider and give me something to do on a lazy Sunday. Believe me, these samples are not taking more than 10-20 minutes to modify, so I'm not expending a lot of effort and I'm doing it all while watching TiVo recordings of DIY and HGTV. What they need is a TTN-TV channel (Toy Train Network-TV).

Here is another version with an area for a town in the original turntable location. The elevation of the existing turntable section was raised to 7" and that increased the grade to 3.9%, so there is still room to elevate the turntable section even more if you want a steeper grade.

And the last one for tonight moves closer to the original, but without the passing sidings because the reversing loop acts like a siding when you pull the staged train off the siding.

Dave,

If you get it, check out the RFD channel. They have some occasional train shows and also the I Love Toy Trains series from TM books. They also have some other interesting shows on old farm machinery and stuff like that, if you like that kind of thing. We had it with Time Warner, but when we switched to Google they don't offer the RFD channel. They are a LOT less on the old monthly bill though!

Now back to the regular scheduled programming of layout planning. Sorry to interrupt Mark, but they do have some good train shows. 

rtr12 posted:

If you get it, check out the RFD channel.

Not available here either,  but it was a good idea.

RTR12,

Thank you for joining in, no problem taking a tangent.  I wish we had RFD channel too!  You have to buy the Deluxe package to get it here.  One would think that a cable company whose headquarters is located in Butler, still a rural community would offer it.  But since I work for the telecom company I learned that the providers are offered the packages from the producers, and special interest channels are stuck on the deluxe packages!

Dave,

Both plans are very good.  The last one gives a longer run, and the extra spurs are nice on them.  I printed them all out on paper; yes I break the 'print only when you have to' rule at work; but I spent most of my career with paper, so I print when I have to; which is more than the younger guys.  

I finished testing my MTH engines.  All passed pulling 5 2-bay hoppers and a caboose up the 6% grade, that is a 2-8-0, 0-8-0, 4-4-0, F3, RS1, and my only 'modern' engine a Buffalo and Pittsburgh GP38-2.  It was the best puller of them all.  The only reason I have it is, I live one mile form the B&P and a fellow was selling it at a nice price.  I called it quits for tonight.  I will test the Lionel engines another evening.  They are F3, F7, 0-4-0, and a Virginian Rectifier.  Yes I know.  I think the VGN Rectifier is cool, and they used them on their mountain division, so it works for me.  

Dave, I must say I really like the most recent of your designs. Especially if there is a way to work in a passing siding. Mark, from my experience, the diesels will perform significantly better on the grades than the steam engines will. I run a 4% grade on my layout. Overall, I don't have too many problems any more, but steam engines really struggle with any imperfections in the track. I learned this very quickly when troubleshooting my build. Smaller wheel bases are more forgiving. 

This is really turning in to an interesting thread! I look forward to seeing how your planning and implementation progresses!

Best,

Marc 

Marc,

Yes I think you are right about that.  In general my HO steam engines gave me more trouble than diesels, but I like steamers better.  I am going to do my best to make the roadbed, track, and wiring as good as I can to head off as much trouble as possible.  I t doesn't have to be overbuilt, but needs to be solid and smooth flowing. Thank you for the comments.

Ok, Mark and Marc, I swapped out the photos above. I was able to add a passing siding by moving the start point for the grade and increasing the initial grade to 4.4%. That gives a total rise of 6.6% over the length of the overpass and the 2 grades. I also added a second siding inside the reversing loop. I could be wrong, but I think this is as close as I'm going to get to the original and keep the grades reasonable for the trains that will be run. The sidings can be lengthen by adding a curve to the ends, but that's not prototypical, so I didn't do that. Those and the top end of the passing siding can probably be smoothed out using flextrack during actual construction.

Oh, and the overpass is 6", so that might have to be adjusted too depending on the roadbed and sub-roadbed used in that area.

Wow Dave, you are up and at it early; Mountain Time I think!  I see the changes.  You have packed a lot in!  Yes that does include everything from the original plan except using a loop at one end instead of a turntable! The prototype had a grade a bit over 3%, so no one could argue it isn't prototypical; as if I care what someone would say about that.  I was thinking of trying my hand at some rough sketches to see how I would scenic all these, way back to John's original concept.  Much to ponder!  Thank you!

We're morning people, so we're up around 5:00 am every day and it's lights out by 10:30 pm, retirement hasn't changed that. Except for a couple of years of night shifts, I was at work by 6:30 am every day and never "slept in" on weekends like so many do. Heck when we travel, there are times where we wake up at 3:00 or so and can't get back to sleep, so we've been on the road as early as 4:00.

When I saw Marc's comment about the passing siding and then yours about the incline test, I decided to see if I could add one and stay below the 6%. We were just watching the news about the Super Bowl anyway and it only took a few minutes, so it was no big deal. As always, the hardest part was lining up the right side of the loop so I could make the 2 cuts needed for things to fit. I could have just left the uncut pieces in so you'd see them, but then you can't run the simulation and I didn't think you were proficient yet in making cuts. With 3 trains in 3D, you can see how things will operate before you even start building. The sim is the main reason I bought RR-Track (before SCARM was available), but now I use SCARM almost exclusively.

I thought you must be a morning person.  I get up when I have to, but don't like it!  LOL

You are correct in seeing I am having trouble with cuts and flex track.  I read up on it, but only got it to work a couple times, so I greatly appreciate you doing it.  I realize once you get the knack of it, it is probably a piece of cake.  I have not tried the simulator, but look forward to doing it!.

Well I guess I should finish my break and get back to work!  :-)

Thank you again!

The key to making cuts is to zoom in. In this example, you can see where the 2 tracks meet *blue circle) and "align". You simply can't see the alignment unless you zoom in. You can then see the thin lines on the sides of the arrow. You place the cursor over either one of those and then right-click to get the "Snip off" option. After you select it, you then select the piece you want to discard and delete it. If you did it right, they should automatically connect and the arrows should disappear.
NOTE: It works a little differently if you're on a grade because the heights might not match, but once you edit those, things should connect just fine.

In your layout, I had to snip the piece by the switch and then the short straight section coming out of the loop below that. Getting them both to line up was the hard part.

Now, when it comes to flextrack, you connect one end to one section of track to be joined. When you do that, you'll see the line I've circled in blue. You move that toward the other section of track to be joined until you get the red/green arrows. At that point, you right-click so the tracks connect and you get the 2nd photo. Sometimes, the angles won't line up to make the connection, so you have to right-click multiple times (blue circles) in different locations like I did in the 3rd photo to end up with what you see in the 4th photo. Notice the straight section that mimics what's in the design for your layout with the difference being only 2 joints instead of 4.
NOTE: You have to be very careful though to not "over" bend and end up with a radius your engines might not like.

Dave,

Thank you for the tips.  Yes, I see what I was doing wrong.  First of all, I forgot to zoom in.  That is why I couldn't line up and snip.  On the flex track, I was not right clicking multiple times.  The flex track was connected on one end, and the other end would flop around like a wounded snake when I barely moved the mouse.  Thank you very much!

DoubleDAZ posted:

And the last one for tonight moves closer to the original, but without the passing sidings because the reversing loop acts like a siding when you pull the staged train off the siding.

 

NOT BEING NEGATIVE....Dave you are great to work so hard!  The program display diagram is impressive!  I really like it.  I foresee an issue in respect to reaching the track in the rear and the placement of turnouts "inside" of one loop.  In that loop area, there needs to be a 24 inch opening for ACCESS.  The tracks in the rear near the walls will be inconvenient to reach and switches are always an issue.

Mark:  Whatever you decide to do, for yourself, please ensure that you keep everything within 30 inches of reach, less better, and assure that you will not have any portion of a switch under another track or anywhere you cannot see it easily.  You know as well as I the majority of track issues, real and model, are at track switches.

I envisioned two access openings in both corners of your room (away from the sliding glass door) where you could easily gain access to the rear portion of this design WHEN it becomes necessary.  Make it as easy as possible.  We are getting older...  :-)

PS:  I think the original design was more interesting with the lower track crossing under the upper track twice; not once as this is.  This "feels" more geometrical in my opinion.  I realize that it does make the construction slightly easier and the grade lower.  However, your grade, even steeper, will be fine because of limited train length.  You already tested which was really smart.

Going under twice makes the route seem more interesting to me.  That's my two cents.  Ultimately, you will decide what will work best for you.  :-)

John,

Your points about 30" or less reach is well taken.  I have had my "temporary" 4 x 8 layout up for over 2 years changing it from Christmas to Summer theme and back.  It is a 2" sheet of foam on a folding table.  To do any track work in the back, (and I have had trouble with Flextrack there) I have to slide the foam out at an angle, then crawl under the corner to the newly opened area, because there is a dresser at each end blocking the way.  When I just want to change a building in the back, I have been sliding it in by placing it on the end of a 4' stitck and gingerly moving it in place with the stick.  I HATE IT!  LOL. That is why the Christmas theme is still up and I am in no hurry to take it down.  I am pushing 61, and am more limber than a lot of guys my age, but I am well aware I am in decline!  LOL

That said just to emphasize I need realativly easy access to all points.

John,

Two points I like about the initial design.  First, I agree it is a more interesting run than the 'What If' I proposed that Dave then ran with.  Second, and I forgot to mention earlier, these later plans have a situation where the track crosses over several 'yard/fiddle' tracks or switches.  While lots of folks like that interest, it doesn't resemble anything on the prototype, and I'm not looking for that.  I have a friend on Facebook who is building a very handsome layout, and it has a track bridging over a yard.  He built an ingenious sectional bridge he can lift out for access.  Cool, but not what I had in mind.

 I want to sketch out the scenic possibilities of the initial snaking design with tunnels and see what the views could be.  I have something in mind, but want to get it on paper.

One more thing, while more tracks and switches make for more operation possibilities, they can also clog up the layout and I could lose the mountains effect.

Yes, I proved I can handle any grade we have discussed.  

This has been most interesting and fun!  I appreciate every idea every one has offered.  I need to step back and take it all into consideration.

Okay Dave.  I see the hatches.  I still would cross the lower line under the upper as in my original drawing.  There are pluses and minuses both ways....

I would go with the 2nd turntable as well in the lower area.  The reversing loop consumes more space than its worth and lessens interaction.  

The more you have to do the more fun and interesting it becomes.