Upper Deck Clearance and Support

I used 1 1/4'' wood to support 3/4'' plywood,the supports are 18'' high,this is what i wanted  it makes easier to see the lower level & i can reach all areas to clean track or do scenery work,it works for me,you of course could use smaller wood if you like.

Gerald's method works well.  I have used 1/2 ply decks on top of 2x4 risers with no problem other than the tendency of the cheaper plywood to warp.  I recommend spending more for birch ply to reduce your problems fitting everything together.   You should consider using 1/4 Luan over the lower track to get another fraction of an inch clearance.  With sufficient support with the risers and frames out of the way of lower track, 1/4" can be used all around (I build modules with 1/4" decks to save weight).

I use Luan door-skin plywood .125 inch (1/8), on 1 inch frame & cross bracing and 1 inch square legs  for my portable testing layout.

It supports loops of HO, O 3rail Atlas and MTH Standard gauge track fine.

Just do not plan to sit or stand on it.

Gerald's method is similar to what I've been considering. I'm thinking 1X4 select pine cut 5.5" long instead of the 1-1/4" posts. I can place the 1X4s between tracks on the lower level. My plywood is Birch; AC grade or AB, I forget. The bench-work is finished, but without elevation. I'm planning to use the cookie cutter method.

The only reason i used 3/4'' plywood was because it was FREE, otherwise i would have used 3/8'' which is what i used in my previous layout without any problems,but to each his own.

I utilize threaded rods, washers, locking washers, and nuts. It worked well on my  first layout and I am using it in my rebuilt.  This permits closer track spacing as a side benefit.http://www.clarityphotos.com/P.../pages/DSCF7254.html

winrose46 posted:

I utilize threaded rods, washers, locking washers, and nuts. It worked well on my  first layout and I am using it in my rebuilt.  This permits closer track spacing as a side benefit.http://www.clarityphotos.com/P.../pages/DSCF7254.html

I like it. I was recently thinking wooden dowels, but I like your idea better.

I think you are going to have a clearance problem.

6 inches - 1/2 inch plywood - 1/4 inch roadbed - 1/2 inch track height = 4 3/4 inches

It will be hard to see and impossible to fix a derailed train.

Jan

Oman posted:

winrose46 posted:

I utilize threaded rods, washers, locking washers, and nuts. It worked well on my  first layout and I am using it in my rebuilt.  This permits closer track spacing as a side benefit.http://www.clarityphotos.com/P.../pages/DSCF7254.html

I like it. I was recently thinking wooden dowels, but I like your idea better.

I do too because it allows for adjusting the height of each pole to make sure things are level.

Jan posted:

I think you are going to have a clearance problem.

6 inches - 1/2 inch plywood - 1/4 inch roadbed - 1/2 inch track height = 4 3/4 inches

It will be hard to see and impossible to fix a derailed train.

Jan

MTH vertical tunnel portal openings are 5-5/8". That's how I rationalized 5-1/2". The track that I need to see is near the front, but I didn't give derailments consideration. Thank you for your input. After further consideration, I decided that I needed to simplify the track plan under the upper deck. I removed a double slip switch that could be problematic. I replaced it with two #5 switches and a 22.5' crossing. The #5 switches are in the open. I also removed an upper deck siding, so the lower deck siding is not concealed.

Keith, how did your SCARM file end up with a .atps extension in the filename? It threw me at first, but the 3D image looked so much like SCARM that I decided to download it and just change the extension to .scarm.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Keith, how did your SCARM file end up with a .atps extension in the filename? It threw me at first, but the 3D image looked so much like SCARM that I decided to download it and just change the extension to .scarm.

Dave

When I decided to use Atlas O track, I found a free version on their web site. At that time, I had never heard of SCARM. I was using RR-Track when designing for MTH Real Trax. I only came to know that it was SCARM because of the HELP function. The Atlas version includes only Atlas O and HO. So, I guess changing the extension allows it to be viewed and edited in SCARM. I've attached my revised version.

Cheers

Oman posted:

DoubleDAZ posted:

Keith, how did your SCARM file end up with a .atps extension in the filename? It threw me at first, but the 3D image looked so much like SCARM that I decided to download it and just change the extension to .scarm.

Dave

When I decided to use Atlas O track, I found a free version on their web site. At that time, I had never heard of SCARM. I was using RR-Track when designing for MTH Real Trax. I only came to know that it was SCARM because of the HELP function. The Atlas version includes only Atlas O and HO. So, I guess changing the extension allows it to be viewed and edited in SCARM. I've attached my revised version.

Cheers

I didn't know SCARM file used the same format as something else, interesting and good to know. Thanks for letting me know.