Layout Design - Advice and Comments Welcome

Eric,

I understand your design choice is to fill the space, but I prefer less track and more scenic elements. There is nothing at all wrong with your design. It flows and it works. You might want to consider keeping O-72 curves because there is not too much to gain with O-81 unless O-72 results in locos hitting scenery. O-81 has an impact on scenic elements and does not really provide much advantage operationally except for slightly less overhang on articulated locos and long cars. I find that there is a negative impact on realism (if that is your goal) when there is too much track. Only you can decide what is to much but if there is so much track that key scenic elements are forced out, that is the spaghetti bowl effect. Hard to prepare for until you actually have it in and then you see it in 3D.

Scrappy

There are some interesting design elements there.  Looks like a good, operations-oriented layout.

I'll second the notion that 081 offers only a slight advantage to 072.  But, if the effect is what you want, then go for it.  I personally like more track rather than less track mainly because it allows for more "operations" of your chief layout component:  trains.  But, I'm also a scenery nut so my past layouts have squeezed in both.  The current layout under construction will as well.

Also ... I going to assume that this is a walk-around layout, otherwise you'll have some (lots, really) trouble reaching all points on the layout.  

I have to admit planning ahead is for sure not one of my own strong points BUT the reverse loop in the upper left section is going to become useless once you have gone through it one time.You will then be stuck in a counter clockwise rotation.You may want to modify your design that lets you reverse again back clock wise.Nick

For those who may not know, Atlas now uses a version of the SCRAM software, so the file can be downloaded, the extension changed to .scarm and the design can then be opened with SCARM. However, I do not know if the file can then be changed back to .atps after changes are made and opened with the Atlas version (I assume it can).

Eric, from what I can see, you have at least 3.5" of center-to-center spacing, which should be okay for straights, but I'm concerned it might not be enough on some of the corners where a train traveling clockwise on the inside Red line might meet a train traveling counter-clockwise on the outer Red line (see circles). It all depends on the amount of overhang there is on the engines you plan to run.

I like the general design with switching action for those who like such things, the ability to run multiple trains unattended and the ability to switch between all tracks except the center O27 oval. One thing that always bothers me with a single reversing loop is that there is no way to reverse again without backing up. However, in your case, I'm not sure that's all bad. You have 3 mains to run on while 1 train is using the outer Red line to back through the reversing loop to either reverse an engine or reverse an entire train. If you reverse entire trains, then the loop will limit the number of cars to 10 or so.

Like RT said, if there is not enough room to walk around the layout, then you will need some access hatches, perhaps under removable buildings in the center oval. I don't know what the long green slim rectangle is in the upper part, a door or window maybe?

EDIT: I forgot to mention that I can see why you opted for O81 curves, but I agree with the others that they don't really offer that much unless using O72 curves really messes up the design aesthetics, which I think they might.

Thank you all for the advice. I am changing the curves for better spacing. I do have a question regarding the O-72 versus O-81: Is it better to use the O-81 than the O-72 if I have to use straight spacers in between the O-72 curves to get the broad curve? I figure it is no longer cost effective and there is more room for electrical issues since there are more track sections. 

Regarding the reverse loop. This is a nook in the room and I want to utilize it, but I had no other way to run a track up there, so if anyone has any other ideas I am open to them. 

I am going to have access panels installed, as the way the room is built I am not sure how to design a layout with space for buildings and track with a horseshoe design. 

The long slim green in the top left is just a hill, as in 3D it brings the landscaping up high. 

I should have said this previously, but the inner purple track is going to be a trolley line. I am most likely not going to use Atlas track for this. Does anyone have any advice on what type of track to use for a trolley line? I would like to fill the track with some material, so the rails on the street are all you see.  I'll take advice on the track and what material to use to simulate asphalt or cobblestone between the rails. 

Another question for you experts: Would it look better to do a double track bridge and a single track bridge, or does it look more grand to have three single track bridges? 

vthokies2007-2011 posted:

Thank you all for the advice. I am changing the curves for better spacing. I do have a question regarding the O-72 versus O-81: Is it better to use the O-81 than the O-72 if I have to use straight spacers in between the O-72 curves to get the broad curve? I figure it is no longer cost effective and there is more room for electrical issues since there are more track sections. 
I see no reason to use O72 instead of O81 for the reasons you cited. I played around and the number of joints increased from 14 to 19 with more small pieces.

Regarding the reverse loop. This is a nook in the room and I want to utilize it, but I had no other way to run a track up there, so if anyone has any other ideas I am open to them. 
As I said, the single reversing loop is not ideal, but I think it's just fine as long as you understand that you'll have to back up in order to reverse back. However, when you come out of the loop and go into the inner ovals, there is no way back out without also backing up. The single crossover between the Red ovals needs to be a double crossover just like the others.

I am going to have access panels installed, as the way the room is built I am not sure how to design a layout with space for buildings and track with a horseshoe design.
Does the blue outline represent the actual room walls or is part of the room not shown? Is there access along the diagonal line or is that a wall? Where is the door? Does it open out?

The long slim green in the top left is just a hill, as in 3D it brings the landscaping up high.
Got it.

vthokies2007-2011 posted:

Another question for you experts: Would it look better to do a double track bridge and a single track bridge, or does it look more grand to have three single track bridges? 

Not saying things won't work, but I'm having a hard time envisioning the landscaping that will justify the bridges and still look good. The upper bridge is going to be right next to a double set of double-crossovers. The 3 bridges on the right side will be next to a 4th mainline and they're all very close. Even the wood trestle bridge in the lower left will be close to the other mains. I just can't see 2 mains on the precipice with the 3rd on a trestle bridge. That aside, when you use commercial multi-line bridges, the track spacing is already set and may affect the rest of the tracks leading up to the bridge. And I'm a little concerned about the spacing for 3 individual bridges, especially if they're going to be side by side as depicted in the design. U can see a custom 3 line bridge, but I still have a hard time with it being next to the 4th main.

here's a concept for a circle reversing complex. rearrange the switches, use switches instead of wyes, it's just there for the concept. Looks like the wall corner will be a bugger.

You won't have the library, but Kline, Lionel, Bachmann EZ-Streets would be perfect for the city. They all fit regardless of which manufacturer made them. 21" curves, trolleys, vehicles and small engines can run on it.

I don't know if I like the tunnel in top left blocking the service yard view. That's a good visual. Perhaps half of the curve?

Nice work with the software! You picked it up quickly.

Scrapiron Scher posted:

Eric,

I understand your design choice is to fill the space, but I prefer less track and more scenic elements.... I find that there is a negative impact on realism (if that is your goal) when there is too much track. Only you can decide what is to much but if there is so much track that key scenic elements are forced out, that is the spaghetti bowl effect.

Scrappy

I agree with Scrappy (Eliot). Although there's a common and somewhat natural tendency to try to fit in as much track as possible, I'm a big proponent of really using just enough track to provide interesting operational capabilities while leaving a good amount of layout space open for scenery, buildings, accessories, etc.--the things that really bring a layout to life. 

Eric,

I forgot one more very important thing. Atlas O track performs best when properly prepared. I have used Atlas O for many years and I strongly recommend the following:

1) 14 AWG highly stranded wire ALL connections soldered.

2) The fewer track sections the better. Do NOT assume a rail joiner is conducting electricity just because it is there.

3) All commons must be electrically connected for Atlas O switches to provide power through the switch unless you wire each leg.

4) Clean off the center black gunk. Do Not listen to those who claim it doesn't matter. It DOES. The gunk spreads and eventually causes issues with signals.

5) I recommend electrically conductive grease in each joiner.

6) If you join sections carefully and solder your drops, you will need MANY fewer drops. I have a 30x20 layout and I have one drop per loop.

7) Use on/off toggles on sidings.

Scrappy

vthokies2007-2011 posted:

Hi Guys,

  I had to take down my old layout, as it was built in my parents' house. My wonderful wife has allowed for me to finish one of the basement rooms to create my very own train room. I am in the drywall stages of that room now. So now to the layout design phase. I am using Atlas Track, so I went with their layout software. I would really love some advice, opinions, or comments on what I have come up with. I designed it using a lot of the buildings and track I had. The huge difference is that I am going from only O-72 curves to putting in O-81 curves. On the right hand side of the layout where you see three bridges, that will be water underneath. I plan to do a scratch built wooden trestle bridge on the outside track on the front left. I do have one question for everyone: Does my track spacing look okay? I have attached screen shots and the actual file. 

Thank you,

Eric

Dear Eric:  No offense, but when you speak of "design" you are really talking about arranging track.  That is all too common misuse of the term and most over-repeated mistake in the history of model railroading--all scales.  Many people just start laying track or sketching track to fill space without regard to anything else.  That is why there are a multitude of unsatisfying layouts and people complaining that they are bored with their layouts.  You should consider truly designing your layout of which one component is track arranging.

How to properly design a model railroad is a comprehensive subject that could make a thick book.  In short, I will suggest this to you to think about:  Who--the name of your railroad is?  Is it freelance, based on reality, a toy, or a very near replica?  What section of the railroad will you model?  The main?  A branch?  The yard?  What does your railroad do?  Where does it go?  What are you and others doing to interact with it.  When a railroad is pretty much done and there is nothing to do but look at it, it won't keep your or others attention along.

The three most critical elements for a model railroad are: plausibility, purpose and participation.  Participation is the the most critical of the three and a majority of layouts don't have it.  Which is why layouts are torn up over and over again because people are bored and can't understand why they are bored and dissatisfied. 

You need to think about the overall, comprehensive and complete layout--what it will look like and what it will do and how you and others will be involved with it in the end versus arranging track first.

Give yourself, and others, some "real" simulate railroad work on your line and get it going somewhere other than turning and twisting along a nonsensical path with no purpose.  More track is not better.  More trains running at the same time is not better.  Bigger is not better.  

Without purpose and participation, a layout becomes another "plywood pacific" and another of the 90% plus of layouts that are poorly conceived and not properly designed.  The are a large number of O scalers who have turned the corner and moved up to 21st century design...catching up with our fellow modelers in HO and N scales.  There are some awesome and outstanding O scale layouts!  It is something worth considering. 

Lastly, before you start arranging track, think about exactly what it is you want to do and how you will do it and what interaction there will be for you and others when it is "done."  Good luck and best wishes!  :-)

The Formal Design Process may be outlined as follows:

T  Theme

R  Research

A  Analyze 

I  Idea--formulated

N  Nascence--birth and beginning

S  Survey--continually assess and reassess 

PS:  Good Luck!  :-)  Don't settle for good.  Go for great!  :-)

John C. posted:

vthokies2007-2011 posted:

Hi Guys,

  I had to take down my old layout, as it was built in my parents' house. My wonderful wife has allowed for me to finish one of the basement rooms to create my very own train room. I am in the drywall stages of that room now. So now to the layout design phase. I am using Atlas Track, so I went with their layout software. I would really love some advice, opinions, or comments on what I have come up with. I designed it using a lot of the buildings and track I had. The huge difference is that I am going from only O-72 curves to putting in O-81 curves. On the right hand side of the layout where you see three bridges, that will be water underneath. I plan to do a scratch built wooden trestle bridge on the outside track on the front left. I do have one question for everyone: Does my track spacing look okay? I have attached screen shots and the actual file. 

Thank you,

Eric

Dear Eric:  No offense, but when you speak of "design" you are really talking about arranging track.  That is all too common misuse of the term and most over-repeated mistake in the history of model railroading--all scales.  Many people just start laying track or sketching track to fill space without regard to anything else.  That is why there are a multitude of unsatisfying layouts and people complaining that they are bored with their layouts.  You should consider truly designing your layout of which one component is track arranging.

How to properly design a model railroad is a comprehensive subject that could make a thick book.  In short, I will suggest this to you to think about:  Who--the name of your railroad is?  Is it freelance, based on reality, a toy, or a very near replica?  What section of the railroad will you model?  The main?  A branch?  The yard?  What does your railroad do?  Where does it go?  What are you and others doing to interact with it.  When a railroad is pretty much done and there is nothing to do but look at it, it won't keep your or others attention along.

The three most critical elements for a model railroad are: plausibility, purpose and participation.  Participation is the the most critical of the three and a majority of layouts don't have it.  Which is why layouts are torn up over and over again because people are bored and can't understand why they are bored and dissatisfied. 

You need to think about the overall, comprehensive and complete layout--what it will look like and what it will do and how you and others will be involved with it in the end versus arranging track first.

Give yourself, and others, some "real" simulate railroad work on your line and get it going somewhere other than turning and twisting along a nonsensical path with no purpose.  More track is not better.  More trains running at the same time is not better.  Bigger is not better.  

Without purpose and participation, a layout becomes another "plywood pacific" and another of the 90% plus of layouts that are poorly conceived and not properly designed.  The are a large number of O scalers who have turned the corner and moved up to 21st century design...catching up with our fellow modelers in HO and N scales.  There are some awesome and outstanding O scale layouts!  It is something worth considering. 

Lastly, before you start arranging track, think about exactly what it is you want to do and how you will do it and what interaction there will be for you and others when it is "done."  Good luck and best wishes!  :-)

The Formal Design Process may be outlined as follows:

T  Theme

R  Research

A  Analyze 

I  Idea--formulated

N  Nascence--birth and beginning

S  Survey--continually assess and reassess 

PS:  Good Luck!  :-)  Don't settle for good.  Go for great!  :-)

Well, I am a "newbie" and this is the type of response to a question that would keep me from even asking one!!  This might get me kicked off the forum but, oh well.   I find this post very arrogant and condescending.

I agree... I know John means well but sometimes the crusade to get folks to enjoy the hobby his way comes off a bit strong......imo

KEVSTER- I would accept all advice, good and bad, at face value. Everyone means well and are only trying to help.

Kevster posted:

John C. posted:

vthokies2007-2011 posted:

Hi Guys,

  I had to take down my old layout, as it was built in my parents' house. My wonderful wife has allowed for me to finish one of the basement rooms to create my very own train room. I am in the drywall stages of that room now. So now to the layout design phase. I am using Atlas Track, so I went with their layout software. I would really love some advice, opinions, or comments on what I have come up with. I designed it using a lot of the buildings and track I had. The huge difference is that I am going from only O-72 curves to putting in O-81 curves. On the right hand side of the layout where you see three bridges, that will be water underneath. I plan to do a scratch built wooden trestle bridge on the outside track on the front left. I do have one question for everyone: Does my track spacing look okay? I have attached screen shots and the actual file. 

Thank you,

Eric

Dear Eric:  No offense, but when you speak of "design" you are really talking about arranging track.  That is all too common misuse of the term and most over-repeated mistake in the history of model railroading--all scales.  Many people just start laying track or sketching track to fill space without regard to anything else.  That is why there are a multitude of unsatisfying layouts and people complaining that they are bored with their layouts.  You should consider truly designing your layout of which one component is track arranging.

How to properly design a model railroad is a comprehensive subject that could make a thick book.  In short, I will suggest this to you to think about:  Who--the name of your railroad is?  Is it freelance, based on reality, a toy, or a very near replica?  What section of the railroad will you model?  The main?  A branch?  The yard?  What does your railroad do?  Where does it go?  What are you and others doing to interact with it.  When a railroad is pretty much done and there is nothing to do but look at it, it won't keep your or others attention along.

The three most critical elements for a model railroad are: plausibility, purpose and participation.  Participation is the the most critical of the three and a majority of layouts don't have it.  Which is why layouts are torn up over and over again because people are bored and can't understand why they are bored and dissatisfied. 

You need to think about the overall, comprehensive and complete layout--what it will look like and what it will do and how you and others will be involved with it in the end versus arranging track first.

Give yourself, and others, some "real" simulate railroad work on your line and get it going somewhere other than turning and twisting along a nonsensical path with no purpose.  More track is not better.  More trains running at the same time is not better.  Bigger is not better.  

Without purpose and participation, a layout becomes another "plywood pacific" and another of the 90% plus of layouts that are poorly conceived and not properly designed.  The are a large number of O scalers who have turned the corner and moved up to 21st century design...catching up with our fellow modelers in HO and N scales.  There are some awesome and outstanding O scale layouts!  It is something worth considering. 

Lastly, before you start arranging track, think about exactly what it is you want to do and how you will do it and what interaction there will be for you and others when it is "done."  Good luck and best wishes!  :-)

The Formal Design Process may be outlined as follows:

T  Theme

R  Research

A  Analyze 

I  Idea--formulated

N  Nascence--birth and beginning

S  Survey--continually assess and reassess 

PS:  Good Luck!  :-)  Don't settle for good.  Go for great!  :-)

Well, I am a "newbie" and this is the type of response to a question that would keep me from even asking one!!  This might get me kicked off the forum but, oh well.   I find this post very arrogant and condescending.

 

I'm sorry man.  Not my intention at all.  Just trying to help.  

Accepting advice is one thing, but does it really help to basically be told to scrap a plan and start over? If anyone bothered to read Eric's bio, he's not new to the hobby or OGR having joined in 2008 and built the O-Scale layout he just tore down at his parents home. It was 8'x16' and modeled after the regions he grew up around: Pittsburgh mixed with the Shenandoah Valley. I take his effort at face value, that he likes a lot of track, he likes to run several trains and most of the layout will be urban landscaping. I've asked several questions about his design with the goal of making it better while not foisting my ideas for the space on him.

And why not ask if he's considered reducing the amount of track? Or how about offering an example of what is meant as it applies to the design being discussed? I don't see how it helps to be told that someone prefers less track and more buildings. Balancing track and landscaping is a worthy goal, but how could his design be changed to accommodate that goal? Me? While I prefer a lot of track over landscaping, I'd probably take out 1 of the 2 Red lines to move things around a bit and free up a little real estate. Then I'd see if using all O72 curves would work, but as Eric said, converting the current design to O72 curves only adds to the number of joints and increases the potential for electrical issues. But at least that suggestion was constructive IMHO.

As for John's comments, old timers here have seen them before, but new members haven't, so his ideas should be considered. However, they remind me of some of my teachers in high school who'd simply look at a term paper and tell me to start over with a similar list of generic suggestions. Unfortunately, that was never very helpful then and I'm not sure how helpful it is now, particularly for someone who is not new to the hobby, obviously has some talents to do so well with the Atlas software and offered a design trying to use the track and buildings he already has from a previous layout. I think Kevster and RD hit the nail on the head. When I first joined this forum, I faced similar comments and almost gave up on the forum. Then I found folks like Carl (moonman) who rarely suggests scraping a design, but tries to help make it the best it can be by offering examples while asking questions to perhaps lead the OP in different directions.

Hopefully, Eric will be back to share his thoughts based on all the comments. I tried playing with horseshoe and around the room designs, but that proved difficult without knowing more about the space; walls, door, etc. And while some perhaps don't see a theme (purpose), I see a theme very much like the trains I see around Phoenix. I see trains coming and going from the reversing loop, dropping off and picking up cars around town. Phoenix doesn't have any industries per se, so that's pretty much what happens here, trains simply come and go from California to the west and elsewhere across Texas and New Mexico from the east. Not every layout needs a coal, oil, lumber or other industry to be enjoyable. I see urban passenger service layouts that would bore me to death. Some of them have been featured here and in OGR and no one bats an eye at the lack of industry, etc. They accept that passenger service is a valid theme, so why not accept the same from someone who seems to be basically modeling a through-point urban area. I have to believe there is a lot of freight traffic through Pittsburgh and other cities that don't relate to a local industry like coal, oil, gas or logging.

But then again, maybe I'm all wet and Eric hasn't given any thought to any of this and is just "arranging track".

Sooner or later most OGR threads involving advice devolve into Mad Max running from the barbarians with the guitar guy shooting flames. Hey folks, Happy New Year !!

Eric . . . . . please don't be put off by replies that seem too cutting edge. It's just train folks sharing opinions a little bit too harshly. Do trains, man !!!

Eric,

Is your model railroad is supposed to imitate a real area or a prototype railroad?  If so, you might want to think about reducing the amount of tracks and simplifying the design. 

Another suggestion - set some goals.

Operational - are there things you want the railroad to do?  For example, take goods from Factory A to Town B?  Even a semi-scale layout can benefit from some operational goals.

Scenery - are you trying to reproduce a particular scene, bridge, or piece of terrain?

Don't be afraid to tear up what you designed and re-do it.  My first layout went through dozens of revisions before I built it.  Once it was up, I found other things that I would change.  Version 2 will have those changes.  Tearing up concepts and drawings is cheap and easy.  Track and benchwork?  Not so much.

Best of luck,

George

Kevster posted:

John C. posted:

vthokies2007-2011 posted:

Hi Guys,

  I had to take down my old layout, as it was built in my parents' house. My wonderful wife has allowed for me to finish one of the basement rooms to create my very own train room. I am in the drywall stages of that room now. So now to the layout design phase. I am using Atlas Track, so I went with their layout software. I would really love some advice, opinions, or comments on what I have come up with. I designed it using a lot of the buildings and track I had. The huge difference is that I am going from only O-72 curves to putting in O-81 curves. On the right hand side of the layout where you see three bridges, that will be water underneath. I plan to do a scratch built wooden trestle bridge on the outside track on the front left. I do have one question for everyone: Does my track spacing look okay? I have attached screen shots and the actual file. 

Thank you,

Eric

Dear Eric:  No offense, but when you speak of "design" you are really talking about arranging track.  That is all too common misuse of the term and most over-repeated mistake in the history of model railroading--all scales.  Many people just start laying track or sketching track to fill space without regard to anything else.  That is why there are a multitude of unsatisfying layouts and people complaining that they are bored with their layouts.  You should consider truly designing your layout of which one component is track arranging.

How to properly design a model railroad is a comprehensive subject that could make a thick book.  In short, I will suggest this to you to think about:  Who--the name of your railroad is?  Is it freelance, based on reality, a toy, or a very near replica?  What section of the railroad will you model?  The main?  A branch?  The yard?  What does your railroad do?  Where does it go?  What are you and others doing to interact with it.  When a railroad is pretty much done and there is nothing to do but look at it, it won't keep your or others attention along.

The three most critical elements for a model railroad are: plausibility, purpose and participation.  Participation is the the most critical of the three and a majority of layouts don't have it.  Which is why layouts are torn up over and over again because people are bored and can't understand why they are bored and dissatisfied. 

You need to think about the overall, comprehensive and complete layout--what it will look like and what it will do and how you and others will be involved with it in the end versus arranging track first.

Give yourself, and others, some "real" simulate railroad work on your line and get it going somewhere other than turning and twisting along a nonsensical path with no purpose.  More track is not better.  More trains running at the same time is not better.  Bigger is not better.  

Without purpose and participation, a layout becomes another "plywood pacific" and another of the 90% plus of layouts that are poorly conceived and not properly designed.  The are a large number of O scalers who have turned the corner and moved up to 21st century design...catching up with our fellow modelers in HO and N scales.  There are some awesome and outstanding O scale layouts!  It is something worth considering. 

Lastly, before you start arranging track, think about exactly what it is you want to do and how you will do it and what interaction there will be for you and others when it is "done."  Good luck and best wishes!  :-)

The Formal Design Process may be outlined as follows:

T  Theme

R  Research

A  Analyze 

I  Idea--formulated

N  Nascence--birth and beginning

S  Survey--continually assess and reassess 

PS:  Good Luck!  :-)  Don't settle for good.  Go for great!  :-)

Well, I am a "newbie" and this is the type of response to a question that would keep me from even asking one!!  This might get me kicked off the forum but, oh well.   I find this post very arrogant and condescending.

 

I would recommend that you take this very excellent advice in the spirit in which it was given.  Gaining much of this hard-won knowledge yourself would involve a lot of time and wasted effort.

George

I really do appreciate everyone's responses. I have a busy day of family events, but I am going to answer some questions and hopefully be able to answer some more tomorrow. 

1) The input and opinions are good. I needed some direction, hence forth I posted the layout I came up with. The room is limited, as the room is the layout, but I will have two feet of space on all sides, except the bottom and left. The bottom left is what people will see when they walk in the room (Photo 1) with the ability to stand in front of the very bottom of the layout. I figured it is way easier for everyone to actually see photographs of the room being built. 

2) I am going to stick with the O-81 outside track, as it fits the broad curves I need the best. As Dave and Scrappy have mentioned before, I am going to try and go down to O-72 curves on some of the others to utilize more space and it is cost effective for me, as I have plenty of O-72 track, but no O-81 right now. 

3) I am a kid at heart, so running the trains is always my first thought. I love seeing train traffic and being able to haul long trains. I do love scenery though. I have really enjoyed building mountains and tunnels in the past. What I want to do is encompass more hills and maybe creeks. I like the ability to run trains over different tracks, but also love scenery and believe it makes a layout look grand. I am having a tough time finding a line between track and scenery space. Rest assured, I am conscience about this and will have to change some track.

4) I am trying to include some elements of my past layout, as it held sentimental value, but I also do not want to get bored once I am done building. I also included some pictures of my past layout to show what I have done in the past. 

One last thing, how can I open a file that is attached. I have been trying to open Carl's Atlas file. I will have some more comments tomorrow! Thank you everyone. 

Eric. If you're using Windows, right-click on the file name and look for a Save As or Save Link As option.

VTHOKIES,

it's a six switch circle that permits reversing in both direction that can sometimes fit where two typical loops will not fit on a layout. it needs some rearranging and cajoling, but I figure you could get that.

What Dave said on the file download

Eric: I tend to be in your kind of school of thought, I love trains running, I love scenes for example where a moving train moves through a yard-like area where there are other trains/cars 'parked', head to head passing on adjacent tracks and so forth. I agree that operations makes running a train more fun, and I understand how the design around operations philosophy can make for an interesting experience over 'loop running', and I would encourage someone to have a layout where you can do operations, things like switching around yard areas, making up trains, etc, having industries and customers that require being served, but looking at your plan I see a lot of places to do that. When I actually figure out RR track software, which at present seems to be my bete noire, I for example love industrial and wharf scenes, with small engines switching them, and will try to have that as part of my layout, but the nice part about any layout is it can be an expression of anything we want it to be.  

It might be easier with less track to have more scenic elements as Eliot recommended, the kind of elements you mentioned might be difficult with this much track on the board, mountains and hills tend to take more space than people think, and even having room for mundane things like streets, depressions/gulleys next to the track, other elements do take some space. I seem to recall from John Armstrong's writing on track planning that it always comes down to deciding what we want, what we need  and from there it comes down to compromises. If ultimately having a lot of 'track action' is what drives you, then you can compromise on the scenery. 

One thing I noticed was the track in many places seems to be really close to the edge of the table which I suspect is caused by a plan with so much track density. You may want to rethink that, by having space between the track and the table edge you can put in scenic design elements there, you can have things like old ties, signal boxes, paths, roads, etc there, visually it can look a lot better. The other trick might to be to try and find a way to make the track  not as parallel to the edge of the table as it is. Thalt may be more difficult, but is something to think about since you are only in the design stage

You asked about the trolley loop, if you don't already have three rail equipment, have you thought about maybe using 2 rail equipment? Since the Trolley loop is not contiguous with the three rail layout, you have that option. The only reason being it is a lot easier to blend the track in with a street with two rail. If doing three rail, city streets is relatively easy, or you could use wood forms between the rails and outside the rails covered with joint compound that has been painted to simulate concrete. Key thing there is keeping just enough space to allow for the flanges and also to make sure the road surface is a hair below the top level of the rail, especially around the third rail. 

Nice thing about this is a layout is not set in stone, we can always modify it, add/take from it, tweak it, or even take it down and start from scratch (some people, like Pelle Solberg over at Model Railroader magazine, seem to love building layouts then tearing them down and starting from scratch more than running them. Even with design software like RR track and SCARM, that can show us so much of what the layout will look like, in the end experience seems to be the best teacher from my years of being an armchair modeler, that you find what you like/want/need more as time goes on and the layout can be done to suit those unfolding desires (sorry for the philosophical bent to this, but sometimes it seems like people focus on getting it perfect 'right off the bat', when what is 'perfect' isn't set in stone

Hi, Eric –

Here are my experiences with Atlas Track and turnouts. My layout covers most of the 33’ x 38’ train room, has over 900’ of track, 58 turnouts, four levels, and five reversing loops. The double-main is 275’ long, and there are numerous sidings and spurs. There are two DCS TIU’s, five AIU’s, and one Legacy base.

I run DCS and Legacy trains simultaneously, and have no problems. Occasionally, a specific engine will stop briefly, but other than that, I have no problems running the trains, even when running for guests, which is when things tend to go wrong.

The train room is on our basement, and so is my shop, where I make a lot of wood projects. This means that I generate wood dust when I run the table saw, radial arm saw, sanders, and routers. Even though the shop is in a separate room, I find dust on top of the layout regularly.

This having been said, I very seldom clean the track (maybe twice a year?), and I have never cleaned the lower level or other not readily accessible track. The track has been in place since Feb-Apr 2011. When I do clean the track, I simply use a block of wood with a rag around it, which I soak with CRC contact cleaner. Alcohol works OK also.

For installation, I used just the Atlas joiners and did not solder the track sections together; but if I had to do it over again, I would add conductive grease to the joiners; just as a good measure. I did not bother to remove the black on the center rail, and have had no issues. Some of this black has worn off through normal use.

I connected the power to the track with 16 AWG stranded wire using my screw-to-rail-method. Several people here have used this method with success. If I had to do it over again, two things I would definitely do differently or in addition: First – paint or otherwise weather the rails before installing it; particularly on the tracks that are more visible. Second – ballast the track immediately or shortly after it is down. I waited until I had most of the scenery done, and it was more challenging to install the 150 lb of ballast I have used. No, the hidden and not readily visible track is not ballasted.

I can turn on-off the 48 districts and track blocks with toggle switches at the main control panel via relays. The switches control the relays, and the relays are mounted in closer proximity to the tracks to minimize the length of the feeder wires to the tracks. The relay control wires (22 AWG) from the control panel to the relays can be as long as 120’.

Good luck!

Alex

That's a great summary, Alex. I intend to use your screw-to-rail method and having used RealTrax, I'm completely amazed that you haven't cleaned some of your track in over 6 years. I'm going to have to remember the tip about the grease.

Ingeniero No1 posted:

Hi, Eric –

Here are my experiences with Atlas Track and turnouts. My layout covers most of the 33’ x 38’ train room, has over 900’ of track, 58 turnouts, four levels, and five reversing loops. The double-main is 275’ long, and there are numerous sidings and spurs. There are two DCS TIU’s, five AIU’s, and one Legacy base.

I run DCS and Legacy trains simultaneously, and have no problems. Occasionally, a specific engine will stop briefly, but other than that, I have no problems running the trains, even when running for guests, which is when things tend to go wrong.

The train room is on our basement, and so is my shop, where I make a lot of wood projects. This means that I generate wood dust when I run the table saw, radial arm saw, sanders, and routers. Even though the shop is in a separate room, I find dust on top of the layout regularly.

This having been said, I very seldom clean the track (maybe twice a year?), and I have never cleaned the lower level or other not readily accessible track. The track has been in place since Feb-Apr 2011. When I do clean the track, I simply use a block of wood with a rag around it, which I soak with CRC contact cleaner. Alcohol works OK also.

For installation, I used just the Atlas joiners and did not solder the track sections together; but if I had to do it over again, I would add conductive grease to the joiners; just as a good measure. I did not bother to remove the black on the center rail, and have had no issues. Some of this black has worn off through normal use.

I connected the power to the track with 16 AWG stranded wire using my screw-to-rail-method. Several people here have used this method with success. If I had to do it over again, two things I would definitely do differently or in addition: First – paint or otherwise weather the rails before installing it; particularly on the tracks that are more visible. Second – ballast the track immediately or shortly after it is down. I waited until I had most of the scenery done, and it was more challenging to install the 150 lb of ballast I have used. No, the hidden and not readily visible track is not ballasted.

I can turn on-off the 48 districts and track blocks with toggle switches at the main control panel via relays. The switches control the relays, and the relays are mounted in closer proximity to the tracks to minimize the length of the feeder wires to the tracks. The relay control wires (22 AWG) from the control panel to the relays can be as long as 120’.

Good luck!

Alex

Alex,

  That is great advice. Is there a link to your "screw-to-rail" method for the connections? This is the first time I am hearing about this method. Also, will the grease on the joints collect residue from the ballast when laid? Or do you add just enough grease to close the slight gab between rail ends? 

Thanks,

Eric 

Eric, here's a pdf file of the technique Alex uses.

Edit: And here's the link.

bigkid posted:

Eric: I tend to be in your kind of school of thought, I love trains running, I love scenes for example where a moving train moves through a yard-like area where there are other trains/cars 'parked', head to head passing on adjacent tracks and so forth. I agree that operations makes running a train more fun, and I understand how the design around operations philosophy can make for an interesting experience over 'loop running', and I would encourage someone to have a layout where you can do operations, things like switching around yard areas, making up trains, etc, having industries and customers that require being served, but looking at your plan I see a lot of places to do that. When I actually figure out RR track software, which at present seems to be my bete noire, I for example love industrial and wharf scenes, with small engines switching them, and will try to have that as part of my layout, but the nice part about any layout is it can be an expression of anything we want it to be.  

It might be easier with less track to have more scenic elements as Eliot recommended, the kind of elements you mentioned might be difficult with this much track on the board, mountains and hills tend to take more space than people think, and even having room for mundane things like streets, depressions/gulleys next to the track, other elements do take some space. I seem to recall from John Armstrong's writing on track planning that it always comes down to deciding what we want, what we need  and from there it comes down to compromises. If ultimately having a lot of 'track action' is what drives you, then you can compromise on the scenery. 

One thing I noticed was the track in many places seems to be really close to the edge of the table which I suspect is caused by a plan with so much track density. You may want to rethink that, by having space between the track and the table edge you can put in scenic design elements there, you can have things like old ties, signal boxes, paths, roads, etc there, visually it can look a lot better. The other trick might to be to try and find a way to make the track  not as parallel to the edge of the table as it is. Thalt may be more difficult, but is something to think about since you are only in the design stage

You asked about the trolley loop, if you don't already have three rail equipment, have you thought about maybe using 2 rail equipment? Since the Trolley loop is not contiguous with the three rail layout, you have that option. The only reason being it is a lot easier to blend the track in with a street with two rail. If doing three rail, city streets is relatively easy, or you could use wood forms between the rails and outside the rails covered with joint compound that has been painted to simulate concrete. Key thing there is keeping just enough space to allow for the flanges and also to make sure the road surface is a hair below the top level of the rail, especially around the third rail. 

Nice thing about this is a layout is not set in stone, we can always modify it, add/take from it, tweak it, or even take it down and start from scratch (some people, like Pelle Solberg over at Model Railroader magazine, seem to love building layouts then tearing them down and starting from scratch more than running them. Even with design software like RR track and SCARM, that can show us so much of what the layout will look like, in the end experience seems to be the best teacher from my years of being an armchair modeler, that you find what you like/want/need more as time goes on and the layout can be done to suit those unfolding desires (sorry for the philosophical bent to this, but sometimes it seems like people focus on getting it perfect 'right off the bat', when what is 'perfect' isn't set in stone

Thanks BigKid,

  I am definitely taking some of your advice. I am going to try and see if I can move the track further in from the end of the table. I feel more trees and some scenery at the edge would look better. I do want ditches and some hills, so after thinking about the comments and advice everyone is giving me, I will have to "scale" back on some track. On the trolley loop: I am running MTH's trolleys, so I do have to use 3-rail track. Outside of easy streets, is it better to use old lionel tubular track, since it is cheaper and pretty bare bones compared to other track types? 

Thanks,

Eric 

Eric, you could remove one of the 2 red lines and adjust everything else to better fit the space and minimize accidents. You'll still be able to run 3 trains plus the trolley unattended and throw a 4th in to move around manually to give you some operating challenges. There might be room to add a passing siding to the remaining red line.

Eric,

I think that you will find that the MTH trolleys will run fine on easy streets, super streets with the D21 curves.

here is a forum search and here is one by OGR's Alan Miller commenting on MTH's PCC trolleys

I am currently working on redesigning some things. I will hopefully have it to a point where I can post it here tomorrow. I did take some track out, while also moving some track back from the edge. It is primarily the same layout, with some alterations. I really want to built a wooden trestle bridge from scratch, so when I post my configuration tomorrow I am open to advice on where I can place it. The train room is being built, so I have plenty of time to deliberate on the actual layout. I wanted to start early enough so I could get all the ideas and advice ahead of time.

Thanks,

Eric 

Hi Everyone,

  Here is my Try #4. I have attached screen shots and the actual file. The top left nook: I am contemplating doing a residential area with some scenery effects coming off the mountain. The houses are suppose to be gradually coming down the hillside. It is hard to do in the software program. I have taken out some track and as you can see went into more detail on the city buildings and moved them to the right. I was trying to do a city transitioning to a mountain, then on the other side have the town where the people live. I feel most cities are like this, especially in the Pittsburgh area. I am going to have access panels installed so I can reach places. I am several months away from even thinking about the bench-work, so please keep that in mind. 

Thanks,

Eric 

Hi Eric,

Your  "Try #4" design shown above looks like a layout I would enjoy operating.  I too like several trains running with the ability to move trains from track to track.  One thing I noticed is that you only have one connection from the red line to the blue line (in the lower right on the track diagram).  I am not certain if what I am about to suggest can be done because of track spacing but if I may, I propose that you add a second connection from the blue line to the red line above and to the right of the Kaufmans building.  These two switches would eliminate the requirement to back through the one set of switches connecting the red and blue lines.  Also I would swap the connections between the red and green lines above the buildings.  Lets see if I can explain what I am thinking. 

On the blue line just to the left of the tunnel portal (the semicircle indicates a tunnel portal, right?) add a left hand switch connecting with a left hand switch on the red line.  Immediately to the left of the red line switch connecting the red and blue lines put another left hand switch connecting with a left hand switch on the green line.  These two switches not only allow moving from the red to the green line, they also allow a train to move from the blue line the green line directly.  Lastly, move the two right hand switches just above the Kaufmans building the left.  The right hand switch on the red line would be near the tunnel portal that is above the Royal Blue building.

I hope that is understandable.  In any case, just a suggestion, not trying to tell you what you should do.

If you make the changes in white, you can reverse in both directions and go back and forth between the blue and red lines without backing up. It means giving up some of the O81 curves though.

Dave,

Thank you for providing Eric the link for the screw-on connection! I was busy getting the new video ready for YouTube, and forgot to follow up on this thread!

Eric,

As suggested above, it would make operation much, much better if you can work in two reversing loops. Dave provided one approach that could work, and you may identify others. Take your time with the planning - it is easier to identify the shortcomings while on paper. I spent more time planning mine (had to wait to move into our new/present home) than it took me to install the track and the basic wiring. 

Alex

Glad to help, Alex. It's readily available in my tips folder.

DoubleDAZ posted:

For those who may not know, Atlas now uses a version of the SCRAM software, so the file can be downloaded, the extension changed to .scarm and the design can then be opened with SCARM. However, I do not know if the file can then be changed back to .atps after changes are made and opened with the Atlas version (I assume it can).

I just read a note in the SCARM documentation that says SCARM will open both .scarm and .atps files directly, so the filename extension doesn't need to be changed. I tired it and it does work.

DoubleDAZ posted:

DoubleDAZ posted:

For those who may not know, Atlas now uses a version of the SCRAM software, so the file can be downloaded, the extension changed to .scarm and the design can then be opened with SCARM. However, I do not know if the file can then be changed back to .atps after changes are made and opened with the Atlas version (I assume it can).

I just read a note in the SCARM documentation that says SCARM will open both .scarm and .atps files directly, so the filename extension doesn't need to be changed. I tired it and it does work.

But, the catch is that I used EZ-Streets for the city run and the Atlas version wouldn't have that. One has to use only the Atlas track library.