Skip to main content

Thomas T.  Good on ya' mate at 78. I'm getting close to 83 and am lucky to still be able to get up on my layout. Also with five hatches and the use of a  three-step ladder with a top brace, I extend my reach to about 45". Also, Micromark has a neat helpful ladder with a belly pad to lean over with long feet to go under your benchwork. Solid. My friend has one. My table level is 39.5" with elevated tracks above that. Main table is 12' X 24' with an additional eight-track yard.

Good Luck;

Wally

DoubleDAZ posted:

Tom, it's a hobby for me and we're watching some Christmas movies on a rainy that don't require a lot of concentration to follow, so it's no trouble.

The difference between #2 and #3 is the crossovers in #3 are on the curves. This eliminates the "S" curves that were there and makes for a much smoother transition through the reversing loops. "S" curves force trains to transition to another direction while part of the train is still going in the opposite direction. This puts stress on the cars and can pull lighter cars off the rails. Given space limitations not much can be done about the "S" curves going into the storage yards, but trains are usually going much slower, so the stress is reduced.

I'd suggest that you break up the symmetry a bit by turning one of the loops into a delivery locale by reconfiguring the yard into service spurs for 2 businesses. Don't pay any attention to the buildings I added, just some I had in the library to illustrate my point.

tom 2019-12-8 daz4

tom 2019-12-8 daz4

 

Hello Dave,

Boy that looks so much bigger in the 3-d picture and I agree about breaking up the symmetry. It is so early on for me that I really haven't spent much time thinking about the scenery. I have spent a lot of time viewing all 3 of your layout suggestions and I am leaning toward number 3. I will have to find several sources of O-scale features and scenery material. Still working on the support material drawings and should have that completed by tomorrow. Thanks again for all this work.

Cho Cho Wally posted:

Thomas T.  Good on ya' mate at 78. I'm getting close to 83 and am lucky to still be able to get up on my layout. Also with five hatches and the use of a  three-step ladder with a top brace, I extend my reach to about 45". Also, Micromark has a neat helpful ladder with a belly pad to lean over with long feet to go under your benchwork. Solid. My friend has one. My table level is 39.5" with elevated tracks above that. Main table is 12' X 24' with an additional eight-track yard.

Good Luck;

Wally

G'day Cho Cho Wally,

If I had the room I would build a much bigger layout but very happy with what Dave has worked up for me and it will get me into this hobby with a neat layout. I plan to keep my table height down to 32" for easy access and viewing sitting down. I have a neat adjustable chair that I built for my shop and I will use it with the layout and it will adjust down to 6" and up to 35".  Thanks for sharing.

Hello everyone,

I am attaching two pdf drawings of my revised Layout, one is a view of the now larger top surface area (104 sq. ft.), and the second is the Frame Work for the Table. The dimensions are the same except for the center section which is now 4-foot wide ( increased by 1-foot ) and I eliminated all the round corners. Note that I have six (6) swivel casters under the Frame so that the entire Layout can be easily moved in any direction. I will build the Frame in two halves and then bolt them together, and the two halves will share the center two casters.

I received an email from one of the Forum members and he shared his layout drawings and explained that his table was 4-foot wide and he had added casters so that he could service the back side if required.

This latest revision has really improved the overall layout and now will allow a lot more room for scenery items and buildings.

I cannot thank all the forum members enough for the good suggestions and help in getting my first layout up to this point. I especially want to thank Dave (DoubleDAZ) for all the time spent working on various track layouts and suggestions. Dave I plan to use your 3rd design but modify it to fit on the larger layout.

Attachments

DoubleDAZ posted:

Thomas, my 5x8x11 “L” shaped layout will also be against 2 walls when I hopefully start construction in the spring. I plan on adding casters, so I should have mentioned it, but didn’t think you’d want to move something that big. Just make sure you buy some quality casters.

Hello Dave,

Each caster is rated at 300-lbs and there will be six of them so I should be OK. My plan is to make all the frames out of 1-1/4 x 1-1/4 x 3/16 aluminum architectural angle and the columns will be 1 x 2 x 3/16 aluminum rectangle tube. This frame will be really strong and still be light weight, and of course excluding the decking, foam, and Train equipment. I just completed the CAD drawing for the Frame but have not made a materials list yet. The angle only weights .519 pounds per foot, so a 20-ft joint weights in at only 10.38 pounds. I will try and finish the materials list by tomorrow and work up a total weight and will post it here. It will take a bit of time for the list because I will draw each piece showing all the dimensions and cuts and then label it. I sold my aluminum welder last year so I will have to have a shop do the welding and I will actually pre-cut and label each piece. Then they can fab it up from a "break down" drawing that I will supply. Thank you again for all your help, I am most satisfied with this Layout and cannot wait to get it completed.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Sounds good. BTW, here are the newest photos and parts lists based on the new configuration. The yellow rectangles are 2.5" wide and show edge clearances. 

tom 2019-12-8 daz3tom 2019-12-8 daz3-partstom 2019-12-8 daz3atom 2019-12-8 daz3a-parts

Hey Dave,

Wow again, that really does open up the interior space which I was wanting. Think I like the second layout the best, again just a bit more open. I copied both along with the parts list and will study them over. Like the yellow line to denote the clearance, that helps me to "see" the track layout better

I went back and looked at your planned layout and I sure like the 90 degree separation between the two areas.

Thanks again for all this work, very much appreciated.

Richie C. posted:

Just out of curiosity, wondering if it's recommended or a good idea that an electric train layout be constructed out of metal ?

Hello Richie,

The way that I have this designed, no part of the Train and train equipment / gear will come in contact with the frame. I will have a plywood sub-floor, then the foam, and then some sort of matt. Along the sides I will add some short ( about 3" high above the ground level ) of wood rail as a protection and a safety feature to prevent any accidental over-run of a miss-guided train or car...he he

Thank you for your interest.

Richie C. posted:

Is there a concern that some of the wiring underneath the layout may come in contact with the metal frame, especially power supply and transformer wires ?

I'm also wondering how wireless systems like Legacy or DCS might be affected ?

Hello again Richie,

I am very comfortable working with aluminum and electrical wiring of all types and categories. I am a retired design engineer and spent the better part of the last 45 years designing and building ships, crew boats, work boats, line handlers, etc. and a big part of each vessel was the design and installation of electrical equipment from a simple 120Vac outlet to the latest Radar and Nav equipment. Properly grounded and shielded wiring is quite safe in and around an aluminum structure. As far as the wireless system, the aluminum frame would not have any more effect than the metal tracks or metal train equipment. I appreciate your concern and appreciate your help, after all I am a newbie in this hobby and have a lot to learn from all of the members. Thank you again.

Hello DOUBLEDAZ

I am still reviewing your latest drawings for my Layout and I have a question, are there four spots on the track where there are "gaps". I have circled in red the areas in question. If so, can you tell me the actual size of the gaps and does it pose any kind of a problem. Thanks again for all your help.

Hi Tom.

I did some more fiddling and was able to reduce the number of joints that don't connect to just 1 in each loop. I've tried every combination of RealTrax 5.5", 4.25" and 3.5" sizes and the best I can come up with is either a .16" gap or a .09" overlap.

That said, I can tell you that the default join error in the SCARM software I'm using is .079" and the software was designed for HO-scale track. The RR-Track software I also use at times was designed for O-scale track and has options to .20". If I change SCARM to .20", the joints connect. I have some RealTrax and while I don't have enough to configure a loop like yours, I'm confident there is enough "play" in the tracks for either configuration to work. Also, small gaps can be filled in.

And if you're going to use DCS as your control system, it calls for the layout to be broken into insulated blocks with separate power feeds to each block.  

Photo 1 shows both gaps and the optional configuration.
Photo 2 is just a closeup of one side.
Photo 3 shows how I replaced 60 of the 10" tracks with 20 of the longer 30" tracks.  

Photo1
gaps

Photo 2
gaps2

Photo 3
tom 2019-12-8 daz3a

Attachments

Images (3)
  • gaps
  • tom 2019-12-8 daz3a
  • gaps2

Opinion based on experience:

Is there a reason to be using Real Trax?  That can be like running a race with one leg in a cast.   These plans of super quality construction with an aim toward permanence just screams GG and Ross to me.   Going with  GarGraves or Ross track and Ross switches (all made in the USA) will eliminate a host of design problems and open the door for switch configurations unavailable with any imported limited selection track from the big three. 

With GG and Ross you could almost use a pen and napkin to design a layout.  If you can think it,  GG & Ross will make it happen.

As far as fudging Real Trax,  DON"T,  just go for an overlap design, then remove what ever the overlap is from the center of a section of track then perfectly position them adjacent together on the same flat plane and solder jumper wires from each pad under each end.

Any sectional track should lay as it is determined by it's design geometry.   Fudging sectional track can be very painful to one's vision.

Any 1 1/4" gauge track can be added to any other 1 1/4" gauge as long as the rail heads are level, flat and aligned with electrical bonding jumpers.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Hi Tom.

I did some more fiddling and was able to reduce the number of joints that don't connect to just 1 in each loop. I've tried every combination of RealTrax 5.5", 4.25" and 3.5" sizes and the best I can come up with is either a .16" gap or a .09" overlap.

That said, I can tell you that the default join error in the SCARM software I'm using is .079" and the software was designed for HO-scale track. The RR-Track software I also use at times was designed for O-scale track and has options to .20". If I change SCARM to .20", the joints connect. I have some RealTrax and while I don't have enough to configure a loop like yours, I'm confident there is enough "play" in the tracks for either configuration to work. Also, small gaps can be filled in.

And if you're going to use DCS as your control system, it calls for the layout to be broken into insulated blocks with separate power feeds to each block.  

Photo 1 shows both gaps and the optional configuration.
Photo 2 is just a closeup of one side.
Photo 3 shows how I replaced 60 of the 10" tracks with 20 of the longer 30" tracks.  

Photo1
gaps

Photo 2
gaps2

Photo 3
tom 2019-12-8 daz3a

Good morning Dave,

That looks good to me and I appreciate your extra work. I don't think this will make any difference but when I was drawing each piece of the Frame to label them I realized that I had a bad cut (junction) at the two angle pieces. Anyway I moved them in toward the center by 2" each. Not ever having made a Track Layout before I am unaware of the tolerance allowable so excuse me for my ignorance. I feel confident that this will work fine. Again, thanks so much for all this help.

Tom Tee posted:

Opinion based on experience:

Is there a reason to be using Real Trax?  That can be like running a race with one leg in a cast.   These plans of super quality construction with an aim toward permanence just screams GG and Ross to me.   Going with  GarGraves or Ross track and Ross switches (all made in the USA) will eliminate a host of design problems and open the door for switch configurations unavailable with any imported limited selection track from the big three. 

With GG and Ross you could almost use a pen and napkin to design a layout.  If you can think it,  GG & Ross will make it happen.

As far as fudging Real Trax,  DON"T,  just go for an overlap design, then remove what ever the overlap is from the center of a section of track then perfectly position them adjacent together on the same flat plane and solder jumper wires from each pad under each end.

Any sectional track should lay as it is determined by it's design geometry.   Fudging sectional track can be very painful to one's vision.

Any 1 1/4" gauge track can be added to any other 1 1/4" gauge as long as the rail heads are level, flat and aligned with electrical bonding jumpers.

Hello Tom Tee,

From another TT. Tom I am brand new to this hobby and slowly learning new stuff every day. I choose the Real Trax based on recommendations from several folks that I know. At the time I did not know about GG and Ross and have just recently visited the Ross site and reviewed their products. I will check out GG maybe today. I have a bunch of the Real Trax already on order so I will use it on this first Layout and I am sure that it will work very well for me. I really appreciate you suggestions and helpful advice and it should help me when I start to assemble my tracks. It might be a while before I can even get started on the track layout because I'm still working on the design for my table. Thank you again.

Dave Ripp. posted:

Thomas, I really like your track plan and always follow anything Dave "DoubleDAZ" helps design. Keep posting as you progress.

Hello Dave Ripp,

Thank you and so am I very pleased that DOUBLEDAZ has spent so much time working with me on my Layout. I love the layout that he has designed and cannot wait to see some trains on it. The long track runs should make a long train look real good chugging along. I will keep posting progress as it occurs, and should have my "frame work" for the table completed in a day or so. I'm going a bit buggy drawing each piece to size and include any and all cuts and then labeling each one. Normally I would build this myself and just work from a 2-D CAD drawing, but I sold my aluminum welder so now I must rely on an outside source to do the welding. Thanks for following along.

Thomas, I was going to ask the same question Tom Tee did, but he beat me to it. 🤪

Anyway, I see you answered the question and I kind of figured you already had some RealTrax on-hand or on-order driving the decision to use it. As for the other things that have been mentioned, just some random thoughts.

While I completely agree that GarGraves/Ross is a better solution in the long run, the smallest GG sectional is 6.4” and they only have full size curves. This limits design options if you limit yourself to sectional pieces and almost always requires cutting if you want to expand the options. However, it’s fairly easy to cut and their flexible track is arguably second only to ScaleTrax in ease of use. Truth be told, the advantage probably goes to GG simply because more people use it and GG/Ross have good customer service.

My chief complaints with RealTrax are noise and keeping it clean. The plastic roadbed generally means noise, so depending on your tolerance level, you might want to consider adding something between the track and the decking to reduce the noise if it bothers you. Some folks use carpet padding, others use cork, acoustic tile, etc. My Christmas layouts were on 1” thick rigid foam on the wood framing, no plywood decking, and it was pretty noisy, though I don’t know how much was the track and how much was the hollow space under the foam. At the time I didn’t know the foam did nothing to reduce noise, but I used it mostly for weight savings. The next year I put the track on top of white batting and it helped quite a bit. I haven’t decided on what I’m going to do for my permanent Christmas display layout, but I’ll be using either Atlas or GG track, and I’m still considering ScaleTrax. Because Atlas and ScaleTrax are solid rail, they’re arguably the quietest.

You might also want to insulate the decking from the metal framing with a rubber/silicone gasket or something. I have no idea how sound transfers with plywood on metal.

When it comes to the 2” mistake you mentioned on the angled braces, please note that there’s no reason the decking can’t overhang the framing if it needs to.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Thomas, I was going to ask the same question Tom Tee did, but he beat me to it. 🤪

Anyway, I see you answered the question and I kind of figured you already had some RealTrax on-hand or on-order driving the decision to use it. As for the other things that have been mentioned, just some random thoughts.

While I completely agree that GarGraves/Ross is a better solution in the long run, the smallest GG sectional is 6.4” and they only have full size curves. This limits design options if you limit yourself to sectional pieces and almost always requires cutting if you want to expand the options. However, it’s fairly easy to cut and their flexible track is arguably second only to ScaleTrax in ease of use. Truth be told, the advantage probably goes to GG simply because more people use it and GG/Ross have good customer service.

My chief complaints with RealTrax are noise and keeping it clean. The plastic roadbed generally means noise, so depending on your tolerance level, you might want to consider adding something between the track and the decking to reduce the noise if it bothers you. Some folks use carpet padding, others use cork, acoustic tile, etc. My Christmas layouts were on 1” thick rigid foam on the wood framing, no plywood decking, and it was pretty noisy, though I don’t know how much was the track and how much was the hollow space under the foam. At the time I didn’t know the foam did nothing to reduce noise, but I used it mostly for weight savings. The next year I put the track on top of white batting and it helped quite a bit. I haven’t decided on what I’m going to do for my permanent Christmas display layout, but I’ll be using either Atlas or GG track, and I’m still considering ScaleTrax. Because Atlas and ScaleTrax are solid rail, they’re arguably the quietest.

You might also want to insulate the decking from the metal framing with a rubber/silicone gasket or something. I have no idea how sound transfers with plywood on metal.

When it comes to the 2” mistake you mentioned on the angled braces, please note that there’s no reason the decking can’t overhang the framing if it needs to.

Hello Dave,

As always you are a super nice person and offer good helpful information and I do appreciate all your efforts to help me avoid making BIG mistakes.

Yes, I placed an order for some of the track items a couple of days ago based on your "improved No.3" design and the attached list. I am comfortable with the Real Trax at this time for my first layout. I talked for a long time with a gentleman who has many years and a really large ( actually several ) layouts and he uses the Real Trax and gave me a pretty good run-down about the goods and bads. If I get any more excited about this hobby, I can see moving everything out of my shop which is 10x30 and adding another set of tracks in there. By then I will have a bit more experience and hopefully a bit more knowledge about this stuff and make changes to the tracks if needed.

I have been looking at various materials to act as a "pad" on top of the luan/plywood flooring to help with softening the noise. I have a small piece of an ? rubber / plastic ? open cell material that was used in a work boat that I designed for a company many years ago. Cannot remember the name or even where it was purchased, but I will do a bit more research and will let you know if I find a source.

The mistake was actually where I had three (3) pieces of angle terminating at the same spot. Two pieces joined OK at a 22.5 degree angle but the third piece needed to be scraffed cut so that the top was level with the bottom of the other two pieces. This made for a weird scraff, so I simply moved the Angle piece over and away from the junction and eliminated the weird cut, no biggie, but it does give  a tad more deck space and moves that angle a bit away from the curved track.

Oh, I went ahead and ordered 20-pieces of the 30" track and if it is not a lot of trouble I would really appreciate an updated required list of track material for you latest layout.  Thanks Dave.

 

Thomas, since I'm not sure which version you plan to build, and there are 4 possible combinations, I'm attaching parts lists for individual options. To get the overall parts list, add the options you plan to build. Let me know if you have any questions.

Option 1: Base plus Gaps plus Symmetrical
Option 2: Base plus Gaps plus Modified
Option 3: Base plus Overlaps plus Symmetrical
Option 4: Base plus Overlaps plus Modified 

Photo of base layout plus options:
tom 2019-12-12 daz

Base Parts List:
tom 2019-12-12 daz-base

Gaps Parts List:
tom 2019-12-12 daz-gap

Overlaps Parts List:
tom 2019-12-12 daz-overlap

Symmetrical Yard Parts List:
tom 2019-12-12 daz-yard1

Modified Yard Parts List:
tom 2019-12-12 daz-yard2

 

Attachments

Images (6)
  • tom 2019-12-12 daz
  • tom 2019-12-12 daz-base
  • tom 2019-12-12 daz-gap
  • tom 2019-12-12 daz-overlap
  • tom 2019-12-12 daz-yard1
  • tom 2019-12-12 daz-yard2

Good morning @DOUBLEDAZ

I understand that AutoCAD drawings do not convert 1to1 for these track layouts but I think that I can get just a bit more open space in my Layout if this drawings works. See the black circle in the inside corner of the "inset" of the table top. There is a 3/4" clearance between the edge of the Track and the edge of the table the way that I have the Tracks drawn. The "angle" of the inset is currently at 45 degrees, but I can change that to 60 degrees which would move the angle further away from the track and more toward the center of the table. This would allow the Bottom of the Outside Track (0-54) to be closer to in edge of the table ( 2-7/16" on the long run ) thus allowing a bit more Open Space. What do you think?

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Layout XT LR-54 Plywood Deck1

Thomas, I was changing things to add your half curves and after I got done, I ran some simulations and wasn't happy with the play value. The culprit was the placement of the crossover switches, both on the curves like I've had them and on the straights like you've had them.

So, I moved both crossovers to the upper center of the runs. I also moved the storage tracks down a bit so I could move a short straight track between the lead switches to reduce the "S" curve effect.

That resulted in this configuration that allows you to transfer from the outer run to the inner run and immediately reverse the train then transfer back to the outer run. Before you had to travel quite a distance around the inner run to reverse and then transfer back. It was clunky and inefficient.

Adding the half curves was a good suggestion given that you decided to widen the layout. I'm not sure what to tell you about the 45° or 60° braces. In this photo the top of the left 45° brace is at the 5' 4" point and the bottom at the 3'10" point to give you enough clearance at the top. If you want 60°, then the top moves to 5'6" and the bottom to 3' to give you enough clearance at the bottom. There are still 3 places where the tracks don't join in the software. If you want changes or don't like this version, just let me know.

tom 2019-12-13 daz2

 

Attachments

Images (1)
  • tom 2019-12-13 daz2
Files (1)

Hello Dave,

I really like the "loop" at the top in the center joining the two lines and all the new open space. If I am seeing this correctly, this new layout also shortens the distance to reverse that direction of the train.

I copied the previous layout and the new layout, one on top of the other into a file and printed it out to compare, and to me it is incredible the change.

Today I will work on redesigning the "top" with 3 options for modifying the angles in the insert (bottom) area. 1) I can simply move the 45-degree angles inward or, 2) change the 45's to a greater angle, 3) a combination of both.  Just looking at your layout, I believe changing the angle would be the best way to go. The Casters are due in today and I then can confirm the bolt pattern and I can complete all the drawings for the framework.

Received my first train and two big boxes of tracks in yesterday so I need to get busy and turn these designs into some sort of an actual layout. Once again I want to thank you for all the time you have spent working on this layout.

Hey Thomas- found your thread and just read through it. I like your plan. Good running space and lots of switching to keep yourself busy.

I like your profile photo too. Nice Bass. I helped my son land this beast on Lake George NY about 6 years ago. He wouldn't touch it so this is me holding it at arms length. Caught it right under the dock we were standing on.

Bob

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 2019-12-14 09.59.03

Thomas, it gets a little exciting once parts and equipment start arriving, doesn't it?

Some food for thought:
There's no reason other angles won't work/look better and follow the track more closely if that's your goal. However, I'm still concerned about the "S" curves that were introduced with the move to the half curves and those in the reversing loops. The 3rd photo shows how I redesigned the curves with 10" straights and full curves to eliminate the "S" curves. Yes, it takes away a little space between the blue/gold tracks, but it lets you add a bit of scenery along the bottom and also makes the bottom run a little safer. The photo includes the changes to the storage yards that I mentioned previously.

tom 2019-12-13 daz2c

Here's another version that gives you a larger storage yard on the left and another spur on the right. The purple tracks can be moved higher to more closely match the 1st version.

 tom 2019-12-13 daz2d

 

Attachments

Images (2)
  • tom 2019-12-13 daz2c
  • tom 2019-12-13 daz2d
Last edited by DoubleDAZ

Jan, you read my mind again. I had that same version ready to go earlier this morning, but got sidetracked looking at alternatives before I posted it. Then I saw I could accomplish the same thing with the full curves and 10" straights I added in my previous post. I merged the 2 versions and there wasn't enough change in open space to warrant keeping the half curves and the albeit smaller "S" curves. Yes, there's still a small gap, but since tracks are never exactly same time, there are technically always small gaps that aren't seen because there is enough play to close them during assembly......software isn't as forgiving.

RSJB18 posted:

Hey Thomas- found your thread and just read through it. I like your plan. Good running space and lots of switching to keep yourself busy.

I like your profile photo too. Nice Bass. I helped my son land this beast on Lake George NY about 6 years ago. He wouldn't touch it so this is me holding it at arms length. Caught it right under the dock we were standing on.

Bob

Hey Bob,

That is a beautiful fish...however you do disappoint me a bit, a good fisherman would have lied all day long about who caught that fish...he he

Jan posted:

If you insert a 5" straight on the right and left sides of the outer loop where the curve reverse, you will move farther away from the edge and there will be no gap.

Jan

Hello Jan,

Thank you for the help, even thought I'm not exactly sure of that change, I'm sure Dave does. I sure wish that I knew more about this stuff but I guess I am rushing it a bit for only being involved a couple of weeks now. Thanks again.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Thomas, it gets a little exciting once parts and equipment start arriving, doesn't it?

Some food for thought:
There's no reason other angles won't work/look better and follow the track more closely if that's your goal. However, I'm still concerned about the "S" curves that were introduced with the move to the half curves and those in the reversing loops. The 3rd photo shows how I redesigned the curves with 10" straights and full curves to eliminate the "S" curves. Yes, it takes away a little space between the blue/gold tracks, but it lets you add a bit of scenery along the bottom and also makes the bottom run a little safer. The photo includes the changes to the storage yards that I mentioned previously.

tom 2019-12-13 daz2c

Here's another version that gives you a larger storage yard on the left and another spur on the right. The purple tracks can be moved higher to more closely match the 1st version.

 tom 2019-12-13 daz2d

 

Good morning Dave,

OK brain overload! I will have to copy and print these out and do a long study before I can digest all this new information. However we are on the same page about opening up that  center area, see attached drawing that I did this morning. It's not very pretty with 7 gaps/overruns, but hey

OK on the change to the top 2 tracks, I actually like both versions but you understand what is the best for the operation of the train, so I will go with what you say is best.

Yeah about getting in some Trains, just not fair to have to only look at them (: , man I cannot wait to get some track down.

So far I have not been able to contact my friend with the welding shop to see if he can weld up the frame, but if he is too busy I will make it out of mild steel and do all the welding. Thanks so much.Dave Forum 

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Dave Forum

Ok, Thomas. Here is are the latest changes as near as I could reproduce them. I included a closeup so you could see the tracks labels. Note that these version only have 3 areas where the tracks wouldn't join.

Also note that the 1st 2 photos have my version of the bottom blue run with straights and curves that deleted the "S" curves. However, if the "S" curves don't bother you, the 3rd photo has them. I don't know what equipment you'll be running or how fast, so I don't know if curves will be a problem or not. In this version you can't add Jan's 5" straights to ease them though without reconfiguring the loops.

I suspect the symmetry in the 3rd photo might appeal to you, but don't overlook what you can do with the small pocket by the switch in the other photos if you add some bushes, etc.

tom 2019-12-14 daz

test

tom 2019-12-14 daz2

 

Attachments

Images (3)
  • tom 2019-12-14 daz
  • test
  • tom 2019-12-14 daz2
DoubleDAZ posted:

Ok, Thomas. Here is are the latest changes as near as I could reproduce them. I included a closeup so you could see the tracks labels. Note that these version only have 3 areas where the tracks wouldn't join.

Also note that the 1st 2 photos have my version of the bottom blue run with straights and curves that deleted the "S" curves. However, if the "S" curves don't bother you, the 3rd photo has them. I don't know what equipment you'll be running or how fast, so I don't know if curves will be a problem or not. In this version you can't add Jan's 5" straights to ease them though without reconfiguring the loops.

I suspect the symmetry in the 3rd photo might appeal to you, but don't overlook what you can do with the small pocket by the switch in the other photos if you add some bushes, etc.

tom 2019-12-14 daz

test

tom 2019-12-14 daz2

 

Hello Dave,

OK I can see right now that I must give up the Train Hobby and maybe take up Quilting! Man this layout stuff will drive me nuts for sure. With that stated, It looks like you have made a near perfect layout, all three gaps/overlaps are so minor that I cannot see them presenting kind of  a problem.

I just put together several sections of my new track and although a nice "fit" they surely are not perfect and on a 22-foot run would produce a small bit of discrepancy at lest. So, I surely can live with the minor issues on both of the above.

My next train will not be shipped until after the first of the year and it is a MTH 30-1830-1 O-scale Mohawk / Texas Pacific 4-8-2 and it would run on these tracks all day long. I do not plan on running any of the equipment "fast". And by that I mean real fast, I like the slower chug-chug-chug so none of the curves bother me at this point. I do have several on my list that most likely will only run on the outside track ( if I actually purchase them ) and they are: 20-3755-1 ( shows to work on 0-54 ), 20-3751-1 ( also 0-54 ) and 30-1819-1 a 4-6-6-4 but runs on 0-31.

I had to study and think to see the difference between #2 and #3 but I actually like them equally. I will hold my final decision on that for a bit later. I cannot believe what a big difference increasing the angles to 55-degrees has made in this layout. You have absolutely optimized the surface area and I thank you very much for all this work.

I did receive the Casters in today and the holes lined up perfectly with what I had drawn so I can complete the Frame drawing within a day or two and will post it here. Thank you again....

Add Reply

Post
The Track Planning and Layout Design Forum is sponsored by

AN OGR FORUM CHARTER SPONSOR

OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
800-980-OGRR (6477)
www.ogaugerr.com

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×