Need input on switchless layout design, plz!

You will need openings in the tables to reach items near the back.

Switches more than 3 feet from table front are always trouble.

Other than that, a neat looper.

Hi Domenic,

I tossed it together quickly in SCARM. I was able to achieve a 2.4% grade up and down at 7" max height.

3 three things stand out to me:

1. While my track plan is rough, it is apparent that the corner will present some track center-rail-to-rail spacing challenges. Check what you need for the locos and cars you intend to run. There are a few other areas to check also.
2. You'll need two or three hatches for access, top, definitely corner and right side.
3. I have looked at some large layouts being built. I think using sectional track for most of the curves will save you a lot of work time.

I like the way that the trains will present when running. I think gently moving the long runs with flex will enhance the presentation of the train versus a "straight" straight.

I'll work on it some later on. I was copying from your drawing and trying to use all flex track quickly to get a working layout on SCARM.

I have attached some 3D's to assist your visualization.

Moonman, thank you for the interest and the work.  I agree with you completely about using the flex track to give the direct runs a more flowing feel instead of dead straight, I just drew them straight using the template and figured I'd tweak it later.  I think there is plenty of room for adjustment, again I agree with you on the spacing issue along the top of the layout.

Well I finally caught on to the hubbub about Scarm and downloaded it myself, WONDERFUL!  So I've been kicking together some renderings of my design and realized that I could fit in more elevated track.  I stuck with the steep grade because I want to make sure I have a full 7" clearance by the time I cross over the ground level runs, especially for my GG1's cantilevers.  Again, that is something that I may tweak later.

Now as promised the adjusted version with more elevated trackage.  I was disappointed with the first version in that the elevated run was so short, not enough time to enjoy a train trudging through the mountains.  This gives some more run time to see a consist crossing over the terrain below.

You picked up SCARM quickly!

You may notice on certain switches you can tell a fitter piece is needed on the divergence. These should be in the next update. The flex track tool takes a little to get the hang of it.

I actually like the first version from the paper, where the elevated line comes off of the mountain on that nice angle through the open space. It is visually appealing. it breaks up that space. I was thinking an opening under the mountain to access the trains.

I don't like blocking the view of the rearmost track, but I couldn't find an easy way to elevate that without messing up the whole design.

That's a well thought out display type of layout. Don't let the ease of the software distract you from your design. It's easy to start a spaghetti bowl.

Have fun! I am looking forward to your final design.

Moonman, you're thinking the same thing I was when I came up with the first design.  I've worked with the idea that I'd be observing from the bottom left corner of the long side, so that first iteration of the elevated run was to give the visual of a train lumbering directly towards me.

I'll tinker a bit more and try to get back to the basic concept a bit.  You're definitely right about the bowl of spaghetti!  I just like nice long runs with enough twists and turns that it won't be repeating itself right away.  Thankfully SCARM is a lot quicker than pencil and eraser.