UPDATE..HELP with RRT and new track plan..UPDATE

BTW, have you considered how much this is going to cost given all the turnouts, turntable, etc.? And don't forget I substituted a different turntable in the design.

Very interesting plan should be fun to operate. Is this layout accessible thru hatches or popups? The long reaches into a huge table top layout are daunting or ducking under gets old fast.

I was in a similar situation, a larger size room and a table top but I have scratched the plans and I am going with an around the room plan with a walk-around peninsula or two. I do wish you the best of luck and do not take my comments as criticism; they are only my opinions.

""Even though I had plenty other things to do, I went ahead and played with your idea to get the grades. You can see the results in my previous post.""

Cheers Dave,

I cant tell you how much I appreciate all the time and effort you've put in on this!!

This is the one I've been waiting for. Since the kids were small and we needed the basement family room to be a family room this is the one I've been thinking about. All those years and all those magazines .. all the 5x10s and 8x12s left up from the holidays.. this is the one. The kids are grown and have their own kids.. the family room is now Papas train room...this is the one.For the past couple of years I have been working on the room .. new carpeting..lighting..dedicated electrical  circuits..the whole shebang (sp?) All the time I have been wracking my brain trying to decide..around the room .. island.. penninsula.. toy or hi-rail.. now that I have all this room what the heck do I do with it??

Then I saw this plan while looking through yet another layout book and it struck me. I had to trace the routes with my finger a couple of times before I got it... this is a great plan! It has a little of everything and hit like 8 out of 10 on my layout must have list. A long yard with a passenger station.. turntable/roundhouse.. a super interesting plan that has trains disapearing for long periods only to reapear going the opposite direction on a what seems like a different track..it's got it all. Except it wasn't an O scale plan but HO..so that shouldnt be so hard to convert...right??  So here we are.

Bottom line Dave is I have the room and I am willing to bend - twist - massage this baby until it cries uncle ...which it seems you have done!  I know it won't be easy but it really looks to be worth it and I'm ready to give it a go. Once I have the final trackplan I'll have to figure out the benchwork.. then the wiring and so on... I'm thinking there is at least 3K in track .. another 2-3k in lumber- screws-wire-etc. Other than that the rest is all time and effort but it's worth it because...

This is the one!

Unless you plan to cut a lot, I count at least 50 turnouts. I believe that's over $4,000, even if you find discounted prices. Ross turntables run $750 to $1,600 depending on manual or automatic indexing. Then there's the roundhouse, 12 stalls for a 33" TT run $2,000. There's already over 180 pieces of track and that's without the other mains, tracks to/from the passenger terminals, passenger terminals themselves, transformers, rolling stock, landscaping, etc. And until you decide on what turntable you want to get and how deep it sits, you can't really tell what grades you'll end up with. I've never priced a layout, but I think you're easily into the $10,000-$12,000 range and probably more. And for sure more if you buy enough rolling stock to run multiple trains on the 4 mains and spurs. Not trying to be a wet blanket, just don't want you to have any surprises. You can get the track all set and then buy a turntable that needs more clearance throwing everything out of whack. I get that you don't want to bounce between track libraries, but you might have to at some point.

RD,

here is the first layer done. Some thoughts:

1. Ross curves are set at 4" centers - Are you ok with that spacing
2. The table compression really putzed with switches/location, especially the center
3. I used mostly #4's. They worked with the compression
4. main level is done - service yard details, underpass to lower levels - finish of long yard
5. A few Gargrave flexes will be needed.
6. Ross straights and curves will have to be cut for fitment and to get the right arc angle for track position.
7. I could not do this in RRT - too painful for me - You can transfer it if you like it - I can give you zoomed section for track identification
8. Minimum radius 36" - some O72 used
9. Zoom on pdf for track detail - it can be better

RD,

next rendition...I was trying to figure out how this layout would look - I avoided the 4 main switch crossover section issue by setting all of that at 43" and using the curve on the end for the grade. It's around 3.8%.

Main top is 50" high.

Do you want to keep going?

Hi Carl,

I have never used "SCARM" before ,having enough trouble trying to figure out RRT I didn't think I needed another program.. But... what you sent in the PDF is exactly what I've been trying to do with this plan. The only thing that would concern me is the 4" spacing... I'm more comfortable with 41/2 .. I have plenty of big steam and 18" & 21" passenger consists...otherwise your rendition is the closest to the original I've seen so far. I guess I am downloading SCARM today!

I have a few questions though... How do I see dimensions?  Table size .. track labels etc??  I guess I'll see all that when I download the program. To answer your question ...YES.. I'd like to continue. If you are willing so am I...

Great job Carl, that's pretty much how I expected it to look when I saw the original photo, though the grade does go around the curve more than I thought it would given what we were working with in RRT. I also didn't think the inner mains would fit in the RRT version and I see you had to expand the overall dimensions to get things to fit.

Dave,

From what I've seen Carl accomplish with the SCARM program you and I (mainly you) have been banging our heads against the RRT wall. Also to address some of the concerns you raised ... I have been collecting trains and building layouts for some time... I'm not starting from scratch... I have everything you mentioned except for track... That will be the by far the biggest expense. And this is a much simpler version with nowhere near that many turnouts... I do understand the concern though.. you have already invested a ton of time ....

So tell me what do you think of this SCARM stuff???

RD, I have switched mostly to SCARM these days. It's 3D view is so much better than RRT's and you can't beat its simulation feature, even though Mixy charges for the expanded library of engines and rolling stock now. I began with RRT before SCARM was available, but have gradually shifted to SCARM as my go-to software while still keeping up with RRT so I can help others.

To be fair, what Carl did could have been done in RRT, so it's not like SCARM is technically better. Both programs get the job done, but if you look at the 3D view in RRT, especially the side view to see the grade with the top level even, and compare it to SCARM, I think you'll see what I mean.

And these are views you'll never get from RRT, much less get this many trains running in the simulation.

I added some tracks to show how the tunnels will look in SCARM once the lower levels get added.

To be sure, SCARM has its pros and cons too, but the pros far outweigh the cons and many of the cons go away the more you use the program.

When it comes to areas, etc., the "View/Show Size and Area" options give you more info than you'll probably need.

You can also zoom in simply by scrolling the mouse, turn the height display on/off with a single click and add color that can actually be seen.

As far as my concerns, it looks like they were unfounded, so if you're okay with the cost, etc., so am I.

Now, I really need to work on our taxes.

RD,

I don't have lots of time to take this much further.  And we certainly don't need 4 people working the same plan independently, as that can quickly become counterproductive.  Even as it is... while I was doing this, I noticed DAZ took his design further... which is fine.  You can get the best of all worlds.

Nonetheless, I thought it would help to introduce a slightly different way of thinking to help move your "compressed" design along... and by "compressed", I simply mean you're choosing 14x25 vs. the pure 20x40 dimension of the "exact" O-Scale version.  I did this in RRT, because I've been using it since it was distributed on 3.5" disks!!!    To that end, I'm a bit of an old dog who doesn't want to learn new tricks, unless the benefit far outweighs the new learning curve.  So I don't even give SCARM the time of day because it was freeware, and I never liked the fact that somebody would offer free software to undercut the value of reasonably-priced software that's been around for decades, supported well during that time, and has earned its stripes and then some for nearly 20 years.  Lord knows how many times it's saved my butt, and I've designed hundreds of revisions of various "dream layouts" I've considered over the years.  There's no free lunch in life, and I don't mind paying $$$ for the best products out there.  But I'll admit I'm old-school in my thinking.    So enough about philosophy.

Anyway, here's the very basic RRT image-file as a PNG file:

Now here's the "new way of thinking" I was referring to earlier in my post:  namely, the green track that's largely hidden remains at elevation level ZERO throughout much of the plan.  It's the OTHER track (in blue and purple) that is either elevated (blue track) or lowered (purple) to adjust for clearances.  This way the grades are essentially cut in half by splitting the difference between track that's lowered and track that's elevated.  Using this technique, grades never exceed 3% and in some cases are less than 2%.    It's a technique I learned way back in my HO days.  Since you're planning to use open grid benchwork, this approach should work just fine.  And it's particularly helpful since you're compressing the plan.

Folks accustomed to building layouts on plywood platforms don't always think this way.  But essentially, a good portion of what you've been thinking as the "main level" is actually now on a modest grade all the way up to a 7" elevation... which by the way is also the elevation of the turntable and track that connects over to the passenger terminal (top of the diagram).  The green track is essentially either at ZERO elevation, or -1" or -2" if you need further clearance underneath the TT.  The purple track actually drops at a very reasonable grade of 3% or less, and again... that can also be lowered slightly beneath the TT as required.

There's a lot for you to fill in here as far as sidings, turnout crossovers, etc....  But this shows that you can indeed design this plan with RRT.  You mentioned 4.5" track centers, so I used Atlas-O track here because it fits that geometry quite nicely.  Minimum curves are O-72.  Then O-81, O-90, O-99, O-108... and even one curve is O-117  (flex track).  Of course, you can substitue Ross or Gargraves as well.  I just liked the fact that I could quickly pull Atlas-O sectional track together in RRT's library and achieve the 4.5" track centers you wanted.

Hopefully, you can follow the plan easily, since I used different track colors.  I've also attached the RRT file, so you can take this further if you desire to proceed with RRT.  There's LOTS left to tweak... but that's the fun part of designing one's own layout.  One thing you do lose a bit of in your space compression is the whole business of open access hatches.  So you'll need a couple of "hidden" ones.  But the good news is you mentioned the actual room size is larger than 14x25, so you'll have room to walk around the layout.  Also the TT area will have a reduced number of tracks going to a roundhouse, and the number of service tracks approaching the turntable area will be somewhat reduced.  But that's part of the compromises when real-estate is compressed.  Still very manageable considering O-Scale turntables with a roundhouse can be a bit overwhelming to begin with, and chew up real estate rather quickly on all but the largest train layouts.

Again... at this point, I'm not sure how beneficial it is to have 4 people working this plan -- some now using different software programs.  So I'll bow out at this point.  But hopefully, I've given you something to think about in terms of the elevation techniques to minimize grades.  Once you get the knack of this technique, you may find that not much of the "visible track" in the plan is at level ZERO at all.  Tracks tend to rise and fall as needed to achieve the various grade criteria and overhead clearances. 

Best of luck... and enjoy the ride... should be a very nice track plan!

David

David,

This is not intended to offend you, but no one said the plan couldn't be done in RRT. In fact, I specifically said "To be fair, what Carl did could have been done in RRT, so it's not like SCARM is technically better." And Carl said he'd be happy to provide expanded images to show track labels, etc., so RD could update what he has in RRT. Carl and I are simply able to work quicker in SCARM at times and Carl did add the switches, etc., that are absent from your version. That's not meant to criticize your effort, but adding the switches may change a lot of things, including the track spacing, and I'm not sure RD can handle that yet. My initial RRT offering was intended only to help RD learn the software, not to design the layout for him. It's tedious, but not overly difficult to convert the SCARM file (track by track) to RRT and I would encourage RD to do just that. It will help him learn a lot about RTT along the way.

As far as freeware goes, it seems we hit a nerve by posting a version done with SCARM. The computing world has been full of freeware and shareware versions of "reasonably" priced software since I started using PCs in the mid-80's (Corel's Paint Shop vs Adobe's Photoshop is one I'm intimately familiar with) and many programs start out as freeware while in beta, which SCARM is.  When version 1.0 is released, it will be just like AnyRail and others where there will undoubtedly be a trial version and a fully functional version.

To suggest that no one should offer a product that competes with RRT is simply wrong in my book. You may be happy with RRT and think it's been well-supported over the years, but I've encountered the same problems over and over again in the 5 years I've been using it and I've installed every update, multiple times on 2 different computers. In fact, it crashed on me 3 times again yesterday while I was fiddling with this design. It'll often crash if I simply try to change a filled polygon to an outline polygon depending on what I did just before that. The problem is I can't "make" it crash, but I can almost predict when it will. I've given up advising them of problems because the first problem in v3 I wrote them about is still there through v4 and v5. I could go on, but I won't. It's a fine program, but it's not without problems or limitations and I'll continue to keep it updated.

And RD asked what I thought about SCARM, so my comments and photos were designed to answer HIS question, sorry if that offends you. I didn't make any changes other than adding a few straights so I could show how the tunnels would look in SCARM. I don't care if he tries to learn SCARM or not, no dog in the hunt, so to speak. However, since he's just starting out with RRT, I think it would be shortsighted not to explore SCARM.

Also, this entire forum is successful precisely because we have more than one person working on a design. Everyone is free to add their $.02 using any software they choose and it's up to the OP to decide if he/she wants to pursue those ideas using the software they're familiar with. To suggest that someone not participate because they use SCARM is also wrong in my book. I'd be really disappointed to find out that someone didn't offer a suggestion simply because I posted my design in SCARM and they use RRT, or vice versa. Sharing ideas is paramount to developing successful designs.

And before I forget, a 3% grade up 7" and a 3% grade down 7" is still a 3% grade up/down 14" over the entire run, the only difference is the location of the mid point. On one it's at the 0" mark and on the other it's at the 7" mark. There's nothing wrong with either way, but most people consider the main level to be just that, the main level. In this case, the turntable, main passenger terminal and other tracks leading to/from them are the main level. And as the layout gets built, they would probably be at somewhere between 40" and 50" high anyway. Everything else goes up or down from there. In this case, there are no tracks rising above this main level, they all go down to levels 2 and 3. The primary reason people raise and lower parts of a run are in cases where they don't want something to rise that high about the rest of the layout. We have a perfect example not far from our house. The railroad passes over 3 streets on the main level. One street goes over and another goes under because they also cross each other and it wouldn't be practical to raise one street that much higher than the other. The third street has a regular crossing.

DoubleDAZ posted:

David,

This is not intended to offend you, but no one said the plan couldn't be done in RRT. ...

Dave, no offense taken.  Really.  At the end of the day, the overriding benefit is RD gets closer to his goal. 

One last quick comment re: SCARM... Of course, other products enter the marketplace.  Some make a quick exit while others hang around seemingly in limbo.  SCARM has been in beta longer than the MTH DCS app!!!    What, maybe 3+ years now for SCARM?  I have no problem with other products coming into the market.  But if they're good, they should have a price tag commensurate with their worth -- not "buy their way into market" by offering it for free just because the author "likes" doing it.   I want to invest my time with something I know will be around for the long haul with a strong support commitment.  Again, I admit I'm very old-school in this regard.  But there are very real costs to supporting software, and the tech support staff doesn't work for free.  (I guess one plus for SCARM's future stability is Atlas-O picked it up some months ago, so it's not like it's gonna just disappear any time soon.) 

For native Mac environments, I like RailModeller Pro.  For PC's (or Macs running emulation like Parallels), I'm a RRTrack guy.  But both have their limitations.  There are 3D CAD programs out there that blow both of them away... but there's a tremendous learning curve with those CAD programs.  And they ain't cheap either!  

 

...

And before I forget, a 3% grade up 7" and a 3% grade down 7" is still a 3% grade up/down 14" over the entire run, the only difference is the location of the mid point.  ...

Well... where we start and end the grade is VERY much the whole point.  Folks accustomed to plywood layouts tend to think hidden staging yards need to absorb the entire grade drop below the plywood to achieve clearances.  However, by thinking of that first level of "hidden track" as elevation ZERO -- especially right before the tunnel entrance in this plan, that allows us to take the 7" rise all the way to the double-track loop of the main level at the far left of the layout (blue track on my diagram).  That generates a grade of less than 2%, AND gives PLENTY of room for that outer set of tracks (purple on my diagram) to make a very gradual decent before crossing underneath the green lower level track.  And with open grid benchwork or L-girder benchwork, it's quite common that very little (if any) part of the track plan remains "level" in its final design.  Although in this case, I can easily see where the TT area and the passenger terminal tracks along the top of the plan will be "level".

Bottom line... the software programs are just tools.  We're all gonna have our own preferences.  But the technique used to lengthen the amount of track on grade is a terrific concept I learned years ago that can be used regardless of the track planning software tool.

And BTW... one last comment... I really wasn't deterring ANYONE from helping RD.  I was simply implying these things take time.  So it's not the most ideal arrangement to have multiple file versions flying around in an uncontrolled manner... some in SCARM and some in RRTrack or whatever.  If RD can manage that, then that's his prerogative.  He'll pick whatever tool he's most comfortable with and run with it from there.

It's really a great track plan, although the compression does begin to take its toll in a few areas as more details are flushed out.  In some cases, you just can't fight the math.  But it sounds like RD is willing to live with some of these compromises.

David

I don't really want to continue the discussion, it's already taken too much of this thread. Suffice it to say that if I were wealthy, I'd pay Mixy to keep SCARM free. If I were R&S, I'd buy SCARM and incorporate most of its features into RRT. I'd lower the base price to less than $50 and I might charge an extra $15 for the simulation feature. In other words, while I think RRT is affordable, I also think it's over-priced.

As a former programmer, I had no qualms sharing programs and routines, that's what much of the programming community was/is all about. I support freeware and shareware. I don't design on the side. I had my designs done in RRT before I started using SCARM and I still have them in RRT. I learned SCARM because I enjoy the design process, I enjoy helping others learn to do it themselves, I wanted to see the 3D version view and I wanted to use the simulation feature. I'm helping RD because he's trying to learn the program. If he had just expected someone to convert the photo to RRT or SCARM, I probably wouldn't be here. I tend to push SCARM because it's free and presumably will remain inexpensive. I assume many wouldn't spend money on RRT only to find they don't like it or can't get the hang of it. At least AnyRail offers a free trial with limitations so people can try before they buy. You don't like "free", well I don't like having to buy before I know if something will work for me.

As for the number of versions "flying around", there's only 3 that I know of. RD's, Carl's and now yours. My RRT version is simply RD's with some things fixed. I don't know how to do that and keep them straight without posting a "new" version with an altered filename. If I decide to fiddle with yours, it will still be yours with my modifications. However, before I did that, I think I'd wait to see how Carl does with the 2 lower levels and then convert that to RRT since it includes all the turnouts, etc. I suspect RD could convert the track himself, though it would take longer for him to do it than me. And my guess is he'd have trouble setting the grades, but he'd at least try.

The bottom line is I'll try to help RD regardless of which program he uses. I think SCARM offers a more useful 3D view, but that's just personal preference. He's already bought RRT, so he should use it or it's money down the drain.

I'm eager to see what Carl comes up with and to see where RD's at. The layout has expanded and we need to hear his thoughts on the new space. Given the description of his rolling stock, I'm not sure anything less than the size Carl came up with will work because I think some of it may require a minimum of O72.

I forgot one last thing. I could have easily started the grades further around the curves regardless of what point I viewed as the base position. In this case, I was simply trying to keep them where they were in the photo to show RD that things needed to be changed or the design would never work. And, as I said, it's bad form to put turnouts on a grade, so I tried to avoid that too. He initially made it sound like he wasn't willing to make allowances, which has since been shown to be misunderstood.

I completely understand the concept of lowering part of a run below a crossover so the top run doesn't have to be full height. If you need a 7" clearance, you can lower part of the run 3", so you only have to raise the top 4". When going from one level to another, it doesn't matter which you consider the base level. All that matters is the begin/end points to get the grade you want. If you begin at one set of points and the grade is too steep, you simply move one or both points further apart until you get what the grade you want. In my mind, that's 2 different concepts.

I did understand and agree with your point about the hidden yard and the fact that some folks who are used to tabletops might think they have to start the grade at the tunnel rather than further up the line like it is in this design. As I said, my hang-up was the turnouts being on the grade. I wanted to avoid that until I realized cars wouldn't be uncoupled there. And if you look at my subsequent versions, you'll see that I did begin/end the grades at different points even though I considered the main level to be the one with the turntable and terminal.

RD posted:

Hi Carl,

I have never used "SCARM" before ,having enough trouble trying to figure out RRT I didn't think I needed another program.. But... what you sent in the PDF is exactly what I've been trying to do with this plan. The only thing that would concern me is the 4" spacing... I'm more comfortable with 41/2 .. I have plenty of big steam and 18" & 21" passenger consists...otherwise your rendition is the closest to the original I've seen so far. I guess I am downloading SCARM today!

I have a few questions though... How do I see dimensions?  Table size .. track labels etc??  I guess I'll see all that when I download the program. To answer your question ...YES.. I'd like to continue. If you are willing so am I...

 

 

RD,

I only work faster in SCARM. The compression of the layout really causes fitment and placement issues compared to if it were scaled directly to O as 20 x 40, instead of 14' x 25'. I mentioned this in an earlier post.

Well, I had some time and picked up the challenge. I wanted to see what it would look like and if it could be compressed.

You can also see that once the "view" or terrain of the layout was discovered by placing the whole 4 track crossover section at level 2, everyone jumped on board. This was key to keeping the commuter station just before the tunnels, too.

My other thought is to size the reverse loops to most of the outside edge to make a train visible when it is down there and the graded end could be closed in, having only access hatches. I didn't know if you had photos or a visualization of the scenic build.

The grade can easily be extended up to the #8 crossovers to lower it and still have a nice terrain look from that side. The reverse loops under should not be a problem either, as they would only need to be flat for the big semi-circles at the end and some of the aisle, if you chose to open that up.

So, you have scenic thoughts to consider along with the infrastructure build to get the desired viewing and appearance.

I don't know if I have it in me to make adjustments to fit everything again to 4.5" centers. You specified Ross, which has it's geometry of the sectional curves set at 4" centers. Changing approach and exit lengths to widen the center spacing will really complicate the plan, which is designed concentrically, and is already being compressed. I think you only area of concern would be to keep articulated engines and 21" passenger cars off of the O72 and O80 inner lines or two of the type passing one another.

I managed to use a lot of wider O88 & O96 in a lot of places. I like the Ross track and am in the process of building layout using it. But, as the designed change due to the owner wanting more "movement", we went to Gargraves flex for large radius curves.

The lower staging yard and reverse loops need to be completed. The open area at the top right needs your direction as to extend the yard as planned, make the table smaller and omit that area or do something different with it.

Just for grins, download and install SCARM and I'll send you the file. You can zoom in and out with the wheel of the mouse and move with the arrow keys to take a gander. The 3D view moves about all three axes just by moving the mouse about and using the scroll wheel. Then, you can translate it into RRT and work from that software, or any other, from the 2D plan view.

I design with tight joint tolerances. I know that you can build from this plan and it will fit. I substituted half and quarter cut sectional Ross curves with preformed GG flex track for speed and accuracy. RRT has a tool that will allow you to cut the track for arc and it will show in inventory as the correct track needed. I can go back and replace those, if you want to build from the SCARM file.

The coolest feature of this layout would be dispatching and controlling multiple trains simultaneously and switching them on the correct route. The crossover section near the aisle is really the key feature of this layout.

Guys!!

First of all I can't begin to thank you all for the time and effort.. WOW!! Did you all nail it! All of the versions are great and they all show one important thing....it can be done!

Dave and David please can we all get along .. Dave got the juices flowing again and jump started me to start using RRT again. Like David I have had this program for years.. I think I still have the floppy that came in a pouch inside the instruction book with the handwritten serial #. I designed a few simple layouts back in the day including the one that appeared in that other mag back in 2010. And I think that was the last time I used it until I recently updated to v5.2 something and got way lost . So you see that was the reason for the plea for help.  Fast forward..........

David this last version you did has really got me excited !! The ones Carl and Dave did in SCARM are close but the one you posted is it! A little clarity might help explain my excitement.. One concern has been the space for the latest revisions and I am lucky enough to have the room. The family room is actually 22x35 and is open enough to allow me room to walk all the way around the outside of the layout which will place most of the track within reach. I also want to leave room for some seating and a table or two. So space is not an issue and I can also play with the orientation within the room. Believe me I am ready to do whatever is necessary to make this happen. I have not been this excited about a plan in a long time and as I said earlier this has been a while coming. 

As for some of Daves concerns about equipment I have been collecting trains and playing with smaller layouts for years. I don't ever have to buy another train for a long time if you get my drift. I also have been accumulating components.. 180w bricks..complete TMCC & Legacy systems with all the add on components .. TPC's .. power masters ..plus I've been gathering buildings and accessories like a squirrel.. including a TW Chicago Union Station which is going to look GREAT with that long passenger terminal. 

So you see guys I really want to make this work and with all your help it looks like it can be done. I really am crazy about this plan and I am going to build it! 

Thanks again.

RD

Hey RD,

I forgot to mention that the pdf of the track plan that I attached above enables you to zoom and pan and get track details. The pdf readers have those tools -, +, and hand tool. I also created that to print on 11 x 17 tabloid.

I can annotate that further for the cut track detail and the few pieces of GG flex that will be needed. 

RD posted:

...

David this last version you did has really got me excited !! The ones Carl and Dave did in SCARM are close but the one you posted is it! A little clarity might help explain my excitement.. One concern has been the space for the latest revisions and I am lucky enough to have the room. The family room is actually 22x35 and is open enough to allow me room to walk all the way around the outside of the layout which will place most of the track within reach. I also want to leave room for some seating and a table or two. So space is not an issue and I can also play with the orientation within the room. Believe me I am ready to do whatever is necessary to make this happen. I have not been this excited about a plan in a long time and as I said earlier this has been a while coming. 

Glad to hear this has been a very successful and inspiring exercise for you.  One of the things that often happens when I'm designing a railroad is the tendency to think, "Ah... if I only had an extra foot or so all around, I might be able to add some cool features along the edge of the layout."   

Hearing that your room is actually 22x35, that got me thinking a bit!     If you look closely at the plan I posted, focus on the purple track.  A ton of it is "hidden".  But if you wanted, you could actually modify the plan slightly so that the long straight-away at the bottom of the plan can emerge from a tunnel, then wrap around the right-hand side of the layout -- all visible (or perhaps enter/exit a few tunnels along the way) until it needs to return to "hidden track" near the top of the concentric circles.  You'd still have a good 30" or more at the narrow part of the aisle between the concentric circles and the passenger station area.  All you'd need to do is allow an extra 6-9 inches along the bottom of the layout plan and the far right portion of the plan.

One more note... the file I sent you is 14x25.  For planning purposes you can make the file 22x35 in RR-Track, and then plan for other things you want to accommodate in the entire room -- noting exactly where you want the layout edges/fascia to be as well as a sitting area, etc...  You can also compare the ability to completely walk around the entire layouts vs. having the top portion of the layout (i.e., passenger station area) directly against a wall in the room.  The latter approach might have the bonus of allowing a series of building flats along the wall which can serve as a terrific backdrop for that portion of the layout.  OR you could also plan for a custom backdrop along that wall which would give you tons of possibilities for a scenic backdrop (i.e., urban area with factories, or a city skyline, or simply blue sky).  Just thinking out loud...

Enjoy!!!

 

As for some of Daves concerns about equipment I have been collecting trains and playing with smaller layouts for years. I don't ever have to buy another train for a long time if you get my drift. I also have been accumulating components.. 180w bricks..complete TMCC & Legacy systems with all the add on components .. TPC's .. power masters ..plus I've been gathering buildings and accessories like a squirrel.. including a TW Chicago Union Station which is going to look GREAT with that long passenger terminal. 

I can relate COMPLETELY to this statement.  2017 will be my year also to finally unpack tons of stuff from boxes and set them free on a layout -- where they were always intended to shine!!!  VERY exciting times ahead to be sure.

 

So you see guys I really want to make this work and with all your help it looks like it can be done. I really am crazy about this plan and I am going to build it! 

Thanks again.

RD

David

Sorry, RD, but I think I might be bowing out. I thought the goal was to reproduce the original design as closely as possible using Ross track, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening and I have no idea where this project is going. You have a design done in RRT with Atlas track that you seem enamored with, so good luck converting it to Ross track and getting things to connect. David said it was a very basic design and he's right.......wrong brand track, only 1 turnout, no crossovers, 4 mains going around the curve at different heights, curve in center dips way too far leaving less room for turntable facility, to name a few. The question is how much work will it take to convert and fix. The only track that seems to be common between Ross and Atlas is the O72 turnout. That means you basically have to start from scratch. Atlas curves are designed for 4.5" spacing while Ross is designed for 4" spacing. AFAIK, both will accommodate your equipment, but I could be wrong. Either way, with all the concentric curves you have, I see that as a big hurdle to overcome. Hopefully, you and David will be able to figure things out.

RD,

Here's another rev of my original RRT plan, which adds a bunch of #5 turnouts and a few double-slip switches.    The latter are admittedly very exotic, and having a group of these together in front of (above) the turntable would be quite an impressive eye-catcher / focal point of trackwork.  But you'd also want to ensure they provide trouble-free operation.  So proceed carefully with them!  I also extended the plan one foot longer and one foot wider to accommodate the change I suggested earlier (for the lowest level long straight-away at the bottom of the plan) AS WELL AS TO ACCOMMODATE  the group of turnouts and double-switches that will allow maximum flexibility when routing trains through that area of parallel track.  They didn't quite fit in the original plan, but it sounds like you have the extra real estate in your family room if you want to make this happen.

Please also note that this version shows some of what can be done with this layout plan in terms of turnouts, a couple of sidings, as well as the TT area with a potential 3- or 4-stall roundhouse plus a few other turntable tracks.  A little less than what was in the original HO plan.  But between the TT/Roundhouse area, the exotic trackwork spanning what appears to be "four mainlines", AND that TWX Chicago Station above a passenger yard, that's a TON of eye candy for a model train enthusiast!!!   

I didn't clean up the grades in this version of the file at all.    In fact, it might look a bit crazy and disjointed if you view the 3D version of this file in RR-Track.  But if you refer to the original V1 version, that will give you a general idea of track heights and grades in general.  Nothing has really changed all that much going to the V1A file conceptually speaking.  I just didn't tweak the grades and track heights, 'cause I wanted to get this out to you tonight.  If you're not opposed to using the double-slip switches AND you like the general flow of this plan, then by all means take it and run with it from here.  Consider this as a passing of the baton so-to-speak, but I'm certainly available if you have questions.  There's still some turnouts to add, and you can certainly fill in more parallel tracks along the top of the plan for your passenger station yard.

I do think it's important that you maintain the 4.5" track spacing on the mainlines, as 4" will surely give you trouble with articulated locos and 21" passenger cars on the curves.  The Atlas-O track geometry works perfectly for 4.5" track spacing.  And the #5 turnouts and double-slips fit right in with that spacing too.  Going with Ross turnouts and double-slips will definitely pose a challenge now with this plan -- certainly not impossible, but will likely require more real estate if you go with Ross #6 turnouts.  Ross #4's will probably fit, but you may need to have fitter pieces of track between the turnouts in order to maintain the 4.5" track spacing, whereas it was a natural fit w/o specially cut fitter pieces for the Atlas-O #5's.  If you decide to go the Ross turnout route, then you'll likely need to use Gargraves flextrack for all the curves with the exception of sectional O72 curves which I know are available in both the Gargraves and Ross lines of track.

Anyway, here's the new version as a PNG file (as well as an RRT file as an attachment).

Enjoy!!!

David

Rocky Mountaineer posted:

RD,

I don't have lots of time to take this much further.  And we certainly don't need 4 people working the same plan independently, as that can quickly become counterproductive.  Even as it is... while I was doing this, I noticed DAZ took his design further... which is fine.  You can get the best of all worlds.

Nonetheless, I thought it would help to introduce a slightly different way of thinking to help move your "compressed" design along... and by "compressed", I simply mean you're choosing 14x25 vs. the pure 20x40 dimension of the "exact" O-Scale version.  I did this in RRT, because I've been using it since it was distributed on 3.5" disks!!!    To that end, I'm a bit of an old dog who doesn't want to learn new tricks, unless the benefit far outweighs the new learning curve.  So I don't even give SCARM the time of day because it was freeware, and I never liked the fact that somebody would offer free software to undercut the value of reasonably-priced software that's been around for decades, supported well during that time, and has earned its stripes and then some for nearly 20 years.  Lord knows how many times it's saved my butt, and I've designed hundreds of revisions of various "dream layouts" I've considered over the years.  There's no free lunch in life, and I don't mind paying $$$ for the best products out there.  But I'll admit I'm old-school in my thinking.    So enough about philosophy.

Anyway, here's the very basic RRT image-file as a PNG file:

Now here's the "new way of thinking" I was referring to earlier in my post:  namely, the green track that's largely hidden remains at elevation level ZERO throughout much of the plan.  It's the OTHER track (in blue and purple) that is either elevated (blue track) or lowered (purple) to adjust for clearances.  This way the grades are essentially cut in half by splitting the difference between track that's lowered and track that's elevated.  Using this technique, grades never exceed 3% and in some cases are less than 2%.    It's a technique I learned way back in my HO days.  Since you're planning to use open grid benchwork, this approach should work just fine.  And it's particularly helpful since you're compressing the plan.

Folks accustomed to building layouts on plywood platforms don't always think this way.  But essentially, a good portion of what you've been thinking as the "main level" is actually now on a modest grade all the way up to a 7" elevation... which by the way is also the elevation of the turntable and track that connects over to the passenger terminal (top of the diagram).  The green track is essentially either at ZERO elevation, or -1" or -2" if you need further clearance underneath the TT.  The purple track actually drops at a very reasonable grade of 3% or less, and again... that can also be lowered slightly beneath the TT as required.

There's a lot for you to fill in here as far as sidings, turnout crossovers, etc....  But this shows that you can indeed design this plan with RRT.  You mentioned 4.5" track centers, so I used Atlas-O track here because it fits that geometry quite nicely.  Minimum curves are O-72.  Then O-81, O-90, O-99, O-108... and even one curve is O-117  (flex track).  Of course, you can substitue Ross or Gargraves as well.  I just liked the fact that I could quickly pull Atlas-O sectional track together in RRT's library and achieve the 4.5" track centers you wanted.

Hopefully, you can follow the plan easily, since I used different track colors.  I've also attached the RRT file, so you can take this further if you desire to proceed with RRT.  There's LOTS left to tweak... but that's the fun part of designing one's own layout.  One thing you do lose a bit of in your space compression is the whole business of open access hatches.  So you'll need a couple of "hidden" ones.  But the good news is you mentioned the actual room size is larger than 14x25, so you'll have room to walk around the layout.  Also the TT area will have a reduced number of tracks going to a roundhouse, and the number of service tracks approaching the turntable area will be somewhat reduced.  But that's part of the compromises when real-estate is compressed.  Still very manageable considering O-Scale turntables with a roundhouse can be a bit overwhelming to begin with, and chew up real estate rather quickly on all but the largest train layouts.

Again... at this point, I'm not sure how beneficial it is to have 4 people working this plan -- some now using different software programs.  So I'll bow out at this point.  But hopefully, I've given you something to think about in terms of the elevation techniques to minimize grades.  Once you get the knack of this technique, you may find that not much of the "visible track" in the plan is at level ZERO at all.  Tracks tend to rise and fall as needed to achieve the various grade criteria and overhead clearances. 

Best of luck... and enjoy the ride... should be a very nice track plan!

David

 

 

Rich, FWIW I would go with David's plan.  It contains all the elements you wanted. It is easy to read and visualize.  It fits the space.  I think this plan is a "show stopper".

GO FOR IT.  And keep us informed.  You can probably knock out the bench work by the end of August and have the main lines up and runnng by Christmas.  So for every hour you spend watching the Cubs this summer, spend the same on your layout (162 games x 3 hours per game) = 488 hours by the end of September. 

That was EZ.  Now all you need is approval from the finance department.

Good Luck,

Jim

David, no offense, but RD said he wanted Ross track with 4.5" spacing and presumably minimum O72 curves to run his large passenger equipment, so that's what I've been working on. This could have been done days ago in RRT using Atlas track that is configured for the 4.5" spacing. If he changes his mind and switches to Atlas, good for you, you got through to him when I couldn't and I just wasted some of my time. If he still wants Ross though, he's asking for trouble. I could find no combination of Ross curves that will give him concentric curves with 4.5" spacing and min O72. The closest I could come (other than 4" spacing) was 5.75" spacing, but that isn't what the plan calls for. In this case, choice of brands of track makes all the difference.

RD, if you change you mind and decide to use Atlas track, go for it. This is a fairly good plan for anyone interested in passenger trains and likes to see them disappear in one tunnel and reappear in another. I'm not sure how long that will hold your interest, but I wish you the best. If you still insist on Ross, then I wish you the best there too.

DoubleDAZ posted:

David, no offense, but RD said he wanted Ross track with 4.5" spacing and presumably minimum O72 curves to run his large passenger equipment, so that's what I've been working on. This could have been done days ago in RRT using Atlas track that is configured for the 4.5" spacing. If he changes his mind and switches to Atlas, good for you, you got through to him when I couldn't and I just wasted some of my time. If he still wants Ross though, he's asking for trouble. I could find no combination of Ross curves that will give him concentric curves with 4.5" spacing and min O72. The closest I could come (other than 4" spacing) was 5.75" spacing, but that isn't what the plan calls for. In this case, choice of brands of track makes all the difference.

RD, if you change you mind and decide to use Atlas track, go for it. This is a fairly good plan for anyone interested in passenger trains and likes to see them disappear in one tunnel and reappear in another. I'm not sure how long that will hold your interest, but I wish you the best. If you still insist on Ross, then I wish you the best there too.

Dave,  I think you're losing sight of the forest for the trees as they say.  Here's a comment from RD earlier on in this thread, which I interpreted as RD saying he's not really locked into any specific track type...

The reason for the Ross track ... I want to use preformed curves and I like the appearance of Ross + it was just easier than going back and forth between the 2 track menus.. I always planned on using Gargraves with Ross turnouts and preformed curves and I am no way  locked in to that and I am in no way against twisting a piece of flextrack to meet the need.

I don't pretend to know what RD is thinking beyond his original goal to convert the HO plan to a somewhat compressed O-Gauge replica.  And this is PRECISELY why I alluded earlier that having multiple people work the same plan without any kind of coordination is a recipe for unproductive efforts.  I just happened to have a few spare moments tonight, so I populated my original plan with cross-overs and filled in some additional details before a crazy work week starts on Monday morning.  RD can run with this however he wants, because at this point it's really HIS layout to run with as he sees fit.   Heck, if I had the space, I might even be tempted to build from this track plan.  I have the length -- but not the width to accommodate this plan.  And I have something else in play that's gonna be very exciting this year if everything goes as planned...  and the good Lord willing, of course.

Nonetheless, I don't view these RR-Track efforts as a waste of my time at all.  And certainly whoever could have posted a plan days ago in RR-Track with Atlas-O track is irrelevant.  The point is RD has a conceptual plan (and then some) that shows promise NOW.  The plan I posted earlier tonight as V1A is a great starting point for RD -- whichever  track system he opts to use.  Of course, if he's open to Atlas-O track, then the layout is MUCH further along and ready for some additional modifications as he fills in more details.  If he wants Ross switches with Gargraves flextrack, then there's some additional re-working he can do wherever cross-overs and turnouts occur in the plan.  But it's not a show-stopper by any stretch of the imagination.  And your making a big deal of the concentric circles at 4.5" centers is very puzzling to me, since it sounds like RD is open to using Gargraves flextrack anyway if that's the ticket to bringing this plan into reality using Ross switches.  Problem solved.    As I indicated earlier, Ross #6 turnouts are very likely too large for the compressed plan in most locations... and will require bumping the layout size (just as using Atlas-O #7.5 turnouts would have equally required bumping the layout dimensions).  The Ross #4's should work fine, but probably will need small pieces of custom fitter track to maintain 4.5" parallel track centers.  I'm fairly certain that Ross's double-slip switch is also a #4 too.  So that should help the #4 cross-over turnouts and double-slip geometry all work together, if RD chooses to go that route.

Once again, the main goal for me was to offer a clear "proof-of-concept" trackplan, from which RD could then move forward knowing his original goal was indeed very achievable. 

To that end, RD, it's been a pleasure helping you thus far.  Whichever way you decide to proceed, you have lots of great information now as a stepping stone to bringing this project one step closer to reality.  Enjoy... and do keep us posted!!!

David

OK folks, here's the final rev for the evening... my pillow is now calling me.     This is V1B and very likely the last update I can do this week, but this REALLY fills out many of the remaining elements that might reasonably carry over from the orginal HO plan.  Not perfect, but pretty darn close in terms of features... depending upon how many cross-overs and industrial spurs you might ultimately want to incorporate.  Note that the compressed length of this plan rears its less than ideal head again in terms of passenger train length in the passenger terminal yard.  Looks like 9'-10' MAX of passenger car train length can be supported clear of the fancy yard turnouts.  Of course, you can increase the length of those passenger car tracks to the right a few more feet (depending upon how much room real-estate is available).  If you're able to allocate more space to the trains, I'd go for it... just for the passenger terminal yard.  You'll be happier down the road.

Once again, track is pretty much exclusively Atlas-O in this plan with a few Ross O-96 and O-80 turnouts incorporated in curves (since there was no Atlas-O equivalent for those).  Grade tweaking still needs to be finalized, but shouldn't be all that different from the original V1 concept file. 

Also, remember that the overall track plan dimensions have been increased to 15x26 in order to handle all of the feature elements. 

Here ya go, RD:

Enjoy!!!

David

Well, David, you've got a perfectly good design put together that looks like it will satisfy RD's desires for everything except the brand of track. And MikeCT has shown that GG flextrack can be bent to these curve sizes fairly easily using his techniques.

If RD is as open-minded as you think, you've gotten more out of his comments than I did. I took the comment you quoted to mean he wasn't opposed to using a few pieces of flextrack, but wanted to use mostly preformed GG curves with Ross turnouts. I've spent a lot of time trying to accommodate that desire, but haven't been able to get anywhere because Ross/GG curves just isn't meant for 4.5" spacing.

If your interpretation of his comments is correct, then I've definitely lost sight of the forest , hence my comment about wasting my time, not yours. Your time has been well spent, especially if it convinces RD that he either has to change to Atlas track or be open to using a lot of GG flextrack. I think it's actually pretty EZ (to use Jim's term), though a bit tedious, in RRT to create GG custom curved tracks to match the Atlas curves if he converts your design to Ross/GG. I'd do it as an exercise for my own use, but I need to get our taxes done. I put those off for 2 days now trying to get this plan done with Ross track and can't afford to put them off any longer. We're leaving on a trip soon and they need to be done before we leave.

And if any of my comments came across as confrontational, I apologize, they were born out of frustration. You probably don't remember, but you helped me with some aspects of RRT in my early days here and I remain grateful for that help.

Dave, all is good.  But I can see where you might have gotten frustrated trying to make the plan work with sectional Ross or Gargrave curves.  Aside from the O72's, just about every other radii on 4.5" centers would require flextrack.  I don't see any other way around it.

Fortunately, I had a window of time this weekend to exercise some layout design creativity before hitting the ground running this morning in the real world.  I probably won't have those kind of spare cycles to devote to something like this for awhile.  So At this point, RD has a few strategic decisions to make.  

David

Thanks, David. If I get my taxes done sooner than expected I might fiddle with the conversion just to see how much work it really is.

First of all let me say again how grateful I am that each of you has invested so much time in helping me make this work. I know this isn't easy and I can understand that may cause frustration.

"Sorry, RD, but I think I might be bowing out. I thought the goal was to reproduce the original design as closely as possible using Ross track, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening and I have no idea where this project is going."

I just hope I didn't add to that by not being clear what my goal for this plan was from the begining. That goal was to take this HO plan and make it fit the given space in O scale.  I thought I made it clear that while I had a preference for Ross I wasn't locked into anything and would be willing to do whatever worked.

Dave while I realy do appreciate all you  and Carl have done David seems to have really understood where  am coming from and has a great grasp on where I want to go. He also seems to understand that I am willing to do whatever to get there,,,thats how much I like this plan. 

""This is a fairly good plan for anyone interested in passenger trains and likes to see them disappear in one tunnel and reappear in another. I'm not sure how long that will hold your interest, but I wish you the best. If you still insist on Ross, then I wish you the best there too.""

It seems there is still a mistaken belief that I am insisting on using Ross track.. I thought we cleared that up .. the use of Ross track was a matter of convenience only due to my lack on experiance with the RRT program. I specified the desire for Ross/ gargraves because every article I've ever read .. every poll I've ever seen.. every person I've ever asked claim Ross/ Gargraves is what they would use to build a layout. I have never used anything but Lionel tubular track in any of the layouts I 've built in the past so I have no experiance with any of the more scale apearing track.  I had no idea that Ross track wouldn't let you achieve a 41/2 inch spacing ... I've always been leery of the HO like track joiners used by Atlas...forming proper curves with flex track scares the heck out of me... but I will do what it takes to make this plan work...and I'm pretty sure it will hold my interest for some time to come.

As an aside here, I like the plan and I'm also a big fan of Atlas track (as Dave already knows). I am not sure I have room (or can afford the additional track and switches), but I have been wanting to expand my layout and this plan looks very interesting. It has my interest more than anything I have seen in quite a while. I may fiddle around with a slightly smaller version, maybe less main lines, less levels, smaller curves or other things and see if I can do something with it myself. I have only diesels and I don't want a turntable so I may not need quite a much real estate.

Like Rocky, I am invested in RRT and don't really want to learn SCARM, but I am going to take a look at the SCARM plans posted and see if I can understand it a little better. I should have said similar to Rocky, he knows how to use RRT and I still just stumble along, but I am still better at that than SCARM. I do like some of the plans done with SCARM that I have seen around here. Pretty impressive. And I too still have problems with RRT crashing every so often.

Anyway, I also appreciate all the work all of you do on these plans around here. I look at many of them and follow most track plan threads here. Just wanted you all to know that 'others' enjoy your track plans as well as the OP you are trying to help. I am also guessing there are others 'lurking' around here and I don't think anything will be wasted. 

Also good luck to RD (the OP) and I hope this all works out for him as well, looks like he is very close to being there.

RD, don't worry about it. I don't think you cleared anything up until now , but I'm not going to belabor the point. Suffice it to say, I misunderstood your willingness to stray from Ross/GG sectional track based on your previous comments and David read you right. Kudos to him for seeing what I didn't, I could have saved myself a lot of frustration. Unfortunately, we still don't know what you plan to do and I'm not sure you do either......yet.

FWIW, I'm at a stand still on our taxes waiting for one last bit of data, so I took some time to see if I could do something with the 14 custom curves in David's version that will need to be made with Atlas flextrack. I've read that Atlas flextrack is the most difficult to bend. At any rate, I took David's latest 1B plan and did 3 things so far. I kept David's filename and added "daz" to it. If you don't want to use it, just say so and I'll delete it.

First, I changed the custom curves by replacing them with sectional curves interspersed with several 1.75" spacers. These are the Black tracks in the left and right outside curves. I don't know how this will look or operate when built, but I wanted you to see that there is a way to avoid bending flextrack. I don't particularly like it because of all the joints it adds, but it might be better than bending Atlas track.

Second, I set the height of the Green tracks to the left of the open box to 0",  the height of the turnouts in the large closed box to 1.5" and the height of the Blue tracks in the lower open box to 7". I then created the grades between the boxes and you can see the resulting slopes. Now, as I've said before, if you place the turnouts on the grade, the actual percentages will be less. I don't know if there is a consensus as to whether or not turnouts should be placed on the grade in this case. I don't know how sensitive turnout operation is to grades. It's easy enough to do though by building a flat surface for all 4 mains and the turnouts, and raising it to the correct height as a single section.

Third, I added some decking for 2 of the levels to show a little more of how the grades will look in the 3D view. It's not the best view and all of the 2nd level decking doesn't show, but it gives you an idea.

There you have it. I just got the tax data I needed, so it's back to doing the taxes.

RTR12, I don't think it would take much to convert this to 2 mains and a single spur line with a reversing loop underneath instead of a return loop to come out a separate tunnel. The double-slips would probably not be needed either, so the cost could be cut considerably. The entire passenger terminal could be converted into a yard or a destination for freight. And I think  it could be done with as tight as O36 curves.

As for SCARM, I initially installed it just so I could look at some of the designs that were being posted. Then I started helping fix problems and gradually learned how some of it worked. When the simulation feature with full 3D views was added, I really started to use it and became a beta tester for the multi-train version. I've come to really like the 3D view, so I've been using it more and more. The more I use it, the more I like it and I too have a vested interest in RRT. I just believe it trying new programs. I tried Any Rail, but didn't like it enough to buy the full version. I don't have a Mac, so I haven't tried RailModeller, but I would if they made a app for the iPad. In fact, I'd buy a iPad just to use RailModeller, though I've been told it has its share of problems too. BTW, RRT crashed on me again tonight and I can't remember what I was doing, though it was nothing weird or involved.

DoubleDAZ posted:

 ...

First, I changed the custom curves by replacing them with sectional curves interspersed with several 1.75" spacers. These are the Black tracks in the left and right outside curves. I don't know how this will look or operate when built, but I wanted you to see that there is a way to avoid bending flextrack. I don't particularly like it because of all the joints it adds, but it might be better than bending Atlas track.

 ...

Dave and RD, for what it's worth, I would not add 1.75" spacers over an entire section of curves just to avoid Atlas-O flextrack.  While it may not be the easiest of brands to flex, we're talking about an O-117 curve in this plan which is fairly gradual.  Heck, when Atlas-O let their stock of O-108 sectional curves run down a couple of years ago, folks needed the flextrack for their O-108 curves and nobody really balked all that much.  So I wouldn't even give flexing for O-117 curves a second thought.  

Really... It's not an issue -- not to mention each joint added with all those 1.75" spacers is a place where electrical continuity could be a future issue down the road.  It's one thing to use the 1.75" pieces in a pinch, but I'd never do it for the entire arc of a curve.

David

DoubleDAZ posted:

..  BTW, RRT crashed on me again tonight and I can't remember what I was doing, though it was nothing weird or involved.

I learned a VERY long time ago (the hard way, like everyone else) to SAVE one's work OFTEN when using computer applications... whether it be word processing, photo editing and image compositing in Photoshop... or yes, even designing model train layouts!!! 

David

David,

1. Simply offering an alternative based on this comment "forming proper curves with flex track scares the heck out of me", though this one will probably take precedence "but I will do what it takes to make this plan work". Once again, a comment followed by a contradiction leaving me shaking my head yet again.  As I said, I don't like the fillers (I completely agree you) and wouldn't hesitate to use the flextrack, but then I wouldn't hesitate to use Ross/GG after seeing MikeCT's examples, if that's the look I preferred. Truth be told, I'd probably try to do this with ScaleTrax and Ross turnouts because I think ScaleTrax looks the best and is the easiest to bend. I've actually bent it to O36 as a test, though there is a lot of tension bending it that tight.

2. When RRT crashes, I rarely lose any work, so I have no idea what's going on. Like you, I've learned to save my work often, but RRT appears to save my work to an rrb file before it actually stops working. I've just gotten used to it, so I don't even try to figure out what's going on anymore. The crashes have been there since v3, the first version I used. Yesterday it crashed when I selected the measuring tool after zooming in on one section of curves where I wanted to check the spacing. I don't remember what I did before those 2 actions, but I simply opened it back up and did the same 2 things without it crashing again, so go figure.

3. And my use of SCARM is not intended to bash RRT in any way. For example, I prefer RRT's methodology for creating grades. I like that it allows for more than 10 layers, something I use extensively. I like that it lets me set a different color for track on each layer automatically, though I wish it would fill the track and not just color the rails, especially on larger layouts. I like how it organizes track libraries and track selection. I like the simulation well enough, but I can make it crash at will simply by trying to run more than 1 train. I get that it runs only 1 train at a time, but it shouldn't crash, especially since it's up to v5. I'll continue to use both program because I help people who use both programs. I think I'd be remiss and doing a disservice to only help those who use RRT. If someone uses RRT and asks for design ideas, I won't hesitate to post one done in SCARM if I think they'd like it. It's tedious, but not all that difficult to convert designs done with other programs as long as the tracks are labeled.

Anyway, off my soapbox. I'm not going to do anymore with this design until RD gives some indication of where he wants to go with it. If he wants to pursue the design with the Atlas flextrack, which is what I'd do, I'm happy to oblige, but I'm not going to spend any more time fixing the grades until I know. I wouldn't even do that, but you said you're too busy.

I'm particularly interested in what he wants to do about the turnouts on the grade, if he wants the 4 mains to be level going up/down around the curve and how steep of a grade he's willing to accept. Heck, I'd like to know how you'd answer those questions. So far, all he's said is he likes the design, but it is far from finished. And if he's trying to fix things himself, I'll like to see his progress and where he might be having problems with v5.

Thanks Dave. I too have SCARM loaded, just to view plans posted here, but I have not really tried to use it. Maybe I will fiddle around with the plan in RRT a little later this week. I have O-54 & O-63 curves and that is what I would probably stick with those. I think I have a loop of O-45 curves left over from my temp layout from Atlas track trials a few years ago, but I probably won't use those as I think I may have a couple of things that need O-54 curves. And I too have learned to save my RRT stuff regularly. Just wanted everyone to know that their efforts were not wasted as others out here might like these plans as well.

I don't want to hi-jack this thread, so I'll now go back to lurking again. If I get somewhere with the plan changes I will start another thread later on when I am closer to actually expanding my layout.

Guys my lack of participation the last couple of days isnt because my interest has waned but I have been under the weather and got dizzy every time I sat in front of the screen. Let me assure you I am more excited than ever and now that I know whats possible I'm more confident I can make it work.

Dave I don't know how to get through that I am extremely flexible and so is this plan. Nothing is carved in stone and I will do whatever I have to to make it work. If that still is not clear  then I surrender...

David I've gone back and re-read your last few posts and the suggestions are so right on its like you are reading my mind. Running the reverse loop around the outside of the upper curve and down the backstretch is a super idea and the extra room needed to do this is well worth the outcome. Also I believe it was you who mentioned making the second level the O elevation and raising the top level and turntable/roundhouse area...another hit as far as I am concerned. I'm still a bit hesitant about all the double-slip switches .. but that can be worked out.. bottom line I love your ideas and the plan you put together if there is a drawback it's the Atlas track.... I would like to see if it could work with Ross turnouts and gargraves flex... from what Ive learned the last few days about flex track it seems like the ticket. What do you think??

'"GO FOR IT.  And keep us informed.  You can probably knock out the bench work by the end of August and have the main lines up and runnng by Christmas.  So for every hour you spend watching the Cubs this summer, spend the same on your layout (162 games x 3 hours per game) = 488 hours by the end of September. 

That was EZ.  Now all you need is approval from the finance department.

Good Luck""

Jim,

The finance department was the first stop.. good to go..

Grab your hammer and come on over.. we can knock out that benchwork in no time...

RD, it was clear with your previous comment, so I'm not sure what you're referring to now. If you don't want me to ask questions or point out problem areas, I'll be happy to move on to something else. Simply saying you're flexible doesn't address the questions I've asked. I'm sorry you're not feeling well and I'm happy to wait for comments until you are. 

Well done