I finally found a plan I like... Im not sure how to show it... here goes
Start with the plan.. follow until the 4 tracks go under the turntable lead..then plan -2 (lower layer) if you go in om the outside line follow around you come back out on the inside line going the opposite direction.. same with middle two lines.. third level is staging and a big reversing loop...
comments??
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Safari cannot open the plans.
I am not sure what you have going on? Some reason it's not all in one layout file?
Dan,
I found this plan in an old layout book and I am trying to put it together in RRT but my skills are very limited as you can see...
Basicly it's 14x25 .. 3 levels..the plan is level one -plan 2 lower level and plan 3 bottom level. The five tracks at the top of the plan are a passenger station /yard.. follow the spur from the yard to the mainline and follow it around until it goes under that spur..on to plan 2.. if you are on the outside line going in and follow it around you come back out on the inner-most line in the opposite direction.
see where I'm going?? I need to figure out how to make grades and levels all on one plan but until then this is thye best I can do....
I'll try to post the plan from the book... it might be easier to understand...
RD posted:Dan,
I found this plan in an old layout book and I am trying to put it together in RRT but my skills are very limited as you can see...
Basicly it's 14x25 .. 3 levels..the plan is level one -plan 2 lower level and plan 3 bottom level. The five tracks at the top of the plan are a passenger station /yard.. follow the spur from the yard to the mainline and follow it around until it goes under that spur..on to plan 2.. if you are on the outside line going in and follow it around you come back out on the inner-most line in the opposite direction.
see where I'm going?? I need to figure out how to make grades and levels all on one plan but until then this is thye best I can do....
I get the connection between the first two levels, but can't see how the third level ties in. I presume the first level is the diagram on the left.
Third level comes off the spur with th "y" switch at the end...
hopefully the photo from the magazine makes it a bit clearer
I am loving what I am seeing!!!! Wish I had the Room!!!
I changed the title because I am hoping someone can show me how to join these files.
Im going to try the tutorial one more time but so far it's not helping. I am working with version 5.2
and trying to join the three levels. This is a very rough copy of the plan in the book..no switches or sidings have been included yet but...baby steps.....
Any help and/or advice would be apreciated.
thanks
read:
I tried to copy and paste to one file. I don't know how they are supposed to connect or even if it is multi-level.
You'll need a barn if this is in O. It's 10 x 20 in HO , so a guesstimate in O would be at least double that - 20 x 40.
I see, you want to convert the track plan to a smaller version in O. Are there any detail pages?
There's days of work to this plan - so don't get too frustrated if you are still learning the software.
RD,
Joining the 3 together is easy. Highlight and grab the first plan (cut & paste). Drag this image to the second image,
align and paste. Repeat these steps for the third image. Whole operation takes about 20 seconds.
BTW, I love the plan.
SantaFeJim posted:RD,
Joining he 3 together is easy. Highlight ang grab the first plan (cut & paste). Drag this image to the second image, align and paste. Repeat these steps for the third image. Whole operation takes about 20 seconds.
BTW, I love the plan.
Do it. What result do you get?
I'm not sure there is a way to "physically join" separate RRT files, although SantaFe Jim's "select and paste" method might be worth a try. The end goal though is, you've got to learn to think in "layers" with RRT: keeping all the layers in ONE RRT file -- the same way photographers think in layers using Photoshop (if that helps).
Each of the track layers should have track in a different color. Scenery objects and buildings should be in their own layers too. When you're filling out the different layers with track components, you can "hide" other layers to avoid confusion. Then selectively toggle different layers on/off as needed.
Since all of the layers reside in one RRT file, you should start your RRT file with the maximum room dimensions... starting with the main track layer, then switch to the second (middle) layer and third (bottom) layer accordingly. I've also found it handy with RRT to plan ahead using absolute track heights. For example, in this plan, you might want to think about the main (top) track layer at 55", the second (middle) track layer at 48", and the third (bottom) track layer at 40". Or whatever works best for you.
Hope that helps.
David
Moonman -
I have used rr-track for 15 years so I know of what I speak. I donated my Dell to a company that trains veterans in computer repair last November so I don't have a PC. Now, if rr-track made a version for a MAC I would have assembled the layout for Rich and emailed the rr-file directly to him.
RD, as Jim says, it's easy to merge the 3 files, so here's what that looks like (1st photo). As you can see, they don't line up too well, so you have some work to do.
- The Black tracks are from your Plan#66.rrt file and are on layer "track 1".
- The Blue tracks are from your Plan#66-2.rrt file and are on layer "track 2".
- The Green tracks are from your Plan#66-3/rrt file and are on layer "track 3".
FWIW, rather than change the individual track colors, I generally change the color of the layers instead. In this case, I would also add a layer for the grades between the levels and set that layer to a 4th color.
Based on the drawing you posted from the magazine, it appears that the Blue tracks should connect to the 4 tracks in the larger blue circle and the Green tracks should connect with the 2 tracks in the smaller blue circle. I couldn't tell from the drawing exactly which layers were which, but it looked like the Green tracks were on the lowest level and the Blue tracks on an intermediate level, so I set the height of the Green tracks to 0", the Blue tracks to 7" and the Black tracks to 14" just to show some separation in the 3D view (2nd photo).
The 3rd photo shows the beginning steps to link Level 2 with Level 1 (Level 3 is hidden). As you can see, I added some straight sections to expand the Blue curves on the left so the loops on the right sit more directly below those above. More work needs to be done so they all connect and I thought I'd let you play with that. Once that's done, the expanded curves will then form the grade down to this level. I did create a grade with the one leg I connected. I added a "grades" layer and changed the color to Cyan (looks like purple in the photo). The grade goes from 14" down to 7" and by including the straight sections, the slope is an acceptable 2.9%.
I hope some of this helps you move along with this design. I assume you have the 14'x25' space the design will need for O scale.
NOTE: I didn't mention the difficulties you are going to have reaching various sections of the track, etc., so you really need to think about access if you pursue this.
SantaFeJim posted:Moonman -
I have used rr-track for 15 years so I know of what I speak. I donated my Dell to a company that trains veterans in computer repair last November so I don't have a PC. Now, if rr-track made a version for a MAC I would have assembled the layout for Rich and emailed the rr-file directly to him.
I think Carl simply meant that the result is pretty ugly, as you can see from my post. It's even uglier if you don't first set up some layers (like I did so you can keep the levels separate for the work that needs to be done to line things up properly. In this case, it probably would have been easier to learn how to use layers rather than create 3 separate files that don't line up with each other. Now there's a lot of work that needs to be done to get things to fit together and I'm not sure RCS has the needed sectional pieces, not to mention the decision to use RCS track in the first place. I didn't take the time because I think this will be a good exercise to really learn RRT.
WOW!!
Thank you all so much.. this is eactly what I was hoping for.. I think I just need a push in the right direction and you've given me something I can work with.
Jim: I was able to do exactly as you said and got everything in one file.. but it looked pretty much like the first photo in Daves post .. at least it was all in one file.. thanks for that.
David: Thinking in layers was the clue I needed to give me a new perspective. Once I started looking for "layer" options new menus started to drop down...that helped.
Doubledaz Dave: Forget John Wick...you are now my new hero!!
What you did in the third photo is exactly what I was trying for. You also raise some good questions that I think I can answer. I am lucky enough to have the space for this with room to walk around the outside of the whole layout. I also have options on the orientation in the room and I can massage it to make it work...If you look at the photo from the magazine most of the trackwork is reachable from the outside of the layout with the exeption of the turntable/rounhouse area.
Grades: The best way to explain whats going on is this.. the track from the turntable and the track coming off the switch at the top of the black level form an overpass that goes over all four of the mainline tracks that pass under and down to the next level .. this is where it gets interesting.. a train going under the overpass on the outside track (the track with the spur going to the "Y") travels around under the upper level and comes back out of the overpass on the inside most (purple or cayan) track going the opposite direction!! The same thing happens with a train on either of the inner tracks .. it goes under on one and comes back out on the other going the other way... cool right??!!
The spur with the "Y" leads to the lowest level ... train goes in off one leg of the Y travels around and comes out the other leg.. it's a big reverse loop..this is also the level that leads to lower level staging under the yard/passenger station.
It looks much more complicated than it is ... I had to study it for a while but it is really just a double mainline twisted over itself. I think with some help and proper planning I could pull this off..... right now I am working on the room and dismantling the old 8x12.. new carpeting & lighting etc... then the journey begins... should be fun!
Again thank you guys for all the help..
RD, you're too kind. I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes and will help in any way I can with RRT.
SantaFeJim posted:Moonman -
I have used rr-track for 15 years so I know of what I speak. I donated my Dell to a company that trains veterans in computer repair last November so I don't have a PC. Now, if rr-track made a version for a MAC I would have assembled the layout for Rich and emailed the rr-file directly to him.
speaking and doing are two different things - one is bs and one gets results - Daz got results
it's a start over situation - copy and pasting resulted in spaghetti
Moonman posted:SantaFeJim posted:Moonman -
I have used rr-track for 15 years so I know of what I speak. I donated my Dell to a company that trains veterans in computer repair last November so I don't have a PC. Now, if rr-track made a version for a MAC I would have assembled the layout for Rich and emailed the rr-file directly to him.
speaking and doing are two different things - one is bs and one gets results - Daz got results
it's a start over situation - copy and pasting resulted in spaghetti
FYI moo man,
The advice I gave was NOT BS. It worked as I said it would. The fact that in your opinion it resulted in spaghetti is not any fault of my advice. Remember GIGO.
Carl,
I appreciate your constant readiness to help with advice but there are a few things it appears are unclear. The trackplan has already been converted to O scale from HO. While you would think it would take twice the room because of the extra wide curves on the 10x20 HO plan I was able to fit 0-72 to 0-92 curves without much change so the O scale plan fits in 14x25...
One other thing .. Jim's advice worked exactly as he said it would and got all three plans on one page which was the objective. From there my new best forum buddy Daz took it to the next level...literally ...
One more thing...I have known Jim for many years and I have to say BS has never been a trait of his... I'm just sayin..
RD, just something to consider while early in the planning stages... watch for appropriate clearances BELOW the turntable area. Turntables often have components beneath the benchwork, and you have some lower-level track running there too.
David
Not sure how this thread got derailed, but FWIW, I did cut & paste the 3 levels as a starting point, I just did it so each level was on an individual layer. I then changed the height of each level, hid the lowest level, added some straight sections and changed some straights to curves on the middle level so at least part of that level would connect without changing its orientation, after which I created the grade. It will take more changes to get the other ends of that level to connect and then get the lower level to connect where its grade down begins. Simply cutting & pasting would have resulted in a mess that would have been really hard to fix, so it took more thought than that to get something useful to work with. However, I did not start over, the cut & paste helped avoid that.
So, can we now get back to working on the design and not argue about how we got to this point? 
I'm with Dave......
Dave I added the lowest level in green but I seem to have put it below the floor????
David: I know it's hard to tell on the RRT plan but if youy look at the page from the book you can see it's open below the TT.... also if you look at the two lower levels in the corner of that picture you can see where they outlined the benchwork and its all open in the middle...
RD, the lowest level was already there on Layer 3. I just had it set to "hidden" (options/layers) so the other tracks could be seen better.
Be that as it may, for some reason you set the lead to tracks to the turnout to 34" and the lower level tracks to -20". Since my lower level is still there on Layer 3, I moved yours to Layer 4 and moved the grade tracks to Layer Grades. The problem is that by using 0", 7" and 14" heights, the slopes between the top level and the lowest level are 3.8% & 5.2% and I'm not sure there is enough clearance for the tracks on the middle level.
However, looking at the drawing again, it appears that the grades should actually begin much further up the line. They cross under the tracks leading to the turntable, so they have to be much lower before they get to that point. I think this is what Carl meant when he suggested it needs to be started over from the beginning. Now that I see what's happening, at the very least each run should be on a separate layer so they can be worked on individually. As it is, it gets very confusing. The photo doesn't help much unless you really study it because the elevation changes aren't very apparent. I'm busy the next few days, so it will be awhile before I can play with this again. I'll post my file so you can see what I mean and what I did.
Good Morning RD,
I had a little time this morning before the workers arrive, so I tried a new approach to your layout design. Instead of separating the levels, I separated the individual "runs" and changed track colors to show levels and grades, along the lines of what Carl suggested. The layers I used are:
- Track 1 for the main run.
- Turntable for the TT and track run leading to the yard.
- Labels to identify grade percentages, etc.
- Bench Work for the white tabletop so you can see the different colored track better.
Here are the main and turntable runs. The Black tracks on the Track 1 layer and the Lt Blue tracks on the Turntable layer are set to 14" high. The darker Blue tracks are lower at 7" and the purple tracks are the grades from 14" down to 7".
RRT's 3D view doesn't make it easy to see the grades, so I added a couple of different views. As you can see, the grade for the track nearest the turntable starts on the right side midway through the loop and the slope for it is 3.4%. You can reduce the slope by starting the grade a few tracks further around the loop. The grade for the other track starts in the lower right corner because it's not advisable to place a turnout on a slope. Either way, both sets of track now clear the run going from the TT to the storage yard tracks.
One potential problem I see is circled in Blue. I'm not sure these tracks clear each other and there is still work to be done to get everything to connect. So, it doesn't make much sense to spend time adding the lower level and yard back in until this level is finished. However, in looking at your latest effort, the tracks going down to the lower level have to clear the tracks on the left side and I'm not sure the slope is going to be acceptable, especially given where you placed the 2nd turnout. The last photo shows what I'm talking about., Those Purple tracks need to go under the Blue tracks and there's no way there's enough room for an acceptable slope. The Blue tracks are at 7", so the Purple tracks need to be at 0" before they cross. This is a problem whenever you try to convert an HO design to O scale. While the overall space needed may not double as Carl suggested, acceptable grades in O scale require a lot more room and I'm not sure we can overcome that.
Workers are here, so I need to go. Good luck!
Let me re-post the photo and see if I can clear a few things...
first ignore all the track crossed out in red at the top of the photo .. those are filler sidings from the HO plan and are not needed. Now for the concerns with the grades and levels.. the 4 track main and it's spur leading to the Y come out from under the blue crossover at the same level.. from there you have all the way around the bottom of the layout and back up the left side to rise up and crossover.
Now look at the overview on the upper right to see how the the main and spur wrap aroun and under the mainand back up again.. as I see it there is a good 25-35 feet for the track to rise up over itself..
any clearer??
Not really. I get that the 4 mains and the 2 lines leading to the Y come out at the same level in the photo (Jan 2011 issue of MR). However, they are "rising" up in the direction of the arrows you added because they need to allow clearance for the tracks you outlined in blue coming from the turntable to crossover. From what I can see, there is a wall of some sort to the right of the turntable along the 4 mains and they don't reach full height until they get past the end of the wall. At that point, they and the other visible tracks are on the same level. The 4 mains go beneath the layout to form the 2nd level. The 2 lines from the Y and the storage tracks attached to them go further beneath the layout to form level 3. This is shown in the inset where the 4 mains are obviously on top of the 2 lines from the Y.
I picked a 7" separation between levels to allow access to rolling stock, etc., in case of a derailment or other problems. That might be more than you feel you need, but I had to use something. In any case, the 4 mains have to drop at least 5" BEFORE the crossover, depending on what you plan for sub-roadbed and roadbed. Either way, the descent HAS to begin somewhere in the loop at the bottom of the layout and where the descent begins in O scale may be far different from where it began in HO scale.
While the 4 mains and the 2 lines to the Y appear to be at the same level coming up in the drawing, doing so places several turnouts on the grade. That is usually frowned on, but in this case you wouldn't be uncoupling cars on those tracks, so it probably wouldn't matter. However, the 2 lines to the Y still have to drop twice as far as the 4 mains and they have to do so BEFORE level 3 crosses under level 2 coming out of the curves at the top of the inset. Level 2 drops at least 5" and level 3 drops at least 10". I simply don't think there's enough length for the 10" drop. Call me crazy, but dropping 10" in the same distance as dropping 5" should result in a grade that is twice as steep, and too steep to boot.
Oh, and I forgot to mention I substituted the turntable in my version because for some reason I couldn't connect any tracks to the one you used.
Since I don't like RRT's 3D display, I might put this in SCARM to see if it's 3D display will better illustrate what I'm trying to say.
How about this??
If I start the downgrade at line A there is at least 30 feet to line B to change 6 inches... I don't know what % that is but it would seem like enough room. Also the track coming off the turntable is conected only to the staging yard and I can make that whole RH/TT area any elevation it needs to be to make it work. I can lower the mains 3 inches and raise the turntable 3 inches if needed..
In the inset the line off the Y is nothing more than a reverse loop and from what I can see needs to drop at least another 5 inches between C & D which is about another 10 -12 feet .. might be a bit steep but it should work.
From what I can tell the turnouts that concern you are on the main before the underpass between the 2 red lines .. these are there to cross from track to track and can be moved to anywhere... actually the complicated slip switches are really not needed...and most of the turnouts except for the one leading to the Y can be relocated ... open grid bencwork should make the elevation changes pretty straight forward...
RD posted:Carl,
I appreciate your constant readiness to help with advice but there are a few things it appears are unclear. The trackplan has already been converted to O scale from HO. While you would think it would take twice the room because of the extra wide curves on the 10x20 HO plan I was able to fit 0-72 to 0-92 curves without much change so the O scale plan fits in 14x25...
One other thing .. Jim's advice worked exactly as he said it would and got all three plans on one page which was the objective. From there my new best forum buddy Daz
One more thing...I have known Jim for many years and I have to say BS has never been a trait of his... I'm just sayin..
RD,
The plan is not converted. First issue is the table size. I have Linn H. Wescott's book, 101 Track Plans. It clearly shows that a track plan designed to fit HO in a 10 x 20 space requires a 20 x 40 space in O. Therefore, in 14 x25, it's akin to putting 10lbs in a 5lb. bag. There will be fitment issues and perhaps grade problems.
If I took the time to open the pieces that you made in RRT and post attached photos of them, do you and Jim really think that I didn't copy and paste them to one instance of RRT and immediately see that it was spaghetti and nothing fit? It wasn't even worthy of posting. Yes, it is BS when Jim talks the talk and has stories why he is not assisting. Nothing personal, just not realistic on what existed and the time required to make something out of it.
The long yard will take at least 24"-30"w and the aisle a minimum of 30"w at it's narrowest point, so there's 5'w before you get on the main table. The plan states a minimum curve of 30" r in HO. Therefore the minimum curve in O is a 60"r or an 0120. Then, depending on your center spacing, use NMRA 4.5", it would be O129d, O138d and O147d curves for the main table.
Needing 5'w for the yard and aisle ,12.5'w minimum for the main table (17.5'w total), you can see why the table (plan) needs 20' for the width. Subtract the yard and aisle from 14'w that you want to use and it only leaves 9' to work with for the main table.
My point is that attempting to rescale and resize a track plan to an between relationship throws it all out of whack.
Good luck with your efforts. This is an impressive track plan.
Carl,
the yard table will be 2' x25' the largest curve in my plan is 0-92 which means about a 9' table that and approximately 30" for the aisle adds up to about 14'. I don't know from "nmra" but I do know I can and I have already massaged the plan to fit the space..
Again while I appreciate your effort to help I don't appreciate you insulting my friend Jim and taking the thread in the wrong direction for a second time. If you have an issue with Jim please take it off line.
thanks
RD,
I did some more work to try to get my point across. I added the lower level to show what kinds of grades you will be looking at if you pursue this design in the space you have. I know it's difficult to see, so I deleted the grid lines to make it a little easier.
The Black track (Level 1) is set to the standard height of 40" that many modelers use.
The Blue track (Level 2) is set to 6" lower at 34".
The Green track (Level 3) is another 6" lower at 28".
The Purple tracks show the grades between the various levels.
RRT will not let me place a turnout on a grade, so I had to start the grade before the turnouts. I did try to line them up as closely as I could beneath the crossover for the turntable lead track (see line). You can see that the grades came out to 2.9% and 3.0% for the main level, but they end at different places in the curves on the right. RRT doesn't allow grades to begin/end in the middle of tracks and I don't know how to create a parallel grade, so I tried to get as close as I could to acceptable grades. When you build the layout, you are certainly free to begin/end the grades wherever you want and keep them both equal (see both lines).
Now, when it comes to the lowest level that comes off the Y, the Purple tracks show the 5.5% and 6.3% grades you will get going down from 40" to 28" when the grade ends at the point where I think levels 2 and 3 will begin to cross over each other. Since I have no idea how long your passenger trains will be, those grades might be okay, but my guess is they will be too steep for all but very short trains, if even those. And to Carl's point, this doesn't consider that once all the tracks are added, they may not connect, unless you consider using GarGraves flextrack in some places and maybe not even then. Still not sure why you've chosen Ross track instead of GarGraves track with Ross switches.
At any rate, the circled tracks show the footprints for an O72 Y and an O72 LH turnout. Hopefully you can see that the Y is unlikely to work in the space you have because of the distance between the tracks coming off the Y. The LH turnout looks like it might work.
The bottom line is I see no reason you can't get the 4 main lines, turntable and yard to work, but I think the line off the Y is going to be a problem because it has to drop 12" to clear Level 2.
RD posted:but I do know I can and I have already massaged the plan to fit the space.
If you already have a plan to fit the space, let's see it. So far, all we've seen are bits and pieces that don't fit together. I'm doing my best to help, but I don't seem to be getting my points across, so I'm pretty frustrated myself at this point. I believe the last file you posted had some tracks at 40" and others at -20" with no grades to connect them. If you've now got it all fixed, I'm eager to see it.
""The bottom line is I see no reason you can't get the 4 main lines, turntable and yard to work, but I think the line off the Y is going to be a problem because it has to drop 12" to clear Level 2.""
""so I'm pretty frustrated myself at this point. I believe the last file you posted had some tracks at 40" and others at -20" with no grades to connect them. If you've now got it all fixed, I'm eager to see it.""
Dave,
Please don't let this stupid trackplan (or the dummy that posted it) get on your nerves..
.. what I meant by massaging is by changing curve radius and moving things around a bit I got it to fit the page... this is a crude plan due to my lack of experiance with RRT so I consider that a win... I also have no idea how the different levels got to be the highth they are on my plan .. I am literally just moving things around trying to learn the program...
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.
Now that we have level one and two working and you know I can move that grade back around that curve as far as I need to.. I'm thinking the glitch between the way you and I are seeing this is I dont understand why level 3 has to drop so far to clear level two... you understand that the reverse loop (level 3) starts and ends on level 2 so it would start at 34" and go to 28" (to use your numbers).. it starts and ends where the mainlines go under the overpass ..or the begining of level 2 (34') if that makes it easier to understand...
I am also not locked in to the Y turnout or at this point any specific turnouts other than they have to be Ross.. I figure with his track and turnout menu and Gargraves flex I can find what I need. I will let the trackplan dictate where and what type of turnouts have to go where.. with the menu of turnouts that Ross offers I'm sure I will find what I need for any situation...
Again Dave I really appreciate all the time and effort you are throwing at this plan and the last thing in the world I want is for you to feel frustrated. I hope this clears things up a bit... little by little...
Okay RD, I see where you're coming from, so I'll try again to see if I can explain things a little better.
You stated that the 4 mains and the line with the wye were at the same height coming up from beneath Level 1 where the crossover with the turntable line is (yellow rectangle). Therefore, THAT part of the grade (black dot to blue dot) gets the track for the Level 3 down to the 34" point.
However, because there is also a return loop on Level 2 (blue), Level 3 has to go below it. In order to do that, it has to go down another 6" to the 28" point. And it has to clear Level 2 at the point where they will cross (cyan rectangle). I did error in that I initially said they crossed where the red rectangle is, but they actually cross earlier where the cyan rectangle is and that makes things even worse.
Now, I temporarily replaced the turnout with an O72 curve so RRT will let me create the needed grades. Because the grade for the line with the wye is tied to the 4 mains, it HAS to start where the turnout was and the turnout needs to be on the same level as the 4 mains. Therefore, 2 grades are needed; one from the black dot to the blue dot and another from the blue dot to the cyan rectangle. As you can see, the grade from black to blue is 3.3% and the one from blue to cyan is 5.4%. That gets all the Level 3 track (green) under the Level 2 track (blue) so everything clears. But, with this scenario, the line with the wye will end up going down quicker that the 4 mains and will not be even after the turnout. My first attempt was trying to meet your goal of keeping them even until after they disappeared and there is no way to do that from the blue dot to the cyan rectangle with an acceptable slope. And the slope for the other line coming from the wye will be even steeper.
At any rate, I'm not saying this latest version won't work, but you're going to end up with grades above 5% and 6% unless the length of the grade can be increased. I don't believe those grades are viable for passenger trains, but I could be wrong. Most try to keep grades below 3% and some shoot for 2%. You can try to move the turnout further to the right and begin the grade further around the curves on the right, but there are still 2 more mains that need to be added/considered. When you add those, the cyan rectangle moves up and decreases the length for the grade. That's why I believe it's important to get the 4 mains set and BEFORE adding the lines with the wye (or turnout, whichever you decide to use).
I could be wrong here too, but it seems to me like you're having some difficulty understanding grades and where they have to begin/end. I wish RRT could display those better, but it can't, so I might still try SCARM. If nothing else, SCARM would display the colors of the tracks better. I've got other things to do though, so I'll let you mull this over for a bit. Look this over paying particular attention when I reference color points.
Guys, while it's true RRT doesn't allow turnouts on graded track, you can always substitute a straight or curve section to create the preliminary grade as DAZ has done. Then later replace the curve or straight section on the grade with a turnout set at the appropriate height. Then tweak the grades as required using the turnout as an endpoint of the grades. All RRT cares about is the two ends of a grade are fixed height track... with the pieces of track selected between those endpoints becoming the grade. It'll do all the calculations for you.
Once you get the hang of RRT, it's a very powerful tool.
David
Dave,
I do understand what you're saying but my point is this is a very flexable plan .. I can start the reverse loop at the blue dot and run it around the outside of the level 2 tracks slowly decending on a reasonable grade and cross under level2 wherever I need to. Also I can move the black dot as far back around that curve as I'd like and up the back straight if need be to make that grade as gradual as I'd like..
also please remember that it is really only two main lines folded over... the two outside lines are the same track as are the two inside lines ... if that makes a difference...
Obviously, I'm fully aware that levels 1 & 2 are basically just 2 ovals folded over to form the 4 mains at the tunnel. I'm also aware that the line coming off the wye is also just another oval folded over. What I wasn't aware of (and still might not be) is how much you're willing to alter the design in order to make room for the 2 levels below the main level, how acceptable it is for the line off the wye to be lower than the mains going into the tunnel and how much space you have for the changes. While you might think it's easy to change the curve on the left so the spur lines clear Level 2, it's not apparent to me how much room you have to do that. Still, I took the time to see what it would take and here's the result. Mind you, there is still a lot of work for you to do the make sure the spacing between tracks is wide enough for trains to pass and you still have to add the other mains plus the yards, etc., but this should give you a good start. Make a note that the black turn outs are simply a straight and a curve set to look like turnouts to get the grades done., The real turnouts that would go there are off to the side.
Rocky Mountaineer posted:Guys, while it's true RRT doesn't allow turnouts on graded track, you can always substitute a straight or curve section to create the preliminary grade as DAZ has done. Then later replace the curve or straight section on the grade with a turnout set at the appropriate height. Then tweak the grades as required using the turnout as an endpoint of the grades. All RRT cares about is the two ends of a grade are fixed height track... with the pieces of track selected between those endpoints becoming the grade. It'll do all the calculations for you.
Once you get the hang of RRT, it's a very powerful tool.
David
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.
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:
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!
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!!!
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%.
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
RTR12, I sent you an email, hope you like what I sent. You probably won't use it, but it might give you some ideas.
Thanks Dave, I saw it, but just getting ready to go upstairs...almost bedtime. I will take a better look tomorrow and get back to you via email. And a Big Thanks for doing that, I really appreciate it.
RD posted:...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??
RD,
There's no doubt the plan I drew up can be reworked with Ross/GG track. In fact, there are a few places on the plan where I've already used Ross turnouts on curves, since Ross makes O-80 and O-96 turnouts that were easy to insert into the respective O-81 and O-99 curves.
This week is very hectic for me, so I don't think I'll have the time to do any kind of conversion justice. But it should be relatively straightforward. The biggest challenge is gonna be related to the different geometry between the Ross #4 double-slips and the Atlas-O #5 double-slips. If you go Ross, then the turnouts connected to the Ross double-slips will also need to be #4 turnouts. A quick look at things in RR-Track gave me the impression that you'd need 2.25" fitter pieces of track connecting the Ross turnouts with the double-slips in order to maintain 4.5" track spacing. That's all very doable. However, the Ross #4's are noticeably smaller/sharper than the Atlas-O #5 turnouts, which are actually much closer to Ross #6 turnouts in length (according to RR-Track). And trains hitting those #4's coming off the concentric curves could enter somewhat of an undesirable S-curve due to the sharper angle of the #4 turnouts. If Ross made a #6 double-slip to match their #6 turnouts, this wouldn't be as much of an issue. But I guess their thinking was the double-slip usage is limited more for yard track routing rather than out on the mainline.
I placed the double-slip turnouts pretty much wherever I saw them in the original HO plan. I understand your "reluctance" to use them though... hence my cautionary note earlier in this thread. They do provide a dramatic WOW-factor when viewed up close from trackside. However, you REALLY need to ensure your locomotives will track smoothly through the various different routes of trackwork without stalling or shorting. I do recall Atlas-O used the double-slips on their big York demo layout about 10 years ago, and I never saw any problems when I watched trains go through them. But honestly, they weren't using EVERY route available with the double-slips during their demo's.
If you ultimately decide you don't NEED the routing flexibility the double-slips provide, then you could probably get away with using Ross #6 turnouts (where I've used Atlas-O #5's) to provide more basic cross-over functionality between parallel tracks. And those #6's should provide trouble-free performance for all of the equipment you plan to run. Just watch out for center rail power gap issues if you run small locomotives. But that issue can be solved with relays. You just need to decide how much you're gonna lose (operationally speaking) by not allowing trains to easily go directly from track #1 to track #3, or directly from track #2 to track #4 in that area just above the TT in the plan.
Hope that helps.
David
Sorry, RD, but I'm not giving up just yet and you can delete my posts if you want to. Or ask me to and I'll be happy to oblige.
Now we're back to Ross/GG after you beat me up about it at least twice. That's okay though, I can deal, so on to the main reason for this post.
David said: "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 ."
And you responded with "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."
So, lets say Level 2, the green track, is set to elevation 0". That means Level 2, the purple track, only has to decline 6" (or 7") to the point where they cross each other. If you run both purple tracks around the outside, that point can be quite far and the decline quite acceptable.
Now, that's great for Level 3, but what about Level 1? The green tracks are directly below the turnouts outlined in blue. That means if the green tracks are at 0", the blue tracks have to rise to 6" at that point or trains won't clear. If you start the incline somewhere on the green tracks, that means the blue tracks then have to rise 6" before they get to the tracks outlined in red. I don't care what level is elevation 0", there has to be 6" of separation at both the blue and red points. You simply cannot get there if all the green track is at elevation 0". There is not enough space for the tracks to rise 6" between the blue and red points. Things work in the original photo because it has a full 40' of O scale space to work with and the lower loops are drawn tighter.
Now, if you consider the green tracks in the red outline to be elevation 0" and the blue tracks above them to be elevation 6", then the rest of the green tracks can go down a portion of the total grade and the blue tracks can go up the rest. Unfortunately, then the purple tracks have to go down further because there still has to be 6" of separation where the green tracks cross over them.
If you and David don't understand this now, then I'm the one who surrenders, I don't know how to explain it any better.
"" And MikeCT has shown that GG flextrack can be bent to these curve sizes fairly easily using his techniques.""
"" but then I wouldn't hesitate to use Ross/GG after seeing MikeCT's examples, if that's the look I preferred. ""
Dave, I noticed you refered to Mike CT's examples a couple of times in your posts. I have seen Mikes wiring work and he is in my opinion a true craftsman if not an artist. If his examples of bending flextrack lead to the same type results then I ask you please put up a link to these examples.
Again I appreciate all the help from you and Carl and David ... I know my lack of experiance and basic knowledge of scale track systems caused some frustration and that I regret. I have made a firm decision to use Ross/Gargraves flextrak.. further research has led me to believe that choice will give the most flexability.
I plan to have the room finished by the middle of May .. after that comes benchwork .. track and wiring...etc..and away we go!!!
""Sorry, RD, but I'm not giving up just yet and you can delete my posts if you want to. Or ask me to and I'll be happy to oblige""
Dave, One more time.. I appreciate your help and advice. You obviously know more about the rrt program and the various scale track systems than I do and that knowledge has been very helpful if sometimes confusing. That's on me...
Good post guys. Great designs.
DoubleDAZ posted:...If you and David don't understand this now, then I'm the one who surrenders, I don't know how to explain it any better.
...
DAZ, with all due respects, then I think it's time for you to surrender on that point. You're completely missing the point that I tried to make earlier -- namely once you start adjusting track heights with open grid framework vs. the plywood platform mentality, then you actually have very few places where ANY track is completely level.
In the last plan I posted, V1B (which didn't have the grades finalized), I'll say that generally speaking the TT area and the bridge over to the passenger station yard area will likely be completely "level". Aside from that, a large portion of this layout will have grades that rise and fall in order to provide the appropriate clearances. And the grades are nowhere near the severity that you've represented. In addition, there's absolutely nothing wrong about turnouts being on a modest grade. We've seen that many times on popular model railroads that have been featured in magazines as well as right here on the forum.
We (once again) seem to be exerting more unproductive energy on these issues you're hung up on, than actually moving the ball forward. We've maintained ALL ALONG that there would be compromises necessary to shrink the layout from the full 20x40 O-scale rendition. No surprises there. Yet despite all of that, I've given RD a version of this compressed layout that is quite "build-able" given his space requirements. If RD decides he wants to go Ross/Gargraves instead of Atlas-O, even that's not a show-stopper. It's just that he may then decide it's in his best interested to stick with basic turnout crossovers rather than the more intricate Atlas-O design with double-slip switches. It's not as if people haven't used the Ross/Gargraves combo on spectacular layouts before. It's been done all the time. And this one will be no different.
David
Yes,
Here's a thread with a couple of techniques, including Mike's.
https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/t...78#70693071009750278
I know you appreciate the help, but you're already talking bench work and I don't know about David, but I think the question of grades will certainly have an impact on that. I like your enthusiasm, I wish I had more, but once you start cutting wood and driving screws, things get more difficult to change.
And it doesn't have anything to do with software expertise, David probably has me beat there with RRT, but the geometry between the 3 levels in this compressed version just isn't adding up for me. I see you and David talking in terms of 3 "levels" whereas I see 3 "places" that need 6" of separation and they're all dependent on a 4th place, the tunnels. Regardless of the implication that I think in terms of tables, the tunnels are my elevation 0" and the other levels go up/down from there. I tend to use all positive values though because I measure from the floor up and I'm sensitive to the viewing level. When I do a design, I do a full design, including bench work, so elevation 0" might actually be elevation 43". That might not make sense to you or David, but that's what I see when I look at a finished layout, so that's what I try to reproduce in software.
Well, David, then I leave it to you to finish......whenever you find the time. I'll be back later to delete all my posts, so they don't gum up the thread. I'll leave the one with the link to the techniques for bending GarGraves, RD is going to need it if he pursues this using Ross/GG. I sincerely hope you prove me wrong and if you do, I'll grab a copy of the file for future reference. Either way, I wish RD the best of luck.
DoubleDAZ posted:Well, David, then I leave it to you to finish......whenever you find the time. ... I sincerely hope you prove me wrong and if you do, I'll grab a copy of the file for future reference. Either way, I wish RD the best of luck.
DAZ, it was really NEVER about proving you wrong, per se. Rather it was showing RD there was indeed a way to bring his compressed track plan closer to reality in O-Gauge -- albeit with a few compromises. As we know, we seldom can have our cake and eat it to. But since you were insisting to raise doubt that the plan could accommodate clearances, I took a half-hour this afternoon to fine-tune the grades. I did this VERY quickly, but it sure seems like everything worked out as I envisioned in the original concept.
So here ya go... V1C which has the grades finalized, with grades maxing out around 3.1% (give or take), and in some areas grades are well below 2%. That was using 6" clearances. If RD felt better using 7" clearances, he could probably maintain similar grades by bumping the plan out a foot or so in both dimensions. But we've already done that once for added functionality, and I don't think it's worth doing it again solely for this reason.
Now this plan still uses Atlas-O track, as I just don't have the time this week to do a full-blown conversion to Ross/Gargraves. And RD still needs to decide if he wants to go with basic Ross #6 cross-overs vs. the combination Ross #4 turnouts and Ross #4double-slips. (Honestly, my recommendation at this point would be to use the Ross #6's on the mainline tracks above the TT area, if he wants Ross/Gargraves... and stick with double-slips in the passenger yard area.)
The V1C diagram doesn't look that much different from V1B, but the RRT file will have the updated information with grades and track heights:
RD, at this point, the plan is yours to have fun with. Enjoy the ride!!!
All the best,
David
"" I'll be back later to delete all my posts, so they don't gum up the thread. ""
Dave I really wish you wouldn't... they are full of valuable information.
Well, David, you proved me wrong, so I stand corrected and I'll eat a box of Crows Black Licorice Drops as a penance.
FWIW, I did find 2 grades that weren't set (both on the right side, one on an inside green track and the other on the outside blue track) and there's only 5.5" clearance at the tunnel, but those are minor. I'd correct them, but I'm not going to post yet another version and further confuse things.
Not that it matters, but I also figured out where my thinking went wrong. It wasn't so much about flat vs open grid, it was more about looking at the return loops as reversing loops and thinking they needed to be level. But it was mostly about your insistence that Level 2 be at elevation zero and the other levels would go up and down from there (see my earlier quote of your statement). Obviously, either you misstated or I misunderstood what that meant. And I had a note here to try 0" at the tunnel, 2" at the turnouts and -4" beneath, but frustration overcame my desire to do so.
I still don't like RRT's 3D view with terrain following, but it does show the elevation of the mains and they look fairly nice and even. I have to take another stab at our taxes tomorrow to validate the first run and I'm traveling for the next 2 weeks starting Tuesday, so I don't have the time to play with conversion to Ross/GG either.
RD posted:"" I'll be back later to delete all my posts, so they don't gum up the thread. ""
Dave I really wish you wouldn't... they are full of valuable information.
I've been told they're confusing, but it's your thread, so I'll leave them.
This is taking shape, but I am still having difficulty envisioning what will be available for the viewer. David's rendition manages to get the purple line to the outside for most of it. The green line appears that it would be lost. I guess that one will have to be hidden with access points only.
Of course, the blue line is all visible with some terrain features(cliffs) due to the two grades going to the aisle. Then, perhaps cliffs down to the purple. Purple would need some tweaking to keep out on the edge.
So, where to leave it open, close it in and such? RD, were they any other views in the plan book to help one get a side view?
It looks like the under tables have center openings, but that would be a given to access the top level wiring.
How should it be sceniced to present the most action for the viewer? This is an island walk-around layout with 360° of viewing angles.
We restored a 3 level layout with a hidden connecting helix between the three layers. When we finally grasped how it would look with the scenery repaired, our first thought was that the trains were hidden too much. This was easy layers, as the track radius decreased as it elevated. it's 11' x 17'.
Just trying to stir some thought on the final presentation as the track is coming under control.
Ok, just to help, I roughly followed the shapes of David's levels and set the decks at the same heights to perhaps provide a perspective. I stretched the purple level out to expose as much of the end curves and the long side run.
I can't do angled graphics in SCARM yet, so the levels are constant. The track would grade of course.
It may help visualize the sub-roadbed shapes.
Well, here's one last revision for the night, V1D. Four changes worth noting:
So here it is, V1D:
For clarity, here's a diagram of just the two lower levels, much of which are hidden.
At this point, RD, I don't think there's really all that much left to do with this plan aside from outlining the aisleways/fascia. Then of course there's the conversion itself to Ross/Gargraves, which I still think will be relatively straightforward once you decide between Ross #6 turnouts on the mainlines vs. the #4's with double-slips. Or perhaps you'll decide to work directly from these files with Atlas-O track! Either way, this should turn out to be one spectacular layout. Best of luck!!!
David
RD,
David's changes to the purple were perfect. Here are some more enhanced shots of what the layout may look like in the room. I like leaving the yard table legs open, closing the end and using round legs. Then, it's attractive and one can see the trains in yards and look through it. 3/4" with stained edges would look fine.
I closed in the green line. It could be possible to leave the aisle edges open for a view of the green line under everything.
Looking at the original plan document, I am have having trouble visually with the industrial area spurs and the commissary/express freight yard on the large on blue level or top level. They look like appendages that don't belong on a freestanding table.
It appears that it was designed to be against walls.(the plan document notes building flats) If you build yours freestanding, they look really awkward and detract from flow of the layout from the yard side and the end.
I don't think that you would lose a lot of operational value deleting those tracks for the aesthetic improvement of the layout. I propose that they be eliminated.
Perhaps I can get some track on this and show the purple exposed running on a ledge by closing in under the blue level.
Here's some more 3D's.
No yards
To follow Carl's lead and keep it in RRT, I also added some decking to show the separation of levels. This was done before David posted his V1D version, but I copied the decking over, I just didn't change it for the new hidden yard, etc.
Obviously, David and I have different workflows when it comes to RRT, especially with regard to elevations and 3D displays. Therefore, in order to display all the tracks above RRT's baseboard, I used RRT's "Grade/Elevate Track" feature to globally raise all tracks 9". The lowest track is now 0", the highest is 15", and this didn't change the grade percentages. I should have changed the highest elevation to something closer to 50", so I could have added legs, etc., but I didn't think of it last night, I just wanted to get rid of the negative elevations. BTW, there is a stray straight track in the lower left corner of David's versions. I meant to mention this earlier, but forgot.
This is taking shape, but I am still having difficulty envisioning what will be available for the viewer.
Carl the concept is for big city scenery...the open space at the top ..opposite TT/RH area.. skyscrapers .. downtown .. Bill B's tower city .. elevated CTA... a grand plan I know but..aim high right??
David's changes to the purple were perfect. Here are some more enhanced shots of what the layout may look like in the room. I like leaving the yard table legs open, closing the end and using round legs. Then, it's attractive and one can see the trains in yards and look through it. 3/4" with stained edges would look fine.
At this point, RD, I don't think there's really all that much left to do with this plan aside from outlining the aisleways/fascia. Then of course there's the conversion itself to Ross/Gargraves, which I still think will be relatively straightforward once you decide between Ross #6 turnouts on the mainlines vs. the #4's with double-slips. Or perhaps you'll decide to work directly from these files with Atlas-O track! Either way, this should turn out to be one spectacular layout. Best of luck!!!
David...Ross #6's it is.. at this point I agree that would be best.. and Carl is right..these last changes you've posted are perfect! ... the pictures Carl posted of the decks and levels are right on..It's like you guys are in my head seeing the same vision .. freaky really how tuned in David and you have been since the start ..
I agree there is little left but some details which will depend on how I place the layout in the room.. I have options.. picture the top boundry of the plan (pass station/yard) as along the long wall in my basement ..opposite that wall is about 18' of open space then the stairs. I can put the passenger station/yard against the long wall so the side with the purple line going down + TT/RH and big city would be what you see as you come down the stairs..or flip it 180 and put the puple line against the wall and the station /yard area is what you see first.. or I can put the station/yard against the wall and bring the layout out of the upper corner of the room on an angle..45 sort of.. this would mean some changes in the way the yard/staging connects to the mainlines but can be done..
These decisions will be worked out in my head as I finish the room prep..but now thanks to you guys I have a plan and a solid vision in my head of what the layout will look like as I move it around the room...I also seem to remember that I have a full set of Ross templates laying around here somwhere that I bought a long time ago to help plan the "dream" layout. Once the room is done I can use the templates to help figure out the benchwork. I sent a copy of ver_1c to my friend Jim Williams to look over what I need to do concerning the miles of wire that will no doubt be under and around .. the journey continues.
Guys, at this point, I'm gonna let RD run with things as he wants. He now has a fairly solid proof-of-concept plan to work with going forward, and there's so much we just don't know in terms of room specifics and his personal preferences.
I think the original plan was designed to have the side of the layout with the passenger station and hidden yard beneath be anchored to a wall. If that can be done with this plan, that would be IDEAL. But again, we have no knowledge of RD's preferences, nor are we familiar with any of the nuances of the room. I think I recall RD saying the entire room is "open" (i.e., no support columns). But whether he intends to have the entire layout in the center of the room vs. anchored to a wall is gonna be his call.
Anchoring the layout to a wall will have the added benefit of incorporating a backdrop that can draw the viewers into the whole scene. And the 2-foot wide yard areas would be ideal for this... then have the larger/wider portion of the layout be where the walk-around capabilities come into play.
As for RR-Track philosophies, I actually do prefer using absolute track heights in my own designs. But this was essentially a proof-of-concept goal, hence the discussion about ZERO elevation and points above and below that. Now that RD has the plan, he can pretty much run with his own preferences of actual layout height, and RR-Track makes it very straightforward to "lift" the layout in this case to RD's preferences.
David
RD, you made your last post while I was typing my last post! So you've begun to articulate some of the things I was talking about. Sounds like your creative wheels are turning... and that's what it's all about from this point forward. Enjoy the ride, and keep us posted from time to time.
Best of luck!
David
Quite the layout. How do you propose to access the middle or far ends of the layout? Hatches and ducking under. I am 50 years old and crawling under or on-top of the layout gets old quick. A Middle of the room might alleviate some of your access issues.
Seacoast posted:Quite the layout. How do you propose to access the middle or far ends of the layout? Hatches and ducking under. I am 50 years old and crawling under or on-top of the layout gets old quick. A Middle of the room might alleviate some of your access issues.
Take a look earlier in the thread... RD's room dimensions are roughly 22x35, and the layout footprint is now 15x26. If the passenger/staging yards are anchored to a wall, the big portion of the layout will have walk-around access. So that's a big help right there. That leaves the area that's currently void of track in the plan to be a natural access area. And potentially -- depending on how many turntable tracks RD wants, there's room for another small access hatch near the TT. I just threw a 32" TT (because that was the largest in the RR-Track libraries I had) and filled in the tracks from there. TT's and Roundhouses tend to be VERY overwhelming elements of an O-Gauge layout, so even a 3-stall roundhouse would be impressive. That whole TT and locomotive service area is ripe for tweaking based on personal preferences.
David
"If the passenger/staging yards are anchored to a wall, the big portion of the layout will have walk-around access. So that's a big help right there. That leaves the area that's currently void of track in the plan to be a natural access area."
Being able to walk around the outside of the largest portion of the layout puts all but the TT/RH trackwork in reach. I've been looking at the plan the last couple days with an eye towards bencwork.I think it can be done with nothing wider than 3'.. I'm looking at 3x8 for the average for ease of handling.
"TT's and Roundhouses tend to be VERY overwhelming elements of an O-Gauge layout, so even a 3-stall roundhouse would be impressive. That whole TT and locomotive service area is ripe for tweaking based on personal preferences."
Right you are...again... I have been playing with the idea of moving the whole section to different spots around the plan... just by floping it to the other open space opposite its present spot would change a whole bunch of things the least of which is how trains enter and leave the yard/terminal area.. or.. how about the top end of the yard opposite the passenger terminal.. move it of the main layout completely ... or...
how about moving the the main layout platform so it comes out of the upper left corner of the room on a diagonal.. that woul widen the space at the bottom or right side which the maybe makes room for a runaround track at the end of the station????
my head is spinning with possibilities...
I want to congratulate Dave, David, and Carl on what they accomplished with the design of this layout. I really took a shine to it when RD posted the page.
Jan
Great job guys. I've been checking every so often. The 3d really reflects what a cool plan that is. I wasn't so sure in two dimensional views.
Boo Man posted:... The 3d really reflects what a cool plan that is. I wasn't so sure in two dimensional views.
When it comes to 3D viewing, the "creme de la creme" of model railroading CAD planning software is something I've only recently heard about. It's called 3rdPlanIt by Eldorado Sofware. Given it's capabilities, I wouldn't hesitate a NY-second to spend the $125 for it if I were planning more model train layouts. Heck, I'm so intrigued by its capabilities, I might get it anyway!!! Or at least play around with the trial version. Yes, it's the first piece of software for model railroad layout planning that's given my eyes cause to stray away from RR-Track after all these years. It's THAT impressive.
David
Jan posted:I want to congratulate Dave, David, and Carl on what they accomplished with the design of this layout. I really took a shine to it when RD posted the page.
Jan
No way this plan comes together this well or this quickly without their help. The wealth of knowledge and experience here is a very valuable resource to anyone planning a layout. I can't begin to describe how grateful I am for all the help!
I installed the demo version and need some time to go through some of the tutorials to figure out how it works. That will give me something to do during the stops on our trip next week. I checked the list of track libraries where it shows just GarGraves and Lionel, but found there are more in the program itself.
DoubleDAZ posted:I installed the demo version and need some time to go through some of the tutorials to figure out how it works. ...
I wouldn't expect this to be an "overnight" learning curve. Quite the opposite, in fact. With this program, you can work up your entire ROOM with all kinds of details, like where the doors, windows, and backdrops will be -- not to mention the program's ability to import images/photos of virtually anything you'd want to place on your layout. Even the benchwork design can be extremely detailed as well (if you so choose to use it for this level of details). It's one of the best -- if not THE best -- program I've seen for rendering 3D views for our model railroad track plans -- even those with multiple decks. The program is really amazing. But when software is this powerful, it tends to have a lengthy learning curve that improves with practice.
Not my intent to sidetrack RD's track plan discussion with this stuff. It's just that somebody mentioned how the 3D views helped him envision the layout better. And I thought I'd chime in and mention 3rdPlanIt, since it's 3D rendering is really out of this world.
David
Rocky Mountaineer posted:RD, you made your last post while I was typing my last post!
Best of luck!
David
Hi guys,
Following up on Davids request to " keep us posted" I thought I'd do a quick update. It is still full speed ahead with the plan as we left it. The hope of having the room done by May turned out to be a pipe dream. I've been steadily working towards that end but it looks like Santa Fe Jims prediction of end of August/September is a more realistic goal for finishing the room and starting benchwork.... I really want the room to be right before I start messing it up. To that end it is almost empty of all the trains and misc crapola that accumulates over 15 years. Once that happens it's a thorough cleaning...man the dust...new carpeting..track lighting .. tune up the bathroom... exhaust fan etc.. it's going to be comfortable.
I am also really considering a loop around the ceiling ..like Pat Mariano has ..dedicated to the Acela which I will have to do before I start benchwork.... and all this time is being put to good use saving for track.. lumber.. etc. Power and operating systems are covered.. I have aLegacy system and nabbed a like new ZW-L from a fellow forum member at a GREAT price ..also I have a ZW-C along with at least ten 180w bricks and a couple of 135w.... this plus a couple of postwar ZWs, a KW and a TW should handle it.
I have also been toying with the placement of the layout in the room. Because of the open spaces and the way the Station tracks are separated give plenty of options to stack staging tracks and think levels.
So I figure if I finish the room by mid September start benchwork before the holidays I should be well on my way to laying track by the new year. If I get the family to pitch in things could even go quicker....maybe.... that's it for now...
RD,
Good to hear from you.
yes, the preparation and planning do take time. Continue to think through the room prep.
usually one needs to provide some inspiration to get help...
Forum member Seacoast has an interesting ceiling layout and there's the large clear acrylic ceiling layout. I'll add the link when I find it.
Time for the latest news.. I'll be going to my first York next week and bringing my track plan with an eye towards layout building supplies... such as backdrops..benchwork..track..switches & roadbed... turntables/ roundhouses... electronics.. etc.. etc.. etc.. looking for any and all ideas to help put this thing together...
Also looking forward to meeting the folks that have been so helpful here...
A very lovely design! Great work on this!
Question: As the layout fits within a larger space (giving access around the layout), will the yard tracks at the top of the plan actually extend to both the left and the right to use more of the available space, which would otherwise be open? That is, the long dimensions of the room are 35', but the layout only extends 26' - that is nine feet of space at the top wall that could accomodate longer spurs to the left and right. Or are there plans for bookcases or cupboards filling the top wall to the left and right? Or are there doors or other obstructions to prevent extending these spurs? It would be interesting to see the layout plan within the larger room.
Cheers! -Ken
Hi Ken,
It really is a deluxe plan .. but David and Carl and a few others did most of the work!
To answer your questions there is room to move the layout around as I mentioned in an earlier post .. also the way the yard tracks connect to the layout is very flexible and depends on how I position the layout . I also want to leave enough room for a comfortable sitting area with a couple of overstuffed chairs a table or two ..you get the idea.. Somwhere awhile back I made a scale drawing of the room including all doors..windows..poles etc. I'll have to try and find it and scan it in..or I guess I can duplicate it in RRT....
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
