Benchwork - Laying Track

Mark Boyce posted:

Aegis21 posted:

Mark Boyce posted:

I like having a purpose for my railroad, such as hauling coal or logs from point A to point B.  Some folks are quite happy with the purpose of just running trains.  Either is great!  It depends on what you want to do.

I would like to have a purpose for the railroad. Not totally sure yet what that maybe, but coal is definitely on the short list of mine. And sometimes just having a train run is nice, kind of like setting on the porch and hearing the diesel horn off in the distance and anticipating the train coming past the neighborhood.

I always have a continuous run ability to use on occasions I want to break in a new engine or just run trains.  You may have seen that discussion early on in my topic.  A true point to point only layout was suggested.  Most people don’t go for that.

Hi Mark,

I did read your entire layout planning topic. My preference at this time is the double loops. I am not sure if that will change in time when I get to see more layouts in a functioning setting. At this time I am wondering, and questioning the two main line set up. I know it adds a lot of long runs and track, however the loops get messy and cluttered and limits other aspects. I hope you and others with more experience than me (which would be almost everyone) will chime in with comments and any reasons one way or the other.

Thanks John

The double crossover does not have to be there.  Is there any reason why there can't be an open window in that wall above the crossover?  The wall doesn't exist yet, so this would be a location for viewing.

In western Pennsylvania you wou;d have slow-moving iron ore unit trains running between Lake Erie and the steel mills in Pittsburgh.Also coal/cole for the furnaces.  The Pittsburgh and Lake Erie operations would be a starting point.  You also have the NYC and PRR to study.

Jan

Aegis21 posted:

I would like to avoid an access hatch if at all possible. Could possibly move the left crossover to the left until it becomes reachable. The other crossover could be moved towards the right as far as the Bridge?

Here's an alternate design where I believe there's sufficient access to the switches. Note that I replaced the 11° switches with O72 switches located on the curves for a smooth transition. I also moved the rightmost tracks in a bit to get them away from the edge and give the lift-up bridge structure more room. When you get to planning for the bridge, take a look at this thread of Mike G's, especially the 2nd video of the bridge in operation.

I placed a yellow access hatch just for information to show where it might go. What you do is place some landscaping on it and make it removable. That way it's there if you ever need it. Many modelers place they accessories on removable platforms whether they be access hatches or not. It's a lot easier to work on animated accessories if they can be moved to a workbench for repair.

Jan posted:

The double crossover does not have to be there.  Is there any reason why there can't be an open window in that wall above the crossover?  The wall doesn't exist yet, so this would be a location for viewing.

In western Pennsylvania you wou;d have slow-moving iron ore unit trains running between Lake Erie and the steel mills in Pittsburgh.Also coal/cole for the furnaces.  The Pittsburgh and Lake Erie operations would be a starting point.  You also have the NYC and PRR to study.

Jan

Hi Jan,

There isn't a reason why there cant be a window there, other than my wife possibly not wanting one there. I will have to propose that to her and get her feedback. Good Idea!

We currently live in western Pa. where my wife is from, however I spent most summers in eastern Pa. with coal all around. There was a train that went behind my Uncles house and we would "walk the tracks" with my Aunt and pick up pieces of coal that fell off the trains. We would have a bucket and bring them back to the house for the coal bin. We did this all summer and it was amazing at the pile we had by labor day.  I haven't a clue what railroad ran through there at the time 1962 ish time frame. Being from New York City we took passenger trains from Grand central station to upstate NY to visit my other Aunt & Uncle. Great rides and fun times. Grand Central station was bigger than life for a 10 year old and seeing the rolling hills of upstate NY and the foothills of the Adirondack mountains was awesome. 

Thanks for the ideas and getting my memory active.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Aegis21 posted:

I would like to avoid an access hatch if at all possible. Could possibly move the left crossover to the left until it becomes reachable. The other crossover could be moved towards the right as far as the Bridge?

Here's an alternate design where I believe there's sufficient access to the switches. Note that I replaced the 11° switches with O72 switches located on the curves for a smooth transition. I also moved the rightmost tracks in a bit to get them away from the edge and give the lift-up bridge structure more room. When you get to planning for the bridge, take a look at this thread of Mike G's, especially the 2nd video of the bridge in operation.

I placed a yellow access hatch just for information to show where it might go. What you do is place some landscaping on it and make it removable. That way it's there if you ever need it. Many modelers place they accessories on removable platforms whether they be access hatches or not. It's a lot easier to work on animated accessories if they can be moved to a workbench for repair.

 

Great Job as always Dave! Thanks for the link to Mike's Bridge and the access hatch advice. Since I haven't tackled scenery and diorama's the hatch is scary from that point of view.(how to hide it and make it easy to remove) I am sure this is not the first hatch on the forum and probably a wealth of knowledge on here to help calm my fears.  Your pic is not visible to me "Image not found" Message where pic should be, so I opened the scarm file and snipped it for this reply.

Weird, I fixed the photo and it fixed your quote too. Not sure what happened, so I just reattached it.

I was wondering about a door to the crossover, but then I remembered you only mentioned the green and red walls at one time. I assume the wife will not want to see through to whatever will be on the other side of the wall, but curtains can take care of that. I'd be inclined to consider a picture on a section that swings into the room.

If you're up to the challenge of adding a lift up or lift out bridge, you can handle a removable access hatch, you just have to plan for it when you design the framing. There are plenty of techniques available to hide seams, but that all depends on your choice of landscaping. Oftentimes it's a sidewalk, road or parking lot.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Weird, I fixed the photo and it fixed your quote too. Not sure what happened, so I just reattached it.

I was wondering about a door to the crossover, but then I remembered you only mentioned the green and red walls at one time. I assume the wife will not want to see through to whatever will be on the other side of the wall, but curtains can take care of that. I'd be inclined to consider a picture on a section that swings into the room.

If you're up to the challenge of adding a lift up or lift out bridge, you can handle a removable access hatch, you just have to plan for it when you design the framing. There are plenty of techniques available to hide seams, but that all depends on your choice of landscaping. Oftentimes it's a sidewalk, road or parking lot.

Asked my wife and she would prefer no windows or doors on that wall. She wants to place sofa and furniture along that wall so that preference is a Hard no Building hatch is doable, just would have rather not, however after reading your post on servicing and or building on it on a bench makes it appealing. Always a different look at hings is good. Thanks

As far as the bridge is concerned, I will ask Mike for any info rather than reinvent the wheel. He did a fantastic job!

Mike G has quite a bridge as Dave pointed out! That is very impressive. (Mike's pretty good at layout building too.) 

I completely understand about the wall and didn't think access would fly.

I believe Mike got a lot of help from someone who had built a similar bridge, so there is help available.

Mike,

Sent me his plans already, and I could not thank him enough!  That is some bridge and great plans to boot! Everyone here has been so helpful it is amazing!

Thanks Everyone!

Aegis21 posted:

Mark Boyce posted:

Aegis21 posted:

Mark Boyce posted:

I like having a purpose for my railroad, such as hauling coal or logs from point A to point B.  Some folks are quite happy with the purpose of just running trains.  Either is great!  It depends on what you want to do.

I would like to have a purpose for the railroad. Not totally sure yet what that maybe, but coal is definitely on the short list of mine. And sometimes just having a train run is nice, kind of like setting on the porch and hearing the diesel horn off in the distance and anticipating the train coming past the neighborhood.

I always have a continuous run ability to use on occasions I want to break in a new engine or just run trains.  You may have seen that discussion early on in my topic.  A true point to point only layout was suggested.  Most people don’t go for that.

Hi Mark,

I did read your entire layout planning topic. My preference at this time is the double loops. I am not sure if that will change in time when I get to see more layouts in a functioning setting. At this time I am wondering, and questioning the two main line set up. I know it adds a lot of long runs and track, however the loops get messy and cluttered and limits other aspects. I hope you and others with more experience than me (which would be almost everyone) will chime in with comments and any reasons one way or the other.

Thanks John

John, 

Double loops is always a good choice.  I grew up near the B&O double track main line, and it was really exciting when I occasionally saw two trains came through in opposite directions!  The same is true on a layout!!  Since I am trying to sort of replicate the Elkins line in West Virginia, which was single track, I wanted to go with that for the scenic effect.  As to the double track with a passing siding, two crossovers, I think it will look much less messy in real life than on the drawing board.  It is the reversing loops that balloon out into the aisle space that I think make it a bit messy.  I wish I could think of another way of doing it that would flow better.  All of us hear will say the choice is yours, but as you saw on my topic, I needed some suggestions to get the creativity to flow.  I'm sure it is the same with you.  I do like this last plan the best so far though!  Dave and Jan are doing a great job.

John,

By the way, when Christmas and New Years are over, and I get into working on my layout again, I will invite you down so you can see what you read about actually taking shape.  Though I am no woodworking craftsman, I do have some experience in building a layout.  I think it would be very beneficial.  

My only comment about dual mains is that they don’t need to be parallel around the entire layout. Obviously they need to be at the bridge and crossovers, everywhere else they can meander, go over/under, etc.

And crossovers don’t need to be close to each other either.

The wrinkle I see is the subway and I’m still not sure how that’s going to run. I assume it will eventually run close to the edge on a shelf with viewing stations at various points. It’s hard to design the run though without knowing what the min curve size needs to be, etc. if you hide most of it, it’s just a waste of track and money.

Mark Boyce posted:

Aegis21 posted

Hi Mark,

I did read your entire layout planning topic. My preference at this time is the double loops. I am not sure if that will change in time when I get to see more layouts in a functioning setting. At this time I am wondering, and questioning the two main line set up. I know it adds a lot of long runs and track, however the loops get messy and cluttered and limits other aspects. I hope you and others with more experience than me (which would be almost everyone) will chime in with comments and any reasons one way or the other.

Thanks John

John, 

Double loops is always a good choice.  I grew up near the B&O double track main line, and it was really exciting when I occasionally saw two trains came through in opposite directions!  The same is true on a layout!!  Since I am trying to sort of replicate the Elkins line in West Virginia, which was single track, I wanted to go with that for the scenic effect.  As to the double track with a passing siding, two crossovers, I think it will look much less messy in real life than on the drawing board.  It is the reversing loops that balloon out into the aisle space that I think make it a bit messy.  I wish I could think of another way of doing it that would flow better.  All of us hear will say the choice is yours, but as you saw on my topic, I needed some suggestions to get the creativity to flow.  I'm sure it is the same with you.  I do like this last plan the best so far though!  Dave and Jan are doing a great job.

I also like the last plan and agree Dave and Jan are doing a fantastic job. Not only do I need some creativity flowing but general railroad knowledge and how real railroads ran and sorted cars and got goods from point "A" to point "B".  I agree on the reversing loops being congested and changing elevations like your layout has is something that may clean that up. Although it is cleaner now with this last revision. 

Mark Boyce posted:

John,

By the way, when Christmas and New Years are over, and I get into working on my layout again, I will invite you down so you can see what you read about actually taking shape.  Though I am no woodworking craftsman, I do have some experience in building a layout.  I think it would be very beneficial.  

I would love to stop by and see your progress and learn all I can. I'll also lend a hand if needed.

Thanks for the invite.

DoubleDAZ posted:

My only comment about dual mains is that they don’t need to be parallel around the entire layout. Obviously they need to be at the bridge and crossovers, everywhere else they can meander, go over/under, etc.

And crossovers don’t need to be close to each other either.

The wrinkle I see is the subway and I’m still not sure how that’s going to run. I assume it will eventually run close to the edge on a shelf with viewing stations at various points. It’s hard to design the run though without knowing what the min curve size needs to be, etc. if you hide most of it, it’s just a waste of track and money.

Thanks for the dual mains help and tips, same with crossovers. The subway will run close to the edge on a shelf with station stops along the way. At one point I hope it will elevate to main level for the last stop. I am not sure how and if that will work at all, however this is the dreaming stage. As far as a waste of track and money, well I can not argue that at all at this point. It will be the last part of the build and if funding runs out then so be it.

Thanks again for all your help!

Here's an alternative to reverse loops.

Jan

Jan, That is certainly cleaner and provides for easier reach if John doesn't mind a second lift up bridge in the middle.

Yes, it's cleaner.  I wondered about the additional bridge, but them I discovered the subway layer...

I didn't mention that all curves are O72 or larger.

Jan

Jan posted:

Here's an alternative to reverse loops.

Jan

That certainly cleans things up. Not sure about the second bridge, I'll have to ponder on this one for sure.

Thanks Jan!

Jan posted:

Yes, it's cleaner.  I wondered about the additional bridge, but them I discovered the subway layer...

I didn't mention that all curves are O72 or larger.

Jan

I like the 072 minimum curves. The subway layer is a last wishful thinking item that should be a point to point, without bridges. Not sure why you mentioned addition bridge and discovering the subway layer?

Wouldn't second bridge inhibit following trains around layout? Just putting this question out there for discussion.

Thanks

John

John,

Check out Susan Deat's Bridges.

Any moveable bridge will affect operations, You can see to operate your layout from either opening.  Since you live in western Pennyslvania you'll find that there are plenty of engineers, brakemen, and conductors to operate the trains with you. 

To men, a layout this size means operations:

• Through freight and passenger trains;
• Local passenger trains;
• Way freights and industries from them to serve;
• Yard operations; and
• Station operations.

But you'll also want continous operations to keep you company while you work on various activities of this hobby.

This hobby can be as simple as running a train in circles to realistic  railroad enterprise.  Your decisions now on what you want will determine where you go from here,  The Forum is here to help and confuse you.

Jan

Jan posted:

John,

Check out Susan Deat's Bridges.

Any moveable bridge will affect operations, You can see to operate your layout from either opening.  Since you live in western Pennyslvania you'll find that there are plenty of engineers, brakemen, and conductors to operate the trains with you. 

To men, a layout this size means operations:

• Through freight and passenger trains;
• Local passenger trains;
• Way freights and industries from them to serve;
• Yard operations; and
• Station operations.

But you'll also want continous operations to keep you company while you work on various activities of this hobby.

This hobby can be as simple as running a train in circles to realistic  railroad enterprise.  Your decisions now on what you want will determine where you go from here,  The Forum is here to help and confuse you.

Jan

I certainly agree with the Help and confuse you ability in this forum. Although I was confused way before I got on this forum, and the forum has cleared up more than it has muddied. I do really appreciate all the help from yourself and others on this forum. I would like to have "operations" as it seems as though it would keep the layout interesting for a much greater time frame.  Wondering now if I am making this too big???

John, I don’t think you are making the layout too big or complicated.  I think to have some reasonable amount of operations in O Gauge you have a nice sized space.  It’s just a matter of coming up with a workable plan.

Mark Boyce posted:

John, I don’t think you are making the layout too big or complicated.  I think to have some reasonable amount of operations in O Gauge you have a nice sized space.  It’s just a matter of coming up with a workable plan.

Thanks for the support Mark and You and your family have a Merry Christmas.

And Merry Christmas to everyone on this forum!

Merry Christmas to you and your family, John!!

Hi All!

Now that the holidays are over I  can once again get back to my layout. I have to admit I was researching Train Electronics over the holidays and unfortunately started playing around with DCC. I don't have any tracks set up or engines that are DCC to run on them, however as DCC seems to be an open system, it caught my electronic eye. Part of planning for me is to learn what is available and what works or maybe more importantly, what doesn't work with what systems. I should probably take this discussion over to another area, but just wanted all to know what has my attention. Also my track plan needs a vision which is eluding me at this time. Spending time working on a general theme and putting together that list of wants and really wants, needs to happen soon.

Hope everyone had a Merry Christmas and are enjoying the new year.

John

John, you mentioned DCC.  The newer MTH engines run on DCS or DCC.  There is a little switch on the under frame to make the selection.  I use MTH's DCS system so know very little about DCC except as you said it is open sourced and there are many manufacturers that are compatible with on another in the HO market.   I don't know if Lionel is doing this or not.  Since Williams by Bachmann aren't command controlled, you would have to install a decoder.

We had a great Christmas and New Year.  Thank you!

Hello All,

I have been working on the train room via my wife's wishes for a room to be finished off for our daughter and friends to use. That is in the basement, and the other side of the basement is for trains and storage. So I have some walls up complete with taping, mudding, sanding and painted. Still have about sixteen feet of wall to go, to fully finish my wife's side, so I will be working on that first. Good news for trains, the walls are up around the train area and now real measurements can be taken and used for making a track plan. I am still floundering around the theme and reason for the railroad. Personally being torn between penn. coal industry which I spent summers in the Wiles-Barre Scranton area and growing up in NYC and riding the trains from Grand Central station and the NY subways for years. Which way will provide more long term interest and excitement are the questions I have to answer. 

Thanks for all the help from everyone.

John

John

Just caught up with this thread. Looks like a fun layout is coming.....looking forward to seeing your progress......I'm a Bronx kid transplanted to central Virginia....I rode the 6, 5, 4 & 2 many times into Grand Central.

Peter

I have to admit I am looking forward to progress also... lol Have to finish one side of basement before I can start on the train side. That is ok, as I mentioned, My concept is still undecided and is elusive. I have been reading many books and articles on layout planning and design. The more I read the more conflicted I get between having loops and running trains to point to point railroading. I am blessed with a fairly large area to work in, but it seems to shrink with the reach limitations and my inability to vision different configurations. At one point I totally stopped thinking about it and focused on finishing the extra basement room. That was probably the best route at the time.  Now I can see only a couple of weeks and I won't have that excuse.  

Thanks for the interest.

John

John, I had exactly the same problem with my room shrinking as we moved along with the design process!  Reach was a major issue.  I’m not up to crawling under or on top of a layout!  

Hi All, Another handicap I have uncovered through this process is my inability to plan in 3D. I would like trains on bridges going over another track and or road way, however, between keeping grades to a reasonable pitch and visualizing the track layout is (at this point) close to impossible for me. I am a hands on person, so maybe if I ever get that area cleared out I can lay track on the floor and figure it out hand over hand so to speak.

Hello All, I still am wrestling with space, reach, amount of track and walking room. I have included jpeg's of two ideas for train table layout. One with a walk around the outside and an isle inside and the other against the walls with access panels and an interior isle. The black lines are hard walls and the blue lines are dimensions or table top area out line. I know people here have seen/have many layouts and a ton of experience. Yes everyone has an opinion, which is what I am looking for, opinions based on experience.

I hope the pics show up ok

Thanks

John

Well, you'll find the walk-around will be a ton more convenient when you're building and working on the layout.  Since we're talking about O-gauge, I'd grab that extra ten feet right now, I suspect you're going to want it!

I am starting to lean in that direction, since reaching will be harder and harder with age. Also using access holes isn't too appealing. I wonder how often they are used once set is up and running?

Thanks

John

I’m for around the walls layout.  No place with track out of arms reach.  I’m younger than John, but enough over 60 to want no other.

Mark Boyce posted:

I’m for around the walls layout.  No place with track out of arms reach.  I’m younger than John, but enough over 60 to want no other.

Hi Mark,

It seemed to me with a walkway along one wall as well as isle, things would not be out of reach or longer than need be.

And as far as age, it is the mileage that really matters. I think I have about worn down my knees to join your quest in knee replacements.   Being new in area I haven't a clue about the surgeons out here and their reputation. And there can be huge differences between technique and materials used.

Hope your wife is doing well!

Thanks

John

Looks like this thread has come full circle and we're back to square one. 

Your examples are skewed though and are not fair comparisons. In the 1st one, you expanded certain sections and added access hatches that are only needed if you design a layout that needs them, such as some of those that were offered earlier in the thread. In the 2nd one, you shrunk the area where you had access hatches and moved the upper section down away from the wall.

Photo 1 shows the approximate space available for decking for an around-the-room design. It has a min 36" reach all the way around.

Photo 2 shows the approximate space available for a walk-around design. It also has a min 36" reach and the upper aisle is 30" wide, the lower 36".

Photo 3 is just a sample.

The only reason previous designs included access hatches was your desire for reversing loops when you don't really need them. You have more than enough room for double mains that can cross over/under each other (Photo 4).

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

DoubleDAZ posted:

Looks like this thread has come full circle and we're back to square one. 

Your examples are skewed though and are not fair comparisons. In the 1st one, you expanded certain sections and added access hatches that are only needed if you design a layout that needs them, such as some of those that were offered earlier in the thread. In the 2nd one, you shrunk the area where you had access hatches and moved the upper section down away from the wall.

Photo 1 shows the approximate space available for decking for an around-the-room design. It has a min 36" reach all the way around.

Photo 2 shows the approximate space available for a walk-around design. It also has a min 36" reach and the upper aisle is 30" wide, the lower 36".

Photo 3 is just a sample.

The only reason previous designs included access hatches was your desire for reversing loops when you don't really need them. You have more than enough room for double mains that can cross over/under each other (Photo 4).

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

 

Hi DoubleDaz,

I have not abandoned original ideas. Just at this point, all options are still open and train table space, accessibility and usability are things that could use a second look.

Yes my examples are skewed and are only there to give a visual of what I would not do a good job of explaining. (you get my point from the last sentence lol ) I do not see your pics on this post, so I cannot comment on them at all.  Please repost those pics as they certainly will help.

Thanks for bringing my maybe foolish idea of reversing loops to light. Love to hear other opinions on reversing loops as I am certainly not steadfast on that idea. I have actually redesigned the layout with trying to incorporate track over and under ideas with the reversing loops, I had a great bowl of spaghetti when done. I did post I am having trouble with 3d design, meaning a flat surface with not tracks crossing I can visualize to a degree. Taking a design and then having different levels eludes me and may be a mountain of a road block, I could live initially with a flat layout to test my equipment and decide which control system to use and finalize the Railroad's purpose. It's purpose may only be to run trains and include various industries and move passengers from place to place. So prototypical operation may or may not evolve.

PS  I am sure over thinking everything!

Again Thanks for the help

Always Appreciated

John

John, photos should be there now. I have no idea what went wrong.

DoubleDAZ posted:

John, photos should be there now. I have no idea what went wrong.

Hi DoubleDaz,

I do see the photos and lean towards #1 around the room. I guess all that middle room seems "wasted" It is 4'x17' of added walking space. It may very well lend itself to a more comfortable overall experience. But since I have no experience I cannot pass that judgement.  Now to incorporate passing sidings and spurs to service. Thanks for adding the elevated area's as that may help wrap my mind around those kind of ideas.

Further studying will hopefully shed some more light on my weaknesses.

Again Thanks

John

It's around the perimeter for me (just opinion/personal preference) for reasons:

(1) Curves viewed from the inside appear less sharp to the mind's-eye than do curves viewed from the outside.

(2) I don't like spaghetti-bowls and sans that the maximum route-mileage is obtained by using the perimeter. 

(3) Around-the-perimeter minimizes the real estate required for isles and thus maximizes the square footage available for the railroad.

(4) I want a model railroad to go from one place to another and for me that works best with around-the-perimeter because the sight-line is limited and keeps changing as the train moves along.

Lew

John, I don't think you're overthinking. It's not easy to visualize the over/under if you haven't mastered elevations and grades. As you can see, I use colors to differentiate things. The blue track is obviously the outer main with an elevation of 0". The bottom gold track is the inner main, also with an elevation of 0". The upper gold track is the elevated track with an elevation of 7". The purple tracks are the grades going from 0" to 7". The reason I color code them is so I can double-click to select a given segment when I need to make changes. I've attached the SCARM file so you can play with it.

Elevation editing can be a little tricky until you get the hang of it.
- Zoom in to see mostly the upper gold track.
- Turn on the Height icon (red h) and Input icon (red I). You should now see that the elevation for each track is 7.
- Click on the left one and change it to 9. To do that, you have to delete the 7 and then enter 9.
- Click on the right one and change it to 9 also. You should see all of them change to 9. If you don't, try again. If you really mess up, simply open the file again (without saving changes).

Grade editing is even more tricky.
- Zoom in on the right purple segment.
- Make sure the Height and Input icons are still on. You should see that the track close to the gold track is 7 and the one far away is 0.
- Click on the one that says 7 and change it to 9. You should see it display the % of incline.
- If the incline is too steep, add another track to the far end, change its color and re-select the segment.
- This time you can change the 0 to 0 or the 9 to 9 again and that will recompute the % of incline.

Good luck.

BTW, you'll see I added a small Wye to let you turn engines.

John, If I had more room/didn’t have to contend with 4 doors and a wall of windows that needed to keep full access I would have not bothered with the turnback loops.  On the other hand the door and window access made for access on three sides and no pop up hatches.

geysergazer posted:

It's around the perimeter for me (just opinion/personal preference) for reasons:

(1) Curves viewed from the inside appear less sharp to the mind's-eye than do curves viewed from the outside.

(2) I don't like spaghetti-bowls and sans that the maximum route-mileage is obtained by using the perimeter. 

(3) Around-the-perimeter minimizes the real estate required for isles and thus maximizes the square footage available for the railroad.

(4) I want a model railroad to go from one place to another and for me that works best with around-the-perimeter because the sight-line is limited and keeps changing as the train moves along.

Lew

ALL Excellant reasons, especially #1, 2, 3 and 4

Thanks

DoubleDAZ posted:

John, I don't think you're overthinking. It's not easy to visualize the over/under if you haven't mastered elevations and grades. As you can see, I use colors to differentiate things. The blue track is obviously the outer main with an elevation of 0". The bottom gold track is the inner main, also with an elevation of 0". The upper gold track is the elevated track with an elevation of 7". The purple tracks are the grades going from 0" to 7". The reason I color code them is so I can double-click to select a given segment when I need to make changes. I've attached the SCARM file so you can play with it.

Elevation editing can be a little tricky until you get the hang of it.
- Zoom in to see mostly the upper gold track.
- Turn on the Height icon (red h) and Input icon (red I). You should now see that the elevation for each track is 7.
- Click on the left one and change it to 9. To do that, you have to delete the 7 and then enter 9.
- Click on the right one and change it to 9 also. You should see all of them change to 9. If you don't, try again. If you really mess up, simply open the file again (without saving changes).

Grade editing is even more tricky.
- Zoom in on the right purple segment.
- Make sure the Height and Input icons are still on. You should see that the track close to the gold track is 7 and the one far away is 0.
- Click on the one that says 7 and change it to 9. You should see it display the % of incline.
- If the incline is too steep, add another track to the far end, change its color and re-select the segment.
- This time you can change the 0 to 0 or the 9 to 9 again and that will recompute the % of incline.

Good luck.

BTW, you'll see I added a small Wye to let you turn engines.

Love the orgainization of colors and how you use them to your advantage in Scarm

Big thanks on the height and grading in scarm, that has been a sore spot. This should be a big help. I did spend time reading the scarm info but just lost track (no pun intended) of which was which as far as height verses grade.

I can't wait to see the wye too!

Mark Boyce posted:

John, If I had more room/didn’t have to contend with 4 doors and a wall of windows that needed to keep full access I would have not bothered with the turnback loops.  On the other hand the door and window access made for access on three sides and no pop up hatches.

I do like you setup and was taking your turn back loops as a mini goal as it seems to have some added interest in operation. Again I do not know, as I have never built a large layout. Only a 4x8 ovals when I was a tot.

Thanks for your input as always

John

DoubleDAZ posted:

BTW, you'll see I added a small Wye to let you turn engines.

You are a Scarm Wizard for sure! Love the fill for bench work and you did sneak in a WYE LOL

That he is, John!

It’s a small Wye just to show it’s possible to include one, even with O-72 curves. I also did a version with a 28” turntable, no roundhouse though.

The thing about reversing loops is a lot of times the same effect, trains going in both directions, can be achieved with dual mains. Mark’s design could be done using dual mains instead of reversing loops, but the Parson’s area would have to be expanded and then reach might become a problem for him.

DoubleDAZ posted:

It’s a small Wye just to show it’s possible to include one, even with O-72 curves. I also did a version with a 28” turntable, no roundhouse though.

The thing about reversing loops is a lot of times the same effect, trains going in both directions, can be achieved with dual mains. Mark’s design could be done using dual mains instead of reversing loops, but the Parson’s area would have to be expanded and then reach might become a problem for him.

Makes a lot of sense for sure. Curious on the turntable without roundhouse. I do worry about reach both during the build and then running trains.

Again Super Thanks

John

Aegis21 posted:

Makes a lot of sense for sure. Curious on the turntable without roundhouse. I do worry about reach both during the build and then running trains.

John, bear in mind that these are just samples to show you what an around-the-room layout might look like. Here are some photos with a 28" turntable instead of the Wye. Note that I added 2 bridges, raised them to a flat 3" and adjusted the grades on both sides. All grades are 3% or less. I even added a storage yard for rolling stock,though it's quite far from the turntable.

You can have 2 or more trains running on each track in opposite directions so they pass each other and go over/under each other. You get all the visuals you'd get from reversing loops without the added expense and limitations, the biggest being a single mainline between them.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Aegis21 posted:

Makes a lot of sense for sure. Curious on the turntable without roundhouse. I do worry about reach both during the build and then running trains.

John, bear in mind that these are just samples to show you what an around-the-room layout might look like. Here are some photos with a 28" turntable instead of the Wye. Note that I added 2 bridges, raised them to a flat 3" and adjusted the grades on both sides. All grades are 3% or less. I even added a storage yard for rolling stock,though it's quite far from the turntable.

You can have 2 or more trains running on each track in opposite directions so they pass each other and go over/under each other. You get all the visuals you'd get from reversing loops without the added expense and limitations, the biggest being a single mainline between them.

 

Great ideas abound for sure with these possibilities. Love the bridges and actually have a Pratt Truss Bridge that can make that span. I think it is for two tracks, but not sure. Like the turntable idea and yard possibilities. I see your point and others that have pretty much agreed on the around room layout. It does give better distance impact and overall visuals.

Thanks

John

Here's 2-track bridge view.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Here's 2-track bridge view.

Looks perfect! I have plans on making it swing up if the ceiling height allows. It has been so long ago now, but I got them from mike_g  on this forum.  BIG SHOUT out to Mike!

I can't wait till my knee feels good enough to finish the other side of the basement and finally clear the train area out!

Thanks

John

DoubleDAZ posted:

Here's 2-track bridge view.

btw where did you get that bridge from to place in scarm???? Looks Great!

http://www.scarmhirailers.com/

The 2-track model isn’t in there though, I just put that together using the single track model for a start. You can copy it to a new file and save it as just another object. They don’t show up as part of a library. You have to open the individual file, copy the object, then open your file and paste it in.

DoubleDAZ posted:

http://www.scarmhirailers.com/

The 2-track model isn’t in there though, I just put that together using the single track model for a start. You can copy it to a new file and save it as just another object. They don’t show up as part of a library. You have to open the individual file, copy the object, then open your file and paste it in.

Dave,

You lost me at save it as just another object LOL

You did a great job!

John,

Select the 2-track bridge in my design and copy it. Now open a New Layout and paste the copy into it. I suggest moving it closer to the upper left 0,0 location on the page. Then save the file with an appropriate file name.

If you want any of the other objects from the link I posted, you have to right-click on the Quick Download button and use the Save File As option otherwise all you’ll see is a text file that won’t mean much to you. For each one you’ll get a separate SCARM file. If you open the files, you need to use the 3D view to see what’s there otherwise it won’t look like much.

DoubleDAZ posted:

John,

Select the 2-track bridge in my design and copy it. Now open a New Layout and paste the copy into it. I suggest moving it closer to the upper left 0,0 location on the page. Then save the file with an appropriate file name.

If you want any of the other objects from the link I posted, you have to right-click on the Quick Download button and use the Save File As option otherwise all you’ll see is a text file that won’t mean much to you. For each one you’ll get a separate SCARM file. If you open the files, you need to use the 3D view to see what’s there otherwise it won’t look like much.

Finally Sucess! Again THANKS Dave!

Results...............

Good deal, John!!  That is something I never tried when Dave was helping me in SCARM!!

It pays to be VERY ignorant in a subject as you tend to follows directions closely and have them explained as simple as possible. Again thanks to Dave's patience and simplifying the directions!

I hope my helplessness helped others. LOL

I am still trying to get the optimum deck, in the space I have to work with (which I am grateful is as big as it is) so I would like to throw this idea out for discussion. (some will want to just throw it out I am convinced an around the room design will give the most entertainment and interest in using the layout. My desire to have more than three feet in width is the driving force to find a way to accomplish that self imposed requirement.  This proposal will move the south wall deck off the wall by 30 inches for an aisle and expand the deck to five feet wide.

One bad piece of news is the "10 foot expansion on that wall is only a 6 foot expansion" Have a heat pump unit that needs service access in that area. The north wall could go the extra 10 feet.

John,

That is in effect what we had to do in my room.  I don't understand where the heat pump unit is.

Mark Boyce posted:

John,

That is in effect what we had to do in my room.  I don't understand where the heat pump unit is.

Hi Mark,

Heating unit is on the south wall and if decking went the ten feet, that would give only 8 inches to the front of the heating unit. so a four foot service clearance in front of unit is needed. That makes the total length only 30 feet instead of 34 feet. I originally was only going 24 feet with a future expansion of an additional 10 feet. So this is not the "end of the world" type issue.  

John, I was wondering if that was why the benchwork was shorter there, but didn’t know where the wall was until after I posted the question and then looked back a page or two.  Four feet clearance sounds good!  Maybe I can take a look at your room in person soon

That would be great Mark, Although it is full of boxes that are still unpacked and I do not know where they will go. Hopefully under the bench work!

  We have been here 8 years, and there is stuff I have been told will move blocking me building any more benchwork.  It doesn't really matter.  I don't have time or money to do that right now anyway.  

John, if I understood the change, the bottom is still 34', but the upper section is only 30' to allow access to the heating unit. If that's correct, then here's a new rendition. I had to alter the entrance a bit to make the bridge perpendicular and I tried to fit a yard and turntable just to give you some ideas.

DoubleDAZ posted:

John, if I understood the change, the bottom is still 34', but the upper section is only 30' to allow access to the heating unit. If that's correct, then here's a new rendition. I had to alter the entrance a bit to make the bridge perpendicular and I tried to fit a yard and turntable just to give you some ideas.

 

Yes you totally understand the change for the heating unit. Totally amazing what you can do in such a short period of time. Let alone the imagination or ability to see the layout possibilities. What are your thoughts on the aisle on the south side and the five foot wide section? Thanks for all the help!

That's a real nice plan as a starting point, Dave!  

John, a 3-foot wide aisle is often considered to be optimum, but 2 1/2-foot wide aisles are enough if you aren't planning on having a number of people visiting and wanting to pass each other.  The 5-foot wide table is fine since it is only a 2 1/2-foot reach from either aisle.  The only each problem may be in the corner but probably nothing to worry about. 

Thank you John & Mark.

John, I think the baseboard was fine, but I altered it a bit anyway to give you a wider lower aisle and a little more reach in the upper left. If it were mine, I'd also round out the upper left like the circle shows. When you settle on a plan, we can adjust the baseboard for best fit and reach.

Just so you know, the turntable is only the Atlas 26" that's in the SCARM library and nothing larger is going to fit there. I haven't worked on the grades yet, so this configuration may not work the way it is.

Thanks Mark for your input. I am hoping the five foot wide area gives me a better idea on building industry or towns or yards etc. Although I question losing the ability for a backdrop giving depth to the area in general. Since I haven't met anyone interested in trains out here yet, there isn't plans for gangs of people coming over to run the rails. Although ya all are welcome to stop by anytime.

And has anyone done a double deck in O gauge? What heights would be optimum and top width? Yes I am going crazy with foolish ideas. 

If you want to try a double deck, you'll need at least 12" and 18" is preferable. Take a look at this video of TrainRoomGary's layout.

You could put a backdrop on the wall across the aisle anyway, it would still work.  You could also put a backdrop down the middle of the 5-foot table dividing it into separate scenes.  

Yes I thought you didn’t know many people here yet, especially people who like trains.  Most of the train enthusiasts I know live down in Allegheny County.  I usually only see them when I go to the Greenberg shows.  

DoubleDAZ posted:

If you want to try a double deck, you'll need at least 12" and 18" is preferable. Take a look at this video of TrainRoomGary's layout.

 

That is definitely some set up for sure. WOW! I would keep it at two and I like the way he did his top deck, as an elevated line. Great IDEAS!

Thanks!

Mark Boyce posted:

You could put a backdrop on the wall across the aisle anyway, it would still work.  You could also put a backdrop down the middle of the 5-foot table dividing it into separate scenes.  

Yes I thought you didn’t know many people here yet, especially people who like trains.  Most of the train enthusiasts I know live down in Allegheny County.  I usually only see them when I go to the Greenberg shows.  

I hope a backdrop on the wall would benefit the area. Not sure I want to divide up the 5 foot space, however that is an option worth looking into for sure.

Being retired and working around the house doesn't lend itself to meeting model railroaders.  I have only been to Mercer Junction twice in the time I've been out here. Dave is a great guy. Very knowledgeable and not pushy with sales.  I will definitely be supporting his business as much as possible.

I agree, I don’t want a backdrop down the middle either, but a lot of folks make good use of it.

Dave is very knowledgeable and is not pushy for sure.  It is great you are so close.  After a while you will run into other modelers not far away.

Great Day today! I'd like to thank you for the invite and I had a wonderful time meeting new people and making new friends. Throw in trains and the day could not have gotten better!

Thanks Mark

also Thanks to Mike who hosted and all that attended.

John,

I am glad you were able to go with me!  It was good to get to know you better, since we only live an hour's drive apart!  Thank you for driving from your house to to The Nifty Fiftys Diner, Mike Wyatt's house to see his neat layout, and on to Corner Field Museum to see the Elesh's wonderful, huge layout!  It was good to see Paul, Bryan, Nick, Dennis, and all who I apologize I'm forgetting names.

Dave (DoubleDAZ),

I saw the room John is planning to build the layout in!  A smidgen wider and a few feet longer than mine!  It will be a great room for a layout once John gets the walls and electric finished!  Yes we got the creative juices flowing!  Too bad our bodies aren't as young as our aspirations!!  

Mark, sounds like you all had a good time. 

We did, Dave!   Thanks!

Well after crunching through the honey do list and getting caught up with maintenance around the house, finally got time and energy to put up the sheet rock on the train side of the basement. Still need to tape seams (UGH!) However it gives me final dimensions and a better feel for the space. Thinking about trying to bump out sections around/near ends of layout. Also I have been going over the general theme and what to plan for industries, towns, cities etc. Now, if I could think in 3d and use tracks at different heights for crossings and or loops. Mark I am admiring your layout and love the grades and elevation changes. So back to scarm and tighten up the room dimensions.

John, I’m glad you are making progress on the room.  The grades are a little tricky especially at the top getting a smooth transition to level. I can see why many folks lay track on the level only.  Please keep us posted!

Looks good and lots of info.

Hello All,

Have been busy with finishing up the train room walls and lots of stuff outside as it is summer time. I have been blessed with many great ideas for track layouts and ALL are appreciated. Once I move some of the boxes out of the train area I maybe able to draw out bench work and aisles. Before doing that, is the possibility of taking the 12 foot width dimension of the room (which can go 25' to 30' long ) and splitting it up to three four foot sections? Having a 4' by 25' track layout section, then 4' by 25' walking area and then a last 4' by 25' track layout area. These four foot sections of layout would have one side against the wall and only be accessible from center aisle. Thinking of using top creeper to make the four foot reach. Is this doable? pros/cons

btw I switched to a mac laptop so scarm is on other laptop or I would have posted the scarm layout anyone using mac os with a track program? I believe scarm is windows only which I will stay with if I have to and adjust to using two laptops.

Thanks in advance

John

here is a pic

Even a hand drawn sketch would be helpful to see what you're planning.

John, I'm glad you are getting to the point of thinking about the track plan again.  I remember from our personal messages you were making good headway on your wife's room first. 

So it looks like the last plan (which was last August) had an aisle between the wall and one side of the layout.  I have seen photographs of lots of modelers using topside creepers to access parts of layouts that are farther than arm's reach.  I have also read where modelers say they use them and like them.  I have never used one myself.  It is certainly better than the idea of climbing up and crawling around on a layout for guys our age and older.  The idea never appealed to me when I was younger, perhaps because I had to do too much crawling on the floor at work to access electronic equipment and wiring.  Looking at the drawing you just posted, I'm thinking you would need narrower table top for the alcove in the upper right so you can have an aisle wider than what looks like 2 feet.  Otherwise It sounds like a good idea.

If you don't get some feedback here from some modelers who have used topside creepers, I would suggest starting another topic with topside creeper pros and cons as the subject title.

I am certainly glad to see you ready to get back at it.

Hi John, welcome back.

I'm a little confused because I thought the width was around 13', not 12'. Has it changed? Either way, here's the earlier design squeezed down a bit with 4' top and bottom bench work. As you can see, there's no real need to extend the nook to 4' and make reaching into the corners more difficult. If you want more scenery, you can easily put that on a removable platform. I also didn't do much with the turntable area or the bridge other than to make things connect for a new starting point.

@Richie C. posted:

Even a hand drawn sketch would be helpful to see what you're planning.

You are so right, that is why I posted a jpeg after that post without a scarm drawing.

Mark thanks for the sound advice as always. I will start another topic for the creeper/4 foot reach question. Looks like you are doing great with your layout! Great job and keep up the good work.

DoubbleDaz, Sorry for the confusion with dimensions, in the future it will be exact measurements as the room width is 12' 5" overall. Your drawing and advice are always Fantastic. I like the big sweeping curves for sure! Also the room length is more dictated by the furnace location and having my work benches fit in somewhere near the area. So length can be 25' to 30' max at this point.

Again thanks everyone!

John, I think the separate topic on the creeper will get some responses.  I see you posted it.  I hope you get the information you need to make the best decision!

Thanks Mark for the separate topic on creeper idea. Lots of solid advice and experiences from members.

Here is the room dimensions that are final with the yellow area available for train layout. This is what I will be working with and need to maximize train/scenery area. I am inclined to follow your advice on doing track layout first and seeing where I will need to put decking. Sorry for the inaccurate measurements prior, as things were in a state of flux. 

John,

That's okay about needing to correct the dimensions.  I know you were working on how to divide the basement and with putting in new wall board, etc things changed.  I gave erroneous measurements to those who were looking at my layout planning topic too.  But I had no excuse.  I just measured wrong when our daughter still had some of her things in the room.     The saying 'measure twice, cut once' doesn't work for me.  I have to 'measure at least thrice, and maybe I'll get it right on the first cut'.  

John, something still seems to be off. When I enter the coordinates for the baseboard using those dimensions, I get the result shown in the 1st photo. As you can see, the width does not match the yellow area. However, if I change the 12'8" dimension along the top wall to 18'8", I get the result shown in the 2nd photo and it pretty well matches the yellow area. Perhaps you transposed some numbers and it should be 18'2"?

Dave,

Thanks for picking up on that gross error. The total dimension should have been 25' for the top and 30'  for the bottom dimension. Those are self imposed limits to accommodate a three foot furnace service area at top and work bench and other furniture at the bottom. I could get away with a couple feet either way, however this is a present goal/limitation I and more importantly my wife would like to keep.

Not sure we're that 12' 8" came from? Too many revisions without triple checking changes I would imagine

 again Thanks!

John

John, you just gained some space; well not really, but will help on design!