Benchwork - Backdrop and wiring

One of the biggest problems is getting folks to measure or get the footprint (length, width and height) of buildings, accessories, etc., that they have or plan to buy. It doesn’t take much to create an object in SCARM to those dimensions and move them around the layout to see where they might fit. Some have been created in more detail here.

Hi Dave, Just finding out what the sizes are for things you may want to purchase is either easy or almost impossible, nothing in-between. I have made some buildings and got the bascule bridge from the site you posted. I hope it is a close fit as that one is not that tight to begin with, except the control building on one side, which you picked up on quickly. The building I did were not very well detailed or close to mimicking the real structure in architecture, more of a foot print and height perspective for placing on scarm for general fit overall appearance. I am sure once benchwork is done and track laid, roads and buildings will be adjusted as the track changes and looks dictate. Off to cut a pile of gussets and put together first L-girder span. Have a great day All! Again many thanks for all the help everyone provides!

John, good deal on mass producing L-girder parts!!

I agree about the problems getting building sizes to use in planning.  Having built layouts in HO and N scale, I am finally starting to get in the groove on O scale sizes.  I have sold 4 or 5 built-ups to other Forum members at a good discount not having the heart to cut up some wonderful buildings.  I got the dimensions for the Carolina Craftsman Kits Thomas, West Virginia station from the manufacturer and knew it would fit.  Then a fellow on a Western Maryland Modeler's group who is switching from O 2-rail to HO is selling all his buildings.  He is the one who I bought the Thomas engine house from.  It is actually CCK O scale prototype after they did it in HO.  I got the dimensions and knew I could squeeze it in one of two spots.  Squeeze is the word for all those following my layout build.  This guy also had the Elkins, West Virginia station built up for sale, but it is massive!  The prototype has been refurbished in Elkins.  Both Thomas buildings were demolished long ago.

Don't remember where I got these partial lists of the exterior dimensions of various Lionel, MTH and WS structures and accessories or how accurate they are, but they may be of some help.

@Richie C. posted:

Don't remember where I got these partial lists of the exterior dimensions of various Lionel, MTH and WS structures and accessories or how accurate they are, but they may be of some help.

Thanks This valuable info for sure!

Hello All !  Been messing around with getting more space around the yard area and making the roundhouse/turntable area more accessible. The right side of the layout does not have walls so I tried to fit the TT/RH on that side which is more accessible. I am sure I messed up the functionality of the yard with trying to incorporate that 4 way yard switch. I am almost embarrassed to post this layout as I am sure there are lots of mistakes and will show how little I know about yards and railroading. Let me know if this is totally foolish and how to fix/improve or scrap. Thanks in advance.

John

The worst thing about this is you added a 13th month to 2020 and no one wants that. 😉

I haven’t looked at the file yet, but I see no reason we can’t make this configuration work.

Two comments:

1. Your lower level / interior mainline now runs through the curve portion of two switches to cross the river and avoid entering the yard.  Since it's a lot easier for long trains to go through the straight leg of switches, try moving the same mainline closer to the other mainline at the river crossing, but leave your yard lead entrance "north" of the river.  Will require another bridge, but provide a nice long yard lead and a straighter mainline.

2. You've had this problem for a while and I'm not too sure how to fix it.  Trains leaving the yard with the engine in the lead can only run counter-clockwise.  That means: a) to run a train clockwise, it must be backed out of the yard and on to the mainline, and b) to bring a counter-clockwise running train into the yard, it must be backed into the yard a long distance.  A train able to enter / depart the yard from both directions at least allows multi-direction travel, even if no reversing is possible.

Of course, #2 might be moot because your mainlines have no passing sidings away from the yards. So maybe two trains running counter-clockwise is all you plan to do.

Chuck

@DoubleDAZ posted:

The worst thing about this is you added a 13th month to 2020 and no one wants that. 😉

I haven’t looked at the file yet, but I see no reason we can’t make this configuration work.

LOL  That is the kind of mistake I would make. 

John, there is merit in putting the turntable and roundhouse at the right hand end where you have better access.

Chuck has good points,

John, I have to say you like to play fast and loose with flex track, so I cleaned those up to remove some squiggles and tight curves. I moved the TT and added the RH back. Note I smoothed out the baseboard and added the removable shelf for landscaping. IMHO, it doesn't make sense to make the changes you made unless you deal with reach along that stretch.

That said, I think you've taken a few steps backwards.
- The top yard lead and crossover don't make any sense to me. You can pull a train in and disconnect the engine, but then what? There's no way to break down the cars, if that's what the crossover is supposed to be for.
- I'm not sure you need all those tracks connecting to the TT.

However, here are some options I think you should consider:

Trains would arrive on the Yellow track where the engine disconnects to return to storage. A switcher then breaks down the arrival train and prepares a departure train on the Blue track. An engine uses the top yard track to come out of storage and go down to pick up the departing train. If you want a train to go counterclockwise, 1 engine will pull the train out and temporarily foul mainline2 until another engine picks it up. When trains return, they will either have to back into the arrival track or a switcher will have to pull them in.

In this version I changed the elevations of the yard, lead tracks and double crossover to 43" and added the crossover to the Blue tracks. An arriving train still has to back in, but can do so without straddling the bridge too much. In this case, a departing train would have to be prepared on the Yellow tracks.

I just noticed I put a stream through a building for the small bridge you added. Oh well, that's an easy fix. I'm sure I missed something else or there's a better way, so we'll see what others have to say.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

The worst thing about this is you added a 13th month to 2020 and no one wants that. 😉

I haven’t looked at the file yet, but I see no reason we can’t make this configuration work.

LOL Yeah my HUGE Mistake! Just wanted it to stand out from all the other files.

Chuck, both good points. I was going to do something about the bridge situation, but haven't had time to bring it up. I thought I mentioned it some time ago, but may have decided to drop it until I had time to offer a solution. I just notice John added another bridge, so maybe that could be moved. Even though it's just a model railroad, I don't like trains having to go through that many switches using the curved part.

And you'll see in my post a bit ago, I mentioned the direction problem. I'm not sure fouling the main to back into the yard though is a big deal. Mainlines get fouled all the time in reality. We often see trains stopped along I-10 and I-40 all the time waiting for other trains to get out of the way. Granted, it's not ideal, but I don't see a solution given John's desire for elevation changes, etc. The only solution that's been mentioned is a 2nd bridge across the entryway. There are spurs on both sides that could be joined easy enough to make the yard a through yard. Add in changing the bridge on the left to make a longer lead. I may work on doing that after I get my shower.

Nice work, Dave!  That building with the stream going through it is a grist mill with a water wheel or a wooden turbine like at our local McConnell's Mill.  What do you think John? 

John, I have one question; what is the green track for that comes off the mainline and curves around the back of the roundhouse? 

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, I have to say you like to play fast and loose with flex track, so I cleaned those up to remove some squiggles and tight curves. I moved the TT and added the RH back. Note I smoothed out the baseboard and added the removable shelf for landscaping. IMHO, it doesn't make sense to make the changes you made unless you deal with reach along that stretch.

That said, I think you've taken a few steps backwards.
- The top yard lead and crossover don't make any sense to me. You can pull a train in and disconnect the engine, but then what? There's no way to break down the cars, if that's what the crossover is supposed to be for.
- I'm not sure you need all those tracks connecting to the TT.

However, here are some options I think you should consider:

Trains would arrive on the Yellow track where the engine disconnects to return to storage. A switcher then breaks down the arrival train and prepares a departure train on the Blue track. An engine uses the top yard track to come out of storage and go down to pick up the departing train. If you want a train to go counterclockwise, 1 engine will pull the train out and temporarily foul mainline2 until another engine picks it up. When trains return, they will either have to back into the arrival track or a switcher will have to pull them in.

In this version I changed the elevations of the yard, lead tracks and double crossover to 43" and added the crossover to the Blue tracks. An arriving train still has to back in, but can do so without straddling the bridge too much. In this case, a departing train would have to be prepared on the Yellow tracks.

I just noticed I put a stream through a building for the small bridge you added. Oh well, that's an easy fix. I'm sure I missed something else or there's a better way, so we'll see what others have to say.

Thanks Dave ! Yes you are being polite about my use of flex track. I use it to see if the plan is at all possible, then to look at overall design to see if it made things better, worse or no difference.

I do not have the railroad/big layout yard experience to make intelligent changes. So all your help and those of others is totally welcome.  I love the idea of the removable shelf, not sure how to implement it with bench work and scenery. Guess that is another challenge that needs to be met, although certainly possible, otherwise you would not have put it in! 

@PRR1950 posted:

Two comments:

1. Your lower level / interior mainline now runs through the curve portion of two switches to cross the river and avoid entering the yard.  Since it's a lot easier for long trains to go through the straight leg of switches, try moving the same mainline closer to the other mainline at the river crossing, but leave your yard lead entrance "north" of the river.  Will require another bridge, but provide a nice long yard lead and a straighter mainline.

2. You've had this problem for a while and I'm not too sure how to fix it.  Trains leaving the yard with the engine in the lead can only run counter-clockwise.  That means: a) to run a train clockwise, it must be backed out of the yard and on to the mainline, and b) to bring a counter-clockwise running train into the yard, it must be backed into the yard a long distance.  A train able to enter / depart the yard from both directions at least allows multi-direction travel, even if no reversing is possible.

Of course, #2 might be moot because your mainlines have no passing sidings away from the yards. So maybe two trains running counter-clockwise is all you plan to do.

Chuck

Chuck, Great comments and on point! I am pressed for family xmas duties and need to attend them, however I'll return to these asap

Again Big THANKS for the input!

John, just needling you about the flex, I know why you use it and there’s almost always a way to smooth it out. When it comes to the removable shelf, I envision 3 or 4 sections. Truth be told they’re only a foot deep, so I think they could be simple bolt-on’s, but I haven’t given it that much thought. I’ll work on an idea using drawer-like slides.

Flex track is easy on SCARM, but can be a bear on the layout.  😄  At least GarGraves takes practice. If Atlas O is like HO and N it would be a lot easier.

Mark, Atlas is even worse. ScaleTrax is as close as you’ll get to HO flex, but it’s still not close to that easy, depending on how tight. I’ve been trying to replace flex with cut curves because I think cutting is easier than bending to O-54, but I could be wrong.

Dave I knew Scaletrax is easy to bend, but who knows how long it will be available.  So much for Atlas O flex.  Some people are really good at bending GarGraves.

Mark, seems like ScaleTrax has always been in short supply. I think I have 10 pieces of flex I’ll probably never use now and will probably sell.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, just needling you about the flex, I know why you use it and there’s almost always a way to smooth it out. When it comes to the removable shelf, I envision 3 or 4 sections. Truth be told they’re only a foot deep, so I think they could be simple bolt-on’s, but I haven’t given it that much thought. I’ll work on an idea using drawer-like slides.

Dave, you can always needle me so I get the point. Lol since the shelf is part of the flat yard, that should be easier to do.

@PRR1950 posted:

Two comments:

1. Your lower level / interior mainline now runs through the curve portion of two switches to cross the river and avoid entering the yard.  Since it's a lot easier for long trains to go through the straight leg of switches, try moving the same mainline closer to the other mainline at the river crossing, but leave your yard lead entrance "north" of the river.  Will require another bridge, but provide a nice long yard lead and a straighter mainline.

Sounds like it would be a good improvement, plus I do have another bridge😀

2. You've had this problem for a while and I'm not too sure how to fix it.  Trains leaving the yard with the engine in the lead can only run counter-clockwise.  That means: a) to run a train clockwise, it must be backed out of the yard and on to the mainline, and b) to bring a counter-clockwise running train into the yard, it must be backed into the yard a long distance.  A train able to enter / depart the yard from both directions at least allows multi-direction travel, even if no reversing is possible.

This issue was the initial rework Of the yard and putting rh/th at other end hoping I would see a solution. I obviously did not come up with anything. Thanks for bringing this up as I was wondering what real operational effect this has on layout. Again thanks! 😃

Of course, #2 might be moot because your mainlines have no passing sidings away from the yards. So maybe two trains running counter-clockwise is all you plan to do.

Chuck

John, the direction problem did not arise because you moved the TT or reconfigured the yard, it’s been there all along. IMHO there’s nothing wrong with fouling the inner mainline because you have 2. Here in Phoenix we have a storage yard alongside a mainline that gets fouled all the time by an engine lash up pulling a long string of cars out of the yard then backing up to connect to another string before heading out to California. It’s been a constant irritation at the 59th Ave & Grand Avenue intersection. I used to go through that intersection often and invariably got stopped by trains fouling the mainline there. That’s where the yard ends and goes down to a single mainline heading out of town. I’ll be working on Chuck’s idea to reconfigure the bridge area. I was going to do that some time ago, but didn’t want to mess up the spurs you have there and we were concentrating on the RH/TT area.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, the direction problem did not arise because you moved the TT or reconfigured the yard, it’s been there all along. IMHO there’s nothing wrong with fouling the inner mainline because you have 2. Here in Phoenix we have a storage yard alongside a mainline that gets fouled all the time by an engine lash up pulling a long string of cars out of the yard then backing up to connect to another string before heading out to California. It’s been a constant irritation at the 59th Ave & Grand Avenue intersection. I used to go through that intersection often and invariably got stopped by trains fouling the mainline there. That’s where the yard ends and goes down to a single mainline heading out of town. I’ll be working on Chuck’s idea to reconfigure the bridge area. I was going to do that some time ago, but didn’t want to mess up the spurs you have there and we were concentrating on the RH/TT area.

Hi Dave,  I did realize the direction issue and was hoping to flip things around to jog an idea out of this old noggin. That did not occur...  However the access is better for the RH/TT at the right hand end of the layout. So I think something good happened out of luck.  As for the fouling of the second mainline - I Hate to design in an irritation so to speak, however everything is a trade off.

As for bridge area, move whatever needs to be moved, spurs, mainlines, Mt Everest (i know you can do it) I am saying I do not consider anything final or a must have. And yes the RH/TT took priority for sure.

  btw please return to the 12 month calendar on file naming convention. 2020 needs to end!

So, here's my latest version. Somehow I lost my SCARM file, so it'll take me a bit to recreate it from a backup.

Ok, thanks to auto backup each time I save that didn't take as long as I thought it would. Somehow the header got corrupted and the original file wouldn't load.

Anyway, I think I addressed all the concerns, though they might not be the most desirable solutions. I thought I mentioned the switch problem across the river and through the town some time ago, they're both the same situation, but maybe I never posted my comments. Be that as it may, mainline2 now runs through the straight section of the switches for the entire run. The yard now allows arrivals and departures in either direction with long lead tracks so there won't be any fouling of the mainline. To do all this, I had to add the 2nd bridge over the river and another cross over the entryway. I know that's not the most elegant solution, but the dual track bridge can be a lift out/up and the new cross can be a simple dropdown or another bridge.

I changed some elevations below the entryway so the out run is a bit higher than the others. That's why the Blue tracks are so much longer than the orange tracks. I updated all the grade and track height labels, so you can take a look at those by turning on those levels.

One question I have is what are the other bridges you already have and how long are they. The ones I used across the river might be too big or not big enough.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

So, here's my latest version. Somehow I lost my SCARM file, so it'll take me a bit to recreate it from a backup.

Ok, thanks to auto backup each time I save that didn't take as long as I thought it would. Somehow the header got corrupted and the original file wouldn't load.

Anyway, I think I addressed all the concerns, though they might not be the most desirable solutions. I thought I mentioned the switch problem across the river and through the town some time ago, they're both the same situation, but maybe I never posted my comments. Be that as it may, mainline2 now runs through the straight section of the switches for the entire run. The yard now allows arrivals and departures in either direction with long lead tracks so there won't be any fouling of the mainline. To do all this, I had to add the 2nd bridge over the river and another cross over the entryway. I know that's not the most elegant solution, but the dual track bridge can be a lift out/up and the new cross can be a simple dropdown or another bridge.

I changed some elevations below the entryway so the out run is a bit higher than the others. That's why the Blue tracks are so much longer than the orange tracks. I updated all the grade and track height labels, so you can take a look at those by turning on those levels.

One question I have is what are the other bridges you already have and how long are they. The ones I used across the river might be too big or not big enough.

Great job as always Dave! Not sure on the added bridge at the entrance. The other bridge I have is MTH RailKing 40-1103 that is 30" bridge with an added girder bridge extension. I do like the river clean up a lot!

John, I knew you wouldn't like the extra bridge over the entryway, but I couldn't resist messing with you.

Here's a more elegant alternative that also lets you have arriving and departing trains in both directions. It requires pulling into the yard on to the long lead track and then backing into the yard, but doesn't foul mainline2.

Note that I moved the TT/RH even further right to increase the yard size and give you an extra whisker track. I saw no reason for that spur you had there and you don't gain enough to curve around the TT to extend the bottom yard track, so I left it straight.

Also note that I connected another yard track to the TT. If you do it right, it will allow you to pull a long engine straight across the TT into 2 larger bays instead of just the one I had. There also appears to be room for a 5th stall.

The placement of the crossover into the yard to the left of the double-crossover lets you continue to use the bottom yard track for storage,  Even better though is that when trains depart going counterclockwise they can go through the double-crossover to get to manline1 right away. Conversely, trains going clockwise on mainline1 can also go through the double-crossover directly onto the yard lead and then back in.

I hope you like it. I think we've got a winner here.

And this shows a little of how the removable shelf would work. Note that the joists would extend past the bench work allowing you to simply set the shelf (or series of shelves) on them. I haven't taken the time to reconfigure the L-girder framing, so not all the joists would expend, just enough of them to support the shelf.

I have not read through the dozen pages so this comment may be out of line but I do have a thought on the placement of the double cross over.

Double cross overs when not is a congested must do circumstance can be an over done presentation.  On a long tangent dual track mainline a pair of single cross overs would serve the same purpose with less fuss and a present a broader palette  of track work.  Just a thought.

That nice long straight a way would look super with a two pair of #8 single cross overs!

I ride the rails a lot and single crossovers are plentiful.  Double crossovers are usually in tight yard approaches and passenger station entrance/exits.   I have yet to encountered a double crossover on a long tangent dual track mainline.

I agree Dave, I like this plan a lot.  The yard and turntable Roundhouse area look workable.

Tom, I don’t think your comment is out of line.  I have been following since the beginning and don’t recall any discussion on the double crossover.  It could have been early on and I forgot.  Regardless, you have knowledge from the prototype.  It could be John already has a double crossover like the four way switch and it was just a given.

@Tom Tee posted:

I have not read through the dozen pages so this comment may be out of line but I do have a thought on the placement of the double cross over.

Double cross overs when not is a congested must do circumstance can be an over done presentation.  On a long tangent dual track mainline a pair of single cross overs would serve the same purpose with less fuss and a present a broader palette  of track work.  Just a thought.

That nice long straight a way would look super with a two pair of #8 single cross overs!

I ride the rails a lot and single crossovers are plentiful.  Double crossovers are usually in tight yard approaches and passenger station entrance/exits.   I have yet to encountered a double crossover on a long tangent dual track mainline.

Hi Tom,  My lack of knowledge in this area is glaring. I have a double crossover that to me (not knowing better) thought it would enable trains to change main lines utilising something I already had. Sounds like that goes against any realistic railroad.

Guess it could go into the yard????

Thanks for your input!

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, I knew you wouldn't like the extra bridge over the entryway, but I couldn't resist messing with you.

Dave, you have carte Blanche when it comes to messing with me!

Here's a more elegant alternative that also lets you have arriving and departing trains in both directions. It requires pulling into the yard on to the long lead track and then backing into the yard, but doesn't foul mainline2.

Note that I moved the TT/RH even further right to increase the yard size and give you an extra whisker track. I saw no reason for that spur you had there and you don't gain enough to curve around the TT to extend the bottom yard track, so I left it straight.

Also note that I connected another yard track to the TT. If you do it right, it will allow you to pull a long engine straight across the TT into 2 larger bays instead of just the one I had. There also appears to be room for a 5th stall. Hmmmm, that is enticing 5th stall plus two extended bays!

The placement of the crossover into the yard to the left of the double-crossover lets you continue to use the bottom yard track for storage,  Even better though is that when trains depart going counterclockwise they can go through the double-crossover to get to manline1 right away. Conversely, trains going clockwise on mainline1 can also go through the double-crossover directly onto the yard lead and then back in.

I hope you like it. I think we've got a winner here.

This looks great, I'll try not to mess with it. Now should the yard have some added crossover switches?

And this shows a little of how the removable shelf would work. Note that the joists would extend past the bench work allowing you to simply set the shelf (or series of shelves) on them. I haven't taken the time to reconfigure the L-girder framing, so not all the joists would expend, just enough of them to support the shelf.

The shelves being on top of the joists makes lots of sense. I'll move the joists for the TT and redraw girders and supports.

John,

I’m working on changing the double-crossover, but I don’t think Tom realizes that the “long” dual tracks are at different elevations. Changing the double to separate #8 switches takes 8’ of track, almost triple what the double uses.

When it comes to switches in the yard, I really don’t know. I looked at the yards in Phoenix and New Orleans using Google Maps and don’t see switches. However, those yards are through yards with switches on both ends. I can see a need for switch’s on the TT end so switchers can move around, but adding switches is going to require changing the spacing and I’ll have to see what fits.

Ok, John. It took some time between working on this and 2 other designs, but I think this is something that will work, but I'm not crazy about the double-crossover in the yard. Maybe Tom Tee will take a peek and comment.

Hi Dave, not sure if this makes anything better. Again my lack of knowledge is showing. The double crossover appears to be useful only from one side, unless just an engine is using it. Do the switches that replace the double crossover add to realistic operation. I am a slow learner, sorry

I’m with Dave, I have never seen a double crossover in a small yard. I think Tom is correct, we don’t see them on prototype mainlines, but on a model railroad, cramped for space, go for it.  As Dave said you have to get the grades started, and the double crossover helps.

John,

To be honest, I didn’t put a lot of thought into where to place the double-crossover, I just wanted to get the yard tracks aligned. It probably makes more sense to put it in the middle so a switcher could move more than just itself.

The switches that replace it are more prototypical. I found an example in Philadelphia just to the right of the Girard Street Train Bridge, but it’s in a park, so you have use the satellite view to see it. Each crossover is by a light tower.

The bigger thing though is that I believe double-crossover switches are best used where speeds are slower. I’ve read posts saying they can be troublesome too, but I have no experience with them. Also, note that I used 11° switches to make the crossovers because the #8 switches Tom suggested are just too darned big and raised the grades to over 3%.

And before you ask, since the top yard track is for engines to access the TT and not for car storage, I didn’t add a crossover to it. I did move it further away and reoriented the TT/RH. There’s also no way to add a crossover to the middle 2 tracks coming off the 4-way because they’re too close. I even added the 4th straight lead to the RH area so you can park a large engine outside on the track next to the RH.

Good deal, Dave.  That makes a lot of sense!!!

@Mark Boyce posted:

I’m with Dave, I have never seen a double crossover in a small yard. I think Tom is correct, we don’t see them on prototype mainlines, but on a model railroad, cramped for space, go for it.  As Dave said you have to get the grades started, and the double crossover helps.

Sounds like the double crossover doesn't belong on this railroad.. That aside would it make sense to move the crossover to the end of the mainline curves? I think at one point they might have been, however with the TT in that area, access for a potential trouble spot was needed and it was moved down. The double crossover doesn't sound very prototypical on this layout, but Mark as you said with cramped space it does help with fitting grades and such.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John,

The switches that replace it are more prototypical. I found an example in Philadelphia just to the right of the Girard Street Train Bridge, but it’s in a park, so you have use the satellite view to see it. Each crossover is by a light tower.

Nice research and great pic!

The bigger thing though is that I believe double-crossover switches are best used where speeds are slower. I’ve read posts saying they can be troublesome too, but I have no experience with them. Also, note that I used 11° switches to make the crossovers because the #8 switches Tom suggested are just too darned big and raised the grades to over 3%.

And before you ask, since the top yard track is for engines to access the TT and not for car storage, I didn’t add a crossover to it. I did move it further away and reoriented the TT/RH. There’s also no way to add a crossover to the middle 2 tracks coming off the 4-way because they’re too close. I even added the 4th straight lead to the RH area so you can park a large engine outside on the track next to the RH.

Wonder if it would help to move crossover to the curves before the straight runs?

btw Dave great job as always!