Permanent Layout design

One thing that may help is to look at pre-existing track designs from a variety of Internet sources and train sites to get your mind focused on what looks good and may fit into your area. Lionel, MTH and Atlas all have various designs on their web pages. There are also lots of great designs on this Forum by our "resident" designers that you can look at for inspiration.

After looking at a variety of designs, you should be able to narrow down what you want to incorporate into your own layout and add, subtract and modify to make it work.

OGR Run 301 has a story about a flat layout that is just a simple loop.  It is a fantastic layout built by Norm Charbonneau.  They say that copying is flattery.  So with my apologies to Norm, I took the diagram in Run 301 and reproduced it in your space using MTH Realtrax. 

I

You ought to look up Norm's page on YouTube and watch some of his videos.

I don't know if you are set on using RealTrax with its built-in roadbed.  There have been several threads on the forum on the people's choice for the "best" track.

Jan

Brand of track certainly is important.

If ease of installation is top-most, then Fastrack is an excellent alternative and is certainly what I would choose given "ease".

If a more "realistic" approach is what you want, then Atlas (my choice), Ross or Gargraves is what you want.  Atlas-Ross-Gargraves are each excellent.

I personally would not use Realtrax.

If SCARM is not working as you want, then go "old-fashioned".  Get a couple of sheets of graph paper, designate each square a foot, and hand draw your desired track design.  It truly is a great way to start. 

Simple is sometimes best.  

BTW, I could not open your attachment/file.  

Good luck and Happy railroading!

Richie C. posted:

One thing that may help is to look at pre-existing track designs from a variety of Internet sources and train sites to get your mind focused on what looks good and may fit into your area. Lionel, MTH and Atlas all have various designs on their web pages. There are also lots of great designs on this Forum by our "resident" designers that you can look at for inspiration.

After looking at a variety of designs, you should be able to narrow down what you want to incorporate into your own layout and add, subtract and modify to make it work.

 I definitely have been looking at the pre made stuff. That's kind of what motivated me in the first place to attempt my own design. I've also purchased 2 books from my local hobby shop. I'll see a design either in a book or someplace on the internet and I'll start 'thinking' of some ideas of my own, but when it comes to putting them 'on paper', I just cant seem to get it right. It has really started to hit a point of frustration

Jan posted:

OGR Run 301 has a story about a flat layout that is just a simple loop.  It is a fantastic layout built by Norm Charbonneau.  They say that copying is flattery.  So with my apologies to Norm, I took the diagram in Run 301 and reproduced it in your space using MTH Realtrax. 

I

You ought to look up Norm's page on YouTube and watch some of his videos.

I don't know if you are set on using RealTrax with its built-in roadbed.  There have been several threads on the forum on the people's choice for the "best" track.

Jan

I'm not fully set on any track as of yet. But I've actually been leaning towards Atlas O. It seems to get the most forgiving in the design process. I have a bunch of realtrax that I use now for my temp layout, but when I try and plan with it on SCARM, I can never get it to line up right. At least with Atlas I can use flex track to fix my poor understanding of basic geometry.

rthomps posted:

Brand of track certainly is important.

If ease of installation is top-most, then Fastrack is an excellent alternative and is certainly what I would choose given "ease".

If a more "realistic" approach is what you want, then Atlas (my choice), Ross or Gargraves is what you want.  Atlas-Ross-Gargraves are each excellent.

I personally would not use Realtrax.

If SCARM is not working as you want, then go "old-fashioned".  Get a couple of sheets of graph paper, designate each square a foot, and hand draw your desired track design.  It truly is a great way to start. 

Simple is sometimes best.  

BTW, I could not open your attachment/file.  

Good luck and Happy railroading!

Not sure why the scarm file won't open. I've gone the route of pen and paper as well. I just don't think I have a good enough understanding of track to "free hand" it so to speak. 

Its entirely possible that what I'm trying to accomplish just isn't feasible in the space that I have. A pre made kit might just be the best option for me, or even just stick with the large loop I already have and just add an inner loop and call it a day...

You can't just double click on the SCARM file to open it.  You must first right-click and do a "Save as".  Then open the saved file.

Jan

Before you settle on a brand of track do some research on the availability and reliability of Atlas switches. You may want to reconsider Gargraves track, Ross switches , Midwest cork roadbed and Tortoise switch machines. Also, why a "flat" layout? Why not "open grid" construction with grades and hidden storage tracks? Are you familiar with Linn Westcott's book on Model Railroad benchwork? It's available on Amazon and is a must read for benchwork. No 3/4 inch plywood and 2x4's; you only need 1/2 inch plywood and 1x4's all held together with drywall screws. No glue. Just my opinion regarding the above but my layout with Gargraves and Ross is 32 years old and still going strong.

I spoke with Atlas at York last month.  They have been busily improving the reliability of the switches prior to the next production run.

They are also designing an O63 to fill the gap in their line-up.  Also they hint an #4 is in the works.

Jan

I am also thinking about going back to Gargraves/Ross for my next layout.  I had Atlas track on my last one, but the switch machines were problematic.  

I'm not fully set on any track as of yet. But I've actually been leaning towards Atlas O. It seems to get the most forgiving in the design process. I have a bunch of realtrax that I use now for my temp layout, but when I try and plan with it on SCARM, I can never get it to line up right. At least with Atlas I can use flex track to fix my poor understanding of basic geometry.

Be aware that Atlas O isn't very flexible. Don't try to use it for curves less O-90. On the other side, Atlas O offers a lot of fractional track sections that help you achieve your goals without using flex.

turbgine posted:

Before you settle on a brand of track do some research on the availability and reliability of Atlas switches. You may want to reconsider Gargraves track, Ross switches , Midwest cork roadbed and Tortoise switch machines. Also, why a "flat" layout? Why not "open grid" construction with grades and hidden storage tracks? Are you familiar with Linn Westcott's book on Model Railroad benchwork? It's available on Amazon and is a must read for benchwork. No 3/4 inch plywood and 2x4's; you only need 1/2 inch plywood and 1x4's all held together with drywall screws. No glue. Just my opinion regarding the above but my layout with Gargraves and Ross is 32 years old and still going strong.

So since you mentioned the issues with Atlas I've started looking at Ross and Gargraves. I was shocked by not only the variety vs Atlas but also the cost difference. I'm definitely looking more down the Ross and Gargraves path more now. How is it installation wise? Easy to wire and work with? Or am I going to find myself doing significantly more soldering vs Atlas?

As far as the "flat plan" goes. Ultimately having an open design would be great. But I also know my personal limitations with what goes into a layout. A flat plan is going to be challenging enough for me complete. I've run my trains with tubular track and realtrax on carpet since I was a kid and continue to this day. So I'm perfectly ok with a flat plan knowing its 'obtainable' for me so to speak.

Oman posted:

I'm not fully set on any track as of yet. But I've actually been leaning towards Atlas O. It seems to get the most forgiving in the design process. I have a bunch of realtrax that I use now for my temp layout, but when I try and plan with it on SCARM, I can never get it to line up right. At least with Atlas I can use flex track to fix my poor understanding of basic geometry.

 

Be aware that Atlas O isn't very flexible. Don't try to use it for curves less O-90. On the other side, Atlas O offers a lot of fractional track sections that help you achieve your goals without using flex.

I don't necessarily want to use flex type track exclusively for curves. I like the idea of them for filling in the gaps where I can't seem to get a grasp on get the layout to meet up correctly