Track Plan Recommendations

@davehall83 posted:

Awesome , I am going to buy an epson eco tank printer that way it saves me a lot in printing and my printer is on its last leg anyway. I may do a plotter at work tho and see if someone will let me print on it. If not i am looking at a wide printer it prints 13 x 19 size pages which will help.

EpsonEcoTank Pro
ET-16650

Love those Epson EcoTanks with their incredibly low ink costs.  That ET-16660 looks impressive with the extra wide printing.  Should do great printing out the layout.  I am going for the ET-8550.  Will take more sheets for the whole layout, but better fits my overall needs and with better graphic quality.

Dave,

One thing no one has mentioned is the "S" curve I created with the 2 switches that go to the TT lead with the water/coal stations. My assumption is that speeds will be slow there, but I don't know how a Big Boy will handle going through back-to-back switches like that. So, I moved the switch down and reconfigured the whisker tracks and water/coal stations. I also didn't like the short fitter piece between the top switches, so I moved the entire line of blue switches and the left yard that far to the left. You'll still need to find or modify a coaling station that will fit the space if you go with that idea.

I also moved the passenger station/platform over to the train room simply because it doesn't really fit near a turntable complex. I put it on the wall side to show that it could be cut in half and mounted to a board that could then be hung on the wall like a picture so you don't mess up the wall. The point is that you don't need full-size buildings, you can cut them down to fit a space. Here's a better example of bas relief. Almost all the buildings are only an inch deep with a mural behind them. This is what you could do along the top wall and the dividing wall.

And here's another example of what Tom was talking about when he mentioned lowering part of an over/under. I raised the entire layout 3", shortened the length of the blue line, increased the length of the orange line, then lowered the purple part of the orange line to 0" and raised the purple part of the blue line to 6". As I mentioned last night, the problem for you is deciding NOW if this is something you want to do before you lay any track. Of course, if you don't, you could still raise part of the blue line 3",  but you wouldn't be able to do the over/under.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

Dave,

Sorry, I’m mixed up the 2” with the 3” distance for the top left corner and thought the bench work was tilted more than it is. After taking another look at the measurements you posted, your current bench work is only off by .1”, so it might be off by .2” by the time the track reaches the far side of the office. I got the 2.13” on the left side mixed up with the 3.19” on the top. The top edge is 3.19” on the left and 3.29” on the right, so not a big deal. Plus, the latest version no longer moves the track closer to the top wall in the office room.

The track next to the dividing wall still bothers me a bit only because I’m not the one laying the track. 🤪 I’m not suggesting you buy an expensive engine. If John says his Big Boy navigates 3.5” from the wall, I believe him. So, if you make sure the center rail of track along the dividing wall is 3.5” from the wall, and any rock molding you add, I’m confident the Big Boy will work just fine. I just don’t like working with minimal clearances when it’s not me doing the work or having to deal with potential problems.

I also get nervous whenever there are cut tracks involved because you can’t completely dry fit things. There are 5 cuts tracks in the outer blue ring alone, on both the length and width. The top cut piece is 11.25” whereas the bottom cut piece is 11.92”, a 3/4” discrepancy. I assume that’s because the top connects to an O-72 switch and not a sectional O-72 curve like on bottom, but I don’t know that that’s the reason. If I replace the switch with a curve, it fits, so why are the cut pieces different lengths? I don’t like questions I can’t answer. 😱

And then there are the 2 cut curves on the inner blue arc with the double crossover. To cut those, the double crossover, 3” straights and curves leading up to the cut tracks have to be laid correctly. And those 2 cuts should be the same, they’re very close to a half curve. I have no doubt you’ll get it all connected, just pointing out areas of concern.

As far as roadbed, etc., are concerned, people who can find and afford Homasote either cover the whole layout or just put it under the tracks to cut down on noise. Cutting it is dusty and cutting it to just go under the tracks is probably wasteful. In your case with so much track, I don’t think it makes much sense to cut it. When it comes to foam, it’s used mainly to sculpture valleys and rivers. Again, some people cover the whole layout with 1”-2” foam. That’s mostly folks like you who build a flat table top. If you want a valley or river below track level, the track level has to be raised or the bench work built with varying elevations. If you recall what Tom said about an over/under, he said not all track has to go up 6” to make a 6” separation. Some track can go down 3” and the rest go up 3” for a total of 6”. Again, the main track can be raised 3” using foam, so some cam go down and others go up. Many who plan to have elevation changes use L-girder bench work with cookie-cutter sub-roadbed. But, it wouldn’t make sense to change what you have. However, if you intend to pursue elevation changes, you need to plan for that now. Early on I posted a design with the lower blue tracks lowered and the orange raised to where the blue track went under the orange track. I think I also showed just the bottom blue track raised. I think the amount was like 3” because you only have so much track after switches to work with. And if you decide to add foam, that affects how the wall gets opened. Some stuff you won’t be able to do if you don’t plan ahead.

One last thing. I don’t know if SCARM is designed to print to scale using anything but standard letter-apsides paper, so something to check.

So when you say measure the center rail 3.5 inches from the wall just to make sure i measure it right because clearances are new to me with laying tack since its my first time on O scale, i have never measured before and yeah the wall always wins in that scenario. But if i am interpreting what you said correctly i take the measuring tape and start the measuring from the center rail to the wall and that center rail to wall has to be at least 3.5 inches clear of any objects including scenery correct? Since i am cutting a big hole anyway instead of 2 tunnels i can have him cut it extra wide to ensure i dont have any problems and the extra wide gaps can be filled later with things. I get what your saying with minimal precise clearances because just a bit off and boom the wall is my worst enemy. I also didn't consider the dry fitting with the cut tracks now that you made me think more clearly about that scenario when dry fitting i am now realizing the issue with cut tracks so i agree with you there. Also i bet cutting a precise 11.92 piece might be difficult i could see 11.25 as thats a more common measurement but 11.92 if i am off a bit and get a 12" piece i wonder what happens, i can assume if something doesn't line up i would have to pull that piece back up and recut if its too big, too small means get another piece of track and try again which thats why i probably should include some extra pieces for incidentals and practice cuts since i have never cut one before. I have some spare gargraves track that i wont be using that i can do some test cuts on to get the feel of it to see how the dremel reacts the first time i cut with the gyro wheel so i can get my bearings right before i cut the ross track. I get why you dont like questions you cant answer, i dont like those either sometimes they can give nasty surprises all part of the learning experience though lol.

The homasote is what i thought after hearing your thought on that , just to cut down on noise with what i have not worth it. The foam is the only thing i may consider but for sub roadbed i may go with just the ross subroad bed as it fits their track perfectly. I have seen people on here who love the stuff and some hate it. I wont know until i try it.

One thing i want to mention, i saw this product out on the web, someone suggested it to me. Looks well built as an alternative to the ROSS TT. Whats the opinion on using this product over ross any folks have any opinions between the two brands?

http://www.millhouseriverstudio.com/

Also one thing to mention this millhouse folks have a rotary coal dumper and flood loaders for coal, i looked at them and they seem really cool i like it.

The TT i know theirs is made with aluminum and is suppose to be really sturdy, ross is wood and they have their claims as well with their product. Me not knowing or having experience with either product i wouldn't know the pros and cons of each product but i can say they are both well made products and i think there are use cases for each i just dont know what those use cases of one over the other is. Maybe aluminum wouldn't shrink or warp in a more humid environment but one thing is i have a whole house dehumidifier and humidification system for the summers/winters so my climate is tightly controlled which is good for the wood

@DoubleDAZ posted:

Dave,

One thing no one has mentioned is the "S" curve I created with the 2 switches that go to the TT lead with the water/coal stations. My assumption is that speeds will be slow there, but I don't know how a Big Boy will handle going through back-to-back switches like that. So, I moved the switch down and reconfigured the whisker tracks and water/coal stations. I also didn't like the short fitter piece between the top switches, so I moved the entire line of blue switches and the left yard that far to the left. You'll still need to find or modify a coaling station that will fit the space if you go with that idea.

I also moved the passenger station/platform over to the train room simply because it doesn't really fit near a turntable complex. I put it on the wall side to show that it could be cut in half and mounted to a board that could then be hung on the wall like a picture so you don't mess up the wall. The point is that you don't need full-size buildings, you can cut them down to fit a space. Here's a better example of bas relief. Almost all the buildings are only an inch deep with a mural behind them. This is what you could do along the top wall and the dividing wall.

Now this is pretty cool and a good idea you almost cant tell that its something hung on the wall and for space concerns this is perfect idea. I also agree with your changes, you would know more about how these trains can handle this stuff than me, i will find out when i build it lol and it doesn't like it. The big boy is pretty far down the road for me because its one heck of a price tag but at some point i will probably have only 1 of those things and i dont know which one yet but this helps my other trains when we design things like this navigate better

@DoubleDAZ posted:

And here's another example of what Tom was talking about when he mentioned lowering part of an over/under. I raised the entire layout 3", shortened the length of the blue line, increased the length of the orange line, then lowered the purple part of the orange line to 0" and raised the purple part of the blue line to 6". As I mentioned last night, the problem for you is deciding NOW if this is something you want to do before you lay any track. Of course, if you don't, you could still raise part of the blue line 3",  but you wouldn't be able to do the over/under.

Ok dave i am convinced your right i probably should go ahead and proceed with the elevations. I got cold feet when i had issues with the fast track and my N&W 612 barreled over the bridge but i believe that was because i had alot of design issues i just threw the track together. This is more of an articulated, well thought out design and this seems to work. I actually do want some elevations on my tracks probably in the train room and maybe even the office if it works because i thought about it and my big thing was mountains, tunnels , tressles and scenary. Now i may not be able to have a tressle or a real tressle but i do wish i could get some rivers, waterfalls of a mountain etc. I would love that combined with the coal/mining/logging stuff. But i will go with mounatins/rivers and waterfalls as well as elevations to make the track more artistic and interesting with scenary. I also thing watching the locos climb an elevation with some mountain/rock like scenary with some greenary IE mountains with waterfalls and trees would be awesome even if it came out of a tunnel. I know i cant have it all and im not asking you to do a whole redesign but if your bored and you think i should make this change now or i am going to regret some decisions i made now later then i say ill go with your advice and make the plans now.

I take it with this type of setup i need to elevate this somehow for the 3" over and 3" under and the 6" areas. That i need to understand how its done i guess foam and carving of foam?

Dave, do not cut based on SCARM dimensions, that would be a HUGE mistake. What you do is overlap the track to be cut and mark the place to cut. I’m sure others can give you others pointers. Using scrap track to practice is a good idea. I’m sure there are some videos on YouTube also.

Many measurements are based off the center rail. If I understood John correctly that is how he arrived at 3.5”, but you can verify that with him. There is some wiggle room in the track, but you still don’t want to be off. It’s not as easy as laying one track after another and having the ends meet. If you zoom in on some of the cut tracks, especially the curves, you’ll see little wedge gaps. If you cut them that way, you’d push them together to close that gap, but that would throw successive tracks off. And you can ask ScoutingDad what happens when there are variances in the length of tracks. SCARM assumes all tracks are EXACT and that’s just not the case with all. Put together a FasTrack circle, tack down each track as you go and see where the last one ends up.

SCARM has Millhouse River TTs in 24”, 28” and 34” sizes. The 28” will change things a bit, but I haven’t heard of anyone disappointed with them.

When it comes to elevations you have to have long sections of track to raise things. In my example, the grade starts after the switches and rises to the level tracks across the entry. You can really place switches on a grade, they need to be flat. And you need to decide how big a grade is acceptable. The grade on the right of the orange track is 4.2%, on the left it’s 3.4%. For the blue track, the numbers are 3.5% and 3.2%. I used 6”, but you would most likely need 7” to account for sub-roadbed for support. Most people try to keep grades below 2%. Other sections you can raise are the blue loop around the TT between the switches and after the switch to the entry. Going up 3” would be 1.7%, going back down would be 2.7%. To do all that though you’d need to cover the layout with 3” of rigid foam, then cut out the sections going down and increase the sections going up. Check out Woodland Scenic’s for ideas for supporting the grades without trestles. I’ll put together something more visual tomorrow.

@DoubleDAZ

Yeah i wouldn’t worry about the turn table brands right now anyway i just was looking at a suggestion someone made but i will keep it under consideration. I know you mentioned this before that you generally want to keep grades below 2% it looks as if in my scenario my grades have to exceed that 2% in some area and me not knowing what the pros and cons of that is as long as i won’t run into problems with the bigger trains on the outer loop i’m fine with it. I just wasn’t sure if it causes problems with trains running or rushing down or having issues going up with cars attached. I know that experience i had with the fast track was bad but i think that lionel graduated elevated trestle set had to be a lot more than a 3 inch or 6 inch rise with is probably the whole problem i had. i know you said i need to decide on the grade that is acceptable the problem is i really don’t know since this is the first time doing one and my fast track grade failed miserably because of the design but with some of your advice if you say hey let’s not go more than 3% than i’m going to do what you tell me because you have slot more experience with what works and what will fail. This is probably fine after i think about it but as long as you folks think this is a non issue let’s add some character to this layout and give it some elevations.

And we thought we were done with the train room 🤣

You probably were thinking what i was thinking all flat track isn’t as fun as having some elevations.

For rigid foam are you talking that green foam insulation stuff that lowes sells ?

I believe the Lionel trestles are designed for a 5” rise, but there is no sub-roadbed to consider and usually not tall trains/cars. Modern engines with traction tires, etc., can tackle pretty high grades, but most play it safer, partly because greater clearances tend to look better and you never know what tall car might strike your fancy.

I don’t know about color, mine was purple/pink, but yes, as long as it’s not the white, bubble stuff, that stuff is terrible. We only have 1” and 2” here, so I don’t know about. 3” or 4”. I’ve never carved it for a grade.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

I believe the Lionel trestles are designed for a 5” rise, but there is no sub-roadbed to consider and usually not tall trains/cars. Modern engines with traction tires, etc., can tackle pretty high grades, but most play it safer, partly because greater clearances tend to look better and you never know what tall car might strike your fancy.

I don’t know about color, mine was purple/pink, but yes, as long as it’s not the white, bubble stuff, that stuff is terrible. We only have 1” and 2” here, so I don’t know about. 3” or 4”. I’ve never carved it for a grade.

Yeah i will probably make some base with the foam and use some of the woodland scenics stuff mark b. used on his layouts. If that was a 5” rise i wonder what degree of grade it was if i had the 20 ft length that was recommended earlier for getting up 5” it probably would have been fine but mine elevated and descended pretty quick or however lionel made the grade on that thing.

One thing to mention we don’t have to do grades everywhere just if you see a spot it makes sense then sure if it’s pushing limits or questionable skip it. If we just end up with one grade on the outer circle or somewhere then that’s cool i’m good with one because originally i had none ! But the idea you had with just that outer circle seems spot on with the over and under. I have to keep in mind too if i put grades everywhere then those areas won’t accommodate any buildings at all

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

It's actually a really nice locomotive, scale sized but not an overpowering locomotive.  It has whistle steam, great smoke, great sound, and obviously plenty of pulling power.  What's not to like?   This was actually a chance purchase, I got it for $600 like new a couple of years ago, couldn't pass it up!

Its on my list now , im going to be looking for one

@davehall83 posted:

@DoubleDAZ

Yeah i wouldn’t worry about the turn table brands right now anyway i just was looking at a suggestion someone made but i will keep it under consideration. I know you mentioned this before that you generally want to keep grades below 2% it looks as if in my scenario my grades have to exceed that 2% in some area and me not knowing what the pros and cons of that is as long as i won’t run into problems with the bigger trains on the outer loop i’m fine with it. I just wasn’t sure if it causes problems with trains running or rushing down or having issues going up with cars attached. I know that experience i had with the fast track was bad but i think that lionel graduated elevated trestle set had to be a lot more than a 3 inch or 6 inch rise with is probably the whole problem i had. i know you said i need to decide on the grade that is acceptable the problem is i really don’t know since this is the first time doing one and my fast track grade failed miserably because of the design but with some of your advice if you say hey let’s not go more than 3% than i’m going to do what you tell me because you have slot more experience with what works and what will fail. This is probably fine after i think about it but as long as you folks think this is a non issue let’s add some character to this layout and give it some elevations.

And we thought we were done with the train room 🤣

You probably were thinking what i was thinking all flat track isn’t as fun as having some elevations.

For rigid foam are you talking that green foam insulation stuff that lowes sells ?

Lowes here has the green foam.  The last time I bought foam, I bought the green stuff.  IT has a different consistency than the blue, pink, or purple, but works fine.  I used the Woodland Scenics foam risers on my current layout.  They work fine, but you have to taper the grade at the top and bottom so you don't have an abrupt transition.  I did a lot of shaving off at the top and shimming at the bottom to keep from having problems with my engines making the transition.

The vertical easement is more important to smooth operation than the horizontal easement on curves, at least IMO.  If you don't have sufficient vertical easement, you'll have real issues with larger locomotives.  If you don't have horizontal easements on curves, engines just don't look as good going around the curves, usually there's no operational issues.

@Mark Boyce posted:

Lowes here has the green foam.  The last time I bought foam, I bought the green stuff.  IT has a different consistency than the blue, pink, or purple, but works fine.  I used the Woodland Scenics foam risers on my current layout.  They work fine, but you have to taper the grade at the top and bottom so you don't have an abrupt transition.  I did a lot of shaving off at the top and shimming at the bottom to keep from having problems with my engines making the transition.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

The vertical easement is more important to smooth operation than the horizontal easement on curves, at least IMO.  If you don't have sufficient vertical easement, you'll have real issues with larger locomotives.  If you don't have horizontal easements on curves, engines just don't look as good going around the curves, usually there's no operational issues.

One other tip regarding vertical easements.  You can bend the track accordingly - here's an extreme example at the coal tipple at the club:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS2-tva2Uy8

But it illustrates the topic.  What I've done is to make sure there are track joiners at the point of transition and slightly bend them to contour the vertical transition as they are easier to bend than track.  You may have to cut track sections, but it's well worth it.   My advice, as others have stated, is to try it out before firmly affixing your track in place.

-Greg

I certainly agree with John and Greg!  I thought I had my vertical easements in good shape.  It doesn’t have to be a large engine.  After testing with several engines and cars, I had one of my 3 MTH Premier Consolidations with a pilot just a bit lower than any other engine.  It hit the track and shorted out at the bottom of a grade.  I had to take the track back up and shim some more.  I didn’t have a track joint at that place either.  There was still enough bend in the track vertically.  It was on a curve as well.  

Yep, my grades on the long incline are also on a curve, but I paid a lot more attention to the vertical easement.  Engines like the Lionel GG1 are especially picky about vertical easements.  It doesn't take much to have the GG1 suspended by the two pilots with the drive wheels spinning, it's an amusing sight!

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Yep, my grades on the long incline are also on a curve, but I paid a lot more attention to the vertical easement.  Engines like the Lionel GG1 are especially picky about vertical easements.  It doesn't take much to have the GG1 suspended by the two pilots with the drive wheels spinning, it's an amusing sight!

Now that's funny!

-Greg

So, John/Greg, how do you determine how much easement you need? Is it trial and error with a bunch of shims? Apparently it’s not as easy as using the intermediate elevations SCARM gives you? And how do you do it if you don’t already have a large engine with the overhanging front end to test. Trestle sets have easements built in, but they do go straight to that first trestle, so I assume you’re talking about a vertically curved track. I always though you could cookie cut the incline and shim it at various points until the engines clear safely.

Well, I cheated and just "eyeballed" it, but here have been tons of discussions about easements and how to compute them.  My final test was my JLC GG1 and the Vision Line Big Boy.  I figured if those had no issues with my grades, I was probably in pretty good shape.  I know that @Tom Tee recently posted a bunch of stuff about easements, and he's certainly a guy that's had a lot of experience building layouts with varying grades.

I guess-timated by limiting my first transition into an incline to 1/8" over a distance equal to 1 1/2 times the length of my longest engine. Something I read somewhere. For me and my diesels that's about 35". The next 35" goes up 1/4" and on until I reach the grade percentage of 2.4 - 2.6%. It really helps to have a lot of room.

I have about four feet of easement into the grade and at the top of the grade.  Since the longest "locomotive isn't more than 24", that gave me plenty of room to ease into my 2.5% grade and it all seems to have worked out.  I've run most of my bigger locomotives on the layout, and no issues on the grades.

With steam, you don't have to consider the tender in the length for easements, it's separately vertically articulated.

Then I went and added another inch to the second level hdight. I think my transitions are closer to 8' on both ends.   Very smooth.

@turkey_hollow_rr posted:

I guess-timated by limiting my first transition into an incline to 1/8" over a distance equal to 1 1/2 times the length of my longest engine. The next 35" goes up 1/4" and on until I reach the grade percentage of 2.4 - 2.6%.

Dan, I don't know if I'm reading this right. You start with 1/8", then add 1/4" to get 3/8". Do you then add 1/2", 3/4", 1" and so on, increasing how much you add by 1/4" each time? I did that in SCARM and was able to elevate the 175" section along the top right to 2.5", but could only add 1/8" the last time because I had hit 2.2%. However, that doesn't include an easement at the top. Do you then start reducing the rise in the reverse order subtracting 1/4" from each segment?

@DoubleDAZ

So what are your thoughts i know your knee deep in calculations on this and from what i am seeing from everyone here this looks like some precise calculations to get the desired elevation and degree of rise. I never even heard of veritcal easement or horizontal easement until now. All sounds complicated, i never did well in geometry lol. Do you think this is even obtainable to have the elevations at this point? Once its on paper and in scarm then i have to figure out how to get this off scarm and paper and figure out how to make these elevations, thats going to be a challenge. I am always up for a challenge but its going to be one heck of a learning curve. I may need to watch some model railroad videos on it. Im very visual so sometimes i have to see someone demonstrate it or on a video or something or see it to understand it. However even as complicated as this all seems i actually am enjoying this which is the point of the hobby.

Dave, my thought is that if Dan’s methodology holds, then you can only raise the small office yard on the right an inch. It’s about 175” between the switches after the tunnel to the switch for the yard. That’s 5 segments of 35” each. It takes 2 segments on each end to create the easements, so that only leaves 1 segment in the middle before the top easement.
1st goes up to 1/8”
2nd to 3/8” (1/8 + 1/4 = 1/8 + 2/8 = 3/8)
3rd to 7/8” (1/8 + 1/4 + 1/2 = 1/8 + 2/8 + 4/8 = 7/8)
4th  to 1 1/8” (1/8 + 1/4 + 1/2 + 1/4 = 1/8 + 2/8 + 4/8 + 2/8 = 9/8 = 1 1/8)
5th to 1/1/4 (1/8 + 1/4 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 = 1/8 + 2/8 + 4/8 + 2/8 + 1/8 = 10/8 = 1 2/8 = 1 1/4)

Sorry if that’s too simplistic, but when fractions are involved, it gets too easy to mess up. Anyway, Dan’s rule is probably good, but John’s way of eyeballing it is more exacting for a given engine. My method would be to set a section of track at 0”. Then I’d set the next track and use a shim to set the height of end of the segment while running an engine up the grade until the front touches, then back off a bit. I’d repeat the process for each succeeding track until you reach the height you want, then add flat tracks to see how the engine does when it goes over the peak. I’m not convinced the easement at the top needs to follow the same rule because the front is not going to touch, but the front wheels might derail or the front might just look funny sticking up in the air too much. That said (and it doesn’t include how to landscape), I don’t think it’s worth all that effort to raise a train only 1” or so for such a short distance. You’d have better luck with the Orange track in the train room because it’ll be smaller engines and no worse than what you had with the FasTrack trestle set. Still, given the layout design, I also don’t think raising any track is worth it. Sorry, just my honest opinion.

@davehall83 it really isn't that precise, and it's even harder to transfer what is in software to the layout. The idea is that you don't want too much change in height too soon, so the contact rollers and wheels stay in contact with the rails. It takes a few gentle changes in slope.

@DoubleDAZ that is a simplified general explanation of my guess-timation. I'll try explaining with some detail. It's like horseshoes and hand grenades, we don't need to be perfect just close enough. I'm also keeping in mind how I'm going to build the riser with common materials.

My outside main has ~088 curves and the transition to the upper deck starts at the beginning of one. With sectional track in software one 22 degree 088 curve is about 17", so two sectionals gets me close to my 1 1/2 engine length swag. (John proved this can be shorter.) I raised the end of the first sectional 1/8 and the end of the second sectional to 1/4. The track has completed 45 degrees of the curve and risen 1/4" or about 0.7% slope. That's one transition.

The second transition completes the 90 degrees over another two curve sections and rises 0.5" at that point, a total of 0.75" or about 1.4% slope.  There is a two foot straight before the next curve. At the end of the straight the track has risen to 1" along this 1.4% slope. My target slope was 2.2% at this point. Needing less that 1% it is easy to fit.

I do the reverse process for the transition back to level at the second level.

This is just the software side of the planning. I try to keep in mind what plywood and other materials I have to make the really short risers, which is why I like to work with 1/8 and quarter inch and multiples of them. Don't forget that in software dimensions are top of rail to top of rail, there is something under the rails to account for.

I hope this makes sense.

Dave, sounds like you've got the idea.

One thing I neglected to answer. After playing around in software for a  while I settled on 1" of vertical change for the easements on both ends. I am going up a total of 10", less 1" transitions on either end, leaves 8" of rise for the target slope.

In AnyRail, I pick to two joints along the track sections where I want the end of the 1" transitions to be. So one point is at 1" and down at the far end the other point is at 9". In AnyRail I select all of the track between these two points and use the smooth slope feature.

Since I know all track will be laid on 1/2 ply, 1/2 homasote, and 1/4 roadbed (a constant value) I can use the height measurements in software to cut risers that go between the frame and the plywood. Everything goes up and down with the risers.

Dan, I did that in SCARM too, just harder to explain the math and I wasn’t sure if you did the 1/8”, then 1/4”, 1/2”, 1” and so on. Since that appears to be the case, I’ll check again, but with only 175” to work with I’m still not sure it’s worth it.

Hmm... With 14 feet of run, that will be a significant grade I would expect, especially with easements figured in.  I had 24 feet of run for the grade for a rise of 7".

Yes, I agree. Fourteen feet isn't a lot of room if the plan is for crossing over something else. If it is a section along a wall it might be interesting to raise it a few inches and go back down as part of scenery. Whether or not it is worth it . . .

No crossover, just some elevated track. Trouble is after the grade there is another switch to a bigger yard and it’s not as far, so even if the first grade can go up higher, it’s restricted by the 2nd grade.

Dave has the problem I had.  I ended up with 4% grades.  However, on a small layout, I'm running short trains, so the grades don't really matter.  I threw calculations out the window, and just went with trial and error until I got acceptable vertical easements.  While that may sound dumb from a guy who always got 'A's in math, nearly 50 years away from math classes makes my head hurt trying to calculate anything anymore.    I add and subtract with paper and pen on my checkbook and other simple situations, and that's about as much math as I want. 

Mark, it’s really only math to get the numbers for the software. I still think you did the right thing just by trial and error. Dave’s problem is a bit different because he doesn’t have an engine to test with, so I’m trying to come up with a plan. I’ve been thinking in terms of switch to switch, but I’m going to try thinking in terms of the top left switch all the way around to the 1st TT switch while keeping the interim switches flat and lowering both yards. The elevation of the wye is set by the height of the table in the train room, but I don’t necessarily have to go up in the office room, I can lower the yards to get the same effect. Tom said something like that, but it didn’t register.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

Dave, my thought is that if Dan’s methodology holds, then you can only raise the small office yard on the right an inch. It’s about 175” between the switches after the tunnel to the switch for the yard. That’s 5 segments of 35” each. It takes 2 segments on each end to create the easements, so that only leaves 1 segment in the middle before the top easement.
1st goes up to 1/8”
2nd to 3/8” (1/8 + 1/4 = 1/8 + 2/8 = 3/8)
3rd to 7/8” (1/8 + 1/4 + 1/2 = 1/8 + 2/8 + 4/8 = 7/8)
4th  to 1 1/8” (1/8 + 1/4 + 1/2 + 1/4 = 1/8 + 2/8 + 4/8 + 2/8 = 9/8 = 1 1/8)
5th to 1/1/4 (1/8 + 1/4 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 = 1/8 + 2/8 + 4/8 + 2/8 + 1/8 = 10/8 = 1 2/8 = 1 1/4)

Sorry if that’s too simplistic, but when fractions are involved, it gets too easy to mess up. Anyway, Dan’s rule is probably good, but John’s way of eyeballing it is more exacting for a given engine. My method would be to set a section of track at 0”. Then I’d set the next track and use a shim to set the height of end of the segment while running an engine up the grade until the front touches, then back off a bit. I’d repeat the process for each succeeding track until you reach the height you want, then add flat tracks to see how the engine does when it goes over the peak. I’m not convinced the easement at the top needs to follow the same rule because the front is not going to touch, but the front wheels might derail or the front might just look funny sticking up in the air too much. That said (and it doesn’t include how to landscape), I don’t think it’s worth all that effort to raise a train only 1” or so for such a short distance. You’d have better luck with the Orange track in the train room because it’ll be smaller engines and no worse than what you had with the FasTrack trestle set. Still, given the layout design, I also don’t think raising any track is worth it. Sorry, just my honest opinion.

Yeah this is what i was afraid of following the correct rules of principle here i think someone told me i need 20 ft of straight track to go a few inches and your right from what you said to go up an inch that’s not worth it.

I would be better off having a second track elevated on risers of some sort and create a second level above my benchwork i have and run a train that’s seperate from the fist level and maybe one below the main level for one that runs under the maim benchwork just a thought so we wouldn’t have to deal with trying to elevate the benchwork

In my case, I really wanted one really long mainline to run long consists, so mastering the grade was paramount in my planning.  It was essential that the upper level was part of the overall path of travel on the mainline to get the continuous length of mainline that I wanted.

@davehall83 posted:

Yeah this is what i was afraid of following the correct rules of principle here i think someone told me i need 20 ft of straight track to go a few inches and your right from what you said to go up an inch that’s not worth it.

I would be better off having a second track elevated on risers of some sort and create a second level above my benchwork i have and run a train that’s seperate from the fist level and maybe one below the main level for one that runs under the maim benchwork just a thought so we wouldn’t have to deal with trying to elevate the benchwork

Can't you get permission to go through a few more walls?!?!? 

@turkey_hollow_rr posted:

Can't you get permission to go through a few more walls?!?!? 

Yeah right 🤣😂 I may be told to move in the shed at that point lol

Dave, don't give up just yet. Here's what I've been working on since I got home after my nuclear stress test this morning. Mind you, I'm still not sure it'll be worth the extra work, but at least you'll have something to look at before you decide.

My laptop is acting up, so I'm going to post the photos and SCARM file, then I'll edit in the explanation on my iPad. I'll post a note to let you know when the editing is done.

EDIT: Even though the switches are only 1 track, this isn’t going to work without an easement on both ends of the grade and I didn’t add that. I also think the elevation numbers have too many decimal points, so I’m going to try to make the numbers more sensible. The problem is I don’t think there’s enough room for .3%, .7%, 1.4% easement grades up to 2.5%, then 1.4%, .7% and .3% easement grades to the final elevation.  

@DoubleDAZ posted:

Dave, don't give up just yet. Here's what I've been working on since I got home after my nuclear stress test this morning. Mind you, I'm still not sure it'll be worth the extra work, but at least you'll have something to look at before you decide.

My laptop is acting up, so I'm going to post the photos and SCARM file, then I'll edit in the explanation on my iPad. I'll post a note to let you know when the editing is done.

Sounds good, i complete agree with you on this. I have had a nuclear stress test before myself not fun. I hope your doing ok health wise, that just doesn't sound great for sure.

To be honest, Dave, I have no idea why the nuclear test, but will find out Monday. I did a regular treadmill stress test and had an Echo on Monday. This time I begged off the treadmill, so they gave me some medication instead. I felt weird after, but she said that was normal. When I got home I drank a liter of caffeine (Dr Pepper), felt better and eventually my headache went away. I found out Monday I’ve had an aneurysm, but I don’t know if it’s grown or just why the test. It could just be routine since I turn 75 in March.