Skip to main content

Team,

I am using RR-Track and have, with the help of a few folks been working on a new layout. This is my first pass and am looking for input, suggestion, recommendations, alterations or a complete redesign.

I attached the PDF and if you need to file let me know.

Thanks,

Kevin  

 

Attachments

Files (1)
Last edited by PSU1980
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

This looks like an interesting plan with good potential, but I can't make out all the details on the PDF file. Looks like some good long hidden layover tracks in there but not sure about the connections on the right side. I'm wondering about the sizes and locations of access aisles.

One consideration with the up-and-over plan: How steep is the grade, how heavy the trains, what motive power? If you just want to watch trains cruise around for a while, it can be tedious to constantly adjust the throttle for upgrades and downgrades unless you have cruise control or other electrical arrangements to handle the varying speeds.

Last edited by Ace

That yard down below the main deck may pose a problem. You will need 7" plus your benchwork thickness minimum, and at least 12" if you expect to rerail a train. In order to do that, you are going to have a very steep grade of 8% or more.

As Ace points out, the first two dimensions look fine, but the third (vertical) is off.

Kevin, I think what Elliot is saying is that if you want to be able to reach cars on the hidden yard to deal with problems (derailments, etc.), you will need more than the minimum clearance in order to get your hands in there to do so. And if you lower the yard 12" below the main level, based on what we see for the distance of your grade track, the grade is going to be around 8%, much too steep. That's why I asked you to post the RR-Track file, so I could see the clearances, etc.

A helix loop on the right side goes the center, I think.

The helix would give as much clearance as wanted and keep the grades to 2 % or less.

Hidden track under the layout is a good idea, most of us have far more cars and engines than will fit on a layout.

I like the idea of having a track go off to a separate room with storage and a workbench for repairs.

If, I had the entire basement - I could do that. For orientation. The RR-Track Print needs to be the lower right, the R&S Enterprises it top right. KM4.rrt upper left and the date the lower left. So the space I have to operate is approx 26 by 20. 

Solid wall on the right. Currently about 2 Ft. from the right wall to the edge of the table. Then across the top is 2 ft as well. On the left is a man-made wall, built by me with an opening. Between the wall and the mechanical room is a door to the outside.

The lower left is the mechanical room, Water heater, boiler, electrical panel and tool storage. On the lower right, the gap between the 3.0. mark to the 11.0 mark is a hallway / opening to the other side of the basement where the laundry room, full bath and my office is located.

Bottom line - trying to fit as much as possible into the 20*26 foot area. What I left out is where I put a control panel which means, other than the index system, I might need to use DCS or Legacy to control witches much like Rich Battista did on the Black Diamond RR.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Kevin, I think what Elliot is saying is that if you want to be able to reach cars on the hidden yard to deal with problems (derailments, etc.), you will need more than the minimum clearance in order to get your hands in there to do so. And if you lower the yard 12" below the main level, based on what we see for the distance of your grade track, the grade is going to be around 8%, much too steep. That's why I asked you to post the RR-Track file, so I could see the clearances, etc.

Thanks for bailing me out Dave, that's exactly what I meant. Sometimes I speak a strange dialect of English, known as model railroadeese, and forget that not everyone speaks it.

The file doesn't include any track heights, so I did some playing around. I lowered the yard 7" and that yielded 3.9% (lower left) and 4.8% (upper right) grades. I then lower it 12" and that yielded grades of 6.7% and 8.2% respectively. IMHO and based on the size of the yard, etc., all those grades are too steep for the size of the trains I assume are envisioned.

Obviously, the track leading out of the yard on the right is unfinished. I assume the idea is to join it to the upper lines near where the unfinished tracks are coming out of the curve. However, there is also an unfinished track jutting out to the lower left of the bridge. I see where that might also be a place where the tracks could join, but there is no way for that track to go under the curve out of the bridge and above the yard unless the yard is lowered at least 12" plus the thickness of the roadbeds. Even then, I'm not sure the grades would be acceptable.

I further played with connecting the yard and the new grade is 3.3%, but I don't know if it clears the yard and I didn't try to deal with the 8.8% grade on the other end. I also fixed a couple of broken joints and got the simulation to run through the entire layout, but I have to say is was kind of hard keeping track of all the turnouts with all the tracks active. It was easier when I hid layer 2.

FWIW, here's a photo and I included the RR-Track file.

KM4

 

Attachments

Images (1)
  • KM4
Files (1)

Kevin,

I tried to do the same as Daz. When you fold a loop and elevate the center it will block the view of rear of the layout on one side.

it's also not a good idea to have switches on grades. (The one on the downslope to the blue tracks.)

I elevated to the bridge to 7" and the crossover switches at the rear are on level elevated area at 7". The grades are 3.4%. Not bad.

I placed all of the blue track on the Track 2 layer to make it easier to work with and set that at -12(using Elliot's suggestion). I didn't do any more with that.

I also created a terrain polygon to allow for 3D viewing. It can be shaped or whatever. Just needed something for a reference.

My suggestion is to work on the main double loops first. Change the angle of the bridge and cross that to the rear of the table and move the rear level 1 tracks in front of it and rework the loop to fit. You could also keep it the same and put the grade up on trestles to open up the view. That may not look that appealing. Regardless, a switch on a slope is asking for a loco to flop.

Attachments

Images (4)
  • KM4_3D1
  • KM4_3D2
  • KM4_3D3
  • KM4_3D4
Files (1)

I concentrated on illustrating what Elliot mentioned and completely forgot to raise the bridge. So, I made some further changes to try to reduce the grades. To that end, I shortened the top entrance to the yard. I also moved the crossover to the left of the bridge closer to the entrance to the turntable spur. To allow trains to cross back over, I changed the direction of the crossover on the right side. While RR-Track allows negative track heights, it doesn't show anything below the terrain base in the 3D view, so I had to start at 0" and the 3D view still leaves a lot to be desired. Anyway, the bridge and leading tracks are 14", the turnout above the bridge is 11", the rest of track 1 is 7" and the yard is 0".  Unfortunately, I was only able to get the grade at the top down to 5.6%, the rest are all below 4%, still not ideal.

I completely agree with Carl that the bridge and grade is going to obstruct the view of the rear tracks. I had the same problem with my initial designs and I ended up taking my bridge out. However, I am at a loss on how to restructure this design other than using pylons to elevate much of the grades to/from the bridge.

KM4-2

KM4-2-3D

 

Attachments

Images (2)
  • KM4-2
  • KM4-2-3D
Files (1)

Team,

On business travel for the next few days. I will try to run through all these comments tonight. A few stick out  - agree the bridge needs to move, did not think of that as I though more folks would look in from the TT.  Second, the lower level was not just for storage but to run so I technically thinking 3 mains so that need to be re considered. However, this feedback is great. I would rather have track layout exerts provide input before I build anything. The only items I am absolutely wedded too is the Millhouse River 28 in TT that I have along with my Altoona Model Round House. They have to stay but I am willing to start the redesign based on comments, suggestions and the picture.

Can't use RR-Tracks on the company CPU so I am limited.

I like this discussion.

Kevin 

Kevin, I just ran some more simulations and found that once a train goes down to the yard in either direction and comes out, it cannot go down again. I don't know why I didn't noticed that before, but I made the changes outlined in Red. I deleted the turnout on the right and the tracks running from it. I then added the turnout on the bottom. This doesn't solve the steep grade problem, but at least you can enter/exit the yard and get back to it. This version is from before I moved the crossover further around the curve. I only offer the photo to show how it needs to be connected to the main in order for things to work properly. I also tried moving the bridge and having things cross in a different location, but nothing I tried fixes the grade problem. I think you might want to try unfolding the mains to run around the perimeter with the RH/TT moved toward the lower right corner. I don't have time to try that tonight and I'm busy part of the day tomorrow, but I'll see what I can do later.

As far as what I'd do with a clean slate, I doubt I'm the one to ask. I'm more into just running trains, not operating a model railroad, though if I had this much space I'd probably start with a double main running the perimeter, raise at least one of them along the right side around to the left and place the bridge on it going across a canyon or something. Having the RH/TT, I'd probably make a nice "operational" yard a feature of the main level, not hidden. IMHO, even if you don't move cars around in the yard, it will be a little strange to have the RH/TT without a visible yard.

KM4

 

Attachments

Images (1)
  • KM4

I like the folded dog bone design Kevin that you designed and Dave and Carl have refined, nice use of the space.

Is it your intention to have a 2' space around the back of the layout? I think that is a great idea for access for  cars, switches, walk around space is often over looked so,I applaud you if this idea. 

Around the wall layouts give you more running but you then need duck unders or lift out bridges etc. Your dog one is fine just tweak the grades to 6" max if possible.

Last edited by Seacoast

George,

I have a Mill House River TT that I bought at York last year - 28 inch. My bad I should have gone 30 because the Lionel Vision Line BB can on be used over the bridge onto a straight. the RH is coming from Altoona Model Works and will have an extended bay so the BB will go over the bridge directly into the RH. 

The dog bone was an idea I have seen on the forum multiple times but given the comment I am going to have to do a redesign specifically because all the great folks on the forum made great productive comments on the grade, the bridge location (from Silk City Bridges - NJ HiRailers), the lower storage access and of course the need for access. 

So, I looked at a few posts last night, Alex has a new one, and a few others, I am going to see how I can modify, with the help of the forum members, the layout I planned - not wedded to it, and see where we can create the double track, then maybe a second level that fit in where you block the RH and TT view due to the bridge. 

So we are still learning and taking all the input from DoubleDaz and team,

Kevin 

 

Dave,

I can't run the simulation until I get home over the weekend. But, I totally get what your are suggesting. The thought crossed my mind to do something like that. I was drawing, free hand figured, a double main on the perimeter with a yard on one side of the layout with the RH and TT on the other. My biggest problem is those have to be on the layout given the expense which is why I tried to place them first then build a layout around them. Laidoff sick (Doug) sent me some ideas as well. Which interestingly enough were very close to yours.

Missed the connection - red marks- thanks. I get a little frustrated with the application software at times and miss things.

To the OGR Forum folks providing input - this is excellent and I appreciate all the help and suggestions. I am blessed to have folks like you willing to help.

Kevin 

 

Seacoast,

I have been in the road for 2 weeks. Just got home. Tomorrow, I plan to pull the files posted and review. Also, looking at the suggestions I may have to rethink a few items. First the table need blocks access to my mechanical room which I did not see until I looked at the one drawing so that means close the double door and open a wall. Not hard to do but would have to be done.

Or I move the table. Or make it smaller or scrap the current design and start over.

So tomorrow becomes a day to figure out options.

More as I figure this out.

Thank the Lord for software and the OGR forum members as I just avoided a major issue.

Kevin

 

Hey Kevin,

Long road trip. I would first create an accurate mapping/drawing of the layout area with the dimensions marked. Doors that swing out/in, clearances required, etc. Use the text feature to mark the information on the plan. Objects>Special Objects>Text label

I think we all skipped past that part and began looking at the layout, assuming  that you had all of that ironed out.

I just flipped you first pdf and added the information that you provided ( comments in your 3/7/16_9:25pm post) in notes. It's kind of awkward and inaccurate, especially when you will put many hours into designing a track plan to utilize the space to the maximum amount. 

An example is the 2ft. walkway along the right side and top wall. That's kind of narrow for a walk around. Raising the layout height to, say, 42" and going under with an access hatch or two may work better and provide relief for the mechanical room and exterior door access by pushing the layout against those walls. Are there windows there that require access? ( I see the space in the wall markings)

 

 

Attachments

Last edited by Moonman

Hi Carl,

When I mapped out the actual space, I took into consideration all the items but failed to mark the opening of the utility room. It faces the table so while the two foot walk around is fine the problem is if I ever have to remove the furnace or water heater it means a major lift over the layout. Given the weight of each this is a problem. That was my bad and I completely messed that one up. The other areas are fine in terms of access and clearance. 

Look at Dave's picture a few posts up (3/9) that is the the exact layout of the available space - the concern is the on the far left where the curve is. I think I can solve this by simply moving the entire layout to 1 foot to the (where the red lines are) closer to the opening.

No windows that need to be accessed - simple basement windows. The advantage I have is a full door in the basement that I can use to bring items in an out. No issues - so that is not a problem.

I just need to re measure as suggested.

Kevin 

DoubleDAZ posted:

KM4-2

 

Kevin,

I agree with Carl for the most part. I tried to show what a layout space would look like when I posted this image. As that time I had no idea what obstructions needed to be considered. Heck, I couldn't even determine the exact size of the room based on the PDF image.

Anyway, I like to make my workspace in RR-Track at least 12" larger on all sides. For example, your room appears to be something around 27x20, so I would have made the workspace at least 29x22. In that space, I'd then draw the room like you did, but add all the dimensions like Carl mentioned. In your example, I can't tell if the room dimensions are defined by the workspace or the black lines.

Once you have the room outline done and labeled, then draw the space that's available for the layout itself. In my photo, that's the gray polygon. Here's where you need to decide where your main viewing/control area is going to be and how much space you need around the layout for access. While I agree with Carl that 24" is narrow for a walk-around, it may be enough space for access if you're only going to walk around to deal with a derailment, etc. If you want enough space for visitors to be comfortable, then 36" would probably be more appropriate, at least in some areas. You could have 36" along the top and 24" along the sides/bottom, completely up to you.

Now, when it comes to the mechanical room, you need to consider more than just being able to open the door. You need to consider how much space you need to remove things when they need to be replaced. I was going to position my layout to where I could open the door just enough for me to get in, but I forgot that we have a 3'x5' box in the closet that we need to be able to get through the door. The door is on an angle, so it needed to swing more than 90° and the layout needed to be far enough away so we could get the box through.

After the space for the layout is defined, then it's time to start adding track. Like you, my first addition would be the TT. However, once you really define the layout space, it might be better off to the side vs right in front. In your current design, the TT may be visually appealing, but there are no trains running the perimeter of the layout, so visitors are going to be left looking at a TT doing little while all the train action is on the sides and in the bottom right corner.

That said, I like the idea of a bridge crossing over other tracks, but you can room a semi-hidden line around the back corner coming out from the corner and have another line at elevation for the bridge to cross over the lower track. That way your mains could run around the perimeter and your TT could be more in the middle further toward the corner. And, the interesting part of TT operation is the TT itself, so if the min viewing area is near the room entrance, then the TT should be turned 180° so viewers can watch trains come and go from the storage tracks, not just stare at the backs of stationary engines. I'd also consider moving the hidden yard to the front so that you could have trains enter tunnels on the left and right sides that would lead down to the yard. If you allow 36" in the front and 24" along the sides/bottom, 36" would be plenty to allow you to deal with the yard and 24" to deal with problems around the rest of the layout..

And finally, you mentioned maybe closing the door to the mechanical room and opening the wall. I assume you mean the wall along the entryway. If you do that, just make sure you can get larger items out. With the door the way it is now, large can come straight out and then be moved through the entryway. If you move the door, they might have to be turned and the entryway might not be wide enough.

Good luck and please post the RR-Track file along with any photo so we can continue to help.

Good advice that Dave is recommending. I have a similar issue a proposed layout in a finished attic with 4 access doors and 2 double windows at each end. And yes it's good idea to leave room for future HVAC/mechanicals and moving things into and out of that area behind the layout. How about moving the turntable into one of the large penisulas?

Kevin,

Just to add my 2¢, and not insinuating that you do the same as I did, but just as another approach on how to unravel ideas for a track layout.

I also like the dog-bone and folded dog-bone layouts. For my present layout I wanted a double-main (Ø108" and Ø99") and reversing loops. Here is what I did to fit the space I had. Note that the 'pinched' section behind the stair well provided a perfect location for reversing loop turnouts as well as crossovers between the two mains:

HPJ-Loops

Which eventually resulted in the following layout:

RODDAU 29 - Combined View

Good luck with your layout, and you surely are in the best place to get answers; and I don't mean mine by any stretch, but those of the guys, above.

Alex (Alexander Müller)

Attachments

Images (2)
  • HPJ-Loops
  • RODDAU 29 - Combined View
Last edited by Ingeniero No1

Houses are not normally designed to be layout friendly which is too bad.  Can you modify the mechanical room?  Can the door be made to swing in or be a pocket door?  Can the door be moved to the adjacent wall?  As long as walls aren't load bearing the can be moved or removed.

Also, you have the space underneath the layout for storage?  Can the 3x5 box be moved there?  Set your layout height to take advantage of the space underneath.

Instead of compromising the layout "compromise" the house. 

Jan

Dave,

I should have put the measurements on the PDF posted. Would have been easier for everyone, including me. RR-Tracks , just learning it so I made some assumptions. For the most part this will work. I did some basic measurements this morning and with a few modifications, small ones, I think I can use 90% of what everyone has added(BTW thanks to all of you professional RR-Track and Builders). The open space, the first PDF, was the entire open room no obstructions - but I did not include the dimensions of the basement area I wanted to use nor did I mark the mechanical room clearly. The opening, I will mark up the current areas for clarity later tonight and post. The grey are is exactly what / where I need to be. I plan to tape the floor and see how that works. 

The mechanical room is really not a problem. None of it is load bearing.  I enclosed it when I finished the basement so you would not see it. The opening is 50 inched with folding doors. Since I have hot water base board heat on the one wall, I will simply cut it out and re route the pipe. Not a big deal but that will be sone after the winter. Not of that will stop construction of the table.  All I need to do is wall off the area,re route and close odd that wall. A couple of days extra work. 

On the TT, your comments are excellent, when I designed the current version, the one everyone was / has been working on, I thought it might look good to be where it is now. After your comments, looking through the forum for other layouts with a TT, I am in agreement, it needs be moved. The fact that most of the visuals are away from the TT it would be somewhat bland their. Agreed, need a new place. Plus, the bridge will hinder viewing as some have pointed out. 

Alex's post and pictures of his TT seems to make sense. Mains around the TT with space. Looks like a great visual.  Alex, would you post a few pictures or a video of your layout. I am thinking Dave is onto something here. 

The hidden yards, that might be the way to go. I had just thought if it as storage but what your suggesting, if I understand you is to make is part of the layout - more action.

Back to the drawing board. I can post pictures of the area but not sure if that will help given I have not moved out the furniture - best I think I can do is add the dimensions of the room. The polygon area - grey area is what I probably will have to work with.

Let me get cracking on that. Will post shortly.

Thanks Dave.

 

 

George,

Moving the TT is totally doable. It might work. My initial thought was to put it front and center but the wisdom of the group to move it is very strong. Dave has made some great comments along with Seacoast. Alex posted a great drawing so - Short answer, yep, it can be moved which could save me moving the walls and re routing the HWBB heat. 

Kevin

Alex,

First, thanks as well. The folks that comment and are helping me - I am appreciative of their time, expertise and willingness to help. All comments are welcome. Measure twice and cut once. 

My last layout was the entire basement - before I had kids and finished it. Kids came, layout dismantled and now they are in college or getting married so I am reclaiming 1/2 of it for the layout and the rest for my office.

I like the god bone effect - to me it gives great visuals and lots of action. My last layout looked very much like your second drawing less the TT.  

Dave, Carl, Doubledaz, George and team,

What do you think about relocating the TT out of the middle and at the end of the layout away from the mechanical room? If I move it to that spot, I think I can get a nice loop like Alex has around the TT and RH, then pick up some space where the TT is now. The RH is from Altoona Model Works, 5 stall with one extension. Thoughts? Might mean a complete redesign but ..... I want this to look and feel perfect.

Kevin  

PSU1980 posted:

George,

Moving the TT is totally doable. It might work. My initial thought was to put it front and center but the wisdom of the group to move it is very strong. Dave has made some great comments along with Seacoast. Alex posted a great drawing so - Short answer, yep, it can be moved which could save me moving the walls and re routing the HWBB heat. 

Kevin

Hi Kevin,

George aka seacoast all the same person, that's me.. When I get a chance I'll post some of my designs, like you I'm still in planning phase. Turntables and engine service yards are normal within a dogbone loop layouts design. All the best!

Jan posted:

Houses are not normally designed to be layout friendly which is too bad.  Can you modify the mechanical room?  Can the door be made to swing in or be a pocket door?  Can the door be moved to the adjacent wall?  As long as walls aren't load bearing the can be moved or removed.

Also, you have the space underneath the layout for storage?  Can the 3x5 box be moved there?  Set your layout height to take advantage of the space underneath.

Instead of compromising the layout "compromise" the house. 

Jan

The 3x5 box was mine and just an example because that's what I was faced with when I had to make room for opening the door. My point was that just moving the layout enough for the door to swing open or even changing them to open inward doesn't mean that a large item can be moved out. I have a 2 bedroom doors on angles across from a bathroom door. In order to get large items in one bedroom, like a mattress, we have to do a 3-point turn, go into one bedroom then back into the bathroom before we can go into the other bedroom. I that case, the door is not the problem, it's the angles things have to be turned to get them in/out. Similarly, moving the door to the hallway might still limit what can be removed because of the opposing wall. However, I think Kevin said they were folding doors, so they might open wide enough so things can be turned.

PSU1980 posted:

The hidden yards, that might be the way to go. I had just thought if it as storage but what your suggesting, if I understand you is to make is part of the layout - more action.

Actually, the reason to move the yard to the front underneath is so you have the entire back of the layout for the grades going down. This is crude, but shows what I mean. By using the back for the grades, all grades are below 3.5%. The problem is I had to shorten the yard too much and the turnout on the curve doesn't fit because they don't make an O81 turnout, but hopefully you get the idea.

KM4test

KM4test3d

 

Attachments

Images (2)
  • KM4test
  • KM4test3d
PSU1980 posted:

Alex, 

Is your drawing on RR-Tracks software? If so, could you post it?

Kevin

Kevin,

Yes; see attached. Let me know if you have any questions. And by the way, my MRS turntable is their 34", and my MTH Premier and Lionel VL just fit.

As far as video go, I have posted several on my thread, which I believe is just below this (your) thread. The last page, number 11, has several, and the video called "Trains, Trains, Trains at HPJ RR" starts out with the VL Big Boy on the turntable.

Alex

Attachments

Here is one layout idea. My dilemma is that I have the 4 access doors that I need access. This design like your is subject to change. I also know that I want to complete a layout in a "reasonable" time frame so if I make it to big it will never get done by me. The 1st phase would be the layout to the left of the picture- the 2nd phase would be putting a tunnel portal thru the sheetrock & into the next room to the right- there would be only 1 turntable but 2 is interesting, but I can not justify one for now. The doors along the back wall and the front walls need to be accessed for storage as this is a finished attic.

pininsula 2A3-REV

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Peninsula 2A3-REV
Last edited by Seacoast
PSU1980 posted:

Alex,

First, thanks as well. The folks that comment and are helping me - I am appreciative of their time, expertise and willingness to help. All comments are welcome. Measure twice and cut once. 

My last layout was the entire basement - before I had kids and finished it. Kids came, layout dismantled and now they are in college or getting married so I am reclaiming 1/2 of it for the layout and the rest for my office.

I like the god bone effect - to me it gives great visuals and lots of action. My last layout looked very much like your second drawing less the TT.  

Dave, Carl, Doubledaz, George and team,

What do you think about relocating the TT out of the middle and at the end of the layout away from the mechanical room? If I move it to that spot, I think I can get a nice loop like Alex has around the TT and RH, then pick up some space where the TT is now. The RH is from Altoona Model Works, 5 stall with one extension. Thoughts? Might mean a complete redesign but ..... I want this to look and feel perfect.

Kevin  

Take a look at Norm Charbonneau's - he is using a 28" TT with the same RH - it may give you some ideas on where it should be placed based on how the whiskers and support  tracks should be configured.  More like 3' x 8' area.

His track plan is attached and here is his build thread.  (about 3 years to get to this point) His space is about 1/3 larger than yours - 29' x 36'

 

Attachments

Images (1)
  • dogbone_rh_peninsula_rev_loops_O99%_11-002

Add Reply

Post
The Track Planning and Layout Design Forum is sponsored by

AN OGR FORUM CHARTER SPONSOR

OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
800-980-OGRR (6477)
www.ogaugerr.com

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×