Kicking around a new layout

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

I don't see how that 34" TT fits on the pictured benchwork.

@Mike0289 posted:

I suspect you're likely going to get bored with concentric ovals of track and a TT in the middle. Have you considered a more complex track plan that will both be more visually interesting and be very likely to give you a lot more running enjoyment? Reversing opportunities, different routing options, etc all to give the perception that the trains are actually going somewhere.

Here's a 3-level track plan I recently put together for an 11x18 space. It's ultimately a single track mainline with reversing loops at each end, but there are multiple passing sidings to allow multiple trains to run, a small yard, an industry to service, and a locomotive facility with a transfer table. There's also lots of scenic opportunity for a mountain, town, etc.

I think this plan could be adjusted for your space. Alternatively, if you have some ideas for what you'd want in a track plan, I'd be happy to put something together. I find this track planning work to be both relaxing and enjoyable

https://ogrforum.com/...4#161067875125617394

That's amazing!!! Nicely done.  I was just trying to keep it basic to start it off with then add on but am very open to something like you made here. I have bigger engines so that's why I kind of want to keep it 1 level and the turns over O72.

@Robert Cushman posted:

That's amazing!!! Nicely done.  I was just trying to keep it basic to start it off with then add on but am very open to something like you made here. I have bigger engines so that's why I kind of want to keep it 1 level and the turns over O72.

Thanks!

That plan is all 072 minimum except for a couple of the yard tracks and all the grades are less than 3%. As long as you're running modern locomotives with some kind of speed control, the grades shouldn't be an issue. And when you want to run long trains, it gives you the opportunity to lash-up for a reason other than "it looks cool"

You can always have a loop or two of level track around/under/over and connected to a more complex mainline that changes elevation, reverses, etc.

If you have a list of wants for your layout, I'd be happy to mock something up as I have the time.

@Mike0289 posted:

You can always have a loop or two of level track around/under/over and connected to a more complex mainline that changes elevation, reverses, etc.

If you have a list of wants for your layout, I'd be happy to mock something up as I have the time.

Thank you Mike. Please do.

The longest train I have is an Acela normal set no expansion. I really just run the engines and maybe 2-5 at the most behind. I want to keep it 20x10 or 16x8. I would consider a yard over the turntable also.

@Robert Cushman posted:

Thank you Mike. Please do. I definitely want to incorporate a Millhouse 34. The longest train I have is an Acela normal set no expansion. I really just run the engines and maybe 2-5 at the most behind. I want to keep it 20x10.

Ok, here's what I have so far for your requirements:

• 20' x 10' space w/benchwork plan you already shared
• min 072 curves on mainlines
• millhouse 34" TT
• minimum passing/storage siding length ~9' (to accommodate the Acela)
  
  

Here are some questions that will help me capture more requirements:

• How many separate mainlines/loops are you looking for?
• How many whisker tracks on the TT? How many need to be 34" long?
• Do you want reversing loops?
• Do you want a yard? How many tracks?
• Do you want any industry sidings?
• Do you want a passenger station?
• Are there any specific scenery features you want to incorporate? Mountain, canyon/river, town(s), etc
• Are you OK with a multi-level layout? 2 levels only? 3 levels OK?

Going multi-level will allow me to be much more creative in the track plan and give you longer mainline runs and more illusion of trains actually going somewhere. This isn't an all or nothing situation though - it's possible to have some mainlines/loops moving between levels of the layout while others are restricted to a single level

@Mike0289 posted:

Ok, here's what I have so far for your requirements:

• 20' x 10' space w/benchwork plan you already shared Yes I need to add another 4x8 and am going to get some 3/4" birch instead of the 1/4" I have on it now.
• min 072 curves on mainlines
• millhouse 34" TT  (optional, not a must)
• minimum passing/storage siding length ~9' (to accommodate the Acela)
  
  

Here are some questions that will help me capture more requirements:

• How many separate mainlines/loops are you looking for? 2, I'm too stupid to do more than 1 train at the same time. Also I don't trust myself even if theyre just crawling.
• How many whisker tracks on the TT? How many need to be 34" long? 2
• Do you want reversing loops? Yes
• Do you want a yard? How many tracks? Yard would be a solid alternative to the turntable.
• Do you want any industry sidings? unsure
• Do you want a passenger station? unsure
• Are there any specific scenery features you want to incorporate? Mountain, canyon/river, town(s), etc I'd like to do it with a possible liftout bridge somewhere so I can get inside without tucking and rolling.
• Are you OK with a multi-level layout? 2 levels only? 3 levels OK? 2 is technically what I have even though they aren't connected but wouldn't be against.

Going multi-level will allow me to be much more creative in the track plan and give you longer mainline runs and more illusion of trains actually going somewhere. This isn't an all or nothing situation though - it's possible to have some mainlines/loops moving between levels of the layout while others are restricted to a single level

@Robert Cushman posted:

Is your benchwork 20x8 or 20x10? The image you uploaded earlier looked like 20x10. Want to make sure dimensions are correct before I start designing something

It's 8. I dk why I had it in my head as 10.

Got it. I'll start working on something that fits on this benchwork configuration which matches your latest image. Is there an specific location where the lift-out section needs to be or is that flexible?

anywhere in the 8x2 sections.

@Robert Cushman posted:

anywhere in the 8x2 sections.

Love the flexibility

I'll try to get something put together over the next few days

The middle photo is only an example kit. The 3rd photo shows a 4’ expansion added to the TT area. The TT is 34”, the whiskers are 35”, so there’s no reason 79” won’t fit in the 8’ X 10’ space on the left side. However, unless you have or plan to buy 9 articulated engines why not add some shorter whiskers? The bottom line though is that other than the 2 ovals, there’s not going to be much else you can add in the way of operation other than some spurs that the large engines probably won’t be able to use. In reality, there’s not much that can be done with large articulated engines in a 10’ X 20’ space other than running in circles.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

The middle photo is only an example kit. The 3rd photo shows a 4’ expansion added to the TT area. The TT is 34”, the whiskers are 35”, so there’s no reason 79” won’t fit in the 8’ X 10’ space on the left side. However, unless you have or plan to buy 9 articulated engines why not add some shorter whiskers? The bottom line though is that other than the 2 ovals, there’s not going to be much else you can add in the way of operation other than some spurs that the large engines probably won’t be able to use. In reality, there’s not much that can be done with large articulated engines in a 10’ X 20’ space other than running in circles.

Real quick, would 2" foam board help dampen the track volume even more when I lay the ross with the ross bed vs the 3/4" ply I'm going to switch to?

@DoubleDAZ posted:

The middle photo is only an example kit. The 3rd photo shows a 4’ expansion added to the TT area. The TT is 34”, the whiskers are 35”, so there’s no reason 79” won’t fit in the 8’ X 10’ space on the left side. However, unless you have or plan to buy 9 articulated engines why not add some shorter whiskers? The bottom line though is that other than the 2 ovals, there’s not going to be much else you can add in the way of operation other than some spurs that the large engines probably won’t be able to use. In reality, there’s not much that can be done with large articulated engines in a 10’ X 20’ space other than running in circles.

Did you mean to attach some photos?

I spent a few hours on this last night, but didn't end up with anything worth sharing yet. The maximum radius that will fit in 8' is 088 and any track work more interesting than 2 concentric loops is going very likely going to have at least one area with 3 concentric curves, meaning 088-080-072. This 4" center to center spacing is likely to be too tight for large articulated locomotives.

@Robert Cushman any opportunity to go a little wider with your benchwork? 10x20 or even 9x20 would let me fit in 096 radius curves, and would give us a 096-084-072 setup with 6" center to center which should allow pretty much anything ever made to run without sideswiping trains on adjacent tracks.

@Robert Cushman posted:

Real quick, would 2" foam board help dampen the track volume even more when I lay the ross with the ross bed vs the 3/4" ply I'm going to switch to?

I don't think you'll get much (if any) sound reduction from foam board if you're already planning on using Rossbed. But I also don't have personal experience with foam board or Rossbed, so I'm happy to be corrected

But the foam board will give you the ability to carve out and make more interesting terrain - ditches along the sides of the track, creek or river running through the layout, etc.

Robert Cushman,

Rather than re-invent the wheel, you need to look at the numerous threads here about layout construction and noise reduction techniques.  To summarize, noise levels will depend on which brand of track you use, how you intend to attach the track to the table (if at all), what layers of materials separate track from table, and what other layers of stuff (foam, homasote, etc.) you put between the track and the table.

Chuck

@Mike0289 posted:

Did you mean to attach some photos?

No, Mike, I was referring to the photos in Robert’s post, now almost 23 hours ago.

@Robert Cushman posted:

I’m thinking of Atlas for the whole thing over the Ross or Gargraves. I think it would be easier and wouldn’t have to wire the switches like I’d have to do with Ross/GG.

@Mike0289 posted:

I'm not sure what's making you think Atlas would be easier to lay and/or wire than Ross/Gargraves?

• Atlas uses rail joiners (outside the rail) while Gargraves uses track pins (inside the rail), but from an electrical perspective, they're pretty similar
• Both can be laid directly on your tabletop or on top of cork/foam/etc roadbed
• Both have to be ballasted, etc if desired
• The selection of curve radii and switches is similar
• Length of straight/flex sections is similar (Atlas 40", Gargraves 37") but you will likely end up cutting some sections to fit your needs and minimize the number of joints either way

Of course Atlas track is solid rail, so it is objectively a little quieter than Ross/Gargraves. But as many folks here on the forum have noted, there are many things that contribute to layout noise besides the type of track used.

Also keep in mind that availability of Atlas track seems to be pretty limited recently, as it's made overseas. On the other hand Ross & Gargraves are made here in the USA and seem to be much more readily available.

Note: I only have personal experience with Fastrack as that's what I'm using on my current layout. Everything I know about Atlas, Ross, and Gargraves is based on my own research - reading OGR and other online forums, watching O-gauge youtube channels, etc. I apologize if any of the above info is incorrect - please let me know and I'll edit the post.

I’m in the same boat. I only know fastrack. I get all my info from the guys on here. Doubledaz actually made my first layout and then basically did the changes for my current layout.

Robert, I think you’re overthinking the track selection. I don’t know how involved wiring Ross switches is, so I can’t comment, but when looking at prices, you definitely have to consider the whole cost. There’s nothing wrong with Atlas, but it’s always been more expensive and less available than GarGraves. Overall cost though pretty much depends on how many switches you add. And don’t get hung up on appearance unless you don’t plan to add ballast, landscaping and scenery. I once visited a large layout in Texas that used every brand of track except FasTrack and RealTrax. Obviously, you could see the differences if you looked for them, but it didn’t detract from the overall appearance, at least not for me.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

Robert, I think you’re overthinking the track selection. I don’t know how involved wiring Ross switches is, so I can’t comment, but when looking at prices, you definitely have to consider the whole cost. There’s nothing wrong with Atlas, but it’s always been more expensive and less available than GarGraves. Overall cost though pretty much depends on how many switches you add. And don’t get hung up on appearance unless you don’t plan to add ballast, landscaping and scenery. I once visited a large layout in Texas that used every brand of track except FasTrack and RealTrax. Obviously, you could see the differences if you looked for them, but it didn’t detract from the overall appearance, at least not for me.

I most likely will not ballast anything and am trying to avoid any soldering. I'd be fine with manual switches as well. I also like to change things around to which is another reason I don't want to make anything permanent.

Which would I be able to escape the soldering of these three atlas or gargraves or ross easiest?

@Robert Cushman posted:

I most likely will not ballast anything and am trying to avoid any soldering. I'd be fine with manual switches as well. I also like to change things around to which is another reason I don't want to make anything permanent.

Which would I be able to escape the soldering of these three atlas or gargraves or ross easiest?

I thought you were looking for a more permanent layout, which is why I was recommending the Ross Gargraves combo.

If you're planning to tear up and change your track plan on a regular basis, I'd reconsider Lionel Fastrack. It's pretty much designed with that in mind while Atlas/Ross/Gargraves are more suitable for permanent layouts. The switches are especially nice as you don't need any wiring at all to control them from your TMCC/Legacy system - they can be powered by track voltage (even 18V) and have the TMCC/Legacy electronics built right in.

Regardless of your track system, changing your track plan will probably require moving power drops around, moving switch wiring if you don't use Fastrack or manual switches, etc. Both of these may require drilling new holes in your benchwork each time you reconfigure. Just something to think about.

I use these spade connectors and 16-gauge speaker wire to power my current 9' x 12' Fastrack layout - it's worked fine for me so far.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/prod...00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

There are track connectors with power pigtails for several brands of track and ways of connecting power to the others without the need to solder anything. People solder because it causes fewer problems in the long run. Like Mike, I’m really not sure why you want to start over and not use FasTrack. Unless, of course, if you don’t have what you need in the way of curves/switches for the large engines. FasTrack is designed to be taken apart, the others aren’t. I remember how loose the pins got on my old Lionel set from rearranging the tracks so often. The same thing with my HO track.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

There are track connectors with power pigtails for several brands of track and ways of connecting power to the others without the need to solder anything. People solder because it causes fewer problems in the long run. Like Mike, I’m really not sure why you want to start over and not use FasTrack. Unless, of course, if you don’t have what you need in the way of curves/switches for the large engines. FasTrack is designed to be taken apart, the others aren’t. I remember how loose the pins got on my old Lionel set from rearranging the tracks so often. The same thing with my HO track.

100%

Fastrack has curves up to 096, switches up to 072, and is designed with 6" center to center spacing in mind, which is perfect for large articulated locomotives. You will end up needing a bunch of the short 1 3/4" and 1 3/8" fitter pieces, but that's the price of the flexibility of the system, IMO.

Regardless, here's a Ross/Gargraves min-072, 2-mainline plan, with reversing options that includes a Millhouse River Studios 34" TT. One loop is limited to a simple oval on the main level, but provides access to a 3-track yard with 064, 054, and 042 min tracks and an additional shorter siding for a locomotive, etc. The other loop is composed of a stretch of track between the two reversing loops, changes elevation between the main and upper levels, and provides access to the TT on the upper level. The plan also includes a Ross Premier double crossover to allow switching between the two loops or combining both loops into a single longer run.

The dark grey sections of track would be on a drop-down or flip-up section for access to the interior. I made sure that only regular straight/curved track sections would need to be cut to implement this as cutting into the double crossover and/or 072 switch did not seem desirable.

The graded portion of track is colored green and has approximately a 3.1% grade, rising up to 7" above the main level. The closest any track gets to the outer edge of the benchwork is 2.9". While there is a slight bit of overhang on the inner edge in the yard area, I imagine it's possible to add an inner corner just a few inches across to fill that gap.

There are two curved flex track sections in the yard area which are colored yellow. These would need to actually be flex track. There is one additional curved flex track in the upper reversing loop which is colored blue. This is simply representing a standard Ross 072 curve which has been cut down to 11.4 degrees, as the 072 portion of the 072/096 curved switch is 33.6 degrees.

You'll see many other flex sections in this plan (sections labeled 101F), but they are simply straight flex which represent either Ross or Gargraves straight sections (your choice).

Not a lot of space for scenery on this layout, although you could shorten the yard tracks and use the space in front of the double crossover for a "Main Street" style scene and maybe a passenger station. There's also an opportunity to scenic some tunnels for the lower reversing loop and inner mainline. Also room to put a mountain in the top right corner and have the upper reversing loop run through a tunnel up there as well.

@Robert Cushman posted:

I most likely will not ballast anything and am trying to avoid any soldering. I'd be fine with manual switches as well. I also like to change things around to which is another reason I don't want to make anything permanent.

Which would I be able to escape the soldering of these three atlas or gargraves or ross easiest?

Gargraves makes some track pins with feeder wires already soldered on, which would make it so you don't need to solder wires to the track. These should work for Ross as well as their track is directly compatible, including track pins. Looks like there are a number of options for wire color and connector on the other end.

https://www.gargraves.com/accessories.html

@Mike0289 posted:

Regardless, here's a Ross/Gargraves min-072, 2-mainline plan, with reversing options that includes a Millhouse River Studios 34" TT. One loop is limited to a simple oval on the main level, but provides access to a 3-track yard with 064, 054, and 042 min tracks and an additional shorter siding for a locomotive, etc. The other loop is composed of a stretch of track between the two reversing loops, changes elevation between the main and upper levels, and provides access to the TT on the upper level. The plan also includes a Ross Premier double crossover to allow switching between the two loops or combining both loops into a single longer run.

The dark grey sections of track would be on a drop-down or flip-up section for access to the interior. I made sure that only regular straight/curved track sections would need to be cut to implement this as cutting into the double crossover and/or 072 switch did not seem desirable.

The graded portion of track is colored green and has approximately a 3.1% grade, rising up to 7" above the main level. The closest any track gets to the outer edge of the benchwork is 2.9". While there is a slight bit of overhang on the inner edge in the yard area, I imagine it's possible to add an inner corner just a few inches across to fill that gap.

There are two curved flex track sections in the yard area which are colored yellow. These would need to actually be flex track. There is one additional curved flex track in the upper reversing loop which is colored blue. This is simply representing a standard Ross 072 curve which has been cut down to 11.4 degrees, as the 072 portion of the 072/096 curved switch is 33.6 degrees.

You'll see many other flex sections in this plan (sections labeled 101F), but they are simply straight flex which represent either Ross or Gargraves straight sections (your choice).

Not a lot of space for scenery on this layout, although you could shorten the yard tracks and use the space in front of the double crossover for a "Main Street" style scene and maybe a passenger station. There's also an opportunity to scenic some tunnels for the lower reversing loop and inner mainline. Also room to put a mountain in the top right corner and have the upper reversing loop run through a tunnel up there as well.

Looks incredible Mike! Thank you. I really like the easier access to the entire layout with everything within reach. Thank you for taking the time and doing this for me.

@Robert Cushman posted:

Looks incredible Mike! Thank you. I really like the easier access to the entire layout with everything within reach. Thank you for taking the time and doing this for me.

You're welcome! Happy to help

Small update:

• Adjusted yard tracks to eliminate overhang
• Noted that the curved flex sections on the grade are actually Ross 084 sections (not in the RailModeller Pro Ross library but Ross does list them on the website)
  
  

@Robert Cushman would love to see some pictures if you end up building this!

Mike, I think that’s a fine design for the space given that Robert wants the TT and to be able to run large engines.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

Mike, I think that’s a fine design for the space given that Robert wants the TT and to be able to run large engines.

Thanks for the kind words, Dave! I aim to please!

I'm still waiting to hear back from Mianne but I think this will be my start to the newer layout.

20x10

Atlas o for track (because I like the thoughts of a quieter, solid rail plus most of the guys on here rave about it)

outer is 99

inner 90

72 switches

LIFT OUT BRIDGE at 96" from left side because that's where there will be a walkthrough.

I'll eventually add more switches like what Mike made for me long the top and bottom.

The other thing I was thinking about was getting a bridgeboss elevated rail to go on the 8x10 section (far left) minimum o54. Maybe do like a double track circle or L shape.

The other thing I took out was the TT. I figure I'd do that down the road possibly instead of building the layout around it I wanted to build it so the Big Boy and other big trains I run can stretch their legs easier.

If I did the track incorrect please let me know. I didnt know if there has to be a piece in between the switches or not?

@Robert Cushman posted:

I'm still waiting to hear back from Mianne but I think this will be my start to the newer layout.

20x10

Atlas o for track (because I like the thoughts of a quieter, solid rail plus most of the guys on here rave about it)

outer is 99

inner 90

72 switches

LIFT OUT BRIDGE at 96" from left side because that's where there will be a walkthrough.

I'll eventually add more switches like what Mike made for me long the top and bottom.

The other thing I was thinking about was getting a bridgeboss elevated rail to go on the 8x10 section (far left) minimum o54. Maybe do like a double track circle or L shape.

The other thing I took out was the TT. I figure I'd do that down the road possibly instead of building the layout around it I wanted to build it so the Big Boy and other big trains I run can stretch their legs easier.

If I did the track incorrect please let me know. I didnt know if there has to be a piece in between the switches or not?

I still think you'll eventually get tired of concentric ovals, but ultimately it's your layout and you should build what you want!

I recommend using numbered switches for the crossovers (i.e. #4, #5, etc) they're much more gradual and eliminate the S-curve you get when building crossovers with 072 and other 0xx switches. You can use a plastic/fiber pin to isolate the center rail between switches, so you don't have to put any track sections between the switches for that purpose. However using numbered switches back-to-back will result in track spacing that won't be sufficient for concentric curves, so you probably will need to add a straight section between for that reason.

Just be careful designing a track plan and assuming you'll have room to add a 34" TT and whisker tracks - that's a huge footprint, something like 3' x 6', and that's not even including the lead track(s).

Hope you're able to find all the Atlas track you'll need!

Ok, Robert, here’s my nickel’s worth.

If you plan to run large articulated engines, you need to insure adequate clearance around the entire layout and I think that means 6” or more. The O-72 switches might give you that along the straights, but your loops shrink at the apex. Also, I completely agree with Mike, you want numbered switches, not O-72. If you plan to use an Atlas double-track bridge, I believe it’s clearance is 4.5”, so that doesn’t mesh well with the desire for concentric ovals for large engines. Again, I don’t have access to SCARM until next month, so I can’t mock up #4s, #5s, etc., plus the bridge, but the bottom line is the design won’t work in its current configuration.

If you’re even only half serious about adding a 34” TT, it doesn’t make any sense, IMHO, to design something now without it. That doesn’t mean you have to build it in Phase 1, or ever, but you simply can’t wait until later to see if it will fit. Also, you need to evaluate just how many whisker tracks you will need/want. There is a big difference in the space needed based on the configuration of the lead and whisker tracks.

One other thing is I’m not sure what the ultimate goal is here. Is it to model some kind of railroad in a 10x20 space with engines that approach 3’ in length? Or is it to create a display layout that will feature those engines and some rather impressive storage? I see nothing wrong with designing a TT area with a storage yard and some concentric ovals around it for open running of long trains. There is room for a much longer lead as well as things like coaling towers, water towers, an engine house, etc. I can’t do a mock up until I get home and I guess a couple of concentric ovals won’t be too much work to reconfigure when you decide what you want to add. I suggest you take a look at the yard and layout Mike_CT has for more inspiration.

I think Mike’s moc up would be the best option to suit what I want to do and plus have the option to put the TT in later.

My main goal is to just have a huge loop like he made and spots to store them when they’re not moving.

I’ll try to make Mike’s in atlas and see what I come up with.