Excellent suggestion, Jan. It now goes straight before I need to curve it once to connect to the other turnout. That will look a lot better, assuming this is what you meant.
There is certainly a lot of good careful planning going in to this project. If I may offer a couple thoughts:
I don't see that the bridge across the aisle really enhances the track plan. It's just a short cut in the outer loop. I suspect you would probably leave the bridge open most of the time for access. The walk-in arrangement is excellent because it gives good access without any duck-unders on the main routes.
It's easy to end up with more trains than will fit on the layout. Consider fitting in a long siding somewhere (hidden, maybe) to park another train. It might be one real long siding around the back that can give "serial staging" for two trains, with just two switches. I get more variety with my layouts just by having different trains available to run, alternately.
Ace, thanks for the comments. The bridge is simply a way for me to run 2 trains on the outer track and be able to have one pass the other. I'm still debating whether or not I'll actually put it in because it might be more trouble than it's worth. Leaving it out would certainly save some money and be fewer tight turnouts to navigate.
Since I moved the crossovers to the back, I've kind of lost the place where my "river" and other bridges were going. I still want a bridge, but I don't want 4 bridges and I don't want them that close to turnouts, so I'm not sure what to do.
And FWIW, I actually plan to remain outside most of the time while running trains. That may be wishful thinking, but I'm more into watching trains run. I've never been into role-playing, so "operating" a railroad is not for me.
As for storage, I WILL NOT end up with more trains or rolling stock than will fit the layout. I'm not a collector or a spur of the moment buyer. The only exception to this will be the Christmas train passenger cars I have now, I will only be running those during the holidays. I will probably add a spur somewhere to park the Christmas engine and tender, but I haven't decided where yet. I can't go around the back because that's where the grade goes up to a 2nd level that will mimic trainroomgary's shelf design. My earlier designs have a hidden siding around the back, but the crossovers were on either side, not together. The inner track was a loop2loop, but I thought it was all too crowded with so many turnouts close together, so I worked this up to clear some of that clutter.
I like this design better. The original reason for the "river" in the center of the back was because I wasn't sure how all this was going to fit in the room and I was going to custom build that section once I got everything else up. Now I'm considering making it 20" and doing something with the long benchwork along the top to add a dry riverbed and some bridges there instead.
I just noticed I never posted the latest benchwork plan, so I've added a photo of that. As you can see, I'm planning for a ~3" overhang and there is a 78" long section along the top. Dividing that into 3 sections (32-14-32) would give me a 14" section in the middle that I could lower to make room for the riverbed. Or I could make it 32-32-14 and lower the middle 32" section to allow for a diagonal riverbed that might provide more visual interest and stagger the 4 bridges that would be needed.
I don't really like the idea of 4 bridges though and I'm still not sold on connecting the 2 levels either. I like the idea of being able to run all the trains on all the tracks, but the hidden grade could also be more trouble than it's worth. trainroomgary didn't connect his shelves and that allowed him to raise the 2nd level higher to provide room for more landscaping ideas on the lower level. This latest design was done on a whim and I haven't given it that much thought yet. If I don't connect the levels, I could put my hidden siding back in where the grade would have gone. I was going to hide both tracks so I could have a train go in and another train come out. I still really like that idea, so I might just give up on connecting the levels. I added that when I added/moved the crossovers, so I never considered how much it actually adds. The upper level is still going to be Main Street Bedford Falls, so the passenger train running loop2loop might be all I need.
Attachments
Images (1)
And here's one with the reversing loops back and some sidings.
EDIT: I redid the earlier version. This one:
- moves the turnouts around the corners.
- uses O36 curves for the hidden siding.
- changes the turnouts for the spurs to O54 shorts.
- changes the curves around the center to O36.
- moves the lower large section 2" to left.
Attachments
Images (1)
I really like the last version with the loop-to-loop inside the outer dogbone. I would favor stretching the siding out longer across the top if it could fit, to handle a longer train or two shorter trains.
Are you still considering an upper level, maybe to add on later? You were concerned about grades. I have a long 8% grade to connect a flat floor layout with a flat table layout. Point being, a steep grade is OK on a secondary route, and you can have fun with "doubling the hill" as necessary.
Attachments
Images (1)
Ace, there will be a 2nd level on a shelf and it will be separate unless I can find a way to get up to it. If you look at the photo of Gary's shelf railroad, you can see that the mainlines are on shelves and the reversing loops are open extensions held up by custom supports. This is what I intend to do whether or not I find a way to get up to it. The idea for the upper level is to have track along the back wall fronted by buildings from the Bedford Falls collection Target sold years ago. I'm hoping I can make my shelves "floating" so there will be no brackets to deal with. It will also wrap around so the loops will be above the loops on the lower level.
The problem is I have no idea where I could add another turnout and line going up. The tracks along the top/bottom are only ~3.75" away from the walls as it is, so I don't know how much adjusting I'll need to do as I lay track. I haven't measured the overhang of my 4-6-0 steamer and RealTrax O31 curves yet, but that should tell me what kind of clearance I need. Like I said, they will be 2 RailKing diesels and a RailKing 4-4-0, so I think the 4-6-0 will have the most overhang. One thing I suppose I could do is bite the bullet and use more O36 curves, O31 if I go with ScaleTrax. My engines will all run O31 curves and my trains will normally only be 5-7 cars long. I know it sounds crazy, but my trains and rolling stock will mostly be used every day. That's why there's no yard for storage or changing consists.
I'm open to suggestions, but my main goal is to be able to run at least 3 trains unattended and a 4th that I'd control by crossing from inside to outside and using the hidden siding.
Attachments
Images (1)
I started entering this in SCARM and this is how it looks so far. As you can see I elevated some of the lower level track and hid the siding in a tunnel. I also decided not to try connecting the 2 levels. Right now the design calls for the upper level train to go behind a row of buildings, but I haven't decided if I'll change it so the train goes in front of them. Thoughts?
I also reworked this with ScaleTrax and it came out pretty close. Obviously, the O31 curves and reversing loops are tighter, but I think I can live with either version once I make a decision on which brand track to use, Atlas or ScaleTrax.
Attachments
Images (1)
Dave I knew you were taking a vacation, but I was wondering where you had been on this project. Now I just saw you started this new topic!! I just skimmed through it, but I see Ace has suggested taking the aisle crossing bridge out. Cleaner and easier. I will have to review this topic before I comment further, but I see it is 1:00 so I will have to sign off and catch up with you later! 
Mark, you'll see I've really made some changes to both the layout and benchwork. After our tile was installed and I was able to tape the outline to the floor, I saw what I was working with and decided to concede defeat trying to connect the 2 levels. Instead, I connected the 2 runs on the lower level, was able to add my hidden siding back and I did take out the bridge across the entryway. It wasn't so much what Ace said, but after I figured out how to connect the 2 runs and the siding, I decided it just didn't add enough after that. With the double-crossover and hidden siding, I'll be able to run 3 trains over all the lower level track and I was to put 4 bridges elsewhere, as you'll see, because I moved my river and modified the benchwork. My source for FlexTrack fell through, so I'll try again at another hobby shop outside of Dallas on the way home in 3 weeks. However, I've pretty much decided to go with the latest design and use Atlas, availability of ScaleTrax is just too iffy.
I've also decided that I will add a loop2loop as a separate shelf layout next year and might use ScaleTrax for that if it's available when I'm ready. As you'll see, the concentric loops using O36/O45 look so much better than my other designs kludging O31/O54. I look forward to reading your comments when you catch up.
DoubleDAZ posted:... I've really made some changes ... decided to concede defeat trying to connect the 2 levels ... I did take out the bridge across the entryway ... I've also decided that I will add a loop2loop as a separate shelf layout next year ... concentric loops using O36/O45 look so much better than my other designs kludging O31/O54 ...
Dave, I gather that the upper level is scenically detached from the lower level because of limited table width. So the upper level needs adequate vertical separation for access to the lower level, which makes it more difficult to connect the different levels with a modest grade of manageable length. My thoughts are that the upper level reverse loops overshadow large parts of the lower level and limit your scenery options there. And the upper level is basically a one-train show with little variety of operation.
I like the general size and arrangement of the lower level. You have a good space to work with. Personally, I would want more yard and storage tracks for different trains that can be run alternately.
FWIW, some general thoughts and ideas about what I might do with that space myself :
* Build the basic plan to start on the main level, with allowance for future additions or modifications which can evolve over time within the same footprint.
* Plan places to add additional yard and layover tracks, which need not all be built right away. (trains tend to multiply, it seems). Extra-long sidings or reverse loops can provide "serial staging" with fewer switches required. Alternate routes can provide additional operational variety and double as layover tracks. Hidden layover tracks on a lower level won't crowd space on the main levels.
* Maybe use much tighter curves on the upper level loop-to-loop arrangement (O31 or O36), so the reverse loops don't overhang the lower level as much, and run smaller trains up there.
* Or, eliminate one or both upper level reverse loops, use the upper level for a long double-ended yard which provides train layover and display space, and connect to the lower level with a single track "mountain grade" which provides some operating challenge. The upper level should be within reasonable reach from the aisle, and narrow enough to not overshadow the lower level too much.
* Allow space for buildings and scenery. Avoid "implausible scenery" such as excessive numbers of tunnel portals, overly abrupt cliffs and ridges, long bridges on skewed angles, etc.
Don't be in a hurry to build "permanent" scenery until you've operated your core trackage for a while, and taken more time to figure what track additions will enhance basic operations. Rome wasn't built in a day!
These ideas reflect my own interests of mainline operation of different trains with minimum switching.
And try not to get overwhelmed with too much input from the forum!
Kunde posted:I like your plan. Here is my track plan.
I like yours too. I assume that's 16x16 and I just don't have that much space, so I have to minimize the things I'm not that interest in, that means limited spurs. All buildings will be static stuff from "It's A Wonderful Life". It's a display layout for my wife with some tracks for me.
Ace posted:DoubleDAZ posted:... I've really made some changes ... decided to concede defeat trying to connect the 2 levels ... I did take out the bridge across the entryway ... I've also decided that I will add a loop2loop as a separate shelf layout next year ... concentric loops using O36/O45 look so much better than my other designs kludging O31/O54 ...
Dave, I gather that the upper level is scenically detached from the lower level because of limited table width. So the upper level needs adequate vertical separation for access to the lower level, which makes it more difficult to connect the different levels with a modest grade of manageable length. My thoughts are that the upper level reverse loops overshadow large parts of the lower level and limit your scenery options there. And the upper level is basically a one-train show with little variety of operation.
Yes, they are completely separate, but both will have buildings from our "It's a Wonderful Life" collection. The vertical separation is 14" on the drawing, but that may change. The top level will start out as a display shelf and the layout part will be added next year or so. The upper level is primarily a year-round Christmas display for the lighted buildings with a train. I understand the elevated tracks will block some of the lower view, but that's just the way it has to be, at least until I build the lower level and do some testing. It's fashioned after trainroomgary's shelf layouts.I like the general size and arrangement of the lower level. You have a good space to work with. Personally, I would want more yard and storage tracks for different trains that can be run alternately.
I completely understand and if I had more room or a greater desire to "operate" a railroad, I would too.FWIW, some general thoughts and ideas about what I might do with that space myself :
* Build the basic plan to start on the main level, with allowance for future additions or modifications which can evolve over time within the same footprint.
I've drafted so many plans, I'm out of ideas.* Plan places to add additional yard and layover tracks, which need not all be built right away. (trains tend to multiply, it seems). Extra-long sidings or reverse loops can provide "serial staging" with fewer switches required. Alternate routes can provide additional operational variety and double as layover tracks. Hidden layover tracks on a lower level won't crowd space on the main levels.
There will NOT be more that 4 engines or more rolling stock than will fit on the layout as designed. I am not a collector nor am I an impulse buyer because something new comes out. I just want to run 3-4 trains for 30 minutes or so a few times a week and that's it.* Maybe use much tighter curves on the upper level loop-to-loop arrangement (O31 or O36), so the reverse loops don't overhang the lower level as much, and run smaller trains up there.
The loops are already O36 with O45 in the corners to provide space for buildings. I haven't decided yet how far out the loops will actually come and will be on some kind of see-thru roadbed. All trains will routinely have only 4-5 cars plus engine (and tender). I've seen plenty of multi-level layouts here that are crammed with stuff blocking views. Again, I'll play with that after the lower level is done and then decide. I haven't even decided how high the lower level will be until I build the sections and then play with the length of the legs. I'm actually think about legs that can be raised and lowered.* Or, eliminate one or both upper level reverse loops, use the upper level for a long double-ended yard which provides train layover and display space, and connect to the lower level with a single track "mountain grade" which provides some operating challenge. The upper level should be within reasonable reach from the aisle, and narrow enough to not overshadow the lower level too much.
While I would like to connect the upper and lower levels, it simply doesn't meet my goals. I already have a design that connects them levels, but it forces me to take out too much of what I want on the lower level and it's just not worth it to me. Again, this is not an "operation" layout. I hear what you're saying, it's just not for me in this small space. When I thought I was going to have to whole room, I had a logging operation theme between Flagstaff and Phoenix, but that doesn't interest me in the space I'm left with and I'm left with a display layout.* Allow space for buildings and scenery. Avoid "implausible scenery" such as excessive numbers of tunnel portals, overly abrupt cliffs and ridges, long bridges on skewed angles, etc.
Truth be told I have no idea when I'll add landscaping. There are going to be the 4 tunnel portals for the hidden siding and that's it. If I don't do anything more that set some Bedford Falls buildings around the lower level, I'll still be happy with it. For me it's not unlike building a permanent Christmas display layout.Don't be in a hurry to build "permanent" scenery until you've operated your core trackage for a while, and taken more time to figure what track additions will enhance basic operations. Rome wasn't built in a day!
I do plan to live with just the track minimally tacked in place for quite awhile, though not to find things to enhance "operations". My idea of operation is turning on the power and running trains.These ideas reflect my own interests of mainline operation of different trains with minimum switching.
I get it and I'm saving your comments in case I find out I do want more and decide to scrap this at some point. I just don't have to time to devote to operating a model railroad as opposed to watching some trains go round and round for a bit while I read a book or watch TV, etc.And try not to get overwhelmed with too much input from the forum!
Too late for that.With that in mind, I'm not sure how things are going to fit. The only thing I am sure of is the benchwork layout. No matter what I end up doing, it will have to fit in that footprint. I'm already a little disillusioned by how little space that really is when laid out with tape. Just laying down the 6'x10' RealTrax oval I have was a shock and I almost decided to scrub the whole thing. We shall see. No matter what happens, it'll be a learning experience and I'll have fun.
Finally found a hobby shop along a route we can take home from Georgia in 2 weeks who says they have ScaleTrax, including FlexTrack, in stock for me to take a look at. So, come April 11, I should finally be able to buy an oval of ScaleTrax and some FlexTrack to play with when I get back to Phoenix. Then I'll be able to finalize what brand of track I'm going to use. I may even go ahead and buy enough for my loop-2-loop shelf layout even though I don't plan to build that just yet. Either way, I'll be glad to get this decision behind me and get on with the build.
Are you on the verge of building benchwork? I'll be interested to hear your evaluation and decisions on which track system to use. 
Ace, as soon as I get back and get a couple of doctor appointments out of the way, construction on the benchwork modules will begin. I have a few other things to do at the same time and it's starting to get warm in Phoenix, so don't expect a lot of progress in a short time. I'll be building the modules in the garage and then bolting them together in the train room.
I also just found out that Ross doesn't make O36 switches, so I'll need to see if I can make O42s work in a few places if I decide to go with ScaleTrax. I may use Atlas on the main layout and ScaleTrax on the shelf layout by simply changing the shelf to use O31 switches. And depending on how much space I have on the shelf, the loop-2-loop might turn into a dogbone with no switches so I can run 2 trains up there and have them pass each other coming and going. I've got some cardboard to cut out so I can see how wide I can make the shelf and still see the main layout below.
I did make a bit of a faux pas when I answered one of your earlier questions. I said I wasn't sure how far out the upper loops would come, but they have to come out as far as the layout below for the supports and so they don't interfere with the center operation area.
I will certainly post my impressions of the track though as soon as I get home. The hobby shop has an in-store layout with both Atlas and ScaleTrax, so I should be able to get quite a bit of information and a good side-by-side comparison. Hopefully they'll let me take photos. It's a little out of our way and I don't relish going through Dallas, but we all have to make sacrifices, right?
Good to hear Dave, I look forward to seeing your progress.
Mike
Thanks, Mike. I look forward to making some, but I don't want to raise expectations. I'm a novice at this, so I plan to take my time and I'll be trying different techniques that I may or may not be able to get to work the way I want. But that's where the fun is, right?
DoubleDAZ posted:Thanks, Mike. I look forward to making some, but I don't want to raise expectations. I'm a novice at this, so I plan to take my time and I'll be trying different techniques that I may or may not be able to get to work the way I want. But that's where the fun is, right?
Dave,
Lets remember I to am a novice . I try different ideas, techniques, materials all the time. Our layout plan is from the atlas o scale book, because I didn't know about scram until you told me about it. That in itself has opened new ideas. So I agree that is where the fun is , I also have a 12 yr old son with crazy ideas and I say that can't be done, then he says why not?
Mike
Enjoy your son's crazy ideas, Mike, they don't last long. I remember the crazy stuff I used to try to make my first Lionel do, it wasn't always pretty, or safe.
I've pretty much decided to go in a new direction, so if you've been following this, please see my new thread.
