Blank Slate! Need Help? Track Elevation Changes Or No?

Yes and no.  Look up Norm Charbonneau  His layout has no grades and they are not needed. He has hills and valleys with streams but the track remains level -- the ground moves.  

Now if it is necessary for one track to cross over another track then the answer is yes.  If you are modeling helper service then again the answer is yes. 

Use scenery like Norm to separate the various vignettes.

I currently do not have any grades on my layout but I am adding staging tracks below on side.

Jan

Grades make a layout much more visual appealing.  Also, you will be "stuck" traveling in one direction only less physically picking up the trains.  You may also grown weary of ducking under to your central pit.

I don't know how much room you have on the ends, but if you are looking for a continuous run I would suggest you consider a dog-bone also called water-wing layout.  That would eliminate the need for you to duck-under to that pit area, and it would also provide the appearance the trains are reversing. 

If you do grades, strip off your top layer of plywood/homasote whatever it is and use the boards, not plastic trestles, as your base for your track.

Last unsolicited suggestion, I apologize for butting-in, other than create yet another track arrangement that just loops, figure out what you are going to do for fun after you build your loops.  

People will discover, in the end, that it is much more fun to be part of your own crew and have interaction with your layout versus standing and watching the trains loop the same circle in the same direction (let the haters rain down, I said it.)

What is the name of your railroad?  Where is it?  What does it do? Haul freight?  Passengers?  both?  Does it provide or haul some special service item?

You don't have to be a rivet counter.  It doesn't have to be perfect.  It can be completely free lance/made-up.  But, providing your line with some plausibility, purpose and participation for you and others will greatly enhance your experience and layout.

You do have a blank slate.  Here is a great opportunity to build something really great and a cut-above the 99% of the others.  Give yourself some time and think about specifically what you want to do.  What do you want your layout to be when finished?

Lastly, I respectfully suggest you re-consider ducking-under to reach that central pit.  Build your layout in the shape of an open letter like a: U, L or something that provides you access without ducking and reverse!  :-)  There's my 2 cents and a whole bunch of unasked for rambling!   

Well, I am somewhat surprised, but not totally. Your artistic side would get tired of the look and new ideas would be churning.

The blank slate already has you locked in to a flat terrain.

Take your artistic eye and view the terra-forming for creating perspective. Further that from a couple of different viewpoints.

Taking the viewpoint from the room to the table, as in the photo, raise the rear half 2".

Now use a backdrop on the walls to create more perspective. The road passing out of the city into the wall could be enhanced with some flats and the road narrowing to a vanishing point.

Anyway, try O36 switches in the southwest. They are longer than 10". if you toggle the B key, you can see the roadbed. The third track from the bottom is too close for a build and the inner bridge track in the east is too close.

Here's my tinkering -

First, your layout plan looks fine: it has three independent routes, and a long yard that looks like it could hold trains as a staging yard.  One route is not just a plain oval, adding interest.   Not sure what industry will go in the upper-right off the inside route - could be good opportunities there.   Carl's suggestions add a bit more variability and interest.

In terms of grades, as mentioned the terrain can go above and below the "table" level.   However, you could also consider long shallow grades for the visual and operating interest - say 1% or 2%.   The mains at the bottom are a possibility, going up and down at each end, perhaps into the curves, with perhaps 6' of level track between the up and down.   I am not sure the value of doing this will be worth it to you, you will have to judge.   To make it easy, I like to use Woodland Scenics foam inclines at 2%, so doing the grades is not at all difficult.

Tackindy, Your benchwork is very similar to mine, and even your trackplan and mine are pretty similar. Based on my own experience with this type of plan, I would definitely recommend some sort of lift-out / drawbridge section so you can get into the middle of your layout. This can be done by putting hinges on one of your benchwork sections, or if you want to add another dimension, put in an actual bridge. Jim Ballmann of Stainless Unlimited does excellent work and can make just about any dimension you need to fit your layout. Ducking under the benchwork will get old really fast. 

John

Good point John, I second your suggestion!

Yeah John I know what you mean.  But this is my third redo in this room, the other two being dog bone, or just too big to get to certain parts without major body contortion.  So I decided to do it this way even though you have to duck.... well crawl under to get to the center.  I did consider a drop down, or lift out section to create an easy access to the middle.  And in the future I may do that as I have left an area designed for that where no under supports are located.  But for now I figured it would force me to work out a bit as I go under so many times.  And so far I've gone to bed worn out and sore from it!  So maybe it's working!  ha ha. 

I did fix the track issues of some areas being too close.  Below are pictures of the layout as of right now.  

tackindy posted:

...

90° turns and straight tracks that run parallel the layout edges... how... boring?

Oops.  I think I went to high on the bridge elevation changes.  The train went over it well.... but it looks too high for such a short approach.  I think I'll lower it tonight if I get a chance.   

The grade (rise/run) percentage is what's important. Lower the rise or lengthen the run and you get a smaller grade. If trains aren't running underneath the bridge, then it doesn't need to be that high -- maybe 4" (16 feet) of clearance underneath for "highway" traffic. What you have looks a bit steep, but not problematic for three-rail engines with traction tires.

AGHRMatt posted:

The grade (rise/run) percentage is what's important. Lower the rise or lengthen the run and you get a smaller grade. If trains aren't running underneath the bridge, then it doesn't need to be that high -- maybe 4" (16 feet) of clearance underneath for "highway" traffic. What you have looks a bit steep, but not problematic for three-rail engines with traction tires.

Thats what I was thinking Matt.  It's navigable but looks too tall.  I'll be shortening it down to 4 inches high.  

Revisiting an old topic.... but anyway here are updates on the layout!

Very nice, I had to go back and look at the dates when you posted the first topic on this. Very eye catching.  The viaduct is a great idea to add height to.  Nick T.

so nice...