Topeka, Kansas City, and St. Louis layout 3-21-2016

Carl,

I am totally with you on this.  You have a knack for layout planning, and I know you enjoy it!  I am always impressed with what you come up with and how quickly you do it!  

Dave,

the O89 and 096 are only 3.5" centers without offset the entry. I suppose I think concentric too much.

Wow.  I turn off for a few hours and you guys are all go.  Thanks everyone for pitching in!  I just installed a chunk of the benchwork for the south wall at 24".  I'm using 1 x 2s (which are more like 1 X 1.5) for the bracing - get that below ground look. I figured 24" was enough for the wall at 4.5 spacing.

Era of the layout is late 60s - early 70s - big 86' Boxcars, 89' flats,  and Scale passenger cars so I gotta have minimum 5.5 in the curve I was laying  the original track to be 5.5 to 6 before I took it out.

Construction tip: if you're using woodland Scenics foam roadbed, use pl375 glue.  I used it on most. In the spots I didn't, I used Elmer's glue all. Bad plan. Pl375 peeled right up clean.  Elmer's trashed the foam. Worked for track, not for roadbed to ply.

Moonman posted:

Dave,

the O89 and 096 are only 3.5" centers without offset the entry. I suppose I think concentric too much.

I didn't look at that because I wasn't sure where this was going and it's awfully hard, for me at least, to line things up in SCARM. I put the dimensions into RR-Track and started playing with different curve sizes. It lets me draw an outline polygon and overlay a grid to aid with placement of track. I was going to do the whole track around the wall, but decided to concentrate on just one corner for now to show the difference in space requirements for various curve sizes. The attached image uses O96 outside/O89 inside, then O106/O96 and O113/O106 respectively. The grid is 6, the straight tracks are about 3" from the wall, the curves are around 4.5" apart and I'll be the first to admit I'm not up on what the clearances should be. At any rate, if you draw a diagonal line from the corner thru the tracks, the outside of the Blue tracks are about 33", the Cyan 34.5" and the Black 36". It appears that using successively larger curve pairs will add around 1.5" in depth to the corners and of course, adding clearance along the wall will add that much more. I can move them around, etc., just let me know. I included the RR-Track file if you want to play too.

 Im at O-106 in the Northeast corner.    I'm planning to have 48"  of corner on the south end - so looks like O-113 / O-106 will fit both south corners. 

In the northwest corner its going to be too tight for O-113 unless I cut the curve short of 26' and only utilize the 24'.   That might not be a bad idea.

Here are what the 113/106 could look like at about 25' when extended. I didn't play with reducing the length of the straight section, but you could probably make any track work, just not sure how it would look.

You need to take into consideration that you probably want the track in the front of the straight runs to allow for scenery behind.  That will impact the corner width. or decide where you want the track on the straights(vary it for different looks) and work the corners that way.

An easement will technically start the corner turns about 3 feet before the corner and 3 feet leaving the corner.

Daz, can you post the benchwork or room RRT file? Thanks.

Ok, Mr. Concentric here. Worked on some corner analysis in the SE corner.

Outside track is 3.5" from edge of table. Inside track is on 5" center. Curve for outside edge track is O106 with a 53.44 radius. Inside track (closer to wall) is custom radius of 58.44. (center rail)

Both make the turn 90° corner and remain at a 5" center to center spacing all the way.

The corner table diagonal length is 57" to provide 3.5" clearance to edge at the center. The straights are 24" tables.

This puts the trains out front to show. This leaves ~14" between the wall and track for scenery or meandering the mainline to the wall and to the front again. It also leaves room for a passing siding or spurs towards the wall.

If you want 48" diagonal corner length, you will need to use a smaller radius for the track closest to the edge.

Obviously, you can freeform the corners and lose the spacing to go wider in the corners and back to 5". Like I said, I am Mr. Concentric for the mainlines.

Creating an easement into the corner may require a larger corner table width. This will make those long intermodals flow through the corners. Still have to play with that.

Moonman posted:

Daz, can you post the benchwork or room RRT file? Thanks.

I did Carl, it's attached to the first example of curves as JP81.rrt

Straights would be forward on west wall. They'll be on a flat shelf.  On the south wall I'm wanting some below grade scenery - 2 inches at least in front.  

Carl, I'm afraid I'm a little late to the party and haven't followed the progress that closely up to now since the layout is so much larger than the space I'll have to work with. I simply went by his drawings to put something into SCARM to show a general outline of what things will look like and give you a head start after the holidays. I didn't go back through the thread to see what was being changed. I simply went by the drawings where the width of the table varies from 24" to 30" (and larger for the North yard) and there wasn't one for the single main. My next question was going to be about the table sizes, but then I started looking back through photos and now I'm a bit confused.

There is/was already track laid through the NW corner over to the NE corner and down to the bump out over/under on the East side. Some sections of the track in the photos run close to the walls while others run along the edge. You are absolutely correct that track along the edge will determine how wide the tables need to be in the corners, but I'm confused as to why that's become an issue given that track has already been laid in some corners and I think JP has an idea of how he's going to landscape. Was that the O89/O96 that was mentioned and has that been removed? Are we now trying to determine how the design can be changed and how wide new curves can be?

The other question I have is why the tracks need to be concentric through the corners. The scenery I saw in the photos shows the outside main running uphill along the north wall and then down to the east bump out where the 2 mains go over/under each other. The outside main continues to be higher through the SE corner and possibly even the SW corner depending on where the 2 mains meet to complete the 2% grade. I know dual mains on the same level look nice are concentric, but do they really need to be when they're on separate levels? I'm not being critical here, I'm curious because I also have dual mains on different levels too. Given mine is a smaller layout, it probably won't matter much.

Mark Boyce posted:

Dave,

i have been watching from the dugout.  Carl is on a mission.  I have seen it before.  There is no stopping him now.  JP is the recipient.  ;-)

Yea I know I don't know how many time's Carl has helped me. I just get a small start next thing I know were both working on revision 10 and it's almost a complete layout and he does it with some speed too. I probably have 100 scarm files on my computer. half of which he has built. a real assent to the hobby.

I just wish I had the space for a layout of this size it has me thinking ok this kid moved out take over that room this kid moved out add this room too. next thing you know I have the whole upstairs loft, bedrooms, all taken up with a layout Joking my wife would never let that happen I am limited to the loft size of 199 inch's by 156 inch's. can you tell I work in scarm to much don't even know the actual footage just the inch's LOL

Jhainer posted:

Yea I know I don't know how many time's Carl has helped me. I just get a small start next thing I know.................the loft size of 199 inch's by 156 inch's. can you tell I work in scarm to much don't even know the actual footage just the inch's. 

He's like my beloved late mother-in-law, mention you like something in passing and the next thing you know, that's what you get for Christmas. With Carl, you ask a simple question and next thing you know, you have a layout design, complete with scenery.

Two things I don't really care for in SCARM are having to work in inches and the 5" grid. To be sure, RR-Track uses inches too in its property dialogs, but there they are more X-Y coordinates than measurements. I keep my phone calculator app open whenever I work with SCARM. It really got a workout when I played with JP's hand-drawn images. At first I thought the blocks were 6", only later did I remember they were 5", big difference. I don't complain though. SCARM is a great design program and it just does things a little differently than I'm used to with the RR-Track program I started with. Have I mentioned I can't for Mixy to finish the Simulation feature?

yea I know I love the software it has been a live file with my layout every time I get a burr up something LOL I have to change the drawing. here's where mine is at now

DoubleDAZ posted:

Carl, I'm afraid I'm a little late to the party and haven't followed the progress that closely up to now since the layout is so much larger than the space I'll have to work with. I simply went by his drawings to put something into SCARM to show a general outline of what things will look like and give you a head start after the holidays. I didn't go back through the thread to see what was being changed. I simply went by the drawings where the width of the table varies from 24" to 30" (and larger for the North yard) and there wasn't one for the single main. My next question was going to be about the table sizes, but then I started looking back through photos and now I'm a bit confused.

There is/was already track laid through the NW corner over to the NE corner and down to the bump out over/under on the East side. Some sections of the track in the photos run close to the walls while others run along the edge. You are absolutely correct that track along the edge will determine how wide the tables need to be in the corners, but I'm confused as to why that's become an issue given that track has already been laid in some corners and I think JP has an idea of how he's going to landscape. Was that the O89/O96 that was mentioned and has that been removed? Are we now trying to determine how the design can be changed and how wide new curves can be?

The other question I have is why the tracks need to be concentric through the corners. The scenery I saw in the photos shows the outside main running uphill along the north wall and then down to the east bump out where the 2 mains go over/under each other. The outside main continues to be higher through the SE corner and possibly even the SW corner depending on where the 2 mains meet to complete the 2% grade. I know dual mains on the same level look nice are concentric, but do they really need to be when they're on separate levels? I'm not being critical here, I'm curious because I also have dual mains on different levels too. Given mine is a smaller layout, it probably won't matter much.

Table Sizes:  

North - 48"  - Installed

Northeast - 20" - Installed

East Alcove - 44" - Installed

Southeast wall - 36" - Installed

South wall -  24" - Installing

South West - 18"

Northwest - 48" Installed

Under Stairs - TBD - thinking 48 - 60"  (was 36")

Next to Stairs - TBD - thinking 36-48" (was 18")   

I never installed anything less than 096. In order to make the stairs and exit the alcove on the other side, I needed it that tight.  I was never happy with it - but now that it does not have to bend over 90, we can make that larger - so this track has been removed. There were two tracks in the spot, so I've left the decking in place.  The double decking will allow for a larger curve with minimal modification. 

I've kept track in on the upper level on the Northwest corner at O-106.  This is on a 2.24% grade.  I'd like the other side to descend at 2 to 2.24%  as well - but I'd like it to level out before the window. 

The lower level in the Northwest corner has been pulled and could be installed concentric - I was shooting for a custom size of O-100 here originally. 

Concentric will be necessary in the southwest and northwest corners.  It would be nice for the southeast corner as well as I would like to install a retaining wall in-between them.  

DoubleDAZ posted:

Carl, I'm afraid I'm a little late to the party and haven't followed the progress that closely up to now since the layout is so much larger than the space I'll have to work with. I simply went by his drawings to put something into SCARM to show a general outline of what things will look like and give you a head start after the holidays. I didn't go back through the thread to see what was being changed. I simply went by the drawings where the width of the table varies from 24" to 30" (and larger for the North yard) and there wasn't one for the single main. My next question was going to be about the table sizes, but then I started looking back through photos and now I'm a bit confused.

There is/was already track laid through the NW corner over to the NE corner and down to the bump out over/under on the East side. Some sections of the track in the photos run close to the walls while others run along the edge. You are absolutely correct that track along the edge will determine how wide the tables need to be in the corners, but I'm confused as to why that's become an issue given that track has already been laid in some corners and I think JP has an idea of how he's going to landscape. Was that the O89/O96 that was mentioned and has that been removed? Are we now trying to determine how the design can be changed and how wide new curves can be?

The other question I have is why the tracks need to be concentric through the corners. The scenery I saw in the photos shows the outside main running uphill along the north wall and then down to the east bump out where the 2 mains go over/under each other. The outside main continues to be higher through the SE corner and possibly even the SW corner depending on where the 2 mains meet to complete the 2% grade. I know dual mains on the same level look nice are concentric, but do they really need to be when they're on separate levels? I'm not being critical here, I'm curious because I also have dual mains on different levels too. Given mine is a smaller layout, it probably won't matter much.

Dave,

It's a point of reference for spacing for track centers, edge space, scenery space and corner table width and curve radius.

Enables me to communicate some things to consider.

JP takes it from there, using the references.

My point was that he flowed from the computer designs with what he had for a vision during the early stages.

The boy has some talent.

Carl

Carl, I've got the dimensions in RR-Track, but had to take my GD to lunch, so I'll post the rrt file when I get home.

Ok, here is the first version with the benchwork dimensions and some track. The curves are 106/113 and the grades are 1.8%. The 3D image doesn't show much because the layout is so large, but you can see where the inclines are. The tracks in the middle are leftover from the comparison file I posted earlier. If you want some close-up shots of the corners, etc., just let me know. The south mains on the right side are around 6" apart. Next I'll see if I can figure out where the island goes. I know it's under and near the stairs, but I'll need to look at Carl's SCARM file to see where they're located. HTH

Jhainer posted:

yea I know I love the software it has been a live file with my layout every time I get a burr up something LOL I have to change the drawing. here's where mine is at now.

Is the top level in the center supported just by pylons, basically free-floating? I have a top level too, a loop-to-loop, but my scenery is not going to be industrial like yours. I'm going to try to scenic it like a cliff/mountain, but I'm short on space so the loops might just have to float.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Jhainer posted:

yea I know I love the software it has been a live file with my layout every time I get a burr up something LOL I have to change the drawing. here's where mine is at now.

Is the top level in the center supported just by pylons, basically free-floating? I have a top level too, a loop-to-loop, but my scenery is not going to be industrial like yours. I'm going to try to scenic it like a cliff/mountain, but I'm short on space so the loops might just have to float.

here's some photos of the real layout so you can see how I did it . I tripled my space by making each layer it's own area then connecting the levels. I painted the posts Black to try to make them disappear or hide them best as possible.

Jhainer posted:

here's some photos of the real layout so you can see how I did it . I tripled my space by making each layer it's own area then connecting the levels. I painted the posts Black to try to make them disappear or hide them best as possible.

Thanks. Between those photos and my fiddling with views in your SCARM file, I see how it all flows together now. I don't want to hijack this thread, but I noticed track heights of 7.01, 17.52 and 24.57. So I can see the separation of the levels, but what is the beginning height? I have mine at 34, 41 and 49. I don't want them be too low, but I want to be able to see the top level where most of our Bedford Falls collection will be displayed.

36 inches is the height of the lowest level

`

We now return you to our regular programming...

While you may not think running directly into an O96 isn't snapping the train, it is. So, for the SE and SW corners, 5" centers easement to curve. O96 & 0106. RRT doesn't have a default for O113. I don't know how to split the easement. The tool only provide 15° or less in custom.

Here's some comparisons to see the snap. Since these ends will be beautiful "show-off" curves with a small inside "grin" between cars, I would use the easement track. 1 ft. grid. You can see how it pushes the sectional curves around further and smoothes the transition.

Moonman posted:

We now return you to our regular programming...

While you may not think running directly into an O96 isn't snapping the train, it is. So, for the SE and SW corners, 5" centers easement to curve. O96 & 0106. RRT doesn't have a default for O113. I don't know how to split the easement. The tool only provide 15° or less in custom.

Here's some comparisons to see the snap. Since these ends will be beautiful "show-off" curves with a small inside "grin" between cars, I would use the easement track. 1 ft. grid. You can see how it pushes the sectional curves around further and smoothes the transition.

 

100% agree with your assessment. The snap look is what I was getting in the alcove before - it didn't work.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Ok, here is the first version with the benchwork dimensions and some track. The curves are 106/113 and the grades are 1.8%. The 3D image doesn't show much because the layout is so large, but you can see where the inclines are. The tracks in the middle are leftover from the comparison file I posted earlier. If you want some close-up shots of the corners, etc., just let me know. The south mains on the right side are around 6" apart. Next I'll see if I can figure out where the island goes. I know it's under and near the stairs, but I'll need to look at Carl's SCARM file to see where they're located. HTH

Looking great - 

Things to note

When the upped track leaves the east alcove for the south wall, it too must jut out - gotta move out away from the water main.  I got an idea from Eric's trains for a removable panel for this that might allow a shallower jut out than I originally planned. 

On the west wall, in the 24' section, I gotta cut the table width to 18".  The gap from my (behind the mechanicals) stud wall to the west wall is only 56" and I still want to walk through here if need be.  The 26' section can remain at 4'.

Under the stairs - as noted, this table is 56" from the west wall at 24'.  It is 18" in from the 26' jut out.  Studs are exactly 15' from north wall.   The stairs extend 48" to the north from the studs.   Stairs studs begin 63" from east wall.  For every 24" of travel, stairs rise 21".

 Last note - on the north end - .  Although there is a 26' span here, I need room at 4' + 40"  from the west wall to walk through to my shop. 

I'm thinking that the inside north main should run the middle of table with ladder going each direction for industries on each end.

It will be a little work, but when you get the track plan finalized, we can create the easement tracks where you want them and post the details for you. If you look at the properties box it displays the amount of lateral movement and increments of run.

Easy enough to do with the flex track. Pin the start at the straight and work your way to the curve.

Thanks, JHainer.

Carl, I toyed with easements in RR-Track, but haven't added them to my layout design yet. Your example showed the "snap", while my goal was to see what it took to return the curve to 90° around a corner. Here's what I found using ScaleTrax O31 curves. As you can see, it takes a space of 24"x24" to make the 90° turn. I then added default easements (full, 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4) to see how much added space they needed and how they'd look. One interesting thing was that different sizes of track too different numbers of easement  tracks to complete the turn.

I did the same with O106 GarGraves. It takes a space of 66"x66" to make the turn with standard curves. Adding the full easement tracks, it takes 84"x81". The interesting thing here is that all easements added about the same amount of width but different lengths. Easement tracks are in green.

Ok, here is my latest version. I hope I understood that last comments regarding measurements.

Merry Christmas fellas.  Thanks for all your help with this!

Family Christmas is tomorrow - so I'm building today.  I've made some changes to the alcove exit on east wall.  Track center is now 15" off the wall 3' from the alcove  as it heads into the southeast corner.  That cuts the jut out down to only 7".  Should look a lot better and minimize the snap around the water main.  

Got shelve in on west wall.  I've got a small area here I need to fill in - I'll just use excess when I'm done with east / south walls.  My original curves I cut for under the stairs and around the old reverse loop are a bit tight for my bigger corner in southeast.  I'm gonna have to cut it to widen.

It sure is coming right along and looking good.

Hour here, hour there...

New Years Eve and I'm working on the southwest corner.  Got the upper level in all around the south east corner.  

My west wall track is about 1 1/4"  higher than the track coming down the south wall - I suspected that this might be the case. Will allow less descent reducing the grade of the upper level. Lower level will need to climb to offset.

Installing everything so I can make both the window and the door  lift out sections.  Think I got it all planned out.

happy New Year, JP! signing off for 2015.

Progress Report - Both levels of  Roadbed and track all installed along the East and South walls.  I'm having some trouble deciding how I want to navigate in front of the window.  That's my next project.  Once that's done I'll move to West wall - planning for a #8 double crossover but it'll have to wait until I can afford one - until then I'm just going to make the outer and inner loops separate. 

Nice movement over the holidays. I like how you smoothed the water pipe avoidance in the SE.

How about building in front of the window like door, leaving it ready for a future project. It would make a good valley with a bridge. It could be a module, something like Harry Henning built for the North Penn O Gaugers layout.

8/1/14 Post by HAH3

That would provide access to it. It is movable.

Some printed transparencies on the glass could provide the scenic backdrop that would be backlit during the day.

Anyway, treat it like a lift out for now and leave your options open. 

Lots of progress!

 Installed the entire outer loop yesterday and this morning - ordered Brass dowels to add this week to the three liftouts.

Ran out of track.  I will live with one loop for awhile - just waiting on bluerail to release a big enough board for my diesels.  

Ive got some plumbing to move and I'll get to doing some scenery for the time being - and hopeful installing some lighting - west wall is not well lit.

Photos:

More progress...  Playing with making my own cinders...

Yesterday's ballast test dried too gray and not enough color differentiation.  Decided to darken the homax cinders a bit and got some play sand for filler / color.  Did about 12 feet tonight...   Thoughts?

JP, since you're asking, I would say that the sand is too fine grained. If you have glued it, it looks like the edges have kind of washed away. Are you planning on painting your rails?