First Table Layout/Design! Need Help!

Suggest you post this to the Track Plans and Layout Design department of the OGR forum.  There's quite a few SCARM experts posting there, including the author.

Pete

Thanks Pete - Just did that. Although now I accidentally posted it twice

The simple advice I can offer you is with layout planning sometimes less is more.  Just my opinion of course but we all tend to try to cram too many tracks into the space we have.  Leave room for the scenery.  That is the difference between a good layout and a great one.  You'll also thank yourself for going with the larger radii.  That's a good start.

Plan on as wide of curves as your budget and space will allow. This right now is my most frustrating aspect of my layout. When I built this layout, I didn't think I'd be making much new purchases (my personal finance situation has since changed for the positive.) I also had lost a box of stuff that likes wider radius curves in the coarse of two moves and a divorce. Fast forward a few years to now, and I've got a new set of Williams Madison cars and found my missing wider radius MTH stuff. And I've got 031 and 027 curves. While the stuff will sorta run, it looks terrible and often has problems.

I'm now looking at either adding a wide radius loop or swapping out curves for wide radius loops. And to do so will require a fairly large project in terms of layout demolition.

MWAX516, here's what you're up against given the size of the curves you have. As you can see, it simply doesn't fit, requires cutting some tracks and has 4.5% grades between levels. The 2nd set of examples uses O72 min curves for the ovals, O54 for the grade and upper level, still requires some cutting and raises the grades to almost 7%. Bottom like, I don't thinks it's doable in the space you have. My SCARM files are attached.

mwax516 posted:

Hi everyone - first time doing a table layout and using SCARM to help design it. Since I am new to doing this hoping to get some help and advice from those who know more than I do. The entire layout I plan to use Gargraves track with Ross switches ...

Mike, you will have more track plan options for this layout space if you consider using a smaller minimum radius. With O72 minimum curves you are pretty much limited to ovals, unless you give up the walk-in arrangement that you probably need for reasonable access. A smaller curve radius could also make it possible to have a walk-in plan without a duck-under or movable bridge across the front, which makes the layout much more convenient to operate on short notice.

Would you mind telling us what kinds of trains you want to run, and their minimum radius requirements? Everyone wants the widest possible curves, but if that limits you to a plain oval arrangement it's not so interesting.

Dave has done a great job of illustrating the limitations of fitting wide curves and grades in your space.

DOUBLEDAZ- Wow! Thank you very much for taking the time to put together a much better design! I see what you're saying in terms of the raised track not fitting on the initial plan, but I'm going to dig deeper into your second option and see if I can make it work. Perhaps instead of having a dogbone/figure 8 raised section, I can just have a raised outer loop go around in an oval. I'll report back, but thanks again!

ACE - Thank you for the advice. I am mainly running modern/TMCC/Odyssey engines that are o54 minimum. With the cruise control option, the wider turn radius is one of my priorities with this layout because of it's realism. I understand the idea of having more options with tighter curves, but I don't think I want to sacrifice that (just yet, atleast). This is why I was trying for a raised 3rd track that perhaps was a tighter curve and would provide more playful options when running. Any suggestions or mock ideas would be very much appreciated! I think it's possible to achieve both the realism aspect and have a separate track for more options. 

Thanks!!

The grades are too steep in my 2nd example, so be careful. Here's one with grades just under 5%, but that's still too steep. Upper level is raised 6.5" and these are just for ideas.

DOUBLEDAZ - Looks awesome! I'm going to dive into this version now. Funny you should just upload this, I was rushing to finish up on an additional idea to make the upper loop work as a dogbone/figure 8. Came up with something that looks more like a pair of goggles lol. I think I have it all correct and seems to work? I'm still getting used to the program so I'm not entirely sure. If you don't mind also taking a peak at this one I would really appreciate it. This has a little more "life" to it as opposed to just ovals going round and round, so might be a little more fun if can make it work. Many many thanks! 

If needed, I do have a little more space to add another foot or 2 on the ends, but the two tables I currently have are 4x8 so I would have to build an additional extension to create a little extra space to make this work. However, if that's the difference between making the goggles/glasses design possible or not then it's worth it! 

DOUBLEDAZ - This is keeping me up too late at night lol. I finally got the hang of the program and was able to clean up the latest version and make it a bit more fitting. The area I am least familiar with is track height for the incline and decline and what the appropriate height would be for the entire raised track. I supposed I would be using the viaducts that Lionel makes which are 4 or 5 inches or so off the ground, I think? Please disregard the previous layout I added, and see if you think this is workable. Many thanks!

I am planning on a 6" elevation for my upper level. A lot of guys say 6.5" or more, but I'm not planning on running any tall cars like double stacks. I am trying to keep the elevation change down so as to minimize the grade.

Oman posted:

I am planning on a 6" elevation for my upper level. A lot of guys say 6.5" or more, but I'm not planning on running any tall cars like double stacks. I am trying to keep the elevation change down so as to minimize the grade.

The exact measurement of the elevation is irrelevant as long as anything you run clears. Just make sure you take into account any roadbed, etc. For example, if you use 3/4" instead of 1/2" plywood, your track will need to be 1/4" higher in SCARM for planning purposes. I generally refer to tunnel portal opening specs where I've seen some as low as 5 5/8". However, as you know, tall cars will not clear that, so the portals have to be raised. That's why you'll see different recommendations of 6"-6.5" or more. If you set track height in SCARM to 6" and then add a 3/4" sub-roadbed and 1/4" roadbed, the actual clearance below the track is only 5". My only engine is 4 3/8", including the RealTrax it's on, so it would probably clear. I say probably because you also have to consider the width of the opening, not just the height. And if the opening is on a curve, you have to consider that too because engines and cars swing out, especially on tight curves. That said, I'm using 7.5" in SCARM and aiming for sub 3% grades. When I actually build, I'll lower it and end up with lower grades.

Hi Mike,

may as well chime in here... You are defeating the advantage of the U or C shaped table by crossing the 6' gap. Building across that restricts your access to the layout.

As other have indicated, trying to connect two levels will require a steep grade unless the incline is along the 14' side.

When you are deciding on a level height it is best measured from the lower track railhead height to the bottom of the upper support structure. 7" or 7.5" will generally account for that and leave enough clearance for tunnel portals and high cars and any sub-roadbed.

using the O72 turnouts for a crossover will put a small wiggle in the transition. #4 or Reg 11° work well and aren't as long as #6.

here's A 30" wide table with a double mainline of GG O80 & O89 and #4 crossovers. The opening that the track crosses is ~ 36" permitting the use of bridges that are available and permits easier construction of a lift-up or lift-out.

The track centers are 4.75". You'll notice that GG track geometry is 9" different for sectional pieces or 4.5" centers. But, it is in radius groups. The difference between O72 & O80 is only 8". That was causing you some problems. O72 & O63 or O89 & O80 is group change point.

I am posting this to give you a different perspective for the concept. These racetrack loops will bore you quickly. A separate second level, like a dogbone, may solve your need for an elevated level for the space that you have available.

The software is tool that will let you evaluate "what if" relatively quickly. I would recommend that you review this article and think through some more planning issues to arrive at a layout that you will enjoy for a long time. I have attached it.

The OGR members will definitely provide assistance at any and all stages of the process.

mwax516 posted:

DOUBLEDAZ - This is keeping me up too late at night lol. I finally got the hang of the program and was able to clean up the latest version and make it a bit more fitting. The area I am least familiar with is track height for the incline and decline and what the appropriate height would be for the entire raised track. I supposed I would be using the viaducts that Lionel makes which are 4 or 5 inches or so off the ground, I think? Please disregard the previous layout I added, and see if you think this is workable. Many thanks!

I guess I didn't get my point across, so we need to regroup. My example was intended to show you that the elevated track in this space will simply not work. Even lowering the upper level to 6" gives you a grade of almost 7% which is too steep. And the grade with the simple oval on top using 6.5" is still almost 5%. You need to get the grade down closer to 3% and there is no way to do that with this plan in this space, period. I will see what I can do if I add 2' to the width, but I'm not hopeful of getting an acceptable grade.

Other problems are:

-- You simply can't use SCARM by laying tracks on top of other tracks to make fake turnouts or joints and expect to be able to set track heights and grades correctly.

-- If you look at the left-hand grade, you might think it's okay, but the bottom track goes from 0" to 3.5" in the length of a single track for a grade of almost 17%. That's the kind of thing you get when you don't use standard track pieces and get them to join to each other. The Snip Off tool can help, but it doesn't work on switches.

-- Just to the right of the Height Icon is a box with an "I" in it. Selecting this allows you to enter numbers in the boxes when changing track heights, so you avoid all those 7.48's you ended up with instead of 7.5's.

-- To set a grade, you select all the "joined" track between the beginning track and the ending track. You then change the value for the ending track and it will compute the grade. For example:
--- open the attached file.
--- set the Red H and "I" icons on the menu bar.
--- double-click on the top 3 tracks. You'll see they all show a height of 0.
--- click on the rightmost 0 and type 6. It should tell you the grade is 16.1%.
--- now shift-select the 3 lower tracks. They also all show a height of 0.
--- again click on the right most 0 and type 6. Notice that the grade is now 24.2%, but also notice that the height for only 2 of the tracks was changed. That's because they aren't joined, as a result the grade is not correct.
--- now double-click on the top set of tracks again and this time click the leftmost 0 and type 6. All values should have changed to 6.
Note: when the value is 0, you can just type a new number in. However, if the value is more than 0, you have to delete that number and enter the new value.

Not sure when I'll have a new design, I've got some errands to run today, but I'll get to it.

FWIW, I completely agree with Carl. I generally try to work with whatever the poster wants, even though I also disagree with crossing over the opening, especially one that wide. But, you could add a peninsula or table extensions to reduce the length of the crossovers.

In your case, you have a couple of limitations that are going to prove difficult. The 1st is the minimum O54 curve requirement for your rolling stock and that can't be changed. The 2nd is the 4x8 tables. In order to run O54 equipment, you need at least a 60"x60" space for a loop. You can see in my example how difficult things are, you don't even have space for a loop-2-loop. You said you can expand 1'-2', so what are the limitations on your configuration? Where are the walls, doors, furniture, etc.? Can you do an around-the-room layout? Like Carl says, there is plenty of help here. I'll still work on the current design, but I think we might need to consider another direction.

Carl and Dave - Greatly appreciate the feedback and thoughts. Carl nice design on the two ovals. Those would look great! I suppose I could do an around the room layout, not sure why I haven't considered that. I suppose the main reason is someone has offered me two 4x8 worktables for free so I planned to use them and this seemed like the best way to do so (but what do I know?lol) The room is a pretty big rectangle but there are some cabinets, etc that don't make it flush all the way around. If I went with an around the room layout, I do have an even rectangle space of 9x12x9, which probably would lend itself very nice to that. I also suppose if I go for that it opens up plenty of more options? Any suggestions possibly using those new dimensions please feel free to send my way! Thank you again for helping to figure this out. Mike

Here is a photo of the section of the room I could use for an around the room layout. Left and right walls are 9ft, back wall is 12ft. I will be moving all the furniture soon lol. 

So if I went for the around the room layout per your suggestion, and I could add an additional 4X4 worktable to make the entire C or U shape 8 by 12 by 8. With these dimensions, and still going for the idea of connecting a lower track to an upper track, I quickly came up with this. It seems to work I'm just having trouble connecting the raised track but it seems very doable. Because this is my first layout I don't know if this is a fun/good design or not? I'm sure there are plenty of additional options I am not considering, and perhaps the entire dimensions I am using could be better suited another way. But thought I would upload this as a start. 

Unless you plan on getting up on the tabletops or cutting access panels in them to deal with derailments and other problems or to add landscaping, etc., the maximum width should be 36" and most prefer it be no more than 30". However, if you really want to use those tables with an addition, I suggest you at least limit the extension to 36x48. That way you'll at least be able to reach the back crossover and elevated track.

Given that the room is only 1' longer on the sides, I didn't bother expanding the layout space. I have to admit I'm at a loss as to what to do with this space given your limitations, so I was just going to clean things up the best I could. I did that, but then decided to try something different. My latest version puts all the switches where you can reach them. It has an elevation with grades of 4.1% and they don't have to clear any other tracks, they can be lowered to give a smaller grade. The front switches no longer cross the opening, something that was really going to be a problem. The only negative is all curves/switches are O54. I'm sure you won't like that, but it's the best I can come up with that might be doable and somewhere near reliable.

Carl / Dave (and anyone else who wishes to chime in!). I know you mentioned you would give it another shot when you found time this week. The idea of new options for the room has my brain spinning and so I decided to go with another possibility. I have NO idea if this is good or would even work due to my still fully lacking knowledge of SCARM, but it sort of builds on some of the initial ideas from earlier. I figured I could maximize room and get an additional 1 foot if I put a 1ft gap in the middle. I am going to be using the same two 8X4 tables as before, but I am also able to pick up two 4X4 tables. With the 1ft gap in the middle, the layout can now cover the entire 12x9 space available. While I'm aware this isn't the best set up for building and "reach", I think the space in the center is just enough to have reach to all areas of the layout. I have attached a draft. Again, feel free to build on this idea, or send over one from scratch. The drawing board is still wide open in my book. Thank you for all your help (and patience lol). -Mike

DAVE - Just saw your post lol. I think we must have posted at the exact same time. Thank you very much for the input and coming up with this design. It looks really nice, and I feel is a safe back up if we can't come up with anything else that has a little more "wow" factor to it. Feel free to check out my latest idea. I think with your knowledge, perhaps it can be onto something? I don't mind getting on hands and knees, etc to fix issues and crawling around the layout. I think it will be worth it to have as fun and interesting design as possible when running. Thanks again! Mike

I don't know what to say Mike. I don't know how you're going to squeeze up through a 1' wide channel, much less stand in it to operate trains. Ducking under and trying to rise up through a 1' wide space is not easy, even if I were still a teen, and I sure wouldn't want to do it every time I wanted to run trains. A regular duck-under is bad enough,  but I can't imagine doing it without bumping the table and probably separating the tracks across the opening. I see all kinds of problems there.

One question....are you planning to just lay the grade track on a trestle set so all the clearance you need is from the top of the rail to the bottom of the ties? If that's the case, then the 5" height you used might work. I have serious doubts you'll be able to reach all those switches though unless you stand on a platform and lean on the layout. Even then, all you'll be able to do "maybe" is clear a derailment. You won't be able to fix anything, unless you climb on the layout, so the tables had better be able to hold you. And that doesn't even consider the landscaping that will be in the way.

I'm not trying to be negative. Lord knows I've posted some designs that were met with all the concerns that have been mentioned in this thread and then some. I'm all for trying things in spite of such warnings, but I think this is more than I'd be willing to try. Maybe if I take another look in the morning things won't look so dire.

I can understand if you have construction challenges - but Home Depot will cut lumber for you. All that you need is a drill/driver and some bits and screws to assemble the pieces. First decide on the layout height. The legs may need to be replaced on the existing tables or augmented.

Develop the "Givens and Druthers" list and you'll find that the layout design will evolve much faster.

Some already:

Givens           Druthers

9' x 12' space         Double mainline with O72 minimum curve

2 - 4' x 8' tables pre-constructed          An elevated track area

2 - 4' x 4' tables pre-constructed

Gargraves track with Ross Custom Switches

Mike,

Peruse through some these videos to get an idea what you can do with operations and decide which if any would be enjoyable to you.

A station stop for a passenger train gives it purpose. A freight train simply dropping off a full and picking up an empty gives it purpose. A couple of simple actions like that can add 10-20 minutes to a run session while other trains are running the mains.

You definitely need to place "track reachable" as a given.

Mike, I think I get it now. You have a limited space, you have tables that have already been built and you have equipment that requires O54 minimum curves/switches. You're not trying to build a model railroad, you're trying to raise the floor for a toy layout.

We never discussed landscaping, etc., so I'm making some new assumptions now. The 1st is that you aren't planning any landscaping, just track so you can run your trains. If there is any landscaping, it will just be buildings, etc., set on the table just like they were set on the floor when I was a kid. The 2nd is that you're going to use a simple trestle set that raises the track 5" with no filler material beneath the track, no hills, no mountainsides, no roadbed, just plain track. The 3rd is that you're willing and physically able to climb up on the tables to deal with any problems. In other words, the tables just raise the floor for a somewhat permanent "floor" layout. The tables will allow you to screw things down so they don't move around like they would on the floor. If all that is true, then maybe you can make this work and I'll help any way I can.

I assumed you were trying to build a full model railroad and I see now that appears to have been a bad assumption. We all know that those simple trestle sets Lionel and others sell work. They worked when I was a kid and they still work now. So if that's what you're trying to do, then let me know and we'll see if we can make things fit.

To that end, I notice your latest design has the layout width changed to 148", so is it 148" or 144" (12')? Assuming the new width is correct and the trestle set raises the track 5", the grades run from 3.2% to 3.7%. Those will change a little bit as I fix the disconnected track, etc., but this just might work given my assumptions. However, before I go through all that work, I need to hear what you have to say about my assumptions. I'll help you get this designed so you have something to work with, but that doesn't mean I'd build it or that I think it's going to be easy, fair enough?

One quick point is that if you plan to just raise the track using trestle pieces, I do not believe that will work with flextrack. There is too much tension on it when bent and the track needs to be screwed down in multiple places or it will try to return to it's original shape. So, we'll need to find sectional curves that will fit the design when cut.

Dave / Carl - Thank you both again for following up on this. Appreciate all the feedback and help. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day! lol

Dave - After waking up this morning and looking at the design I attached last night, admittedly it is a little busy. I have attached here a similar version but no train parking. Let me address your "assumptions"to help guide us. I would like the overall feel to be somewhere between a toy layout but also a touch of realism/prototypical. For example, I do plan on having minimal landscaping, grass and streets all around, and as you mentioned houses/city/factory buildings. It won't be very complex, just simple and appealing. If doable, I would love to include a mountain on the back left or right corner for the raised track to go through or pass next to, but other then that probably will remain flat grass land, maybe a few hills near a mountain if doable (if not, not a big deal to me). I will be adding roadbed however. This will give it a touch of realism. The 1ft gap I was thinking could make it look like water for a stream or river, maybe carve into the wood some additional water outlets to make it look more realistic. In some sense, yes it is just a floor layout brought to table height to run trains, and will lean more in the "toy" and "fantasy" type layout. I do plan on using a simple trestle set 5", no fillers, just simple so it again has a touch of model and toy feel. Yes, I am willing and able to climb, duck, etc to build and fix issues lol. 

All in all, where it's possible I would like to make it realistic (adding roadbed, grass, stations, buildings etc), but for the most part I am not trying to be a modeler so to speak or completely prototypical. It should also be mentioned that I am only running passenger trains, and I plan to add a station on both the north and south side. I can also carve into the wood more space to be able to have a longer reach. See my most recent design and let me know if this is workable or not. Again, many many thanks! Mike

Regarding the 144 vs 148, you are right that is a mistake!! It is 12ft so 144 inches. Sorry about that. I guess that makes things even a little more challenging  

Mike, don't take this wrong, but I need to take a break, I feel like we're butting our heads against a wall. Every time I just about get all the disconnected track fixed and realigned, you post a new design idea and I have to start all over. I've already spent the better part of 3 days fixing various designs and now I have to start over again with the latest iteration, a design that doesn't come close to addressing the inherent problems and one that now exceeds the actual space (144").

For example, the O72's that you have "connecting" to the wye simply won't work, no matter how much of the other track you change.....and adding yet another version to the mix is DOA. In order to make that wye work, I believe you'd have to use an piece of O42 to get the correct angle and since your equipment requires O54, the wye will not work the way it is......no matter how nice it may look in SCARM. BTW, does your version of SCARM have the Snip Off tool or are you using an older version?

Then too, the 4" difference in the available space might not seem like much, but in your case, tracks are already close to each other and that's assuming they'll connect when things are cleaned up. You have a wiggly piece of flex track on both sides and I have no idea yet if they'll fit when that is straightened. I can guarantee things will not fit as is when the 4" is taken away. 

The switch you added to join the white and yellow track adds no value at all to the layout, it duplicates the crossover further up and around to the right. And you don't really want a switch on a grade, especially since you're using trestles for your grades and not more robust support.

You've got the raised heights set to 5" in spite of all who said they should be 6"-6.5". I accepted it at the time because of the trestles and what track was going over other track, but now you talk about adding roadbed, mountains, etc. I'm not saying that can't work, but in order to make things work, we need to slow down and give those of us trying to help time to work on fixes before a new version gets posted. Or at least work on them yourself before you go off in a new direction.

Right now, the only section where height is a concern is the area above the double-crossover. Given that, you might be able to use a real hillside to raise the track on both sides and include them as part of the mountains. That said, the part above the double-crossover has to be supported by something that doesn't add anything between the rails below and the track above. I don't know if there will be enough room for that because something has to support the track above for a heavy train to pass over yet not be so big that it interferes with the crossovers below.

You're adding grades where you don't have all the track connected for SCARM to compute the slopes. It just happens that I think the grades for the yellow tracks are 3.7% and 3.4%. However, that doesn't take into account that the wye doesn't fit. Until that gets resolved, it doesn't matter if the grades are low enough or not.

You obviously haven't mastered the Snip Off tool because there are all kinds of track that need to be cut so things connect. I don't know if you've tried it or just figure it's not necessary at this point. Maybe I'm all wet, but you have a design you seem to like, so the goal now should be to see if you can get things to connect, not come up with something new.

And no matter how much you say otherwise, I still don't think you know what it's going to take to get this built, much less maintain it, deal with derailments, etc.. I don't know where you think you're going to stand or kneel after you add buildings, etc. I don't think you realize how small a 1' channel is when you're trying to do maintenance or reach over an incline to pick up a heavy engine that is almost 4' away, assuming you can wiggle up in the space to begin with. I don't even know how easy or hard it is to cut track and get them to connect properly, especially curves. Of course, I could be all wet and this will be a piece of cake. Maybe you see it as a challenge you're willing to accept and that's fine, but since I don't know your level of experience, I need to point out the pitfalls as best I can. Like I said earlier, if you think you can deal with them, I'm here to help with the design. I just don't want you to be blindsided after you've spent a lot of time and money on this.

At a minimum, I think you need to forget this latest version and continue working on the previous one,  you can always take out the spurs if you need the space. At this point, the goal should be to get the major stuff working and then think about spurs, mountains, etc. You don't even have the white and black track working yet and you've added a wye and more grades. And no matter how "involved" the design looks in SCARM, the trains still run in ovals. It's great to have ideas, but adding more to something that doesn't work yet, doesn't help the process, at least not for me. As someone reminded me, designing and building a layout is not a sprint, it's a marathon.

Dave - I very much appreciate the time
You have put into this, your insight and feedback. Please take as long a break as you wish lol. I'm happy to have had your guidance to begin with. I did not mean to confuse by quickly uploading a new version. I'm fine going back to the previous version, and if you have a near finished draft of that one please feel free to send my way. I think at this point, as Carl mentioned in a previous post, we have to go back to basics and what is necessary. So far the givens are,

9' x 12' space

O72 or in some cases O63 minimum curve

2 - 4' x 8' tables pre-constructed

2 - 4' x 4' tables pre-constructed

An elevated track.

Running only passenger trains so having a minimum of 2 to 3 areas for stations. Perhaps 2 on the lower level (north and south) and one for the raised section.

Track bed, grass, trustles, houses and city buildings are included.

Mountainside and some hills would be nice addition if doable.

Gargraves track with Ross Custom Switches

Using this info, after you've stepped away from it and have a chance to refresh your mind, feel free to send over any updates - can even be from scratch lol - that best fits these criteria. If the 4x8 tables take up too much space, keep in mind, I am not opposed to cutting the wood or changing the bench work design with in the space I have available (9x12).

Hope to hear from you soon, and thanks again!

Mike,

Let's talk a little bit about "givens and druthers."  "Givens" are restrictions or things that have to exist, be used, be avoided, etc.  Thus, your 9x12 space is a "given" probably to accommodate other room uses.   Your benchwork tables are only a given (must be used) if you say so.  So, your willingness to modify those tables, as required, moves them from "given" to "druther" because now they are something you only prefer to use as currently existing.

Considering the equipment you plan to use, O54 curves are a "given" (minimum) while O72 curves are a "druther" (preferred). [Edit: I notice in your last communication to Dave, you now choose O63 curves as a "given."  Is that correct?]  Only you can decide on the "givens," but once set, they should probably remain that way until the collaborative planning process is done. 

Similarly, you get to set your own "druthers," but you have to be realistic about your druthers working within your givens.  For example, if the grades won't work for a connected second level (druther) as your plan exists, either utilize a second level unconnected to the first level, change the plan of the first level to allow easier grades, or drop the second level all together.

So, start fresh and list your true "givens," taking into account some of the advice you've been given about access space restrictions and reach.  Then, look back through this thread and other threads to list your "druthers" in order of importance (small, medium or large yard for storing trains, reversing loops, passenger stations, mountains and scenery, minimum curve, etc.) so that those helping you will know the restrictions and the preferential order of your preferences.

Good luck.   Chuck

Mike, I wasn't talking about a break in that sense, I meant more of a regrouping of my thoughts and seeing where you want to go next after reading my comments.

Though I don't think you ever directly answer one of my previous questions, I assume there are no obstructions inside the room and the door opens out. With that in mind, I looked at this as one large 9x12 table and this is what I came up with. The bottom level is all O72 while the top level and grades are all O54, O63 did not work. While curves larger than O54 might be done using flextrack, I don't think it would be worth the effort. The 8 switches and crossing are Ross, all track is GarGraves. There are 15 tracks that need to be cut and although I used only 1 flex track, more might be able to be used to reduce the number of cuts. There are 3 passenger stations and the yellow rectangle is an access hatch. The 2 other transparent rectangles are the 4x8 tables and they are spaced so you don't need to cut them for the access hatch. You will need to make some smaller tables to fill in where needed. Depending on how the 4x8 tables are built, you might be able to just attach some extensions and add a few legs to hold them up. If I had a photo of the tables, I could offer a better description of what I mean.

Anyway, here you go. See what you think and we'll go from there.

Mike,

I just found this topic, and have not read it in it's entirety, so I may write something that has already been written.  I am planning on nothing larger than 054 curves that will handle my MTH Premier N&W J 611 I told you about when buying the 18" Lionel cars.  Also I have a nice E8 set with long cars.  My space, once our last daughter get married this year and evacuates her room is 12 x 12, similar to yours.  Going through some topics of Dave's on his design for a similar sized space, I do not intend to join two levels though I would if I had more space.  I also am thinking of tighter curves to follow the U shape for freights, and the passenger trains would make a big loop around the room with some kind of bridge over the opening.  My plan is all in my head right now.  I'm just throwing out the idea of not joining the loops with a steep grade, though that would perhaps be a less interesting track plan.

I should have mentioned the grades in my latest version are 3.5% using a 5" height. The biggest difficulty is going to be how to support the track and crossing with no roadbed underneath. 5" is doable when there are supports on both sides of the track and the a train below passes through the middle.

Dave- I absolutely LOVE this design! Very busy day for me so I will get back tonight in more detail, etc. but just a temporary thank you and looks awesome! Mike 

Hi Dave - Finally had some time to settle down and go over the design. I really like the direction you went with this and think it is the way to go. My girlfriend even likes it lol. I wanted to try and put a little of my own touch on it, and have included the attachment. My main goals were to find a way to make the outer loop a wider curve radius, and also have the outer loop connect to itself so a train wouldn't always have to make a visit to the inner loop before returning to the first station. Since I will be needing to cut tracks either way, I think I found a way to make this work. I hope with your expertise we can correct any wrongdoings on my touched up plan and finalize it once and for all I also removed one oval of inner track that didn't really seem to serve a significant purpose and now opens up more room for houses, buildings, roads, etc. I hope I did not ruin your plan too much lol, it is still very close to the same. I can't seem to figure out how to set the raising track loop corretly yet so that might be slightly different then your initial settings. Let me know your thoughts. Many thanks! Mike

Mike, I like the changes you made. I don't use GarGraves or Ross often, so I didn't think about all the track they offer like you did. Good job finding a way to make O63 work and keep the grades below 4% at 3.7%. I like that you took my advice and made sure the grade tracks connected. I did clean up some of the other connections using the snip Off tool.

Taking out the double-crossover will not only save a lot of money, but will let you add supports for the crossing above. I suggest you forget about using trestles and use foam to build a mountain grade and fill in the middle. If you're really handy, you could make the access hatch a pop-out lake using a light piece of foam, something along the lines of Crater Lake or Lake Tahoe where the lakes are in a crater or valley.

I don't think you'll be able to fit a kit station in the back, so I recommend you paint one on the wall (or a backdrop) and add a raised-relief front to give it a little depth.

All in all I think you have something you can work with. I think you still have some challenges, but then we all have to compromise somewhere. You've chosen to fill the room and add a center access in order to use larger radius curves. At my age, I don't want to duck under that much.

Oh, and you need to figure out where you're going to put your control panel for the transformer, etc. We never did discuss what kind of control system you plan to use.

Dave - This layout is the perfect design for my first attempt. Can't say thank you enough for all your help and patience. I will send you updates along the way as I begin building. I'm actually renting a u-haul today to go pick up the tables and get started. In regards to the control panel for the transformer, I am going to be using 2 CW-80 transformers and a TMCC remote to run them. Running two trains at the same time is a good start for now, though I would eventually like to get 3. Time to go buy lots of track and switches Any other thoughts/feedback, please feel free to share as I build this. Many thanks again! Mike

I will find space under the one of the tables to keep the transformers. Will figure that out as I go lol. Mike