Help with layout design..

Ace posted:

"... massive Clinchfield Copper Creek Viaduct in Speers Ferry, Virginia" ... 

http://www.railpictures.net/sh...ntry=Virginia,%20USA

To try to do some justice to this feature on a layout plan ...

The lower level is a long dogbone arrangement with O54 minimum curves and grades up to 2%, big enough for two trains to cruise around on. The separate upper level is a loop-to-loop with no grades and O32 curves on the end loops. The O32 loops could perhaps be enlarged to O42 curves.

The plan needs more work to try to fit in other desired features. The large bridges are occupying space which might otherwise be used for a yard. So far I have maintained a walk-in plan with no duck-unders or movable bridges (which I personally dislike) but others can feel free to modify the plan. The SCARM file is attached.

I'm not sure how to react to this.. You've more than made your point.. Obviously you have wonderful skills in SCARM and I have very little.. "To try to do some justice to this feature on a layout plan ... ", I would need a much larger area than I have to work within.. While your layout plan is accurate, and impressive, it's really not anymore than two loops of track.. It would not keep my interest for a moment, nor would it yours.. I'm here trying to get help in developing an interesting layout plan, given my limited space.. Nothing more, nothing less.. I appreciate your interest.. 

Beautiful design.

   Remember, your upper level train length is going to be limited by how short you make your smallest reverse loop here. If long is your style, you might want to extend them to get more than the 100" (aprox).

Thanks Adriatic. It was an attempt to include the Speers Ferry Bridges as a key layout feature, but it obviously takes up a lot of space.

Woodson, I did spell out that this is a preliminary idea. Layout planning involves brainstorming ideas. I was brainstorming how to fit in the bridges and mainline routes before working on sidings and yard tracks. Every plan involves compromises in one area or another.

" ... it's really not anymore than two loops of track.. It would not keep my interest for a moment, nor would it yours.. I'm here trying to get help in developing an interesting layout plan, given my limited space.. Nothing more, nothing less.."

You sound impatient that we haven't produced a finished plan already. OK, it's your turn to sketch out some ideas of what you want.

You sound impatient that we haven't produced a finished plan already. OK, it's your turn to sketch out some ideas of what you want.

Reading my previous post, I did sound gruff though it was not meant to be, please accept my apology.. I am frustrated with myself and MY lack of SCARM skills, no one else.. The only person I'm impatient with is ME.. I've been working with SCARM, and slowly developing some skills.. I'm watching (and re-watching) the tutorials.. The gentleman in the tutorials moves very quickly and it is hard for me to understand him.. I do have some 'very crude' SCARM files and sketching done over them, but they are not ready for any kind of presentation..

Ace, Carl and anyone else i may have put off by my previous post, again, please accept my sincere apology.. I do realize you guys are here to help, and again thank you for your interest in my project!!!  

Woodson, some of the software can be frustrating to figure out from a new start. I used to draw reams of plans on paper and it was a trick to do reasonable approximations of switch geometry. Then I tried AnyRail and have since switched to SCARM. SCARM has all the GarGraves and Ross items and you can just plunk them down and hook up track every which way in seconds! Once you get the hang of it. SCARM has so many features I still haven't figured them all out, but I get by.

Some of the You-Tube tutorials may be better than others. I don't always have internet available and I learned SCARM from reading the Documentation, but now you need internet for that too (because it got more involved with all the updates and language translations).

To learn SCARM, just try building real basic stuff to start before trying to design a complex layout. You can get a feel for the geometry of the GarGraves and Ross track items that you plan to use. With good planning you can minimize custom-cutting of track pieces and that saves work in the long run.

Meanwhile, perhaps you could show pics of other layouts you have built, and tell us what features you liked or didn't like.

When it comes to SCARM, the way I learned was to take one of the examples offered and play with it, making changes here and there. I haven't watched any of the You Tube tutorials, but I did use and still refer to the Help/Documentation menu feature. I found it particularly useful for figuring out the Toolbox to layout out baseboards.

The biggest tip I was given was to convert all my measurements to inches. I began by making a rough drawing on paper, then added the measurements in inches. One of the hardest parts for me was working from the x:y coordinates 0:0 being in the upper left rather than the lower left like the graph paper I used in high school. It helped that I have a tablet, so I could have the Help section open on the tablet and follow it in SCARM on my laptop.

The other thing I found useful was posting my designs, no matter how crude they were, so others could correct my mistakes and show/tell me how to do something. I also downloaded any design I thought had a neat feature so I could see how they did it. I "borrowed" parts of other designs and merged them into whatever I was working on.

The main thing though is to ask if you can't figure something out fairly quickly to avoid getting overly frustrated. Even in this thread you'll notice Ace started out with a simple oval with a crossover, I changed it to an over/under and then he added the reversing loops, etc. Next would have been adding spurs/sidings, but it's fairly obvious you're not too happy with the reversing loops approach and want something different, so the ball is in your court, so to speak.

DoubleDAZ posted:

... The biggest tip I was given was to convert all my measurements to inches. I began by making a rough drawing on paper, then added the measurements in inches ...

If SCARM opens with metric dimensions as default, use "u" shortcut key to instantly switch the grid and other measurements to inches. These shortcuts are handy:

SCARM shortcut keys

R - toggle dimension grid off or on
T - toggle track display style (multiple versions)
U - toggle dimensions English/metric
S - toggle track section joints display on/off (in 2-D and 3-D)
L - toggle track parts info/grades/blank
C - toggle track ends display (arrow outline or solid color)

Ace posted:

L - toggle track parts info/grades/blank

I haven't paid much attention to shortcut keys, but this is one I can really use. Thanks for the tip.

Ace posted:

Woodson, some of the software can be frustrating to figure out from a new start. I used to draw reams of plans on paper and it was a trick to do reasonable approximations of switch geometry. Then I tried AnyRail and have since switched to SCARM. SCARM has all the GarGraves and Ross items and you can just plunk them down and hook up track every which way in seconds! Once you get the hang of it. SCARM has so many features I still haven't figured them all out, but I get by.

Some of the You-Tube tutorials may be better than others. I don't always have internet available and I learned SCARM from reading the Documentation, but now you need internet for that too (because it got more involved with all the updates and language translations).

To learn SCARM, just try building real basic stuff to start before trying to design a complex layout. You can get a feel for the geometry of the GarGraves and Ross track items that you plan to use. With good planning you can minimize custom-cutting of track pieces and that saves work in the long run.

Meanwhile, perhaps you could show pics of other layouts you have built, and tell us what features you liked or didn't like.

Thanks for the encouragement, Ace!! I'll take some pictures of my current layout and post them.. Lot of 'stuff' crammed in a small space.. It has been idle for several years..

Can you claim the closet? At least waist to neck?

I'm thinking of less dust on the stock here too.

Sky blue sliding cabinet doors?

This is a general idea for a different arrangement. It's all flat with mostly rectangular benchwork sections and standard track sections for straightforward construction. A third circuit can probably be worked in somehow on another level. Woodson said he already has a double crossover and 4-way yard lead, so I used those.

Putting a scissors crossover on the drop bridge is maybe not the best idea, but it facilitates train access to the one best yard location and avoids significant S-curves.

This is a very clever plan.. I still can't load it to SCARM, but I have printed copies and sketching ideas.. On one of my earlier sketches had a 'crude' yard where Ace put a real nice one!! I'm still thinking about tunneling through the wall on the bottom right, adding a couple industrial spurs, and moving the scissors crossover to the lower left side of the plan, on the main, adjacent to the yard.. I'm also trying to figure out a 'run around'(not sure that is the correct term) in the yard, so I can change train direction.. I have a lift bridge that I may be able to incorporate in duck under..   I'm excited!! I'm actually starting to get a good vision of what I want to accomplish, recognizing that there will always be compromises!! Thanks Ace for hanging it there with me!!!

    A reverse loop is for reversing direction of a whole train. A wye (Y) turns a loco & maybe a car or two, or turntable for single items. A run around is a path that allows the loco to drop load and "escape" (possibly to change the head end). I always thought of it as a maneuver.

Will you want to operate scale steamers?  It doesn't look like that is an option. The only way O72 fits in the space is through the wall or the smaller oval in the main area. Even then, you will only have one line to operate. Are you ok with Traditional sized equipment?

Do you have a preference for the primary direction of movement? I like counter-clockwise (anti-clockwise). I can't tell you why. Perhaps because the galaxies rotate that way.

Don't fret the yard right now.(Thanks, Adriatic) It will have to live where ACE placed it. It has almost what you need with the latest iteration. The arrival/departure track can be that long passing siding that is there and the actual lead to yard throat is almost long enough. Another $400-$500 in switches can make it more operational. That could be an add-on project later.

Some summer projects and activities are taking me away. I haven't bailed. 

Add some pics of your pencil ideas.

I had some time, so I took a crack at the Druther : 3 trains running from your first post. I used Atlas O O45, O54, & O63 as it set up better than GG with natural 4.5" center spacing.

I used the aisle is the river table arrangement that I proposed earlier as an option.

I see the #175 on the along the river (aisle on the left viewing, right looking into the room) and the yard in that space.

It turned out racetrack looking as expected with concentric turns, but we are working with tight space.

Perhaps the O45 line could go around the room in front to the door to break things up. I dunno, just trying some things. The walls are short, just there for some perspective looking in from the door and back to the door.

Some more brainstorming. This plan has wider mainline curves by going through the closet. The wye junction and reverse loop and yard-on-the-branch-line will add a lot of operating variety. Two trains can cruise around on the main lines while a third train works on the branch and yard tracks.

Sometimes it helps to be flexible with radius standards. I used O54 on the wye junction and yard approach, O42 minimum on the reverse loop/layover. Equipment which needs wider curves can be restricted and routed accordingly. The tighter curves allow more operational possibilities for other trains within the limited space.

The main tracks are elevated in front of the yard due to some design constraints. Usually I would put lower tracks in front for scenic advantage. The connecting grade is a short 5% stretch from the underpass to the wye junction, which allows the mainline to be all flat for easier construction and operation. The grade could be reduced by splitting it with the main tracks. The grades and elevations may need some adjustments; I used a bare-minimum 5" railhead-to-railhead clearance.

The extended yard tracks are intended to "disappear around the corner" rather than have visible tunnel entrances.

This is my latest mod to one of Ace's earlier plans.. I know it's a bit crude,  but I'm slowly getting there..

Will you want to operate scale steamers? Not really a concern..

Do you have a preference for the primary direction of movement?
Not really a concern either.. With the run around I can change train direction (excepting steam) though the main flow would be Clockwise with the exception of a couple sidings I added..

I used Atlas O O45, O54, & O63  I would prefer to stay with GG and Ross..

Another $400-$500 in switches can make it more operational. 
How so??

I also want to shrink the entrance to~30in.. I think it would make building bridges easier.. Also thinking about the tunnel through the wall.. I can't use the whole closet as in Ace's latest plan..

Can you upload Woodson 146 as an attachment? Then we can refine the fitment for the track count and send the file back to you.

Are you liking 142-146? It does have a nice flow and a good track to scenery ratio.

Adding some #4 between the yard spurs would allow the engine to head end in-switch spurs and escape. A few more switches can create a run around. It's a little tight. Also have to connect the arrival-departure track with switches to cut out arrivals.

There's not enough space to get the full yard in one place on the layout. I thought I'd post this reference for you showing the elements.

Can you upload Woodson 146 as an attachment? Then we can refine the fitment for the track count and send the file back to you.

Are you liking 142-146? It does have a nice flow and a good track to scenery ratio.

Adding some #4 between the yard spurs would allow the engine to head end in-switch spurs and escape. A few more switches can create a run around. It's a little tight. Also have to connect the arrival-departure track with switches to cut out arrivals.

Carl, I'm up to "149" making changes as I go.. Learning on the fly.. I do like the plan.. I have another update sketched on 149 that I want to transfer to SCARM.. I will try to send it out later today!!

Ok, we can make the changes and track fitment work for you. It helps for the acquisition of materials (Parts List) and the build out.

I just happened to notice the curved switch had track under it or something.

I liked this version because the long siding will let you have 3 trains on the layout and run two at time and change one from time to time. 3 trains running simultaneously will crowd the space.

Don't lock yourself into one diameter curve when trying to get from A to B. Just keep the minimum.

I have a thought for something you'll like, but I would prefer to wait to see where you are going before spending the time on it.

Oh, by the way, select the baseboard(blue outline) and it will turn red. Then select a point near the door and the block will turn solid red. Click and drag the point to create the 30" wide opening.

Latest work.. Still needs 'cleaning up'.. I hope this works!!

Woodson posted:

Latest work.. Still needs 'cleaning up'.. I hope this works!!

Apparently, I still don't know how to attach a file to my post....... Working on it.....

Woodson posted:

Apparently, I still don't know how to attach a file to my post....... Working on it.....

Same way you attached the photo. The only difference is you select the .scarm file instead of the .jpg file.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Woodson posted:

Apparently, I still don't know how to attach a file to my post....... Working on it.....

Same way you attached the photo. The only difference is you select the .scarm file instead of the .jpg file.

Yea, stupid me is still missing something.. Got a nice (to me!) SCARM file going and need ya'll's input on it and cleaned up a bit..

Woodson posted:

Yea, stupid me is still missing something.. Got a nice (to me!) SCARM file going and need ya'll's input on it and cleaned up a bit..

Not sure what could be wrong.

Select "Add Attachments". When the window opens, select the file you want to upload. You can select multiple files by using the Shift or Ctrl keys.

When you click "Open", you'll get a status display. In it, you'll see a checkbox to "Insert all photos.............." If you check it, your photos will be inserted into your post as well as added as attachments. If you don't check it, the files will just be added as attachments and viewers will have to open them to see them full size. If you select photos and a .scarm file, only the photos will be inserted into your posts, all will be added as attachments.

When you "insert" a photo, the cursor will be on the same line as your photo. Press the "Enter" key to start a new line for further comments.

I would suggest that curved switches be avoided as much as possible. They are rare in real railroading and for that reason, look somewhat less realistic IMO. Also, curved switches may be more problematic than regular switches on a model railroad. Here are some alternate ideas for adding spurs using regular switches.

In the real world, a double-track main line with right-hand running would generally avoid facing point spurs, but we just have to compromise with track plans in limited space. I avoid running the main track through the curved leg of a switch as much as possible.

Ace, this is surprisingly close to what I had in mind, actually better, given your reasoning!! And probably more cost effective too.. I like it!!

I'm still missing something on the file sending/receiving/opening.. My daughter is on the way, she'll get me straight, I hope!!

    If you happen to forget to check off "insert large size", or change your mind later, you still have the option. It can be done from the attachment list at the bottom too. From there you can choose to insert it as a Large, Med., or Small picture.

I've seen you have loaded pictures, so you just didn't check off the "insert large".

   You could try an edit, in "take action" and insert a picture from the bottom attachment list, into the text somewhere, just to try it.

.  You'll get better at Scarm naturally. And faster too after you pick up that "right click is your friend" and "copy/paste" can be faster than selecting track sometimes.(PS pasting occurs in the exact same position, you cant see it, except the red boarder changes slightly. Moving the new piece exposes the old, or move the copied old and a new one will appear in the old position when you paste)

   For what it's worth, I really liked Ace's original best. And it's the expanse that the back wall lends to the scene by separating two areas, that I like most. After that, I don't have much opinion yet, I'm really stuck on looking at the original.

I don't really get into doing switching operations as much, as I like to watch them "loop". So yards, for me, are more about storage, and fast train swap outs.  I think the long yard is great for that, but long & being centered along there too, will take from the scene IMO.

You know your running style best Woodson, step back and look.

Operations? Looks? or Cruising? Mentioned because I see a new direction.

      If I tore up scenery for a yard, it would be to the right. A smaller yard at the expense of one sides scenery would be better visually than "eating up" that valley hollow IMO. Another "goal" might be setting a shorter yard to the right and shifting the 'holler' to the left, so it's inline with the walkway. Excess stock to a shelf (or two levels?) in the closet. A camera could let you see & not mess with the "window". On camera, you could still make the yard look very real too, not just a shelf..

 Bridging the isle at an angle (with an over/under on the original), could add a reversing loop to each level. It's angle would also make it much easier to do a side-swing on a bridge embankment, to avoid the duck-under, which seems narrow to me at 24". But most duck-unders I've seen are wider too.

 Many folks do better bending over, and then pivoting on one foot, swinging their bodies under, then pivoting again to get out; verses doing a full duck walk, it's easier. Consider your normal visitors limits too. Any XXX- large pants visit? (I'm not, but some friends are HUGE (not just fat either, "Shaq huge"). I've "undersized" them out of a few things I've built, by having to much thought for my own comforts and abilities )

See if this works.. Poor compared to Ace's  latest idea.. My daughter is awesome!!

I'm sure Michael Angelo made a few lesser quality sketches along the way

Adriatic posted:

I'm sure Michael Angelo made a few lesser quality sketches along the way

At least you guys finally know that I haven't been hanging around waiting for someone else to do everything.. It's comparatively crude, probably not the best of ideas, but I am on a steep learning curve....

Glad to see your daughter's help was successful, now to remember how you did it.

A couple of observations (just food for thought):
-- I find it easier in the long run not to use the long tracks during the design phase. I limit myself to the smaller tracks, in your case the 12.4" tracks. Using a 37" track tends to pressure you into trying to join to it rather than shortening the section to a 12.4 + 12.4 + 6.2.
-- Be careful using flex track because it looks like some of your curves are tighter than O54, your stated minimum.
-- Ace has already mentioned the curved switches. I've never used one, so I defer to those who have.
-- I don't see much room for landscaping, but that's kind of typical when trying to stuff dual mains with large curves in your size space.
-- I see the double spurs in the bottom half, but I don't see enough space to landscape something to justify them.
-- I see the single spur in the top half, but I'm not sure what it's going to be used for, there's no landscaping space there either.
-- I actually liked the version that had the double-crossover across the entrance because it would allow the outside run to be raised around the sides and back rather than limiting things to a single level.

Ahhh, success.

Now we need a compass to enable us to communicate. Choose a North and put a Compass in the plan.

Looking at it now, #149 needs the area in front of the door refined and the area at the bottom, closest to the door wall refined. A sweeping curve off of the bridge does look nice. I would stay away from going through the closet for now. O54 & O63 make the turn on that corner.

Adding to one Daz' comments, just because the space in front of the door has to lift, drop or come out it doesn't have to be a bridge. It just has to be a movable section of the layout.

This plan has drifted from including elements of the actual railroad to forcing in railroad features for operation. Are you ok with that? I don't want to assume.

Ok,

I took your 149 and made 150. I am thinking about the actual build and switch motor placement/spacing.

Are you comfortable cutting sectional and/or flex and working with flex?

I have to try to find the dimensions for the DZ1000 motors and where they are located for curve switches.

here's my 150 attached. I set the door opening at 30" with a 30" piece of track and worked both ways from there.

Still trying to get that closet corner. May have to just run through it.

Yea for me!! Got the file opened in SCARM!!!

Wow, lots and lots of information..  Carl, I think Ace's idea is best: "I would suggest that curved switches be avoided as much as possible. They are rare in real railroading and for that reason, look somewhat less realistic IMO. Also, curved switches may be more problematic than regular switches on a model railroad. Here are some alternate ideas for adding spurs using regular switches."  DZ 1000s are 3" long and 11/8" wide.. That's another concern I hadn't even addressed.. BTW my layout will be controlled by a Control Panel(s) and TMCC.. No iPhone or laptop control here. Maybe some manual switching also.. Laidoffsick has a nice u-tube on building a Control Panel..  Much easier/cleaner than what I did in the past.. BUT, all that is way down the line..

What I like about the 'current' plan: Lot's of operational options!! My Grandson and I would not get bored..

What I don't like is: I have really drifted from the original concept.. For better or worse!?

Much to think about!!

Woodson posted: 

... What I like about the 'current' plan: Lots of operational options!! My Grandson and I would not get bored..

What I don't like is: I have really drifted from the original concept.. For better or worse!?

When track plans for limited space are drawn out to scale, reality sets in. You just can't fit in everything you might want, at least not without more compromises and a lot of multi-level complexity which is maybe impractical.

The latest plans here are already crowded with a double-track main, modest yard and a few spurs. Where can you fit a third circuit and the Clinch River bridges?

Some of us can tweak track plans almost indefinitely. There are still a lot of other possibilities for this space but it all depends on you defining your priorities of desired features.

Personally, I like smaller older conventional-traditional trains that are happy on tighter curves. If I was designing something for myself in this space I would probably go down to O42 curves for the main and O27 or O31 on a branch line. I would have a walk-in plan and no movable bridge/duckunder because it is not convenient for spur-of-the-moment operation. I would try to fit in a wye junction and reverse loops and some hidden layover and long yard tracks for complete trains. I like long wide S-curves on at least one part of the layout. I have these features on other layouts and they maintain my interest.

Another factor to consider: "permanent" construction versus an "evolving" layout plan. Sometimes I like to change tracks around for variety and to try out different ideas. Other hobbyists want a "permanent" layout so they can build elaborate scenery etc.

Everyone should decide for themselves what features they like best for their home layout.

I have wide curves on a room-perimeter floor layout, O27 layouts on narrow tables, and a long 8% grade connecting them. Variety.

I guess the term for me is: 'Traditional'.. I like and have post war, MPC, and modern equipment.. Scale is nice, but I'm no 'rivet counter', so it's not my thing..  I really like Railsounds and  TMCC.. TMCC just opens up a whole new world of controlling trains.. I'm not into running trains from an iPhone or a Laptop.. Yes, I want a permanent layout.. I like to get involved with switching cars and making a train.. What I would call a "Local".. I'm not into a"point to point" layout..  I like passenger trains and coal trains that I can sit back and watch, sometimes too!! With the programing capabilities, (action recorders etc) I can watch a passenger train 'do it's thing' if I choose.. I have been chastised for wanting to put TMCC, Kadee couplers, and weathering on MPC stuff, but why not, it's MY railroad..  I would have a hard time doing that to a $1500 locomotive.. Everyone likes long sweeping curves, but I have no problem with tighter curves.. I have no problem with duck/crawl unders.. Maybe I'll live to regret it..

I hope this answers more of your questions.. Thanks to all for your continued  objectivity and interest!!! You guys are really helping me learn a lot!!

Woodson,

You have drifted far enough to notice that you have drifted. Now is the time where the attached will be meaningful to you.

Moonman posted:

Woodson,

You have drifted far enough to notice that you have drifted. Now is the time where the attached will be meaningful to you.

Woodson posted:

What I like about the 'current' plan: Lot's of operational options!! My Grandson and I would not get bored..

What I don't like is: I have really drifted from the original concept.. For better or worse!?

Much to think about!!

Bingo!

As long as you see where you are heading .

It's easy to get excited. It's not even mine and I'm excited for you

(was 42" or 54" a physical limit?, visual limit?, or did it just happen?)