Help with layout design..

Woodson,

So, how much of the corner of the closet can you actually use? Measure diagonally from the inside on a 45° and give me the side of triangle which has the layout corner as a point. I'll add 4" for wall and framing.

If the 4 cross switch moves back to the entrance, I can cut & paste the Sperry bridges and elevation back, adjust the yard little and go from there. That will move it back to an element that you wanted by allowing the double main to be elevated.  it won't have be that high with the mains going around the room.

next, I think a 3rd line with O42/O54 reverse loops could be fit in then, perhaps using the loop and the table near the closet for the coal mines, adding another element that wanted back into the layout.

Does that work for you?

It looks like 27" for the diagonal in the closet would be nice Here's what I have. The bridges are at 3" and 1.75" to mange the grade and still have the looks.. The other line can girder bridges.

Cutting through the closet will need about 36" from the corner along the back and side wall to accommodate the outside edge of the outermost track. Hang shirts there.

If you like this, fitting a third line of O45 loop to loop would be next.

Check out the 3D.

Looking great!! Getting back to my original theme also!! I have no problem with the tunnel through the wall and the space through the adjacent closet!! This will be Afton Tunnel.. Prototype (though a single tunnel) is the C&0 (CSX) tunnel running under the Blue Ridge Parkway from the Rockfish Valley to the Shenandoah Valley in VA!! I watched many a train pull that grade from my Uncle's house, overlooking it!! Ferry Crossing back too!! I'm excited!!!!

Woodson posted:

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!!

   Build time, is time for learning more about yourself. What you liked in your running, and the things you wanted to do while actually running, but missed out on.

Form follows function:You have a few good bases lending too different styles.The scenery will "survive" but differ some, or the running is more limited.

    I have a knack for stopping more than RR plans with "worst case scenarios " Some love it some hate it. I feel guilty when the canon ball stops rolling at times, but I'd  rather speak up now than speak in hindsight. I saw a lot of change, some to the scene, without much discussion of the scene.

    Isn't bashing what MPC is for? I mean there is rare MPC stuff too, but what's less valuable? I mainly bash, badly broken PW stuff, or MPC, common stuff; no guilt.  Even with a fat wallet I'm not sure I'd lend myself to chopping up a perfect item on every whim, but if there are thousands equal to it, who cares yet?

   Maybe some old Kusan is about equal in price, but those are getting rarer at a faster rate than MPC. New Menards offers are reasonable enough to go nuts on new

 The "low bridge(s)"... Being "land bridges" (on bench-work), or an actual "bridge", or a combo, wouldn't matter much in the end if its under 4ft long across the true footing. E.g, a few PW bridges, joints tied solid with upside down PW girder bridges along the bottom, and full O track solidly attached up top, can span that pretty firmly.(not expected, just an example) Stacked over/under, would be much stronger. Run lengths of tube or angled  metal under the same, and say good enough.

.... Duck, I gotcha..but "if" you change your mind you can last minute it too... A lift, drop, swing away, etc is a few days max extra overall (track etc.too) Worth it IMO. With good angles and a firm hinge post the swing away, versus lift/drop, is easier to use by far. Up, poses a "slam down" risk on fingers, and the heads of "small people".I'm a victim of both injuries."'If"- do a drop down or swing out, not a lift.(watch your knees/shins)

Leaving GG for another brands smaller turnouts in spots, just for plannings sake may open new choices.

    I'm mixed on the curved turnouts. One we had was a pain, the other always smooth. I think one was GG & the other Ross, or 70s Atlas. But don't recall for sure which was bad, they both got replaced with normal, numbered turnouts after a few months since nobody had another in stock and couldn't give a delivery date either.

  I associate "point to point" with no loop layouts. I prefer to hand rail and store long trains, swap a few things en route to different stations. I hate repeating at one passenger station, I need a new destination each run.

 When styles mesh..   I'm a traveler, a hobo; "look ma no hands" or "Casey" ; station to station, maybe give me a time challenge; train heavy enough to wheel spin. Switching is work Gramp's was the baron; work orders for in town builds/MOW, train orders, time slips, rolling stock status cards, etc. My brother the yardman, today buys pretty passenger trains, and puts the loco's on sidings forever, just making up their same trains up, with his same old switcher, over and over as he counts boiler rivetsA cousin, a yardboss, will seldom let anyone see, let alone run, or touch his played with "junk" just rusting away down there . He watches and tells you what to do with the trains next, but never pulls a bar on layouts He also has some boxed PW gems that should never be put on those rusty rails Collector Another cousin a "switch man" that needs to change track every few laps to be happy. The rest were well rounded, or had no interest.

.Are you "style related"?

"A lift, drop, swing away, etc is a few days max extra overall (track etc.too) Worth it IMO. With good angles and a firm hinge post the swing away, versus lift/drop, is easier to use by far. Up, poses a "slam down" risk on fingers, and the heads of "small people".I'm a victim of both injuries."

A "swing away" seems to be a great idea!! With a new build it should be easy to incorporate.. Have any tips on that build??

As with anything layout related, there are different ways of doing a swing away. Here's but one simple example. Note the hinge on one end and the angle cut on the other end away from the direction travel. The outline shows how the piece would hit if not cut at an angle. There are examples of entire sections, floor to top, even including a large trestle. Here's a thread you might want to take a look at.

Dave, Thanks for the information!! Looks interesting to me.. I'm sure it's not as easy to build as it looks, but  the end result will be more than worth the effort!! The electrical concerns would seem to be an issue, but apparently not.. If they are, it would be an easy fix!! I haven't totally decided on my layout plan, but I'm close!!!! I'm waiting on the contractor to replace the windows with shorter ones.. I will then paint the walls sky blue and use some flat white for a cloudy/ hazy effect.. I have some Glenn Snyder Display Shelves  that I need to move, (and probably add to) replace the flooring (TBD, not carpet) and then... Meanwhile, my shop crew (me) is learning how to install Kadee couplers..

If you want to get fancy, you can buy or build something similar to Mianne's Lift-Gate.

That's a long answer. Firm bracing, like a crate, on the frame work that has hinge posts, anchors would be nice too. From there, its basically a Dutch-door, possible caster wheel for extra support.

  Springing contacts can be made of copper strips. As mentioned, an angle makes this easier, and gaps at the outer arc can be tighter when closed. Guides to gradually line things up not hard. A "fishing box latch" to Jeep hood latches could be used to close it, but a high quality industrial door knob wont rattle about when closed.

Maybe turn a Dutch door into a large arch bridge by simply cutting the door, then arch and framing or laminating any hollow you create( glue braces/ cover the hollow). You could even leave/put bottom bracing across the span between the arcs footings. The door can remain square. Where it butts & closes, built square to the doors closed position.

much fretting about bridge mechanisms when it's not time to build...

I always liked the simplicity of Susan's automotive lift arm.  There's another layout build with a very cleverly and functional hinge designed by the builder's wife that is an aerospace engineer. I have to dig for the favorite. It has the track power cutout switches nicely hidden.

Anyway, a swing-in section with wheels take a lot of space and work. I don't think this requires that solution.

 Just banter till the train is rolling again really.

That is a nice, simple, light looking bridge.

My '"slam" phobia would still have me building a door

   I replaced failed hydraulic/air cylinders as part of an old job . Small door/drawer return cylinders at another

Being around failed cylinders, I'd "need" to watch the full stroke, every time

Moonman posted:

much fretting about bridge mechanisms when it's not time to build...

I always liked the simplicity of Susan's automotive lift arm.  There's another layout build with a very cleverly and functional hinge designed by the builder's wife that is an aerospace engineer. I have to dig for the favorite. It has the track power cutout switches nicely hidden.

Anyway, a swing-in section with wheels take a lot of space and work. I don't think this requires that solution.

Carl,  I don't see any "fretting". He asked what is involved in various ways to deal with the entry, so I worked up a quick chart and gave him a link to a thread with some options. While the beginning of the thread deals with that large swing-away trestle section, Joe K's post on 12/4/2015 shows a much simpler swing-away bridge and a lift-up bridge. While I also loved Susan's version way back when I first saw it, I didn't have that link when I posted or I would have added it. I do think it's somewhat important to consider the entry when deciding how to design that section of the layout and benchwork. If he uses a simple bridge or just a flat piece of wood, Susan's solution would be great. However, if he wants an arch style bridge, then the swing-away design might work better. It's obviously too early to settle on any one design, but it's important to have some idea of what options there are.

Woodson posted:

I feel your pain.. No more Lionel track and switches for me.. My current layout, 4'x11', I built using all Lionel stuff and it seemed that my road crew (me) was always dealing with derailments through the turnouts.. Fortunately I will be building a new and bigger layout.. I will use all GG and Ross track and all Ross turnouts.. I would do the same thing if I were refurbishing my current layout!! I'm also going to Kadee couplers and weight the cars to NMRA standards: 5oz plus 1oz per inch of length of the car..

Woodson, I noticed that you made this comment in another thread. I'm wondering why you were having frequent derailment problems, which I suspect is why you lost interest in the layout. You seem to be blaming Lionel track when there are other factors to consider like the rolling stock itself, particularly the wheel gauge.

I've used a lot of Lionel tubular track and switches and I run many different kinds of trains. When I have derailment issues I can always fix it by adjusting something, usually involving the car wheels and trucks, less often a problem with the track.

Have you tried out your trains on any Gargraves and Ross track yet, before you commit to building an entire layout with it? Some O-gauge trains may have compatibility problems with certain brands of track, due to the lack of actual standards for 3-rail track and wheels. The NMRA has good standards for scale trains.

Were you thinking of body-mounting Kadee couplers? Because that would be problematic for 3-rail operation with the relatively sharp curves. I'm a big fan of Kadee couplers for HO but not for 3-rail.

I'm concerned that you are planning a new larger layout when you were unable to troubleshoot and correct derailment problems on your previous layout.

All good points. Ace!!

"I'm wondering why you were having frequent derailment problems, which I suspect is why you lost interest in the layout. You seem to be blaming Lionel track when there are other factors to consider like the rolling stock itself, particularly the wheel gauge."

The problems I had/have seem to be more switch related than track issues.. Rolling stock that is way too light weight, is part of the problem.. I think I am resolving  that issue by weighting the cars and replacing the trucks.. I also checked to make sure that I installed the switches correctly- level, alignment etc.. Lionel track is limited in its offerings..

"Have you tried out your trains on any Gargraves and Ross track yet, before you commit to building an entire layout with it? Some O-gauge trains may have compatibility problems with certain brands of track, due to the lack of actual standards for 3-rail track and wheels. The NMRA has good standards for scale trains."

Not to the degree I probably should..  'Roll' throughs only, but it does seem to be much smoother.. And of course I think their reputations speak for themselves..

"Were you thinking of body-mounting Kadee couplers? Because that would be problematic for 3-rail operation with the relatively sharp curves. I'm a big fan of Kadee couplers for HO but not for 3-rail."

I am experimenting with Kadee couplers, but have made no decision on that.. There seems to be several trains of  thought on them..

"I'm concerned that you are planning a newer larger layout when you were unable to troubleshoot and correct derailment problems on your previous layout."

I appreciate your concerns and they are very valid.. As always, thanks for your input Ace.. They give me some things to think about BEFORE I venture into my new layout!! I feel that I'm working those issues out.. Maybe in my future posts, I should give better explanations of my ideas..

GG and Ross can need some minor tweaking too; nobody is perfect every time

But they are nicer looking, smooth, and have a different sound.

I've seen more motors for GG burn, but I've only burned one Lionel ever, an MPC. Bad luck? Bad wires?..Could be.

I'd still need a coin to decide if to buy either GG/Ross/Lionel

Hey there , i just wanted to give a shout out to thank EVERYONE here that has been so kind to answer my questions and given me help, advice, and encouragement regarding designing and building my little Std. Gauge Layout. This gauge is an entire new territory for me, I certainly couldn't navigate these waters without help!