Here is my O-Gauge layout as I see it today, given the space that I have to work with.

Hi Roger, you think a lot like me, put as much train action in as possible!

That said, I would consider other things like accessories, streets and businesses.

Just a thought, that big storage switch yard will be a blast to operate so I would never suggest eliminating it, but a second level covering the switch yard would give you the extra space. Cameras can be used to view the track action.

Overall, a really good plan for the space. I think it could be enhanced with a wye junction at the inside corner, and a complimentary reverse loop inside the upper oval to allow trains to reverse direction both ways. Also, the turnout geometry for the shortest yard tracks could be improved to eliminate S-curves. If you want to post the SCARM file I'll try to work in those ideas for you to consider.

It would be better to have this post in the layout design sub-forum.

gg1man posted:

Hi Roger, you think a lot like me, put as much train action in as possible!

That said, I would consider other things like accessories, streets and businesses.

Just a thought, that big storage switch yard will be a blast to operate so I would never suggest eliminating it, but a second level covering the switch yard would give you the extra space. Cameras can be used to view the track action.

 

Thanks gg1,

As I mentioned, that 3rd passenger train spur may not happen in lieu of more streets and business, etc...

Also, can you elaborate on your idea of the 2nd level above the yard? Would it be a completely separate level with just a train running on it?

Ace posted:

Overall, a really good plan for the space. I think it could be enhanced with a wye junction at the inside corner, and a complimentary reverse loop inside the upper oval to allow trains to reverse direction both ways. Also, the turnout geometry for the shortest yard tracks could be improved to eliminate S-curves. If you want to post the SCARM file I'll try to work in those ideas for you to consider.

It would be better to have this post in the layout design sub-forum.

Thanks for chiming in Ace,

What did you have in mind for the wye junction? I am not sure I understand where you are revering to.

The turnouts for the shortest yard spurs are that way to allow for the longest possible amount of storage track, but I am completely open to what you might have in mind that I just didn't think of.

I posted the SCARM file, I think. Let me know if you got it and if you can use it.

Roger

Roger, got your SCARM file now. Give me some time to tinker with it ...

Attached image shows the general idea I had for a wye junction and reversing track to allow trains to reverse direction both ways.

RWL posted:

gg1man posted:

Hi Roger, you think a lot like me, put as much train action in as possible!

That said, I would consider other things like accessories, streets and businesses.

Just a thought, that big storage switch yard will be a blast to operate so I would never suggest eliminating it, but a second level covering the switch yard would give you the extra space. Cameras can be used to view the track action.

 

Thanks gg1,

As I mentioned, that 3rd passenger train spur may not happen in lieu of more streets and business, etc...

Also, can you elaborate on your idea of the 2nd level above the yard? Would it be a completely separate level with just a train running on it?

Just a second level for no other purpose but to show off the little town where your railroad workers live. I think you have enough train action, other then what Ace suggested above, I liked that idea.

You could have a section of Supper Street up there with a trolley running around town, but I would avoid to much motion, it can be overwhelming to the eye. You don't wont to confuse the viewer. In fact I would only have a bounce trolley running back and forth with a few vehicle's parked along the sidewalk. 

Just like in real life our minds eye needs a quite place to go to get away from the hustle and bustle of our daily work life.

You don't even have to have a road leading up to it, just place a tunnel portal on the lower  level with a road sign that says "Roger Town" one mile and have a street dead end into it. Our ability to suspend our disbelief is truly amazing when viewing such a vignette.  

The most important thing to remember is to have fun with it.

RWL,

You post the SCARM file the same way you posted your picture files previously.  Wherever the SCARM file is on your hard drive (those files end in .scarm), find it and be ready to refind it on your next reply to these posts.

Simply reply, "Here's the SCARM file." and then look at the bottom of the post box to attach files, before you actually post, and follow the procedures including finding the actual SCARM file..  Then, others can download it from your post and offer suggestions with new versions of your plan.

Chuck

PS Sorry this is obviously late.

Roger, I see in your SCARM file that you have a mix of different brands of track and 11 cut-down switches. And in looking at your previous posts, I see you were talking about cutting down Ross switches. Frankly, I don't think this is a good idea to choose Ross switches if you have to cut them all down to fit. Also, I can't recommend a plan that involves joining different brands of track and turnouts at many different places.

I like the general arrangement of your track plan, but I would suggest you consider choosing just one or two brands of track that will build this plan with less cutting and adapting, especially of the switches.

I completely agree with Ace. If you're undecided about which track brand to use, work up the design using each brand separately. Most of the switches aren't even switches, they're straights and curves set in place to look like a switch, so there's no telling what brand track will even come close to connecting things properly with a minimum of cutting. And IMHO, it the plan requires that a switch be cut, then it's time to rethink things, a switch costs too much money to cut and I can't think of many times when a much straight or curve can't be cut instead.

I'm sixty seven and have been in the hobby since I was eleven and full time since I was thirty and I have seen very few switch cutting projects end up with a smile.

OH yea, Da what's a SCRAM file?

Just saw your layout, whish I had that space!.  Are your curves wide enough for your equipment, or what you anticipate to add?  Are you allowing space around the back sides for access, just in case?

Ace posted:

Roger, I see in your SCARM file that you have a mix of different brands of track and 11 cut-down switches. And in looking at your previous posts, I see you were talking about cutting down Ross switches. Frankly, I don't think this is a good idea to choose Ross switches if you have to cut them all down to fit. Also, I can't recommend a plan that involves joining different brands of track and turnouts at many different places.

I like the general arrangement of your track plan, but I would suggest you consider choosing just one or two brands of track that will build this plan with less cutting and adapting, especially of the switches.

I am not using different brands of track. I only used them to get the scarm layout complete. I used Atles flex track for the special lengths, and cut down turnouts, and Lionel for the O-31 curves because scarm doesn't have them in Ross, even though Ross makes them. I plan to use Ross Switches and track completely.

I talked with Steve, and he assured me that cutting the switches down would not be an issue as long as I don't get within a scertain distance of the moving points.

rrman posted:

Just saw your layout, whish I had that space!.  Are your curves wide enough for your equipment, or what you anticipate to add?  Are you allowing space around the back sides for access, just in case?

Everything I have is spec'd for O-31, and I will not buy anything that won't. Also I had this very oval set up with the Fastrack, and the clearances are fine, but I would not be able to use the longer steam locos like a challenger for example, even though they work on O-31, because of what you mentioned, to much over hang. I might  pull it in a bit though just to be safe.

This plan fits in the same space using all standard uncut pieces of Atlas O-3 track. It includes a wye junction and reverse loop track to turn trains from either direction. There are an abundance of long spurs to park cars and complete trains. The minimum curve size is increased from O31 to O36. Switches are O36 minimum, with most of them O45 or wider. I left the baseboard outline exactly as it was so it can be compared with the original plan.

I'll give this a shot with Ross switches and GarGraves flex-track to see if I can do something similar.

If the upper right of the plan is against a room corner, access for some of the switches is not entirely convenient. There are plenty of opportunities for this plan to be further revised and customized.

Note that the SCARM file has the original layout plan off to the right from the baseboard, available for comparison.

Ace posted:

This plan fits in the same space using all standard uncut pieces of Atlas O-3 track. It includes a wye junction and reverse loop track to turn trains from either direction. There are an abundance of long spurs to park cars and complete trains. The minimum curve size is increased from O31 to O36. Switches are O36 minimum, with most of them O45 or wider. I left the baseboard outline exactly as it was so it can be compared with the original plan.

I'm not saying you should use Atlas track instead of Ross. But I will say that Atlas track geometry (especially for the switches) works a lot better for this size and shape of layout. Of course, many small track pieces can be eliminated if you cut flex-track to fit.

If the upper right of the plan is against a room corner, access for some of the switches is not entirely convenient. There are plenty of opportunities for this plan to be further revised and customized.

Note that the SCARM file has the original layout plan off to the right from the baseboard, available for comparison.

Thanks Ace,

Very intriguing plan, ingenious, I have to say.

I was just about to ask how a train would get from the large loop back to the small one, but the wye takes care of that, creating a double crossover.

You obviously went to a lot of work to put this together, but all of the switches seem to be Atlas. I really don't want to use Atlas switches, and as mentioned in my original post, I want to go ross completely, at very least for the switches.

Again, the only reason that there were Atlas part in my layout was to use there flex track in the SCARM software to create the special cut lengths of Ross track.

What am I missing? Are you suggesting that I use Atlas switches, or did you use them because they are set up in the SCARM software to show your version, like I used the Atlas Flex track to get the special cut lengths of Ross track?

Thanks again,

Roger

This version uses all Ross switches with no cutting of switches. Track is mostly Ross, with some GarGraves flex-track cut to fit. The baseboard is unchanged from the original plan. The upper ovals have O42 and O54 curves. Minimum curves are O31 down in the panhandle. There is one O31 switch but the other switches are all O42 or wider.

Another variation, all Ross switches, no cutting of switches.

Ace posted:

Another variation, all Ross switches, no cutting of switches.

Very nice Ace,

You must really love doing these layouts, and I understand that. I can set for hours playing with layouts in SCARM. I am a mechanical designer and we use 3D modeling software to design everything, and I love doing that as well.

I really like these layouts. They are a bit cleaner, and go back to the very clear double loop layout, all Ross switches. Thanks for the ideas. I really do like the wye next to the yard.

Thanks again,

Roger

FWIW, I like the last version too. IMHO, the original design was cluttered with too many sidings to accommodate the passenger terminal and the lack of the inside reversing loop meant you could only reverse once, you would then have to back through to reverse again. You can still run multiple trains and there is ample storage and room for landscaping.

From everything I've read here, you'll be better off bending GarGraves flex than Atlas, especially to something less than the O54 radius. There are a few posts here and You Tube has videos that show how to bend GarGraves flex. It's not near as easy as bending HO flex, so I suggest you review those before you make a final decision. The wye does make you alter your bench work a bit, but that's a small price to pay.

Also, you might be tempted to fiddle with this design using tighter curves, but after having gone through that exercise with my own design, I think you'll be much happier with the larger curves and less track, especially since it appears you plan to run some passenger cars which are generally longer.

I have no experience with Ross or GarGraves track, so I don't know how the 2 will look when joined together. If it were me, I'd be inclined to use all GarGraves track with the Ross switches rather than intermingle the 2 brands of track. Of course, after ballast is added, it might not be noticeable at all. Just food for thought.

I did the Atlas track version first because I find the large variety of sectional pieces useful for fitting compact arrangements. I haven't tried much designing with Ross and Gargraves switches and sectional track, and this was a good exercise to explore the possibilities. SCARM is such a great tool to plan out good track geometry !

Roger, if you can widen the lower panhandle section a few inches the minimum radius for the entire layout can go up to O42, as shown here. I left your original baseboard outline in place so you can see the difference.

Can't tell if yours will be a flat layout, but you might consider elevating some long track stretches just to break up the flatness and make to look like hillside cut ins.  On my layout, a friend suggested elevating one section of my trolley line so freight train passed through a "mountain" tunnel and disappeared for a period before emerging to go under the now raised section.  I added stone walls to each side to conceal the supports.  Added dimension to what would have been a flat "boring" round and round.  Also cut into foam board along track to simulate deeply ballasted track.

DoubleDAZ posted:

FWIW, I like the last version too. IMHO, the original design was cluttered with too many sidings to accommodate the passenger terminal and the lack of the inside reversing loop meant you could only reverse once, you would then have to back through to reverse again. You can still run multiple trains and there is ample storage and room for landscaping.

From everything I've read here, you'll be better off bending GarGraves flex than Atlas, especially to something less than the O54 radius. There are a few posts here and You Tube has videos that show how to bend GarGraves flex. It's not near as easy as bending HO flex, so I suggest you review those before you make a final decision. The wye does make you alter your bench work a bit, but that's a small price to pay.

Also, you might be tempted to fiddle with this design using tighter curves, but after having gone through that exercise with my own design, I think you'll be much happier with the larger curves and less track, especially since it appears you plan to run some passenger cars which are generally longer.

I have no experience with Ross or GarGraves track, so I don't know how the 2 will look when joined together. If it were me, I'd be inclined to use all GarGraves track with the Ross switches rather than intermingle the 2 brands of track. Of course, after ballast is added, it might not be noticeable at all. Just food for thought.

Again, I don't plan on bending any track. I plan to use Ross Switches and Ross Track exclusively. The only reason for the Atles flex was to get the correct dimensional track pieces for the cut down sections of standard straight, curve and switch parts. These would all be Ross track.

RWL posted:  Again, I don't plan on bending any track. I plan to use Ross Switches and Ross Track exclusively. The only reason for the Atles flex was to get the correct dimensional track pieces for the cut down sections of standard straight, curve and switch parts. These would all be Ross track.

I think you're making a lot of extra work for yourself if you're refusing to use any flex track. Ross track does not have a lot of fitter pieces like most other brands. The Ross track selection seems oriented more towards much larger layouts with wide curves.

I believe it's popular for many people to use Ross switches in combination with GarGraves flex track. I did those last designs using standard uncut Ross track and switches as much as possible, but I did use GarGraves flex track where it was more expedient to make the connections with fewer joints and better geometry.

I have been working with a few OGR members on my new layout and am super pleased with the help I am getting. Unfortunately, because of a work stoppage I can't get back to my design.

You will get input. I can't be happier with how my layout design is coming along.

Looks similar by I have a few bridges from Silk City, a TT from Millhouse River and just got my l RH from Altoona Model Works. I have them designed in so I don't have to do a complete redesign later on.

Looks great.

Kevin

BTW - DoubleDaz has been helping me along with other OGR folks. Can't wait to getting back to the hobby but .......it will have to wait until we are off stoppage. Missed York because of this

Kevin

Ace, nice work on the track plan.   I appreciate your recommendation on widening the loop on the "panhandle".   A consistent minimim radius is a nice feature and the larger will contribute toward happy railroading - few derailments and issues with rolling stock and locomotives.

RWL posted:

Again, I don't plan on bending any track. I plan to use Ross Switches and Ross Track exclusively. The only reason for the Atlas flex was to get the correct dimensional track pieces for the cut down sections of standard straight, curve and switch parts. These would all be Ross track.

That's fine by me, just trying to help.

Personally, I'd hesitate to cut switches, but it's your money. If you're dead set on using all Ross, then I think it would behoove you to do the design using all Ross. Where tracks don't join, just let them overlap. You can always use the "snip off" tool to get close to the needed length, but at least you'll be able to see how many full pieces you'll need. You might find that foregoing O54 in favor of O42 for the min radius might let you fit this with fewer tracks to cut. And you might even be able to fit more of your original design elements. Good luck.

DoubleDAZ posted:

RWL posted:

Again, I don't plan on bending any track. I plan to use Ross Switches and Ross Track exclusively. The only reason for the Atlas flex was to get the correct dimensional track pieces for the cut down sections of standard straight, curve and switch parts. These would all be Ross track.

That's fine by me, just trying to help.

Personally, I'd hesitate to cut switches, but it's your money. If you're dead set on using all Ross, then I think it would behoove you to do the design using all Ross. Where tracks don't join, just let them overlap. You can always use the "snip off" tool to get close to the needed length, but at least you'll be able to see how many full pieces you'll need. You might find that foregoing O54 in favor of O42 for the min radius might let you fit this with fewer tracks to cut. And you might even be able to fit more of your original design elements. Good luck.

Thanks a lot, and I am not negating the suggestions made here. I am looking at changes even now based on Ace's track plans and the suggestions given. I am in no rush to get started, so I have time to digest, think and continue to plan. It is late and I need sleep, but I will have questions to follow.

Here is one question that I can quickly ask. What is the danger in cutting down switches? How is it different than cutting track pieces, assuming of course that you stay well clear of the moving turnout points?

Thanks again,

Roger

Roger, I don't know that there's any particular danger. It's just that switches are not cheap and once cut are pretty worthless on the resale market. Switches give us enough trouble and shortening them puts joints closer to the points and turnout. IMHO you're better off leaving the switches alone and cutting the tracks connecting to them. That said, looking at your design, that won't be possible if you want to stay close to your original. O31 switches won't fit on the inside oval where you have curves intersecting straights unless you cut them. Obviously, it's your choice, I was just offering some comments for your consideration.

Dave is right, it's better to avoid cutting a whole bunch of expensive new switches. With good planning it shouldn't be necessary. I couldn't satisfactorily re-create your original idea with the station siding in that space but I did achieve smoother wider curves and other options.

Ace posted:

Dave is right, it's better to avoid cutting a whole bunch of expensive new switches. With good planning it shouldn't be necessary. I couldn't satisfactorily re-create your original idea with the station siding in that space but I did achieve smoother wider curves and other options.

This is all true, and I sincerely appriciate the help and suggestions, and you have given me much to consider, which I will. The truth of the matter is that I would really like to keep those long passenger sidings, and I would like the longer yard spurs that my original layout contains, if at all possible. I am not saying that I will, I am just saying that these items would really be my preference.

Now for the 64,000 question:

This is in no way meant to be argumentative, or to negate the importance of many suggestions made in this thread.

So, there seem to be differing schools of thought regarding cutting down (trimming back the end, and turn-out on Ross Switches.

In this thread, there have been several warnings about doing this. However, I posted the specific question over in another forum that is frequented by many of the members here, and the consensus was that as long as you stay far enough away from the frog and moving points, which I would not be any ware near, that these switches can be cut down with no issues. This assumes, of course, that care is taken to get good even cuts that are perpendicular to the track section that is actually being cut.

So, to be fair about it, I will ask here, what are the concerns about cutting down the Ross switches?

Thanks again,

Roger

I cut five or six of #4s for a yard, haven't had a problem, and got an extra siding that I use all the time. That said, if I were to do it again, I wouldn't cut a bunch of new switches (as has been said by other posters) and would live without the extra siding.

njscott posted:

I cut five or six of #4s for a yard, haven't had a problem, and got an extra siding that I use all the time. That said, if I were to do it again, I wouldn't cut a bunch of new switches (as has been said by other posters) and would live without the extra siding.

Thanks for chimeing in NJ

Can I ask why you say you wouldn't do it if you had it to do all over again?

Roger, I'm not trying to be argumentative either, but it sounded like you were/are upset by the comments. My caution was about resale value when you cut a costly switch. It destroys the resale value and alters the geometry forcing you to cut more tracks to make things fit. And if you don't do it right, you can end up with problematic joints, especially with already tight O31 curves and passenger cars that are generally longer than other rolling stock. I wasn't saying it won't work.

In your design, you appear to be joining 2 cut O31 switches and adding a small piece of cut flex track to complete the O31 curve into the siding. In all I counted 10 switches and a bunch of small pieces of flex that you plan to chop up. I don't know how much experience you have with flex track, but it might not be as easy as you think to bend those small pieces. And that's not even considering the small "S" curves you have in your yard. Even NJSCOTT said he wouldn't do it again and he was cutting #4s which don't have the tight turnouts of the O31's.

And when you asked in the other forum, did you tell them you were cutting 10 O31 switches and a bunch of other track or show them how you were going to make all this stuff fit? No one here said you can't cut a switch, but you're chopping up a bunch of switches and track and I can't imagine many members here suggesting you do that.

Also, when I commented, alternate designs had been offered and not having to cut switches was a reason to consider one of those designs. However, I also said that if you want to stick to your original plan, then the only option is to cut them. I was just offering the cons of cutting before you made your decision to try to build the original design.

And I don't know what the limitations are for your bench work space and why you can't expand it so you don't have to cut so much track. I get that you want what you want, but you asked for comments, so we gave them. I think you're asking for trouble with all the cutting, especially all the small tight curved pieces, to make things fit, but it's your choice and I hope it all works out. I recently bought some ScaleTrax flex track and bending a full section, much less just a small piece, to O31 is not an easy task.

And I will ask again but maybe missed the answer: Is the backsides of the layout up against walls?  If so, how do you plan to reach those areas in case of trouble spots?  Even though I was careful on my layout to maintain three foot or so maximum reach, I still had some problems if I really needed to get into an far area especially if already landscaped and scenery and I did not want to climb onto layout proper.

Just a thought.

rrman posted:

And I will ask again but maybe missed the answer: Is the backsides of the layout up against walls?  If so, how do you plan to reach those areas in case of trouble spots?  Even though I was careful on my layout to maintain three foot or so maximum reach, I still had some problems if I really needed to get into an far area especially if already landscaped and scenery and I did not want to climb onto layout proper.

Just a thought.

Yes, I saw that question but got involved in other aspects of the thread, and never got back to answer you. 

The short left and top side are against walls, but the entire long right side is backed up by a curtain that separates the basement into two rooms. I can move the curtain and get to that side. 

I am aware that getting to the upper edge of the layout will require me to actually climb up there, which I was able to do, when I had my temporary FasTrack layout set up. This layout looked almost like the large rectangle shown in this thread, but was one loop with the two passenger sidings at the bottom, and a couple of spurs coming off the top. I am not planning a ton of scenery there, so I am in hopes that I can make this work. 

If it is just trains that cause problems I can use a step stool to get up and then reach enough to reset the locos, cars, etc..

I've cut down a lot of switches, but only with "junk" items that I got for cheap or free, so I had little to lose.

I've cut down switches to fit in special arrangements on existing layouts, using existing inventory of secondhand low-value parts. If I was planning a new layout from scratch, it makes good sense to engineer it with unmodified components as much as possible.

Ace posted:

I've cut down a lot of switches, but only with "junk" items that I got for cheap or free, so I had little to lose.

I've cut down switches to fit in special arrangements on existing layouts, using existing inventory of secondhand low-value parts. If I was planning a new layout from scratch, it makes good sense to engineer it with unmodified components as much as possible.

Thanks Ace,

I don't disagree at all, and I am looking to try to do that as much as possible.

Also, I am pouring over your alternate layouts to see how I can best use your suggestions while keeping somewhat in context with my original layout.

Roger