Kicking around a new layout

I’m out of pocket on vacation without my laptop/SCARM until mid June, but I’ll check the thread to see if you get any ideas before then, I’m sure you will.

Here's something I threw together in RailModeller Pro. Image, RailModeller Pro file, and parts list attached.

All track is Lionel Fastrack except for the TT and whisker tracks. All curves are 072 or greater and all switches are 072. I included a Fastrack lift-out extended truss bridge, which adds some running variety and is a great focal point, but is of course entirely optional. There's also a small 4-track yard with about 23 feet (280") of storage space. Probably would want to add a couple of lift out/pop up sections to allow access to the center and back of the layout.

I set the base height for the layout at 2" and then graded both loops down when curving towards the front of the layout for visual interest. The inner loop drops to 1" height over a 1% grade, while the outer loop with the truss bridge drops to 0" in height over a 2% grade. Track sections on grades have heights labeled. Lots you could do scenery-wise as well - room for a town, put a hill/mountain in the front left corner with tunnels going through, etc.

Hope this helps you!

@Mike0289 posted:

Here's something I threw together in RailModeller Pro. Image, RailModeller Pro file, and parts list attached.

All track is Lionel Fastrack except for the TT and whisker tracks. All curves are 072 or greater and all switches are 072. I included a Fastrack lift-out extended truss bridge, which adds some running variety and is a great focal point, but is of course entirely optional. There's also a small 4-track yard with about 23 feet (280") of storage space. Probably would want to add a couple of lift out sections to allow access to the center and back of the layout.

I set the base height for the layout at 2" and then graded both loops down when curving towards the front of the layout for visual interest. The inner loop drops to 1" height over a 1% grade, while the outer loop with the truss bridge drops to 0" in height over a 2% grade. Track sections on grades have heights labeled. Lots you could do scenery-wise as well - room for a town, put a hill/mountain in the front left corner with tunnels going through, etc.

Hope this helps you!

WOW!!! Thank you. Love the lift out bridge and yard ideas!!

Now considering something like this also because I was more long straights.

Again I ran out of track. Also I switched to Atlas O for the turntable.

One option for pre-made benchwork is Mianne, but I'm sure there are others..

Chuck

@Robert Cushman posted:

WOW!!! Thank you. Love the lift out bridge and yard ideas!!

Glad you found it helpful! I have the bridge on my layout and it's fantastic. Wish I had more yard space though

@Robert Cushman posted:

Now considering something like this also because I was more long straights.

Again I ran out of track. Also I switched to Atlas O for the turntable.

I have the newer version of the Atlas 24" TT on my layout as well - I've been really happy with it so far!

Since 8' is barely enough for an 084 reverse,  you'd have to use much tighter curves to get an L shape like that in the available 8' x 20' space you mentioned earlier. Did you find more space to work with?

If you're interesting in building a 2-level layout, an L-shaped folded dogbone can give you some nice long straight runs as well as very long mainlines overall without increasing your space too much. I can try to mock up a double main L-shaped folded dogbone on 2 levels with 072 minimum and room for the Atlas 24" TT just to see how much space it would require.

I don’t think the 24” atlas Turntable will be big enough to work with my engines so I may scrap the turntable completely and just make a yard.

I need some help also deciding whether to switch to atlas or gargraves from fastrack.

Here's a plan I put together using Fastrack again based on my last comment. It ended up taking up 2 sides of a 24' x 24' space. Minimum is 072 and you have some nice long mains with reversing options. Plenty of room to add a yard, industry sidings, and possibly a track down to a lower staging level too. I swapped the 24" Atlas TT for a 33" Ross TT. Millhouse River Studios also has some larger sized turntables.

@Robert Cushman posted:

I don’t think the 24” atlas Turntable will be big enough to work with my engines so I may scrap the turntable completely and just make a yard.

Ross and Millhouse have some larger options. They're quite a bit more expensive, but allow for more flexible track spacing, which means more whisker tracks!

http://rossswitches.com/turntables.aspx
https://www.studiozphoto.com/millhouse_turntables.htm

@Robert Cushman posted:

I need some help also deciding whether to switch to atlas or gargraves from fastrack.

My layout is Fastrack because I knew going in that it was going to be somewhat temporary (we're renting right now). If I was building a layout I expected to be anywhere close to permanent, I'd probably go with Ross switches and Ross/Gargraves track. That's the combo you'll hear discussed as the ultimate in terms of reliability, flexibility, and bang for your buck. Many folks like Atlas as well, but it's apparently quite a bit more expensive than the Ross/Gargraves combo, and I've heard mixed reviews on the reliability of their switches.

Here's what I did, this plan is 12 x 24 and the mainline is one folded dogbone with 140 feet of track.  I did find room for the 24" Atlas TT.  Obviously, it doesn't handle any of my articulated locomotives or even the larger non-articulated steam.  OTOH, it is handy to have, and it's a fun accessory for guests to play with.

The 10-track freight yard obviously isn't part of the 12 x 24 space.  I used AnyRail for my layout planning.

Don't sell the need for yard space short, I wish I had more!

That’s a great layout! I just realized I live 10 minutes away from where the Mill House River Turntables are made. I’m going to contact him and see if he has any suggestions to.

I do like the look of gargraves and atlas better. As far as how it sounds. Does that just depend on what’s under it?

Even though you won’t be able to turn large engines on a 24” TT, you can still back a large engine across it to store it on a whisker track. If you add a 2nd lead to the TT, you can do the same with a 2nd large engine. Trouble is a large engine needs a whisker track over 30” plus the 24” of the TT, so you’re still talking about 5’ or more of space, not counting the leads. An 8x20 space sounds like a lot, but it can get eaten up pretty fast. While having a TT with several engines stored on whiskers looks impressive, is it worth eating at least 1/4 of your space?

Now, if you limit TT operations to your smaller engines (don’t know what your mix of large to small is), you can maybe have the TT along with a few sidings to store some larger engines so you don’t have to constantly take them on/off the layout. Another option is a spur to nowhere in one of the corners that an auxiliary table/cart with large engines could be connected to. Heck, I can even envision a vertical “turntable” storage system with shelves that can be raised/lowered to connect a given engine to the spur.

Dave hit on what I decided.  Initially, I figured no way to fit a TT into my setup.  Then I looked at the smaller Atlas 24" one and figured to give it a try.  I have two yard leads for convenience, but sadly the way it worked out, my leads don't have long tracks across from them.  In any case, I'm glad I added the TT, even though it won't service my large locomotives.

GarGraves is hollow rail whereas Atlas is solid rail, so Atlas will arguably be quieter regardless of roadbed. Atlas track dimensions are more consistent, that means an O-72 curve will be the same as another O-72 curve. I don’t know how big a deal that is, but from what I understand, you can’t just connect GarGraves without checking the alignment along the way to make sure your O-72 curve is actually O-72 and not slightly off. That probably applies to all tracks to some degree, just one more factor to consider when deciding, price probably being the biggest factor. And when it comes to price, you can’t just go by retail prices because some places may offer a deal if you buy a large batch at the same time.

I think you'll find that Ross dimensional track is very consistent in dimensions.  I agree that Gargraves dimensional track is not as accurate is size.  I don't think the difference between hollow and solid rail means that much as far as noise, far more important is the benchwork construction and material and the choice of roadbed.

Yep, this is why many folks will use Ross dimensional curves & switches and Gargraves flex for straights. It's very convenient for an 072 curve to actually be 72" diameter, so it's worth paying a little more to get the more accurate Ross curves. However, Gargraves straight sections are 37" vs Ross 29" meaning you'll have fewer track joints overall if you go with Gargraves straight/flex. Flex also allows you to be a little more creative and flexible when laying track.

I used Ross sectional O72 curves where they made sense, and Gargraves flex everywhere else.  The Gargraves flex is very attractively priced, and it's quite straight if you don't bend it, I used it for my freight yard.  I used a spacing board to space the tracks, and using new flex, it maintained it's "straightness" pretty well.

Also useful was near the entry I had to have a little "flex" in some of the yard tracks to align with the 4-way yard switches.

Talked to Alan today and he was extremely helpful and super nice.

I'm thinking of going with the Atlas or Gargraves over the fastrack I currently have and starting with this layout, then eventually adding an outer loop to it (in green).

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

I used Ross sectional O72 curves where they made sense, and Gargraves flex everywhere else.  The Gargraves flex is very attractively priced, and it's quite straight if you don't bend it, I used it for my freight yard.  I used a spacing board to space the tracks, and using new flex, it maintained it's "straightness" pretty well.

Also useful was near the entry I had to have a little "flex" in some of the yard tracks to align with the 4-way yard switches.

Gargraves or Atlas?

Gargraves is made in the USA  about an hour and a half away from me also.

Atlas has a solid center rail but more expensive and harder to come by.
The ties appear a hair more realistic to me because of the spacing and transition to the Millhouse would seem easier to do but I could be wrong there.

I used all Ross switches and Gargraves and Ross track.  I like the almost infinite selection of switches from Ross, and it matches up with Gargraves perfectly.  I considered Atlas, but I've had lots of issues with their switches, and it's also expensive and frequently hard to get.  As you say, I also did a little bit to help US manufacturing.

There’s nothing really wrong with GarGraves track, it might just take a little more patience during installation because of the inconsistencies in dimensions. If you push multiple curved tracks together tightly, the resulting arc might be more or less what is expected. SCARM and other software assumes the same dimensions from one track to the next, so the track might not line up exactly with the software design.

I don’t know how much the difference between solid vs hollow rail makes with noise levels, especially acceptable noise levels, but I’ve listened to Atlas and ScaleTrax, both solid rail, and they are the quietest I think I’ve heard. The track at the Scottsdale Railroad Park is whisper quiet IMO. That said, I think John is correct that the more important part is the decking; quality plywood, Homasote, roadbed, etc.

The beauty of GG (and ScaleTrax) for me is the flex track that allows one to easily add sweeping curves to long straight sections for variety and slightly more realism, plus compensating for slight alignment variations during install.

Cost is also a big plus, especially when matching with Ross switches that aren’t cheap either. Atlas did have switch problems in the past, but I don’t think that’s still the case. However, availability might still be. I don’t know where GG source’s its rail, or the wire to make rails, so I’m not sure how accurate the Made In USA moniker is. I suspect though that it’s easier to keep wire in stock from overseas sources than it is finished products. The bottom line is there are excellent model railroads operating on all brands of track.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

There’s nothing really wrong with GarGraves track, it might just take a little more patience during installation because of the inconsistencies in dimensions. If you push multiple curved tracks together tightly, the resulting arc might be more or less what is expected. SCARM and other software assumes the same dimensions from one track to the next, so the track might not line up exactly with the software design.

I don’t know how much the difference between solid vs hollow rail makes with noise levels, especially acceptable noise levels, but I’ve listened to Atlas and ScaleTrax, both solid rail, and they are the quietest I think I’ve heard. The track at the Scottsdale Railroad Park is whisper quiet IMO. That said, I think John is correct that the more important part is the decking; quality plywood, Homasote, roadbed, etc.

The beauty of GG (and ScaleTrax) for me is the flex track that allows one to easily add sweeping curves to long straight sections for variety and slightly more realism, plus compensating for slight alignment variations during install.

Cost is also a big plus, especially when matching with Ross switches that aren’t cheap either. Atlas did have switch problems in the past, but I don’t think that’s still the case. However, availability might still be. I don’t know where GG source’s its rail, or the wire to make rails, so I’m not sure how accurate the Made In USA moniker is. I suspect though that it’s easier to keep wire in stock from overseas sources than it is finished products. The bottom line is there are excellent model railroads operating on all brands of track.

I'm having a difficult time lining things up using gargraves with a ross switch because the difference in lengths and how gargraves doesn't make the tiny pieces like atlas or lionel do. I did talk to gargraves today and they do make them right at their location.

GG is one of the easier tracks to cut to eliminate small fitter pieces and the extra joints that come with them. Conversely, Atlas and FasTrack are easier to work with in software because of the variety of small pieces, but I’m a fan of minimizing joints. Call me crazy, but I’d rather cut a long track than use multiple tracks even if the multiples are the right length. A GG 37” is $15.75 while a 24.8 @ $12.05 + a 6.2 @ $6.95 adds up to $19.00, $3.25 more to fill a 30.10” space, so even if you waste the extra 6.2”, it’s still cheaper. And flex is only $12.75, making them even cheaper. Some modelers use nothing but flex straights and sectional curves.

I forgot to mention that you almost always have to cut GG, both in software and when laying actual track. Some software makes it easy to cut by simply entering the desired length, others make it hit and miss. But, once you get the hang of Snip Off in SCARM, it’s easy to get close enough to join all tracks. However, don’t make the mistake of cutting actual tracks based on software lengths, cut to fit as you’re laying tracks. Now, if you prefer the ease of FasTrack with all its fitter pieces, then Atlas is the way to go.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

Now, if you prefer the ease of FasTrack with all its fitter pieces, then Atlas is the way to go.

Ross sectional track is very tightly dimension controlled, it should fit as designed.

John, I was only responding to his comment regarding Atlas & FasTrack, but any dimensionally controlled track should assemble according to the software design.

Just offering an alternative if you use Ross switches, the Ross track goes very well with them.

I’m surprised more don’t use Ross track since I’m sure it looks really nice with everything the same. I imagine it’s easy enough to cut too.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

I’m surprised more don’t use Ross track since I’m sure it looks really nice with everything the same. I imagine it’s easy enough to cut too.

Cuts like butter with the $30 HF chop saw.

Since we are talking track how is Ross track. I'd prefer if everything matched if I'm being honest.

Ross track is very nice, and of course it does match the Ross switches exactly.  The nice thing is, the Gargraves flex matches close enough that you can use it where flex makes sense and achieve a nice overall look.

Here's a comparison I posted before, as you can see the Atlas track kinda' stands out when contrasted with the Ross/Gargraves.

I always bought enough sectional curves and long straights then cut them to fit.  Forget the small filler pieces.  And I am a Ross track and switches guy, can’t go wrong there.  Did build and install a Millhouse turntable once too, that was sweet.

This is all Ross and I want to go with it because I like its appearance, they make the best switches according to everyone I talk to and its made in the USA!

O80 turns with Millhouse River Studio 34"

The entire layout will be 20x10.  (16x8 walkthrough + 10x4 )

I made the entry to the turntable as straight as possible for the articulated engines.

I figured I'd make it sturdy, level and nicer looking this time around with Minanne. I understand when I cut out the turntable I'd adjust supports accordingly.

I will eventually as another loop on the outside.

QUESTIONS FOR YOU GUYS

How do I make a Ross Track Pull out bridge?

Should I center the TT more?

Is the entry to the Turntable sufficient or am I asking for trouble with the big articulated engines.

@Robert Cushman posted:

QUESTIONS FOR YOU GUYS

How do I make a Ross Track Pull out bridge?

Jim Barrett's book (sold by OGR publishing) has lots of detail (a whole chapter or two, I think) on designing and building lift-out, drop-down, swing-up, etc sections in your layout for access. There are probably also a number of threads on that subject here on the forum.

An alternative would be to use a lift-out bridge like Lionel's Fastrack Extended Truss Bridge. I've got one on my layout and it works great. The lift out section is 30" which appears to be plenty for the 2' wide opening in your plan.

I don't see how that 34" TT fits on the pictured benchwork.

@Robert Cushman posted:

QUESTIONS FOR YOU GUYS

Should I center the TT more?

I think it would be a good idea for you to add your benchwork to your track plan to help you see where everything will or won't fit. That will really help you figure out the best spot for the TT, both in terms of number & length of whisker tracks and access to TT and whisker tracks.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

I don't see how that 34" TT fits on the pictured benchwork.

I was going to say the same thing, John! I think there's an additional 10x4 section not pictured, but I'm still unsure if a 34" TT + whisker tracks will fit. Adding the benchwork to the track plan will be useful here.

@Robert Cushman posted:

This is all Ross and I want to go with it because I like its appearance, they make the best switches according to everyone I talk to and its made in the USA!

O80 turns with Millhouse River Studio 34"

The entire layout will be 20x10.  (16x8 walkthrough + 10x4 )

I made the entry to the turntable as straight as possible for the articulated engines.

I figured I'd make it sturdy, level and nicer looking this time around with Minanne. I understand when I cut out the turntable I'd adjust supports accordingly.

I will eventually as another loop on the outside.

I suspect you're likely going to get bored with concentric ovals of track and a TT in the middle. Have you considered a more complex track plan that will both be more visually interesting and be very likely to give you a lot more running enjoyment? Reversing opportunities, different routing options, etc all to give the perception that the trains are actually going somewhere.

Here's a 3-level track plan I recently put together for an 11x18 space. It's ultimately a single track mainline with reversing loops at each end, but there are multiple passing sidings to allow multiple trains to run, a small yard, an industry to service, and a locomotive facility with a transfer table. There's also lots of scenic opportunity for a mountain, town, etc.

I think this plan could be adjusted for your space. Alternatively, if you have some ideas for what you'd want in a track plan, I'd be happy to put something together. I find this track planning work to be both relaxing and enjoyable

https://ogrforum.com/...4#161067875125617394