Layout design help

Unless someone else offers, I’ll be glad to see what I can come up with as far as track layout goes. It’s too late to start tonight though.

Interesting!    Tight grades but otherwise very functional concept.

Would you happen  to have a room with space for more than the 12' X 16' layout size shown?  That layout could really use a larger foot print.

Would it be possible, if you need to purchas g that GG flex adapted in at a few spots may be a necessary move unless Dave can make it work in Fast track.  There may be a need to bump out of the 12' X 16' edges.

Still, a nice compact busy plan.  If you are able to exceed the 12' X 16' size it could be helpful to add additional full train length staging tracks on the bottom level.  Fun running potential.

Edit,  Upon closer look at the plan I do not think that the arm chair designer ever acrtually built a layout.  The grades connecting the upper dual track to the middle level in my opinion are  totally unrealistic, looks good in two dimensions on paper.   Best doable only with trolleys or very short trains.

I still like the concept but not the size.

I really like the track plan for the space.  Quickly glancing at the plans, I noticed it has quite a few curved switches.  Those curved switches will help save some space. I think when you translate that into the Fastrack switches, it might be difficult to get all of this squeezed into the same area.

A suggestion for working with SCARM…. I do not ever perfectly connect all the track. I allow some overlap or even tiny little gaps which can be fixed with the small filler pieces or flexing the track on the table. If you play around with SCARM in this way,  IMO it’s easier to work with and allows you to get a better feel for the real estate without spending so much time trying to get everything 100% perfect.

This is a clever use of space.  While i cant offer help with the design i see one potential problem on the lower right side of the plan.  The route diverging from the double track makes what looks to be a steep dive under the main and gets very close to another portion of hidden track.  The grade may be too severe, the proximitry of other tracks may present a construction challenge or create an opportunity for side swipes in an area that appears to be covered.  Just my 2 cents.

I did a little preliminary work last night and can tell you the dual main (blue & orange tracks) with O-72/O-84 curves will fit the space, the loops (green tracks) around the perimeter of the table will barely fit, but the rest of it won't come close to fitting, partly because of the O-72 min curves, but mostly because of the limited switch selection. As VJandP said, there are a lot of curved switches and those simply can't be reproduced with FasTrack. Tom's suggestion to use FasTrack for some and GG/Ross for the rest might be the only option, but I don't really think even that will work because too much is interconnected.

One of the no doable aspects is that there is actually three (3) levels of right of way.  I just do not see this size as shown with the grades needed and the three levels depicted with fast track and 072.

One of the frequent requests I have had over the years is when someone has collected a large assortment of full length passenger cars and large locomotives then desires me to build a large empire in an under sized space. 

Calebro,  please jump in to comment...

@Tom Tee posted:

Interesting!    Tight grades but otherwise very functional concept.

Would you happen  to have a room with space for more than the 12' X 16' layout size shown?  That layout could really use a larger foot print.

Would it be possible, if you need to purchas g that GG flex adapted in at a few spots may be a necessary move unless Dave can make it work in Fast track.  There may be a need to bump out of the 12' X 16' edges.

Still, a nice compact busy plan.  If you are able to exceed the 12' X 16' size it could be helpful to add additional full train length staging tracks on the bottom level.  Fun running potential.

Edit,  Upon closer look at the plan I do not think that the arm chair designer ever acrtually built a layout.  The grades connecting the upper dual track to the middle level in my opinion are  totally unrealistic, looks good in two dimensions on paper.   Best doable only with trolleys or very short trains.

I still like the concept but not the size.

The total area for my layout now is a 12 x 12. The addition of 4 feet will make it a tight space, I'm not sure if I could fit any more.

I do like the idea of perhaps using different track in different spots. Is GG compatible with fastrack?

@Tom Tee posted:

One of the no doable aspects is that there is actually three (3) levels of right of way.  I just do not see this size as shown with the grades needed and the three levels depicted with fast track and 072.

One of the frequent requests I have had over the years is when someone has collected a large assortment of full length passenger cars and large locomotives then desires me to build a large empire in an under sized space. 

Calebro,  please jump in to comment...

Yes, the grades do seem to pose an issue. My current layout is all one level, so I have no experience with inserting grades. But from what I can gather, the smaller % the better. I currently don't have any passenger cars, but I do have large locomotives. That's why it's important to me that when planning the footprint, I make sure every track will fit the larger engines.

@VJandP posted:

I really like the track plan for the space.  Quickly glancing at the plans, I noticed it has quite a few curved switches.  Those curved switches will help save some space. I think when you translate that into the Fastrack switches, it might be difficult to get all of this squeezed into the same area.

A suggestion for working with SCARM…. I do not ever perfectly connect all the track. I allow some overlap or even tiny little gaps which can be fixed with the small filler pieces or flexing the track on the table. If you play around with SCARM in this way,  IMO it’s easier to work with and allows you to get a better feel for the real estate without spending so much time trying to get everything 100% perfect.

Curved switches seems to be one of the best things about gargraves track. If I didn't have such a large investment into fastrack already, I probably would have made the switch.

SCARM seems to be very finicky when trying to match up the ends of track. Especially when you're working with switches, and you don't know whether the total length includes the addition of the 1 3/8 pieces. Though in the end it just seems to be a game of mix and match to fit the space.

@necrails posted:

This is a clever use of space.  While i cant offer help with the design i see one potential problem on the lower right side of the plan.  The route diverging from the double track makes what looks to be a steep dive under the main and gets very close to another portion of hidden track.  The grade may be too severe, the proximitry of other tracks may present a construction challenge or create an opportunity for side swipes in an area that appears to be covered.  Just my 2 cents.

I do see how that could be a problem. And I've seen the same thing happen in videos of other layouts, where there doesn't seem to be enough clearance for rolling stock, such as auto carriers.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

I did a little preliminary work last night and can tell you the dual main (blue & orange tracks) with O-72/O-84 curves will fit the space, the loops (green tracks) around the perimeter of the table will barely fit, but the rest of it won't come close to fitting, partly because of the O-72 min curves, but mostly because of the limited switch selection. As VJandP said, there are a lot of curved switches and those simply can't be reproduced with FasTrack. Tom's suggestion to use FasTrack for some and GG/Ross for the rest might be the only option, but I don't really think even that will work because too much is interconnected.

Thanks a lot for the effort you put into this, Dave. It is very encouraging to see a similar footprint of the plan using Fastrack.

One question just to be clear, are those O-84 curves inserted into the yellow O-72 loop at the bottom?

Even though it's missing some parts at the top, for what I assume would be a passenger station, it's a very good start and would provide the opportunity to add additional ideas different from the original.

I got burn out on the hobby once before, when all I had was a single L-shaped loop and an inner siding. Granted I was just a teenager, I’m just doing what I can to make sure it doesn't happen again.

The O-84 curves are the blue tracks, the O-72 the orange. The missing parts are only because I didn’t see a need to finish when there’s no way to complete the design using FasTrack with an O-72 minimum for curves and switches. Plus, that is the hidden part of the design, not where the passenger station would go. As you can see, using an O-72 switch also keeps those tracks from being concentric like they are in the design. The tracks to the station come off the orange tracks and again, there is no way to get there with FasTrack switches.

I get why you want to use FasTrack, but that means there’s not going to be any way to fit that much action in an O-72 FasTrack design in your 12x16 space. I didn’t get to the point where I could play with grades, but these designs tend to use grades that are too steep and, like you mentioned in your edits, they’re designed for smaller engines and shorter trains. You deleted the photos, so I don’t have a reference, but I suspect the turntable is also too small for your large engines.

And while I once visited a layout outside of Dallas that used every brand of track connected to each other, I don’t think you really want to do that, at least not for individual tracks. Each section of his layout was a different brand (he was a dealer), but they were in sections, not individual pieces here and there. I don’t know how much FasTrack you have, but almost everything except the straight tracks and some curves will almost certainly have to be GG/Ross. FWIW, FasTrack to GG/Ross uses a FasTrack 6-12040 Transition Track with GG pins on one end that can be simulated using a 5” track in SCARM.

All that said, I’m willing to enter the design into SCARM using GG/Ross and then seeing what I can replace with FasTrack. Mind you, I don’t think I’ll be able to use any FasTrack switches and you’d probably need to learn how to cut FasTrack. However, since you deleted the photos, you’ll have to get them to me via PM or email so I have them for reference.

I tried to recreate that plan, first in SCARM then in AnyRail. There seems to be some mislabeled parts of the published plan as I couldn't get the track to connect as labeled.  I had room to expand, so I tried a 18x12 table and used Ross/Gargraves track with O88 and O96 for the double track loop.  I ended with 6% slopes in some places to achieve minimum clearance of 6". My Anyrail version is down below. I didn't like either the slopes or the clearance that resulted. I fiddled around with it for a bit and finally decided to quite trying to make that plan work for me.  

I wish you better luck as the plan intrigued me as well.

Eric

The plans shown above have some reach issues, especially if any of the edges are against a wall, so some duck-unders and access hatches will be required.  I noticed that the OP's profile picture shows a person in a power chair - is this an issue that needs to be considered?

@Calebro posted:

Thanks a lot for the effort you put into this, Dave. It is very encouraging to see a similar footprint of the plan using Fastrack.

One question just to be clear, are those O-84 curves inserted into the yellow O-72 loop at the bottom?

Even though it's missing some parts at the top, for what I assume would be a passenger station, it's a very good start and would provide the opportunity to add additional ideas different from the original.

I got burn out on the hobby once before, when all I had was a single L-shaped loop and an inner siding. Granted I was just a teenager, I’m just doing what I can to make sure it doesn't happen again.

nice

Eric,

Any chance you could post the Anyrail file for this plan so others could take a crack at shrinking it?

Chuck

Calebro,  the plan concept we all were reviewing was a CCT plan for a 12'  X 16' platform.

You mentioned just above that your available area is a 12' X 12'.

If that statement is accurate, the initial plan needs to be dismissed and a whole new approach considered..

EDIT:  Sorry I had not read you op correctly

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional comments...beware when considering sectional track systems.  Those fitter sections can really eat into any RR budget.

End ties of sectional track must be spaced the same as the main body of ties of that particular piece of track.

Plastic roadbed ends need to have parallel edges.  Any taper joint seams means that your joint is misaligned.

Any flex track system is better than a pile of over priced fitter pieces.

Even with the fitter pieces I find people fudge their curves.

Always eye ball your rail head when installing track.  Sight down the track like aiming a rifle.

Your goal is to avoid horizontal peaks and valleys of rail ends at track joints

Tom,

I looked at the original plans he posted.  They are definitely 12x16 plans from CTT, not MR.  One of the photos showed the plan size and had a "name" of "ctt-b0508_aplan.pdf."  He also said he could extend his space to 12x16.

Chuck

Chuck, thanks, I did not read that line correctly, my bad.  3 rail o gauge would be CCT but I thought that I had noticed that MR held the copyright in the small print along the bottom of each frame.  Again, I stand to be corrected on that point also,  my wife broke me in quite well on that concept.

I believe MR publishes CCT

Tom,

I tried to send you a private message rather than post here, but system said I didn't have rights to send you such a message.  Unsure why?

Anyway, MR, CTT and several other modeling magazines are all published by Kalmbach Publishing Co.

Chuck

Chuck, both sender and recipient need to be paid members.

Thanks, Dave; that explains it!

Chuck

@EAW  Did you try having some of the tracks going down grade while the others are going up?  Sometimes we have to get rid of the idea of a base level and use a +4 as the starting level of the track. That way we can fit in the 6 1/2 inch clearance needed for some of the taller cars at half the run distance. I did that extensively in my little RR.  My max grade ended up no more than 3%.

For anyone interested, I made a SCARM File based on this same 12x16' layout a while back. It's attached here.

However, I abandoned the project after I couldn't figure out the grading.

Thanks, Tony, I’m going to see if I can figure out the grade end points.

Okay, here's what I've come up with. I know it's not going to get built, but since Tony did so much work, I couldn't resist seeing what the grades were like. Obviously, this is done with GG/Ross tracks and the Atlas turntable. Like someone mentioned, there are all kinds of reach issues if 3 sides have walls and I think the grades are too steep, though newer engines would probably not have problems with them.

First, thanks to Tony for sending me the original photos for reference. I took his version, which is a bit larger that 12'x16', and tried to come up with the minimum grades by going from switch to switch, in most cases. That means the grades would be a bit steeper when easements are added during construction. Unfortunately, SCARM doesn't allow switches on grades, so I duplicated each leg of the large interchange (orange). I came up with grades between 3.9% to 4.9%, so more work would need to be done to figure out the best configuration for that whole section. The photos show the entire design plus each layer. I divided it into 3 layers; lower level (dk blue), main level (green) with passenger terminal/turntable and upper level (lt blue). All the grades are in purple with their percentage.

@ScoutingDad, my plan has grades on most tracks that cross and I still had problems with clearance.  I expect my use of broader curves and switches made it worse than it would be with tighter curves. I really wanted O72 as a minimum everywhere as claimed by the article, even though they callout O64 curves on the lower levels.

@PRR1950,  I attached a AnyRail file. Be advised the file still has many issues as I had decided it was no longer worth trying to fix them.

Eric

Really nice work, Dave.

Thanks, Richie.

I tried again to recreate the plan using GG/Ross and Atlas turntable in AnyRail. I worked on the look of the 12'x 16' plan rather than trying to make the original components fit.  What I ended up with has double track loops of at least O80 and O92 curves (in maroon) with O64 as minimum overall. This plan has at least 5.99" of vertical separation and maximum grade of 4.5%. Be aware that as this is drawn, the track separation is very tight (as little as 3") in some places.  I think there is room to improve on the track separation. I would like to see your improvements.

Enjoy,

Eric