Layout Help

mike g. posted:

Hi Carl, I build the depressed table, also I was going to ask you what do you think about building along the east side between the tracks and table edge. Also do you think there is enough room on the west side between the tracks and the wall to build a road up to the airfield.

As far as the bridge I can cut the guarder bridges in half fill them and make one 30" bridge or take 4 of the and put them side by side and make them 20" long. What are your thoughts?

Save the layout file to your computer and then open it. Click on the Measure tool icon in the Menu. Then you left-click on a start point and drag to an end point. The distance is displayed in the lower left of the window.

The table is 30" wide and the dual tracks with roadbed are about 10". They are about 5' from the wall and 18" from the front. There's enough space to do whatever you want, except a full building between the wall and tracks.

Where do you want the road to the airport to begin? Near the yard, perhaps crossing the tracks on the inside of the corner or outside.

The bridge type is up to you. There are a couple of different styles on the run to Seattle. I have seen good looking deck girders made from regular materials.

Hi Carl, I like the idea of the road going north and then across the tracks.

As far as the bridges I already have the Through plate looking girders. I was thinking if I do side by side at 20" then all I would have to do is join them end to end.

Dang, I've lost track of which version of the design we're working with now. Is it Carl's version with the yard in the top left and dual wyes on either side of the circle? What did we do about crossovers to connect the inside and outside tracks?

DoubleDAZ posted:

Dang, I've lost track of which version of the design we're working with now. Is it Carl's version with the yard in the top left and dual wyes on either side of the circle? What did we do about crossovers to connect the inside and outside tracks?

I am on hold until Mixy fixes the ScaleTrax library. It won't retain cut tracks to generate a good inventory. Also, we need to firm up the scenic decisions before locating the crossovers.

Hi Super Dave, yes its the one with the yard in the upper left, I think Carl is still working on the crossovers.

Ok, got it. I'll move the other designs to my Save older.

Hi Carl & Dave, well I got this far on a thought for a river area. Only took me an hour and no road bridge, but its a start. Its an older plan cause I did wan to screw up what you 2 have come up with so far.

Mike,

It's easy to work on a file without screwing up the original. Simply open the file you want to work on and immediately save it with a new filename (File/Save As), such as the current date and your name. Any changes you make, like adding the river, will not affect the original.

That said, have you decided not to include the 2nd wye that Carl added to the left side or did you just use the older file to show a possible location for the river? Don't forget that without the 2nd wye, you will have to back through the single wye in order to turn a train (or just the engine) traveling counterclockwise. It's okay to do that as long as you know what it means.

Also, what is your timeline for buying track and beginning construction? Carl is waiting for a fix from Mixy to correct the display of cut pieces before he adds the crossovers, etc., but I don't know how long that will be. 

Along that line, I've been playing around and it seems like the display problem with joints for cut pieces is limited to cut pieces that connect straights to curves. In the photo, you'll see only 2 are not joined while the joints for the other cut pieces are displayed correctly.

The other thing I noticed is that the Parts List does not appear to include pieces cut from FlexTrack in the overall count of cut pieces. I'm my version, there are 14 cut tracks. However the list says there are only 6. I believe that's because 8 are cut from 3 pieces of 30" FlexTrack. And, the count for the number of tracks is also not correct because it counts all 8 pieces of 30" FlexTrack even though only 3 are needed.

One last thing is that depending on where the crossovers get added, they might require changes to other parts which could affect the number and type of tracks needed. For example, if you add crossovers on either side of at the bottom of the circle, the outer tracks will need to be separated more and that will require adjusting the tracks on the sides of the oval to compensate. I have them on either side of the bridge, but you and Carl may not want them there.

I also added a river in different location in case you decide to keep both wyes.

Hi Dave, I was using an old plan, and yes I think the second "Y" is a great idea.

It's going to be awhile before I start any layout build as I have to get an addition put on the back of my garage, which I am hopping to have done before end of spring or at least summer. I was just thinking if I could get a plan down, then I could try to stock pile some track so I would have something to work with when the addition is done.

I do want the 2 crossovers, I am just not sure of both of them being on the same side, I put the river near the air field cause I was thinking of using the far end for a small town or something.

Maybe the river might just have to go bye bye.

I wouldn't do away with the river, at least not yet. And I actually have the crossovers reversed. Coming out of the yard going clockwise you'd want to be able to choose a track at some point before you get to the circle (reversing loop), so the right cross should be going from outer to inner. I'll work up some more examples.

Thanks Dave!

Here are the crossover alternatives as I see them.
-- 1a lets a train cross to the yard loop near the entrance where it can go past to back into a slot.
-- 1b lets a train cross to the circle near the entrance to its reversing loop.
-- 2a lets a train cross shortly after leaving the yard.
-- 2b lets a train cross further along after leaving the yard.
-- 2c lets a train cross even further along near the entrance to its reversing loop.

I added some buildings, roads and river/lake options. I also separated various elements on different layers and renamed them.

Hi Dave, I really like the idea of 1a and 2c for the crossovers. Do you think the road on the left would fit on the left side of the tracks?

Mike and Dave,

Dave:yes,Mixy stated that the cut problem didn't affect all of the tracks.

You have to be careful with the 1a and 1 b crossovers as the center to center spacing has to match the Atlas Double track Truss bridge.

I like the river and bridge where Mike had it, SE of the airport. A bridge over it next to the airport mountain would look good. The rest of mountain scenery could be backdrop or carved foam along the rest of the south wall.

The second wye has to be in there to be able to reverse directions on the fly from both ways. That's what is a disguised pair of reverse loops.

Hi Carl, now that you mentioned the bridge over the river by the airfield, do you think a road could go on the bottom just south of the tracks going up to the airfield?

mike g. posted:

Hi Carl, now that you mentioned the bridge over the river by the airfield, do you think a road could go on the bottom just south of the tracks going up to the airfield?

There is 5" to work with along the wall and more in the front. I would put it along the wall on the south or the west side. Then it wouldn't be a view blocker as it climbs.

You mean kinda like this? Remember this is an old plan I am using to play with as I learn scarm.

I believe I said things are going to have to be adjusted depending on placement of the crossovers, so I get what you're saying Carl. I didn't change the alignment of the bridge tracks though, so if they're not spaced correctly now, then they need to be fixed so the rest can be adjusted as needed. I admit I assumed you had them spaced for the Atlas bridge. Apparently that might have been bad on my part.

If the #4s don't provide the correct spacing and fitters or FlexTrack can't fix it, we'll need to see what else we can do. I just put the crossovers in different places so Mike could see what they'd look like since he didn't like both up by the bridge. If 1a doesn't work, then so be it. 1a has fitters because of the spacing of the bridge tracks. 1c/2c don't have the fitters because they fit the existing tracks and I didn't change them. The only tracks I changed were those on the outer run between the 1c/2c switches.

I didn't put a river by the tunnel on the bottom because I wasn't sure how it would look with the switches and tunnel entrances so close, but it could certainly go there if that's where Mike wants it. Again, I was just showing different locations for examples.

Mike, the roads are not roads, they are polygons because I couldn't get the roads to show up in the 3D display. I'm not sure why they show up in the airfield, perhaps Carl knows. In any event, placement will depend on how wide you want them as well as the final placement of the tracks. Right now the position of the tracks is based on the corners of the bench work. However, I'm not sure the corners can't be fudged a bit with some filler pieces so the tracks can be positioned closer to the edge allowing more space along the wall for the road. That might stretch the reach to the last track at the top of the yard, but I'm not sure that would be a big problem. Just a thought.

My workflow is to put down the ideas and then figure out how to make things fit. If you want the Atlas bridge and a crossover at 1c, then I could be wrong, but I think FlexTrack can be used to bring them into alignment. If not, we go to plan B.

Yea Dave, I think for me I would like the 1a and 2c where they are if it can be made to work. As far as the airfield your guess is as good as mine. The Scarm master Carl put them in!

crossovers on the east and west ends provide the best functionality to me. Let's one get to the r-loop on the inside from the outside and permits getting to the yard.

Dave, yes the #4's will need a small piece between the divergent tracks to keep 4.5" center spacing.

The best thing to do with the crossovers is get them in a run a simulator session or several and check the operation. That will most likely determine the best location for crossovers.

Here's my latest version without any crossovers and eye-candy. Road to airport - 12% grade

God morning Carl, I sure like the way its looking! I think were almost there. What are you thinking for locations of the crossovers?

mike g. posted:

God morning Carl, I sure like the way its looking! I think were almost there. What are you thinking for locations of the crossovers?

Like I said, you have to drop some in a run the sim train. You want an inside train to be able to get outside to yard and you need to be able to get an outside train in to use the reversing loop and vice-versa for both.

The four pair that Dave proposed looked like to obvious for convenience. A little more thought is needed to reduce the switch count.

if you print the track plan, you can a finger or pencil around as a sim.

Ok, Carl, if you'll recall, I initially put the crossovers on the sides and Mike nixed the idea, that's the only reason I posted alternative locations. That said, I took the trouble to incorporate your river, bridges and roads while adding the crossovers back on the sides in my latest design. I removed the alternative crossovers and lakes. I aligned everything with the "Atlas" bridge location, assuming those tracks have  the correct spacing. I adjusted the mountain a bit so it didn't cover the crossover. Here's what I came up with. Like Mike, I think we're pretty close.

Moonman posted:

The four pair that Dave proposed looked like to obvious for convenience. A little more thought is needed to reduce the switch count.

You guys are a tough audience. There was never any intent to have all those switches, I was just showing different locations in one photo rather than posting multiple photos. Like I said, I originally had the 2 crossovers on each side and the left one was nixed, so I wanted Mike to see the only other locations they could all go. He chose 1a/2c, but I always wanted them on the sides like they are in my latest version of the design.

Hi Dave, I have to ask both you and Carl a question about crossover locations. Because I am really not sure where would be best for operation. To be honest I could care less where they go as long as its has a location that would less likely cause a problem.

I don't know enough to know the best location.

so if you 2 would like to talk it over I am fine with what ever you guys come up with.

Dave,

I had my last version with all of the track connections holding together to allow a sim run. Put the crossovers in that version.(eye candy)

frankly, I am running out time as I have last minute Christmas stuff to do. We host the family and an aunt's husband passed away yesterday from leukemia.

Add-on that today is my bride's birthday.

Carl, first off thank you for all your help, I sorry for your loss, I know its going to make for a rough Christmas. I wish you and your family all the best and your family is in our prayers.

mike g. posted:

Carl, first off thank you for all your help, I sorry for your loss, I know its going to make for a rough Christmas. I wish you and your family all the best and your family is in our prayers.

Thank you, Mike. It sure complicates emotions at this time of the year.

That was my wife last year, She thought I was going to be gone by then the way things were looking. But I showed her what an old stuburned fart I was.

No go on track joints holding in the eye candy version. This sucks.

Dave, tell Mike what you think of ScaleTrax. Shoulda stayed with Atlas and Ross switches.

Mike, I don't care where they go either. The reason I think they should go on the sides is to spread all the switches around the layout instead of having so many in the same areas. Operationally? I have no clue. When I run the design through the simulation feature in SCARM, they just seem to work better visually on the sides. When they are located by the other switches, it seems like trains are going through a bunch of switches all the time. For me, it just breaks things up a bit having them on the sides. There are 4 switches in the yard and 6 in the circle, so why add more? Carl may have some operational reasons for wanting them on the sides.

Moonman posted:

No go on track joints holding in the eye candy version. This sucks.

Dave, tell Mike what you think of ScaleTrax. Shoulda stayed with Atlas and Ross switches.

Carl, The only joint that doesn't hold in my latest version is the one in the circle, so I left it out for now. There is still some adjustment needed in that area and I wanted to get my photos posted before we go much further. We are still working off 3 versions and I'd like to settle on one before we fix all the joints.

And I'm still assuming the bridge tracks are set for the Atlas bridge, I have not touched that spacing and the spacing for everything else feeds off those tracks.

Given the cuts in the circle, there's going to be some adjustment needed as the layout gets built anyway, so my goal is to get to a point where Mike will know how many tracks he'll need to buy to have enough to complete the build.

Mike, as far as ScaleTrax goes, I think Carl is alluding to the problem you might face finding what you need, especially the switches. It took me a long time to get my hands on a piece of FlexTrack. Of course, that was partly because I was trying to buy 1 during my travels because I didn't want to pay shipping, etc., for 1 sample. I ended up buying 10 pieces in Texas and I don't even know if I'll even use them. I wasn't looking for #4 switches, etc., though, so I have no idea how hard it will be to find those. You need 6 O72s and 8 #4s. I'm not too concerned about the O72 switches and curves, but I'm a little concerned about the #4s and the O80 curves, especially since you seem to want to spread the purchases out over time and not buy everything at once.

Of course, Atlas has also had their problems with availability. People recently waited over 2 years to get their hands on some numbered Atlas switches. The only tracks that seem to be available on a regular basis are Lionel tubular (through Menard's now I guess) and GarGraves (Made in America). I wanted ScaleTrax before I moved to Atlas because of the lack of availability. I recently switched to GarGraves for the same reason. In my case, I can probably get what I need in either track, but I'm looking toward the future because after I build my bedroom layout, I plan to build a garage layout and I'd like to use the same track for both. I do have a separate 2nd level going in the bedroom where I will use the ScaleTrax if I can find the O31 curves I'll need when I get to that point next year.

Now, that doesn't mean you should change brands, just that you need to start checking to see what's available and from where. It's not like you can go to a local hobby shop and get ScaleTrax. In fact, you probably can't go anywhere and get everything you need without waiting. MTH has a "Find It Locally" feature on their site, but it only tells you if someone has it, not how many they have. And if you order piecemeal, the shipping charges are going to add up. That's partly why people buy for one place even though some items might be a bit cheaper elsewhere, shipping costs have to be considered. There might also be minimums involved, that is you may have to buy a case of 12, not just 1 or 2. I know that's the way it is with some roadbed.

I'm not trying to scare you, but what's available today, might not be available tomorrow. And while everyone makes O72, they don't all make #4s, etc., so if you decide to change brands, you might have to go with #5 or #6 switches and that will change how things will fit a bit. After I visited a layout using GarGraves, I decided I didn't want to take any chances, so I decided to use GarGraves. My bedroom layout doesn't have any switches, but I will go with Ross for those in the garage.

Just something to think about and do some research.

Hey Dave, thanks for the information, I have been readying a lot about the scaletrack and I know the problem with the switches has been taken care for now. I hope that there will be stock when I am ready but I guess I will see when I get there.

As far as which drawing I like the last one called eye candy. Also I just checked and the spacing on the bridge is correct.

mike g. posted:

Hi Dave, I have to ask both you and Carl a question about crossover locations. Because I am really not sure where would be best for operation. To be honest I could care less where they go as long as its has a location that would less likely cause a problem.

I don't know enough to know the best location.

so if you 2 would like to talk it over I am fine with what ever you guys come up with.

The sides, E/W , are the low hanging fruit, especially if you haul a long train.

I don't know what that means. LOL I am a little slow sometimes!

Dave,

it must be the connections breaking and such on the fitment. I just measured in SCARM and RR-Track. The #4's set a 4.5" spacing. So, the crossovers without a spacer will set the center rail spacing correctly.

The problem comes when running a O72 and an O80 next to one another. An eight inch difference only leaves a 4" center naturally.

Carl, I'm not trying to be difficult, but the bridge tracks in every design posted so far appear to be 4.75" when I add the center line to the display and measure in SCARM. Since the tracks on the Atlas bridge are indeed 4.5" and the length is 40", I'm not sure why they were set to 4.75" and why cut pieces were used rather than two sets of 30" and 10" to make the 40" span.

There is also a thread here that suggests a 10" lead should be added to both sides for clearance of some passenger cars, but there are also photos showing O54 and O63 curves going right up to the bridge. While that part is covered by the straights and switch, so it's really a non-issue in this case, I think the bridge tracks should be corrected and made a Group so they don't accidentally get moved. I'd add the first tracks on both sides of the bridge, including the lead switch for the yard, to the Group just to make sure everything stays in sync. Everything else would then flow from the Bridge Group with the goal of retaining the 4.5" spacing all the way around and through the crossovers regardless of where those are eventually placed. I thought the switches without the fitter were correct, but we were playing off the bridge spacing and I believe it's wrong.

Also, when I look at the Eye-Candy file, I see several tracks that can't join, so I don't know if that was an attempt to repair the joints that broke or what. The only one I can't get to stay connected is the one I circled in Red.

0

Depending on how you have SCARM set, I guess the connections could break, though as I said, I've only seen that here with the connections between a curve and straight. That said, I try not to put cut pieces, or even small fitters, by the curve anyway. When I need small fitters, I try to group them in the center of straight sections.

I, too, am sorry for your loss. This is not that important that you have to try to find time to comment, so tale care of what you have to and we'll get back to this when you have time again. Mike and I won't go too far with this until your situation settles down.

Mike, I'm not sure why you like the Eye-Candy version over the later version I posted. The only difference between them is that I added the crossovers like Carl mentioned and posted a wider 3D photo. I copied Carl's river, road and bridge setup and added it to mine. I also was able to connect all but the 1 joint on the left side of the circle. Unfortunately, that was before we found the Atlas bridge spacing is incorrect. Since Carl might be out of pocket for a bit dealing with his issues, I'm going to go ahead and fix mine the way I suggested above and see if I can't get the spacing and joints correct. I'll post it and Carl can take a look when he finds some time again.

mike g. posted:

I don't know what that means. LOL I am a little slow sometimes!

I think that means long trains can go through the crossovers with the least amount of problems if the crossovers are located on the E/W sides rather than being located closer to more switches. Switches are problem children all by themselves, but forcing longer trains to run though several at the same time just creates the potential for more problems.

Hi Dave, I didnt relize I was doing that, can you tell me how to delete some of these other files?

Hi Dave, I want your opinion on something. What do you think about getting rid of that one section of track in the yard that is at the top going towards the door?