Layout not lining up using SCARM (update with build pics) to

I can tell you by experience that first thing you will be asked is can you post your scarm file on here so people can look at it. Without seeing it cant really tell a lot.

Thank you. I will get it posted.

Not all gaps can be filled.  But there are things you can do to minimize it.  There is enough play in the track systems to close the smallest gap.  Here is a table on what pieces to use to fill a gap.  Use the measuring tape to measure the gap width.

Note you may need to make the gap bigger than a full straight in order to get closure.  There's a better list at this link.

Possible track lengths

Jan

I'm no expert on track software. And I don't use SCARM but Anyrail.

Still, I've noticed a difference between software and the real world. I don't dispute the math but perhaps in the real world we don't get every connection closed perfectly? In reality, straight connections may not be perfectly straight? Two O-80 curves do not get butted into a perfect O-80? You'd think any such errors would average out but my Anyrail plan will not perfectly connect  on paper either. My trains seem to runs just fine though. If it bothers you that it isn't perfect, you can get around it by inserting a piece of flex, even if, in reality, no flex track will be used.

I think you will have no trouble making the connection if the "virtual" connection is very close.

The geometry of FasTrack is very consistent, but there is plenty of wiggle room for 1/10", even a full inch or more, depending on the size of the layout - the larger, the more out-of-spec it can be.

BPARS,

    What I have learned about FasTrack, and I run a multi level FT layout with many switches, is this, the best way to engineer FasTrack layouts, it is make custom close out track pieces.  I use the Rockwell X2 portable table saw and it makes absolutely perfect custom close out pieces for any layout in any curvature you desire.  Never had the SCARM work perfectly with FT, further FasTrack does not make enough different size mini pieces to accommodate my or anyone else, engineering needs especially when using many different FT Switches. Custom Close Out FasTrack Pieces are the very best way to go when engineering a FasTrack Layout.

PCRR/Dave

PCRR/Dave

  You would have to post a picture and/or file copy for a difinitive answer, but it does seem a 1/10" would likely be close enough, even with FT.  The gap should float to other joints, usually to curves.

   If this is permanent you can possibly trim another spot, close the gap on the other side and fasten both those peices down.

   The answer as to why it has trouble is what you laid is not symmetrical and the track geometry has its limits. 

Gentlemen,

   IMO if an operator runs complex FasTrack layouts, he should own a Rockwell X2 Portable Table Saw, for making exacting FT close out pieces, in fact after the purchase of over 1000 pieces of FT, Lionel should make the X2 saw part of the FasTrack inventory and send you an X2 Saw gratis.

PCRR/Dave

I have attached the file along with a snapshot.  Also if you notice any glaring design errors or have suggestions that would be great too.

BPARS,

   If you are going  to continue building these kind of FT layouts, definitely invest in the X2 Saw, you are going to need it, and it makes perfect layouts.  You can usually pick one up at Lowes on sale for around $89.00 with the Veterans discount.

In my opinion Lionel missed a great marketing ploy for their FT, they could have imbedded this X2 Saw in their FT engineering layout design package, for super advanced layout building, and it would have expanded their sales of FT exponentially.  Every body wants to believe they can become an advanced layout builder.  I swear Lionel and MTH should put my MIT engineering idea skills to work for them, it seems they both miss the advanced engineering marketing criteria so severely needed in the modern toy train world.  

PCRR/Dave 

I have closed all the gaps within SCARM's predefined tolerances.

When you actually built it you may want to replace the groups of short pieces with a single cut piece.  You can get the needed length from the plan.  This will insure that you will not develop any kinks in the trackwork.

Jan

The joint tolerance level in SCARM (Tools/Setting/Edit) is set to 2mm (.079") by default. I believe SCARM started out as a design tool for HO scale and grew from there, so while that might be a realistic limit for HO, it's too tight for O scale. There was a discussion some years ago where it was noted that the tolerance for O scale can be 3.8 mm (.15") and track, specifically FasTrack will still fit in SCARM and in reality. Changing the tolerance level to .15" clears up all but 1 joint and that can be fixed by swapping out a 10" track for a combination of shorter ones. However, there is too much wrong with this design to worry about the joining errors.
NOTE: Just FYI, there is a stray 10" track over part of the right-most switch on the bottom.

One problem with the layout is that you can only reverse trains in one direction. Even though it looks like there are 2 reversing loops, they both run in the same direction, so if you are traveling counter-clockwise you can't use them to turn a train.

Another problem is the passing siding is too close to the inner oval and trains will collide.

You didn't say anything about the size of the layout, so I tried to stay close to the dimensions. Here is a design with 2 reversing loops, a passing siding slimmed down and moved away from the inner oval, and a couple of spurs. I believe FasTrack O72 switches require makeup straights on the straight and diverging tracks.

Jan and Dave, thank you very much for your help!! Your design work is great .  It makes a big difference when you know what the heck you are doing.

This is what happens when you start this hobby without an end in mind. Over the years I keep picking up parts so I was trying to tie them all together in a permanent layout. Another question you might be able to help me with is the proper way to power this layout? 

I currently have 2 cab1 remotes, 1 command base, 1 power master, and 1 135w transformer. I am hoping to run two trains independently on this layout.  Do you have some advice on what else I would need in order to be able to do that? Thanks again.

Bridger

Sorry, I can't help with the power question. I use MTH DCS and will be using GarGraves track when I build a display layout after the holidays. Hopefully Jan has some answers. If not, I'm sure someone else will pop in.

BPars posted:

I have attached the file along with a snapshot.  Also if you notice any glaring design errors or have suggestions that would be great too.

The Lionel FasTrack 060 & O72 switches require that you add a 1 3/8" half-roadbed piece on the thru and divergent ends. They are included with the track. Check out  photo on the Lionel website or in the catalog.

This will make a mess out of your fitment. SCARM does not default and force you to add these pieces.

I have attached a document with all of the possible combinations for lengths of FasTrack. You can use the measure tool and then fill the gaps. One can make custom cut pieces to save on track count.

Jan and Dave's repairs/fitments have both omitted the 1 3/8" pieces on the O72 switches.

Moonman posted:

Jan and Dave's repairs/fitments have both omitted the 1 3/8" pieces on the O72 switches.

I'm sorry, Carl, but if you take a look at the second design I posted, it certainly does contain the makeup pieces, that's why I posted both versions and said so in my comments.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Moonman posted:

Jan and Dave's repairs/fitments have both omitted the 1 3/8" pieces on the O72 switches.

I'm sorry, Carl, but if you take a look at the second design I posted, it certainly does contain the makeup pieces, that's why I posted both versions and said so in my comments.

Sorry, quick reading...then why post the first?

Carl,

Is it all FasTrack switches that need the piece or just O31, O60, and O72?

Jan

Jan posted:

Carl,

Is it all FasTrack switches that need the piece or just O31, O60, and O72?

Jan

Jan,

O31 is because of an error by the software companies using Lionel marketing information for the length of straight. Depending on which one that you using, first measure the length of the straight to verify that it is 11 3/8" long. I suppose that they will all update at some point.

O31, O36 & 048 do not require any fitters and none are included with the product.

The O60 switch and the O72  and the O72 Wye need them to fill in at the divergent end because of how they are made. A no-roadbed piece is needed for a curve to curve set to join together.

You can see it in the product photo. That wing of roadbed towards the controller needs the side with no-roadbed.

However, one can custom cut the roadbed back on an adjoining piece to make the end look like the half-roadbed piece. I don't usually join them that way unless it's discussed with the layout builder beforehand. Call it "Advanced FasTrack Building Techniques"

BPARS,

Is the spacing in between the passing siding and near the crossover tracks wide for buildings and such? Would tighter be ok?

Will you want to kill power in the passing siding to park a train?

Oh, how wide do you want the table to be?

Moonman posted:

BPARS,

Is the spacing in between the passing siding and near the crossover tracks wide for buildings and such? Would tighter be ok?

Will you want to kill power in the passing siding to park a train?

Oh, how wide do you want the table to be?

Carl, tighter for the siding would be okay and with some design help from forum members I have made some adjustments. 

Also, I would like to kill power to the siding as well. 

I am trying to keep the layout long and narrow. Around 5 feet wide and 15 feet long

I have updated post to include a couple of pics of how the finished layout turned out. I made a few alterations including O60 curves on the outside rather than O48

That turned out rather well, nice job.

BPars posted:

I have updated post to include a couple of pics of how the finished layout turned out. I made a few alterations including O60 curves on the outside rather than O48

Nice!

How do like those flooring mats? Do they help quiet the track noise?

I'm sorry, did you get some assistance on powering it? Many times when using FasTrack, one or two sets of power feeds are sufficient.

I was looking at the passing siding trying to determine where you could add some 1 3/8" and create a block to turn off power. The switches look like they are O36. Do you still want to do that?

Moonman posted:

BPars posted:

I have updated post to include a couple of pics of how the finished layout turned out. I made a few alterations including O60 curves on the outside rather than O48

Nice!

How do like those flooring mats? Do they help quiet the track noise?

I'm sorry, did you get some assistance on powering it? Many times when using FasTrack, one or two sets of power feeds are sufficient.

I was looking at the passing siding trying to determine where you could add some 1 3/8" and create a block to turn off power. The switches look like they are O36. Do you still want to do that?

The floor mats work surprisingly well  and does make it quieter.  The best part about using the floor mats is that the track seems to grip it fairly well and since I don't have it permanently screwed down it is nice that the track doesn't shift around and create gaps when running trains. 

 In terms of powering it, I only have a single 135w powerhouse and powermaster.  I have 2 terminal sections connected to the  powermaster. One on the outside loop and one on the inside loop because I noticed that the amperage on the inner loop would drop to below 14 V and I couldn't activate the couplers on the engines.  Once I added the second terminal I get a constant 18 V at every point along the track.  I don't really understand watts vs volts and I am not sure at what point I would benefit from having more wattage, but right now I can run all three of my tmcc trains simultaneously with lit passenger cars and a lit caboose including all the command switches and everything seems to have enough power. 

 I have decided to not mess with trying to cut the power to the passing siding.  I have been able to run the conventional engine on the inner loop while at the same time running two tmcc  engines on the outer loop with my current setup.  If at some point I decide to get an additional transformer and/or powermaster I will think about  isolating the siding and cutting the power at that time.  At this point I just park a tmcc engine on it. 

Now, for my next project I am thinking about adding a loop of elevated track above the current layout. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Gentlemen,

   The best way to handle this situation is by making your own close out FasTrack piece, in this manner the layout engineering is made perfect, gaping tracks is not good for the DCS signal or a Legacy signal, fit the FasTracks properly and take the time to make your own close out track pieces, working in this manner everything comes out perfect and if you run DCS you will be able to attain a signal strength of 10 thru out your layout, even on Multi-Levels.  SCRAM is not perfect engineering design when using FasTrack, however it is close enough if you make your own close out FasTrack piece, to make the layout design absolutely perfect.

PCRR/Dave

BPars posted:

Moonman posted:

BPars posted:

I have updated post to include a couple of pics of how the finished layout turned out. I made a few alterations including O60 curves on the outside rather than O48

Nice!

How do like those flooring mats? Do they help quiet the track noise?

I'm sorry, did you get some assistance on powering it? Many times when using FasTrack, one or two sets of power feeds are sufficient.

I was looking at the passing siding trying to determine where you could add some 1 3/8" and create a block to turn off power. The switches look like they are O36. Do you still want to do that?

The floor mats work surprisingly well  and does make it quieter.  The best part about using the floor mats is that the track seems to grip it fairly well and since I don't have it permanently screwed down it is nice that the track doesn't shift around and create gaps when running trains. 

 In terms of powering it, I only have a single 135w powerhouse and powermaster.  I have 2 terminal sections connected to the  powermaster. One on the outside loop and one on the inside loop because I noticed that the amperage on the inner loop would drop to below 14 V and I couldn't activate the couplers on the engines.  Once I added the second terminal I get a constant 18 V at every point along the track.  I don't really understand watts vs volts and I am not sure at what point I would benefit from having more wattage, but right now I can run all three of my tmcc trains simultaneously with lit passenger cars and a lit caboose including all the command switches and everything seems to have enough power. 

 I have decided to not mess with trying to cut the power to the passing siding.  I have been able to run the conventional engine on the inner loop while at the same time running two tmcc  engines on the outer loop with my current setup.  If at some point I decide to get an additional transformer and/or powermaster I will think about  isolating the siding and cutting the power at that time.  At this point I just park a tmcc engine on it. 

Now, for my next project I am thinking about adding a loop of elevated track above the current layout. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Very cool!

You solved the power issue with the additional feed and have found a way to operate the trains that want to run.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Several methods to elevate a line - trestle, store or homemade, sub-roadbed under the track only on trestles, a shaped deck on supports and any combination of all methods.

Just consider blocking access to switches or areas of potential derailments and sight lines of the lower level. Allow at least 6" between the top of the lower rail and the bottom most edge of whatever is over it.

Your on your way! Have fun!