Need the experts to examine my choice of 2 layouts. ..revised with final plans.

I'm hardly an expert, but I like #4 better. However, your track elevation on the elevated track is way too low when you factor in sub-roadbed. You'll have a clearance problem. The minimum rail height separation to compensate should be 7" (8" preferred) to compensate for hi-riding double-stacks and electrics with the pans up.

I also like #4 better because it has two reversing loops, one for each direction.  The downside is while you have O72 mainline curves, your space limits the one reversing loop to O48.  Also, the isles may be a little too narrow.  I like 3', but have one section of only 2' for a short distance.  I've laid this out and it is alright for me, but not sure about some of my friends.

 

I believe RRT measures from rail head to rail head for height, and I agree with Matt that 6.25" is not enough clearance.  Try to give yourself a little more.

Thanks! I did consider the walking space. I think I can manage. Thanks especially, for the suggestion for track height. But I do need to know where I can put a lower level for storage/staging where trains enter and exit at the same point. ..another words a dead end for those 2 or 3 tracks. I don't need to store all the trains there.

You may want to consider a screen shot so those without the RR track program can view it.

Happened to still have it up on screen. Here's the one we were discussing.

 

Thank you Matt

 

Took me a bit, and real effort, to even find a concern. Nice. Reverse loops, lots of run arounds, etc.

 

 Depending on how you support your el, and if you are going to use a bridge along the swerve on the el, you might need more room between the two ground level tracks to place el supports without interference with cars/steps.

 

 Anytime I hear two girders and a truss bridge I think of the Gomez Addams stretch.

  Not knowing what your up too with them, but seeing what I think are truss bridge supports up front, I just want to remind you the engine overhang will clip Lionel girders/bridges if they are too close to a curve. The overhang continues into the straights and inch or so.

 

  The S turn in the lower left, comes just before the grade, Is it going to create too much extra drag?

 In small scale S-turns are generally avoided. O does handle them much better though. 

 

 A double curve turnout would give you a straight bench edge, and drop the S turn.

A normal right hand turnout looks like it could be fit in too.

 

I originally set out to have my to grades equal, but a mistake made them unequal. That was a pleasant mistake however.

I now have to think, just a second, on which way to "climb up", depending on the loco, and its load.  

Matt, thank you for posting a picture. For now I'm not concerned with a GG1, although tempting. Because if I have it I would want the catenary for it. But I think should I consider the double stacks clearance.

Adriatic thanks for the girder/truss situation. I need to look more closely at that. As for the double curve turnout, unfortunately fastrack does not have curved turnouts. I wish they did. It would make things easier. I can't visualize where the right hand turnout would replace that S curve. Trying to figure that out. I had a temporary medium size carpet layout to hold me over until I was ready for this. So the wait for this project and it's trackage completion seems longer than building the real transcontinental railroad!

Adriatic...figured the right hand turnout into the lower left which leads into the grade. It works much better for me! Now I can move my walk in access more to the left. I will post a revised as soon as I make more suggested changes. However I need advice on where to include a lead to a lower level for 2 or 3 stub end storage tracks. Even if I have to manually pull/push the cars on to the layout. But I would rather have those tracks powered. 

Hi luvtrains,

I was thinking under the layout is a pain and may require cameras.

 

Since your elevated run is already there, putting a pass-through yard with 4 tracks in the center and hiding it in a mountain would work. This would be for complete trains. The track that the train leaves from would be the route for the continuous mountain run. So, a train could enter the mountain\tunnel and a different one could appear or just pass-through.

 

It would take 6 wyes. I am not that proficient with RRT yet, so hopefully, this gives you an idea. The yard is long enough for an 8' train.

 

The lower yard could be the cut and build yard.

 

I prefer staging complete trains over building one. You have both with this.

Option#2-Make the elevated run a descent run through a tunnel to put the pass through yard underneath.

The track flow on the posted screen shot is very nice.  That being said the aisle space on the bottom part of the plan appears to be less than 2 feet if the track is right up against the table edge.  That is going to get old fast.  The space between the top and middle loops looks like a tight squeeze as well but that is momentary.  The one along the bottom runs the entire length of the long side of the plan and will severely limit access and ultimately fun.

Carl, that's a nice pass through siding! I think you're saying to have that siding on the same level as the double main by incorporating it into the trackage while hiding it under the elevated track. Good idea. First I need to raise the elevated section higher (as recommended by Matt) to 7 or 8 inches. Unfortunately that will cause a steeper grade than I planned. Didn't plan to run double stack cars or a GG1. As they say..."never say never". I will think through this before I post a revision. 

 

Necrails, the section below the middle yard will not be a walk in. That will only be at the access entry point and to the left. I changed the turnout (left of access) to a right turnout so the straight part goes to the graded track section. That enabled me to move the access more to the left. I haven't posted the revision yet, but will do so.

Revised layout with right turnout replacing left turnout leading to grade on left.

 

Sorry I'm having trouble attaching this revised version. Will do as soon as I work it out.

This is the revised one. Lower left with right turnout.

OOPS! Sorry, still not working. Back to the drawing boards.

Don't know what happened. Couldn't find my layout thread anymore. But this is the revised layout just with the changed turnout (lower right) to the grade changed. If you see my original thread let me know.

Carl, thanks for clarifying that. Much appreciated. Nice idea. Right now I am concerned about steep grades. At 7" track elevation the right grade is 4.0%, the left grade is 4.4%. I can settle on the right grade, but I am not sure about the left grade. Originally I wanted to keep both under 4%. I don't run very long freights. ..usually 12 rolling stock cars max. on trains.

Ok, let's step back and discuss a few topics...

FasTrack is 3/4" high from deck to railhead. The overpass will need sub-roadbed. The clearance at 6.25" from lower track railhead to the bottom of the sub-roadbed will be 5.5"

If all of your rolling stock and engines will clear that you are ok. But, as mentioned, what if a loco or car that won't fit gets your attention in the future?

 

First question, what was your intentions of the scenic treatment of the grades and elevated area where it crosses over the lower track?

 

If the desired effect is a scenic run to show off the train, I think it may be easier to move/change the track for a "snake" effect at a height 3"-4" and move the double mains forward or away from the edge the minimum needed to clear. This avoids the overpass\tunnel issue, but still creates a visual experience.

 

Second question, I was trying some ideas starting in that area and noticed that you didn't have the make-up 1 3/8" on the switches. Do you intend or will you have a need to isolate the loops from one another? (as in different power supplies or transformer channels)

 

You can join the switches for a cross-over that way, but you still need the make-up piece on the thru track of the out end. This method eliminates the ability to isolate the loops. Some weren't there.

 

Third question, I see a cross-over at 9:00 o'clock on the double mains. It doesn't seem necessary to me. Do you have a purpose for that crossover? You have two at the top and the access to the loop.

 

Last question, Are you aware of how to make custom length pieces? This will eliminate a lot of the small fitters when you build and create track cost savings.

 

Thanks for your patience and entertaining my comments and questions.

Both look good, but the radius is too small for me to enjoy.

Thanks Carl for your important observations and time. All participants on this thread are so helpful and encouraging.

 

1) Elevated area would cross over the lower track with a bridge on left with tunnel portals after the bridge going "east". Tunnel portals on the right side under elevated track. Scenic treatment for grades .. maybe on left and right wall sides have retaining wall, maybe rock walls included as a mix. Will consider moving track/mains as suggested without affecting the upper reverse loop. Might have a waterfall from center top flowing under main area into a river which narrowly border outside of mains to edge of table and across/under upper reverse loop. Taking info from Woodland Scenics manual.

 

2) 1 3/8 blocks on switches. That was my concern! Forgot to ask if RRT. includes them in the switch or I had to do it myself when designing the layout. I intend to have blocks for DCS. I hope I can make adjustments without creating too much of a domino effect on the layout. I searched the program, but could not find where it was addressed.

 

3) Crossover at 9: o' clock. Yes, I agree. I'm undecided. It's always nice to have an extra crossover, but at an extra expense and wiring which I do not like to do. 

 

Custom length pieces...yes I am aware. I can search this forum for it. Or I have already saved it with a printout. Reading this forum has successfully gotten me to this point.

While including these small fitters I thought about replacing with custom pieces. Love the RRT feature for measuring track.....now off to my workout before I return to tweaking my layout. Just can't wait to see all track/wiring finished so I can run some trains before starting scenery. That will help me visualize thoughts on scenery and placement of structures.

 

 

 

Okay, I need to change layout 4 in the lower left corner of the layout. Somehow I miscalculated the unattached segments in the corner. Looks like the 2 horizontal segments are too short. It has to be 35". That means more modifications which might change much of that area.

And maybe the much desired reverse loop/yard in the middle. Right now  I am looking at the bottom of the barrel for patience. Can't believe I did that!

Takes pieces out  towards the center. Then you can move whole segments of track and then close the gap when you fit.

 This is the most recent of layout 4 with corrections made due to miscalculations I made. 

Just checked this post. This is not the layout I recently changed. Will try posting it tomorrow. Sorry.

Yup, you're correct. That's not it.  Are you moving the low left side switch in to leave space for a 35" spur?

 

That happened when you put the switch on the curve.

Carl.

I replaced he switch with a left hand turnout on the outside main ...further up by the left wall. Thought about it......I prefer to go back to a right turnout on the lower left. I just don't want to narrow the pass through in that area when I do it, and  leave enough room for lift up access into layout. It's a close squeeze as it is already. I'll try an attachmeht as soon as I figure how to get the latest design on here. For some reason it is not on the choices available when I am ready to attach, but is in the rrt. file. I'll work on it a little later. Have to do my daily walk now. Thanks my friend! 

Carl and all let me know if this one is workable. 

Okay, I hope this attachment works. I made some changes as you will see. Mainly, I am concerned about the 3.8% on left being too close the left wall. The right side grade is 3.6%. I also included the 1.375 turnout extensions. track height at top of grade is 6.25%. Thanks, Fred

Luv,

 

I may have missed it above, but have you thought about not having a flat surface for your double track loop?  If you raise the track on the lower portion of the track plan by running a 2-3% grade starting at the 9 and 3 o'clock positions, you can decrease the grade of your current elevated track and still get the same effect.  In effect, you have some track going up and some going down, decreasing the grade required.  Your track plan is good for this type of split grade. 

That's really close. You need more space on the grade to the left. If you take out the 1.75" on the spur at the low right and move the whole layout over by that amount, you'll have enough clearance~2.75". I like that you took out the overpass, makes the build easier.

 

I am still trying to get a good 3D out of RRT-here's one

Ron, thanks fot that advice on raising the roadbed of the lower portion of the double main. I will look into it. At this point if it doesn't get too confusing to manage where the double track loop should start rise and descent without interfering with the middle reverse loop yard I'll attempt it.

 

Carl, that's a good 3D of the layout! It makes me satisfied with what I have so far. Still trying to determine a place for out of sight storage tracks. I want that to be as simple as possible. I will work on removing that 1.75 on the low right spur. That would be so much better!

Carl, is it possible to move the whole layout at once after I remove the 1.75 spur?

What's important is that you zoom to that left side and measure that space to the edge. I just said to another member that I am not yet sure if RRT shows tie edge or adds road bed when it displays the track.

 

If all of the track are connected, a double-click should highlight the whole layout and allow you to move it. by dragging the cursor.

 

The primary concern is for the actual build and not the software version. You don't want to be laying tracks and discover it's too close or overhanging.

I just tried deleting the 1.75 and left the bumper to index to. I tried selecting the layout. No joy.

 

There are too many breaks in the track for you to move it. You need to work on that.

 

That may get the space needed if you actually connect all of the tracks. Did you turn off auto-join?

Auto join is turned on. I zoomed in on left and the gray road bed shows. Edge of roadbed is 1" from edge or wall.

Okay, I moved the layout. I chose "select all" in edit tab. Clicked on track and all highlighted red. Then moved to desired measurements. Concerned on lower left where I have 35" unattached track to represent where wall is. then wall at 45 degree angle wall turns clockwise as shown by 20" track which also represents wall. Just at that corner turn is where I am concerned about clearance. I measured 2.49" at that point. Hopefully see attached layout.

That 2.49" is measured from where? Edge of roadbed? The new legacy Big Boy may hang out that far, but I don't believe anything else will.

 

In my reply on 6/30 at 8:31am I mentioned to you about the make-up 1 3/8" pieces that are needed for the 060, 072 and 072 wye switches at the turn-out and thru on the turn-out end.

 

They are not there. I was in the process of adding when RRT pulled it's stopped working trick. I guess I have to learn to save every time I make a change. This app is a pain.

 

That's why you cannot double-click and select\highlight the whole layout. It's not connected. You will notice it's in between switches. It's time consuming to put those in now, but you need to do it or the track will not fit.

 

Do you have the FasTrack Lengths pdf? It really helps when fitting, especially when plugging tracks for this task and not wrecking the layout or clearances. here it is, just in case.

I just measured again from edge of roadbed to protruding corner.  Got 3.40" this time. I think I was using the wrong version of this layout when I first checked.

I did add those 1.375 turnout extensions. Do you mean they are gone when I moved the layout? I have to look at it. Thanks for FT lengths. I just saved it in docs. I think I have a printout with my saved papers. And RRT has a reference table. 

I checked the most recent attachment and I see them on the turnout's curved track, or was I supposed to also add them to its corresponding straight track? They do make it easier to connect track.

 It depends on your locomotives overhang to the outside of a curve.

E.g., My E-33 rectifier is the worst offender. It needs 2" from the track rail to handrails on 0-27. 

 

 Up high, its the trailing edge of a Berks cab roof.

Down low its a General's, or Hudson's pilot. 

 

  On parallel curves you need to consider inside overhang on long cars and engines, clipping the outside overhang of the track next to it. 

 

My worst inside overhang cars are K-line, Broadway limited passenger cars. The worst Engine is the E-33 again.

 

I laid out my first table plan in a hurry, forgetting about adding inside overhang + outside overhang together. Not good Things clipped in curves.

 And forgot the outside overhang extends, a ways before, and after a curve, not just in the curve

 

Point is you should figure out the worst offenders you own, or will own, and design around those measurements .

luv,

Here's the 072 switch. Look at the roadbed. These pieces fit in and only have half the roadbed. The roadbed must be cut off of a regular track to actually connect it. You have multiple locations with that situation. It's track>turnouts>06o or 072>120xx make up straight  1.375"

 

You'll notice the track joining icon (circle with line) is missing. That indicates a bad or improperly fitted track joint.

 

It won't be too bad. I'll work on it. It disturbs all the tracks.

 

Try running simulator. The train will stop at every bad track joint.

 

luv,

I reworked all of correct 120xx on the switches and refitted all but the peninsula and the connector from the top loop to the island. I left that for you because it appeared that you were try for some angle to allow for walkway spacing.

 

Oh, yeah, you have to reset the grade and elevated area. I had to zero it to work on it.

 

I really think that you should try for a 24" aisle minimum around the island.

 

I hope this helps. You can double click a track on the outer main and it all highlights confirming good connection. No forced fits or big gaps. Sim runs ok on those tracks.

 

Clearance should be the same as you had with 2.49 at the low left corner wall.

 

Spend some time on the peninsula