New 12 x 7 Layout

I should add.  There are a few places where I will need to cut some track.  I know that and I plan to do that.  I tried to "snip" the track in SCARM, but I wasn't able to do that correctly.  Again, I'm new at this.

It is pretty darn cool that you can play with your dad's 60-year-old toy trains!

@Long Hair posted:

It is pretty darn cool that you can play with your dad's 60-year-old toy trains!

It is. Ran my grandfather's Seaboard NW-2 from 1954 over the weekend....first test of my new layout.

I'll take a crack at your question, but I don't have experience with the post-war conventional stuff that you describe.  Others here know far more.

My first thought was to discern which elements of your plan are original to your dad's layout and which would be new additions.

My next thought was the switch count.  My dad in the '50s had three pair of switches for his American Flyer attic layout and that was (according to him) extravagant.  My dad always said that track could be had for pennies but switches cost the most money.  Your plan calls for twenty-three.

As far as your three transformers, I would imagine that each loop would be on its own transformer and isolated from the others such that three of the six trains could be controlled independently at the same time.

One layout feature that was popular in that era was sidings to park the engines on.  These would be big enough to fit one locomotive each and electrically isolated from the main track via a switch.  The idea was that you could leave a locomotive parked in a siding, power down only that siding/engine, then run a different train on the block without having to remove anything from the rails.

My next thought was the reach into the table to clean rails, etc.  Your center crossing is about 42 inches from the nearest table edge, which is pretty much impossible without walking on the layout.

My next thought was those saw cuts you mention.  My understanding is that back in the day, track was routinely cut to fit.  You even acknowledge that numerous pieces will have to be cut to fit.  My concern is that your layout looks like the same series of concentric ovals that an uninspired fastrack layout might.  It you are going to be cutting and fitting anyway, I might suggest that you consider a less geometric design.

Here is a layout plan similar to yours for three trains/three transformers that you might take a look at.  It is shown using fastrack and is smaller than 4x8', but the principle could be scaled up.  One locomotive can do switching operations on the center block and/or park on one of the sidings.  At the same time, another locomotive can run on the inner loop and park in the siding provided while a different engine is on that loop.  The last locomotive still has the outer loop to itself.  I suppose you could even isolate the section of track at bottom center between the switches such that at engine could stop there while other trains ran all around it.

Jimbo,

I've taken a stab at your plan.  There is no reason to have to cut any track unless you are trying to exactly position the track.  The gaps you see are an artifact of SCARM's  representation of the track on its database.

You had an extra [air of switches on the innermost loop.  I moved the O72 pair to the outside look making an additional two sidings.  I also rearranged the crossovers.

Jan

Jim, one key to successful snipping is to use tracks that aren’t color-coded and turn off the center rail. That way you can clearly see where the tracks overlay and put the cursor on that line to snip.

Always check actual fit before doing any cutting. Tracks that show as disconnected in software often fit during the build. The problem is not unique to SCARM, the problem is the tolerance setting in each program. AnyRail has a default distance setting of .03” and angle of 3°. RR-Track uses a distance of .05” and 2.5°. SCARM uses .079” and 2°. I’ve been told the SCARM defaults were designed for HO scale, but AFAIK no one has gone through the trouble of figuring out what the real numbers are because they’re different for each brand of track. We just know that if tracks join in the software they should join during the build. That has its own challenges because everyone lays track differently. Some lay all the track before attaching to the decking while others start with an attached series of track, but the slightest variance can cause misalignment anywhere and they blame the software. We all know that a lot of sectional track is far from perfect and that affects fitment. We also know there’s a lot of leeway, especially in long straight runs, so it’s not an exact science. I often snip tracks just to be able to use the simulation feature because it requires that all tracks be connected.

Be sure that your 60+ year old ZWs are safe - especially look for good, flexible power cords.

And don't worry about how your collection stacks up against others.  It's not a competition (at least for most of us), and you can always buy more stuff if you want.

The advice given is greatly appreciated.

Thanks also, Dave, about how to better "snip" in SCARM.

Wow, Jan!  Your changes to my initial layout make a lot of sense.  I incorporated your suggestions in a new version with a couple of variations.  I added a third spur line to the "Freight Yard" (my Salmon or Orange color) and I eliminated the two spur lines (is this the right word?) coming off of the two O-72 switches on the Green Line in the upper left and the upper right.

The reason for the third spur line in the Freight Yard is that I am trying to utilize these lines for three accessories (Coal Ramp, Coal Loader, and Portal Gantry Crane).

The reason for eliminating two of the O-72 switches and the accompanying spur lines is twofold.  I actually own all the track and switches (with more to spare) described in my layout with the exception that I only own two O-72 switches.  I would have to purchase two additional O-72 switches and, as we all know, these are not cheap.  Moreover, I don't think those two spur lines are really very functional.  They are probably not long enough to serve a significant purpose.  With regard to the two spur lines in the lower left and lower right coming off of the two O-72 switches--I might as well keep those since I already own those switches.  But again, I wonder how functional those two spurs lines will ultimately be.

Thanks for your comments about using SCARM.  It makes a lot of sense that the tracks that are shown as disconnected in SCARM (and perhaps other software) will often fit during the build.  I certainly would not start cutting any track until and only unless it was absolutely necessary in the end.  I realize adjustments can be accomplished during the actual build such that track will fit even though the software may say differently.

About my three ZW transformers.  All three have been fully refurbished.  New rollers.  New power cords and plugs.

With these three transformers, I had concluded I could control up to 6 separate train lines simultaneously--by using the outside two throttles (the A and D terminals) on each of the three transformers.  The inside two terminals (B and C)--for a total of 6--will be reserved for accessories, lights, and the fixed voltage plugs to the switches (turnouts).  Am I correct and is this reasonable?

I realize the three concentric ovals may be uninspiring.  Perhaps even a little boring.  I may not find that out until I use it for a period of time.

I'll share with you my thinking for these different concentric lines.

I have the 2343 Sante Fe Diesel pair with the B unit.  I intend to use that ABA setup to pull the four aluminum passenger trains and baggage car (2530 through 2534).  Those 8 items together are 10 feet in length.  I think the outside Green Line with the O-72 curves is ideally suited for this train.

I have the 2331 Virginian FM Diesel engine.  It will likely be used primarily on the Blue Line with the O-54 curves.

I have the 665 and the 736 Steam Locomotives.  These can be used on two of the other lines.

I also have the 6250 Seaboard Switcher Diesel which will used where appropriate.

And any of these engines/trains can be switched to other lines.  I just need to be extra careful that I don't lose focus and find two trains in a head-on situation!

One more thing I have not mentioned.  I am also considering adding an elevated section once the ground layout is completed.  This will not be connected to the ground layout with graduated trestles.  Instead, it will be a separate line--and powered by that sixth throttle on the transformers.  This elevated line may simply be a "Bumper Line" with a 260 Bumper at each end on which I can run either the 50 Gang Car or the 60 Trolley.

P.S. I attached my revised SCARM file with the changes I described.  I'm not sure how to additionally embed this diagram into the body of my post as others have done.

I just checked my previous post and obviously I did not do the SCARM attachment correctly.  So I am attaching the bmp file that I exported in SCARM.  I think I also just figured out how to embed the attachment in my post.

I continue to consider refinements/changes to my new 12 x 7 layout that I am designing for my 1955 Lionel O-Gauge setup.  It seems one of the things that is lacking are some "staging" area(s) where I can park one or more trains.  Those two short spurs in the lower left and right in the previous layout aren't really long enough to accomplish much.

I am attaching two more proposed layouts--still relying on the last layout as my basis.

The first now includes a siding along the top (back) side of the layout on the Green Line.  The power to that siding would be controlled with a toggle switch.

The second attachment includes that same siding along the top and also adds two additional sidings on each side.  The power to those will also be controlled with a toggle switch.  In order to fit those two sidings on the left and right sides of the Green Line, I had to replace the O-72 curves on the Green Line with O-54 curves.  I have reservations about that, since I felt the O-72 curves would showcase the trains in a better way.  On the other hand, giving up the O-72 curves so that I can have two longer sidings to stage or store trains may be a reasonable trade-off.

I continue to be mindful where I plan to place various accessories and also the UCS uncoupling tracks.

I also recognize there needs to be sufficient space between tracks--especially on curves--to operate the trains safely.  I think I achieved that, but I may discover differently.

Can’t tell from the photos, but general recommendations for center rail spacing are 2.5” from walls, 3.5” in yards, 4.5” on mainlines and 4.5”-6.0” or more on curves, depending on engine/car overhang. FWIW, the Atlas dual-track truss bridge has 4.5” spacing while MTH has 5.0”.

BTW, Windows includes a tool called Snip & Sketch that lets you capture all or part of the display so you can include the rulers and grid in your photos vs the plain images you get from SCARM.

Oops, forgot to mention that assuming spacing is okay, version 2 seems to give you more of what you want, space to stage 2 complete trains.

Thanks Dave for providing the spacing recommendations.

I am doing these designs in SCARM.  I just checked the latest configuration (with the two longer sidings on each side) in SCARM and the space from the center rails to the edge of the table on all four sides is slightly less than 3"  I know that is tight and I wonder if that will be an issue.

I am intending to use three 4 x 8 size plywood and cut off one foot to make this a 12 x 7.  There is sufficient space where I am placing this table in my basement to have more than 7 feet.  I mentioned before that I considered a 12 x 8 table but that would be a little cramped.  I would still be able to walk around the 12 x 8 table, but it would be tight.

The point is--I do have the option to make the one side slightly more than 7 feet.  Perhaps by adding a couple of inches and still be comfortable.  The table is not constructed yet.

I'm pretty well limited to the 12 feet length going the other way.  If the latest design is too close to the edge to be workable, then I could eliminate one of the side sidings.

<3” won’t be an issue until there’s an accident, but that can be true with more space too. Many folks add plexiglass, fence or some kind of other barrier to minimize having an engine fall to the floor. 2.5” from the wall is essentially the same as 5” between track center rails.

FWIW, I normally line the perimeter of the space with 3” rectangles so I’m sure to keep the center rail of the outer mainline that far from the edge. I then use rectangles of different sizes to ensure I maintain other spacing around the layout. 3.5” in yards, 4.5” between tracks, etc. spacing in yards is usually determined by the switches used. Some track brands have numbered switches with less than 3.5”, so spacers need to be added. Curves are the worst because some do realize that cars, particularly long passenger cars, can have a lot of overhang, especially on tighter curves. So, while 4.5” works fine on straights, some curves need 6” or more for trains to pass each other safely.

You may want to consider realigning your double crossovers (to the extent possible) into a "ladder" configuration so that a train can cross rapidly from the green line to the yellow or vice versa.  For example, you have going clockwise the blue flowing into the light blue into the yellow already.

If he does that, he’ll be going through multiple “S” curves with the potential for derailments, especially with the tight (O-31?) turnouts. There’s not enough room to add straight tracks between the switches to let the cars straighten out before being pulled in the opposite direction. The Blue to Lt Blue to Yellow is already potentially problematic, but he’s got a straight in there to minimize problems. Just my $.02.

My advice (from many years of experience) would be to maybe cut down on all the trackage a bit. As it stands, you will have a mighty packed layout but in doing so, focusing on the trains themselves is made much more difficult.

Of course, this is all about personal preference, but after so long packing trackage and accessories into my layouts, I have finally decided (in my dotage) to give the trains more space to show off.

With space limitations, I can only have a 4x8’ layout, so keeping at least some of it more open is nigh on impossible but I am trying. My latest configuration has one end with open space and the other with accessories (lumbering operations) so I am trying to have it both ways.

i am attaching a couple of overhead views taken just the other day to show you what I am talking about.

You are doing the right thing thinking and planning carefully before laying track. And once you do, don’t be afraid to make modifications to your paper plans as you go along.

Good luck; post photos along the way for all of us to enjoy!

I gave some thought to the suggestion by Long Hair to realign my crossovers into a "ladder" configuration so that a train can cross rapidly from the green line to the yellow or vice versa.  I concluded it is not possible to do that with a 12 foot table.  Not from the outermost Green Line to the innermost Yellow Line.  I could go from Green to Blue to Turquoise, but that's all.

I'm persuaded by Dave's response that going through multiple “S” curves like this can lead to derailments.

Dave also remarked that I have a potential problem with Blue to Turquoise to Yellow already, though I do have a straight to help minimize the problem.  Actually, I thought about that and I assumed I would not necessarily go directly from the Blue through the Turquoise to the Yellow.  Rather--as with all the other transitions from one line to the other, I would first take a lap around.

Just for fun, I am attaching the layout which incorporates the "ladder configuration" suggested by Long Hair.  I only offer this for illustration purposes.  This is not a layout I plan to do.

There’s nothing wrong with configuring the switches in a ladder, might look a little nicer, just be aware that if you go though multiple switches like that you might run into problems. As you found out, you’d have to give up something to do that.

I don’t think you’ll have problems with the ladder you already have because the straights let the cars (couplers) straighten out before turning again. Either way you’ll have to figure out what speed causes the fewest problems. Wider turnouts would just let you go through at a higher speed.

I'm going to suggest that you simplify and get something built before you commit to such a complex layout that will be expensive because of all the switches and leaves little room for scenery. That is unless you are planning on running four trains at once, and then you won't need all the crossovers. I don't think you will use these as much as you think and larger trains won't be able to access the yard anyway because of the tighter radius there. My advice would be to eliminate the tighter loops altogether and about half the switches.

I am sorry for being so direct, but is very easy to get so involved in the fun of using track planning software and designing in the abstract, particularly if you have limited experience to compare your design to. I know you acknowledged this in your initial post, so that is why I am making these (hopefully helpful) suggestions.

There's another forum member who always advises on first defining the purpose of your layout. If your purpose is to have trains go around, occasionally switch some cars, and move trains from mainline to mainline, I think you've got a good layout. You found a way to get 4 trains moving in a small relatively small space. 

That's generally what I've done in the past. If there's a spot on the table, throw down some track or an operating accessory. I think that makes us toy train loopers. Nothing wrong with that. I used to have a number of storage and passing sidings on prior layouts.

@DoubleDAZ helped me immensely (OK, he did the work and I watched) designing the yard for my new layout. It's brilliant, and I can't wait to get it wired up and running. Takes up a lot of real estate which reduces scenery (other than ground cover, human figures, and small trees) but I wanted a viable working yard. @Will raises valid points there but perhaps scenery isn't something you and I pine for, pun intended.

I'd suggest getting rid of the yellow figure-8 and give Dave some artistic license to adapt a working yard. With mine, he added 2 places for trains to enter the yard, drop off the freight, and escape to an engine storage spur. Then, a switcher comes in and picks apart the train and moves the freight cars to categorizing spurs.

I could've put a small loop where my yard is on my new layout but, instead, a switcher (maybe 2 but likely only 1) can be running at all times picking apart and building trains. Never done this before, but looking forward to something other than looping.

Here's an idea that might give you some other options.  Instead of putting your crossovers all on the straight-a-way, try starting them in your corners.  See the generic attached SCARM file for ideas.  Note that this suggestion also tends to eliminate some "S" curves.

Chuck

Will--no apologies are necessary for being "direct."  This is exactly the kind of advice and/or criticism I was hoping to receive.  Thank you!

Two points in response to Will.  I am not really interested in "scenery" in the strictest sense.  However, I am very interested in "accessories."  Such things as the 145 Gateman, or 362 Barrel Loader or 445 Switch Tower or 460 Piggyback Transportation Loader or 352 Ice Depot.  Also especially the Coal Ramp and Coal Loader I previously mentioned.  I am increasingly concerned my layout might not allow room to place these.  Especially to place these where they make sense and work well.  So I will definitely want to alter my layout if this develops into an issue.

Second point.  I do realize that many switches--shown in the two layouts that were attached in the same post and identified as Jimbo v. 5 and Jimbo v. 6--can be expensive.  I already own those remote switches as well as the other track shown in those layouts.  In fact, in addition to what is shown in the layouts, I own an additional 5 manual switches that I am not using.  I do understand that simply because I own that many switches does not mean I must incorporate all of those in a design!

My purpose or goal is/was to have "4 trains go around, occasionally switch some cars, and move trains from mainline to mainline."  Thank you raising4daugthers for stating that purpose so precisely.  (And my heart goes out to you when those daughters are teenagers!)

However, as I reflect on the layout and imagine operating those 4 trains, I do begin to wonder if it may become a little boring after a short period of time when the primary operation consists of trains going around ovals.

A local friend who has been a long time model railroader and who's become a sort of mentor to me--and who has a very large and elaborate layout--looked at my proposed designs (v. 5 and v. 6), and he said exactly the same thing as raising4daughters.  He said I should get rid of the yellow figure-8 and adapt that freed-up area as a working yard. He further suggested I have have more sidings or storage spurs where I could park or stage some trains--which is why I came up with v. 6.

My initial reaction is that I am reluctant to eliminate the Figure 8 since that is the one component that has a little more "excitement" compared to simply running ovals.  Also, that Figure 8 serves a purpose in that I can reverse the direction of the train (that has moved from one mainline to another) from running clockwise to counter-clockwise and visa versa without stopping and backing up.

Now I'm thinking I will achieve more possibilities with more "fun"--as described by raising4daughters--by incorporating a working Freight Yard in lieu of the Yellow Figure 8.

So...back to SCARM and let's see what I can come up with as an alternative layout.  Any continuing suggestions will be greatly appreciated!

I agree with eliminating the yellow track and increasing yard capacity in that area. The great thing about a table top layout (as opposed to a Linn Westcott type layout which has elevation changes) is it's fairly easy to make changes in the track plan.

Since you have the switches, why not lay the outside loops and then place the accessories on the layout, fiddling with the track plan directly on the layout and then in Scarm at the same time. This will give you a more accurate idea of how much space you have.

If you know the final table size, and the only variable is the track plan for that size, if it were me, I would build the table and start looking at it in 1:1.

If you post your latest SCARM file, some of us can fiddle with it. While I agree with getting rid of the yellow line, I don’t agree with getting rid of the Figure 8. You might be able to pare things to 3 ovals, add some spurs in a larger Figure 8 and fit some of your accessories. Moving crossovers to the curves is something I would also recommend trying.

Also, if you have that many accessories, try taking measurements and creating rectangles or polygons for footprints using the Figures library. You’ll then have an idea of how much space you need when you change the track design. Remember too that if you mount accessories on removable panels, you can swap them from time to time, you don’t need them all on at the same time when you have a small space.

As requested, I am attaching my two latest SCARM files--I earlier attached only the bmp files for these.

The first attachment is Jimbo v. 5.  Also shown below.  This has one siding or spur along the top (back) on the Green Line.

The second attachment is Jimbo v. 6.  Again, also shown below.  This has additional sidings or spur lines--one on each side.  As I explained previously, in order to accommodate those two additional spur lines on the sides, I had to eliminate the wider, more sweeping O-72 curves (which I liked) on the main Green Line and replace them with O-54 curves (which are still acceptable).

Again, the SCARM files for you to play with are attached.

If I understand correctly, you already have the track and switches in these 2 designs, so any changes should make use of these tracks and not add new ones, particularly switches. Is that correct?

You are correct that I already have the track and switches for the latest proposed design (v. 6).  I have considerable more track as well including O-31 full and half curves, O-42 curves, O-54 curves, and O-72 curves.  Lots of track.  It's O.K. if you must add more switches.  I suspect that may not be necessary.  But if I must purchase a couple of more switches in order to achieve an ideal layout, then so be it.

It would be nice to avoid lots of O-72 switches, since they can be expensive.  But I know it may be necessary to use O-72 switches in a Freight Yard since those switches facilitate spur lines closer together.

I did speak with a local guy a few days ago and he believes he has several O-72 switches boxed away that he's willing to sell relatively cheaply to me.  This guy boxed away his Lionel track when he decided on using Gargraves track.  So if I am lucky, I may be O.K. if it is required that I must use more O-72 switches.

@Jimbo1952 posted:

Thank you raising4daugthers for stating that purpose so precisely.  (And my heart goes out to you when those daughters are teenagers!)

I should probably change my user ID.....to raised3raising1.  Three eldest are 27, 26, and 23, done with college and gainfully employed.  Just have our 13 y/o caboose left.

Here are a couple of versions with max storage. As you can see, they're pretty filled with yard tracks, but some could be replaced with accessories. I reconfigured a few things to increase the track separation between the ovals. I labeled the 1st version, but didn't measure the 2nd). I'm still concerned about how close the side spurs are to the green oval. The shorter yard tracks in the yards would be for single car, caboose or engine storage. The white tracks are new. The tracks outside the layout were left over. The 1st version has more storage capacity, but an engine working in the yard will foul the lite blue mainline at times when moving cars in/out of the tracks on the right. The 2nd one has the capability to pull cars out of the left tracks and assemble a train on the right lead track getting it ready to pull out.

Dave - Your second reversed siding on the left (version #2) seems too tight to get cars in and out of.

@Long Hair posted:

Dave - Your second reversed siding on the left (version #2) seems too tight to get cars in and out of.

That’s to store an engine or 2 depending on size.