Blackwater Canyon Line - March 20, 2025, Brick Street Extension Planning

Well Keith, you have a good point.  I have not seen them myself new for sale for a long time, but I haven't been looking for one before either.  Thank you for the tip that they may be out of production!  That is a key element to make sure I have access to before finalizing plans.

DoubleDAZ posted:

http://www.atlaso.com/oturntable.htm

LOL, Dave!  Leave it to you to be submitting the source just as I was typing my response!!  Thank you!!  

I have following this thread but keeping my mouth shut because I am marveling at people who have the ability to see a space with obstacles and come up with an actual plan. You guys are amazing......I am learning a lot about conceptual planning. My biggest weakness in seeing things in 3 dimensions....I think in only 2. I am learning loads......a big thank you to all!

Peter

Actually, Mark, I just searched for Atlas turntable and that link popped up. Of course, that doesn't mean they're in stock.   I had missed that John mentioned Atlas, so my SCARM file has a Ross TT. Then when Keith mentioned the potential supply problem, I noticed the price for a Ross TT and said "Wow!" 

Mark Boyce posted:

DoubleDAZ posted:

http://www.atlaso.com/oturntable.htm

LOL, Dave!  Leave it to you to be submitting the source just as I was typing my response!!  Thank you!!  

I see that page was from 2002 at MSRP $149.  When I search O 3-rail accessories, I see it listed MSRP $255, which seems that would be a newer page.  I'll have to do some investigating to be sure.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Actually, Mark, I just searched for Atlas turntable and that link popped up. Of course, that doesn't mean they're in stock.   I had missed that John mentioned Atlas, so my SCARM file has a Ross TT. Then when Keith mentioned the potential supply problem, I noticed the price for a Ross TT and said "Wow!" 

WOW is right!!  Maybe I will have to rely on the 0-5-0 switcher to turn my locomotives!    Just one of many problems to come!  There will be an answer to all of them.  I may not like some of the answers, but there will always be an answer!!  

Putnam Division posted:

I have following this thread but keeping my mouth shut because I am marveling at people who have the ability to see a space with obstacles and come up with an actual plan. You guys are amazing......I am learning a lot about conceptual planning. My biggest weakness in seeing things in 3 dimensions....I think in only 2. I am learning loads......a big thank you to all!

Peter

 

Peter,

I am with you, I have trouble visualizing in 3 dimensions myself.  That is a big reason why I decided to ask for input on this layout.  I know it is possible to fit an exciting layout into a space this size, but I have trouble visualizing it.  I wouldn't have any trouble if I was stretching it out over a whole basement.  But then, I would never have time to build it.    John has certainly come up with a plan that does it.  I am sitting here at that desk typing and then looking over through the door at that pink wall, and I am starting to see the Blackwater Canyon folded over itself for lack of a better term.  Without John's ideas, the only way I could have done it was to keep circling the room, then what would I do at the doors.  And how do I eliminate those turnback blobs that eat space?  I am learning a lot from each entry.  

I am so glad you joined into the conversation!

Sorry, Mark, I totally missed that 2002 date. I couldn't find 1 in stock either though I did find a site saying Pre-Order and another saying to call for availability. This is one of those instances where if they are releasing it again, you'll need to buy 2 as soon as they get released or buy from eBay if you want to pursue this design. Now you can appreciate my decision to forego ScaleTrax in favor of GarGraves because of availability concerns. It really sticks that the hobby is not popular enough to have items in stock all the time.

The Atlas turntable is listed in their 2016 catalog, page 126, but I don't see any prices and I don't have the price sheets for the catalog, if there were any.

Mark:

As far as the turntables go, just keep an eye out.  The Atlas ones surface from time to time and will continue too.  I'm betting that if you posted WANTED on here someone would have 1 or two.  BEFORE you do, and again you've got time, you might keep an eye out for someone selling an old used Bowser or another higher quality turntable.   Here's more great news for you, you don't need a motor, indexing etc. as both turntables are easily accessible.  Yes if they had motors that would be fine, but you won't need motors.  Manual is fine.  You will find a good deal if you are patient.

Also, you could go crazy like I did and build one.  I built a small one that catches everyone's attention.  They ask me who made it.  I'm kind of embarrassed to admit it's a cake pan with an upside down HO scale girder bridge.  I use it for turning the old rotary snow plow.  It's functional and looks realistic.  No it's not in a league with Ross or MillRiver Studios, but it cost me $17 to make and not $1200 or more. 

NEXT:  INTERESTING FACT!  Davis is the highest town at 3100 feet in all of West Virginia!  Second, under Cheat Mountain there's a tunnel leading out to a connection with the C  & O and B & O.  It would be cool to put a turnout o the line with a track leading to a backdrop portal (painted or 3D) that gives the appearance the train is entering a tunnel...that would be your interchange/connection to the world.  If somehow you can position a small mirror inside a tunnel portal facing out it provides a great illusion like track is traveling through tunnel.  I've never tried it but I've seen photos.

There's an Atlas O on ebay with 22 hours left.  Bid is at $105.00 with multiple bidders.  

Atlas 2 or 3 Rail O Scale Turntable #6910 - Manual or Electric Operation

• $105.00
• 33 bids
•  
• Take your time Mark...the right ones will come along and you may do better than the Atlas.  I have one that Connie weathered.  It is in a hidden part of the layout.  We weathered it for us.  It's okay, but you may find some highly detailed really great looking table for not too much.  People will see both of your tables.  Atlas isn't bad weathered but the others are better done which is what they cost much, much, much more!  That is my table.  We made it dirty.

Thank you Dave, RTR12, and John on the turntable advice.  Yes, I have seen many folks remark about Atlas O and MTH Scaletrax being hard to get at times.  That is why I have tried every kind of track out there except for those two.  Now as far as the atlas turntable goes, I can either mate up GarGraves to it or put GarGraves on it, so there is no concern.  

No, I don't need one immediately, but it is something I need to get a handle on and be watching for.  This sounds like a scenario I have heard before as to things folks find at York.  They find something they never found anywhere else, even online.  Yes, I only live 240 miles from York, but I have never been there.  

John, I am familiar with Davis as I worked about 15 miles from there at the power station 20 to 25 years ago.  It is on a plateau area that is rather stark for West Virginia because of the elevation.  Quite a difference in appearance from Hendricks down in the valley.  Those are differences to capitalize on.  I do not know whether I was aware of the tunnel or not.  If I was, I forgot.  I agree, that would be something cool to do too.  I have always wanted to try a mirror, but never have.

I saw your homemade turntable on the latest videos you posted last weekend!  Pretty neat!  That rotary snow plow looked pretty neat as well.  I have an MTH plow that can be pushed by an engine.  I ran it this Christmas some.  I see what you mean about weathering the Atlas turntable.  I also like manual.  Even though my career has been in electronics, I like to keep things as simple as possible at home.  One less motor to maintain and a few less wires to tag and document works for me!!

No I need to get back to digging out that closet to find my Western Maryland information.  

DoubleDAZ posted:

http://www.atlaso.com/oturntable.htm

Dave

I have seen this kind of thing before. You do a google search and you think you found what you want. But, in  reality, it is just an orphan web page that was left behind. I really believe that Atlas is not producing this turntable anymore.

Looks like Atlas is still taking orders online for them Atlas O Turntable and this time I found a price (just a tad higher ), I didn't try to order one. Probably calling Atlas is the best way to know for sure. 

Woops, I got brave and clicked on the order button, nothing happened...still a mystery? Maybe they were cancelled?

I've seen that too Keith, but I simply missed the date. When I looked for it, I didn't look down there.

Thank you everyone!  Yes I think it is worth a call to see if they still stock it and  if so what the manufacturer price is.

Dear Mark:

I woke up this morning (Sunday the 15th) thinking about the track plan.  I'm concerned that the lengths of the lanes in Davis are too short.  I'm envisioning short consists meaning a maximum of four 10-inch cars and one eight inch caboose maximum, about 50 total inches.   I want to leave room for at least one engine, and a few cars, to be parked on a turntable spoke/spur ready to go when another arrives.  I increased the length of the lanes.*READ In the drawing...below

And, I reduced the grade (It is still steep--intentionally--) from Davis to the first turnout in the canyon.  I moved the other main line turnout back toward the tunnel to reduce the grade in the lower portion of the grade.  I also increased the Height from the floor of Hendricks by 2 inches--better for your back.  

I like the longer lanes and slightly reduced grades better. 

In the drawing, I didn't put tracks directly over/under one another for CLARITY of the drawing.  At my computer, I can turn on/off the various lines by color.  Showing a photo, I can't do that.  When you construct this arrangement this you will discover you have a little more room to work with than what is shown in this drawing, because I on purpose left more space between upper/lower tracks than necessary to give you a less cluttered and more easy to understand view.  

It is great that there is a trail on the old roadbed your are modeling!  You can see firsthand what the scenery looks like.  I realize it's expensive, but I think you should consider photo-realistic images for your backdrop.  Your entire backdrop, with curved corners, will be about 25 to 30 feet in total length.  It would appear as a mural of shorts from the edge of the wall as you walk in the room from the house (NOT the small section between the opening and sliding glass door) and go 3/4 of the way around the room ending at the sliding glass doors (nearer to rear wall side).

Lastly, I went to the website of the Western Maryland Historical Society yesterday.  Good stuff. 

PS:  I used my highest resolution on my scanner, 1200 DPI and the dotted lines showing hidden tracks in tunnels will appear as solid lines.

John,

You are really hooked on this if you woke up thinking about it!    I do like the longer lead into Davis, that does give more flexibility.  At Hendricks it is hard for me to tell how long it is compared to Davis, but I would think I don't want it any longer because I do not want a turnout/switch inside the tunnel where I would have to go into the access hole to get to it.  Once built, I want to go in the access holes as little as possible.  Also, I would have to put some kind of detection system it to be sure which way the switch is thrown and if there is something in the way of a moving train.  I want to keep maintenance to a minimum.  I like the idea of raising Hendricks a bit and lessening the grade a bit.  I think 40" is ideal for the lower town.

I was already thinking about the backdrop, and agree I want to spend the money to get something printed.  I do not have the talent Connie has as she demonstrated on your layout, and my artist daughter doesn't have the time to do something for me.  Besides, my mountains would end up pink and not green.  

Yes, I want to get on the trail sometime.  I hate to leave my wife behind, as she has had one knee replaced and needs the other done.  If we can go this year, I'll just look for the easy access points - the two ends.  I doubt there is access anywhere in the middle. 

I agree the WMHS has a lot of great information.  I dug out some of what I have last night.  There are a couple other boxes that I need to look at because there are some books I did not find when I was looking last evening.  I piled up a bunch of locomotive and rolling stock boxes in the train room so I could get to the boxes that have the books.  Some of those books I haven't seen in 6 years since we bought this house from my mother-in-law.  It's like meeting up with old friends!  

One last thing, about the hidden track on the drawing.  If you put lines across the track to show tunnel portals, then I can see where you are thinking the track will be hidden, and I can see if I agree.  Thank you again so much!!!

John,

You are really hooked on this if you woke up thinking about it!    I do like the longer lead into Davis, that does give more flexibility.  At Hendricks it is hard for me to tell how long it is compared to Davis, but I would think I don't want it any longer because I do not want a turnout/switch inside the tunnel where I would have to go into the access hole to get to it.  Once built, I want to go in the access holes as little as possible.  Also, I would have to put some kind of detection system it to be sure which way the switch is thrown and if there is something in the way of a moving train.  I want to keep maintenance to a minimum.  I like the idea of raising Hendricks a bit and lessening the grade a bit.  I think raising the lower town to 33" is good.

I was already thinking about the backdrop, and agree I want to spend the money to get something printed.  I do not have the talent Connie has as she demonstrated on your layout, and my artist daughter doesn't have the time to do something for me.  Besides, my mountains would end up pink and not green.  

Yes, I want to get on the trail sometime.  I hate to leave my wife behind, as she has had one knee replaced and needs the other done.  If we can go this year, I'll just look for the easy access points - the two ends.  I doubt there is access anywhere in the middle. 

I agree the WMHS has a lot of great information.  I dug out some of what I have last night.  There are a couple other boxes that I need to look at because there are some books I did not find when I was looking last evening.  I piled up a bunch of locomotive and rolling stock boxes in the train room so I could get to the boxes that have the books.  Some of those books I haven't seen in 6 years since we bought this house from my mother-in-law.  It's like meeting up with old friends!  

One last thing, about the hidden track on the drawing.  If you put lines across the track to show tunnel portals, then I can see where you are thinking the track will be hidden, and I can see if I agree.  Thank you again so much!!!

I dug the rest of my Western Maryland information out of that closet last evening.  There was more than I remembered.  Seven hard back books, a couple paperback books, two 3" magazine boxes, and miscellaneous papers.  Yes I would say there was an interest in the WM.  I had looked at various portions from Cumberland on int West Virginia for inspiration for a layout over a long span of years.  Blackwater Canyon is one of my favorite areas.

John, how did you know??

Mark:

I will get it to you.  EXTREMELY BUSY TODAY.  Will work on that tomorrow.  :-)

Mark Boyce posted:

I dug the rest of my Western Maryland information out of that closet last evening.  There was more than I remembered.  Seven hard back books, a couple paperback books, two 3" magazine boxes, and miscellaneous papers.  Yes I would say there was an interest in the WM.  I had looked at various portions from Cumberland on int West Virginia for inspiration for a layout over a long span of years.  Blackwater Canyon is one of my favorite areas.

John, how did you know??

You know its funny how things just fall into place some times.  You are so lucky to have a HUGE head start.

John,

Oh please don't worry about when you get back to me!  There are all too many things that take priority for all of us.

Head start or stalled for a dozen years now picking back up?  I found my last hand drawn plan and written description for my HO layout that never got beyond bench work.  I will have to fiddle with it to scan and show everyone.  Basically it was Blackwater Canyon then over the top and down the Horth Branch of the Potomac, with branches to Mt Storm Power Station and Mines at Vindex Maryland.  It was still too much for a bigger room in HO.

Mark:   

I haven't forgotten you.  M.T.H. Electric Trains informed me a few nights ago to "roll" forward with my project.  Ross Custom Switches has already given me the go ahead as well.  I have ordered the proof today and should have it Friday.  If it's good, the entire run will be ordered Friday.  I'll have a chance to update the drawing tomorrow.  :-)

With your announcement posts on Facebook, I thought you must be tied up on that!

I've been busy too!  Don't worry in the least about when you are able to respond!  Thank you!

After refreshing my memory by looking through some of my books, I have a few ideas.

First I was reminded at the upper end of the Blackwater Canyon, there is a yard at Thomas, with a cool station and the Francis Branch peals off towards Davis.  Thomas is a cool town because it is built on a hillside with two streets one at a higher elevation than the other that act as one Main Street.  I think that could be represented on a backdrop with buildings higher right behind the foreground buildings.  Really, either Thomas or Davis would work, as we are using it as a terminus of the layout, but I would want a dead track going behind scenery or off the table edge to show the main line goes on to Cumberland.  I would want to do the same thing at Hendricks.   I don't think I would buy a switch, just cut some track to fit, so at a glance, it looks like it goes on.  It would take little room.  Of course, I am not trying to make an exact replica of either town, just give the impression of a similar town.  I tried prototypical scenery in HO, and felt it was too constricting and it became work.  All I am after is to make it look plausible and give the feel of the location.

The photos helped me visualize the canyon scenery in my mind, but I am unable to get much of anything down on paper.  I may do what I did years ago, and make a small mock up out of cardboard and clay.  That worked quite nicely back then.

John, I have seen your drawers idea for extra rolling stock before.  It also reminds me of the fiddle yard, which is common in England.  In this case, the drawers and yard are out in the open sceniced layout instead of hidden as they do at shows in England.  While I have a lot of small Western Maryland equipment, I have no problem running some of my other railroads on a layout based on a location on the Western Maryland.  All of my favorites had lines in the Appalachians.

I have been thinking of paint and lighting.  I have always planned on a sky blue for the walls, and even thought of a light blue ceiling as well.  With that I will want to get the backdrop figured out and up in the early stages of construction.  As for lighting, I see people have used can flood lights, track lights, and even now LED bulbs.  I am thinking I would rather use track lighting, as I wouldn't have to cut big holes in the ceiling and they can be positioned to cover the layout easier.  The type of bulb is something yet to be thought out.  Heat from lighting will also be a factor in a small enclosed room.  Suggestions on lighting will be greatly appreciated.

I still have at least one box to find.  It got too late, and I had to clean up the room, because the closet door is right at the traffic crossroads of the basement level of the house.  I found a bunch of old Kalmbach books, but I am still missing the benchwork one and some others, including some hardback books on long abandoned Western Pennsylvania railroads.  Maybe this weekend will give me some time.

Mark:

I love your idea of "continuing" the line via dummy track.  That is a way to "suggest" that the track connects to the remainder of the world.  That is a very good idea.

Lights...they make all kinds these days.  I would go with the track lighting because if you use the kind that inserts into the track you may easily readjust position.

I want to try a "new" LED that dims.  All of my can lights are non-LED.  I understand the LEDs can be brighter as well as dimmer and last longer.  I understand that these are expensive, but I want to see.

If you do go with the track lighting consider putting each track (set) of lights (usually 3 to 4) on a SEPARATE DIMMER SWITCH.  It will be very convenient to regulate the intensity of your lighting in different areas.  In your application.  I'm thinking 3 separate tracks of 3 to 4 fixtures each, all independently controlled, would serve you very well.  I would also position a fixture directly over both turntables to eliminate shadows.  Those will be a lot of photos.

Painting a town, or getting a photo realistic backdrop of either of these towns made in the background would be awesome!  It would conserve a ton of space.

Lastly, I was just notified that my proof of the design book is at the printer.  If Connie and I like it we will order the first run.  This is an exciting time for both of us.  :-) 

John C. posted:

Mark:

Lights...they make all kinds these days.  I would go with the track lighting because if you use the kind that inserts into the track you may easily readjust position.

I want to try a "new" LED that dims.  All of my can lights are non-LED.  I understand the LEDs can be brighter as well as dimmer and last longer.  I understand that these are expensive, but I want to see.

We just installed the dimmable can LED lights in our new house. They dim very well with no fluctuations in the light during transitions. They are very bright on the high end. Ours came in "contractor" 4 packs from Lowes for like $60. We have six of the 65 watt cans in our living room, which is about 350 sq ft. I would think you could do the train room very affordably!

Goshawk posted:

John C. posted:

Mark:

Lights...they make all kinds these days.  I would go with the track lighting because if you use the kind that inserts into the track you may easily readjust position.

I want to try a "new" LED that dims.  All of my can lights are non-LED.  I understand the LEDs can be brighter as well as dimmer and last longer.  I understand that these are expensive, but I want to see.

We just installed the dimmable can LED lights in our new house. They dim very well with no fluctuations in the light during transitions. They are very bright on the high end. Ours came in "contractor" 4 packs from Lowes for like $60. We have six of the 65 watt cans in our living room, which is about 350 sq ft. I would think you could do the train room very affordably!

Dear Corey:

Thank you for the post.  I have "heard" good things, but have never owned/tested one.  I've got 23 to change out.  I think I'll do it a little at a time to lessen the pain.

What BRAND did you purchase?

Thank you John and Corey!  The 3 tracks sound good.  I agree, pricing doesn't sound too bad for my application.

John,

 I 'm looking forward to your book.  That is good news it is almost ready!

John C. I honestly have no idea what brand they are.

Mark and John C,

I don't know about the fixtures, but LED bulbs have come way down in price in the last couple of years. Many are dimmable, but check them to be sure. We have now converted almost our entire house to LEDs. Some CFL & 4' florescents left, but incandescents have all been replaced.

Go up to Home Depot and have a look around. The selection and variety has greatly increased. They even have LED bulbs you can control color and brightness with your smart phone. I have been watching them at Home Depot for about 3 years now and I think you might be surprised at the prices and selection available. Some are nearing the prices of the better incandescent bulbs. Also consider that they last from around 12 to 22 years depending on brand and use just a fraction of power that incandescent bulbs use. In my case, I will probably be expired before the 22 year bulbs fail.

Thank you for the information on LED bulbs.  That is good news indeed!  I will have to do some looking at Home Depot and Lowes to see what I can find!

Since I last wrote, I have been searching my archives and online for photos of the proposed Western Maryland Blackwater Canyon area from Thomas to Hendricks.  I have found all the photos I was remembering, but one.  That is a good photo of the Tub Run bridge near the top of the grade.  I found one on a bike trail site that shows a small portion, but I have not found the photo of the whole scene from the steam era.

If anyone can provide a photo, I would greatly appreciate it.  Thank you.

I will post some photos later when I have some time to scan the ones I don't already have digitally.

Mark Boyce posted:

Since I last wrote, I have been searching my archives and online for photos of the proposed Western Maryland Blackwater Canyon area from Thomas to Hendricks.  I have found all the photos I was remembering, but one.  That is a good photo of the Tub Run bridge near the top of the grade.  I found one on a bike trail site that shows a small portion, but I have not found the photo of the whole scene from the steam era.

If anyone can provide a photo, I would greatly appreciate it.  Thank you.

I will post some photos later when I have some time to scan the ones I don't already have digitally.

Mark:  Scan and post the photos you have--if it isn't too much trouble.  I'm really curious to see what you've got.

Looks like a great place to model. I love the look of Thomas Station.

Mark Boyce posted:

Yes, here are photos I pulled off the Internet.  Let's see what I have here before I get the books out scanning.  I think I will save some time.  Actually, there is quite a lot here.

Here is one I have seen a lot giving an overall view of a train going down the canyon.  Super!

Davis Engine House

 

I love this engine shed. I don't think it would be that hard to model.

As a side note from an earlier discussion, here is a picture of one of the LED can lights in m house. They are super easy to keep clean.

Corey,

I agree the engine shed is fairly basic to build.  I have to decide what will fit in my space, and what I want most.  John C. Was so correct I had way too many things on my list that I would like; but that was the whole reason for posting all of it.  

Thank you for the photo of a can light.  Yes I will have to decide on it or track lights.  Somehow I think the track lights would be easier to install, but I don't know.

Pat Kn posted:

Looks like a great place to model. I love the look of Thomas Station.

Pat, Thank you!  Yes, I love that station.  It was heavily damaged by a tornado and rebuilt without the rounded end, so there are photos for each version.  I like the rounded end, but that roof may be challenging.

Mark:

You already have a gold mine!  Wow.  I love the stations.  Whichever you select, I would place the actual photo on the backdrop.  Those are too cool!  Unless of course, you have the ability (I wish that I did) to scratch build replicas.  Having just written that, you are kind of pressed for space.  Maybe if you built, just the FRONTS of the station against a backdrop?  My vote is for a picture blended into the backdrop!

Or plead with your daughter to paint the photo on the backdrop.  :-)

John,

Yes, the main photo I want to locate is of the full Tub Run Bridge from any era.  I do have a photo of downtown Thomas, showing how the Main Street buildings are on a hillside.  I will have to scan that.  That would be a backdrop item, and I agree about the station as well.  It worked well for you on your Izaac Walton Inn.

I think I have a source for mountainous backdrop for the main line.  I may have to wait on the towns.  That may not be so bad, since they are at each end I could maybe slip them in from the side at a later date.  Our daughter mostly specializes in three dimensional art, as in dolls, crocheted stuffed animals all of her own designs.  She does excellent painting, but gets bogged down with other interests.  She has a 3/4 completed (in my estimation) portrait of our other daughter and son-in-law on an easel in our family room.  It has been there for 2 years.  lol  My wife suggested I pay her for any backdrop painting.  That may be what happens on the towns.  

Can't wait to see your progress. You are doing it right. Lots of thinking before making sawdust. When I saw the photo of the Davis  engine house I said to myself, hey I have seen that before. I kitbashed 2 Lionel loco sheds by removing one panel from each side of one shed and gluing those to each side of the other shed and then making 2 new ends with 2 portals. The doors were easy to make from skinny sticks.  I traced the openings from the donor opening. It is a pretty big bldg so it takes up space. But I find the proportions and design appealing.

Pennsynut,

I can't wait as well!  LOL. It has been a long wait.  My old hand drawn track plan that I didn't scan yet is dated 2001!!  Raising kids and moving to a smaller house got in the way!

Are you sure the Davis, WV enginehouse wasn't the prototype for your kitbash?  You are right, it is an excellent standin for the one on Davis.

 Thank you!!

Usually I do copy many ideas on bldgs and other modeling but in this rare case I saw the two  Lionel sheds at a train show and then the light bulb!

pennsynut posted:

Usually I do copy many ideas on bldgs and other modeling but in this rare case I saw the two  Lionel sheds at a train show and then the light bulb!

That is great you acted on the light bulb.  An inspiration to us all!

I scanned those preliminary plans for my proposed HO layout back in 2001, just to show I had been thinking along these lines back then.  This layout was to have staging for Elkins and Cumberland.  Elkins was to be on a lower level, and Cumberland on the main level.  There was to be a steep run to an upper level for the Chaffee Branch which veered off between Thomas and Cumberland.  Yes, it is crude, and certainly not final.  In fact, I recall thinking I would move the Thomas yard over towards the curve to allow more room for the Blackwater Grade.  I hadn't decided on all the sidings etc. either.  However, one can see this plan was point to point, just like John's is now.

I had built a bunch of benchwork, and before putting risers for elevations, I had placed sheets of Styrofoam on the benchwork to try out the track to see how it fit.  Eventually, I kept taking up track and we ended up building 2 dollhouses and other projects for the girls on it.  Then it seemed to become a catch all for stuff my wife put there.  Eventually, I took it all down, and used the lumber and foam for various home projects.  Such is life.  And now we have come to where we are today.

just a thought in one of the pics you showed the ceiling layout running over the door to the train room . couldn't a helix be put in to tie bot the ceiling and the room layout together so you could transistion between the two just  a thought .

Jhainer posted:

just a thought in one of the pics you showed the ceiling layout running over the door to the train room . couldn't a helix be put in to tie bot the ceiling and the room layout together so you could transition between the two just  a thought .

It is a thought I had too.  I do intend to rework the shelving of the corners of my ceiling layout regardless of what I do otherwise.  With that, I could make a ramp into the train room at the upper corner of the door.  John C's opinion that overhead trackage could distract from the main layout, is a good point too.  I think the helix could be done.  I just need to think about that; and maybe leave provision for something like that in the plan for a future possibility after the main layout is well on it's way.

Thank you for the idea.

Our layouts rooms are roughly the same size with some similar obstacles, siding door, closet, etc.   We are designing very different layouts and it will be interesting to see how they each turn out.  

So here is an update of some action taken.  Yesterday, I drove to the Harrisburg area to pickup the backdrops that George (G3750) had professionally painted for his PRR Panhandle Division layout.  I had been following George's layout build, since the Panhandle Division is in the same area I live, crossing the Ohio River at Weirton, West Virginia about an hour and a half drive from here.  I had noted that George announced he was going to move to a new home and posted a new plan for that home.  Then George posted that he was going to sell his backdrop sections instead of trying to get movers to move them.  I think they will work well in providing a backdrop for areas on the layout where I want a view into the distance.  I am also thinking I will have some areas where the sceniced mountain will go up to the sky.

So here they are in my train room, in no particular order from right to left.  

Jdevleerjr posted:

Our layouts rooms are roughly the same size with some similar obstacles, siding door, closet, etc.   We are designing very different layouts and it will be interesting to see how they each turn out.  

Jim,

I am following your layout design topic and look forward to seeing what you come up with as well!  

All the best, Mark.  Can't wait to see the layout.

George

Thank you, George!!  I wish you well on your move and will be following your new layout build as well!!  

I was just in the train room measuring heights John C proposed on his latest plan, which lined up pretty well with my daughter's shelves left on the pink wall.  I also was comparing my reach, and I agree 50" at Thomas/Davis works pretty well for me without having to stand on anything.  I got looking at the lower town of Hendricks at 33".  It isn't too low for me for wiring, because I will be using the cookie cutter method of building my roadbed, and have successfully run my wiring standing and reaching into the layout on past layouts.  My thoughts went to getting into the access area on the lower end of the layout.  This concerns me some.  No, if I build it well, I won't need to access much, but there will always be the occasion where there is a derailment in a tunnel or something that needs attention.

Then I had an idea.  No, not a new idea.  I actually used this idea on the 2-module layout I built that we moved from Virginia to West Virginia in 1993.  I built a hill on the workbench which had a farm and some woods that covered a double track turn-back loop.  I then placed the farm scene over the framing, and the tracks were covered.  Some bushes hid the joints neatly.  I think the portals were attached to the main layout.  Anyway, why not do something like this again?  Yes, I could use the access, but in the future if I wasn't able to get in there, the foam liftoff scenery may be handy.  Just thinking.  

I also thought of moving the tracks at Davis out near the edge of the layout, and putting some building/station flats in behind.  Maybe even the engine house would fit.  I did no measurements yet.  I just made a quick sketch on the last plan John C sent.  I attached a .pdf of that.  Once again, just some thoughts to throw out there.

Thank you for following along!!

This is going to be fun to watch progress, Mark.  I started in my train room yesterday.  I painted the ceiling black and am working on rewiring the entire room.

Are you going with all O42 curves?

Mike,

I'm glad you got started on your train room.  It has been some waiting for both of us.

I need 042 to run my Premier Western Maryland H9 Consolidation.  That would be the largest engine I could run on this layout.  I could fit larger curves in the room, but I would be confined to big loops around the room, I'm afraid.  I do want to expand the shelves in the corners of my Ceiling Central RR in the family room.  I could run larger engines there, and do already.

Thank you for taking a look, and I will be glad if you follow along.  I will be glad to see how your layout goes as well.  Did you get your wiring problem solved?

Mark Boyce posted:

I was just in the train room measuring heights John C proposed on his latest plan, which lined up pretty well with my daughter's shelves left on the pink wall.  I also was comparing my reach, and I agree 50" at Thomas/Davis works pretty well for me without having to stand on anything.  I got looking at the lower town of Hendricks at 33".  It isn't too low for me for wiring, because I will be using the cookie cutter method of building my roadbed, and have successfully run my wiring standing and reaching into the layout on past layouts.  My thoughts went to getting into the access area on the lower end of the layout.  This concerns me some.  No, if I build it well, I won't need to access much, but there will always be the occasion where there is a derailment in a tunnel or something that needs attention.

Then I had an idea.  No, not a new idea.  I actually used this idea on the 2-module layout I built that we moved from Virginia to West Virginia in 1993.  I built a hill on the workbench which had a farm and some woods that covered a double track turn-back loop.  I then placed the farm scene over the framing, and the tracks were covered.  Some bushes hid the joints neatly.  I think the portals were attached to the main layout.  Anyway, why not do something like this again?  Yes, I could use the access, but in the future if I wasn't able to get in there, the foam liftoff scenery may be handy.  Just thinking.  

I also thought of moving the tracks at Davis out near the edge of the layout, and putting some building/station flats in behind.  Maybe even the engine house would fit.  I did no measurements yet.  I just made a quick sketch on the last plan John C sent.  I attached a .pdf of that.  Once again, just some thoughts to throw out there.

Thank you for following along!!

I like your lift out scenery idea Mark.  That would be ideal.  In these days and times the foam is great because its sturdy and weighs next to nothing.  I want to try my hand a carving foam one day.  I love the results I see people posting on the Forum in photos.  

Curious.. I haven't seen this mentioned previously, or maybe I missed it.. On my current layout, instead of homosote, I put 2 layers of 3/4 in pink foam board on the plywood.. This allowed me to 'sculpt' ditches, creeks, etc pretty easily.. I plan on doing this on my new layout build as well..  Just another idea to 'confuse' things.. lol Look forward to your updates as well!!

John,

Curious you wrote this about two hours ago.  It was at that time that I had another thought on this idea.  I will digress a bit.  Yesterday, I received the Atlas turntable I bought from Doug.  After looking it and the instructions over, I powered it up and moved the table around some, first with nothing on it, then with an MTH RS1 that was handy sitting on it.  It worked fine.  Now I had measured out 24 inches in the Davis/Thomas corner before I talked to Doug about buying it, and thought that two 24" turntables are going to defiantly catch the eye in my small room.  I thought of this again as I unboxed the turntable.

Now to this morning.  The thought crossed my mind that maybe I could hide one at least with removable scenery.  The town of Thomas is on a hill overlooking the station and yard.  Maybe I could make a foam scenic hill cover over the turntable, but still have a good sized opening in the side of it facing the aisle where I could observe the turntable movement.  When there is a problem, I could lift the town scene off to take care of the problem.  I would like to have some downtown buildings for at least one town, and this could be a way to fit it in.  It may be an idea that I will have to try out with some bare foam glued together to see how it works once the turntable and track are in place and fully operational.  Maybe I won't like it, but it would be easy to try.

Woodson,

I'm glad you are here with us.  I put foam on top of a plywood base on my last layout; the one I didn't get very far, then had to take it down.  Your idea was what I was going to attempt.  One thing I do have already is a large sheet of Homasote.  My mother-in-law bought a house a while back from an elderly woman who had been a seamstress.  My mother-in-law isn't that much younger, but that's another matter.  This woman had a large table in a basement room where she would layout all she was working on.  The table was topped with a large sheet of Homasote.  It is longer than 8 feet, I am quite certain.  I see she had measured marks on the top and lots of pin holes where she evidently laid out her work.  Since my mother-in-law doesn't use the basement, she will let me take the Homasote, and the large table for that matter when I am ready.  I was thinking of cutting the Homasote in sections to go on top of my cutout plywood put my GarGraves track and Ross switches on that.  If I was going with a flat topped table layout, I may have topped it with foam.

Thank you for the comments.

Last evening I worked on enhancing DOUBLEDAZ Dave's SCARM rendition to get some GarGraves and Ross parts into John C's design.  I am new to SCARM, so it has been a struggle.  In fact, I have not even looked at how to add elevations.  This is starting to look like how I am envisioning John C's design.  I started substituting Ross curved switches in to make things flow better.  Obviously, I need to move the tracks out to make room for the access hole on the bottom of the drawing, but I will post anyway.  Any ideas or assistance would be appreciated.  I will attach the SCARM file along with this .jpeg.  Thank you one and all!!   

Good Morning Mark,

I'm getting ready to leave for the World's Greatest Hobby Tour in downtown Phoenix, so I don't have time to play with this right now. Not sure what time I'll get home, but I'll check in to see if anyone has taken a stab at it. If not, I'll work on it then.

Is my understanding correct that one of the turntables will be higher than the other? The one at the top? There is a Figure 8 in the center and I believe the idea is for the bottom half to be an over/under affair. Is that also correct? My concern is all those switches close to the intersections (circled in blue). You don't want switches on a grade, so it's going to be awfully hard to raise those tracks the 6" or more you'll need for clearance.

The tracks going across the top are too close, so that will also need some serious modification.

Widening the lower circle for access may not be too big of a problem, but I'm hoping we can get some regular switches in there, not the curved ones that are shown. I know you plan to use Ross switches, but how much trouble are their curved switches, especially since they will be in constant use?

Lining up with the turntables is probably going to require the use of flextrack, so I hope you're ready to learn how to bend GarGraves.  

Mark,

Not to rain on your parade, but let me caution you about track work behind scenery.  From my own experience , it's a disaster waiting to happen.  And putting a turntable there? 

You'd better be sure you can get to it easily and quickly without moving anything because you're going to spend more time there than you ever dreamed of (hope I am wrong).

Rest of it looks super!  Can't wait to see it.

George

Dave,

You are correct on all counts!  I realize I will need steep grades and level areas for the switches.  The prototype is steep, and I'll be running short trains.  I have never used curved switches before, even in HO.  Straight ones would be less expensive as well.  Yes, I have bent GarGraves before for a little jog in one wall on the Ceiling Central, and yes it is a bear!  I am up for it where necessary however, and I realize the yard and turntable area will need it. 

As to longer trains, I already started refitting one corner of my Ceiling Central RR with 072 to run them.  I agree with John C that trying to fit an upper loop for them in the adjacent train room would be just too much!

Thank you for taking a look.  I hope the train show in Phoenix was good!  Enjoy the weather.  It is 14 degrees here.

G3750 posted:

Mark,

Not to rain on your parade, but let me caution you about track work behind scenery.  From my own experience , it's a disaster waiting to happen.  And putting a turntable there? 

You'd better be sure you can get to it easily and quickly without moving anything because you're going to spend more time there than you ever dreamed of (hope I am wrong).

Rest of it looks super!  Can't wait to see it.

George

George,

Your caution is well taken.  You are correct, the place with the worst access will be the biggest trouble spot.  I want to see how this plan would work out in 3D.  It may be too twisty for the space.  I am up any suggestions of any kind, even some way to do it like my original idea.  This I know, I want mountain scenery, and the backdrops will be of great use.

BTW, my artist daughter was impressed with the backdrops.

Mark,
Had a little time, so I played around a bit just to see where we are. The outside grade is 4.6% and the inside is 5.8%. When I got to looking at the turntables, I realized there were no storage tracks (stalls), only complete runs into the TTs. So, I added some for you to look at and comment. I also used regular switches instead of the curved just to see what it could look like. If the grades are okay, then I can probably move the bottom switch inside the circle so the leads will hold complete trains. Looking it again, I'm not sure I widened that circle enough. I assume the idea will be to pull a train into the TT, unhook the cars, park the engine and bring another one out to takes the cars back.

Mark:  You need to practice bending some Gargraves.  :-)  It does take some practice, but it goes really easily for me.  I litterally hold a strip of flex against my chest and gently begin bending in around my torso...just a little at a time.  It doesn't take too long.  

Sectional pieces work...I've used several along the Glacier Line.  I just like the flex because it's more "railroadee" for the lack of a better word.  I really like you can make the curve go anywhere you want...anywhere....a little tighter here, a little looser there...as is in real life.  

As far as concerns, just make certain everything is under 30 inches in reach.  In the turntable area...I would leave uncovered and strictly go with buildings on the back-drops.  If you want 3D buildings, ensure you can easily remove there should you need to replace a track or work on an issue.  The turntable itself is 24 inches.  Therefore at a maximum from back-drop to fascia board would be 30 inches--meaning three inches from either side.  If you go with your 50 inches in height, you may stand on a step-stool (We have 5 on the Glacier Line) and you will easily reach the back-drop over a turntable.  

If you use sectional track, try and not make the track appear geometrically perfect...I'm talking about the "railroadee" thing again.  I think the track-work itself would appear more "real" if all the curves weren't exactly the same.  I realize that may not be possible but just think about what the curves on the line look like.  They are NOT uniform.

I realize that you have an averaged sized area, on the Glacier Line I have curves that are 42, 54, 64, 72, 80, 89, 96 and large smooth flowing flex curves.  Do the best you can do.  :-)  Regardless and most importantly, weather the track and roadbed.

This is going to be a great project.  I wish that I lived closer.  You did get the book didn't you?  I was guessing Thursday? 

Dave,

Ha, you were working on it, as I was working on another rendition, but there just isn't as long a run for trains as in this concept John came up with.  That is slick how you worked out the grades and switches.  You are mighty good at SCARM, as I know you have had lots of practice and I know I appreciate it very much!!  Yes, you got the general idea.  At each town, there would be a track for an inbound train and one for holding a few cars.  Other cars would be on shelves underneath.   And yes, I could keep turning and using the same engine, but it would be more realistic using different ones.  Even I have more engines of appropriate length than I need.  Also maybe a place for a dock/station for other cars, While the main traffic here would be coal, there was other freight as well.  The track flows very nicely, and it is good the heights work out.  John C. said they do, but I like seeing the 3D rendition.  The idea would be that the tracks go in and out of tunnels, so there wouldn't be any bridges where the track crosses another.  Thank you ever so much!

John and George,

Yes it would be difficult to do something over the turntable.  The problem is, I have so many neat buildings.  LOL  I have enough buildings to fill the space inside a 036 oval on the 4x8 temporary layout, that now has the Christmas buildings on it.  I can use some pieces and parts as flats for the first layer of streets, then suggest the rest of a town on the backdrop.  I will have to see what I can come up with when I get to that point.  I do want mostly rugged scenery, I always have liked that over lots of city areas on a layout.  I guess that is because I prefer living in the country.  There just is only so much you can fit in less than 144 square feet in O gauge.  No regrets, Even though I have had O gauge trains exclusively for 5 years, I think I still think spatially in HO.

John,

As to the GarGraves; I have seen others express the same way of bending GarGraves flex track as you describe.  I did not do that when I was using it on the Ceiling Central RR.  I tried bending it just with my hands.  I was thinking about the run up the Blackwater canyon as I drive up the road to my house from the main road.  The road is cut onto the hillside following a small tributary below.  It bends in and out to follow the curve of the hillside.  Come to think of it, that was the same on the road to our old house and numerous others here.  There is almost nothing flat in Pennsylvania compared to say Indiana.  I must confess I like symmetry too much.  There isn't much in the natural landscape that is symmetrical.

Actually I received the book on Monday and sent you an e-mail about receiving it.  I have the book almost finished.  Very good.  A lot of ideas I have seen in HO material, but not in material designed with the 3-rail O gauger in mind.  Look and see if you have an e-mail then, and if not, let me know, and I will send some comments again.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Mark,
Had a little time, so I played around a bit just to see where we are. The outside grade is 4.6% and the inside is 5.8%. When I got to looking at the turntables, I realized there were no storage tracks (stalls), only complete runs into the TTs. So, I added some for you to look at and comment. I also used regular switches instead of the curved just to see what it could look like. If the grades are okay, then I can probably move the bottom switch inside the circle so the leads will hold complete trains. Looking it again, I'm not sure I widened that circle enough. I assume the idea will be to pull a train into the TT, unhook the cars, park the engine and bring another one out to takes the cars back.

 

Dave,

I have to say, you do an amazing job helping people on this forum by taking their concept and then retooling or enhancing with some great ideas. And then you even put this into a visual representation.  All I can say is - Wow!  

I did have one question, though.  The figure eight loop with the siding (or run-around track) starts and terminates at two turnouts.  My understanding is that turnouts - and at least 10" on each side of a turnout - should always be flat and level to avoid operating issues.  Counting the sectional pieces, is there enough trackage in between those turnouts (plus 10" on each end of each turnout) to avoid an extreme grade to get the 6" or whatever of clearance needed before the underpass point? Thanks  

Peter

Mike CT has posted his method for bending GarGraves several times and while it's mostly half circles, the same concept can be used for other size arcs. I don't think he went as tight as O54, but I could be wrong. From what I've read here, the key to bending any O scale flex seems to be to over-bend it so there's less pressure to return to it's original position. My very limited experience playing around with ScaleTrax says bending the final few inches is the pits. Someone suggested bending most of it to the position you want and then cut off the end. I'm sure you'll figure out a way that works for you.

BTW, the bridges were just so you could see the 3D aspect better.

Dave,

Yes, even bending HO track was a problem at the ends.  I'll give it a go and eventually I'll get something acceptable.

 I thought maybe that was the reason for the bridges, but just wanted to clarify.  Thank you!

Peter, the short answer is "No". My goal was just to see what the grades were going to be like. My first try had a crossover there and the grade started after that. Unfortunately that resulted in a 10%+ grade and I knew that wasn't going to be acceptable. I wanted to see if Mark was okay with the almost 6% grade on the inside of the curved siding (which I think is still too steep) as well as what I did with the curved siding and turntables. I think there's still room to widen the Figure 8 a bit to put the connecting tracks on the same level as the switch, but GarGraves doesn't have anything less than 6.2", so I also needed to get an idea of how willing Mark is to cut and bend track. And since he's adding access hatches, I'm also wondering if he's willing to alter his bench work a bit, something like this. Trouble is he might have to use the hatches more often than he wants to.

Yes that is one thing I need to do is setup a 6% grade and see how it looks and how my engines perform.  Earlier I went back to a partial of my original design where there would not be any crossovers dictating the grades.  There certainly wouldn't be as long a run, but here is a screenshot of where it is at.

Also, the idea of closing in that small alcove beside the lower turntable is a bit scary.  I was initially hoping not to have any access holes at all.  Ones to get to an occasional derailment would be acceptable I think.  I'm pushing 61 now.  I am fearful with other obligations, I won't have this layout operational until I retire.  It's probably not the best idea to close off that alcove.  One thing in my favor, I am skinny compared to most men my age, so at least I can squeeze in sideways places others can't.  

DoubleDAZ posted:

Peter, the short answer is "No". My goal was just to see what the grades were going to be like. My first try had a crossover there and the grade started after that. Unfortunately that resulted in a 10%+ grade and I knew that wasn't going to be acceptable. I wanted to see if Mark was okay with the almost 6% grade on the inside of the curved siding (which I think is still too steep) as well as what I did with the curved siding and turntables. I think there's still room to widen the Figure 8 a bit to put the connecting tracks on the same level as the switch, but GarGraves doesn't have anything less than 6.2", so I also needed to get an idea of how willing Mark is to cut and bend track. And since he's adding access hatches, I'm also wondering if he's willing to alter his bench work a bit, something like this. Trouble is he might have to use the hatches more often than he wants to.

 

Dave and Mark,

I went back to re-read a chapter in my layout bible (written by John Armstrong) last night before posting, and have some - hopefully - good news.  Armstrong says that you can have an extreme grade and it is OK (he even mentions a 9% grade!) so long as the length of it isn't great. The rationale is that the weight of the entire train will not be on it, and therefore not affected by it, at the same time. In essence, the concept is that the locomotive wouldn't be struggling on an incline against the entire weight of the train.

For instance, it could be that the locomotive and a few cars are already on the level part past the grade by the time the last cars start up the grade.  Alternatively, while the locomotive and first few cars are going up the grade, the momentum of the last few cars on the level surface are actually assisting the cars up the grade. 

All this to say, one size doesn't fit all, and a 6% grade isn't necessarily a 6% grade - it depends on the situation and length of it. In this case,  the steepness might be overcome by its short length. 

Hope this helps,

Peter

Peter,

Thank you for this point from John Armstrong.  I have his books, and read them thoroughly back over 25 years ago.  Now that you mention it, I do recall this discussion of short grades.  I had already remembered his and others warnings about grades on curves which makes it tougher for engines to pull cars.  After my last post last evening, I was in the train room measuring out 100" to see what I need to make a 6" rise to do some testing.  I did that years ago, but it was with an HO Shay.  I will set something up to test, hopefully later today, then I will report back.  Again, thank you for providing this insight,  I'm glad you are following along!!

Mark,
I took your idea and played with it to add a reversing loop and reorient the bench work, see what you think. The first siding section (including the tracks on either side of the switches) rises to 4" and the grade is 2.6%. The switch (including the leading track) and turntable rise another inch to 5" and the grade is 4%. There are only 2 flex tracks that need to be bent, but there are a few straights that need to be cut. I also reoriented the single access hatch so you could put a lift-out landscaping element on it. The aisle in the lower left could be changed to give you more area for landscaping. I also think the bench work by the turntable could be bumped out to allow at least 1 more leg. The 2 tracks along the top appear to be too close, so some work still needs to be done there. Personally, I think a reversing loop makes more sense than 2 turntables, but that's just me.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Mark,
I took your idea and played with it to add a reversing loop and reorient the bench work, see what you think. The first siding section (including the tracks on either side of the switches) rises to 4" and the grade is 2.6%. The switch (including the leading track) and turntable rise another inch to 5" and the grade is 4%. There are only 2 flex tracks that need to be bent, but there are a few straights that need to be cut. I also reoriented the single access hatch so you could put a lift-out landscaping element on it. The aisle in the lower left could be changed to give you more area for landscaping. I also think the bench work by the turntable could be bumped out to allow at least 1 more leg. The 2 tracks along the top appear to be too close, so some work still needs to be done there. Personally, I think a reversing loop makes more sense than 2 turntables, but that's just me.

 

Dave, that is amazing!  And what a nice plan.  Long main line run, two reversing loops, sidings, AND a TT with whisker tracks - all in a relatively modest space.  

I'm getting close to starting to think about our next layout (wife wants to reclaim part of the basement so we will be downsizing) and keeping my fingers crossed for your input.

Peter 

Thanks, Peter. There's only one reversing loop though.

John C did the initial drawing and Mark just started learning SCARM. He also has a day job, so I'm just helping him get things done a little faster even though he's got some time before he actually begins construction.

I think the nice thing about this design is that he can have one train running to the loop and back while he uses the turntable to get another train ready to make the same run and even use the passing siding for them to pass each other. Truth be told, I'm not sure the entire siding couldn't be on a grade as long as he doesn't try to park any cars on the siding and just uses it for passing.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Thanks, Peter. There's only one reversing loop though.

John C did the initial drawing and Mark just started learning SCARM. He also has a day job, so I'm just helping him get things done a little faster even though he's got some time before he actually begins construction.

I think the nice thing about this design is that he can have one train running to the loop and back while he uses the turntable to get another train ready to make the same run and even use the passing siding for them to pass each other. Truth be told, I'm not sure the entire siding couldn't be on a grade as long as he doesn't try to park any cars on the siding and just uses it for passing.

Wondering if that bottom left LH turnout can be doubled up to link with a RH turnout that might be added to the return curve to create another reversing  loop?  Just a thought. 

PJB posted:

Wondering if that bottom left LH turnout can be doubled up to link with a RH turnout that might be added to the return curve to create another reversing  loop?  Just a thought. 

If I understand you correctly, the answer is "no" because the switch is at 4" and the loop is on a grade from 0". Even if they were at the same elevation, the reverse would be in the same direction as the current one and that wouldn't really add much to the operation.

However, if the RH turnout on the right end could be connected to the curve coming out of the current reverse loop, Mark could have an unattended loop2loop run, but again, that section is on a grade, so it's not practical.

Besides, Mark has the ceiling layout in the next room for unattended operation of his larger engines/trains. With this new layout, I believe he's more interested in a prototypical reason to go up to the turntable area, swap engines/trains and return to the valley. I just didn't like the dead-end on the bottom of the design he posted, so I added the reversing loop.

The way I envision things, if he stages a short train on the siding inside the revering loop, he can pull another train into the loop, stop, pull out the new train to head up the grade, pull the other train around the loop and park it to set up for the next run. Basically, he'd be taking supplies/empty cars up to the turntable and bringing down product. If he does things this way, he can be operating 3 trains at the same time. He'd stage one up top and one in the loop while another is running between the 2 areas.

Here's a view with some color and trains.

Wow Dave and Peter; you two have been busy!!  Well, this afternoon I setup my 6% track, Z4000, TIU, and some engines 0-4-0, 0-8-0, F3, RS1, and the largest the WM H9 Consolidation.  As I was finishing our younger daughter and her husband showed up to record my wife playing piano accompaniment for our daughter's voice students' recital this Friday.  She has some piano students as well.  Therefore, my testing was postponed so we don't have the noise of engines straining up the Blackwater Line on the recital recording.    I could tell Dustin to filter out the engine noise, but he is too good to our daughter to be nasty to him.    So I will check in here.

Yes Dave, you got the idea I was thinking of.  Thank you everyone for the suggestions.  Yes, my only reason for turning trains is to have a way to move loads one way and empties another, with throwing some mixed freight now and then.  No matter how we d it, I think there will be one pesky switch that I will have to reach from a access hole.  Even if I put the most money and the greatest care into installation of roadbed and track, my buddy Murphy will make sure that is the one that will give me trouble.    At least it should be at the end of the railroad that has the highest head clearance.  The biggest problem with this plan when compared with John's is that in John's the two towns are separated so that an operator's back is turned to one town when facing the other town.  That is the best part of John's plan, I think.  This plan doesn't need as steep a grades as John's If I desired, but the towns are almost side by side, just separated by elevation and whatever scenic features I can come up with.  I knew that when I was doodling in SCARM yesterday, but wanted to see an alternative where I didn't have to cross over and worry about vertical clearances.

The idea of even being able to run 3 trains at a time is something I wasn't expecting.  Yes, my plan is to have a train stopped on the passing track, for a passing train.  While it would be nice to be able to uncouple the engine to cut a train and double up the hill, it isn't practical on this small a layout.  Besides, if I really had the desire, I could rig up some sort of wheel chalk to slip behind the train manually.  I probably won't bother.  Short trains are the name of the game here.  I will run the long ones on the Ceiling Central RR in the next room.  Right now I have one 14-car train and one 15-car train I have been running there.

At this point, I think I have two nice alternatives to ponder.  I hope no one feels bad if I pick something over another.  I greatly appreciate everyone's ideas!!!!!!!!!  This is the first layout, other than the Ceiling Central, where I had someone to bounce ideas off of.  The Internet has made such a wonderful contribution in brainstorming with like minded folks.  I was totally a lone wolf until the time period between the last layout and starting in O gauge.  I don't know about Peter, but I know the rest of us started out before way before the Internet age.  One more thing, in either plan, I have to figure out how I will make the scenery of the grade resemble the Blackwater Canyon, since there are tracks lower.  Just something else to work on in a small room.

John,

I did finish reading the book after we got home this afternoon.  Very good ideas!  I like the information about the length of cars for each size curves.  While the concept is not new, I have never seen anyone actually produce a handy chart before.  I think the book is good for anyone, especially the folks who get bored with loop running layouts.  Let me know if you got that email Monday.  I will send another too, when I get a chance.

I will report back once I have had a chance to do the grade testing.  I plan to run an engine with no cars, then keep running back adding one car at a time and record what each engine does.  Here is the setup; some old Woodland Scenics foam grades, a 2% on top of a 4%.  No I do not plan to use them on the layout.  They are something I played around with 20 years ago, and still had.  Thank you again, everyone!!

Mark Boyce posted:

Wow Dave and Peter; you two have been busy!!  Well, this afternoon I setup my 6% track, Z4000, TIU, and some engines 0-4-0, 0-8-0, F3, RS1, and the largest the WM H9 Consolidation.  As I was finishing our younger daughter and her husband showed up to record my wife playing piano accompaniment for our daughter's voice students' recital this Friday.  She has some piano students as well.  Therefore, my testing was postponed so we don't have the noise of engines straining up the Blackwater Line on the recital recording.    I could tell Dustin to filter out the engine noise, but he is too good to our daughter to be nasty to him.    So I will check in here.

Yes Dave, you got the idea I was thinking of.  Thank you everyone for the suggestions.  Yes, my only reason for turning trains is to have a way to move loads one way and empties another, with throwing some mixed freight now and then.  No matter how we d it, I think there will be one pesky switch that I will have to reach from a access hole.  Even if I put the most money and the greatest care into installation of roadbed and track, my buddy Murphy will make sure that is the one that will give me trouble.    At least it should be at the end of the railroad that has the highest head clearance.  The biggest problem with this plan when compared with John's is that in John's the two towns are separated so that an operator's back is turned to one town when facing the other town.  That is the best part of John's plan, I think.  This plan doesn't need as steep a grades as John's If I desired, but the towns are almost side by side, just separated by elevation and whatever scenic features I can come up with.  I knew that when I was doodling in SCARM yesterday, but wanted to see an alternative where I didn't have to cross over and worry about vertical clearances.

The idea of even being able to run 3 trains at a time is something I wasn't expecting.  Yes, my plan is to have a train stopped on the passing track, for a passing train.  While it would be nice to be able to uncouple the engine to cut a train and double up the hill, it isn't practical on this small a layout.  Besides, if I really had the desire, I could rig up some sort of wheel chalk to slip behind the train manually.  I probably won't bother.  Short trains are the name of the game here.  I will run the long ones on the Ceiling Central RR in the next room.  Right now I have one 14-car train and one 15-car train I have been running there.

At this point, I think I have two nice alternatives to ponder.  I hope no one feels bad if I pick something over another.  I greatly appreciate everyone's ideas!!!!!!!!!  This is the first layout, other than the Ceiling Central, where I had someone to bounce ideas off of.  The Internet has made such a wonderful contribution in brainstorming with like minded folks.  I was totally a lone wolf until the time period between the last layout and starting in O gauge.  I don't know about Peter, but I know the rest of us started out before way before the Internet age.  One more thing, in either plan, I have to figure out how I will make the scenery of the grade resemble the Blackwater Canyon, since there are tracks lower.  Just something else to work on in a small room.

John,

I did finish reading the book after we got home this afternoon.  Very good ideas!  I like the information about the length of cars for each size curves.  While the concept is not new, I have never seen anyone actually produce a handy chart before.  I think the book is good for anyone, especially the folks who get bored with loop running layouts.  Let me know if you got that email Monday.  I will send another too, when I get a chance.

 

I will report back once I have had a chance to do the grade testing.  I plan to run an engine with no cars, then keep running back adding one car at a time and record what each engine does.  Here is the setup; some old Woodland Scenics foam grades, a 2% on top of a 4%.  No I do not plan to use them on the layout.  They are something I played around with 20 years ago, and still had.  Thank you again, everyone!!

I never got an email from you Mark.  

Well John, I am very sorry about that!  I sent two e-mails.  I wonder who I sent them too, the server didn't kick the messages back as bad address.  

Here is what I intended to send to you on Monday:

Mark,
There will be no hard feelings no matter which way you go, these are just to give you options to consider and give me something to do on a lazy Sunday. Believe me, these samples are not taking more than 10-20 minutes to modify, so I'm not expending a lot of effort and I'm doing it all while watching TiVo recordings of DIY and HGTV. What they need is a TTN-TV channel (Toy Train Network-TV).

Here is another version with an area for a town in the original turntable location. The elevation of the existing turntable section was raised to 7" and that increased the grade to 3.9%, so there is still room to elevate the turntable section even more if you want a steeper grade.

And the last one for tonight moves closer to the original, but without the passing sidings because the reversing loop acts like a siding when you pull the staged train off the siding.

Dave,

If you get it, check out the RFD channel. They have some occasional train shows and also the I Love Toy Trains series from TM books. They also have some other interesting shows on old farm machinery and stuff like that, if you like that kind of thing. We had it with Time Warner, but when we switched to Google they don't offer the RFD channel. They are a LOT less on the old monthly bill though!

Now back to the regular scheduled programming of layout planning. Sorry to interrupt Mark, but they do have some good train shows. 

rtr12 posted:

If you get it, check out the RFD channel.

Not available here either,  but it was a good idea.

RTR12,

Thank you for joining in, no problem taking a tangent.  I wish we had RFD channel too!  You have to buy the Deluxe package to get it here.  One would think that a cable company whose headquarters is located in Butler, still a rural community would offer it.  But since I work for the telecom company I learned that the providers are offered the packages from the producers, and special interest channels are stuck on the deluxe packages!

Dave,

Both plans are very good.  The last one gives a longer run, and the extra spurs are nice on them.  I printed them all out on paper; yes I break the 'print only when you have to' rule at work; but I spent most of my career with paper, so I print when I have to; which is more than the younger guys.  

I finished testing my MTH engines.  All passed pulling 5 2-bay hoppers and a caboose up the 6% grade, that is a 2-8-0, 0-8-0, 4-4-0, F3, RS1, and my only 'modern' engine a Buffalo and Pittsburgh GP38-2.  It was the best puller of them all.  The only reason I have it is, I live one mile form the B&P and a fellow was selling it at a nice price.  I called it quits for tonight.  I will test the Lionel engines another evening.  They are F3, F7, 0-4-0, and a Virginian Rectifier.  Yes I know.  I think the VGN Rectifier is cool, and they used them on their mountain division, so it works for me.  

Dave, I must say I really like the most recent of your designs. Especially if there is a way to work in a passing siding. Mark, from my experience, the diesels will perform significantly better on the grades than the steam engines will. I run a 4% grade on my layout. Overall, I don't have too many problems any more, but steam engines really struggle with any imperfections in the track. I learned this very quickly when troubleshooting my build. Smaller wheel bases are more forgiving. 

This is really turning in to an interesting thread! I look forward to seeing how your planning and implementation progresses!

Best,

Marc 

Marc,

Yes I think you are right about that.  In general my HO steam engines gave me more trouble than diesels, but I like steamers better.  I am going to do my best to make the roadbed, track, and wiring as good as I can to head off as much trouble as possible.  I t doesn't have to be overbuilt, but needs to be solid and smooth flowing. Thank you for the comments.

Ok, Mark and Marc, I swapped out the photos above. I was able to add a passing siding by moving the start point for the grade and increasing the initial grade to 4.4%. That gives a total rise of 6.6% over the length of the overpass and the 2 grades. I also added a second siding inside the reversing loop. I could be wrong, but I think this is as close as I'm going to get to the original and keep the grades reasonable for the trains that will be run. The sidings can be lengthen by adding a curve to the ends, but that's not prototypical, so I didn't do that. Those and the top end of the passing siding can probably be smoothed out using flextrack during actual construction.

Oh, and the overpass is 6", so that might have to be adjusted too depending on the roadbed and sub-roadbed used in that area.

Wow Dave, you are up and at it early; Mountain Time I think!  I see the changes.  You have packed a lot in!  Yes that does include everything from the original plan except using a loop at one end instead of a turntable! The prototype had a grade a bit over 3%, so no one could argue it isn't prototypical; as if I care what someone would say about that.  I was thinking of trying my hand at some rough sketches to see how I would scenic all these, way back to John's original concept.  Much to ponder!  Thank you!

We're morning people, so we're up around 5:00 am every day and it's lights out by 10:30 pm, retirement hasn't changed that. Except for a couple of years of night shifts, I was at work by 6:30 am every day and never "slept in" on weekends like so many do. Heck when we travel, there are times where we wake up at 3:00 or so and can't get back to sleep, so we've been on the road as early as 4:00.

When I saw Marc's comment about the passing siding and then yours about the incline test, I decided to see if I could add one and stay below the 6%. We were just watching the news about the Super Bowl anyway and it only took a few minutes, so it was no big deal. As always, the hardest part was lining up the right side of the loop so I could make the 2 cuts needed for things to fit. I could have just left the uncut pieces in so you'd see them, but then you can't run the simulation and I didn't think you were proficient yet in making cuts. With 3 trains in 3D, you can see how things will operate before you even start building. The sim is the main reason I bought RR-Track (before SCARM was available), but now I use SCARM almost exclusively.

I thought you must be a morning person.  I get up when I have to, but don't like it!  LOL

You are correct in seeing I am having trouble with cuts and flex track.  I read up on it, but only got it to work a couple times, so I greatly appreciate you doing it.  I realize once you get the knack of it, it is probably a piece of cake.  I have not tried the simulator, but look forward to doing it!.

Well I guess I should finish my break and get back to work!  :-)

Thank you again!

The key to making cuts is to zoom in. In this example, you can see where the 2 tracks meet *blue circle) and "align". You simply can't see the alignment unless you zoom in. You can then see the thin lines on the sides of the arrow. You place the cursor over either one of those and then right-click to get the "Snip off" option. After you select it, you then select the piece you want to discard and delete it. If you did it right, they should automatically connect and the arrows should disappear.
NOTE: It works a little differently if you're on a grade because the heights might not match, but once you edit those, things should connect just fine.

In your layout, I had to snip the piece by the switch and then the short straight section coming out of the loop below that. Getting them both to line up was the hard part.

Now, when it comes to flextrack, you connect one end to one section of track to be joined. When you do that, you'll see the line I've circled in blue. You move that toward the other section of track to be joined until you get the red/green arrows. At that point, you right-click so the tracks connect and you get the 2nd photo. Sometimes, the angles won't line up to make the connection, so you have to right-click multiple times (blue circles) in different locations like I did in the 3rd photo to end up with what you see in the 4th photo. Notice the straight section that mimics what's in the design for your layout with the difference being only 2 joints instead of 4.
NOTE: You have to be very careful though to not "over" bend and end up with a radius your engines might not like.

Dave,

Thank you for the tips.  Yes, I see what I was doing wrong.  First of all, I forgot to zoom in.  That is why I couldn't line up and snip.  On the flex track, I was not right clicking multiple times.  The flex track was connected on one end, and the other end would flop around like a wounded snake when I barely moved the mouse.  Thank you very much!

DoubleDAZ posted:

And the last one for tonight moves closer to the original, but without the passing sidings because the reversing loop acts like a siding when you pull the staged train off the siding.

 

NOT BEING NEGATIVE....Dave you are great to work so hard!  The program display diagram is impressive!  I really like it.  I foresee an issue in respect to reaching the track in the rear and the placement of turnouts "inside" of one loop.  In that loop area, there needs to be a 24 inch opening for ACCESS.  The tracks in the rear near the walls will be inconvenient to reach and switches are always an issue.

Mark:  Whatever you decide to do, for yourself, please ensure that you keep everything within 30 inches of reach, less better, and assure that you will not have any portion of a switch under another track or anywhere you cannot see it easily.  You know as well as I the majority of track issues, real and model, are at track switches.

I envisioned two access openings in both corners of your room (away from the sliding glass door) where you could easily gain access to the rear portion of this design WHEN it becomes necessary.  Make it as easy as possible.  We are getting older...  :-)

PS:  I think the original design was more interesting with the lower track crossing under the upper track twice; not once as this is.  This "feels" more geometrical in my opinion.  I realize that it does make the construction slightly easier and the grade lower.  However, your grade, even steeper, will be fine because of limited train length.  You already tested which was really smart.

Going under twice makes the route seem more interesting to me.  That's my two cents.  Ultimately, you will decide what will work best for you.  :-)

John,

Your points about 30" or less reach is well taken.  I have had my "temporary" 4 x 8 layout up for over 2 years changing it from Christmas to Summer theme and back.  It is a 2" sheet of foam on a folding table.  To do any track work in the back, (and I have had trouble with Flextrack there) I have to slide the foam out at an angle, then crawl under the corner to the newly opened area, because there is a dresser at each end blocking the way.  When I just want to change a building in the back, I have been sliding it in by placing it on the end of a 4' stitck and gingerly moving it in place with the stick.  I HATE IT!  LOL. That is why the Christmas theme is still up and I am in no hurry to take it down.  I am pushing 61, and am more limber than a lot of guys my age, but I am well aware I am in decline!  LOL

That said just to emphasize I need realativly easy access to all points.

John,

Two points I like about the initial design.  First, I agree it is a more interesting run than the 'What If' I proposed that Dave then ran with.  Second, and I forgot to mention earlier, these later plans have a situation where the track crosses over several 'yard/fiddle' tracks or switches.  While lots of folks like that interest, it doesn't resemble anything on the prototype, and I'm not looking for that.  I have a friend on Facebook who is building a very handsome layout, and it has a track bridging over a yard.  He built an ingenious sectional bridge he can lift out for access.  Cool, but not what I had in mind.

 I want to sketch out the scenic possibilities of the initial snaking design with tunnels and see what the views could be.  I have something in mind, but want to get it on paper.

One more thing, while more tracks and switches make for more operation possibilities, they can also clog up the layout and I could lose the mountains effect.

Yes, I proved I can handle any grade we have discussed.  

This has been most interesting and fun!  I appreciate every idea every one has offered.  I need to step back and take it all into consideration.

Okay Dave.  I see the hatches.  I still would cross the lower line under the upper as in my original drawing.  There are pluses and minuses both ways....

I would go with the 2nd turntable as well in the lower area.  The reversing loop consumes more space than its worth and lessens interaction.  

The more you have to do the more fun and interesting it becomes.