New to the hobby and looking for layout advice.

Enjoy the hobby, its a lot of fun. 

I'm a big fan of reversing loops. I agree with @rattler21 with respect to getting track laid and then seeing where you're at. Nice work!!

Radcam, looks like a good plan.   It would be interesting to see where the doors/access are, and how you will handle that.  Oh, I see the stairs now.

The reverse loops have "S" curves.   I can't tell what the diameter (O-72?) of those are from you diagram, but you might want to stretch those out to as wide a diameter as will fit, for better train running and viewing.   Nothing like watching trains ease through wide diameter curves.   The reverse curve "balloons" look to be about as wide as you can fit, I am commenting on the "S" curves further on the way back to the turnout.

Should be fun!
Ken

I am with, Ken. I think you can do something with the return paths with some large diameter curves.

I don't see the need for the 36" width. It's on the edge of reach, unless you are tall. It does provide a little more scenic space.

What is the curve diameter of the mains?

It might be helpful if you post your SCARM file so those using SCARM can experiment without having to guess at track sizes, etc.

From what I can tell, all your "S" curves have straight sections in them, but I don't know if that's good enough to alleviate problems, especially with longer trains. Either way,  if those loops are 4" deep or more I see access issues for the lower left corner.

I've read here that while the curved switches and double-crossover look nice, they can both be problematic. I have no experience with them though, so I don't know how true that is. Retail price for the double is $400 whereas four 11° switches comes to $300 and gives you a little more flexibility in design. I agree with Tom that durability and operation should override price concerns when purchasing switches.

Since the stairs comes up where the large rectangle is, I assume there is no door to contend with and probably no windows either. And when it comes to 36" wide decking, I believe you're looking for ideas for sidings and landscaping to fill the space. With 36", I wouldn't run the track close to the wall because any reach over 30" can be a problem depending on how the benchwork is, how tall you are, etc.

Thanks for the welcome and the insight.

I meant to add the track diameters into my original post. The minimum is O72, the outside oval is O104, the inside oval is O96. In SCARM I used Ross track and switches with the exception of the S turns where I used Atlas Flextrack mainly because it was easy. I did try to keep all radii greater than 36" and think they are closer to 38" when using the Flextrack.

There is a window on each of the short sides of the room that I do need to access. There is no door, but the distance from the wall to a very long fall is 13" where the stairs come through the floor.  Access to the room is a spiral stair that lands facing the long wall on the opposite side of the room.  I can reach the 36", but 30" bench work would be considerably more economical. Iirc there is 2.5-3" from the wall to the track on the long section and 4-5" on the short sides as it's drawn up now.

I'll make some modifications to my track plan based on your inputs and this time I'll attach the SCARM file when I post.

Thanks again

Cameron,

Welcome to the hobby. Like you, I'm new to it as well. One thing that would you allow you some switching, and wouldn't involve much space or switches would be an Inglenook Siding Shunting puzzle. I came across them yesterday, and I started incorporating it into my own designs. It'd only involve two switches, and would certainly be a lot more hands on than the loops.

SCARM also has GarGraves flex track. I don't know if you plan to use Ross track with the Ross switches for the actual build, but GG flex is much easier to work with than Atlas flex and GG/Ross have a close relationship.

DOUBLEDAZ,

honestly I don't know who's track I'm going to use at this point. GarGraves is one of the manufacturers I have looked at, as well as Ross, and Atlas. I didn't realize that GarGraves had a flex track option available in SCARM. I'm pretty sure as switches go I'll be using Ross.

Deuce,

thanks for bringing the Inglenook Siding Shunting Puzzle to my attention. It is a great idea that I'm definitely going to try and incorporate into my layout. It's right up my alley simple, inexpensive, doesn't take up a lot of space and will make me put my brain in gear.

Again thanks to everyone for all the input it is much appreciated.  

Radcam,

You cannot really bend Atlas flex very much - try to use large diameter sectionals cut to fit or Gargraves flex.

This is all great info. I'll use the GG flex in my SCARM plans. I'm hopeful that I wont actually need very much flextrack, but if I do I'll use the GarGraves. I've been using the flextrack in SCARM because I don't know how, or even if you can make custom cut pieces. In the real world I have no doubt that I can successfully cut track sections to a desired length.

Thanks

RadCam posted:

I've been using the flextrack in SCARM because I don't know how, or even if you can make custom cut pieces. In the real world I have no doubt that I can successfully cut track sections to a desired length.

http://www.scarm.info/index.ph...p;slk=1&topic=43

You're off to a great start with your track plan.  You mentioned working a switching yard while running one or two trains on the main lines.  I presume the switch yards will be located within the reverse loops, as I don't see a track plan for them.  

Take lots of picture even if you don't post them all.

BTW: most people buy trains before track. It's not really exciting to post a picture of your new piece of track

You guys are great. 

Tom, I am using four switches instead of a double crossover in my updated plan. DOUBLEDAZ pointed out that not only was it more versatile but cheaper too.

DOUBLEDAZ, lol now I know. I guess it's back to the drawing board.

Dan, right now I'm trying to get the basic track designed and built before I do the switching yard/s. Mainly for financial reasons at this time. 

Thanks 

I don't see the one s curve being a big deal with the wide radius curves you are using and the straight in between.  I guess a length of flex track there could be shaped to lessen it.  You could put a regular switch where the straights are at the far right of the curve, at the end of the curve so to speak.  This would eliminate the s curve.  A curve may lead into that switch, but the switch is an extension of the curve, which is ok.  I'm not a big fan of flex track.  If you are going to do it, get a couple extra because you may goof up the first couple. Yes, you can cut any track to fit.  I always get long straights, 30" I think, and cut them to fit.  And you have a lot of long straights.  Self explanatory.  Going with two crossovers is a valid point.  I had a double crossover and next time would go with two singles at opposite ends of the long runs because it allows you to park a train in between the two crossovers, while a second maneuvers into the same loop.  With the double when the second train enters the same loop it can't get past it.  Simply it allows more flexibility, it is hard to explain easily.  But, that is what I would do.  That said, there is certainly nothing wrong with using a Ross double crossover and curved switches as far as quality and dependability.  I used them and they worked flawlessly.  I'll just say I used Ross track also and it is real nice stuff.  You can keep the Gargraves flex track though.  Cheers.  Have fun.

I will add this, you certainly don't need scarm to build this layout.  You lay out your outside track to it's max,  then the width of the crossover will decide how the inside loop will lay.  I suppose it doesn't hurt to get a good piece count on the curve pieces, but you pretty much have that already.  With that and a piece count on the switches and long straights you are ready to go.  I always cut my straight pieces to fit.  Get a couple extra of each.  But of course, there are many ways to skin a cat.  Mine just happens to be the best way.  Just kidding.  I hope you build it.

William, I'm really glad you chimed in. I was just getting ready to post my updated track plan when I read your post. I had to go back and revise what I had done. I'm still not sure if the placement of the cross overs is optimal, but it sure is better than before I read your post. I also agree that you don't need SCARM to build a layout. A lot of this process for me has involved a tape measure, some string, masking tape, and a pencil.  SCARM has allowed me to explore, and visualize many different options that I might not have discovered without it.

This one I did with GarGraves track and Ross switches. Thanks to DOUBLEDAZ for showing me the way to snipping track in SCARM. A monster has been created. 

Let me know what you think of rev.A

Thanks 

I hope I did this wright. I tried to attach the SCARM file, but I'm not sure if I did or not.

RADCAM,

Use the add attachment on the forum post and then point to where you save the layout.scarm file.

I think that you lost something by flattening the return of the reverse loops. I can see the top could provide an area to become a yard. So, stretch the bottom one again.

Make that side 24" along the wall to keep the peninsula from eating up the center space as much. A O120 "snake" back to the main will show the train. It could be sliding through trees or around a pond.

Play around with the placement of the crossovers.  The placement of the one on the right isn't optimal because you are creating a dreaded s curve.  I would put that one on the opposite side, probably to the right of the return loop switch.  Then you can run right into the loop.  You can have more trains on the layout this way.  Play with it in your head the different scenarios that would give you the best operational capabilities.  Good luck 

My only advice, if you intend to operate long passenger cars or big steam engines, is this:

• Insert a section of straight track at least as long as your longest car or locomotive (exclusive of tender) into reverse curves.

Good luck with your layout.  

MOONMAN, I tried attaching the SCARM file last night. I couldn't get the file to open back on my end with SCARM, so I deleted it. Figured I'd give it another try this a.m.

I moved the bottom O72 loop away from the corner for better access to the track, and that caused clearance issues down the line.   I'll give the O120 a try.

WILLIAM, I didn't even see that s curve until you said something. I'll keep working on it.

GVDobler posted:

Take lots of picture even if you don't post them all.

BTW: most people buy trains before track. It's not really exciting to post a picture of your new piece of track

I'll try to take lots of pics, and glad to know I'm not to abnormal.

Thanks again for the warm welcome and all the help.

This is what I get when I try to attach the SCARM file

I'm not sure what you expected, but that's what you were supposed to get when you attached the SCARM file, it downloaded and opened just fine.

Unfortunately, you now have an "S" curve in each loop. I missed Tom's post earlier, but he's right, the general consensus is to have a straight section as long as your longest car between direction changes otherwise there will be pressure on the trucks in opposite directions. Here's a rendering with them straightened out a bit, though I don't know if the straights are long enough.

I also added a crude baseboard for a 3D rendering guessing at the benchwork. I know you said 36" wide, but I wanted to see how close I could get to the switch in the lower left (my reason for replacing the curved switch there). I wasn't sure exactly how the design needed to be placed within the room, how big the stairway opening is, where the stairs exit the opening (probably on the left?) and how far it was from the right side. The concern there is access to the crossover on the right.

As you can see, the baseboard is 138" (11.5') by 444" (37') and the layout comes right to the edges on the ends. So, either there is extra room or you'll need to delete some straights to shorten the width to fit the space.

And finally, I added a rendering showing the original curved switch in the lower left. I figured since you are keeping he curved switch on the right, you might as well keep the curved switch on the left. My only concern is access unless you add a hatch inside the loop. The main rendering is Layer 0 and this one is Layer 1. You can turn the layers on/off to see the difference.

DOUBLEDAZ I took the curved switch out from the lower left because I was concerned about being able to get into that corner.

I added straights in between the direction changes, and moved the crossovers. Nineteen inches is the length of my longest engine sans the tender, the passenger cars are pretty close to that length as well.

So how about rev.B? 

Thanks

Are your sidewalls attic knee walls? If so how high to the rafters and how high the layout surface?. Wondering about decorative background space:'mountains, cityscape/industrial, structures. building flats.etc?

I don't know if the O-128 curves smooth out the lower S curve enough, so maybe someone with practical experience will chime in. Carl??? If it is, then a similar change needs to be made to the upper S curve to smooth it out too.

Also, if you want the crossovers where they are, I suggest you reverse them so trains can go through the reversing loops and get to the crossovers without having to go too far around the layout before they can move to the outside oval. In fact, I might be inclined to move the right one to the same relative position in the upper loop. In the 2nd rendering, you can move a train moving left through the inner leg of each loop and pull another train moving in the same direction up to the crossover to wait for the 1st train to get through and move to the outer oval. Unlike the 1st rendering, this works the same for both loops. Of course, if it were up to me, I'd simply duplicate both crossovers with each loop, but that would cost extra for 2 more switches.
NOTE: Moving the switch like on the 2nd rendering showed that the ovals were not concentric, so the length of the straight pieces on the ends of the outer loop had to be adjusted too.

Just some thoughts.

Dewey Trogdon posted:

Are your sidewalls attic knee walls? If so how high to the rafters and how high the layout surface?. Wondering about decorative background space:'mountains, cityscape/industrial, structures. building flats.etc?

Dewey, you nailed it. That is the real down side to my layout space. What would be the top wall in the design rendering  is 36" high the bottom wall is 48". I can stand up in the center of the room but have to bend over so I don't hit my head if I move to far off center. I can touch either wall standing on my feet reaching over a 36" wide table, with the table being 30" high. That being said I wouldn't be able to spend much time stooping over like that and I actually plan to spend most of my time seated. I also think for that reason I'm going to make the bench work  30" wide, as well as 30" tall. Fortunately there are no exposed rafters. Half the room is actually finished sheet rocked, (tape, mud, sanded, but not primed). What would be the right half of the track plan. The other half of the space is covered in particle board.

As far as scenery goes I think I'll have my sister do some of her artsy stuff and paint the ceiling so it looks like fog or misty and I'll make the vertical surfaces look like jagged rock. Like the Rockies or the Cascades. I'm on a Great Northern kick right now so that type of scenery would fit in. Not sure I'll get as far as scenery on this layout. It depends how quickly I progress through other operational goals. If I do get as far as scenery one of the other RR's I'm interested in is ATSF, and I'll have to do the area around the hole in the floor as the Grand Canyon. 

DOUBLEDAZ, I really like that long arc on the bottom loop, and I"m going to see if I have room to do something similar with the top loop. I also like the crossovers on opposite sides of the layout. 

Back to the drawing board.

Thanks

RadCam posted:

 

DOUBLEDAZ, I really like that long arc on the bottom loop, and I"m going to see if I have room to do something similar with the top loop. I also like the crossovers on opposite sides of the layout.

I don't know what you have planned for sidings, landscaping, etc., but John C posted this video recently that shows how tight GarGraves flex can be bent. What I found interesting though is how he designed the tracks along the narrow runs. I offer it because of all the scenery that is below the tracks. Given the attic you'll be in, it doesn't look like you'll have much opportunity to go up very high along the top/bottom walls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXbf05SUnJ0

DoubleDaz,  I've watched some of John C's youtube videos in the past, (not this particular one though. That little curve is insane) and he does have a beautiful layout. I've fleetingly thought about how I would do scenery, but right now that seems so far away. I do know what I would like to have. I don't know if what I want will fit or how I will transition between the scenes if it does fit.

This is basically the same thing you posted yesterday. I just used larger diameter curves on the top loops transition trying to mimic the smooth transition you have on the lower loop.

When I can afford it I would like to add another crossover on each side, but I think a small switch siding, (Is it called a switching siding, switch siding or something else entirely?) would come before that.

Thanks again for all the help, and thanks to everyone for the help, support, and welcome.  This a great community and a very intriguing hobby. 

Radcam,

I like your layout and the fact that you included complementary reversing loops, and crossovers between the two mains. The only potential issue I would like to raise is the distance between the dual main tracks. Early on, you mentioned that you would be using Ø96" and Ø104" curves. These would result in a spacing of four inches, which may be a problem, depending on what locomotives and cars you run.

I use all Atlas track (and I am delighted I chose it), my dual-main consists of Ø108" and Ø99" curves, and I have had no problems running Big-Boys and long cars simultaneously on the two tracks. The only problem I have had is running MTH's DDA40X on the outer track and a Big-Boy on the inner track. The DDA40X is very long, its trucks are spaced far apart, and this causes it to protrude inside quite a bit.   

Good luck!

Alex

Alex,

thank you for your input. I do like the big articulated steam engines, and do plan on running passenger cars as well. On the final version of the track plan the curves for the dual mainlines are O106, and O96. Hopefully that will alleviate any encroachment issues. 

Thanks

I don't really mean to punt this post but I'm getting ready to buy the track to build this layout. I'm going to use GarGraves track, and Ross switches. I have made some small modifications so it fits better in the space available (140" x 444") and want to know if anyone sees any glaring issue with the final track plan.  I would like to thank DOUBLEDAZ for all his help, and if he has no objections I've named the layout "The DOUBLEDAZ Doozy". 

I'm sure before I screw any actual track down, I will have many more questions. Actually I already have a million more questions but they are for other threads. 

Alex, I have to say I really enjoyed the thread on your layout build, and I learned some things I think will help me build a better layout.

Thanks to everyone for all the help, and support.

Cam

I have to say I chuckled when I saw the name you chose for this version.

Anyway, even with the O96/O106 curves, you're still at about 4" center-to-center spacing around the curves, so I'd set up a test run before fastening the inner oval tracks to the decking. It'd be easy enough to "shrink" the inner oval without changing the design simply by shortening the end straight tracks and adding a spacer between the crossover switches. Mind you, I don't think you'll need to do that, but I don't have any experience with such large curves and a test run costs nothing but a little time.

AmeenTrainGuy posted:

I got a question RadCam, You don't seem to have your email posted on your profile page I would like to ask you a question. If you want my email is in my profile.

AmeenTrainGuy, I have rectified that issue. My email is now in my profile. Unless I did it wrong.  

DoubleDaz, I'm glad it gave you a chuckle. I do appreciate the time you spent helping me with it. I will be making test runs and small adjustments before anything is permanently set in place.  I'm a firm believer in taking the time to do it right the first time.

Eye candy time

DoubleDaz Doozey 3D

Moonman posted:

Eye candy time

DoubleDaz Doozey 3D

 

 I have to say that brought a smile to my face. It is very much like what I'm envisioning. 

Cameron,

One question that no one asked - does the attic space have knee walls to permit a table?

Just curious...

Also, if you have the licensed version of SCARM, you can select Extensions on the menu bar and run MTS - Model Train Simulation and "play" with the layout.

It's basic Euro trains and a limit of 2 trains without an upgrade, but, it sure works to prove the design and play value.

Here's a little scenery from my structures collection

Rico Station, Plasticville Station, Cherry Hill Shanty, Lionel Concrete Coaling Tower and an Water Tower

Carl,

I do have knee walls, and if by table you mean benchwork. Right now I plan on having 30" tall benches. One of the issues for me is I'm not sure I can pop up through a hatch in a bench that is only 30" off the floor, and I really don't want to have to climb over the top. Fortunately I do have a little bit of time to figure it out.

Thanks, for the MTS info now I can see  how it flows.

I really appreciate the 3D renderings. I was just trying to figure out if I have enough space to add the things I would like, while also trying to have logical interactions between the two loops.

Cameron,

yes, I should have said shelves - or a deck that is shaped like the renderings or a floor layout.

You should be able to come up through the access into the room based on a previous drawing that you posted showing the entrance space.

I read your first post again or maybe the second where you mentioned your early thoughts on what you wanted the layout to do.

Passengers need two places, freight needs two or three and the trains need care and feeding. That was my reasons for some of the building placements.

The height settings are 30" in the 3D versions that I made. You may have to go to 24" -26" to get enough clearance for the train height.

If you build this borrowing elements from the L-girder style, the pieces could all be fabricated downstairs and screwed together upstairs.  You may only need a couple of legs per peninsula if you deck with 3/4" plywood.

You can also run the MTS in 3D and rotate the view while it's running.