@TomSuperO posted:whoops forgot to attach the pics
Ok so I asked a question without reading ALL the posts. Pics are great! Now there is something else I have to remember not to forget. LOL
@Dave_C posted:Tom, beautiful work on the benchwork. I had purchased Wescott’s book but I had already started out with open grid benchwork. I did use the risers and cleats for the grades to do an over and under. My curve on a grade looked fine to my eye till I ran a train. Had a flat spot or dip that was noticeable. Easy to correct just by re drilling the riser and bringing it up a bit.
I want to say I built my benchwork following Frank Ellison’s book. I must have read it 20 times. One thing I remember was the mentioning of a star drill and driving screws by hand. Probably slotted ones back then. Luckily when I started the battery powered drills were just getting popular along with self driving screws.
Yes Dave, totally agree on the professional benchwork! Great job!
Well I have a functioning lift bridge thanks to all the help I received from the great members on this forum! I hope to be able to eventually help someone so I can pay forward the help. I'll take some pics later. Mark, your 7.5" from pivot point was spot on for the actuator bracket on the bridge. Thanks and again thanks to Mike g. and Susan Deats for all the info they so graciously supplied or made available. Now I need to properly power and switch the linear actuator. Plus have deadman switches for the bridge being in the raise position. Also some guide pins to align the bridge track with its counterpart.
John, I'm glad the 7-1/2" worked out for you. I used the Westcott book for benchwork back in the '80s. My first layout around 1970 was cookie cutter from an old Westcott book, HO Layout that Grows. I learned about risers and cleats there. I learned about splice plates helping my dad repair our old 1888 homestead, dating back to before my first layout. He never was a model railroader, but handy at jerry rigging repairs of any kind and saving a dollar while doing it. You have noticed on my Blackwater Canyon, I used Woodland Scenics foam risers for my 4% grades. I thought that would be easier since I only have hand tools. However, with 4% grades the 0% to 4% transitions proved to be such a pain, I am going to finish my layout modifications with risers and cleats. I guess an old dog needs to be reminded of what worked for him when he was a young pup! 
@TomSuperO your layout is really looking great!! I was thinking of you recently, but could only recall Tom, not your profile name. Trying to search members, there are a lot of Toms here. 
I must have been called away from the computer before I cam upon your name. 
@Mark Boyce posted:John, I'm glad the 7-1/2" worked out for you. I used the Westcott book for benchwork back in the '80s. My first layout around 1970 was cookie cutter from an old Westcott book, HO Layout that Grows. I learned about risers and cleats there. I learned about splice plates helping my dad repair our old 1888 homestead, dating back to before my first layout. He never was a model railroader, but handy at jerry rigging repairs of any kind and saving a dollar while doing it. You have noticed on my Blackwater Canyon, I used Woodland Scenics foam risers for my 4% grades. I thought that would be easier since I only have hand tools. However, with 4% grades the 0% to 4% transitions proved to be such a pain, I am going to finish my layout modifications with risers and cleats. I guess an old dog needs to be reminded of what worked for him when he was a young pup!
Again Mark, thanks for all your helpful and insightful information. I have on paper kept the grades to under 3% Should I keep that as a line I should not cross? Any thoughts and input from all is extremely welcome.
Here are some bridge pics and I hope a video. I still haven't mastered putting on a .mov file from an iPhone. But i'll attempt it again, apologies if I am not successful.
Attachments
Images (9)
Videos (1)
Nice bridge pics. Thing about grades. Transitions can be tricky and the longer the engine the trickier. There can be a lot of movement on the wheelsets which can lift drivers or contact wheels off the track, just a hair, but enough to create a problem. This is really for steamers as the driver wheels tend not to be sprung independently of each other. In bad cases the loco can rock on the track section. Large diameter drivers have caused me the most problems - my fault not good enough track laying. Less or no issues with diesels and electrics.
If you have traction tires probably not much of an issue for going up grades. I have a Sunset M10000 without traction tires and that will not go up a 2.8% grade without some speed going in - slips otherwise.
Also grades put stress on the couplers in addition to the weight of long trains. Its always gets my attention when a coupler lets loose and the train starts to move in opposite directions. On my small layout the head meets the end quickly.
I've managed to keep my grades below 3% but if I had the room I would probably keep them to 1.5%. NMRA recommends no more than 2% on mainlines. But as anything else, use the minimum grade you absolutely need to get the job done. Both Mark and I have tight layouts which require steeper grades so we work with what we have. One tip is to move one line upgrade and the other downgrade. You effectively half the distance needed to provide crossing clearance. Either way what goes up must come down so you need the distance saved anyway. On my new layout, I am running a track connecting a lower level stub end yard to the main line 3/4 of the way around the perimeter of the layout to keep the grade manageable at an 8 inch elevation gain.
John, the bridge looks great! It a cleaner looking installation than mine, but I can cover up most of my ‘excess’ support on the hinge side with ground cover or other scenic or structural elements. Is there any twisting diagonally, which was a concern of a number of forum members? The truss portion of the bridge hardly weighs anything, so you are good to go! Congratulations!!!
I like Jeff’s comments on grades. Based on my experience with this layout your grade would be fine, unless you run a really long train. I have only needed a helper on really long trains for my layout. Actually experimentation to see what I could handle, not for regular running. A long train makes a small layout look smaller. So your grade should be fine.
My problems were that without enough transition from 4% to 0% at the top of the grade, the pilot wheels on most of not all steam engines came off the track. Also the front two drivers of my Decapod came off the track. Also, as Jeff mentioned, the pilot on steam engines touched the rails at the bottom of the grade. I didn’t have any issues with my short diesels and cars. If you are running long modern cars and engines, they may have issues too. I had to keep taking up the track and shimming the bottom of the grades and shaving off the angle at the top of the grades until all trains ran well. I don’t ever want to go through that again! 🤕
Jeff and Mark, Thank you for sharing your experiences which is invaluable information. I do not have any locomotives that are longer as of yet. I am sure that will change eventually and it would be nice to be able to accommodate guest engines that can run easily on the layout. I will stay with keeping grades to < 3% and heed both of your sage advice. Thanks again!
John, the bridge looks great! Very nice installation! I am with both Jeff and Mark as far as grades go. I have one that is at 3% but that is going down to my future staging yard under the layout. If you check out my post that I will be putting up shortly, I am going to try to attach a video of it.
@mike g. posted:John, the bridge looks great! Very nice installation! I am with both Jeff and Mark as far as grades go. I have one that is at 3% but that is going down to my future staging yard under the layout. If you check out my post that I will be putting up shortly, I am going to try to attach a video of it.
Thanks for all the help with the bridge! Great help and well appreciated
Hi John, I don't know what help I was, but it sure turned out great!
Nice installation. I’ve been looking for those hinges for while now. Where did you purchase them and the lift.?
@mike g. posted:Hi John, I don't know what help I was, but it sure turned out great!
Mike, You helped John by helping me, and I passed the information on to John! 😄
What aligns the bridge exactly with the fixed tracks on the right?
I have two brass locating pins on the free end to insure precise alignment of the tracks on my freight yard bridge. That's mandatory on mine as there are ten tracks to align!
Attachments
@mike g. posted:Hi John, I don't know what help I was, but it sure turned out great!
You supplied the drawings and inspiration to even attempt doing this!!!
It would have never happened without you, Mark and Susan’s efforts
@Stephen G posted:Nice installation. I’ve been looking for those hinges for while now. Where did you purchase them and the lift.?
They are 3D printed from drawings on Susan Deats forum posts on https://slsprr.net/features/bridges1drwgs.htm
i did beef up the plastic replica as they used steel
@gunrunnerjohn posted:What aligns the bridge exactly with the fixed tracks on the right?
John that is awesome!!! 10 track alignment!!!! WOW!
To answer your question - Absolutely nothing... yet. This was an attempt to see if I could use 3D material and manufactuer the hinges. The track is only there because I am also seeing how the layout transfer from scarm to reality. In scarm the track is actually elevated and so is the bridge. My purpose was feasiblity of making the lift bridge and also getting an idea of function and placement of layout. BTW John the watchdogs are working perfectly which was another reason to start laying some track. Next step is to actually elevate the track on table and to start laying the other main line, spurs, yard, roundhouse... Holy railroad batman there is SO Much to do!!!!
I will be using some alignment pins (not sure what and where) and also have to position and install limit switches for linear actuator.
I have two brass locating pins on the free end to insure precise alignment of the tracks on my freight yard bridge. That's mandatory on mine as there are ten tracks to align!
@Mark Boyce posted:Mike, You helped John by helping me, and I passed the information on to John! 😄
Mark you are so right! Again thank you both!!!
@Stephen G posted:Nice installation. I’ve been looking for those hinges for while now. Where did you purchase them and the lift.?
The lift I purchased either from ebay or amazon, it was Mike g.'s information that specified the actuator. As for the hinges they are 3D printed using Deats drawings for translating them into PLA plastic 3d printed parts. They originally called for 1/8" thick steel I made these much wider to handle the load and stresses. I was just guessing and it seemed to work out. If you have a 3d printer I could post the .stl file. If not I can certainly print a couple more when the printer is idle. One thing about 3d printing to get detail or strength it takes hours to print some objects. Which is fine by me as I have so many other things to work on I certainly am not waiting around for them to print. btw I love being able to "manufacure" parts!
@mike g. posted:John, the bridge looks great! Very nice installation! I am with both Jeff and Mark as far as grades go. I have one that is at 3% but that is going down to my future staging yard under the layout. If you check out my post that I will be putting up shortly, I am going to try to attach a video of it.
I will check it out for sure!
Yes, it is really neat to be able to manufacture parts now!! Well done!!
Mike’s 3% ramp works like a champ!
@Aegis21 posted:To answer your question - Absolutely nothing... yet. This was an attempt to see if I could use 3D material and manufactuer the hinges. The track is only there because I am also seeing how the layout transfer from scarm to reality. In scarm the track is actually elevated and so is the bridge. My purpose was feasiblity of making the lift bridge and also getting an idea of function and placement of layout. BTW John the watchdogs are working perfectly which was another reason to start laying some track. Next step is to actually elevate the track on table and to start laying the other main line, spurs, yard, roundhouse... Holy railroad batman there is SO Much to do!!!!
I will be using some alignment pins (not sure what and where) and also have to position and install limit switches for linear actuator.
These are what I used, for when you get there. They also come with a special pin insert that fits into the female parts once they are installed and then, when you lower the bridge and press down, they make a small indentation to mark where the male parts should be located.
Be careful not to drill down any further than the length of the pin so that they have material to rest on. I also used a little heavy duty construction adhesive when permanently placing them in their holes.
Got them off of the big A and am satisfied with how they work.
Attachments
Images (1)
@Richie C. posted:These are what I used, for when you get there. They also come with a special pin insert that fits into the female parts once they are installed and then, when you lower the bridge and press down, they make a small indentation to mark where the male parts should be located.
Be careful not to drill down any further than the length of the pin so that they have material to rest on. I also used a little heavy duty construction adhesive when permanently placing them in their holes.
Got them off of the big A and am satisfied with how they work.
Looks Great, and if they align 10 tracks they must work perfectly. Thanks for the info. I will get a set. Thanks!
@Aegis21 posted:Looks Great, and if they align 10 tracks they must work perfectly. Thanks for the info. I will get a set. Thanks!
Well, that's not what I used, unless someone else has ten mating tracks on their bridge. However, they look similar in function to what I used, and I suspect they'll do fine.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:Well, that's not what I used, unless someone else has ten mating tracks on their bridge.
John, where did you get your matting pins?
Right now, I just use 2 sections of plywood cut like half-moons to guide mine into place.
Again just a thank you for everyone's help! It is GREATLY appreciated. THANKS
Ok so I failed to look forward a couple of steps. I realized the 3D printed hinges would be thicker for strength, and I looked at interference with the deck. Now it comes..... assuming (yes I know the saying) that it worked before, so it did not occur to me to check if their is interference with the truss work above deck. Yes there is so much so it will not work as designed. I am experimenting with a new designed bracket/hinge it will take till this evening to print out, however it appears to clear on paper. lol The other option was to cut the original bridge structure, which I want to avoid as much as possible. Meanwhile I will start to elevate the track that is down with scrap plywood and 1x3's I am also concerned with how much track is in the tunnel section. No real access in case of derailment. I have included scarm drawing for reference.
Attachments
Images (1)
Files (1)
Murphy was an optimist!
If you make a significant inaccessible area, you know where the problems will be!
Now to be able to get to those problems and correct them! Yes Murphy was an optimist!
It’s always something! So Murphy lives with you?? I honestly think he lives with me!! 😢
@Mark Boyce posted:It’s always something! So Murphy lives with you?? I honestly think he lives with me!! 😢
Lets just say he gets around a lot more than needed. 
Murphy took a nap I guess - So on a brighter note the redesigned hinge works perfectly so far... I am inclined to beef it up a bit (there is plenty of clearance), however I will leave it as it is working nicely. Here are some pics of the new hinge bridge. All comments are always welcome, good or bad, they all help!
Now maybe I can start with elevating the track. For a single track with road bed, should the plywood be cut 4 1/2" wide???? And for a double track what would anyone suggest?
And it is now obvious that something has to change with all the track that is hidden in the L section of the layout. I fear redesigning that section. I am not happy with having too many spurs in that area above ground level. So One switch and spur maybe eliminated, which does nothing for my issue. 
Attachments
Images (8)
Well this is my first attempt at correcting the lack of tunnel access in the only tunnel on the layout. That seems boring, doesn't it??? 
Attachments
Images (1)
Sometimes you can arrange tunnel access from under the layout. Another way is to make the tunnel material removable as panels if needed. You do want access of some kind to that area, if not you can be sure you'll wish you had provided it!
John, the redesigned hinge looks great! I measured my roadbed and tracks adjacent to the double track bridge. We need at least 7” wide roadbed to extend just beyond the ties. I would suggest 8”, of course you could make it wider if you want.
Hi John, sorry I haven't commented for a couple of days. The hinges look great and very clean! I do have one thing to point out and think if it is not a problem then that is fine.
If you look at the hinge pins through the photos you will see in different photos the pins are sticking in different distances I don't know if that end of the bridge slides back and forth side to side, but if it does the easy fix would be to center the bridge so you have the same amount of pin on each side then just make a stop pin that you mount to the outside of the hinge. They do a lot of that with Heavy equipment just to keep pins in.
If its not a problem, just forget everything I just said and Rember I think things look great!
The revised plan does look very plain - like ‘why does the tunnel exist?’ The original has more impact. I agree with GRJ’s comment about access from the underside. Just move or adjust the elevated track supports to make sure your supports leave you room to reach up to help when things go wrong. Thankfully CSX Al had thought about that beforehand and had no issues retrieving my MTH C&O M-1 Turbine after its “notorious” pilot truck hung up on a grade change on the hidden 15 foot section of his layout.
You may want to move the tunnel portals towards each other by a few inches so you turnouts at each end are clear of them for maintenance.
Keep posting as the ideas and information are great.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:Sometimes you can arrange tunnel access from under the layout. Another way is to make the tunnel material removable as panels if needed. You do want access of some kind to that area, if not you can be sure you'll wish you had provided it!
Thanks for the words of wisdom and suggestions. I have never made a model railroad with scenery, so to be able to make some hidden panels seems a tall order for me. lol It is a good suggestion for sure! I lack the confidence to be able to implement it.
Thanks again!
@Mark Boyce posted:@Mark Boyce posted:John, the redesigned hinge looks great! I measured my roadbed and tracks adjacent to the double track bridge. We need at least 7” wide roadbed to extend just beyond the ties. I would suggest 8”, of course you could make it wider if you want.
Mark,
THANKS for the info, huge help!
@mike g. posted:Hi John, sorry I haven't commented for a couple of days. The hinges look great and very clean! I do have one thing to point out and think if it is not a problem then that is fine.
If you look at the hinge pins through the photos you will see in different photos the pins are sticking in different distances I don't know if that end of the bridge slides back and forth side to side, but if it does the easy fix would be to center the bridge so you have the same amount of pin on each side then just make a stop pin that you mount to the outside of the hinge. They do a lot of that with Heavy equipment just to keep pins in.
If its not a problem, just forget everything I just said and Remember I think things look great!
Mike, great eye for detail! Great idea using a stop pin. The pins are tight on the hinge that connects to the ground, and enough play on the other hinge to rotate the bridge up. Both base hinges are positioned so the bridge has only 1/8" latereal movement. That said, the pins are not secured and could slip out over time and use. Two options I considered was to use 1/4-20 bolts as pins with lock nuts, either at each hinge or possibly one spanning both hinges. Second option was to make the hinges with one side of the hole closed, there by not allowing pin to slide out of hinges. I'll see over time how they behave and if I detect the pins moving out of place then stop pins or another solution will need to be used.
Again Thanks for the input and idea, I would not have thought of stop pins!
@Central Terminal Jeff posted:The revised plan does look very plain - like ‘why does the tunnel exist?’ The original has more impact. I agree with GRJ’s comment about access from the underside. Just move or adjust the elevated track supports to make sure your supports leave you room to reach up to help when things go wrong. Thankfully CSX Al had thought about that beforehand and had no issues retrieving my MTH C&O M-1 Turbine after its “notorious” pilot truck hung up on a grade change on the hidden 15 foot section of his layout.
You may want to move the tunnel portals towards each other by a few inches so you turnouts at each end are clear of them for maintenance.
Keep posting as the ideas and information are great.
The elevated section will hopefully be the coal mining area. The HO track is for "coal mine" carts. Also looking at putting in someplace to load coal on to railroad cars. So the concept is a mountainous terrain with railroad hauling coal out of the area. So any track that goes under will be difficult to access. I like Gunrunner John's idea on removable panels, but now I may need to hire a professional for that work. Sorry I didn't give more details as they are important items I did not include. Right now things are still in planning stage and all options are open and welcome.
Morning John,
I didn't want to overstep my bounds with my other post, and I knew if it came up you would have a way to fix it! In relation to most of the other folks here when it comes to model train I am really new as I only got my first train about 7 years ago as a gift from my grandson!
Just remember it is a new learning experience, but most of all it is to be mostly about fun!
John, that lift bridge came out great.
To your track plan. Now that I see the black line is a mine track things are a little clearer. Looking at your benchwork. Are you putting a plywood deck on top of a plywood deck to create the tunnel ?
I like the first plan better. I just like long tunnels. If you cut the plywood supporting the tunnel trackage in a cookie cutter method and raise the elevated tracks with risers. You should be able to duck under the benchwork and reach up through the joists for access.
The purple portion of track that has a turnout just to the entrance of the tunnel. Maybe consider moving everything back further. The curved turnout looks to be a reach if you have a derailment or needs maintenance.
The spur track that’s in green. Is that going to serve an industry ? Maybe that could be straightened out.
if your still considering the first plan with the longer tunnel. I really don’t think you will have a derailment problem. One thing with a long tunnel with roadbed and trackage right above it. If you like to run smoke. The smoke really has no place to go. It seems to settle on the track. I had an open house many years ago. Guests brought engines to run and most ran with the smoke on. I have a long tunnel under one section. Will hide a 25 car train. After the open house I worked on the layout for a number of weeks. Finally ran some trains with constant stalling. The track was all slimey under there. Out in the open. Not so bad. The other thing with tracks passing over the tunnel portion if you run TMCC. you could have ground plane issue. You may not have an issue in testing. But at some point you may come across an engine that has an issue with it. Might be worth planning ahead rather than have to crawl in there later.
Enjoy reading your progress. The bridges you guys are building are really cool. My layout has a lift out to access the furnace. Over 4 feet. I started using that area as a workspace. It was easy to duck under 30 years ago. Not so much now. Thought of changing it out for a lift up type but because of the high height of the layout and length of the bridge it just won’t work.
@dave c. You stated:
The bridges you guys are building are really cool. My layout has a lift out to access the furnace. Over 4 feet. I started using that area as a workspace. It was easy to duck under 30 years ago. Not so much now. Thought of changing it out for a lift up type but because of the high height of the layout and length of the bridge it just won’t work.
But if you use the actuator as I, Mark and John use and set limit switches on the bridge you can still have the bridge raise a fair amount so you dont have to duck under as much! Just saying as we get older any help staying closer to up right can help! LOL
@mike g. posted:Morning John,
I didn't want to overstep my bounds with my other post, and I knew if it came up you would have a way to fix it! In relation to most of the other folks here when it comes to model train I am really new as I only got my first train about 7 years ago as a gift from my grandson!
Just remember it is a new learning experience, but most of all it is to be mostly about fun!
I have no bounds so it is impossible for you or anyone to over step. I welcome all help and ideas. For having been into trains for only seven years you sure do help a lot of people out! I would not have thought to do a powered lift bridge if you hadn’t done it and generously gave all your details
and you are again correct, having fun is the key!
@Dave_C posted:John, that lift bridge came out great.
To your track plan. Now that I see the black line is a mine track things are a little clearer. Looking at your benchwork. Are you putting a plywood deck on top of a plywood deck to create the tunnel ?
I like the first plan better. I just like long tunnels. If you cut the plywood supporting the tunnel trackage in a cookie cutter method and raise the elevated tracks with risers. You should be able to duck under the benchwork and reach up through the joists for access.
The purple portion of track that has a turnout just to the entrance of the tunnel. Maybe consider moving everything back further. The curved turnout looks to be a reach if you have a derailment or needs maintenance.
The spur track that’s in green. Is that going to serve an industry ? Maybe that could be straightened out.
if your still considering the first plan with the longer tunnel. I really don’t think you will have a derailment problem. One thing with a long tunnel with roadbed and trackage right above it. If you like to run smoke. The smoke really has no place to go. It seems to settle on the track. I had an open house many years ago. Guests brought engines to run and most ran with the smoke on. I have a long tunnel under one section. Will hide a 25 car train. After the open house I worked on the layout for a number of weeks. Finally ran some trains with constant stalling. The track was all slimey under there. Out in the open. Not so bad. The other thing with tracks passing over the tunnel portion if you run TMCC. you could have ground plane issue. You may not have an issue in testing. But at some point you may come across an engine that has an issue with it. Might be worth planning ahead rather than have to crawl in there later.
Enjoy reading your progress. The bridges you guys are building are really cool. My layout has a lift out to access the furnace. Over 4 feet. I started using that area as a workspace. It was easy to duck under 30 years ago. Not so much now. Thought of changing it out for a lift up type but because of the high height of the layout and length of the bridge it just won’t work.
Thanks for the support! I am now leaning back to cookie cutter. That whole area should be a coal mine with coaling building etc. And consensus is for a longer tunnel. Great info on where the smoke goes, er or doesn’t go! Maybe a small exhaust fan would help keep the tunnel track clean? And what could be done with the possible TMCC issue? I have zero experience with TMCC or dcs for that matter
thanks Dave
John, here’s a link that discusses the issue and has a link to more detailed info.
Thanks Dave, the provided link explains it better than I can. I only had 1 TMCC engine early on with no issues. Purchased a second one a year later and had a stalling issue in one spot for a couple of feet. The Forum had the fix and I was up and running. I had some bare copper wire and placed it above and a ways beyond the problem area. Held it up with some clips. I used solid copper as I didn’t want it to sag. I put curves in the wire which probably weren’t necessary. Soldered a piece of hookup wire onto it and ran it to the outlet.
Looking at your track plan. It was sort of similar to mine with the tunnel portion passing under multiple tracks. My engine would stall right under this area. It ran pretty much under the 4 tracks.
Attachments
Images (2)
Thank you both Dave’s for the solution to a potential problem. It appears the wire extends the antenna ground TMCC uses for communications. So I will run with the tracks in question and also in the yard area if needed.
Looking at many posts on this forum about tmcc signal and the need for outside rails to be connected I came across a video from Lionel. I Just watched that fantastic video from Lionel on TMCC and Legacy signal basics. He goes into why and how to implement ground planes to eliminate cross talk from adjacent tracks and how to use capacitance coupling for isolated outside rail. I hope it is ok to post the link here to that video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ-hiIvPxVs
Well worth the 23 minutes to view. This has given me some ideas on the best practices for powering my layout.
Now I am looking for practical experience to help me answer an important question that came up through this research. Lionel advocates bus wiring, MTH advocates star wiring. Planning to run both Lionel and MTH engines on the same layout, what has experience shown to be the best or least worse setup?
I can only vouch for my own experiences. My track was down long before DCS. I have all Gargraves and Ross. Other than the last phase that is basically a turntable and staging yard. All buss wired. A 12 gauge buss runs pretty close to following the track around the layout. I used Automotive primary wire. There are 4 mainline blocks. 2 TIU channels cover the 4 blocks. EVERY 3 ft section of Gargraves has 14 gauge feeders soldered to the buss. I alternated the outside rail drop each section. There is a common ground. Only the track itself connects to it. Every turnout has an 18 gauge drop from every isolated rail. No toggle switches or any complicated wiring. Just a few relays with 12 VDC power through Tortoises to change rail polarity. Has 10’s everywhere. MTH engines can be added from anywhere and can even be on the same channel with a powered TMCC. There are 2 other TIU’s that are used. Turntables and yards. The layout takes up a space of about 24X48.
This is just my conclusion on how to wire. Use a good quality wire of the proper gauge and keep it simple. Do your hard thinking when you run into a problem and test as you go along. Try to get one loop of track running first even if your turnouts go to nowhere. I think it’s important right off the bat to see something run. Also after you make additions keep checking what you previously have done.
The only issue I had early on was with TMCC. One of my 2 engines had a ground plane issue where tracks passing over it inside a tunnel. An easy fix with a few feet of wire to form a ground plane.
Clearly, the least risk will be if you use star wiring as TMCC/Legacy won't care at all. Many layouts use MTH DCS without star wiring successfully, but typically better results are obtained using star wiring.
The late Dale Manquen wrote a fairly extensive paper on TMCC operation and details of the signal propagation. It conflicts with much of the folk lore surrounding how the TMCC signal is transmitted and received. Sadly, his website is no longer active to share this very useful document.
We run mostly Lionel controlled with Lionel remotes but use DCS to control MTH, turnouts, accessories, lighting, etc thru 6 AIUs in a star wiring pattern. Turnouts are Tortoise. The layout has three levels, is “under construction”, and the left side which will contain most of level 3, has minimal level 2 and 3 track installed.
The right side is 2 level and tracks pass over level 1 in a lot of places. So far no ground plane problems. We can reach under the layout fairly easily and have run some copper wire where we can’t.
It appeared to us that if we wanted to run MTH and Lionel together, we would need to use star wiring. It works but “least worst” seems to be a good description.
Feel free to e-mail us with any questions.
If this is going to turn into a ground plane discussion, would someone in the know please comment on the practicality of making tunnels with Woodland Scenics Shaper Sheet (heavy duty aluminum foil backed by cotton batting like material) and the likely effect on signal strength. We have installed one which works fine and are doing two more this afternoon. Yes, we have seen Mike’s excellent video twice.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:The late Dale Manquen wrote a fairly extensive paper on TMCC operation and details of the signal propagation. It conflicts with much of the folk lore surrounding how the TMCC signal is transmitted and received. Sadly, his website is no longer active to share this very useful document.
You can still get access to Dale's website and content through the Wayback Machine.
https://web.archive.org/web/20...om/trainfacts/?p=691
Within the Machine, his internal hyperlinks will work or you can change the page number at the end of the URL.
Also watched the video. I understand every layout is different. I also understand the video to say if you had a multiple track yard, installing ground plane wires between each track is a good idea.
The current build of TPRR2 will have parallel mains and a section with a lower level yard. The levels separated by about 8 inches vertical distance. At least 8 parallel rails in the yard and 4 on the upper. I run both DCS and TMCC. I had no issues with my previous 9x13 layout. The new one is 12x12 but has more parallel running track side-by-side and over each other.
I would rather install the ground planes now, rather than later if this is going to be an issue. Maybe yes or maybe no does not seem like a good answer. For the 3x8 foot section, stapling chicken wire or aluminum screen to the underside of the upper level might be workable.
Comments appreciated ... Jeff Maybe I should stick with DCS ... naw nothing like an engineering challenge!
@Bill Webb seems to me the WS tunnel material would work great if you run a wire from it to ground - of course now that I am an expert after having watched a 20 minute video 
@Bruce Brown posted:You can still get access to Dale's website and content through the Wayback Machine.
https://web.archive.org/web/20...om/trainfacts/?p=691
Within the Machine, his internal hyperlinks will work or you can change the page number at the end of the URL.
Excellent, I didn't realize it was still available. Here's the link, this is something that I believe to be much closer to the truth.
GRJ thanks for the additional link to the original article. Hard to find this information among all the chaff on the internet. Had no clue about the TMCC signal and potential problems.
Ok to sort things out, I will use star wiring as GunrunnerJohn points out, TMCC/Legacy will not care. I need to read Dale's information a couple of times to totally grasp his information. It has a lot in it for sure. Which may trash the following work...
I have also set up a test track using two 37" gargraves wood tie tracks with insulated outside rail with capacitance coupling per the Lionel video. soldered connections between the hot transformer wire and the first track then soldered the two center rails of the tracks together. The remaining outside rail goes from transformer "U" to a soldered connection on outside rail, then these outside rails are soldered together. Also installed TVS's, one at transformer output, one at track input and another at end of track. So voltage drop due to track to track resistance should be negligible and the outer rails should radiate TMCC signal equally as if they are hardwired together. Put a train on track and started to run it up the track and it controlled a little rough. By rough I mean, the engine would creep and have some speed jerks, certainly not as smooth as the MTH units I have tried with DCS. I did notice the sparks under the center rail rolllers and will attempt to clean them, but also order replacements as they are probably 60 years old and were highly used 60 years ago with lots of ZW power. Two projects going in parallel are This one on a larger scale, using layout track as test bed which will wait until test track is working and tests out perfectly. And cutting roadbed from sheets of homosote that I have. Now to get my table saw to angle properly...
Working on laying track to give myself a visual of the layout in real life. I am not good at seeing a drawing and realizing how it will look in real life. So some of the track is down and it has spawned several ideas. One has me adding a siding for a trolley run through town. Moving the double track bridge to accommodate the roundhouse area with more room for small structures and added dimensions. It also has showed some of my foolishness with heights of track and being practical with scenery actually fitting in the small space I have designed. Will be using some cookie cutter on raised area's, But the yard area seems to be good with just flat plywood. I'll take some pics later on.
John, I’m glad you are making some headway. I agree, when building, sometimes you get better ideas and surely see where there are miscalculations from the drawing.
So I haven't been on much due to family matters. Daughter is moving back from Conn. and that has taken a lot of time to find a place to live etc. I have been getting a couple hours each morning to finish laying track down to give me a reality visual of the plan. I have made many small changes, and will put them back into scarm so I can see how bad the grades are on the elevations. I did 3D print some track spacers for parallel tracks. 3.5" , 4.24" , 4.5" which helps me keep things straight, along with an 8' aluminum straight edge. Used them in the yard area a lot! Will be physically moving our daughter next weekend, so not much will get done, I'm sure of that, on the other hand, we get to see our daughter a LOT more frequently! which makes it all worth it.
John, the spacers are a good idea. That is good your daughter is moving back. I hope all goes smoothly.
Hello All,
Daughter is moved back from Conn. and is settling in her new home. Great having her back for sure. Now I can finally get back to my layout, which I can't remember where I left off, so starting back is first finding where I left off. Reassessing where it stands, has me recalling I was placing track according to scarm drawing and having a reality view of how it will look and function. With that said, I put as much track down to give me a reality check on layout design and functionality. Here are pics of what it now looks like and I am disappointed a bit on the look/operation or maybe just not seeing the potential in the finished product, not sure which it is... Please comment on any thing to change, alter, replace, remove etc. It appears next step is to cookie cutter the track that will be elevated or maybe if I have enough scraps, I could elevate the tracks with those so I can change things if better ideas are presented. Thanks for looking and all comments are welcome as always.
Attachments
Images (3)
more pics
Attachments
Images (4)
and some more pics
Attachments
Images (6)
I will try to get the scarm drawing posted. Unfortunately I have been doing all my computer work on an Apple OS, and the scarm drawings are on and old Dell windows 7 OS. Which makes it cumbersome at best working on the two different platforms. More out of convenience than anything technical, wish scarm was mac compatible
Don't know what that pipe is in the corner of your last picture, but because you "benchworked" it solidly closed, you can bet something will eventually go wrong with it (Murphy's Law!!). I would strongly recommend you rebuild that corner to a swing-out pie-shaped module so that repairs can be effected without ruining the corner of your layout.
Chuck
@PRR1950 posted:Don't know what that pipe is in the corner of your last picture, but because you "benchworked" it solidly closed, you can bet something will eventually go wrong with it (Murphy's Law!!). I would strongly recommend you rebuild that corner to a swing-out pie-shaped module so that repairs can be effected without ruining the corner of your layout.
Chuck
That is a radon vent pipe which I was hoping on having a hill/mountain over that is removable for pipe access. I am not sure how to do a pie shaped swing out module. Any help is appreciated. Thanks John
John, I’m glad your daughter is settling in. Laying the track out was a good idea. That’s a lot of track!!
I don’t know how to handle the accessibility to the pipe, in the off chance it needs work.
@Aegis21 posted:That is a radon vent pipe which I was hoping on having a hill/mountain over that is removable for pipe access. I am not sure how to do a pie shaped swing out module. Any help is appreciated. Thanks John
In Bill Barrett’s book there is a section on doing swing out structures; along with a lot of other good information.
Jay
@Mark Boyce posted:John, I’m glad your daughter is settling in. Laying the track out was a good idea. That’s a lot of track!!
I don’t know how to handle the accessibility to the pipe, in the off chance it needs work.
Thanks Mark, Maybe too much track...
@Tranquil Hollow RR posted:In Bill Barrett’s book there is a section on doing swing out structures; along with a lot of other good information.
Jay
Thanks Jay, I will look that book up.
Here is the Scarm File 
Attachments
Images (1)
Files (1)
@Tranquil Hollow RR posted:In Bill Barrett’s book there is a section on doing swing out structures; along with a lot of other good information.
Jay
I found a book by Jim Barrett "Building A Layout" Is that the one you are referencing? Thanks John
That’s the one John.
Jay
@Tranquil Hollow RR posted:That’s the one John.
Jay
Thanks!
My thoughts on the pipe maybe to have a removable mountain to hide the pipe and then beable to remove the mountain when and if the pipe needs to be worked on. It will also allow me to access the back/unreachable section in that area. Anyone have thoughts on this idea? I did get Jim Barrett's book which is fantastic, btw Thanks for leading me to it.
Does anyone have Layout changes, improvements alterations to help make the layout more interesting from either just running trains or railroad operations standpoint? I am having trouble with "Main Street" To me it seems there are too many tracks and not enough room for street, buildings, and scenery. I may be worrying over something I am just not seeing yet. Again being this is my first time making a large layout (something other than a Christmas tree oval) it is hard to envision the diorama's .Any comments are appreciated.
Thanks in Advance John
John, I don’t see how a swing-out would work. The aisle there is only 3’ wide and there’s at least 2’ of framing/decking to the pipe from the left. If you swing it out, it’s just going to block the aisle. My suggestion is a 2x2’ or 2’x3’ removable module that can be pulled out and moved out of the way. Since that’s only a vent pipe, chances are it’ll never have to be replaced/repaired, but you do need access to that back area for maintenance and dealing with problems if you put a spur there.
When it comes to track vs landscaping, you need to decide how you plan to operate. Are you really going to use those 2 double-crossovers and spurs? Or can they be simplified into just a couple of spurs to service whatever facilities you put there? If you put a large mountain around the pipe, how are you going to landscape that spur? What it going to go along the spur that goes in the other direction.? There’s no room for buildings, just faux building or painted buildings in the wall. That same for the spurs along the aisle. The biggest problem is a lack of specific buildings to see how things could fit. We filled those areas with track to show what could fit, but that always depended on what building you eventually decided to out there. Now it’s time to forget about those spurs and see how you want your city to look along the mainlines. Once you have that, then you can decide what spurs to keep.
The least amount of action as far as turnouts and such seems to be on the trackage in the lower left hand corner of the layout. You could try putting your Main Street above the mainline curve but not over the yard lead. The tunnel portals would be halfway through the mainline curve and about where the yard lead diverts to a spur. You could use a cut stone wall or a cliff at the edge of the elevated town so that the yard lead would run along the walls edge. A simple highway bridge over the yard lead would be your exit out of town so it doesn’t just turn into a dead end. Looks to be enough room where structures could be on both sides of the street. You may have to cut some access holes in your wood roadbed for a just in case derailment inside the tunnel. A tall structure could be used to hide the fact that the town or street goes up against a wall and aid as a view block. I know you have another tunnel planned and this may not be a good idea to have to much hidden trackage.
I just don’t think you have enough room along your yard area leading to the turntable. You would need to face the building fronts toward the aisle and not have room for the street. You could always leave the street out and just model the sidewalk. Still it looks like a busy area and you don’t want to have to reach over structures for anything. Nor do you want to limit yourself to have just 1 or 2 story ones.
The yard lead has a nice open area on the curve. The use of a curved switch would create a nice spur for something like an fuel dealer.
@Aegis21 Until I opened the SCARM file I did not realize the amount of space you have to work with. WOW - in my dreams. That said the long narrow space with the end entry can pose design problems if you want 072 plus curves. I would consider hiring someone to help design an interesting layout plan for you. There are forum sponsors who provide such services. If not that - get ahold of Linn Westcott's old book "101 track plans". He does a nice job of providing scenery details as well as vertical adjustments. I gather from him since the real world is not flat, you layout should not be either. You have plenty of space for a multilevel track plan with nominal grades. I would consider a helix in the bump-out and get creative with a high track.
Check out the basic track plan at @mike g. 's post on his rebuild. This plan has gone through several iterations. I like the idea of a walk in, but I do not have the room. A folded dog bone would fit nicely in your space. Just plan for space between the rails and backdrop for buildings or scenery.
While I understand this layout has been dismantled, it is a great example of what a model railroad can look like. Maybe there are some ideas for you here. Black Diamond Railroad
For what its worth, I had a radon pipe in my home. It is nothing more than a PVC pipe with a slight negative pressure on it to draw radon containing air from under the basement slab. The fan should be up in the roof somewhere along with the power supply. I would have no qualms about encasing that pipe. Mine had a pressure gauge on it which needed to be exposed - a good check to see the system is operating. Over time the fan wears out and needs to be replaced.
John, if you don't want.to go threw a lot of work. I had a friend here I. Washington state who had the same problem, he just went out and bought some pipe the same size and painted them all the same color for silos. Anything above the color was painted sky blue.
@Aegis21 posted:Does anyone have Layout changes, improvements alterations to help make the layout more interesting from either just running trains or railroad operations standpoint? I am having trouble with "Main Street" To me it seems there are too many tracks and not enough room for street, buildings, and scenery. I may be worrying over something I am just not seeing yet. Again being this is my first time making a large layout (something other than a Christmas tree oval) it is hard to envision the diorama's .Any comments are appreciated.
Thanks in Advance John
I like the plan overall John. My only recommendation would be to simplify the yard and tracks leading to the turntable. I would shorten all but one track and not connect them to the TT. You can eliminate the escape switches between the middle tracks too. The bottom track can remain as is. This would be an arrivals track where you can pull in a train, and move the engine to the TT. This can also be used to bring an engine out from the TT to connect to a train in the yard.
For the town area, if you know the footprints of the buildings you are planning to use, lay them out so you can see what space you have/ need.
Just my $.02.
Bob
@DoubleDAZ posted:John, I don’t see how a swing-out would work. The aisle there is only 3’ wide and there’s at least 2’ of framing/decking to the pipe from the left. If you swing it out, it’s just going to block the aisle. My suggestion is a 2x2’ or 2’x3’ removable module that can be pulled out and moved out of the way. Since that’s only a vent pipe, chances are it’ll never have to be replaced/repaired, but you do need access to that back area for maintenance and dealing with problems if you put a spur there.
Hi Dave, I agree on the removable module instead of a swing out.
When it comes to track vs landscaping, you need to decide how you plan to operate. Are you really going to use those 2 double-crossovers and spurs? Or can they be simplified into just a couple of spurs to service whatever facilities you put there? If you put a large mountain around the pipe, how are you going to landscape that spur? What it going to go along the spur that goes in the other direction.? There’s no room for buildings, just faux building or painted buildings in the wall. That same for the spurs along the aisle. The biggest problem is a lack of specific buildings to see how things could fit. We filled those areas with track to show what could fit, but that always depended on what building you eventually decided to out there. Now it’s time to forget about those spurs and see how you want your city to look along the mainlines. Once you have that, then you can decide what spurs to keep.
I could abandon the double crossover, although that is the only way the main lines are connected. And I have a gut feeling that basically the town should have been built and then added railroad services as needed. At any rate, the area at the top left of the latest drawing will be coal mining spurs. On the back wall will be a river going out to sea/lake with a double track high bridge and a bascule bridge. to accommodate train passage. The top right/middle was to be town with passenger station on the two spurs. That is the more troublesome area, as tracks take up too much room. Also I am taking into account removeable sections to access the layout sections that are against the wall. To run trains there is a lot of track and options, however to have it somewhat realistically resemble real railroad serving communities and businesses, it falls short. I will put in some buildings on a scarm drawing that I have and would like to use. Some I can build to fit, however there needs to be some room to "fit" these into. my head is spinning lol
Hi John. just to give you a little insight the wondering weather to have more track or more scenery is the sole reason I took down my old layout. I had a bunch of track but no room for building or towns really and I came to the conclusion after getting to the point where it was time to add people, autos, and buildings I found out in my opinion I did not have enough scenery .
My new layout also uses a raised town and my staging yard will be under the layout with a ramp up to the main line.
Attachments
Images (2)
@Dave_C posted:The least amount of action as far as turnouts and such seems to be on the trackage in the lower left hand corner of the layout. You could try putting your Main Street above the mainline curve but not over the yard lead. The tunnel portals would be halfway through the mainline curve and about where the yard lead diverts to a spur. You could use a cut stone wall or a cliff at the edge of the elevated town so that the yard lead would run along the walls edge. A simple highway bridge over the yard lead would be your exit out of town so it doesn’t just turn into a dead end. Looks to be enough room where structures could be on both sides of the street. You may have to cut some access holes in your wood roadbed for a just in case derailment inside the tunnel. A tall structure could be used to hide the fact that the town or street goes up against a wall and aid as a view block. I know you have another tunnel planned and this may not be a good idea to have to much hidden trackage.
I just don’t think you have enough room along your yard area leading to the turntable. You would need to face the building fronts toward the aisle and not have room for the street. You could always leave the street out and just model the sidewalk. Still it looks like a busy area and you don’t want to have to reach over structures for anything. Nor do you want to limit yourself to have just 1 or 2 story ones.
The yard lead has a nice open area on the curve. The use of a curved switch would create a nice spur for something like an fuel dealer.
Hi Dave, I am trying to wrap my head around putting Main street over the mainline curve. I have trouble looking at things in the Z direction. Elevations are not my strong suit at all. I like the sound of the highway bridge and stone wall. Having to hide a bit more track would be worth it to have a more realistic scene. And I agree on not reaching over structures for sure.
Thanks for the great ideas.
@mike g. posted:John, if you don't want.to go threw a lot of work. I had a friend here I. Washington state who had the same problem, he just went out and bought some pipe the same size and painted them all the same color for silos. Anything above the color was painted sky blue.
Great idea to keep in mind! Dave mentioned a raised town which might help that situation.
@mike g. posted:Hi John. just to give you a little insight the wondering weather to have more track or more scenery is the sole reason I took down my old layout. I had a bunch of track but no room for building or towns really and I came to the conclusion after getting to the point where it was time to add people, autos, and buildings I found out in my opinion I did not have enough scenery .
My new layout also uses a raised town and my staging yard will be under the layout with a ramp up to the main line.
Love your town for sure! Now I will investigate the layout height to see if a raised town or a lower yard is the best approach. Either way it sounds like some woodworking will be needed, hopefully not a total rework of that area.
John, I am in agreement that the chances are you will never have to access the pipe. We had to have the mitigation installed in a previous house, so I agree the items that may need maintenance aren’t at the layout. We don’t need the system at this house. You will need to plan for access to the track and scenery.
Jeff (ScoutingDad) sent me photographs of his layout in his previous house where he used the ‘canyon’ approach with ‘stone’ retaining walls and the town at a higher elevation than one of his tracks. My layout was planned with the high track right over the lower track and I will be building a couple lightweight lift outs with my town on it. I have not started that project as of this time. Maybe something like that would work for you.
John, if you are considering raising the town above the tracks. Experiment with cardboard or foam raised up on whatever you can find to get the height you need. If you have some buildings that would help or even cardboard boxes to represent buildings. If you come up with something you like. Give it a few days just be sure before you get into the build.
I was more focused on the town or road. Bob brings up a good point about the lead to the turntable of just having a couple of paths to get on or get off it. The curved turnout I mentioned leading to an industry such as fuel dealer. If you are modeling the steam era. A long team track might work with a loading dock. Low enough that it can easily be reached over. You can service it with a variety of cars and detail it with all kinds of commodities being loaded into trucks. Or even to offload automobiles.
@Mark Boyce posted:John, I am in agreement that the chances are you will never have to access the pipe. We had to have the mitigation installed in a previous house, so I agree the items that may need maintenance aren’t at the layout. We don’t need the system at this house. You will need to plan for access to the track and scenery.
Jeff (ScoutingDad) sent me photographs of his layout in his previous house where he used the ‘canyon’ approach with ‘stone’ retaining walls and the town at a higher elevation than one of his tracks. My layout was planned with the high track right over the lower track and I will be building a couple lightweight lift outs with my town on it. I have not started that project as of this time. Maybe something like that would work for you.
Mark,
I agree on not worrying about the radon pipe. The fan is below layout and could access from underneath if needed to be replaced.
As for planning elevations, that is one of my Achilles heel for sure. Concepts I struggle to process. I will play around with Dave C's suggestion on using temporary cardboard etc. to visualize an elevated town. Some difficulty is the total lack of knowledge on making/using walls vs trestle's etc. But one step at a time I guess. Thanks for your input, your layout is coming out GREAT! I hope to have mine come out half a good.
Thank you, John!
@Dave_C posted:John, if you are considering raising the town above the tracks. Experiment with cardboard or foam raised up on whatever you can find to get the height you need. If you have some buildings that would help or even cardboard boxes to represent buildings. If you come up with something you like. Give it a few days just be sure before you get into the build.
I was more focused on the town or road. Bob brings up a good point about the lead to the turntable of just having a couple of paths to get on or get off it. The curved turnout I mentioned leading to an industry such as fuel dealer. If you are modeling the steam era. A long team track might work with a loading dock. Low enough that it can easily be reached over. You can service it with a variety of cars and detail it with all kinds of commodities being loaded into trucks. Or even to offload automobiles.
Great idea with cardboard and foam, I have both readily available. Plus many cut off pieces of 1x3's for vertical support. And it sounds like I need to be flexible with the spurs and accommodate buildings and roads for a chance at semi-realistic scenery and town.
@RSJB18 posted:I like the plan overall John. My only recommendation would be to simplify the yard and tracks leading to the turntable. I would shorten all but one track and not connect them to the TT. You can eliminate the escape switches between the middle tracks too. The bottom track can remain as is. This would be an arrivals track where you can pull in a train, and move the engine to the TT. This can also be used to bring an engine out from the TT to connect to a train in the yard.
For the town area, if you know the footprints of the buildings you are planning to use, lay them out so you can see what space you have/ need.
Just my $.02.
Bob
Hi Bob, Just so I am understanding your recommendations - So take out the switches between yard tracks and shorten them to what would be a workable/good length? Bottom track - is that the one closest to the wall? So then put the town where the yard tracks were located and build from there? When everyone was helping with the track layout I was in the more is best mode for track. Obviously now is the time to use the less is more with track and more is more with buildings and town. LOL
Thanks for your input and let me know if I am understanding your suggestions.
Again Thanks John
@ScoutingDad posted:@Aegis21 Until I opened the SCARM file I did not realize the amount of space you have to work with. WOW - in my dreams. That said the long narrow space with the end entry can pose design problems if you want 072 plus curves. I would consider hiring someone to help design an interesting layout plan for you. There are forum sponsors who provide such services. If not that - get ahold of Linn Westcott's old book "101 track plans". He does a nice job of providing scenery details as well as vertical adjustments. I gather from him since the real world is not flat, you layout should not be either. You have plenty of space for a multilevel track plan with nominal grades. I would consider a helix in the bump-out and get creative with a high track.
I will certainly get the Linn Westcott book, I need all the help I can get.
Check out the basic track plan at @mike g. 's post on his rebuild. This plan has gone through several iterations. I like the idea of a walk in, but I do not have the room. A folded dog bone would fit nicely in your space. Just plan for space between the rails and backdrop for buildings or scenery.
While I understand this layout has been dismantled, it is a great example of what a model railroad can look like. Maybe there are some ideas for you here. Black Diamond Railroad
For what its worth, I had a radon pipe in my home. It is nothing more than a PVC pipe with a slight negative pressure on it to draw radon containing air from under the basement slab. The fan should be up in the roof somewhere along with the power supply. I would have no qualms about encasing that pipe. Mine had a pressure gauge on it which needed to be exposed - a good check to see the system is operating. Over time the fan wears out and needs to be replaced.
Thanks for the input and suggestions! I certainly need to do more research and get my head around multi-level layout.
@Aegis21 posted:Hi Bob, Just so I am understanding your recommendations - So take out the switches between yard tracks and shorten them to what would be a workable/good length? Bottom track - is that the one closest to the wall? So then put the town where the yard tracks were located and build from there? When everyone was helping with the track layout I was in the more is best mode for track. Obviously now is the time to use the less is more with track and more is more with buildings and town. LOL
Thanks for your input and let me know if I am understanding your suggestions.
Again Thanks John
John- not exactly. What I meant was to simply shorten the yard tracks and not connect them to the TT. I modified your SCARM plan and attached it below. You don't have any other long storage tracks that I see (unless a layer is turned off), so I would assume you want the yard to be as long as possible.
The town could be built above the yard as Dave and others mentioned.
Layouts are about compromises. I'm an operator, so I tend to go track heavy and will find ways to fit buildings and industries as I go. If you want a good sized Main Street, then going on top of the yard would make the most sense.
It's your railroad, your rules!
Bob
Attachments
Images (1)
Files (1)
Bob, did you notice that the switch connected to the TT is only O-31 and larger ones won't fit as currently configured? However, either way, once a train arrives, the TT is useless until the cars are moved off the arrival track. That's why there needs to be at least on more track connected to the TT.
The photo shows an alternate configuration using the light blue track for configuring outgoing consists, the red track for arrival trains, the grey track to move departing engines off the TT and the green/dark blue tracks for storage. As always, the problem is trying to marry a TT/RH facility with yard operations. In this case, the yard is attached directly to the TT making it really difficult to configure something anywhere close to prototype.
An alternative is to use just one track to service the TT and the other tracks for storage/configuration. A train would arrive and the engine would move onto the TT. A yard engine would then clear the arrival track and configure an outgoing consist. A departing engine would then move off the TT and pick up the consist.
Initially, the switches in the yard were so the yard engine could move around the yard, not for arriving engines to escape. And, if you noticed, the TT/RH is sized for large engines, while the yard is effectively limited to just 2-3 storage tracks.
Attachments
Images (1)
@DoubleDAZ posted:Bob, did you notice that the switch connected to the TT is only O-31 and larger ones won't fit as currently configured? However, either way, once a train arrives, the TT is useless until the cars are moved off the arrival track. That's why there needs to be at least on more track connected to the TT.
The photo shows an alternate configuration using the light blue track for configuring outgoing consists, the red track for arrival trains, the grey track to move departing engines off the TT and the green/dark blue tracks for storage. As always, the problem is trying to marry a TT/RH facility with yard operations. In this case, the yard is attached directly to the TT making it really difficult to configure something anywhere close to prototype.
An alternative is to use just one track to service the TT and the other tracks for storage/configuration. A train would arrive and the engine would move onto the TT. A yard engine would then clear the arrival track and configure an outgoing consist. A departing engine would then move off the TT and pick up the consist.
Initially, the switches in the yard were so the yard engine could move around the yard, not for arriving engines to escape. And, if you noticed, the TT/RH is sized for large engines, while the yard is effectively limited to just 2-3 storage tracks.
I did not check the switch Dave. I had considered keeping one more track connected but was thinking along the same lines that a yard switcher would clear the arrival track once the lead engine was disconnected (at least that's how I'd run it on my RR. I agree that having the TT at the end of the yard presents challenges.
It takes a Village to design a good track plan......
Bob, I have no problem using 1 track, probably what I would do too, mostly because I’m not into a lot of switching. I’d probably extend the light blue track further and use it to stage a long train. I’d pull in, disconnect the engine and let another engine take the consist back out just the way it is. Then I’d move the original engine to the TT using the gray track. I’d do the same thing with the red, green and dark blue tracks using appropriately sized consists. That would give me 4 consists to okay with. Every so often I might use a yard engine to move cars around just for some variety.
That would maybe change if I’m had the room for a real yard and TT/RH service area. I was just explaining the rational for some of the current design. John and I have played with this design since 2018. This current version is something he’s been tweaking trying to figure out the landscaping. If you look back through the thread, you’ll see that he added the links to the TT using flex track, something I think he’s going to find isn’t going to work very well during the build stage.
I haven’t reviewed the latest version until now, I’ve been preoccupied this year with family issues, so I haven’t had a chance to mention that or the O-31 switch. The design of the TT area will undoubtedly change during construction. Right now there are curved whisker tracks aligned with the preset indexes on the TT. However, during the build he should see that modern TTs have way more index points than those shown in the software and he should be able to add straight whiskers in the sides of the RH. The lengths also appear to be longer than needed on the whiskers outside the RH, they only need to be long enough for engines to clear each other. The whiskers for the RH are longer to fit into the RH.
Anyway, I also think he’s forgotten that he can add a city scape to the upper section by adding removable platforms along the aisle’s edge. The idea that reach has to be around 30” is valid, but doesn’t negate using removable modules for non-track landscaping to make a layout appear larger than it is. In fact, an entire movable module would fit along that edge or the edge along the lower section by the yard. You put it on wheels and hide the connecting hardware inside buildings, etc. Or you break it into smaller sections and out them on drawer sliders.
