Benchwork - Wiring - adding elevations

Bob & Dave,

I am obviously floundering around with both track design/functionality and setting up a town somewhere. All the advice and comments are certainly appreciated and needed. I have VERY limited knowledge of the running of model trains in regard to yards, TT and switching. I will re-read all your comments and digest them to figure out what is possible and what is not. (or at least not practical) Thanks for all the time you have graciously spent helping and guiding me with this layout.  I did put a raised platform to "see" how a town would look over the yard. It appears from first glance the table height of 41" with an additional 7" platform has the town at a poor viewing angle. If I have to cut down the legs on the existing table, although not ideal by far, it is still do able. Anyone have thoughts on total height?  

41” height isn’t that high for viewing trains. Most opt for a low height if the layout has some depth in order to be able to reach things. Those with more of a style shelf layout opt for about 48”.
I wouldn’t place the town over the yard portion. I’d go to the left so that the town would only cover 2 mainline tracks. Leave the yard lead visible. The street would be closer to eye level. Just the thing if a few buildings have visible lighted interiors for viewing.

@Dave_C posted:

41” height isn’t that high for viewing trains. Most opt for a low height if the layout has some depth in order to be able to reach things. Those with more of a style shelf layout opt for about 48”.
I wouldn’t place the town over the yard portion. I’d go to the left so that the town would only cover 2 mainline tracks. Leave the yard lead visible. The street would be closer to eye level. Just the thing if a few buildings have visible lighted interiors for viewing.

Thanks Dave for your input. Since the table top present height is 41" putting another layer on top. I think I would need 6.5" clearance add 1" for plywood and Masonite or foam board and I'm at almost 49" Please anyone and every one let me know your max height that is used for a town. I put a piece of plywood up 6" and a building or two and it looked good for viewing inside the storefront windows. As for where to position it, I like keeping the yard open for viewing and I will need some access to that corner and have a town on top. I have some 1" foam that I could use to mock up something with buildings. I originally wanted the town across the isle opposite the yard. I obviously added too many tracks for a town to fit. Not sure what to have on that side????

John, my layout base level is 42” high.  The highest track level is 50”.  My station is on a platform at that height.  My town over my yard will be at the same height.  I’m 5’ 11” tall.  The 50” height is okay with me, but I respect the fact that it would be too high for many people.  I was toying with what I am going to use for supporting the removable town.  Yes it needs to be lightweight but sturdy.  If I can get a chance I’ll mock something up too.

John, here is a view of the station level; 50”.  The bottom level is actually 43”.

John, if it’s been discussed before at some point in the thread. I apologize for asking these questions again. Are you planning on running any passenger equipment ?   Are you looking for more of an open country, small town look. Or something like a city with taller structures ?

George Selios’ famous HO layout has a small city scene over the tracks in Franklin. It’s supported by cut stone archways. Think tunnel portals joined together. It features an under the city passenger station with platforms. The archways allow you to see the action but also get your hand in if needed. You mentioned the section opposite your yard for the town area. Other than a couple of turnouts I would move to an open area and maybe get another track passing through there looks to be plenty of room.

Bob Bartizek did something similar in his town of Annvile. There are videos out there of both of these layouts. Bob’s might be available on OGR for viewing.

As far as height of the layout. I think your right on the money. Buildings just below eye level look good. Nobody’s squatting down to look in windows if there’s something to see or checking out figures and autos.

@Mark Boyce posted:

John, my layout base level is 42” high.  The highest track level is 50”.  My station is on a platform at that height.  My town over my yard will be at the same height.  I’m 5’ 11” tall.  The 50” height is okay with me, but I respect the fact that it would be too high for many people.  I was toying with what I am going to use for supporting the removable town.  Yes it needs to be lightweight but sturdy.  If I can get a chance I’ll mock something up too.

Hi Mark, I was 6' 1" now more like 5' 11" so I feel more comfortable seeing your layout heights are good. Now my wife on the other hand is 5'1" but hasn't had interest in my train project, so it may not matter.

@Dave_C posted:

John, if it’s been discussed before at some point in the thread. I apologize for asking these questions again. Are you planning on running any passenger equipment ?   Are you looking for more of an open country, small town look. Or something like a city with taller structures ? No apology needed, asking questions that I have already forgotten they were asked is a helpful reminder. Yes I would like to run some passenger service. Small town look for sure, no big cities.

George Selios’ famous HO layout has a small city scene over the tracks in Franklin. It’s supported by cut stone archways. Think tunnel portals joined together. It features an under the city passenger station with platforms. The archways allow you to see the action but also get your hand in if needed. You mentioned the section opposite your yard for the town area. Other than a couple of turnouts I would move to an open area and maybe get another track passing through there looks to be plenty of room. Thanks for the passenger station idea, that does sound like  a smart use of space. As far as another track on the opposite side of the room, I was planning on making a one foot removable module so I can access the tracks closest to the wall. It is a four foot reach which will be difficult without access. So another track is troublesome. I am not sure I would want to tackle a removable track section, although I guess the is possible.

Bob Bartizek did something similar in his town of Annvile. There are videos out there of both of these layouts. Bob’s might be available on OGR for viewing.

As far as height of the layout. I think your right on the money. Buildings just below eye level look good. Nobody’s squatting down to look in windows if there’s something to see or checking out figures and autos. Thanks for the positive feedback on the height and the suggestions, I will check out both Selios and Bartizek's layouts.

@RSJB18 posted:

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 and Dave you both have great suggestions and I have so little knowledge of a real layout and how to work a yard and turntable. I see in both your suggestions the turnouts between the yards tracks are removed, if I am repeating myself I apologize, it also sounds like the yard will be for storage of consists/cars and should not be connected to the TT? Again I am so lost with operations, it makes having a good functional design impossible for me to even think about, let alone designing it. Please your thoughts, anyone else have ideas for the yard/TT area? Thanks

from helpless in Pa.

John, I used to be 6’ 0”, but was measured 5’ 11” a few years ago.  Maybe I am even 5’ 10” by now.  😄

I have never had a turntable or decent yard, so I can identify with you, that I don’t know how to even comment on that aspect of layout design.

@Aegis21 posted:

Bob and Dave you both have great suggestions and I have so little knowledge of a real layout and how to work a yard and turntable. I see in both your suggestions the turnouts between the yards tracks are removed, if I am repeating myself I apologize, it also sounds like the yard will be for storage of consists/cars and should not be connected to the TT? Again I am so lost with operations, it makes having a good functional design impossible for me to even think about, let alone designing it. Please your thoughts, anyone else have ideas for the yard/TT area? Thanks

John, it’s not a matter of “should not“, it’s more a matter of not enough room for straight connections because the TT is too close. You need a straight track off the TT so steamers won’t hit obstructions that surround the TT. I’ve included a photo of an Atlas TT to show the types of obstructions I’m talking about. If a steamer comes in off a curve, there’s a good chance it will hit. Of course, if your TT has unlimited index points, there shouldn’t be such obstructions and you should be okay.

There’s nothing wrong with having the yard switches, but if you connect all the tracks to the TT, they’re not needed for escape. And using them to escape eats up storage for 2-3 cars. It’s all a matter of if you think you’ll actually use them, how much storage you want, etc. The big thing is unless you dedicate that whole area to TT/yard operations, you just don’t have the room for anything close to prototype. And, unless you like switching and plan to build and break down consists, a lot of things just aren’t needed.

Dave,

not sure on unlimited Ty indexes, it is. Ross turntable with indexing

have to go now but will address the remainder of your post soon

John, it’s not really unlimited, but newer TTs, such as the Ross TT, are fully indexed. That means they stop wherever you want rather than only at preset points. What you need to be careful of with the Ross TT is making sure engines coming out of a curve clear the railings that are attached to rotating platform. I don’t see any obstructions around the perimeter of the TT, so you should be okay there. It’s just a caution when using flex track to make connections.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, it’s not really unlimited, but newer TTs, such as the Ross TT, are fully indexed. That means they stop wherever you want rather than only at preset points. What you need to be careful of with the Ross TT is making sure engines coming out of a curve clear the railings that are attached to rotating platform. I don’t see any obstructions around the perimeter of the TT, so you should be okay there. It’s just a caution when using flex track to make connections.

Thanks Dave for the sage advise on the yard and turntable. I am re-thinking (although that implies I had thought things through originally- which obviously I did not) everything on the layout. I will have the less is more attitude when it comes to track, and look at areas for town, coal industry, stations, country side, trailer park. The area seemed so big when I started but mysteriously shrank when track was put down???? Back to the drawing board...

Thanks John

John- If you are thinking about changing things up, consider reversing the yard lead and put it on the right end, next to the TT. The purple yard track can be moved and the yard extended around the corner on the left. This would free the TT from the back of the yard and you could have one or two tracks serving the TT off of the new yard lead.

Not knowing your scenery plan too well I'm not sure how this would affect what you want to do but this is the time to think about these things.

I will lay it out in SCARM when I get a chance.

John, I think I like Bob’s suggestion of reversing the yard lead to the end of the yard next to the turntable.

Dont worry about rethinking/replanning.  I have just finished testing out track on The Blackwater Canyon Line Plan E.  Aside from Plan A, I started laying track on all the other plans, then realized they weren’t so good for various reasons!  🙄

@Aegis21  John, this thread goes way back to 2018. Have you been working on imagining a layout this long? If so - just throw a board down, lay some track and run some trains. Do not worry about the "perfect layout".  My gosh I get tied up in planning all the time but somehow manage to just move ahead.

I found I did not understand my preferences until I built my layouts and ran some trains, and then bought more trains, sold some off and rebuilt a new layout and now have done this cycle several times - all in the last 5 years. I still am not sure I have it locked down as sometimes the 2 Rail Scale idea pops into my head.

Not to throw a monkey wrench into the process, but you could also just move the yard to a different location on the layout.

Nothing says it has to be right in front of the TT. By moving it, you could have only one (or possibly two) TT leads and that would also allow additional whisker tracks.

@ScoutingDad posted:

@Aegis21

I found I did not understand my preferences until I built my layouts and ran some trains, and then bought more trains, sold some off and rebuilt a new layout and now have done this cycle several times - all in the last 5 years. I still am not sure I have it locked down as sometimes the 2 Rail Scale idea pops into my head.

John, I think Jeff is expressing something similar to what I meant by mentioning my Plans A through Plan E.  I didn’t know what I wanted or what would work in my small space until I had laid track.  Also, I made a number of modifications on the fly that I didn’t even count as separate plans.

John, I hate to see you start over with the design. However, that's a decision only you can make. You seem to be really hung up on buildings and it doesn't look like you're able to visualize what you want. I don't know how many buildings, etc., you already have, but I said a long time ago that you need to take the time to measure their footprints along with what you expect to buy, then create 3D figures in SCARM to act as placeholders. There are already some inn the buildings layer and more here that might help you visualize things.

When it comes to relocating the yard, I don't think some are taking into account the elevation changes you've got. It's easy to look at 2D drawings and say move the yard here or there, it's another to move it to where it fits. To illustrate the point, here's a photo showing the blue areas at 0" elevation. As you can see, moving the yard to the other side isn't just a matter of moving the tracks. And when it comes to building a town around the yard, even discounting the elevation problem, there's no more room there than where it is. In fact, if you take the yard as is, there's not even enough room for the throat.

It seems to me you want 2 separate cities, a yard, a TT/RH facility, a passenger terminal along with elevated dual mainlines. I don't think there's anything wrong with the design as it is. You've sized the TT and 5-stall roundhouse to hold the largest of engines and that right there requires a minimum 5x8 space. Then you've added an elevation change to go around the RH eating up 2' to the back and 1' to the bottom. I get that everyone wants to be able to run a Big Boy, but that doesn't mean the entire layout has to be sized to accommodate it. You could have gotten by with a smaller TT, a smaller 3-stall RH and a single storage track for a large engine. However, at this point, that's moot.

Personally, while things may have somewhat limited functionality for a purely prototypical point of view, I don't see anything wrong with the design. The TT will still turn engines, the RH will still store engines and the yard will still store cars as well as let you build consists. And, to be honest, there are prototypical operations that use a TT to only turn engines, no RH, no whisker tracks, etc. I don't know of any layouts that have a yard, a TT, an RH, a city complete with sidewalks/streets as well as a dual mainline, all in a 4' wide section.

All that being said, I honestly don't know why you want a city near the yard in the first place, there just isn't enough room no matter where you put the yard. And suggestions to move it are being made without folks having seen the design with bridges, water features, elevations, etc. From what I see, even if you start designing from scratch, the challenges you've already worked around won't go away, they'll just move.  It might help if you used SCARM's Simulation feature to run trains around the tracks to see how you might actually operate. It lets you throw switches. uncouple cars, etc. It even lets you rotate the TT. Just a thought....

@Mark Boyce posted:

John, I think I like Bob’s suggestion of reversing the yard lead to the end of the yard next to the turntable.

Dont worry about rethinking/replanning.  I have just finished testing out track on The Blackwater Canyon Line Plan E.  Aside from Plan A, I started laying track on all the other plans, then realized they weren’t so good for various reasons!  🙄

I will always keep an open mind to changing things around. 2D drawing looked good to me, however laying track it has pointed out my blind spot of visualizing buildings and their size requirements. Once upon a time I was creating buildings and having them on the layout, but I got distracted and focused on the track side of things, abandoning all advise from members who mentioned to add buildings as I went along. So I will now try to either adjust things or revise what I have.

Thanks Mark your layout is coming out fantastic

@RSJB18 posted:

John- If you are thinking about changing things up, consider reversing the yard lead and put it on the right end, next to the TT. The purple yard track can be moved and the yard extended around the corner on the left. This would free the TT from the back of the yard and you could have one or two tracks serving the TT off of the new yard lead.

Not knowing your scenery plan too well I'm not sure how this would affect what you want to do but this is the time to think about these things.

I will lay it out in SCARM when I get a chance.

At this moment I am open to all ideas and appreciate the help. A total overlook of entire layout needs to be done with more emphasis placed on overall planning rather than either track, operation, or scenery taking precedence.

@ScoutingDad posted:

@Aegis21  John, this thread goes way back to 2018. Have you been working on imagining a layout this long? If so - just throw a board down, lay some track and run some trains. Do not worry about the "perfect layout".  My gosh I get tied up in planning all the time but somehow manage to just move ahead.

I found I did not understand my preferences until I built my layouts and ran some trains, and then bought more trains, sold some off and rebuilt a new layout and now have done this cycle several times - all in the last 5 years. I still am not sure I have it locked down as sometimes the 2 Rail Scale idea pops into my head.

I feel a case of analysis paralysis coming on for sure. Your reasoning is why I had put down track per this layout to see a reality check that was sorely needed. I'll do my best not to get too crazy with redesigning until I'm too old to lay track.

@Richie C. posted:

Not to throw a monkey wrench into the process, but you could also just move the yard to a different location on the layout.

Nothing says it has to be right in front of the TT. By moving it, you could have only one (or possibly two) TT leads and that would also allow additional whisker tracks.

I will keep all options open, and all possibilities seem endless

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, I hate to see you start over with the design. However, that's a decision only you can make. You seem to be really hung up on buildings and it doesn't look like you're able to visualize what you want. I don't know how many buildings, etc., you already have, but I said a long time ago that you need to take the time to measure their footprints along with what you expect to buy, then create 3D figures in SCARM to act as placeholders. There are already some inn the buildings layer and more here that might help you visualize things.Yes Dave I did start to do as you suggested, somewhere all the line I got distracted and stopped the building placements which has come back to haunt me for sure.

When it comes to relocating the yard, I don't think some are taking into account the elevation changes you've got. It's easy to look at 2D drawings and say move the yard here or there, it's another to move it to where it fits. To illustrate the point, here's a photo showing the blue areas at 0" elevation. As you can see, moving the yard to the other side isn't just a matter of moving the tracks. And when it comes to building a town around the yard, even discounting the elevation problem, there's no more room there than where it is. In fact, if you take the yard as is, there's not even enough room for the throat.

It seems to me you want 2 separate cities, a yard, a TT/RH facility, a passenger terminal along with elevated dual mainlines. I don't think there's anything wrong with the design as it is. You've sized the TT and 5-stall roundhouse to hold the largest of engines and that right there requires a minimum 5x8 space. Then you've added an elevation change to go around the RH eating up 2' to the back and 1' to the bottom. I get that everyone wants to be able to run a Big Boy, but that doesn't mean the entire layout has to be sized to accommodate it. You could have gotten by with a smaller TT, a smaller 3-stall RH and a single storage track for a large engine. However, at this point, that's moot. Your comments are spot on for sure, since I do not own a bigboy and maybe never will, the TT is only a 27" TT and I added the extensions to the RH more for aesthetics as the space was available. I cannot justify changing the TT but the RH and everything else is up for debate.

Personally, while things may have somewhat limited functionality for a purely prototypical point of view, I don't see anything wrong with the design. The TT will still turn engines, the RH will still store engines and the yard will still store cars as well as let you build consists. And, to be honest, there are prototypical operations that use a TT to only turn engines, no RH, no whisker tracks, etc. I don't know of any layouts that have a yard, a TT, an RH, a city complete with sidewalks/streets as well as a dual mainline, all in a 4' wide section. The 4' is a limiting factor for sure, and add that I want/need a foot of that to be removable adds to the constraints I am dealing with.

All that being said, I honestly don't know why you want a city near the yard in the first place, there just isn't enough room no matter where you put the yard. And suggestions to move it are being made without folks having seen the design with bridges, water features, elevations, etc. From what I see, even if you start designing from scratch, the challenges you've already worked around won't go away, they'll just move.  It might help if you used SCARM's Simulation feature to run trains around the tracks to see how you might actually operate. It lets you throw switches. uncouple cars, etc. It even lets you rotate the TT. Just a thought....

Dave your assessment of ultimately moving issues to a different location is accurate. I will look into the scarm simulator and finish the building list. The building list will have more building square foot than is available on the layout so some will not make it on the layout. An area of track I am considering changing is the Coal mining area that starts at the pole and wraps around the "L" section with the long tunnel. If that was changed to no tunnel then elevations and grades would not be such an issue. I have lots to digest and consider.

Dave, Thanks for your time and input which is always appreciated.

@Aegis21 posted:

At this moment I am open to all ideas and appreciate the help. A total overlook of entire layout needs to be done with more emphasis placed on overall planning rather than either track, operation, or scenery taking precedence.

Well John......my idea is out the window. I hadn't looked closely enough to see that the grade for the  inner main is starting at the double crossover, up and around to the lift bridge. So the yard lead can't be moved as I had thought.

I think your best move is to layout the buildings and see what works and what doesn't before modifying the track plan further.

For reference, the LIRR had several TT's at the end of branch lines that were used only for turning steam engines.

http://www.trainsarefun.com/li...0bay/lirrobtable.htm

Bob

Its a struggle. I added way too much track to get long runs and many parking tracks. I hate lifting those big engines and risk damage. But too much track and not enough space for buildings, landscape stuff like mountains, bridges, hills, walls

Hi John, I know I am a day late and a dollar short. LOL but my layout main level is 37" and the upper level is 45 1/2" here is the view I have of my town. FYI I am only 5'9" tall! LOL

\

If you are worried about storage for train, you could think about doing what I am doing by having the staging yard under the main level with a ramp going up to the main level.

I just got a new computer so right now I am having a hard time finding where I copied my scarm files to. When I find them I will upload a photo showing my lower storage yard.

Mike’s, that’s a great photo to show why modelers have to decide between tracks to run trains and space for cities. That street scene is probably wider than just about anywhere on John’s layout. Even just the street and buildings on 1 side are probably pushing it given the space set aside for the elevated run. Too many just don’t realize how big O scale is compared to HO and set their sites way to high with turntables, roundhouses and yards, especially when their not willing to limit those to what “fits” the layout.

John, appreciate that you already have a 27” TT, so now you have to figure out what size roundhouse will fit the space. It’s not enough to extend the RH just to fill the space. The TT can be moved further to the right with a smaller RH and that will give you more space for yard tracks and connections to the TT. Roundhouses don’t have standard dimensions or footprints.

For example, Altoona makes a 5-stall RH55 with a footprint of 39”x55” (from the TT center to back wall) with 26” side walls. They also make a 5-stall RH60 with a footprint of 41”x60” with 32” side walls. An extension to accommodate large engines adds 3” to the length and the width changes with the number and length of stalls, so the footprint would be less with 3 stalls instead of 5.

Korber makes a 3-stall RH with a footprint of 28.5”x60” with 28.6” side walls. In all cases you have to add the radius of the TT (13.5”) to the length to get the full footprint. They also have a page that shows what happens when you try to place an RH to close to the TT. The point is you can’t just place an RH next to a TT in SCARM, you have to figure out how far the front needs to be for the engines to clear the doors and be centered in the stalls. And that assumes you don’t have an older TT with limited index points, which you don’t.

Looking at the area with the turntable and roundhouse. If you brought the 2 tracks out towards the edge of the benchwork a bit more that lead on to the turntable. You could opt for a drive through 2 stall enginehouse. Altoona Modelworks makes a nice one.
This would free up that whole area for a small town scene with a main street and buildings on each side where the roundhouse and whisker tracks reside. The give an take are. A small sceniced town or the ability to park a couple of engines. Which becomes more important is up to you.  The tracks leading on and off the turntable pretty much have to be left unoccupied for the roundhouse to work. They aren’t adding any storage for cars.
You could have a grade crossing on the turn. Laser cut wood planks that fit the curves are available.

This would give you at least an enginehouse. Maybe not the roundhouse you desire but a good compromise. The positioning of the presently planned roundhouse. Really doesn’t allow good viewing if you plan to add details to the inside. The Altoona model with it’s large windows offers a good look to the interior and it will be in good view. Checkout some of Norm C’s videos.  It would also give you a decent area for a believable town without altering your track plan.

@mike g. posted:

Hi John, I know I am a day late and a dollar short. LOL but my layout main level is 37" and the upper level is 45 1/2" here is the view I have of my town. FYI I am only 5'9" tall! LOL

\

If you are worried about storage for train, you could think about doing what I am doing by having the staging yard under the main level with a ramp going up to the main level.

I just got a new computer so right now I am having a hard time finding where I copied my scarm files to. When I find them I will upload a photo showing my lower storage yard.

Thanks Mike for the pics and input. Your town area is a perfect example of what I am looking to build without having enough room to build it on... LOL Hang in there with the wiring as your layout is looking good for sure!

@DoubleDAZ posted:

Mike’s, that’s a great photo to show why modelers have to decide between tracks to run trains and space for cities. That street scene is probably wider than just about anywhere on John’s layout. Even just the street and buildings on 1 side are probably pushing it given the space set aside for the elevated run. Too many just don’t realize how big O scale is compared to HO and set their sites way to high with turntables, roundhouses and yards, especially when their not willing to limit those to what “fits” the layout. Well my sites were set way too high for sure and I am a good example of not realizing how big O scale  buildings, towns, accessories really are and the room needed to use them with a sense of realism.

John, appreciate that you already have a 27” TT, so now you have to figure out what size roundhouse will fit the space. It’s not enough to extend the RH just to fill the space. The TT can be moved further to the right with a smaller RH and that will give you more space for yard tracks and connections to the TT. Roundhouses don’t have standard dimensions or footprints. I can see the benefit in what you are saying. That may justify reworking the bench work to move the TT.

For example, Altoona makes a 5-stall RH55 with a footprint of 39”x55” (from the TT center to back wall) with 26” side walls. They also make a 5-stall RH60 with a footprint of 41”x60” with 32” side walls. An extension to accommodate large engines adds 3” to the length and the width changes with the number and length of stalls, so the footprint would be less with 3 stalls instead of 5.

Korber makes a 3-stall RH with a footprint of 28.5”x60” with 28.6” side walls. In all cases you have to add the radius of the TT (13.5”) to the length to get the full footprint. They also have a page that shows what happens when you try to place an RH to close to the TT. The point is you can’t just place an RH next to a TT in SCARM, you have to figure out how far the front needs to be for the engines to clear the doors and be centered in the stalls. And that assumes you don’t have an older TT with limited index points, which you don’t. I did see both the Altoona and Korber RH at the past York show. They are both impressive and take a huge footprint. Which was a reality check for me for sure.

@Dave_C posted:

Looking at the area with the turntable and roundhouse. If you brought the 2 tracks out towards the edge of the benchwork a bit more that lead on to the turntable. You could opt for a drive through 2 stall enginehouse. Altoona Modelworks makes a nice one. Dave, I have seen the engine house and it VERY nice.
This would free up that whole area for a small town scene with a main street and buildings on each side where the roundhouse and whisker tracks reside. The give an take are. A small sceniced town or the ability to park a couple of engines. Which becomes more important is up to you.  So do away with the wisker tracks and RH? The tracks leading on and off the turntable pretty much have to be left unoccupied for the roundhouse to work. They aren’t adding any storage for cars.
You could have a grade crossing on the turn. Laser cut wood planks that fit the curves are available.

This would give you at least an enginehouse. Maybe not the roundhouse you desire but a good compromise. The positioning of the presently planned roundhouse. Really doesn’t allow good viewing if you plan to add details to the inside. The Altoona model with it’s large windows offers a good look to the interior and it will be in good view. Checkout some of Norm C’s videos.  It would also give you a decent area for a believable town without altering your track plan. I will certainly look for Norm C's videos Dave all good suggestions that I hope I understand and will try to visualize. As for which is more important, the town or parking engines is a good question, that needs an answer which eludes me for my lack of experience.  I am beginning to think the TT and RH were asking too much of my space to handle.

Hello All, It the spirit of compromise I went looking around the layout and have a half-baked solution to the town issue. (lack of room for a town or remove track to accommodate a town) On the area directly across from the yard/TT area I put up some buildings to have streets run perpendicular to the tracks. The tracks in the rear will be elevated and maybe have arched tunnels or bridges for automobile traffic under tracks going out of town. (using background painting for illusion of depth) The other tracks will have grade crossings (I put some ties down to simulate the idea for the photo) Any thoughts on this town idea?

Morning John, the town idea looks good! Just remember it is your layout and what is important is what makes you happy! Everyone has great ideas and sometimes it can make your choices hard. I will support whatever you chose to do and if that means taking it back down and redoing it a couple times so be it!

Here is the snap shot of the scarm drawing with the staging yard under the main level.

Keep trying new things till you find what makes you happy!

@Aegis21 posted:

Hello All, It the spirit of compromise I went looking around the layout and have a half-baked solution to the town issue. (lack of room for a town or remove track to accommodate a town) On the area directly across from the yard/TT area I put up some buildings to have streets run perpendicular to the tracks. The tracks in the rear will be elevated and maybe have arched tunnels or bridges for automobile traffic under tracks going out of town. (using background painting for illusion of depth) The other tracks will have grade crossings (I put some ties down to simulate the idea for the photo) Any thoughts on this town idea?

It's all about compromises. I like it. You could even model the scene with the trains running down the street. Check out LaGrainge Ky, or Ashland Va. on you tube.

John, just make sure you leave enough room in the back for whatever you use to elevate those tracks back there.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, just make sure you leave enough room in the back for whatever you use to elevate those tracks back there.

I think there is minimum 3” from track to wall. Again not sure if this will work well with overall design but I will populate with the remaining buildings to get a total feel for the overall effect

Three inches may not be enough, depending on the length of your locos and passenger cars and the radius of your curves. Lay it out, even on a card table, and see what the overhang is before proceeding.
Rubin

John, I actually meant between the back buildings and the tracks that are going to be elevated. You need a little room for a brick wall, rock face wall, etc.

Rubin, those are 11° switches in the photo, no curves involved, but it’s still a good idea to check. I believe 3” to the wall is equivalent to 6” center-to-center track spacing.

Bob, I was thinking of Ashland Virginia with tracks running down the street.  
John, you have a great start to figuring out how to fit in the town.

Hi John, I did some snooping and I ended up going all the way back to page 1! LOL I have to say I wish I would have started fallowing you at the beginning. I would have learned a lot with all the questions you have asked, people like @gunrunnerjohn, @Tom Tee, @Mark Boyce and @DoubleDAZ Dave must be getting tired of answering the same questions! LOL But I have to say they are great ambassadors for this hobby!

Anyways back to my snooping I finally found the scarm file for your layout and see most of your track is 6-7" from anything to center of track and that all of your outside curves are 0-72 and the inner most curves are 0-54. You should be find with the outside curves with big engines! Heck my track is 3" from wall to center of track, and I run the big MTH 4-8-4! It really doesn't like the 0-54 curves but will run them!

Good luck and I will keep watching to try and learn more!

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, just make sure you leave enough room in the back for whatever you use to elevate those tracks back there.

Thanks Dave,

Not sure what to use to elevate the tracks, whether it will be girder bridge, or hill with stone wall or what ever anyone may suggest, as I just ran out of ideas as I am typing ... lol I will pay attention to the inevitable clearance  issues anything method may introduce to the mix.

@mike g. posted:

Morning John, the town idea looks good! Just remember it is your layout and what is important is what makes you happy! Everyone has great ideas and sometimes it can make your choices hard. I will support whatever you chose to do and if that means taking it back down and redoing it a couple times so be it!

Here is the snap shot of the scarm drawing with the staging yard under the main level.

Keep trying new things till you find what makes you happy!

Beautiful layout, great use of track and space! I see how you incorporated two levels.

@RSJB18 posted:

It's all about compromises. I like it. You could even model the scene with the trains running down the street. Check out LaGrainge Ky, or Ashland Va. on you tube.

Wow, I would have never thought to do something like that for sure! Everyone has such great input and suggestions.

@RubinG posted:

Three inches may not be enough, depending on the length of your locos and passenger cars and the radius of your curves. Lay it out, even on a card table, and see what the overhang is before proceeding.
Rubin

I have it on the layout and will check clearances. Although at this moment the biggest cars I have are 15" passenger cars, no bigboys mostly engines and cars from the 1950's one exception is a K-line NYC unit that is 17.5" long that I upgraded to TMCC and railsounds with tremendous help from several people on this forum. So that may be the biggest unit with the need for the largest clearance. Not sure what else to use to insure furture cars and engines could clear all obstacles. Thanks for the reminder.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, I actually meant between the back buildings and the tracks that are going to be elevated. You need a little room for a brick wall, rock face wall, etc.

Rubin, those are 11° switches in the photo, no curves involved, but it’s still a good idea to check. I believe 3” to the wall is equivalent to 6” center-to-center track spacing.

Yes I see what you mean, as I tend to add things willy-nilly after checking.

@Mark Boyce posted:

Bob, I was thinking of Ashland Virginia with tracks running down the street.  
John, you have a great start to figuring out how to fit in the town.

Thanks for the encouragement, I will continue to listen to all the great advice all have to offer! btw, You have so much layout for such a small area, it is honestly embarrassing for me to have these issues of space when you have so much more in so much less space. Great job Mark!

@mike g. posted:

Hi John, I did some snooping and I ended up going all the way back to page 1! LOL I have to say I wish I would have started fallowing you at the beginning. I would have learned a lot with all the questions you have asked, people like @gunrunnerjohn, @Tom Tee, @Mark Boyce and @DoubleDAZ Dave must be getting tired of answering the same questions! LOL But I have to say they are great ambassadors for this hobby!

Anyways back to my snooping I finally found the scarm file for your layout and see most of your track is 6-7" from anything to center of track and that all of your outside curves are 0-72 and the inner most curves are 0-54. You should be find with the outside curves with big engines! Heck my track is 3" from wall to center of track, and I run the big MTH 4-8-4! It really doesn't like the 0-54 curves but will run them!

Good luck and I will keep watching to try and learn more!

Thanks for doing the verification process as I posted, my biggest engine is a K-line NYC and it is 17.5" long Not sure how long the MTH 4-8-4 is in comparison. It sounds longer for sure. Again huge thanks for doing that snooping!

If you use 3" to the walls and 6" center-to-center, you should be good for most locomotives and rolling stock.  That's my guidelines for O72 and larger.

Good solution to the town placement. You don’t need a lot of clearance for cars and trucks and if it is an issue. You could always make the road go downhill to get under the tracks.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

If you use 3" to the walls and 6" center-to-center, you should be good for most locomotives and rolling stock.  That's my guidelines for O72 and larger.

Thanks for the guidance, always appreciated.

@Dave_C posted:

Good solution to the town placement. You don’t need a lot of clearance for cars and trucks and if it is an issue. You could always make the road go downhill to get under the tracks.

Thanks!

@Aegis21 posted:

Thanks for the encouragement, I will continue to listen to all the great advice all have to offer! btw, You have so much layout for such a small area, it is honestly embarrassing for me to have these issues of space when you have so much more in so much less space. Great job Mark!

John, I think anyone who is building an O gauge layout in a partial basement area is going to have issues like yours.  I would probably be having similar issue if I was building in the space you have available.

@Mark Boyce posted:

John, I think anyone who is building an O gauge layout in a partial basement area is going to have issues like yours.  I would probably be having similar issue if I was building in the space you have available.

Well you have done great in our space for sure!

Ok, the latest compromise, please all, point out the items I did not see. I need all the help that you can give. Basically taking advise of using curved switch and tightening up the yard tracks to mostly 3.5 center to center spacing, allowed me to keep 12" for removal purposes and I put in the town as best I could,  buildings maybe different, however I was going for rough fit concept, not final drawing.

One thing I don't see is provisions to reverse direction on the mainlines.

Yes there isn’t a loop back, that was the excuse, oh I mean the reason for the turntable

might be a poor excuse or remedy, however it is what it is as of now

any suggestions to fit in loop backs are still welcome

@Aegis21 posted:

Yes there isn’t a loop back, that was the excuse, oh I mean the reason for the turntable

might be a poor excuse or remedy, however it is what it is as of now

any suggestions to fit in loop backs are still welcome

John, I don't think it is a poor excuse.  Not even having space for a turntable, the wye I shoehorned in will have to suffice for turning my engines.  Turning trains, well...that went out the window with the Downtown Pittsburgh to-scale Pennsylvania Station!!  Just kidding about Penn Station, but I think you get the idea.  I recall how narrow your room is; not much wider than my 11x11 room.  I can turn a caboose on the wye so the conductor is facing the correct direction once the engine is turned.

John, if you don't already have 2 dual-track bridges, you might consider placing separate single bridges across the entryway and not raise the inside mainline. The outside mainline would still have a grade, but the inside mainline would be at the same level as the yard, TT and town across from the yard. This would allow you to build a level town on that side of the layout between the elevated set of tracks along the back wall and the aisle. As it is now, you're going to have tracks on a grade going through the town from the bridge to the crossover on the left. If you build a custom curved bridge, you could eliminate the curve after the bridge. I believe Mike CT built a nice curved deck bridge on his layout. Just more food for thought.

@Mark Boyce posted:

John, I don't think it is a poor excuse.  Not even having space for a turntable, the wye I shoehorned in will have to suffice for turning my engines.  Turning trains, well...that went out the window with the Downtown Pittsburgh to-scale Pennsylvania Station!!  Just kidding about Penn Station, but I think you get the idea.  I recall how narrow your room is; not much wider than my 11x11 room.  I can turn a caboose on the wye so the conductor is facing the correct direction once the engine is turned.

Thanks Mark, Yes the room is roughly 12' wide and even with the "L" area it was still difficult to incorporate loop backs without giving them the entire layout so to speak.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, if you don't already have 2 dual-track bridges, you might consider placing separate single bridges across the entryway and not raise the inside mainline. The outside mainline would still have a grade, but the inside mainline would be at the same level as the yard, TT and town across from the yard. This would allow you to build a level town on that side of the layout between the elevated set of tracks along the back wall and the aisle. As it is now, you're going to have tracks on a grade going through the town from the bridge to the crossover on the left. If you build a custom curved bridge, you could eliminate the curve after the bridge. I believe Mike CT built a nice curved deck bridge on his layout. Just more food for thought.

Sorry to say I already had the dual bridge and had not thought about two single bridges, even thouh I saw how good they worked out for Mark on his layout! Sometimes the trees are hard to see when looking through the forest. or something like that...

Well even though I have the dual track bridge, it may still be worth investigating your excellent idea.

John, at one point I had a single track on my double bridge and put a pedestrian walk way where the other track use to be. I then used a single bridge that was for my upper loop. Here is a video you can see it at the very end.

Found a photo of what I was talking about.

I hope it helps! Enjoy whatever you decide!

John,

If you are interested, I have a new Atlas single track bridge and could really use the double. If you’d like to swap ( with me paying you something on top because the double track is more expensive), I’d be interested.

@RubinG posted:

John,

If you are interested, I have a new Atlas single track bridge and could really use the double. If you’d like to swap ( with me paying you something on top because the double track is more expensive), I’d be interested.

I have modified it with aluminum plate and drilled holes in the metal braces that cam with it to adapt the lift mechanism

it originally was a single and I purchased the add on to make it a double

you could do the same

thanks for the offer

@Aegis21 posted:

any suggestions to fit in loop backs are still welcome

Can you post the latest SCARM file…I may have an idea

@Edward G posted:

Can you post the latest SCARM file…I may have an idea

Here is the latest scarm file (I hope I remembered how to upload it)

@mike g. posted:

John, at one point I had a single track on my double bridge and put a pedestrian walk way where the other track use to be. I then used a single bridge that was for my upper loop. Here is a video you can see it at the very end.

Found a photo of what I was talking about.

I hope it helps! Enjoy whatever you decide!

Great Idea to use the bridge as it is on layout and add lower bridge.

@Aegis21 posted:

Yes there isn’t a loop back, that was the excuse, oh I mean the reason for the turntable

might be a poor excuse or remedy, however it is what it is as of now

any suggestions to fit in loop backs are still welcome

Here is an idea I came up with for a reverse loop. Since it requires a minimum amount of change, I would not build it right now but put it in your back pocket and if in six months or five years, you decide you’d like to have a reverse loop you can pull it out. You know that at least you have one idea that could work. The idea is to put an elevated viaduct along the back wall on top of the upper level and to loop it around the roundhouse, the turntable and the yard. The inspiration comes from the New Jersey HiRailers layout, they use a lot of elevated tracks and it looks absolutely fantastic. It does require another lift bridge across the work area, and I know you had concerns about if another bridge would effect the ability to follow a train when you’re operating. Right now the track plan is just a rough proof of concept and needs a bit more shaping if you actually wanted to use it. The one issue is the mounting of the supports for the bridges with your yard tracks so tight together, there is just no room.

A couple of other items I noticed on your plan that you should be aware of: The curve Switch, by coaling that starts the yard lead, is a O72/54, and the switch to coaling is a O64. When they were first introduced to the plan, back in January 2021, the curved switch was an O96/72 and the other Switch was a O72, don’t know if this was an oversight, or if it was a planed change. If you’re going to change it back then, you also want to change the new curved switch that you just added, to keep the path to the yard at O72.

The spur that services freight station #5 is a switchback. If you wanted to have direct access, you have to move the crossover to in front of bakery #10.

Everything else looks great....

@Edward G posted:

Here is an idea I came up with for a reverse loop. Since it requires a minimum amount of change, I would not build it right now but put it in your back pocket and if in six months or five years, you decide you’d like to have a reverse loop you can pull it out. You know that at least you have one idea that could work. The idea is to put an elevated viaduct along the back wall on top of the upper level and to loop it around the roundhouse, the turntable and the yard. The inspiration comes from the New Jersey HiRailers layout, they use a lot of elevated tracks and it looks absolutely fantastic. It does require another lift bridge across the work area, and I know you had concerns about if another bridge would effect the ability to follow a train when you’re operating. Right now the track plan is just a rough proof of concept and needs a bit more shaping if you actually wanted to use it. The one issue is the mounting of the supports for the bridges with your yard tracks so tight together, there is just no room. This is where my lack of thinking in 3D shows through for sure. Using elevated track or elevated buildings just escapes my vision. That is definitly my big hurdle with this project. There are definite issues that would need to be addressed, however the concept shows what can be imagined and then take one issue at a time. I will keep this in mind as I sort things out and get to building something. Analysis paralysis is setting into this project.... Great pic and concepts

A couple of other items I noticed on your plan that you should be aware of: The curve Switch, by coaling that starts the yard lead, is a O72/54, and the switch to coaling is a O64. When they were first introduced to the plan, back in January 2021, the curved switch was an O96/72 and the other Switch was a O72, don’t know if this was an oversight, or if it was a planed change. If you’re going to change it back then, you also want to change the new curved switch that you just added, to keep the path to the yard at O72. Yes these became issues of oversight as I was just laying track out to get a visual of the track plan, I had the 064 switch and 072/054 switches on hand and forgot they needed to be replaced with 072's

The spur that services freight station #5 is a switchback. If you wanted to have direct access, you have to move the crossover to in front of bakery #10. That area is tight to say the least and I am not sure how to practically accomplish moving it in front of bakery without losing street or bakery.

Everything else looks great....

It appears as if I may have some time for the railroad now that our daughter is settling in her new place. There is always, Dad can you hang this or that stuff, but overall I was able to do some work on the layout.

  I have replaced the 064 switch and the 072/054 curved switch with 072 and 096/072 respectively. With that house cleaning behind me, I am thinking about starting to elevating the tracks per drawing and then evaluate and look for how trains may operate and what operations are possible and what I is not practical.  To begin the process, is it better to cut all the roadbed and sub-road to use for elevation, or just sub-road as I have homosote for road bed, use which needs to be cut from 4x8 panels?  Thoughts anyone???

John, I’m glad your daughter is pretty well settled in.  Both our daughters stay at home with us when they weren’t away at college until they got married, so I was saved doing a lot of the tasks your daughter asks for.  On the other hand, since both couples bought houses within 2 miles of us, I do get involved in repairs occasionally.

I don’t know that I can see a benefit in choosing one method over the other for the roadbed.  I did mine in sections, so many feet of plywood then covered most of that with Homasote-cork then moved on.  Maybe there are others who can state a benefit of doing it one way over the other, I don’t know.  🤷‍♂️

I don't think I'd cut roadbed until you're sure exactly the path the track will take.  Obviously, the sub-roadbed will be cut to fit the surface I would imagine.  My roadbed was easy, it was the foam roadbed, so it just got laid as the track got laid.

I’m using tubular track John and I cut carpet padding for the track bed. I’m not ready for ballast yet but I’m pleased with the sound deadening.

Jay

For just doing a visual. I would just prop the elevated section of track up using books, paint cans, scrap wood or what’s ever handy. Wood today is at a premium to just cut up and then have to change what you’ve done.

Thanks to Mark, John, Jay and Dave for the input, it is WELL appreciated! I will hold off on cutting road bed and will plan to go with homosote for now. (Haven't cut enough to be put off by the mess yet) And I will follow using clutter I have around the house to temporarily elevate the track sections. I have some lionel trestle pieces, even if they are not the correct height, it will give me what I am lacking, an approximate visual.  Again thanks All!

Ok I have made some changes with town/track placement. Also thanks for the use of stuff lying around to use to temporarily elevate the track for a better visual concept of the layout. With the layout elevated, some alternative ideas came to mind. I moved the two main lines to allow a larger center area to be open for a town. My first impression is basically a good feeling overall. There are sure to be draw backs, however the pluses are having one of the main lines be more of a straight line and more flexibility with streets and buildings in that area. Here are some pics to show the track placement and a long version of main street. I could have buildings and streets perpendicular to what is shown in these pics. All help, comments are needed for sure.

Here are some more pics

John, I like what you have done with the temporary raised track setup.  I like the last couple photographs best with the Isaly's  and two-story brick building out front, forming corners of a street perpendicular to the track.  Skewing the streets at an angle to the tracks would provide for more interest, but I don't think you have room for that between the tracks.  I think it is looking good.

Thanks Mark for the encouragement and input I will play around with curving a street and angling if possible

that maybe possible with using girder bridges or something to utilize the space under the elevated track

Hello All,  Sorry I have been absent from the forum for such a long time. Hoping now to get back to working on the layout. As an update I have attached two pics of the present layout plans. The only difference is the number of tracks in the yard. ( five vs six) I feel like I have, with my limited experience, done the best I could. Although I know it can use a lot of help. At this point my wants are a small town, coal mine, hobo area, farm land, passenger stations, junk yard, and a boat launch. Not sure where each would go or if they are all possible. All suggestions are sorely needed! Any layout changes, suggestions for town, hobo area, stations etc. are more than WELCOME.

@Aegis21 posted:

Hello All,  Sorry I have been absent from the forum for such a long time. Hoping now to get back to working on the layout. As an update I have attached two pics of the present layout plans. The only difference is the number of tracks in the yard. ( five vs six) I feel like I have, with my limited experience, done the best I could. Although I know it can use a lot of help. At this point my wants are a small town, coal mine, hobo area, farm land, passenger stations, junk yard, and a boat launch. Not sure where each would go or if they are all possible. All suggestions are sorely needed! Any layout changes, suggestions for town, hobo area, stations etc. are more than WELCOME.

I'm in the same boat John. Sometimes life just gets in the way. I do like what you've accomplished.

Hi John!  Welcome back!  I do not see a difference between the two drawings except the lead to the turntable isn't connected which I know is an oversight.  My thought is, "Build it, and they will come"  I know, bad joke. 

@Mark Boyce posted:

Hi John!  Welcome back!  I do not see a difference between the two drawings except the lead to the turntable isn't connected which I know is an oversight.  My thought is, "Build it, and they will come"  I know, bad joke. 

There are 5 tracks instead of 4 heading over to the TT.

John, hopefully you’ll connect the top 2 yard tracks to the TT, one for incoming , the other for outgoing, otherwise you’ll have to wait.

@Dave Ripp. posted:

I'm in the same boat John. Sometimes life just gets in the way. I do like what you've accomplished.

Thanks Dave for understanding and compliment, although compliments should go to all the members who have so graciously spent their time to help me get anywhere. Thanks

@Mark Boyce posted:

Hi John!  Welcome back!  I do not see a difference between the two drawings except the lead to the turntable isn't connected which I know is an oversight.  My thought is, "Build it, and they will come"  I know, bad joke. 

Thanks Mark, yes the only difference is the number of yard tracks. And I will restart the build! Thanks

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

There are 5 tracks instead of 4 heading over to the TT.

Good eye John!!!

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, hopefully you’ll connect the top 2 yard tracks to the TT, one for incoming , the other for outgoing, otherwise you’ll have to wait.

I did not connect the tracks hoping someone would advise which tacks would be the best to connect and why. Also I am not sure if the yard tracks should switch between them more and if the track closest to the isle should be connected to the yard track next to it? Thanks in advance for any and all help

I have made some track spacers using fusion 360 and my 3d printer. The are 3.5" centers, 4.25" and 4.5" with  adjustable pencil holders to outline here to cut the plywood or homosote. I'll post a pick a bit later, need to unload groceries lol

John, some thoughts.

One reason for crossovers in a yard is so a train can pull into a yard with dead-end branches and the engine can "escape", otherwise it's locked in by the cars. Another reason is that some yards are very long and crossovers allow switching engines to travel less distances when configuring consists or escape too if they "pull" several cars in instead of "backing" them in.

Unfortunately, you have a few obstacles that preclude adding such crossovers. Your use of the 4-way switch at the front of the yard means there isn't enough space between the 2 inner green/blue branches to add any combination of Ross switches. You could add crossovers to the green/red and blue/yellow branches, but you'd have to move the yard closer to the aisle and I believe the whole point to the changes you made by reducing the number of yard branches was to allow more space for buildings and roads. And, even if you tried that, you'd then have to reconfigure the curved switch section on the left to keep it connected to the rest of that run. I believe we discussed this a long time ago before you decided to add buildings, etc., there.

IMHO, you need to have at least 2 branches connected to the TT. The idea is that either the lt blue branch or the red branch would be used for a train to pull in. The engine would then be able to disconnect and use the turntable to either go to the RH or or use the other branch to return the yard for further service, in other words, "escape". If a train pulls in on the lt blue branch, a switcher would then move the cars off that branch. You could get by with just the one branch connected to the TT, but then you'd have to wait for it to be cleared before an engine could use it again.

In order to do this though, you may have to reduce the size of the yellow branch and move the TT/RH down a bit like shown. I know you like to use flex track, but if you do, make sure you have enough straight track connected to the TT so engines don't have problems getting on and off. I don't remember if you already have an RH, but if you don't and could change to a 3-stall RH without the extensions instead, you could do more with that area and get a bit more room in the yard and maybe connect more branches to the TT. Just something to consider.

engine first

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, some thoughts.

One reason for crossovers in a yard is so a train can pull into a yard with dead-end branches and the engine can "escape", otherwise it's locked in by the cars. Another reason is that some yards are very long and crossovers allow switching engines to travel less distances when configuring consists or escape too if they "pull" several cars in instead of "backing" them in.

Unfortunately, you have a few obstacles that preclude adding such crossovers. Your use of the 4-way switch at the front of the yard means there isn't enough space between the 2 inner green/blue branches to add any combination of Ross switches. You could add crossovers to the green/red and blue/yellow branches, but you'd have to move the yard closer to the aisle and I believe the whole point to the changes you made by reducing the number of yard branches was to allow more space for buildings and roads. And, even if you tried that, you'd then have to reconfigure the curved switch section on the left to keep it connected to the rest of that run. I believe we discussed this a long time ago before you decided to add buildings, etc., there. First, Thanks Dave, for ALL your help and great recommendations  with this build.

IMHO, you need to have at least 2 branches connected to the TT. The idea is that either the lt blue branch or the red branch would be used for a train to pull in. The engine would then be able to disconnect and use the turntable to either go to the RH or or use the other branch to return the yard for further service, in other words, "escape". If a train pulls in on the lt blue branch, a switcher would then move the cars off that branch. You could get by with just the one branch connected to the TT, but then you'd have to wait for it to be cleared before an engine could use it again. Yes minimum of two branches connected to the TT sounds like sage advice.

In order to do this though, you may have to reduce the size of the yellow branch and move the TT/RH down a bit like shown. I know you like to use flex track, but if you do, make sure you have enough straight track connected to the TT so engines don't have problems getting on and off. Using flex track is only to get the paper layout "working" for elevations and give me a place to compare things to, I can imagine using flex track will be difficult for me to make nice smooth curves on the actual layout. I really prefer using standard dimension track for the build. I don't remember if you already have an RH, but if you don't and could change to a 3-stall RH without the extensions instead, you could do more with that area and get a bit more room in the yard and maybe connect more branches to the TT. Just something to consider. Luckily I have not purchased or decided on a RH yet, so using the less is more theory, a three stall RH sounds good. Will allow things to be more realistic and less congested and keep the crammed-in look to a minimum.

engine first

Here are a couple of different versions, 1 with the current RH and the other with a 3-stall RH. As you can see, they also have "escape" crossovers in the yard. I didn't have your latest SCARM file, so I don't know how well they fit with the latest space. Mostly just food for thought at this point.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

Here are a couple of different versions, 1 with the current RH and the other with a 3-stall RH. As you can see, they also have "escape" crossovers in the yard. I didn't have your latest SCARM file, so I don't know how well they fit with the latest space. Mostly just food for thought at this point.

Hi Dave,  I really like the second layout with the 3 stall RH. I'll post the latest drawing I have so you can see how badly I have mangled things up. I am hoping the grades all work and I haven't created too many places that have interference issues. Since I am using a macbook for 99% of what I do, and scarm is not mac compatible, I'll transfer layout  file over from my old pc and post it. I think I did this correctly????

Here are some pics of my home made track spacers and tracing blocks. You can put pencils in the black holders and a small rubber band clamps them in place for height adjustment and the slots allow for whatever distance you would like to use. This one spaces track out to 4.25" but I can make them for any distance. I have 3.5" and 4.5" spacers all printed out.

If there is any interest, I think I can post the fusion360 file or separate stl file for these three sizes.

John, your track spacers are really slick!  👍🏻 My track laying is all done.  I laid the track with a ruler and by eye.  It would be easier to do it using spacers.

John,

Wow! That spacer design is pretty ingenious and surely patentable !! (Although the cost of patents is outrageous these days)  Congratulations to you on making this very useful device.   

With a slight modification the track spacers could come in handy to trace out the track for cutting the sub roadbed!

For a single mainline that is, they are perfect for a double mainline as is!

@Mark Boyce posted:

John, your track spacers are really slick!  👍🏻 My track laying is all done.  I laid the track with a ruler and by eye.  It would be easier to do it using spacers.

Thanks Mark, it sounds like it will be worth the time to post it in 3D drawings.

@Bruce Brown posted:

John,

Wow! That spacer design is pretty ingenious and surely patentable !! (Although the cost of patents is outrageous these days)  Congratulations to you on making this very useful device.   

would never patent, this is giving back for all the help everyone on this forum has freely given. Sounds like it will be worth putting on the 3D files