Benchwork - Wiring - adding elevations

@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.