Benchwork - Wiring - adding elevations

No, that’s there to make sure the center-to-center clearance is maintained as we make changes. It will need to be replaced with straight tracks once we’re done making changes.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

No, that’s there to make sure the center-to-center clearance is maintained as we make changes. It will need to be replaced with straight tracks once we’re done making changes.

That is why I have trouble and you don't ! You know what you are doing! Verses me floundering around in the mud. Thanks for that tip, along with the other countless tips you have provided!

Don't feel bad, John!  I was able to do basic stuff, but I needed Dave's help to make flex track connection snip work right and to get the elevation tool to work at all.  I think Dave has made SCARM a sub-hobby and is really good at it.  I am so thankful he was so knowledgeable and willing to help me.

I propose the theory that Dave gets a huge supply of Vitamin D living in the Phoenix suburbs, while everyone knows those of us in Western Pennsylvania have a huge Vitamin D deficiency!  That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!! 

Not true, Mark, I actually had a Vitamin D deficiency because some meds keep me out of the sun. But I’ve since been taken off some of those, so now between the Vitamin D supplements I was taking and getting more sun, I back within the normal range. Thanks for the other comments though, I do appreciate them. I do enjoy using SCARM and it helps keep my brain active.

John, I’m almost always available to help and I enjoy it. One mistake a few people make is using the longest straight tracks while still designing. Using the shorter 12.4” GarGraves actually helps the editing process. Another mistake is snipping curved tracks wrong, then using flex track to make the next connection. Too often this results in the next straight section being angled a fraction of a degree and that throws the rest of the layout off kilter. I never snip curved tracks or connect with flex until all the other sectional tracks are added, especially sections that include switches. Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with using flex, but too many folks end up with curves that are too tight. I realize a lot of folks use software just to get a general design, but there’s always the danger of ending up with something that doesn’t work when laying actual track. And when folks ask how to do something, iI usually provide examples rather than just do it for them, that way they learn.

Well, I'll be interested to see your ideas. The problem area is the yard. The only way I can see to lower the 4.0% and 4.4% grades there is by the yard tracks that go under the mainlines and/or reducing the clearance from 6.5". As near as I can tell, you need 1.5" to get down to 3.4%. I moved the passing sidings out of the way to make fiddling with the grades easier and here's what I've got so far. I lowered some of the yard tracks down 1.5" to see what that would do and got the 4.4% grade down, but that's certainly not recommended.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

Well, I'll be interested to see your ideas. The problem area is the yard. The only way I can see to lower the 4.0% and 4.4% grades there is by the yard tracks that go under the mainlines and/or reducing the clearance from 6.5". As near as I can tell, you need 1.5" to get down to 3.4%. I moved the passing sidings out of the way to make fiddling with the grades easier and here's what I've got so far. I lowered some of the yard tracks down 1.5" to see what that would do and got the 4.4% grade down, but that's certainly not recommended.

Hi Dave, I was thinking on moving the double crossover to the two sidings up towards the top, then having a turnout to the yard further to the yellow track 072 last curve. Doing that may have the grades lower with a longer start. I'll work on this in the morning and post an example.

Just throwing that out there for tonight!

4% grades may be pushing your luck a bit.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

Not true, Mark, I actually had a Vitamin D deficiency because some meds keep me out of the sun. But I’ve since been taken off some of those, so now between the Vitamin D supplements I was taking and getting more sun, I back within the normal range. Thanks for the other comments though, I do appreciate them. I do enjoy using SCARM and it helps keep my brain active.

😄  I have to take vitamin D.  I agree you just enjoy SCARM and it does help keep your brain active

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

4% grades may be pushing your luck a bit.

Totally agree 3% max. should be my target for certain.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

Well, I'll be interested to see your ideas. The problem area is the yard. The only way I can see to lower the 4.0% and 4.4% grades there is by the yard tracks that go under the mainlines and/or reducing the clearance from 6.5". As near as I can tell, you need 1.5" to get down to 3.4%. I moved the passing sidings out of the way to make fiddling with the grades easier and here's what I've got so far. I lowered some of the yard tracks down 1.5" to see what that would do and got the 4.4% grade down, but that's certainly not recommended.

Dave, it says image not found ...????

Check it now.

FWIW, I'm using 5.5" as my clearance for the lower level, that's from track top to the upper deck supports.  The tallest car I have access to is the autorack at 5 1/8" from the rail tops, so I think that's sufficient.

GRJ, I assume the 6.5” elevation John is using in SCARM includes 3/4” plywood, 1/2” Homasote and 1/4” roadbed making his actual clearance 5” (or 5 1/4” if he’s using 1/2” plywood for the elevated sections). He could lower the clearance over the yard if he used just an elevated trestle setup or 1/2” plywood without the Homasote. He hasn’t said how tall his tallest rolling stock is.

Hi Dave, Please do not assume anything! Not sure (meaning I have no idea) what will the road bed and supports will look like. That was my reason to error on the side of worst case. Here is my attempt to get the grades under control. I am sure there are much better ways to accomplish this, no doubt. This seems as it may work out. What are your thoughts on using the double crossover on the sidings? Almost all of my collection is 1950's so the max would be around 5 inches. Although I haven't measured. That said I do not want too much of an overhead restriction as I am sure to fall to the new style cars and engines being manufactured today. Although I am sure I would stay on the smaller scale. But that would not mean a visitor would not have larger stock. Again I will error on the side of expansion and what the worst would bring. btw I am sure I did not keep layers correct... opps! I will clean up is this is viable.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

FWIW, I'm using 5.5" as my clearance for the lower level, that's from track top to the upper deck supports.  The tallest car I have access to is the autorack at 5 1/8" from the rail tops, so I think that's sufficient.

Hi John, These are great considerations and will keep in mind for design and build.

Thanks for your great input!

John

My total elevation from the main level to the upper level is 7".  I'm using half inch plywood for the upper deck, and 1/4" foam roadbed.  The upper deck doesn't have Homasote, the main level does, but that doesn't enter into the calculation.  I'm figuring the upper deck and the supports to be 1", track height on the main level to be around 5/8" to the top of the rails.

GRJ, that is what I would do too. The problem is some of those decisions have to be made beforehand when doing things in software or you get grades that are too steep. That causes folks to change a design to lower a grade that really doesn’t need to be lowered. I tend to use 6” clearance figuring 5 1/4” for rolling stock, 1/2” for decking and 1/4” for roadbed. That pretty much matches what you have. In this case, any rolling stock taller than that simply has to be run on the outer loop only.

We added enough headroom on my layout plan, but my problem was in execution!  Somewhere I had a massive senior moment and starting at the top of the grade, I built it all 1" too low.  The plan was for an inch of material for the upper level, and I forgot to add it in.  It is all corrected now, but the sloppy retrofit reminds me of the lapse every time I see the layout. 

I did layout what I was doing in software, it helps a bunch when you're trying to figure out the total plan.  I will also mention that once you get to laying track, you'll find that sometimes the software solutions don't exactly work, and you need some fine tuning.  In that case, I try to go back to the software and fix it too, I want it to reflect reasonably closely what I end up with on the layout.  My grades ended up being 2.4% and 2.5% for the long ramps, I can live with that.  Ideally, I would have kept it closer to 2%, but that wasn't happening with the space I have.

John, I took a look at your file. Even though I imagine the consensus would be not to put the double crossover on a grade, I moved the inner loop closer to the outer loop and added the crossover. I tried keeping the crossover and 4 lead tracks flat, but that made the grade going up to 8" too steep. I was going to try some other things, but noticed some things that needs to be fixed before you go any further.

One is clearance issues. I like to keep things 3" from the walls and sides, but you can use whatever distance you're comfortable with. To illustrate, I added some 3" wide rectangles along the left side, tops and bottom to show how close you are to the walls. It doesn't pay to to play with the grades until the clearances are closer to where they need to be.

Along that same line, I overlaid the double crossover at the bottom again to show that those mainlines are too close to the wall, but still far enough from each other.

The curved switch was added incorrectly and that's why you had to use flex track to make the connections. The problem is the Ross switch doesn't directly replace the GG O-72 curve. It needed to be connected to the straight track and then an O-72 curve cut to fill the gap.

I think you might be able to accomplish what you're after by moving the crossover back to the bottom by the curved switch, moving the left side of the inner mainline over to the left more, lowering your elevation over the yard to 6" to get the grade closer to 3%.

Anyway, that's what I'll be working on doing.

If you were using Ross O72 curves, the curved switch would drop right in.

GRJ, that is very true and I’ve done that on other layout designs. Thanks for the reminder.

I don't quite understand why the Gargraves curves aren't compatible with any of the layout applications, they don't quite "fit" if you try to build what you design.

GRJ, I don’t believe I’ve ever heard that, but then I don’t have time to read every post. Do you think it’s because there are minor differences during manufacture?

I only saw it once, but several people with a lot of experience with Gargraves sectional track told me it's common for them not to be exact and not to trust what a layout program tells you.  The Ross O72 curves I'm using here could have come out of a clone machine, they are EXACTLY the same from unit to unit.  Since I'm using Ross switches and just Gargraves flex track, it's all custom cut anyway, no problem here.

It would be interesting to see the manufacturing process.

I swear I've used Ross curves with a Ross switch in place of GG curves to compete an arc, but in this case with the O54/O72 switch it doesn't seem to work. As you can see, the bottom arc doesn't end on a straight plane. John connected the switch to the curve and got the same result, so he used flex track to even things out. In the top arc, I connected the switch to the straight track, then cut a filler from a GG O72 curve to complete the connection.

Yep, don't know why, but it's odd for sure.

John, here's another version. I reduced the clearance to 6" hoping you'd use 1/2" plywood for the upper level. The major change is that the inner mainline doesn't dip down on the left side. There 2 sets of flex tracks along the bottom to eliminate the "S" curves that were there. I only replaced some of the 12.4" straights with 37" straights, but it's easy enough to replace the rest.

Hi Dave,

The 3" clearance is definitely a big deal and thanks for giving me another needed parameter to include in any layout design. Great job getting things to actually look like a railroad!

A question that may need to be answered, are these parameters too big for this space? Is it realistic to use 072 curves in this given area?  Are two main lines one too many? Just thought I would ask this question, not knowing the realistic parameters that I should work with.

Well, like I said, I use 3”, but if you want it closer to the walls, you need to test the overhang on your engines.

As for O72 curves, it all depends on whether or not any of your equipment requires O72 curves, or just runs better on them. A lot of folks don’t like the look of the extra overhang you get with tighter curves, but I can honestly say that’s not something I’ve ever noticed. You do notice it if you look for it though, but all I care about is that the equipment goes around the layout without derailing. I’ll redo my latest version with O54 curves so you can see the difference.

I think you’d be crazy not to have 2 mainlines on a layout this size, but it does increase the cost substantially. They also reduce the space that’s available for scenery and spurs, but they let you run trains in both directions without having to use passing sidings and control your trains manually as well as providing over/under options. If you’re into switching and servicing businesses on spurs, then a single main might be more to your liking.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

Well, like I said, I use 3”, but if you want it closer to the walls, you need to test the overhang on your engines.

As for O72 curves, it all depends on whether or not any of your equipment requires O72 curves, or just runs better on them. A lot of folks don’t like the look of the extra overhang you get with tighter curves, but I can honestly say that’s not something I’ve ever noticed. You do notice it if you look for it though, but all I care about is that the equipment goes around the layout without derailing. I’ll redo my latest version with O54 curves so you can see the difference.

I think you’d be crazy not to have 2 mainlines on a layout this size, but it does increase the cost substantially. They also reduce the space that’s available for scenery and spurs, but they let you run trains in both directions without having to use passing sidings and control your trains manually as well as providing over/under options. If you’re into switching and servicing businesses on spurs, then a single main might be more to your liking.

With your recommendation I would like to keep the two main lines. I think having 054 curves in tunnels would hide the over hang issue. I’ll check out the differences with 054 curves. I do not have the experience with any curves larger than 031 LOL

Ok, here's what it looks like using mostly O54 switches and curves. I played with the upper spur to lower the grade for the inner mainline. I stayed with the 6" elevation, the flat left side of the inner mainline and added a passing siding back in. All the changes are on separate layers, so you can turn the old ones on to compare. Mare can be done with the upper bench work after the bridge to smooth the curves, etc. There's also a transparent polygon around the bench work so you can see the elevated track in 3D view. When you compare each layer to its counterpart, you'll see there's not much difference. I didn't think to put the grade labels on separate layers, so you'll have to refer to the other jpg photo.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

Ok, here's what it looks like using mostly O54 switches and curves. I played with the upper spur to lower the grade for the inner mainline. I stayed with the 6" elevation, the flat left side of the inner mainline and added a passing siding back in. All the changes are on separate layers, so you can turn the old ones on to compare. Mare can be done with the upper bench work after the bridge to smooth the curves, etc. There's also a transparent polygon around the bench work so you can see the elevated track in 3D view. When you compare each layer to its counterpart, you'll see there's not much difference. I didn't think to put the grade labels on separate layers, so you'll have to refer to the other jpg photo.

Hi Dave,  Great job as always!  Yes you are right as it doesn't seem to make much difference if the curves are tighter, except when trains run, they will overhang more. So that would mean the 072 min. curve on mains should apply. I trust your preference of 3" wall clearance to be the best way for me to go, especially with the 4 foot reaches to the walls. Having track closer makes sense. Keeping grades to less than 3% is good, however keeping them < 2.5% would be better. I am trying to imagine running trains in and out of yard, and turntable. Seems like backing in from entrance is the preferred access. Hopefully I'll have some uninterrupted time to study what we have and start integrating buildings, roads, industries etc.   Again HUGE THANKS for all your help and everyone else who have taken their time to help me on this project.

That said, I’m going to delete my 2020-10-15 file, but I’ll see if I can integrate some of the changes in the current mainlines to get the grades down. Don’t forget, the grades are because I lowered the elevation to 6”, so if you still want 6 1/2” let me know.

There are ways to allow you to pull “into” the yard. One is to add a 2nd single track bridge to the topmost yard track and connect to the far orange curve on the other side. The other is to add 1 or more switches to the ends on the yard tracks, enough so an engine can pull in, disconnect, switch tracks and back out. You’d have to dedicate 2 yard tracks to that. I’ll work up an example of both if you want me too.

FWIW, I started with a 6" elevation, but I had to increase it to 7" to accommodate the tallest cars.  Right now, the tallest car I have access to is the MTH autorack, it stands 5 1/8" above the rail-head.  With allowance for the main level track, roadbed, and also the elevated section plywood and supports, I needed 7" from the main table level to the top of the elevated level surface.  My calculations are 1" for the elevated plywood and supports, and 7/16" for the main level roadbed and track.  This allows 5 1/2" of clearance, which should be sufficient for anything I'll be running.

GRJ, in John’s case, if he wants to use the minimum elevation to reduce the grades, he can limit higher cars to the outer mainline because it doesn’t go under the inner mainline. He’d also have to park them on the uncovered yard tracks. I’m suspect there are prototypical cases where tall cars, like tall trucks, are limited to certain routes.

Also, I don’t recommend it, but he could steal 3’ of the lowest yard track to lower the other 10’ an inch for those cars. The problem with that is either backing through the double crossover to get to the outer main or having a switcher pull the consist out to have the main engine connect and pull it though the double crossover going in the other direction.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

FWIW, I started with a 6" elevation, but I had to increase it to 7" to accommodate the tallest cars.  Right now, the tallest car I have access to is the MTH autorack, it stands 5 1/8" above the rail-head.  With allowance for the main level track, roadbed, and also the elevated section plywood and supports, I needed 7" from the main table level to the top of the elevated level surface.  My calculations are 1" for the elevated plywood and supports, and 7/16" for the main level roadbed and track.  This allows 5 1/2" of clearance, which should be sufficient for anything I'll be running.

I think you will find the Premier double stack cars a a little be taller than the autoracks.  We use the double stacks to double check vertical clearances on the Paradise & Pacific.

This is an outstanding thread and thanks to all who have contributed!!!

John,

I gave it one more college try and here's what I came up with. I think I'm out of further things to try.
-- There's still a 2.8% grade on the inner line at the bottom, but that might be a little less steep depending on exactly where to start/end the grade.
-- The grade on the left shows 3.1%, but that falls to 2.5% if you include the switches on the grade.
-- Note that I rearranged both loops in the upper nook. The left grade can be reduced a bit more if you move the tunnel further to the right.
-- I moved the switch coming out of the yard to the other side of the double crossover so you cross as soon as you come out of the yard.
-- I rearranged the yard to add a crossover in the yard. This way you can pull a consist in on the 4th track from the bottom, uncouple the engine, move it past the switch, then crossover to the next track and out.
-- I still need to remove the double crossover from the bridge.
-- Also, note that the turntable/roundhouse configure is only as good as the models and different brands might have a different footprint.

2.8 is a very reasonable grade, most stuff should be able to handle that.

@Mountain Mover posted:

I think you will find the Premier double stack cars a a little be taller than the autoracks.  We use the double stacks to double check vertical clearances on the Paradise & Pacific.

You might be right, I have some, but they're buried somewhere in a pile of boxes.  Hopefully, they're not more than 5.5".

All those changes make sense, Dave!  Looks very good. 

I know the bascule bridge and other spurs in the l shifted to the right and underneath them.  We see mainline tracks crossing over yards all the time on layouts.  What other thoughts are there for the spurs and the bridge to nowhere?  I have no problem with the bridge to nowhere as long as there is space to support it's piers, but the spurs get a little busy.  How long is the bascule bridge anyway?  Much too short to be used on the lower track at the walk in opening of the layout, I'm almost sure.

Mark, I agree the spurs by the Bascule bridge are too busy, but they were just added to fill the space. And they were all put there before the yard tracks were extended that far. The bridge over a yard makes no sense, nor does it make sense if the water is on the same level, but the water could be a thin sheet of plexiglass glued to the bottom of the 1/2" decking. I really haven't paid attention to all that because of the grades. And, yes, the bridge is too short for the entry opening. Here's my vision for that area.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

Mark, I agree the spurs by the Bascule bridge are too busy, but they were just added to fill the space. And they were all put there before the yard tracks were extended that far. The bridge over a yard makes no sense, nor does it make sense if the water is on the same level, but the water could be a thin sheet of plexiglass glued to the bottom of the 1/2" decking. I really haven't paid attention to all that because of the grades. And, yes, the bridge is too short for the entry opening. Here's my vision for that area.

You have to be a politician to appreciate a bridge to nowhere...Yes this has been a neglected area that needs help. However the big picture needed to be developed. I have been trying to look at where industries could go and towns/buildings. Placing bridges and making some sense for operation, keeping grades and clearances  is definitely a push/pull exercise that is frustrating. Paralysis from analysis is taking a firm hold on me ...

Dave, Mark, GRJ, and everyone else on this forum, Thank you for all your help so far. I am sure it has saved me from so many errors, they probably cannot be counted. Thanks

Just remove the bridge and water but keep the spur. Now you have an interchange with another railroad, off scene.

John, there are layouts with tracks that go nowhere to simulate another part of the train universe. Usually they go toward a wall with a craftily painted mural of a train coming in or just tracks leading off into the sunset. I've even seen one where they cut the front off a broken engine and attached it to the wall like you would a faux building front (relief). In your case, you don't have a wall on the end, but you could add a removable panel on which to paint such a scene. The panel could be attached like rails on a pickup truck. I would also add a removable panel under the bridge over the entry like in the photo.

Slugger, I believe he already has the bridge and wants to include it on the layout. This is the only place it fits because of all the grades and the 2 passing sidings. If he gives up the passing sidings, it could move there.

Dave, the last plan looks like a great possibility.

John, the "bridge to nowhere" was a politician's nightmare.  Check out Pittsburgh's infamous Bridge to Nowhere.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Duquesne_Bridge

The Fort Duquesne Bridge is a steel bowstring arch bridge that spans the Allegheny River in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It was colloquially referred to as "The Bridge to Nowhere". It was constructed from 1958-1963 by PennDOT, and opened for traffic October 17, 1969 with its predecessor Manchester Bridge (located closer to the tip of Point State Park) closing that same day (it was demolished in the autumn of 1970). The bridge was given the name "The Bridge to Nowhere" because the main span was finished in 1963, but due to delays in acquiring right of ways for the northern approach ramps, it did not connect on the north side of the Allegheny River. The total cost was budgeted at $5 million in 1962.^[1] The lack of approach ramps meant the bridge ended in midair, rendering it useless. The northwestern ramps were completed in 1969, allowing access to Pennsylvania Route 65. The northeastern ramps were completed in 1986, with the construction of the northern section of Interstate 279 (North Shore Expressway) which runs through Downtown Pittsburgh's Golden Triangle and north towards Interstate 79. The bridge touches down halfway between Heinz Field and PNC Park Baseball Stadium on the City's North Shore.

"Bridge to Nowhere" in 1966

On December 12, 1964, Frederick Williams, a 21-year-old chemistry major at the University of Pittsburgh from Basking Ridge, New Jersey, drove his 1959 Chrysler station wagon through the bridge's wooden barricades, raced off the end of the bridge, and landed upside-down but unhurt on the other side, 190 feet away at the north bank of the Allegheny River.^[2][3] His adventure is documented in WQED-TV's double Mid-Atlantic region Emmy Award-winning documentary "Flying off the Bridge to Nowhere and Other Tales of Pittsburgh Bridges", narrated by Rick Sebak.

Within a few weeks of this near tragedy, an iconic Pittsburgh radio personality, Rege Cordic, distributed commemorative bumper stickers which read "Official Entry, Cordic & Company Bridge Leap Contest." With thousands of vehicles bearing these stickers on Pittsburgh's streets, the city responded by blocking off the end of the bridge with concrete barriers.

Dave, Your latest version is great as it gets rid of the passing sidings that looked to short to utilize, the bridge to no where and extends the yard. You never cease to amaze me.

Yeah, Dave. The sidings were 6’ and 7’, so too short to really be of much value other than parking some cars just for scenery. To be honest, I never actually checked their lengths after John added them, guess I should have, huh? 😱 And thanks for the compliment. I enjoy the challenge of seeing how things can fit and Mixy has given us a great software package to work with.

Yes, with the layout double tracked, John can run a train each way and not need the passing sidings.  My layout design was different because it is single tracked, so we put in the 5-foot long sidings.  That was all there really was room for, but I'll be running short trains in the small layout.  We could have made it double tracked, but that went against the concept for the layout.  With a concept for double track, this seems to work out, unless John is going to run 4 short trains which can be done anyway on a layout of this size.

Hello All, I am asking for your experience with using two bridges at different heights for entry to middle of layout. At the present I have a double track bridge that seems to be the answer, however combine that with a double crossover between the two main lines which also go over the bridge, this has caused either both lines to be at the same elevation. Or most of the lines are on a grade of some type. These grades also affect the towns and industries I would like to include in this build. It has me thinking I am wanting too much (yard, turntable, towns and industries)    Industries I am looking at are coal and recycle steel (as in junk yard with gantry crane). Small town or towns with some roads that cross tracks and have freight deliveries.

So again would having two different bridge heights help and would it be hard to incorporate into scenery?  Mark I know you are attempting this, what were the plus and minuses for you?

John, My two tracks that need bridges are 8" apart horizontally.  I think that is plenty to easily lift up each bridge, and for anything I need to get my hands between the bridges.  I'll see how that really works out once I try to do it.  I only have one of the bridges so far, an Atlas through truss bridge.  I don't know what I will use for the other.  Maybe just a board with plate girders on the sides to resemble a bridge.  I can't think of seeing anyone do it with bridges at different levels, but I'm sure we aren't the first. 

Good Morning All,

Doing some reading, watching videos and getting excellent feedback and instructions for everyone here, some additions and alterations were done hopefully for the better. Paying attention to grades, (highest I think is 2.7%) This is a new rendition which has area for a town, coal industry, passenger stations, bridges, roundhouse and turntable. I am not sure on keeping the number of yard tracks as is or reducing them to add in some structures.

ALL comments, CHANGES, are More Than Welcome!!! Please I can use lots of help and input!

Thanks

John

John, I like the changes. I see there are some disconnects, but nothing that can’t be fixed during construction. The only problem might be the direction of the Bascule bridge. It’ll probably need to be reversed in order to fit without overhanging the edge or hitting the wall.

John, Nice job with SCARM.  The plan looks great with the added sidings for various industries.  Again, I am not up on yards and engine facilities to critique that area, but I'm sure someone will come up with some suggestions.  All I can say is I'm glad you have room for that much car and engine storage!!!

Ok, since you solicited comments ... (and I admit to not having read the whole nine pages, so please forgive if it's already been brought up)...

One thing that I have always regretted about the design of the layout at my parents' is that you cannot access the arrival / departure tracks in the yard, and the locomotive servicing tracks, without fouling the whole yard throat. In other words, you can't have one person switching the yard while another one moves a train in or out of it. It is surprising how many times I have wished I could do that. Your yard architecture is quite similar to ours, and you may end up with the same regret. The Ross 4-way switch, as useful as it is, is at fault, because it forces you to access the whole yard through that one wye.

Just a thought.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, I like the changes. I see there are some disconnects, but nothing that can’t be fixed during construction. The only problem might be the direction of the Bascule bridge. It’ll probably need to be reversed in order to fit without overhanging the edge or hitting the wall.

Hi Dave, If it weren’t for all your help it would still be going no where! How do you find disconnects so fast??!!

yes the bridge needs to be turned or redesigned lol

@nickaix posted:

Ok, since you solicited comments ... (and I admit to not having read the whole nine pages, so please forgive if it's already been brought up)...

One thing that I have always regretted about the design of the layout at my parents' is that you cannot access the arrival / departure tracks in the yard, and the locomotive servicing tracks, without fouling the whole yard throat. In other words, you can't have one person switching the yard while another one moves a train in or out of it. It is surprising how many times I have wished I could do that. Your yard architecture is quite similar to ours, and you may end up with the same regret. The Ross 4-way switch, as useful as it is, is at fault, because it forces you to access the whole yard through that one wye.

Just a thought.

These are needed comments, however since I do not have any experience with yard access any changes need to be drawn for me to visualize

i already have the Ross switch but can sell it if it creates a bottle neck

thanks for the input

I would have had a whole lot more trial and error without Dave!!!!  Mostly error! 

@Mark Boyce posted:

John, Nice job with SCARM.  The plan looks great with the added sidings for various industries.  Again, I am not up on yards and engine facilities to critique that area, but I'm sure someone will come up with some suggestions.  All I can say is I'm glad you have room for that much car and engine storage!!!

Thanks Mark

sounds like you are in favor of keeping all the yard tracks

John, the disconnects show up as small gray arrows as soon as you turn off Heights. Sometimes they're not disconnects, they're differences in heights between the 2 tracks. One looks like a stray track in the yard. I've had cases where I've fixed the heights, but they show back up the next time I open the file.

Here's a new version with the corrections.

@Aegis21 posted:

Thanks Mark

sounds like you are in favor of keeping all the yard tracks

Absolutely, John!  Someday you may wish you had more! 

Nick, you're right, the requirement to use the 4-way switch drove the yard design.

Here are some alternate designs where I moved the bottom spur to the top, moved the 4-way lower and added a runaround. I left the 30° crossing in, but I see no practical use for it and I don't like the curved lead to the TT. Then I removed the crossing and 4-way.

John, unless you have some practical ideas for buildings that would look right in a yard scene, I also support keeping as many storage tracks as you can. However, it’s your layout and only you know how you want to operate.

Dave, I like the second one better.  It actually allows for a the tracks closest to the wall to be a little longer, and doesn't cut any tracks shorter.

Thanks, Mark. I don’t have any experience with yard design, I just think the 2nd one without the 4-way looks smoother. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the 1st. It’s tough to design a yard when there’s not enough room for a longer lead track off the mainline. I probably should have added another crossover on the bottom 2 tracks, so they could be worked without fouling the mainline. Trouble is I don’t know if John even wants to work the yard with a switcher to move cars around. Me? I’d just have consists stored for engines to pull out and they’d probably never be reconfigured. 🤪

Dave, just storing consists ready to go is the way I would do it.  However, if I had the yard with the right crossovers, maybe I would give switching a try and like it.  Well, I don't need to worry about it on my little layout. 

I agree, Mark. Like you, I don’t have the space, so I convince myself I don’t like switching 😱, but I really do like to watch more. I don’t like role playing on any level, so reconfiguring consists just isn’t in my wheelhouse. 🤪

Yes, I almost fall asleep watching the smaller scale guys do switching on their modular layouts at the Greenberg shows.  The Pittsburgh Independent Hirailers just have 4 trains highballing around the layout and it is great fun!

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, unless you have some practical ideas for buildings that would look right in a yard scene, I also support keeping as many storage tracks as you can. However, it’s your layout and only you know how you want to operate.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

Nick, you're right, the requirement to use the 4-way switch drove the yard design.

Here are some alternate designs where I moved the bottom spur to the top, moved the 4-way lower and added a runaround. I left the 30° crossing in, but I see no practical use for it and I don't like the curved lead to the TT. Then I removed the crossing and 4-way.

Hi Dave,

Great job as usual!! First impression - I like the second drawing better. At this point I am not sure of running a switcher in the yard, however it appears this will facilitates that and if I want to store consist there then that can happen also, unless I am not understanding something.

I am not sure if the yard tracks can fit under the main lines, I don't have access to scare right now so I cannot check. If I remember the main lines are not elevated that high over the end of the yard. It doesn't look bad to shorten the yard tracks closest to the wall

Also no buildings are planned for yard area yet

Any thoughts?

EDIT: Well, I see you guys beat me to it! But here is another idea, for what it's worth:

Well, I don't use track planning software, but here's a sketch. This would be the top portion of your yard (nearest the aisle). The top two tracks handle trains arriving/departing (the train parks on one track, the other is a run-around). The rest of the tracks on the right side are regular yard tracks--I didn't bother drawing the majority of them. Both of the two diagonal tracks on the left meet the inner loop main line, preferably to the right of the double crossover. So the idea here is that while the switch crew is busy moving up and down the yard ladder (right-hand diagonal track which all the yard tracks come off of) an inbound or outbound train can still access the top of the yard by using the bypass track (I believe Armstrong calls it a thoroughfare track) on the left. And, the switch crew can easily access those top two tracks from the yard ladder.

This will, of course, shorten your yard, and your longest train will be dictated by how long you can make the designated arrival / departure track. However, it can potentially double the amount of fun your yard can produce at any given time, since you can have two people working in without one having to wait for the other to be done before doing their own task.

A problem with this design is that your yard does not have much of a lead. That means that a switch crew moving a long cut of cars could end up backing onto the main and getting in the way of the arriving/departing train after all. I don't see an easy fix for this, but it would not be too much of an inconvenience for people to simply remember to take fewer cars at a time and not back onto the main.

Another idea that comes to me just now is to expand the top section to three tracks. The third will be a little longer than the others and can be the A/D track. The top one would host cabooses. The middle would be a shared runaround for the other two. Since you only access the caboose immediately after a train arrives or immediately before one departs, this should work OK from the perspective of the switch crew staying out the way of the other train.

One last thing: at present, you have the yard ladder leading through one side of the Ross 4-way. This creates an awkward S-curve. It might be better to have a switch in the ladder (possibly a curved one, rather than a #4 or #5) and let the 4-way originate off the diverging leg of that switch. This, too will cost you some length, and might not be worth it after all, but since you can use the software, it costs little to experiment.

Good morning, John.

FWIW, I only ran the yard tracks under the mainlines because you had several set as tunnels. A little more on that later.

Regardless of which configuration you ultimately choose, the biggest problem with the yard is the lack of a longer lead track. Now, there's nothing you can really do about that, but it does affect how you can use the yard. As it is now, a switcher can't even move 1 car from the bottom track (track 1) and clear the switch without temporarily fouling the inner mainline. That's why I placed the crossover between tracks 3-4. As the illustration shows, a train can pull in on track 3, the engine can then uncouple and move through the crossover to track 4 to escape. A switcher can then pull cars 1 at a time from track 3 using the same technique.

As you can also see, track 3 only has space for a train with 8 cars. However, if you raise the bridge to 7", the grades go from 1.9/2.3% to 2.0/2.4% and give you an extra .5" of clearance under the mainline tracks. Then another crossover could be added between tracks 1-2 and you'd have 2 arrival tracks, one slightly longer. However, that moves track 8 and even though I didn't remove it, it might better to do so because it's close to the edge.

Now, raising the bridge would mean the inner mainline track on the other side of the bridge would go to 3.1%, but that could be fixed with a reconfiguration of the switch and buildings.

The bottom line is you can use the yard 2 ways. If you use it for storing complete consists and not for switching, then arriving trains would simply back into their respective slots and you could save the cost of 4 switches for the crossovers. However, if you keep the crossovers and use it for switching, then arriving trains would pull in on tracks 1 or 3 for a switcher to reconfigure consists. Basically you could use it both ways, storing consists when it's just you and for switching when the mood strikes or when you have someone visit who enjoys switching. When switching, tracks 1-2 and/or 3-4 would need to be emptied for arriving trains or configured with departing trains.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, the disconnects show up as small gray arrows as soon as you turn off Heights. Sometimes they're not disconnects, they're differences in heights between the 2 tracks. One looks like a stray track in the yard. I've had cases where I've fixed the heights, but they show back up the next time I open the file.

Here's a new version with the corrections.

Dave, This probably won't fit but I keep looking at this thinking if the yard had a run through it would be really useful. Just for fun if the short green spur west of the 2 bridges went across with a third bridge and connected with the outer track that feeds the switch ladder. I don't use scarm so I have no idea if you could get enough of a curve for this to work.

Hey, Dave. It'll fit with O-72 curves and a 2.8% grade, but will need a custom bridge on an slope. The spur west of the double bridge is 4.1" high to the switch. It'll work a bit better with O-54 curves and 2.4% grade.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

Hey, Dave. It'll fit with O-72 curves and a 2.8% grade, but will need a custom bridge on an slope. The spur west of the double bridge is 4.1" high to the switch. It'll work a bit better with O-54 curves and 2.4% grade.

That would have been cool if the bridge could be straight. Thanks for humoring me. The whole layout is loaded with potential and your ability to work through different issues is remarkable.

@Aegis21 posted:

Hi Dave,

Great job as usual!! First impression - I like the second drawing better. At this point I am not sure of running a switcher in the yard, however it appears this will facilitates that and if I want to store consist there then that can happen also, unless I am not understanding something.

I am not sure if the yard tracks can fit under the main lines, I don't have access to scare right now so I cannot check. If I remember the main lines are not elevated that high over the end of the yard. It doesn't look bad to shorten the yard tracks closest to the wall

Also no buildings are planned for yard area yet

Any thoughts?

John, I agree on the second design.  As you say, the yard tracks closer to the aisle could be a little longer maybe allowing one more car.  I don't think increasing the grade on the two mainline tracks enough to let the tracks extend underneath would gain you a whole lot more.

However, if you worked on building the mainlines along the wall behind the yard first, you could mock up different grades just to the end of the table where the lift up bridges are by just putting different heights of blocks of wood or even boxes or cans under track and see if the increased grade is acceptable.  Also by just laying in a couple yard tracks temporarily, you could see if it is worth it.  My open trestle grade, short yard, the engine facility above, and the last industrial siding were done in this way.  Dave had figured the grade that I later decided to use the trestle, I just played with it to see if I could make the grade less.  Actually both grades were adjusted on the fly when I discovered I needed a little more clearance for the underpass.  On the engine house wye, it was totally trial and error after I pulled the plug on buying the used engine house, then Dave helped me refine the design for the wye to the engine house in scarm.

I think building this way doesn't make you commit to either scenario until you actually try it out.  Then you can build the rest of the way around the room to match things up at the lift up bridges.

Thanks for the kind words, Dave. Even using O54, the bridge wasn’t straight, just not enough room. I even tried changing the yard to O72 switches, but that doesn’t work at all.

Ok, John, here's a clean version with the yard ending before the mainlines pass overhead. I reconfigured the runaround track because I didn't like the curved entry to the TT. I moved the single crossover to tracks 1-2 because track 1 has the most space for an arriving train to pull in and let the engine escape. You can still back trains into any of the slots if you don't want to switch. I smoothed the exits off the bridge going north. I rotated the Bascule bridge.

I was working on a way to add a full length yard lead from the river bridge switch on the left when I noticed the TT&RH are not correct. The RH is actually a 3-stall model with a 26” TT, but at some point it was turned into a 4-stall with a 28” TT and I never noticed. My laptop is installing an update, so I haven’t been able to check the footprint, but I’m pretty sure it’s incorrect. I think the only 4-stall file I have is for an Altoona RH, so I’m going to have to play around with things a bit. FWIW, if the RH/TT can be shifted up a bit, it looks like a lead track can come off the bridge switch and avoid a switcher fouling the main.

Ok, here's what I've come up with as another alternative to explore. As you can see, I added a longer lead track into the yard. It's on a 0.6% grade. I then redid the RH/TT configuration and think I've got the RH placed right on the 28" TT.

NOTE 1: You can't just add another whisker track inside the RH simply because it will fit. The engine has to be able to get through the doors, etc. If you want a 4th stall, you need to add 1/3rd of the RH to one side or the other, not just add inside tracks.

NOTE 2: Since the TT is only 28", it doesn't make sense to buy/build an RH with more than 1 stall capable of holding longer engines. I would need to be at the end of a track that runs straight across the TT into the RH.

Dave, I don't see the drawing.

Thanks, Mark, should be fixed.

Looking good, Dave!

Wow I should have computer / internet problems more often! Gone for a bit and everyone dug it and did an amazing job! Thank you nickaix, Dave Ripp, Mark, and especially DoubleDaz Dave!!! Outstanding suggestions and remarkable results!

Now that a RH & TT are not only feasible, but actually on the layout. Is it possible to have either a four stall RH or a larger TT or Both? And would it mean sacrificing any of the great ideas and suggestions so far? I truly love all that has been done while I was in internet never never land. Dave you have taken my errors and adapted/solved the problems they caused. You all are incredible!

Please anyone/everyone let me know your thoughts on the last iteration of the yard as far as storage and switching operations are concerned. ALL comments are an educational process for me.

Once the yard is "finalized" by all your comments and help, the next list to go down is the lists of wants:

Here is a list of wants in no particular order of importance...

Junkyard area with gantry crane and loading/unloading area    

Icing station with loading/unloading track

Coaling/Mining Area with coal elevator

Freight loading/unloading area near town or in town

Town with streets,

Last three I have preliminary areas on layout, however as this is my first big layout, all ideas are not only welcome but needed!

Again Thanks to all !!!

@DoubleDAZ posted:

Ok, here's what I've come up with as another alternative to explore. As you can see, I added a longer lead track into the yard. It's on a 0.6% grade. I then redid the RH/TT configuration and think I've got the RH placed right on the 28" TT.

NOTE 1: You can't just add another whisker track inside the RH simply because it will fit. The engine has to be able to get through the doors, etc. If you want a 4th stall, you need to add 1/3rd of the RH to one side or the other, not just add inside tracks.

NOTE 2: Since the TT is only 28", it doesn't make sense to buy/build an RH with more than 1 stall capable of holding longer engines. I would need to be at the end of a track that runs straight across the TT into the RH.

Dave all your work is not only magical, but so appreciated and welcome. Simply awed at your scarm mastery and problem solving ability. It appears that the baseboard for the layout is getting to its final stage. I'll be doing mostly L-girder workbench, however the yard is flat and seems L-Girder would be less desired for that entire section. Dave, or anyone else please comment on benchwork style and which would be best for which sections. Also, should I consider making the TT removable for access and any needed repairs?

Again Thanks Dave!

John, I have used both open grid and L-girder, and I don’t really have a preference.  One thing, L-girder takes more height, and since I must use under the layout storage, I am getting a little more height for storage and it is easier for wiring.  Since I bought Mianne for part of the layout, it is open grid.  The rest is cantilevered with brackets off the wall.  So to stabilize the ends, it is in effect open grid using the wall for part of the grid.  This is the largest layout I have ever built, and the first around the walls.  My L-girder layouts were so small, and I don’t think I made use of the benefit of that construction.  I guess in the end, I favor open grid.  Let’s see what some others who have experience with larger layouts have to say.

I would think you would want to make the turntable easy to remove for maintenance.  I have never had room for one even in smaller scales

John, there's no reason not to use L-girder throughout. I think you're confusing framing (L-girder) with decking (open cookie-cutter and flat panel). Since you have a lot of different elevations, you'd use cookie-cutter decking with risers under the tracks in those areas and then flat panel decking under the yard. When it comes to the town areas, you might use a combination of flat panel decking with risers on top of the decking for the elevated sections.

And Mark is absolutely correct, L-girder adds to the depth of the framing below the decking and can limit movement, storage and access underneath.

When it comes to the RH/TT, the width and length of the RH are determined by how far it is from the TT and that is determined by the angle of the stalls. Atlas stalls are set wider allowing them to be closer to the TT whereas Altoona's are set narrower meaning they have to be further from the TT in order for engines to clear the doors. As you can see in the 1st photo, the Atlas 3-stall fills a space approximately 40x40" measured from the edge of the TT. The space needed for 4 stalls grows to 40x50" or so while Altoona makes a 4-stall RH that is narrower, but longer at 30x63" as measured from the center of the TT. Shown are Millhouse 28" and 34" TTs.

The 2nd photo shows were I added the 34" TT and cut 1/3rd of the RH to make another stall to show what that does to the space needed. As you can see, the bench work needs to be that much deeper and narrows the aisle some.

In the 3rd photo I kept the 34" TT and replaced the Atlas RH with an Altoona RH to show the difference. You can see the reduced depth and wider aisle. You can also see the outline of the 33x63" footprint. In this case, the RH has 2 extended stalls for larger engines. Main whiskers are 32" inside and extended are 35". I don't know about the Atlas model, they just say distance from TT to rear wall accepts 37.25" of track and some of that is outside

I haven't optimized placement. I've never seen a TT prior to being installed, so I don't know how much clearance they need for installation and support. Based on drawings I've seen, it looks like they have 4 tabs for mounting to the underside of the decking and I think the TT just fits a 34" hole, so the hole needs to be placed so a passing train on the mainline will clear a large engine as it turns.

Whatever you do, John; Don't use the L-girder or open frame stringer for a soldering iron hanger.  I was soldering under the L-girder layout over 30 years ago and was looping the soldering iron cord over a joist when not in use.  I forgot about it and jammed my wrist up against it, sizzling a hole in my wrist.    My wife the registered nurse looked at it and was impressed that I cotterized it in the process.  We both had to laugh as the flux was a bit of an issue cleaning out.  It went right between two tendons.  I still carry the white scar.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, there's no reason not to use L-girder throughout. I think you're confusing framing (L-girder) with decking (open cookie-cutter and flat panel). Since you have a lot of different elevations, you'd use cookie-cutter decking with risers under the tracks in those areas and then flat panel decking under the yard. When it comes to the town areas, you might use a combination of flat panel decking with risers on top of the decking for the elevated sections.

And Mark is absolutely correct, L-girder adds to the depth of the framing below the decking and can limit movement, storage and access underneath.

When it comes to the RH/TT, the width and length of the RH are determined by how far it is from the TT and that is determined by the angle of the stalls. Atlas stalls are set wider allowing them to be closer to the TT whereas Altoona's are set narrower meaning they have to be further from the TT in order for engines to clear the doors. As you can see in the 1st photo, the Atlas 3-stall fills a space approximately 40x40" measured from the edge of the TT. The space needed for 4 stalls grows to 40x50" or so while Altoona makes a 4-stall RH that is narrower, but longer at 30x63" as measured from the center of the TT. Shown are Millhouse 28" and 34" TTs.

The 2nd photo shows were I added the 34" TT and cut 1/3rd of the RH to make another stall to show what that does to the space needed. As you can see, the bench work needs to be that much deeper and narrows the aisle some.

In the 3rd photo I kept the 34" TT and replaced the Atlas RH with an Altoona RH to show the difference. You can see the reduced depth and wider aisle. You can also see the outline of the 33x63" footprint. In this case, the RH has 2 extended stalls for larger engines. Main whiskers are 32" inside and extended are 35". I don't know about the Atlas model, they just say distance from TT to rear wall accepts 37.25" of track and some of that is outside

I haven't optimized placement. I've never seen a TT prior to being installed, so I don't know how much clearance they need for installation and support. Based on drawings I've seen, it looks like they have 4 tabs for mounting to the underside of the decking and I think the TT just fits a 34" hole, so the hole needs to be placed so a passing train on the mainline will clear a large engine as it turns.

Thanks for clearing up the bench work support versus decking/cookie cutter designs. As for the TT RH it looks like keeping the aisle clear and access to the corner the third pic looks best. I was wondering if the Brennen RH would fit. Don't know if budget can handle millhouse/Brennen TT/RH but if it wouldn't fit then that throws that out that idea. Also I do not anticipate buying a Big Boy Loco, with that said, what is the most used TT?

Actually, John, I’d never heard of Brennen, so had to look it up. Turns out they have a good explanation of roundhouse configurations, especially the part about track spacing along the turntable. They also explain the relationship between distances from the TT and how they affect track alignment inside the RH. Altoona documentation explains this too and includes illustrations. However, Altoona just shows the track misalignment whereas Brennen kind of explains how to curve into the RH so the inside track is aligned. I didn’t study that yet. Unlike the other brands, Brennen provides the dimensions of their stall making it easier to create one in SCARM. I haven’t worked out their explanation of angles and I don’t have time tonight to play with things to see how one would fit, so I’ll try tomorrow.

https://brennansmodelrr.com/blog/roundhouse-kit

Hi Dave,  It looked like Brennan RH and millstone studio TT mate very well together, they are definitely pricey. Not sure if they are worth the costs. They seem to be extremely well built and are the high end of their product lines.  Hoping to get feedback from forum if someone has used these on their layout.

Thanks again and again for all your help and knowledge.

John

John, I'm not sure Brennan mates to Millhouse all that well, but here are what the extremes would look like if I understood the documentation correctly. And that's a big IF at this point. The biggest problem I have with their description is they say a 3-stall RH measures 18 x 31.75 x 26.25 and we all know RHs don't have straight fronts or backs, hence the name ROUND house, so I assume the measurements are from the outside corners of both the front and back straight across. It also says the min and max distances from the TT is measured from the center of the TT to the center of the front door. The bottom line is I can't vouch for the accuracy of what the photos show.

The first photo shows what I believe their chart shows. The top configuration is the optimum distance for the RH from the TT. This allows the whisker tracks to be straight. The bottom configuration is the minimum distance and note how the leads have to curve in order for the tracks inside to be straight. The amount of the curve changes depending on how far the RH gets from the TT. Also note how close the tracks are on at TT in the top configuration. They explain that you have to trim the front ties so the rails will meet those on the TT.

Anyway, the second photo show the min configuration on the layout and the third photo shows the max. As you can see in the third, the footprint seems rather large and I don't know how advisable it is to curve the whiskers. If you do, you have to make sure engines clear the doors as they enter and exit.

One other note is that whiskers can be curved for other RHs too, so this is not unique to Brennan.

One of the posts above requested installation photos.  F.W.I.W., I have five TTs all with flat deck installations.  Two are Millhouse One Bowser and two custom units.

They are mounted on flat deck platform modules specifically framed out for a TT.

The above TT preps are typical of how I get ready to install Millhouse.

The above inverted TT module is going to  be added to another module round end for turning locos only.  The next photo is of this module with TT in place.

The above TT inverted module is a prep for a drop in of a 32" flanged TT pit in lower photo.  The 32" TT serves the dead end of two branch lines coming from opposite directions.

The 26" small TT in the corner is for turning small power coming in from the other room on a higher level.  It has similar construction of the add on module photo above.

This is a staging room off scene.

Nice photos, Tom, especially the bare TT that shows the tabs for mounting that appear to be 1-1.5” long. The one with the TT in the corner shows how close the TT can be to the edge. I saved them for future reference. As always great workmanship.

Tom, with five turntables and probably others on layouts you have built for others, I would say you have come up with excellent ways to do it!

Tom, Great photos and I can only add to Dave and Mark's comments to say you have a ton of good experience which is invaluable! This is a tremendous help. I was just starting to layout L-girder framing to see how it blends or works with track layout. Perfect timing! Here is what I have done so far as I understand L-Girder, which is assuming a lot!  Please any and all comments are GREATLY appreciated! Everyyone have a wonderful and safe Thanksgiving. Even in these horrid times of pandemic and division, we all have lots to be thankful for today.

Thanks to everyone on this forum and may God Bless everyone.

Sincerely John

John, Yes you have the concept of the L-girder method.  You have done a great job drawing it in on SCARM!!    Having never built a layout nearly that large, I can't comment on your leg spacing or the long reach between two L-girder pairs in the upper left.  Also, I think you would need to do a variation under the turntable site to accommodate Tom Tee's framing method.  I would think Tom will chime in on that.

@Mark Boyce posted:

John, Yes you have the concept of the L-girder method.  You have done a great job drawing it in on SCARM!!    Having never built a layout nearly that large, I can't comment on your leg spacing or the long reach between two L-girder pairs in the upper left.  Also, I think you would need to do a variation under the turntable site to accommodate Tom Tee's framing method.  I would think Tom will chime in on that.

Mark, totally agree on needing to change around TT and recheck spacing. This is a first draft so to speak and a starting point.  I have started another topic only dealing with benchwork. not sure if that was a good idea to split things up or not... As for drawing it on scarm, well the track is on the floor and the supports are in the air! LOL