Benchwork - Wiring - adding elevations

Mark, seems like ScaleTrax has always been in short supply. I think I have 10 pieces of flex I’ll probably never use now and will probably sell.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, just needling you about the flex, I know why you use it and there’s almost always a way to smooth it out. When it comes to the removable shelf, I envision 3 or 4 sections. Truth be told they’re only a foot deep, so I think they could be simple bolt-on’s, but I haven’t given it that much thought. I’ll work on an idea using drawer-like slides.

Dave, you can always needle me so I get the point. Lol since the shelf is part of the flat yard, that should be easier to do.

@PRR1950 posted:

Two comments:

1. Your lower level / interior mainline now runs through the curve portion of two switches to cross the river and avoid entering the yard.  Since it's a lot easier for long trains to go through the straight leg of switches, try moving the same mainline closer to the other mainline at the river crossing, but leave your yard lead entrance "north" of the river.  Will require another bridge, but provide a nice long yard lead and a straighter mainline.

Sounds like it would be a good improvement, plus I do have another bridge😀

2. You've had this problem for a while and I'm not too sure how to fix it.  Trains leaving the yard with the engine in the lead can only run counter-clockwise.  That means: a) to run a train clockwise, it must be backed out of the yard and on to the mainline, and b) to bring a counter-clockwise running train into the yard, it must be backed into the yard a long distance.  A train able to enter / depart the yard from both directions at least allows multi-direction travel, even if no reversing is possible.

This issue was the initial rework Of the yard and putting rh/th at other end hoping I would see a solution. I obviously did not come up with anything. Thanks for bringing this up as I was wondering what real operational effect this has on layout. Again thanks! 😃

Of course, #2 might be moot because your mainlines have no passing sidings away from the yards. So maybe two trains running counter-clockwise is all you plan to do.

Chuck

John, the direction problem did not arise because you moved the TT or reconfigured the yard, it’s been there all along. IMHO there’s nothing wrong with fouling the inner mainline because you have 2. Here in Phoenix we have a storage yard alongside a mainline that gets fouled all the time by an engine lash up pulling a long string of cars out of the yard then backing up to connect to another string before heading out to California. It’s been a constant irritation at the 59th Ave & Grand Avenue intersection. I used to go through that intersection often and invariably got stopped by trains fouling the mainline there. That’s where the yard ends and goes down to a single mainline heading out of town. I’ll be working on Chuck’s idea to reconfigure the bridge area. I was going to do that some time ago, but didn’t want to mess up the spurs you have there and we were concentrating on the RH/TT area.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, the direction problem did not arise because you moved the TT or reconfigured the yard, it’s been there all along. IMHO there’s nothing wrong with fouling the inner mainline because you have 2. Here in Phoenix we have a storage yard alongside a mainline that gets fouled all the time by an engine lash up pulling a long string of cars out of the yard then backing up to connect to another string before heading out to California. It’s been a constant irritation at the 59th Ave & Grand Avenue intersection. I used to go through that intersection often and invariably got stopped by trains fouling the mainline there. That’s where the yard ends and goes down to a single mainline heading out of town. I’ll be working on Chuck’s idea to reconfigure the bridge area. I was going to do that some time ago, but didn’t want to mess up the spurs you have there and we were concentrating on the RH/TT area.

Hi Dave,  I did realize the direction issue and was hoping to flip things around to jog an idea out of this old noggin. That did not occur...  However the access is better for the RH/TT at the right hand end of the layout. So I think something good happened out of luck.  As for the fouling of the second mainline - I Hate to design in an irritation so to speak, however everything is a trade off.

As for bridge area, move whatever needs to be moved, spurs, mainlines, Mt Everest (i know you can do it) I am saying I do not consider anything final or a must have. And yes the RH/TT took priority for sure.

  btw please return to the 12 month calendar on file naming convention. 2020 needs to end!

So, here's my latest version. Somehow I lost my SCARM file, so it'll take me a bit to recreate it from a backup.

Ok, thanks to auto backup each time I save that didn't take as long as I thought it would. Somehow the header got corrupted and the original file wouldn't load.

Anyway, I think I addressed all the concerns, though they might not be the most desirable solutions. I thought I mentioned the switch problem across the river and through the town some time ago, they're both the same situation, but maybe I never posted my comments. Be that as it may, mainline2 now runs through the straight section of the switches for the entire run. The yard now allows arrivals and departures in either direction with long lead tracks so there won't be any fouling of the mainline. To do all this, I had to add the 2nd bridge over the river and another cross over the entryway. I know that's not the most elegant solution, but the dual track bridge can be a lift out/up and the new cross can be a simple dropdown or another bridge.

I changed some elevations below the entryway so the out run is a bit higher than the others. That's why the Blue tracks are so much longer than the orange tracks. I updated all the grade and track height labels, so you can take a look at those by turning on those levels.

One question I have is what are the other bridges you already have and how long are they. The ones I used across the river might be too big or not big enough.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

So, here's my latest version. Somehow I lost my SCARM file, so it'll take me a bit to recreate it from a backup.

Ok, thanks to auto backup each time I save that didn't take as long as I thought it would. Somehow the header got corrupted and the original file wouldn't load.

Anyway, I think I addressed all the concerns, though they might not be the most desirable solutions. I thought I mentioned the switch problem across the river and through the town some time ago, they're both the same situation, but maybe I never posted my comments. Be that as it may, mainline2 now runs through the straight section of the switches for the entire run. The yard now allows arrivals and departures in either direction with long lead tracks so there won't be any fouling of the mainline. To do all this, I had to add the 2nd bridge over the river and another cross over the entryway. I know that's not the most elegant solution, but the dual track bridge can be a lift out/up and the new cross can be a simple dropdown or another bridge.

I changed some elevations below the entryway so the out run is a bit higher than the others. That's why the Blue tracks are so much longer than the orange tracks. I updated all the grade and track height labels, so you can take a look at those by turning on those levels.

One question I have is what are the other bridges you already have and how long are they. The ones I used across the river might be too big or not big enough.

Great job as always Dave! Not sure on the added bridge at the entrance. The other bridge I have is MTH RailKing 40-1103 that is 30" bridge with an added girder bridge extension. I do like the river clean up a lot!

John, I knew you wouldn't like the extra bridge over the entryway, but I couldn't resist messing with you.

Here's a more elegant alternative that also lets you have arriving and departing trains in both directions. It requires pulling into the yard on to the long lead track and then backing into the yard, but doesn't foul mainline2.

Note that I moved the TT/RH even further right to increase the yard size and give you an extra whisker track. I saw no reason for that spur you had there and you don't gain enough to curve around the TT to extend the bottom yard track, so I left it straight.

Also note that I connected another yard track to the TT. If you do it right, it will allow you to pull a long engine straight across the TT into 2 larger bays instead of just the one I had. There also appears to be room for a 5th stall.

The placement of the crossover into the yard to the left of the double-crossover lets you continue to use the bottom yard track for storage,  Even better though is that when trains depart going counterclockwise they can go through the double-crossover to get to manline1 right away. Conversely, trains going clockwise on mainline1 can also go through the double-crossover directly onto the yard lead and then back in.

I hope you like it. I think we've got a winner here.

And this shows a little of how the removable shelf would work. Note that the joists would extend past the bench work allowing you to simply set the shelf (or series of shelves) on them. I haven't taken the time to reconfigure the L-girder framing, so not all the joists would expend, just enough of them to support the shelf.

I have not read through the dozen pages so this comment may be out of line but I do have a thought on the placement of the double cross over.

Double cross overs when not is a congested must do circumstance can be an over done presentation.  On a long tangent dual track mainline a pair of single cross overs would serve the same purpose with less fuss and a present a broader palette  of track work.  Just a thought.

That nice long straight a way would look super with a two pair of #8 single cross overs!

I ride the rails a lot and single crossovers are plentiful.  Double crossovers are usually in tight yard approaches and passenger station entrance/exits.   I have yet to encountered a double crossover on a long tangent dual track mainline.

I agree Dave, I like this plan a lot.  The yard and turntable Roundhouse area look workable.

Tom, I don’t think your comment is out of line.  I have been following since the beginning and don’t recall any discussion on the double crossover.  It could have been early on and I forgot.  Regardless, you have knowledge from the prototype.  It could be John already has a double crossover like the four way switch and it was just a given.

@Tom Tee posted:

I have not read through the dozen pages so this comment may be out of line but I do have a thought on the placement of the double cross over.

Double cross overs when not is a congested must do circumstance can be an over done presentation.  On a long tangent dual track mainline a pair of single cross overs would serve the same purpose with less fuss and a present a broader palette  of track work.  Just a thought.

That nice long straight a way would look super with a two pair of #8 single cross overs!

I ride the rails a lot and single crossovers are plentiful.  Double crossovers are usually in tight yard approaches and passenger station entrance/exits.   I have yet to encountered a double crossover on a long tangent dual track mainline.

Hi Tom,  My lack of knowledge in this area is glaring. I have a double crossover that to me (not knowing better) thought it would enable trains to change main lines utilising something I already had. Sounds like that goes against any realistic railroad.

Guess it could go into the yard????

Thanks for your input!

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, I knew you wouldn't like the extra bridge over the entryway, but I couldn't resist messing with you.

Dave, you have carte Blanche when it comes to messing with me!

Here's a more elegant alternative that also lets you have arriving and departing trains in both directions. It requires pulling into the yard on to the long lead track and then backing into the yard, but doesn't foul mainline2.

Note that I moved the TT/RH even further right to increase the yard size and give you an extra whisker track. I saw no reason for that spur you had there and you don't gain enough to curve around the TT to extend the bottom yard track, so I left it straight.

Also note that I connected another yard track to the TT. If you do it right, it will allow you to pull a long engine straight across the TT into 2 larger bays instead of just the one I had. There also appears to be room for a 5th stall. Hmmmm, that is enticing 5th stall plus two extended bays!

The placement of the crossover into the yard to the left of the double-crossover lets you continue to use the bottom yard track for storage,  Even better though is that when trains depart going counterclockwise they can go through the double-crossover to get to manline1 right away. Conversely, trains going clockwise on mainline1 can also go through the double-crossover directly onto the yard lead and then back in.

I hope you like it. I think we've got a winner here.

This looks great, I'll try not to mess with it. Now should the yard have some added crossover switches?

And this shows a little of how the removable shelf would work. Note that the joists would extend past the bench work allowing you to simply set the shelf (or series of shelves) on them. I haven't taken the time to reconfigure the L-girder framing, so not all the joists would expend, just enough of them to support the shelf.

The shelves being on top of the joists makes lots of sense. I'll move the joists for the TT and redraw girders and supports.

John,

I’m working on changing the double-crossover, but I don’t think Tom realizes that the “long” dual tracks are at different elevations. Changing the double to separate #8 switches takes 8’ of track, almost triple what the double uses.

When it comes to switches in the yard, I really don’t know. I looked at the yards in Phoenix and New Orleans using Google Maps and don’t see switches. However, those yards are through yards with switches on both ends. I can see a need for switch’s on the TT end so switchers can move around, but adding switches is going to require changing the spacing and I’ll have to see what fits.

Ok, John. It took some time between working on this and 2 other designs, but I think this is something that will work, but I'm not crazy about the double-crossover in the yard. Maybe Tom Tee will take a peek and comment.

Hi Dave, not sure if this makes anything better. Again my lack of knowledge is showing. The double crossover appears to be useful only from one side, unless just an engine is using it. Do the switches that replace the double crossover add to realistic operation. I am a slow learner, sorry

I’m with Dave, I have never seen a double crossover in a small yard. I think Tom is correct, we don’t see them on prototype mainlines, but on a model railroad, cramped for space, go for it.  As Dave said you have to get the grades started, and the double crossover helps.

John,

To be honest, I didn’t put a lot of thought into where to place the double-crossover, I just wanted to get the yard tracks aligned. It probably makes more sense to put it in the middle so a switcher could move more than just itself.

The switches that replace it are more prototypical. I found an example in Philadelphia just to the right of the Girard Street Train Bridge, but it’s in a park, so you have use the satellite view to see it. Each crossover is by a light tower.

The bigger thing though is that I believe double-crossover switches are best used where speeds are slower. I’ve read posts saying they can be troublesome too, but I have no experience with them. Also, note that I used 11° switches to make the crossovers because the #8 switches Tom suggested are just too darned big and raised the grades to over 3%.

And before you ask, since the top yard track is for engines to access the TT and not for car storage, I didn’t add a crossover to it. I did move it further away and reoriented the TT/RH. There’s also no way to add a crossover to the middle 2 tracks coming off the 4-way because they’re too close. I even added the 4th straight lead to the RH area so you can park a large engine outside on the track next to the RH.

Good deal, Dave.  That makes a lot of sense!!!

@Mark Boyce posted:

I’m with Dave, I have never seen a double crossover in a small yard. I think Tom is correct, we don’t see them on prototype mainlines, but on a model railroad, cramped for space, go for it.  As Dave said you have to get the grades started, and the double crossover helps.

Sounds like the double crossover doesn't belong on this railroad.. That aside would it make sense to move the crossover to the end of the mainline curves? I think at one point they might have been, however with the TT in that area, access for a potential trouble spot was needed and it was moved down. The double crossover doesn't sound very prototypical on this layout, but Mark as you said with cramped space it does help with fitting grades and such.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John,

The switches that replace it are more prototypical. I found an example in Philadelphia just to the right of the Girard Street Train Bridge, but it’s in a park, so you have use the satellite view to see it. Each crossover is by a light tower.

Nice research and great pic!

The bigger thing though is that I believe double-crossover switches are best used where speeds are slower. I’ve read posts saying they can be troublesome too, but I have no experience with them. Also, note that I used 11° switches to make the crossovers because the #8 switches Tom suggested are just too darned big and raised the grades to over 3%.

And before you ask, since the top yard track is for engines to access the TT and not for car storage, I didn’t add a crossover to it. I did move it further away and reoriented the TT/RH. There’s also no way to add a crossover to the middle 2 tracks coming off the 4-way because they’re too close. I even added the 4th straight lead to the RH area so you can park a large engine outside on the track next to the RH.

Wonder if it would help to move crossover to the curves before the straight runs?

btw Dave great job as always!

I have moved the crossover to the start of the straight runs, incorporated a double track bridge (which I'll have to find one to fit) Not sure what , if anything stills needs to be done to the yard. Thoughts everyone?

John,

This is absolutely just my personal opinion with no experience to back it up, but you’ve already bought the double-crossover, so I think you should use it. I think it’s overkill in the yard and should be put back where it was. However, it should NOT be moved to the curves. The reason it was to the right of the crossover that goes to/from the yard is so trains can either go from the outer main directly into the yard or those coming out of the yard can go directly to the outer main. Putting it anywhere else just doesn’t make sense. If you put it where you did, you raise the grade going left and lower the grades going right, just a simple exchange. However, trains have to go all the way around the layout to use it. You can still add a crossover in the yard, but you’ll only need 2 switches for that, not 4.

The bridge you added on the bottom makes no sense. The mains are too close to have any reason for 1 bridge there. It could make sense along the purple straight section in the town.

Adding another double bridge across the river makes sense as does adding a 2nd removable shelf for the town.

Dave, IMHO you make lots of sense, with suggestions and opinions. I agree on the over kill in yard with the cross over. It would be nice to use, however I could always sell it on e-bay or here. I was messing with you, putting the bridge at a random spot.   I'll make some more changes as we seem to be thinking along the same lines. I am tending to keep the double crossover for the very reason Mark stated, it helps a small layout. Not sure the best place to put switches in place of the crossover in the yard.

On other notes, the long main lines straight away against the wall, I am envisioning two different grades for those tracks. The one closest to the wall should be the higher track of the two until they meet near the entry bridge. I hope there is enough space between them to have a hillside or rock cliff between the two lines. (Leaning toward rocky cliff) Any opinions??? All are welcome.

Touche, John. Here's my latest version.

Looks good and possibly we are nearing the final phase. Again Thanks for ALL the help and support.

Ok, it's up to you to decide which is more important; access to the double-crossover or different elevations leading up to the dual track bridge.

Yes, back out on the mainline is the place for it.  I agree, Dave has given the pros and cons of placement of it on that straightaway.  I do agree it seems you are getting very close.  Once you are building, you will come up with other things.  Some things are changes because it doesn't quite work out in three dimensions, you will think of something better, or you goof something up and don't realize it for a while where you have to decide whether to go back and change it, or change things to match up with the goof up.  All of those situations happened to me! 

@DoubleDAZ posted:

Touche, John. Here's my latest version.

I like this version a lot and will start playing with elevations for the town etc. Again thanks for all the help from you and everyone else!

Merry Christmas to all !

Merry Christmas, John!

Merry  Christmas to all

Merry Christmas everyone.

Santa was very kind and generous to me this year. There under the tree was a topside creeper Traxion model 3-100. Which I put together today and tried it out for reach and comfort. I have to admit it may take some getting use to leaning on, however it gives me an easy 4 foot reach, which is what I was hoping to get. Thank you Santa!

Santa is old enough to know the value of such a gift. 

Hello All, I tried my best to keep Main line on the straight line of switch vs the turnout. and I straightened out the track that went through town. moved the two spurs to accommodate the main lines. Let me know if this was an improvement or did I mess something up inadvertently?

Thanks as Always!

John

John,

I spent some time trying to figure out some of the changes and fixing the TT/RH. For some reason you ended up with an 8.3% grade where the tracks on the left meet the tracks curving to the top. Fixing that forced other changes to maintain adequate separation where the curves overlap. I don't know if I figured things out close to the way you wanted them or not, you can decide.

The TT/RH is a different story. You can't just copy/paste parts of the RH and use flex track to make things look like they fit. The tracks coming off the TT going into the RH are at 9° while the others are at 10°. And I'm not even sure at this point if the whiskers are far enough from the outside walls of the RH, they might need to be 11° or 12°.

You also don't really want to add long tracks just because they fit. You only need tracks that are long enough so engines clear each other when moving to/from the TT. At this point I really don't know how long those 3 whiskers need to be, but they only need to hold engines that fit on the TT. If you want to waste track to fill the same, that's fine, just FYI.

I'm not exactly sure why, but you obviously want that bottom yard track to be as long as it can be, so I left it off the TT like you had it. You can still access the long stalls in the RH, so no problem making it as long as you want.

Basically, I like the changes you made. In fact, if you notice, the Orange/Yellow tracks are now flat past the switch, so you can make the town stretch to the left more. Each change gets you closed to a final design, at least in SCARM.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John,

I spent some time trying to figure out some of the changes and fixing the TT/RH. For some reason you ended up with an 8.3% grade where the tracks on the left meet the tracks curving to the top. Fixing that forced other changes to maintain adequate separation where the curves overlap. I don't know if I figured things out close to the way you wanted them or not, you can decide.

Sorry I did not checks grades again, just too excited that things are working out better and better. I trust your judgement for sure.

The TT/RH is a different story. You can't just copy/paste parts of the RH and use flex track to make things look like they fit. The tracks coming off the TT going into the RH are at 9° while the others are at 10°. And I'm not even sure at this point if the whiskers are far enough from the outside walls of the RH, they might need to be 11° or 12°.

You are totally correct about TT/RH and the angles. Thanks for cleaning that up along with your other chages.  My thought was the space was adequate for the combo tt/RH Using an index tt should be able to be programmed for the correct angles. There is still some wiggle room to make corrections while building. Let me know if my thought was out of the ballpark.

You also don't really want to add long tracks just because they fit. You only need tracks that are long enough so engines clear each other when moving to/from the TT. At this point I really don't know how long those 3 whiskers need to be, but they only need to hold engines that fit on the TT. If you want to waste track to fill the same, that's fine, just FYI.

Another good point! I'll adjust to your recommendations

I'm not exactly sure why, but you obviously want that bottom yard track to be as long as it can be, so I left it off the TT like you had it. You can still access the long stalls in the RH, so no problem making it as long as you want.

no need for that either, and I am not sure flextrack  would bend to the TT as sharp as I currently have it

Basically, I like the changes you made. In fact, if you notice, the Orange/Yellow tracks are now flat past the switch, so you can make the town stretch to the left more. Each change gets you closed to a final design, at least in SCARM. Here's

Main objective was to get the main line off the turnout and on the straight part of the switch. You are too kind with your comments. Thanks!

First Benchwork attempt..

John, The first attempt looks great!  Mark that day down on a calendar.  Seeing the topside creeper, how do you think it will work out for you?

@Mark Boyce posted:

John, The first attempt looks great!  Mark that day down on a calendar.  Seeing the topside creeper, how do you think it will work out for you?

Thanks... and the creeper will be awkward for sure, however it makes the 4 foot width possible without too many hassles. I was up on it simulating working height, and it will get tiring working for a long period like that, so it will be used, however it will not be the main mode of work. I am still going to use the removable shelves, for everyday operations and maintenance.  Plus do as much far reaching work before table top is completed. Thinking on two, 2-foot sections one against wall and the other next to isle. Not putting isle in until I have to, so background can be done. I am hoping to do some painting and possibly a couple of commercial backgrounds for the city/town area  which would be wayyyy beyond the scope of my artistic abilities. LOL My wife will be called to duty with the art work. Not sure how to make a road "dissappear" into the backdrop before that scenery and track work is done. It would be great if I could get the 2 foot wall section done then paint background. I know my wife would not like the creeper and I am artistically challenged.

Also Mark I think the bench work is too high and I will need to cut it down. Not a big deal as it is just screwed together. It is at 40.25 inches at the top of the joists. Add either plywood,  homosote and roadbed or plywood, foam and road bed, that is an added inch then track elevations go up to 52", that seems to big a bit tall for my wife.  What are your layout heights? And do you like then? Also I have concerns the draw bridge is 40" and track at that area is 50" so I need 90" + inches (7.5 feet) for clearance when in the upright position.

I am reading a lot on the various methods for track work, roadbed and surfaces. Homosote and foam seem to be the two top contenders. Any thoughts from you and everyone else?

John, the bench work looks nice. One suggestion is that when you get to the TT/RH area, make the stringers longer than you have in the design in case the decking needs to be a bit larger than shown. I’m still concerned about how large the RH actually is and the angles of the outside whiskers. I know the TT indexes, but I’d hate to see you resort to flex track coming off the TT to make things fit. You can always trim the stringers and decking, a lot harder to add, though you can sister in extensions. As you said there’s wiggle room during the build, just trying to make sure there’s enough.

When it comes to whiskers, don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with using a 37” track even if it’s too long, just didn’t want to see you add extra track just to fill the space. You need room for trees and such when adding landscaping. And the closer you index, the longer the whiskers will need to be for clearance near the front where engines will pass each other. Wider indexing lets you use shorter tracks, but makes the overall footprint larger in width.

I actually thought my comments were a little harsh, especially about the TT/RH. The TT/RH are a bit of a sore spot for me because it took a long time to figure things out in another design I’ve been working of for someone else and I’m still not confident I know how things will work out. I’d be fine if it were my layout, but it’s tough when it’s someone else’s. If I make a mistake with my own design, I can deal with it. But, if I make one with yours, you have to deal with it and that’s a bit unsettling for me, especially since we’re trying to cram stuff in tight spaces.

One thing I keep forgetting is that I also have the RR-Track software with some accessory libraries, so I can get footprints for a lot of buildings, etc. Unfortunately, that doesn’t include roundhouses and I haven’t looked to see how much detail I can get from the objects. Still, I should see sometime how hard it would be to convert some to SCARM, even though creating 3D objects in 2D is a tedious process because everything has to be done in layers or parts cover other parts making editing really difficult.

Anyway, the final comment is to really plan out the track laying process. I’m working on a 15’x30’ 4-level connected design with another member. Major parts of each level are the same, so to make sure things will fit as designed, he’s taken the trouble to lay one level of track on the floor, complete with power to run a train, before he’s even started the bench work. And, he’s doing it within the limitations of tubular track. A lot of folks lay out all the track before tacking anything down, though I suppose that’s harder to do with elevation changes and cookie-cutter style bench work. The hardest sections are those that include custom cut tracks. You can’t rely on the software to give you exact lengths, so you need to take extra care when laying things out before you cut. I’m sure Mark and others have plenty to say about that.

Hi Dave, Totally understand the TT/RH issue/s that I create. I will heed your advice on cutting long then trimming when it all fits. Also I agree on the whisker tracks being shorter, I cut them down to 30" and may go to 28" as a 27"TT will not handle a 30" engine...  I again appreciate your "harsh" comments as they bring the point home. You do great work and take pride in your work, which is btw totally outstanding.  I was considering putting track together on the floor, which at my age and height is not easy, but I can see yours and others points for fit. My thought is the benchwork is only critical around TT/RH. The rest is pretty much the max size I can deal with reasonably. So if I oversize the TT/RH area that maybe a good starting point to lay track on top. I wouldn't consider making any other area larger if track does not fit, so the track plan would need altering if there are clearance issues. Are these thinking errors on my part?

John, how high is the ceiling? A standard table is around 30” and I believe you’re at 32.5” to the bottom of the girder (40.25-3.5 joist-4.25 girder), don’t forget about getting underneath. Since there is nothing in the way of the entry,  no door, no wall, etc., have you considered a swing-out bridge? I can envision one end being attached to a circular board attached to a 6”-12” lazy susan, like those on Amazon, that would then turn like the TT. You’d have to cut the lead tracks along the circle so they’d meet just like the leads to a TT. Another option would be a simple hinged base. You’d also need a support for the other end, but that could be as simple as a large dowel with a wheel on the bottom. Since the bridge only weights about 6 lbs, you could also do a lift-out.

John, you have to allow room at the TT end for engines to pass, so I think 28” will be cutting it too close for engines that just barely fit on the TT. You can see the tracks going into the RH at 9° are closer to each other than the outside whiskers at 10°. That’s because engines will be parked further from the TT in the RH until they’re back in service. The larger the degree, those closer engines can be parked to the TT and the shorter the whiskers need to be. BTW, I made the whiskers 10° only because I don’t know if they’ll hit the RH at 9°. That’s something you can decide during the install. Just remember that the smaller the degree, the longer the whiskers needs to be, bit it looks like there is plants of space for your needs.

John, The top of the cork roadbed on the table is 43 1/2" high.  The top of the highest point is 50"  It works here, but my layout is only 30" deep.  My table and level upper level is 1/2" or 5/8"plywood/pressed furniture wood, then 1/2" Homasote, then O scale 1/4" cork to give the tapered roadbed look.  It can total 1 3/8" total.  I only used the foam for the grades because I couldn't figure out how to make the cookie cutter work in this case, partly because of what Dave mentioned and partly because I don't have access to better tools and skills.  The foam still has Homasote and cork on top of it.

I think with your layout having deeper shelves, you may be right about lowering what you have a few inches, especially concerning your wife's height.  Also, if you do make the bridge lift up, you will need the extra height as you mentioned.  My bridges will only span 26", so it isn't a problem even though my ceiling is only 7' 4" high.  I'm working on an arrangement like Mike G. did.  Dave is right, a swing out arrangement may be better for you, although that has it's challenges too. Myles (Trainman2001) did one of those and described it at length in the early pages (maybe 5 years ago) of his Continuing Saga... topic.  I didn't want to do one like that because I have very little room to swing it out without putting me through the sliding glass door! 

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, how high is the ceiling? A standard table is around 30” and I believe you’re at 32.5” to the bottom of the girder (40.25-3.5 joist-4.25 girder), don’t forget about getting underneath. Since there is nothing in the way of the entry,  no door, no wall, etc., have you considered a swing-out bridge? I can envision one end being attached to a circular board attached to a 6”-12” lazy susan, like those on Amazon, that would then turn like the TT. You’d have to cut the lead tracks along the circle so they’d meet just like the leads to a TT. Another option would be a simple hinged base. You’d also need a support for the other end, but that could be as simple as a large dowel with a wheel on the bottom. Since the bridge only weights about 6 lbs, you could also do a lift-out.

Hi Dave, The ceiling is at 93" , however there is a steel beam in that area that is only 8 4" from the floor. I will check in morning to see if it will be over th bridge. Without checking, I would say it won't interfere . Swing bridge is an option for sure.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, you have to allow room at the TT end for engines to pass, so I think 28” will be cutting it too close for engines that just barely fit on the TT. You can see the tracks going into the RH at 9° are closer to each other than the outside whiskers at 10°. That’s because engines will be parked further from the TT in the RH until they’re back in service. The larger the degree, those closer engines can be parked to the TT and the shorter the whiskers need to be. BTW, I made the whiskers 10° only because I don’t know if they’ll hit the RH at 9°. That’s something you can decide during the install. Just remember that the smaller the degree, the longer the whiskers needs to be, bit it looks like there is plants of space for your needs.

Dave, these are things that I never think of, but demand consideration. I'll keep whiskers at 29-30 inch range. And dealing with the RH  tracks and engines interfering with each other at the TT is a definite issue. I read someplace the ties may need cutting to put tracks adjoining on the TT meeting point.

@Mark Boyce posted:

John, The top of the cork roadbed on the table is 43 1/2" high.  The top of the highest point is 50"  It works here, but my layout is only 30" deep.  My table and level upper level is 1/2" or 5/8"plywood/pressed furniture wood, then 1/2" Homasote, then O scale 1/4" cork to give the tapered roadbed look.  It can total 1 3/8" total.  I only used the foam for the grades because I couldn't figure out how to make the cookie cutter work in this case, partly because of what Dave mentioned and partly because I don't have access to better tools and skills.  The foam still has Homasote and cork on top of it.

I think with your layout having deeper shelves, you may be right about lowering what you have a few inches, especially concerning your wife's height.  Also, if you do make the bridge lift up, you will need the extra height as you mentioned.  My bridges will only span 26", so it isn't a problem even though my ceiling is only 7' 4" high.  I'm working on an arrangement like Mike G. did.  Dave is right, a swing out arrangement may be better for you, although that has it's challenges too. Myles (Trainman2001) did one of those and described it at length in the early pages (maybe 5 years ago) of his Continuing Saga... topic.  I didn't want to do one like that because I have very little room to swing it outwithout putting me through the sliding glass door! 

Mark, Thanks for your height info.,and recommendations. I will lower it and see how that looks. Using 2x6's and standing on those will give me a good idea at the lower height. Also how loud or muffled are your trains on the plywood homosote cork bedding? Thanks in advance

John, yes, ties will need to be trimmed at the TT. Tom Tee and Mike_CT can probably offer some advice on how best to do that.

John, I can run my MTH engines at a sound level of even 20% and still not hear any track noise except the clickety clack of wheels going over rail joints, which is music to my ears.  It is nothing like the constant rumble of a train going over Fastrak on my Christmas setup.

Thanks for the positive feedback Mark. Now here I o messing around with a good layout... I think the only changes I made were in the Town area and the track going to the dog leg. My goal was to get a main street for the town with buildings so the main lines were separated to accommodate this goal.  Mark, Dave and everyone else, let me know your thoughts on this version. I believe I have elevations correct and grades a little higher but not much, at least I hope.

John,

I fixed the color coding so you'll know where your grades are and updated the percentages. There are grades past the parking lot on mainline1 (0.9%) and through the town on mainline 2 (3.3%) that weren't obvious by the color.

There was room in the upper left corner, so I added some tracks to the mainline1 grade there to lower it from 3.0 to 2.5% and noted the spacing of 7.65".

Your junk yard equates to only 6x24 yds and the curved part of the spur is too close to the tracks. The spur is at 51" and the yard is at 46.25", so I assume the yard and road are on a hill. Scale cars are around 4.25"x1.75", so you have room for 4, or 8-12 if you stack wrecks.

Conversely, some mobile homes are just over 7"x2", so the mobile home park can contain enough to make it look right.

I think you forgot about the pole at the corner of the upper left nook because the curve and spur there look too close to it. I moved it from the Baseboard layer to the Mainline1 layer so it won't be overlooked. I fiddled with it so you could see what direction to take.

The roads through town will have to deal with grades, so getting them to look right might be a bit challenging.

It would be a challenge, but a neat looking town with the grades.  Actually probably less grades than the part of Butler that we go through entering town from several directions including where our older daughter's house is.  I think it is good to have some ideas of what your scenery will look like, but what you actually will do will change as you are building.  The junk yard spur can be a bit of a problem, but if you ret rid of the curved part, you could just have miscelaneous junk and not items as large as cars.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John,

I fixed the color coding so you'll know where your grades are and updated the percentages. There are grades past the parking lot on mainline1 (0.9%) and through the town on mainline 2 (3.3%) that weren't obvious by the color.

This is how little I know about layout planning. I did not realize there was a color code? Does a color signify a certain grade? What do you use?

There was room in the upper left corner, so I added some tracks to the mainline1 grade there to lower it from 3.0 to 2.5% and noted the spacing of 7.65". Thanks!

Your junk yard equates to only 6x24 yds and the curved part of the spur is too close to the tracks. The spur is at 51" and the yard is at 46.25", so I assume the yard and road are on a hill. Scale cars are around 4.25"x1.75", so you have room for 4, or 8-12 if you stack wrecks. I was hoping for a general scrap yard with gantry crane, however that doesn't sound possible at that area.

Conversely, some mobile homes are just over 7"x2", so the mobile home park can contain enough to make it look right.

I think you forgot about the pole at the corner of the upper left nook because the curve and spur there look too close to it. I moved it from the Baseboard layer to the Mainline1 layer so it won't be overlooked. I fiddled with it so you could see what direction to take. Pole is measured 9.75" x 2" from walls, I didn't forget, just turned a blind eye, hoping it would go away!

The roads through town will have to deal with grades, so getting them to look right might be a bit challenging. Roads maybe a bit challenging, however they are easier to deal with than track grades. Hoping I am up for the challenge.

Again Dave, Many Thanks for your eye to detail and doing things correct. That is priceless!

@Mark Boyce posted:

It would be a challenge, but a neat looking town with the grades.  Actually probably less grades than the part of Butler that we go through entering town from several directions including where our older daughter's house is.  I think it is good to have some ideas of what your scenery will look like, but what you actually will do will change as you are building.  The junk yard spur can be a bit of a problem, but if you ret rid of the curved part, you could just have miscelaneous junk and not items as large as cars.

I am hoping I can deal successfully with the grades and the town comes out ok. And I am sure some things will change as I get things going and realize what I forgot or never thought of! I should have called it a scrap yard so cars would not consume the space. Thanks Mark for your help and support.

John, the color-coding is mine. It helps me identify different sections, like grades (purple), mainline1 (blue), mainline2 (orange), yard (green), etc. It also lets me select a section of tracks simply be double-clicking on 1 track in the section, particularly when trying to create grades. I select a purple section, then add or subtract tracks to see how the grade changes.

The footprint for Lionel’s Gantry Crane in RR-Track is 5.5x11.5”, so it will not fit where the junk yard is if that’s the one you’re considering.

I went back to a final room dimensions file from 2020-08-28 where you indicated the pole was 12” from the wall and 3” up from the corner, though you didn’t say how round it was. It stayed that way until file 2020-11-25 when it was shrunk from over 6” round to 3.25” round and the edge was placed 9.75” from the side wall and 3” up from the corner. Now you’re saying it’s 2” up from the corner, but still 9.75” in from the side wall, is that correct?

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, the color-coding is mine. It helps me identify different sections, like grades (purple), mainline1 (blue), mainline2 (orange), yard (green), etc. It also lets me select a section of tracks simply be double-clicking on 1 track in the section, particularly when trying to create grades. I select a purple section, then add or subtract tracks to see how the grade changes.  Yes the color coding helps a ton for sure. I did not know if there was a scarm standard, should have realized that was your helpful addition.

The footprint for Lionel’s Gantry Crane in RR-Track is 5.5x11.5”, so it will not fit where the junk yard is if that’s the one you’re considering. Yes it was, but should fit in somewhere else....

I went back to a final room dimensions file from 2020-08-28 where you indicated the pole was 12” from the wall and 3” up from the corner, though you didn’t say how round it was. It stayed that way until file 2020-11-25 when it was shrunk from over 6” round to 3.25” round and the edge was placed 9.75” from the side wall and 3” up from the corner. Now you’re saying it’s 2” up from the corner, but still 9.75” in from the side wall, is that correct?

Dave, what you have drawn below here is 100% accurate! Not sure how I will hide this HUGE Chimney! LOL I also played around with some of the grades and here is what I came up with to ease the grade on the short town track. Basically lowered the entry/lift bridge to 49"  Let me know your thoughts, Thanks

John, there aren't any SCARM standards for that sort of thing. I used to place grades on separate layers before I discovered that color-coded sections could be selected with a double-click. I still put them on layers when I need to be able to hide them while editing for some reason. When you do as much editing as I do, these little tricks can really speed up the process and keep me straight. Coloring is pretty much the first thing I do when someone sends me a layout or I download one from the forum.

What are your plans for the spur going up into the nook? Looks like a perfect place for a gantry crane operation of some sort, just a thought.

As far as the pole is concerned, I had it as 84". However, since much of it will be hidden by a hill, why not turn it into a water tower. I separated it into 3 parts; the bottom, the reservoir and the top (could be painted the same color as the walls). Or you could add another in the back left corner and add a Zip Line into a small forest. Instead of a gantry crane, you could add a Ferris Wheel and other carnival accessories, though I like the junk yard with crane.

Hi Dave, I do see the advantage to color coding for selection of tracks for elevations etc. Do you have a color code like yellow is < 1% grade   Purple is 1% to 2% grade   Yellow is 2% to 3% grade   orange is 3% to 4% grade?  Spur going up the nook could be junk yard / Gantry crane area, did not have that thought out yet. Good suggestion. Also another good suggestion on the pole painting the higher portion the same as the background.  Intuitively I feel there are lack of crossovers / tunnels, I was going to work on the town area and roads before messing up a really good track layout.

Again Thanks for all the help.

John

John, Dave can tell you my plan for my Town on the Hill (Thomas West Virginia) took a big hit when I bought that two stall engine house and put in the wye and two stalls.  There won't be room for all the town buildings I had planned with steep streets connecting levels, but I'll fit a little in.  A new opportunity can wipe out plans in a second. 

John, no, I don’t have a color-code for grades of different slopes, never saw a need. I try to keep grades below 3% unless someone needs them lower. Besides, labels tell me what the grades are. 😉

Over/under sections are hard because you simply don’t have the space given all the other stuff you want, like the double truss bridge, double-crossover, different grades on both mains throughout, etc. if you were designing an HO layout you could have all that, but O Scale needs so much more space to get high enough. And even though modern engines can do grades of 5% or more, no one wants to go that steep because it’s not realistic. And no one (outside of Mark) wants to take the time to test their engines to see how steep they can go and what they can pull. If you look at layouts with a lot of over/under sections, they generally have trains on 2 levels with a grade between them. Very few are like freeway overpasses that they go up and over in a short distance.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, no, I don’t have a color-code for grades of different slopes, never saw a need. I try to keep grades below 3% unless someone needs them lower. Besides, labels tell me what the grades are. 😉

Over/under sections are hard because you simply don’t have the space given all the other stuff you want, like the double truss bridge, double-crossover, different grades on both mains throughout, etc. if you were designing an HO layout you could have all that, but O Scale needs so much more space to get high enough. And even though modern engines can do grades of 5% or more, no one wants to go that steep because it’s not realistic. And no one (outside of Mark) wants to take the time to test their engines to see how steep they can go and what they can pull. If you look at layouts with a lot of over/under sections, they generally have trains on 2 levels with a grade between them. Very few are like freeway overpasses that they go up and over in a short distance.

Dave, I'm glad you remembered!!  The testing was worthwhile in that I proved to myself that the grades could be done successfully in a small room.  Folks who don't like grades that steep, may have a lot more room to work with.    If I had more room, then it wouldn't have been an issue.

Well, Mark, you probably wouldn’t have the layout you have if you hadn’t done that test. I get the desirability of things like 2% grades, O-72 curves, articulated engines, etc., but O Scale just doesn’t allow that stuff in the spaces many of us have. I tend to look at graduated trestle sets for guidance and they approach 5% grades, so for me that’s allowed when necessary. I’d much rather have things like that than 2 simple ovals in the same space. For me it’s the difference between a Figure 8 with a crossing vs one with a graduated trestle set just to avoid a steep grade. If I had to choose one, I’d always opt for the trestle.

You are absolutely right, Dave!  If I hadn’t tested it out, I probably would have gone with the 2% people with larger layouts advise. It’s all about compromise.

Thanks Dave & Mark for sage advise. I do realize I do have a lot of room and opted for yard and rh/tt that  EATS up real estate fast! Add the crossover and the dual track bridges, the real estate is gone. So going back to wants and needs there has to be compromises made and adjustments along the way. Again thanks for all the help

John

Yes, John Armstrong, the acknowledged dean of layout design in the scale model train world, calls it 'Givens and Druthers'.  What do you Have to have in your layout and what would you Like in your layout that could be expendable.  You are getting to the point of weighing the druthers to see which are expendable, but there is room for change of mind once you are building.

Thanks Mark for the encouraging words, I am still pondering the height of the main table level. LOL Looks liek I will go down to around 37" then add plywood, honosote, roadbed the trains will be around 38.25" I can deal with the under table work height as it is only during construction. Final table height will be for the life of the layout and will be something to always deal with, reach, viewing level maintenance etc.

@DoubleDAZ posted:

John, no, I don’t have a color-code for grades of different slopes, never saw a need. I try to keep grades below 3% unless someone needs them lower. Besides, labels tell me what the grades are. 😉

Over/under sections are hard because you simply don’t have the space given all the other stuff you want, like the double truss bridge, double-crossover, different grades on both mains throughout, etc. if you were designing an HO layout you could have all that, but O Scale needs so much more space to get high enough. And even though modern engines can do grades of 5% or more, no one wants to go that steep because it’s not realistic. And no one (outside of Mark) wants to take the time to test their engines to see how steep they can go and what they can pull. If you look at layouts with a lot of over/under sections, they generally have trains on 2 levels with a grade between them. Very few are like freeway overpasses that they go up and over in a short distance.

Guess I should be doing that exercise now while it is still in design stage and not after grades are finished! I fall into the group of not wanting to take the time... but I will, I have old Lionel Berkshire steam and Illinois Central Diesel that need to be tested along with several others. These are vintage 1960 models that I crammed in ERR upgrade. At least I tested the upgrades. They work.

John, Yes I would advise you test those two since the motors are older they may not pull as well as never engines.  With newer engines, I'm sure they would work with the short trains I can run.  You will have the room to add on more cars than I can, so they may not do it.  Of course we can always do what the prototype does, double head steam engines and mu diesels! 

John, if you lower the table height you can use the Height Shift tool in the Toolbox. Just select everything using the Edit/Select All option and decrease the height by 4.75” to go from a track base height of 43” to 38.25”. You will have to manually fix the length of your legs. In fact, if you decrease it by 43”, the framing, etc., will be below the base and all track heights will be relative to the tabletop, not the floor. Try it, you can always change it back.

Mark, I will heed the advise and do m older engines for sure, although my grades are not that steep, I may try steeper grades so I know what wiggle room I have!

Thanks Dave for another scarm gem of a tip! I will do it after I save original as a copy.

Yes, my steepest was planned to be about 3.7% I think , but ended up being 4%.  I had tested it up to 6% for the original layout plan With about 5 cars I think.

John, SCARM has an option to save a BACKUP every time you Save. It’s a lot easier to delete the backup files than remember to manually save a backup or lose something.

The main test needs to be down to avoid trains going too fast.

Thanks for the info guys!

Here is another variant that messes with the scrap yard area. I think this looks like it could work, either for scrapyard or something else in its place. Should be clearance for tracks and such.

John, the scrap yard siding looks good to me.  Lets see if Dave sees something that you and I don't! 

John/Mark, the junk yard looks fine, but I did have to fix some disconnects on the left side grade at the Blue switch and the lower left road. The joints were probably hidden by the height labels and went unnoticed.

Anyway, I then had to fix the flex curve between the 2 bridges and the larger bridge. It's difficult to get a single flex track bent correctly in the software, so I inserted a 6.2" straight at an angle in the middle and connected it with flex tracks on each end to make sure the curves were O-72 or larger and minimize the "S" curve effect.

I updated the grade percentages. They're based on the bridge and switches being flat. As you can see, the grade between the 2 switches in the town is 3.3%. If you include the right-hand switch on the grade, the overall grade becomes 2.6%, but you'll then have a slight grade on the spur. The same is true on the spur going to the junk yard. I don't see a problem with that, just be aware of it because the spur has to be flat at the point where cars might be parked.

John and Dave, The plan is looking good!!

John, Build it, and they will come!! 

Dave, you are amazing. I have gained valuable insights while observing your efforts.

Jay

Thank you, Jay, just trying to be as helpful as I can.

Getting those joints to work out with pieces of flex track is my biggest problem with SCARM on my plan.  Occasionally it worked slick.  The rest I could never get, but Dave did it.  John is doing great with SCARM, but having similar issues.  Grades also.

Don't feel bad, John.  I had the same problems.

Mark, just a quick tutorial of how I did the flex in the town. Maybe it'll help some readers. And, yes, Geometry was a favorite class in high school.

First, I added O-72 curves on each end.

Next, I added some straights to see how close the curves came to each other.

They didn't meet, so I moved one set to meet the other.

Then centered both.

Next was "snipping" each so they joined. This is tricky with curves because you have to find a point close to where both meet and the Snip Off tool shows in the menu.

Once that was done, I didn't like the "S" curve.

So, I started over with O-138 curves and noticed I could insert a 6.2" straight to reduce the "S" curve effect.

To get it centered, I deleted the curves and added 12.4" straights and centered a 6.2" straight between them.

Obviously, the straight needed to be rotated and I settled on 10°.

I deleted the longer straights and added the flex on both sides. As you can see, they didn't connect because the heights are different.

  A lot of folks see this and think they won't connect, but all you have to do is edit the heights.

Once that was done, I changed the color and selected the entire grade, edited one end to get the percentage and that was it.

The result is a smoother curve with minimal "S" curve effect.

Dave, thank you for posting that.  There are a lot more steps involved than I thought.  No wonder it seldom worked for me.

Mark, with some experience you can cut that down to a single step with a single flex track by eyeballing the first curve, left-click, then the straight, left-click, then the final curve, right-click. Too often folks who try that though end up with a final curve that is too tight or just doesn’t look close to symmetrical. If it weren’t for the building below the end straight track, I’d have smoothed things out more with a full 12.4” straight. Of course, when track is laid it’ll be done with a single flex track, just going to take some planning and patience to get the curves smooth. And I don’t think flex is supposed to start or end with curves, but I don’t know it that’s true or not.

Thanks Dave for the detailed lesson! That is why you are the wizzard of scarm! Can anyone answer Dave's question if gargraves flex track can start or end with curves?

Thanks

John

John, there always has to be at least a little straight section before you start curving or chances are you’ll end up with a kink at the joint. I remember someone suggesting a 6” lead, Mike-CT might have some thoughts.

Dave, I was trying it with a single step and it usually wouldn't even connect.  The straight on the ends makes sense, but I don't know how long it needs to be.

Mark, are you sure it didn't connect? Did you check the heights on both sides of the joint to make sure they were the same? In the example, you generally end up with the height on the left side at 48.25", while the height on the right side is 47.46" or something like that. You have to change one to match the other.

The comment about straights on the end wasn't meant to apply in the example as shown. My point there was that IF a straight section is in fact needed, then that example will not work and the section needs to be reconfigured.

In this example, I created a yellow rectangle the size of a 6.2" track. I did this because using an actual track would have let the flex track connect to it when I want it to connect to the blue switch.
-- I then placed the yellow rectangle where a 6.2" track would usually connect (point 1) and replicated it on the other blue end (point 7).
-- I then added a 3rd rectangle as close to the center of the other two (point 3-4), both side to side and up & down.
-- I then rotated it 10°.
-- Next I added a flex track at point 1, moved it to point 2 and left-clicked.
-- I kept moving it to point 3, left-click, point 4, left-click, point 5, left-click and point 6, where it ended, so right-click. This is where you have to eye-ball where you think the curve will best meet point 6.
-- I added another flex track and moved it to point 6, left-click and point 7, right-click.

Now, because point 5 has 2 curves of flex meeting each other, I'd be inclined to end the first flex track halfway through point 3-4. That way both flex tracks have 3" straights that meet each other.

The thing is dealing with flex track in this manner is tedious work in software and those who use it need to understand how to use it. It's not unlike easements for grades where SCARM will say a grade is 3%, but it's actually more when you consider the easement to make a smooth transition, something I think you understand very well. When dealing with flex track, you can fasten the first few ties, but as soon as you begin to bend the rest, you are liable to introduce a kink at the joint in 1 rail or another. This tendency is reduced with a straight lead and why I saw the 6" recommendation.

Okay I think I get it now.  Maybe it connected but I couldn’t get rid of the tail that needed snipped off.  It has been a few months since I worked on it.

Hi Dave I tried my hand at moving the main line 1 further from the back which I was thinking about scenery behind it, let me know your thoughts.

Thanks John

@Aegis21 - Wow, that's an intense layout!

I Think Thanks, most accolades go to Dave, Mark and all who else helped!

John, don't take this the wrong way, but you've given me headache.

I didn't get to look at the changes you made to the left side before I noticed this version doesn't include any of the changes I made to the version with 109a in the filename.

Anyway, I also noticed that the elevations from the mobile home park through town are all messed up. The curve from the blue switch to the bridge is back to not being smooth. The orange tunnel track under the overpass goes from 1.5" on one end to 2.25" on the other, a 3.9% grade. I believe this is an error in SCARM as a result of including the switch in the grade computation. If I just use the 2 orange tracks to go from 1.5" from the purple tracks to 2" at the switch, I get 1.75" and 1.3%.

The tracks above that are now flat at 8.75" past the bridge. The switch on the right at 8.45" and the spur at 8.75" with a 1.2% grade for the first track. Unfortunately, with the switch at 8.45", the grade from the bridge to the switch is 2.0%, but after the switch to the next bridge is 3.0%. Now, if you put the switch on the grade, the lead is 8.38" while the exit and turnout are at 8.02" for a 2.5% grade. The first track of the spur then goes from 8.02" to 8.75" for a grade of 2.9%. This cab be adjusted because there is enough lead to the junk yard. The other thing is that a switch on a grade is probably frowned upon, possibly because the points may not to seat all the way and cause derailments. That's why I plan for switches to be flat and the grades to/from the switch be set to desired percentages.

Okay, so when it comes to the major change you made on the left, now that you've made me think about that whole section, a Bascule bridge doesn't make any sense there at all. Bascule bridges aren't used at higher elevations, they're designed to let boat traffic through. With the static dual-track bridge there, there can't be any boat traffic to justify the Bascule. I could deal with it along the wall because there was room for cliff-style landscaping, but even that doesn't make any sense other than just for looks. It could make sense in the bridges were swapped, but you need the dual-track truss where it is. Sorry I didn't think of this earlier. I do like the addition of the mine track and the parking lot with pier. However, the lot and pier mean the track will need to be on elevated supports leading to the bridge, not on a hillside.

The other thing is that the changes aren't straight. This is because either the top curves aren't cut right or the bottom curve does not end perpendicular because of the flex track.

Now, I can fix everything, but you need to decide if you want to use the Bascule bridge strictly for display even though it's not close to prototypical. I also need you to look at my version 109a because that's the version I'll make the changes to. It's easier for me to make these new changes to it than fixe all the errors a 2nd time in this version.

I did notice you lowered the track, bench work, etc., but you forgot about the furniture, utilities and walls. I'm not sure why those are still in the file unless you just want an overall view of the space.

So, let me know what you want me to do and if you've already made more changes before I've had a chance to consider these.

Dave, I did not make those changes, my evil twin did.😈 My apologies, I would not want to give the wizard of scarm an aneurysm. 😇 I'll review how messed up things are and certainly give your advise huge consideration. Thanks for for being kind and diplomatically blunt. 😀

I’m just sorry I didn’t see the problem with the bascule bridge until now. I realize too that you’re still not comfortable with grades and other things in SCARM, so I’m just trying to help by pointing out things that were perhaps overlooked. And you won’t give me an aneurysm, everything can be fixed easy enough. 🤪 I just don’t want to fix things now until I know how you want to proceed or if you want to try fixing them yourself.

I honestly don’t know what to do about the bascule bridge. It’s obvious now that it wasn’t prototypical the way it was and it’s not prototypical the way it is now. I’ve been trying to find a place for it, but it pretty much doesn’t fit anywhere given the dual mainlines. If you move it back to where it was, it won’t be as obvious and you can still have the parking lot, just have to move the fishing pier. There are plenty of examples of parking under bridges, though probably not railroad bridges. I’m pretty sure though there’s parking under the elevated trains in places like Chicago, just not for fishing. 🤔

Right now I won’t do anything unless you say so.

Dave it should be my responsibility to look up and see what is close to realistic and what is just plain wrong. The bascule bridge is my fault for sure. I am attaching " John 2021-01-02 Daz109.scarm" let me know if that is the last correct version without my added foolishness. Thanks for your patience and enormous help. As far as fishing in chicago under a bridge, I fished many a rubber ball from the drains under the Myrtle Ave EL elevated line in Queens NY.

No, the last one had "109a" in the filename. It fixed the curve between the blue switch and the bridge in town to minimize the "S" curve effect. I've renamed it "John 2021-01-10 daz.scarm" to reset the filename structure. FWIW, I don't know where the 102, 103, and 109 came from, I suppose they were difference versions of the same file, but if I change a file on the same day, I simply add an a, b, c, etc., to the date.

Hi Dave,  Here is my best attempt at getting the Bascule and double track brides to be somewhat realistic. I Raised the double up 4.5" and lowered Bascule to 0". The grades are  a bit steep, but that was the best I could do with my limited scarm abilities.  This is just food for thought and a try at getting it realistic. By no means is the best alternative. I am sure the grades need to be fixed, changed and corrected. I tried to allow for level bridges and turnouts with grades in mind. Let me know how far off I am and how much tylenol I need to fedex to you?

John, that's a great idea, but unfortunately it just won't work that way. I fixed a bunch of stuff around the layout to get all the grades below 3% and update the labels. Then it dawned on me that I didn't check to see what you did with the bridge on the left. At first I thought maybe you just had it on a grade, which would have been ok. Then I feared you didn't put the tracks on the bridge at the same height and I was right. It's a dual track bridge, so both sides have to be at the same height. It took a bit of work, but I got the grades down to less than 3%. Rather than explain what I had to do, I'll just let you look things over. You'll see I did a lot with the curved switches. Part of this while process was to let you move big engines into the roundhouse, so that O54/O72 switch was not going to cut it. I was able to fit an O72/O96 in its place. The other curved switch was just too close to the tunnel entrance and the bridges, so I moved it. The grades in the junk yard area were messed up to as was the bridge. I made a lot of changes, so you really need to look at it all.