o27 Gauge Layout - Would like feedback on layout I have been working on for 2 months

I've changed my approach to . Your approach is the most common for moving trains from one loop to another, but I've found it difficult because of the S  turns it creates. With my new, almost-complete O27 layout, I put the turnouts on the curves so moving from inner to outer or outer to inner loop doesn't go through an S. I tried circling it on a BMP file from my RR Track file.  Otherwise, I like your approach to an elevated level. Mine is fixed at a current height. I wish I had tried an incline but not sure my 8X12 space would've allowed it while also providing all the yard space I wanted for track, storage, and accessories.

What diameter curves are you using? I couldn't tell by part number. I'm guessing 42" which is fine.  There are some 54" and even 72" out there if you search for them.  I used 42" and 34" in my inner loop and 54" in my outer loop.  I'm saving my 72" for when I get my basement back.

One way to easily add motion is to include one, maybe two point to point tracks bounded by bumpers - then use bump n' go trolleys for a little extra action.  I like to balance trackage and scenery - you is a little track heavy but many people like that. I though about a year but it became too cumbersome. I now have three point to points and three continuous loops with one siding. 

Aside from the "S" curves that were mentioned, there were several other problems related to height and clearance. I went through and snipped tracks to make them all join. I also changed the grade begin/end points so all tracks (in green) were 5" above any that were below them. That raised the grades to over 4% and there are still places (in red) where I think the tracks may be too close to clear.

So., I fiddled with the "S" curves and clearance issues (2nd photo and attached SCARM file). I don't know if that fits the original space and I don't have time right now to check.

I would move the turnouts further apart so you have a longer section of track to park a train on. Nice plan otherwise. @raising4daughters suggestion to reduce the S curves is good too.

raising4daughters posted:

I've changed my approach to . Your approach is the most common for moving trains from one loop to another, but I've found it difficult because of the S  turns it creates. With my new, almost-complete O27 layout, I put the turnouts on the curves so moving from inner to outer or outer to inner loop doesn't go through an S. I tried circling it on a BMP file from my RR Track file.  Otherwise, I like your approach to an elevated level. Mine is fixed at a current height. I wish I had tried an incline but not sure my 8X12 space would've allowed it while also providing all the yard space I wanted for track, storage, and accessories.

What diameter curves are you using? I couldn't tell by part number. I'm guessing 42" which is fine.  There are some 54" and even 72" out there if you search for them.  I used 42" and 34" in my inner loop and 54" in my outer loop.  I'm saving my 72" for when I get my basement back.

Thank you for looking at my layout and your comments.  I am using 42" curves for the two outer loop, and 27" diameter on the innermost loop( the one with the incline). 

I use 65021 and 65022 27" diameter switches because I can get them at reasonable price on Ebay.  The 42" curves swithces run $25 and up each not including shipping.

I do need  yard space and may make it off to the side somewhere.

I appreciate your response.

Best wishes,

Jack

Michael Hokkanen posted:

One way to easily add motion is to include one, maybe two point to point tracks bounded by bumpers - then use bump n' go trolleys for a little extra action.  I like to balance trackage and scenery - you is a little track heavy but many people like that. I though about a year but it became too cumbersome. I now have three point to points and three continuous loops with one siding. 

Michael,

Thanks for your comment on my design.  This is my first attempt at model rail roading, and I do like the multiple track layout for now.  May change over time.  I will keep your response in future revisions.

Best wishes,

Jack

At 70 years old I would be a bit concerned with reach. Unless you are comfortable with getting up in the table to do some track work and maybe some scenery.  

Foderboder posted:

I use 65021 and 65022 27" diameter switches because I can get them at reasonable price on Ebay.  The 42" curves swithces run $25 and up each not including shipping.

I do need  yard space and may make it off to the side somewhere.

I appreciate your response.

Best wishes,

Jack

No problem. I enjoy comparing notes. BTW, because my new layout is smaller than my old one (by a lot), I've got 4 extra Lionel O27 switches in 42" diameter.  Let me know if you'd like them, $20/each plus shipping.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Aside from the "S" curves that were mentioned, there were several other problems related to height and clearance. I went through and snipped tracks to make them all join. I also changed the grade begin/end points so all tracks (in green) were 5" above any that were below them. That raised the grades to over 4% and there are still places (in red) where I think the tracks may be too close to clear.

So., I fiddled with the "S" curves and clearance issues (2nd photo and attached SCARM file). I don't know if that fits the original space and I don't have time right now to check.

 

Dave,

I appreciate your time to review and revise my plan.  I was struggling with closing the gaps, and thought I would do it when I start laying the track.

How were you able to close the gaps?  I couldn't get the SCARM snip function to insert and link the pieces I cut.  I figured the track ends, in the gap, were not aligned with each other and would need some adjusting when I actually cut and inserted the piece of track.

I am laying this out on basement floor, so I have space.  My main focus was to make certain I could reach from the outer most track run to the center of the layout, in case I needed to reach the center to fix something and to activate the switches as needed.

Thanks for your help.

Jack

Joeceleb posted:

At 70 years old I would be a bit concerned with reach. Unless you are comfortable with getting up in the table to do some track work and maybe some scenery.  

Joe,

Knees are the worst part of my anatomy.  We had a train table, 12 x 6 layout, which could not reach w/o climbing.  Don't think I could do it today.  So I tried to limit this new design to having a reasonable ability to reach center.

As I age, I can alway remove the outermost run.

Best wishes,

Jack

raising4daughters posted:

Foderboder posted:

I use 65021 and 65022 27" diameter switches because I can get them at reasonable price on Ebay.  The 42" curves swithces run $25 and up each not including shipping.

I do need  yard space and may make it off to the side somewhere.

I appreciate your response.

Best wishes,

Jack

No problem. I enjoy comparing notes. BTW, because my new layout is smaller than my old one (by a lot), I've got 4 extra Lionel O27 switches in 42" diameter.  Let me know if you'd like them, $20/each plus shipping.

Thanks for the offer. I will take it under consideration.

raising4daughters posted:

Foderboder posted:

I use 65021 and 65022 27" diameter switches because I can get them at reasonable price on Ebay.  The 42" curves swithces run $25 and up each not including shipping.

I do need  yard space and may make it off to the side somewhere.

I appreciate your response.

Best wishes,

Jack

No problem. I enjoy comparing notes. BTW, because my new layout is smaller than my old one (by a lot), I've got 4 extra Lionel O27 switches in 42" diameter.  Let me know if you'd like them, $20/each plus shipping.

I am interested in 2 LH (65167) and 2 RH (65168) 027 gauge 42" switches.  Please email me at asfgo@hotmail.com so we can discuss possible purchase, estimated shipping cost.

Foderboder posted:

How were you able to close the gaps?  I couldn't get the SCARM snip function to insert and link the pieces I cut.  I figured the track ends, in the gap, were not aligned with each other and would need some adjusting when I actually cut and inserted the piece of track.

I am laying this out on basement floor, so I have space.  My main focus was to make certain I could reach from the outer most track run to the center of the layout, in case I needed to reach the center to fix something and to activate the switches as needed.

Thanks for your help.

Jack

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by getting the SCARM snip function to insert and link the pieces you cut. It sounds like you put a track on an open space and then tried to snip it close to what you thought you needed. Then when you inserted it into the design, things didn't fit. If that's the case, I've never tried doing that way. I "snip" in-place as follows:
1. In this case, some tracks are color-coded, so I inserted a large enough track with no color.
2. I then selected that track and right-clicked where the colored track overlaps the clear track.
3. I selected "Snip off" and deleted the piece I didn't want.
4. As you can see, the tracks didn't line up, so I needed to align them. To do that, I cleared the color-coding, selected the track section I needed to move and moved it so things joined.
5. I then went around the layout repeating the process. 

Foderboder posted:

I am interested in 2 LH (65167) and 2 RH (65168) 027 gauge 42" switches.  Please email me at asfgo@hotmail.com so we can discuss possible purchase, estimated shipping cost.

Great! Just sent you an email with a couple pictures and options for payment. 

DoubleDAZ posted:

Foderboder posted:

How were you able to close the gaps?  I couldn't get the SCARM snip function to insert and link the pieces I cut.  I figured the track ends, in the gap, were not aligned with each other and would need some adjusting when I actually cut and inserted the piece of track.

I am laying this out on basement floor, so I have space.  My main focus was to make certain I could reach from the outer most track run to the center of the layout, in case I needed to reach the center to fix something and to activate the switches as needed.

Thanks for your help.

Jack

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by getting the SCARM snip function to insert and link the pieces you cut. It sounds like you put a track on an open space and then tried to snip it close to what you thought you needed. Then when you inserted it into the design, things didn't fit. If that's the case, I've never tried doing that way. I "snip" in-place as follows:
1. In this case, some tracks are color-coded, so I inserted a large enough track with no color.
2. I then selected that track and right-clicked where the colored track overlaps the clear track.
3. I selected "Snip off" and deleted the piece I didn't want.
4. As you can see, the tracks didn't line up, so I needed to align them. To do that, I cleared the color-coding, selected the track section I needed to move and moved it so things joined.
5. I then went around the layout repeating the process. 

        

 

Dave,

From the example, you needed to move 1 end of the snipped track to line it up with the main track.  How did you move the one end that needed to be aligned?  I have googled and read the SCARM documentation, but did not find anything on this.

Jack

Jack, I didn't just move the one end, I moved the whole section (Red in the photo).

Then I added a short straight track and snipped that where the red track ends.

I highlighted that next section (Green in the photo) and moved it to line up where I snipped.

I moved on to the next section where I added another straight track and snipped it.

I highlighted that section (Orange in the photo) and moved it so it connected. Note that at this point it included all the other connected tracks. Note there were a lot of tracks too close together at this point.

However, once that was done, I worked on changing out the top crossovers to move them to the curves and eliminate the "S" curves there. Then I moved on to the lower crossovers after which I dealt with the clearance issues to end up with the final design. I always start by adding small sectional tracks and only cut when needed.

Over the years I've developed a color-coding system whereby base tracks at 0" elevation are 1 color (Blue), raised tracks at a higher elevation a 2nd color (Green) and the grades up/down are a 3rd color (Purple). That allows me to easily select different sections of track that often need adjustments. In this case, it allows me to select the raised track so I can quickly raise/lower the elevated level using the Height Shift tool. In this case, it looks like you used 5", the height for the elevated trestle set. I didn't do it in this case, but I usually also put the elevated section on a different Layer so I can turn that layer off when working on the layer below.

It also allows me to easily select the grade tracks so I can check the rise percentage and adjust it by adding or subtracting tracks in the selected range. In your case, there isn't any choice since all the tracks in the range are needed to get to the 4% rise. Most try to get as close as possible to a 2% grade and many are okay with around 3%.

Here's a photo that shows how much the footprint changed to get the needed clearance. The original footprint is where you see the track with no color and the new footprint is about a foot longer. Some adjustments can be made on each end to reduce the footprint a bit, but that is about all. You could try making changes to the Green level, but then you run into grades that are too steep, etc. I don't know if the new footprint will fit your space though, I was just trying to show how the new crossovers would look, etc.

Dave,

I deeply appreciate sharing the process you used to improve the layout.  I am going to study this response since the information is invaluable for future planning.

You are very organized.  I used similar methods of coloring when I was working with Excel spreasheet data in my job.  Made it easy to organize data and understand it using color coding.  Also prevented mistakes since, when dealing with 20,000+ rows, it was easy for eye to wander from original focus.

Dave,

I restudied your methodology, and understand fully the process for working with my plan.  This gives me a better way to approach planning.

I was trying for a grade less than 4%, since the articles I had read recommended 3% or less. But when I calculated the track run, using recommended formulas on varios web sites, I didn't have the length within which to accomplish it.  The dimensions of my original plan for the elevated section were not as long as the final plan I developed.  I added 112" in length to get the 4% grade I ended up with.  I have attached the original plan I started with.  Nothing for you to do with it, just a reference of my starting point. It has been an interesting journey to reach a workable plan.

With great appreciation,

Jack