Rubin’s New Layout

Those Scouting Dads do a lot of philosophizing!  I know from experience!  😉  I get emails as well that I much appreciate!!  

Rubin, I’m thinking like you, get started laying some track and see how version 11 works and you will see how it may be improved.  

First pass at adding lift gate. It looked pretty good until you run a train on it. Once you go through the reverse loop on the branch, you get stuck on the yellow loop forever, and you can't get back to the mainline. I'm open for ideas....

What's new in version 14...

• Moved yard left for more clearance with ramp
• Added 3rd passing siding
• New Mianne lift gate
• Removed reverse loop
• Layout expansion and new track

Know to do:

• Fix broken layout...

Edward, you are amazingly generous with your time. Thank you!

I share your pain. For the life of me I haven’t been able to solve the reversing problem. But not having the duck under and using the lift section does make the interior of the railroad much more accessible. And the rest of the plan is so good that I’d hate to mess with it.

Time to keep on thinking, I guess  

Rubin

Fixed the endless loop issue. Moved reverse switch to bottom. Need to clean up a bit. Now we have a nasty S curve to fix...More thinking. 

Please confirm that you only want the lift bridge area to be 21 inches and aligned at the right side of the center island.

Also can I move the front bridge on the left aisle a few inches back?

Edward,

I don’t think that the bridge may be moved. The depth of the area is two feet. Each bridge is 8 inches deep so there isn’t much room to maneuver. I made the area two feet deep in order to make possible reaching into the corner.
I do want the Mianne bridge to be placed more or less where it is but I guess I could adde 6” to the bridge area. The other dimensions were based on the Mianne web site and the wall.
You’re right. Those S curves are highly problematic, especially since approaching the that way is likely to be problematic. Also, I am having a problem seeing where the reversing loop is and whether the switch at the top of the plan is really viable.

Finally, , would it be too much of an imposition to ask that you run an equipment list so that I know which switches I need to buy and what the  radii of the curves are, for the same reason.
If that’s too big of an imposition I fully understand.
Thanks again,

Rubin

PS I will be out of pocket until late Saturday night. Enjoy your weekend.

Removing the S curve became ugly, so version 15 was scrapped, I'll post anyway. Also parts list is attached. Under cut track, it needs verification, as it does not get multiple pieces out of a single piece of track. (it may be because I do a lot of cut and paste). The plan is very tight to the edges, and not a lot of fudge room. Most time what's in the CAD and how it actually builds are different. Let me know what you think....

What's new in version 16...

• New "Y" at top
• Redesigned main/branch connection
• No endless loop
• No "S" curve

Know to do:

• Proof for errors...

Hi Edward,

I took a stab at revising plan 14. You may have to move the plan up and down to seen all the notes. I solved some of the problems, but not all. I may have also created some issues. The major “improvement” I think is in moving the elevated bridge line on the center peninsula. By straightening it several things are achieved: 1) Straight entry on to the lift bridge are- no “S” curve! The siding may also be lengthened; 2) the curve at “E” really needs to be no bigger than 054, which eliminates the use of the 072/054 curved turnout.This is an unfortunate loss because it will of necessity shorten the siding; 3) The “S” curve from the left leg of the “Y” looks like it may be too sharp and therefore an operational/ derailment headache. But I haven’t come up with any great alternatives.

Another possibility is to go  back to plan 9e, Limit the right side return loop to 054 and perhaps elevate the the track which crosses the right hand aisle by another inch in order to ease the duck under, especially since switching that area will require operator proximity and therefore frequent ducking. Not spending on the Mianne bridge would allow me to more easily rationalize buying the Ross double crossover, which would be less than half the cost of the Mianne bridge. On the other hand, two duck under don’t thrill me. Getting up and down and under to run wiring, etc., is no fun and not likely to get easier or more pleasurable with time.

Unrelated directly to the the plan,this afternoon I inadvertently knocked an Atlas 072 turnout off the layout and onto the carpeted floor. Not only did two of the rails come off but they seem to have taken out all the “spikes” along the way. I am wondering whether epoxy or some other adhesive might allow me to repair it. It’s probably more than twenty years old but was in good shape until now. I’d hate to have to trash it. Any thoughts?

Well, that’s what I’ve got for now. Your thoughts and insights will be appreciated, as always.

Rubin,

As noted earlier, I believe, use of Mianne lift bridge is just one option to avoid duck-unders.  Several modelers have built or added bridges to hinged pieces of lumber that raise, lower, or just slide out of the way, allowing easy access to the center of some benchwork.  Much cheaper than Mianne (although not as "pretty") leaving extra cash for other purchases.  Just search this forum (or the web in general) for model railroad lift bridges or model railroad swing bridges to find out how to do it.

Chuck

Thanks, Chuck. I am aware of several of those hinged bridges, including the the one done by Jim Barret and the one done by Mark and others. My focus on the Mianne version is because, at least when I’m operating, I will need to go in and out of the yard area in order to follow the trains around and I just don’t see the manual versions as working for me. Several layout builders in CTT recently have felt likewise. I guess I’m also not sure that I have the patience or skill to do what Mark has done. But who knows? Maybe I’ll give it a try at some point when I have the layout operational.

Believe me, it took a lot more patience than skill on my part to pull off the lift-up bridges with the actuators and limit switches.  I drilled so many holes for screws that didn’t work out, that I in fact replaced some of the wood pieces because of so many unused holes.  If the Mianne lift up is half as easy as their benchwork then it would be an excellent choice.

Mark,

Thank you.
I’ll be thinking of you all week and beyond.

Rubin

Rubin,

Thank you so much!

Edward,

I’ve been thinking about a posible solution to several issues. What about straightening the overpass on the center peninsula and putting the yard in that area. This would then allow the the right side area to be an industrial and switching area which would take advantage of the backdrop and false front buildings to create the industries without necessarily using space eating full size buildings. For example, a steel mill backdrop with tracks in front served by a couple of Lionel triple action cranes and the Lionel culvert loader unloaded, would provide a lot of grandchild friendly animation and be very Cleveland evocative. I would probably then go back to the reversing loop concept in order to maximize easy access.
the ramp down then poses some scenic difficulties, but that’s the challenge.
any thoughts?

Rubin, ramps between levels do pose scenic problems.  I have seen that would be the case with several iterations of my layout plans.  I finally decided I have to get the track to work out and be dependable first.  I have had some general ideas of how to handle the problem, but won’t know until I get building the scenery.  That’s a problem for all of us building an O Gauge layout in a relatively small space.

@RubinG posted:

Hi Edward,

I took a stab at revising plan 14. You may have to move the plan up and down to seen all the notes. I solved some of the problems, but not all. I may have also created some issues. The major “improvement” I think is in moving the elevated bridge line on the center peninsula. By straightening it several things are achieved: 1) Straight entry on to the lift bridge are- no “S” curve! The siding may also be lengthened; 2) the curve at “E” really needs to be no bigger than 054, which eliminates the use of the 072/054 curved turnout.This is an unfortunate loss because it will of necessity shorten the siding; 3) The “S” curve from the left leg of the “Y” looks like it may be too sharp and therefore an operational/ derailment headache. But I haven’t come up with any great alternatives.

Another possibility is to go  back to plan 9e, Limit the right side return loop to 054 and perhaps elevate the the track which crosses the right hand aisle by another inch in order to ease the duck under, especially since switching that area will require operator proximity and therefore frequent ducking. Not spending on the Mianne bridge would allow me to more easily rationalize buying the Ross double crossover, which would be less than half the cost of the Mianne bridge. On the other hand, two duck under don’t thrill me. Getting up and down and under to run wiring, etc., is no fun and not likely to get easier or more pleasurable with time.

Unrelated directly to the the plan,this afternoon I inadvertently knocked an Atlas 072 turnout off the layout and onto the carpeted floor. Not only did two of the rails come off but they seem to have taken out all the “spikes” along the way. I am wondering whether epoxy or some other adhesive might allow me to repair it. It’s probably more than twenty years old but was in good shape until now. I’d hate to have to trash it. Any thoughts?

Well, that’s what I’ve got for now. Your thoughts and insights will be appreciated, as always.

New plans are on the way. Answers to your questions on the photo
A) The inside loop is O54, the outside loop is O63. As it is there is probley not enough clearence. To make the outside loop any smaller would require you to abandon the inside loop.
B) Coming in next plan.
C) The double crossover needs to be above the loop to be effective, and the other issue is there is an elevation problem with the run up to the bridge. Plus it does not add much operational value.
D) Could be done, on list.
E) Coming in next plan.

@RubinG posted:

Edward,

I’ve been thinking about a posible solution to several issues. What about straightening the overpass on the center peninsula and putting the yard in that area.

Coming in new plan

This would then allow the the right side area to be an industrial and switching area which would take advantage of the backdrop and false front buildings to create the industries without necessarily using space eating full size buildings. For example, a steel mill backdrop with tracks in front served by a couple of Lionel triple action cranes and the Lionel culvert loader unloaded, would provide a lot of grandchild friendly animation and be very Cleveland evocative.

I like it

I would probably then go back to the reversing loop concept in order to maximize easy access.

I would do the DIY bridge and use the lift bridge money elsewhere.

the ramp down then poses some scenic difficulties, but that’s the challenge. any thoughts?

I would hide the ramp behind the building faces in some places - play peek-a-boo. Might be a nice effect. Here in New York we have trains going in the ground and in the air all over the place, so ramps are very prototypical.

Edward,

I especially like your last comment. I’m a Brooklyn boy by birth. I was raised being taken by my uncle to see the trains at Penn Station and Grand Central. The el in Williamsburg, Sunnyside yard and taking the train to go to the Lionel showroom, Madison Hardware and Model Railroad Equipment Corp were all apart of my life before I came to Cleveland to go to law school. I look forward to the new plan.
Thanks a lot.

Rubin

Here is a whole bunch of iterative ideas, I posted one at a time so you can mix and match.

What’s new in version…

16a Removed curved switch island lower left and centered loop in island

16b Moved yard to island

16c Straightened upper level (printed in 2 parts to show detail)

16d Reverse loop back lower right

16e Curved upper with above changes

16f Redesigned branch/main intersection and moved branch up

Edward,

I can’t tell you how helpful seeing the various iterations together has been. I thought I had narrowed things down to 16e and 16c, but being mindful of your comments about “things being so tight,” I decided to stop putting in joists and see how things fit in reality. Unfortunately, not so well.

The attached picture shows 054 Ross track after I tried 072 and realized that even if I expanded the left side blob to 72”, it wouldn’t work. By the time I deducted the 3 1/2 inches required for engines and long pass cars to avoid the wall and the same margin was maintained on the aisle side ( running the track up to the edge of a tight aisle is just asking for a disaster, whether caused by an errant elbow or a derailment.) If I go down to 060 and the inner siding is 054, there may still be be a problem due to car overhang, especially near the diverging point of the switches entering and leaving the sidings on the loop.

It seems like I ought to be able to use broader curves, but perhaps 19 x 19 isn’t as big as it looks,which may explaiמ why I have so much 042 track left from my old 13 x 14 layout. Like the man said, “facts are stubborn things… ״

Time to push on and figure something out.

Thanks again,

Rubin

Those turn back curves are sobering.  To keep the basic benchwork with the center peninsula, it seems you will have to go with a tighter curve.  😢

Thanks, Mark. I hope you’re getting better each day.
I may have to shrink the curves. Or I’ll have to shorten the peninsula and run two large oval mainlines around the perimeter, with entry to center via a lift bridge,?whether by Mianne or by me.

Time to rethink, especially since I’d really like a double track mainline and a turntable.

it’s just great to have this group to share my ( and our) journey.

Rubin

@RubinG posted:

Thanks, Mark. I hope you’re getting better each day.
I may have to shrink the curves. Or I’ll have to shorten the peninsula and run two large oval mainlines around the perimeter, with entry to center via a lift bridge,?whether by Mianne or by me.

Time to rethink, especially since I’d really like a double track mainline and a turntable.

it’s just great to have this group to share my ( and our) journey.

Rubin

Before we give up on the whole plan, I have some ideas, but before I draw them I'll try to describe them. BTW the left reverse loop is O63 not O72.

• Make the left loop benchwork the size it needs to support O63
• Narrow the front of the center island another foot to allow a 3 foot path between left and center
• Make the branch a simple loop going from the center to the right
• Make the bridge for the upper loop between center and right double decker
• Get rid of the right loop
• Make the left loop two-way

Let me know your thoughts...

@Mark Boyce - Wishing you a speedy and pain free recovery.

Rubin and Edward, thank you.  I’m doing a little better each day!  😊

Edward,

Thanks, as always.
some comments and questions:

Ross makes 060 and Atlas makes the 063. I guess I can mix and match as I have in the past.
we’ll only have to narrow the last six feet of the center, which will still leave 12 feet or so.
Im not sure what the double decker would look like.
Are you suggesting that both aisles would have bridged cross overs?

Are you saying that the loop between the center and the right( sounds awfully political😉)) will be double tracked  ?

Rubin

@RubinG posted:

Edward,

Thanks, as always.

As always, my pleasure.

some comments and questions:

Ross makes 060 and Atlas makes the 063.

Ross makes O64 that is 64" center to center

Gargraves makes O63 that is 63.89 almost 64" CTC (what I'm am using in the plan)

Atlas makes O63 that is 63" CTC

Fastrack is O60 that is 60" CTC

I guess I can mix and match as I have in the past.

I only like to mix and match ross and gargraves. Except if using the Atlas turntable, then I use Atlas for the whisker tracks.

we’ll only have to narrow the last six feet of the center, which will still leave 12 feet or so.
Im not sure what the double decker would look like.
Are you suggesting that both aisles would have bridged cross overs?

Are you saying that the loop between the center and the right( sounds awfully political😉)) will be double tracked  ?

See new plan

Rubin

What's new in version 17...

• Left loop benchwork is now the size it needs to support O63 (min 4" setback)
• Narrow the front of the center island another foot to allow a 3 foot path between left and center
• Branch is now a simple loop going from the center to the right
• Bridge is now for upper loop and branch between center and right
• Right reverse loop removed

Know to do:

• Make the left loop two-way

• Redesign main/branch connection (needs a opposite direction exit)
• Need some more shaping

Edward ,

Thanks ( you are one creative guy)!

I see a couple of issues  1) Did you mean “ double decker or double track? 2) In either case, it looks the yard lead will be obscured  Also, how do you suggest supporting the  track over the yard  ladder lead? 3) The spacing of the tracks crossing the aisle looks way too tight to fit in the real world  But perhaps I am wrong  

Looking forward to to the net set of insights  

Thanks again,

Rubin

Rubin, can you attach the latest scarm file?  curious to understand how  long the passing track sections are and the vertical clearance between levels.  The plan has gone through many iterations, so a bit challenging to remember all the versions and reasons for change. 

The middle passing track could easily be made much longer to hold a longer consist.  Kind of depends on how long a train you expect to run.  I like to run 7 car passenger trains with ABA power - that takes a lot of room - approaching 15 feet in some cases.   

Hi SD,

The latest iteration is right above your email. Further above is a group of Edward’s “iterationsThe passing tracks are short, but I am also a believer in running shorter trains to make the run look longer. If I can run 5 car passenger trains with AA diesels or even a Geep or RS-1 or 3, or a steamer, Ill be happy. Ditto for eight car freights. I’m a short line/branch line guy, I guess. I still wish some one would make 3 Rail versions of the Ma & Pa 2-8-0 #24 & 26 that I drooled over when they were made by PFM so long ago.

What I do want is more room for scenery and structures and minimal need to crawl under the layout. I’m going from about 170 sq ft to about 400 sq ft, but in O gauge nothing is ever enough!

Rubin

Edward,

To use 64” on the loops will work, but just barely. ( 64 + 4 on each side would mean that I’d have to extend out to 76” to protect against errant elbows. I’ve clamped some 1x4’s to the benchwork. The first photos show 72” and the third photo shows 76”. This doable, but a problem nonetheless. There will be a large angled area from the 76” area to the 36” deep area along the wall and I don’t know how I going to work on the mainline at the back of the benchwork nearest the wall..

I really do like the way you angled the siding on the middle peninsula, but getting into the other aisle frequently, even with a lift gate, will be awkward when I’m operating the railroad. Especially guests or grandkids are present, I I like to show everyone how to use the accessories and run the trains, but if the bridge has to be lifted, that brings everything to a halt until the gate is lowered again.

Thanks again for everything.

Rubin

PS I won’t be responding from about 7:00 this evening until Sunday morning.

@ScoutingDad posted:

Rubin, can you attach the latest scarm file?  curious to understand how  long the passing track sections are and the vertical clearance between levels.  The plan has gone through many iterations, so a bit challenging to remember all the versions and reasons for change.

The middle passing track could easily be made much longer to hold a longer consist.  Kind of depends on how long a train you expect to run.  I like to run 7 car passenger trains with ABA power - that takes a lot of room - approaching 15 feet in some cases.   

Here you go...

Rubin, do you recall Jeff ScoutingDad, is the one who came up with the revision plan I eventually used?  I tore a bunch of track covered roadbed out and rebuilt.

Rubin, you may want to check the vertical clearances or adjust them when you do the build. SCARM is showing 6 inches between the decks - you lose the height of the lower track and roadbed and the thickness of whatever you are using to support the upper level. Clearance will be down to around 5 inches. Intermodal cars, Auto carriers and pantographs in the up position will not clear that.

Regarding the length of consists, I found I prefer watching longer trains running. A 5 car passenger or 10 car freight is gone before I can enjoy the moment. But that is my preference as I have found out over time. I can just enjoy the trains running and do not have to be busy operating.

Regarding the lift out, you have a nice walk-in to highlight the "good stuff" and the lift up / duck under looks like mainly staging. Visitors can see it from a side, the kids can duck under and get close.

This is an issue I am battling right now. I'll have 4 tracks at 3 different levels where I can have my access point. Trouble is its between 20 and 24 inches in depth.  I would like to have a valley/water feature w/arch under custom bridges which would push it toward a slide out. Not sure its workable.

ScoutingDad,

I really appreciate all your input and sharing, especially those cautionary notes.
I’ll be off line till Sunday, but I can’t wait to dive back into the basement then.
Have a great weekend, one and all.

As I push forward with the benchwork, I’m thinking about the risers. Linn Wescott’s oReginald conception of L girder framing called for each riser to have a 1 x 2 cleat at the top in order to mount the subroadbed to the cleat. But I seem to recall that in recent years people have been doing away with the cleats because it saves t I’mme and money. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Thanks,

Rubin

Rubin,

What do you think about just flipping the layout over and using the back of the room for the reverse loop and main working area. Filliping the layout gives you quite a bit of room. The main isle is now 4.5 feet all the way and the access between the loop and center is 3 feet. 

@RubinG posted:

As I push forward with the benchwork, I’m thinking about the risers. Linn Wescott’s oReginald conception of L girder framing called for each riser to have a 1 x 2 cleat at the top in order to mount the subroadbed to the cleat. But I seem to recall that in recent years people have been doing away with the cleats because it saves t I’mme and money. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Thanks,

Rubin

Rubin, I am using Wescott's approach to re-building my layout. A solid connection is needed between the sub-roadbed and the riser. The cleat provides ample room to provide the connection. Thinking about his approach - it provides an "easy" way to modify track especially height adjustments. The cleat allows you to adjust the riser by loosening the riser/cleat screws then re-tighten. You could do a similar thing with pocket jigs and screws.  Having readjusted road beds for numerous reasons, the cleat approach makes the most sense to me. Cleats use scrap wood - so its the cost of a couple of screws  and your time. BUT the real value is when you need to make adjustments after everything is down.  I do not recommend fastening the roadbed from the top down into the riser. You lose the opportunity to make adjustments without destroying a portion of the finished layout. My biggest issues were with plywood warping and overly optimistic sub-roadbed construction skills.

Thanks, Jeff. LHW would have approved and agreed!
I went and looked at your layout. Very nice.  It looks like your risers stand on a flat plywood base rather than attaching to the joist which rests on the L girder. I’m toying with doing the same thing on the center area. What was your thought process?

Thanks,

Ribin

Rubin - I used the L-girder idea to start with. Road bed is 1/2 cabinet grade ply with 1x2 supports along the long length and cross supports at the ends and in the middle to help prevent bending on the underside. The construction is such that I can remove the track sections from the benchwork. The ends are bolted or screwed together so that the entire assembly breaks down. This creates a rigid but light weight structure.  I needed to leave access to utilities on one side and storage on an end. What I did not have a feel for was how much space I needed to leave for the access ways.

Most of the TPRR images have the entire sheets of plywood as opposed to the 4-5 inch wide sub-road bed normally used in the L-girder construction. Basically I laid out the wrap around section feeding the yard to get an idea of final construction - that involved building the entire perimeter of the layout. Even though I had a SCARM plan, I find construction often varies from the plan.  I'll change curve diameters according to how the build "feels" and how the cars run. The lower level is a yard so it did not make any sense to build in anything other than on the ply sheet.  The upper section has already been cut down to expose 4 of the 7 yard tracks.  With the remaining space it made sense to use a single sheet for the 3 and 4 tracks along with the Ross cross over.  The ply is screwed onto the L-girders but can be removed from the "risers".  The sections total  4 corners and 4 long straight sections.  Two of the corners have trapezoid shaped ply sections to make the corners.

I prefer to have varying elevations on my layout. The photos as show are representative of the track configuration, but not what the end product will look like.   Jeff

This view is of the track work exiting the yard and beginning its climb to the upper level.

This is the basic L-girder construction.

Rubin, to directly answer your question. I try not to attach anything to a lower plywood section.  Worst mistake I made on TPRR1 was to screw 2x4 blocks into the lower plywood and then screw the upper ply into the blocks. Made modifications impossible, so had to destroy sections to reconfigure. In addition once the ballast and scenic-ing goes in, its impossible to find the screws to take things apart. 

Thanks, Jeff. Now I understand.