SCARM track planning software - discussion and tips

Ace;

I've used both the Free version of Any Rails, and SCARM.  AR is more intuitive, but SCARM is the right price.

For easier gradients what you can do is highlight the run of track that makes up the gradient, toggle on "Track Heights", and then select the little red square at the top (highest) end of your highlighted section.  You can then use the "<" and ">" keys to quickly set the terminal height of your gradient.  The rest of the highlighted section should set automatically to create a smooth ramp. 

To elevate and entire section, follow the same instructions, but hit the "Enter" key after you have set your height.  Then all highlighted sections will be set to the terminal height.  

What I don't like with SCARM is you have to get loops to line up perfectly or they won't  complete.  Fasttrack normally has a little give to it, so there are often times when I know it will connect even though SCARM says it won't ...

Neither one seems to support MTH Realtrax

-m

Someone just told me about it, I played with it a little bit yesterday and found it to be a little clunky at first, but got better once I figured it out. My big beef with it is that it doesnt have a ross/gargraves library. That would be a huge help, especially the ross switch inventory. Also, it doesnt seem to like things where a custom cut or fitter track might be necessary. It works for basic things though.

My thought on the track planners has always been one which gives you a general idea and a starting material list. I always end up tweaking things when I start building.

I've been using it quite a bit the previous two weeks. Since I have some fastrack, it is useful for that track library. But when I want to "dream" about gargraves or RCS track, it has no library for those. I love the 3D views, but there is no benchwork component. For free software, it's nice. And the developer is still working on it. He just released a new version a few weeks ago.

And Ace, note I have not used any non-free software, but I find it easy to make an even gradient along a given stretch of track even if there are curves. Select a range of track, enable the elevation tool and set the elevation on one end of the range. It adjusts the elevation at each track connection along the range. However in my experience, you cannot include a switch in that range.

Thanks guys, now I see how to easily make a uniform grade along a stretch of track. I don't know why I couldn't make it work before.

One thing SCARM doesn't do in the usual manner for Windows: holding <shift> while selecting two pieces of track does not include all the pieces in between. Pieces all have to be selected while holding <ctrl> ?   

Yes, I've noticed that too. But you can double-click a single track and all contiguously connected track will be selected as well. I will often remove a single piece of track so I can double-click a large section of track without including the unwanted pieces. You can also draw a box around a selection set.

I have been using SCARM quite a bit to get started.  I have only used it for Fastrack.  It doesn't always line up, but the track does "give" on the layout.

You can select multiple pieces of track by holding the left mouse button and dragging across the pieces you wan so long as they are continuous.  Also, any pieces that are the same color can be selected at once by double clicking any one of them.

I'm liking SCARM more as I figure out the various features. I've just recently learned how to add trees and structures, and how to contour scenery.

This layout example is 4'x 9', O27 curves with O54 easements, 4.3% grade on the front side and 6.3% grade on the back side. The trees and scenery are intended to form a view block between the ascending and descending grades. The idea is to represent a winding grade that crosses a ridge in a compact layout, and to demonstrate the 3-D capability of SCARM.

Ace,

Judging from the examples you've showed me in "minimum curve radius," I thought you have been using SCARM for a long time!  You do pretty good with it!

Mike 

I like the SCARM software for layout track. I'm just haven't been able to figure out the sceanery part; How to get the landscape to elevate with the track and add trees and rivers.

I guess I don't really need it that much since I'm only building a display of loops at different elevations. But it would be cool to see how the Forests, waterfalls and rivers I want to add would look.

I have been using SCARM since December. As with all software, you run into something that you don't like. I traded several emails with the author and those changes were included in revision 9.18.

I believe it is very powerful and easy to use, once one understands how to get there.

Considering that it is free and I use only FasTrack, it's great for me.

I got into it trying to design the spiral mountain for a Polar Express layout.

I find it a little annoying creating specific angles for the baseboard, as Milen calls it, using absolute coordinates from the toolbox and trig translated to the baseboard coordinates. RRtrack won't do what SCARM can for baseboards. The gradient features are really good. When tracks have a double diamond on straight, I can cut a custom piece. I try to fit the curves perfectly.

The ballast in 3-D really makes one check actual spacing. A small niggle in the 3-D rendering. Here's my spiral mountain(not a helix, a spiral) It's 60" wide and climbs to 19.25" from 0" in 591.5" of track. A 3.3 percent gradient. Note how the ballast is so close to the lower level the terrain overlaps in the 3-D rendering. It does clear.

The FAQs and the link to BLOG helped me with structures and scenery. If that were polished, I think he'd have to start charging for it. The author is a small scaler and he laughs at the size of my small baseboards(6x12) when I ask how to get something done.

It took me a while to figure out how to add trees. In the column at left where you specify your track library, go down to the bottom and select "objects" then "trees". To create buildings you need to input some specs and individually add windows and doors; there isn't a predefined library of buildings. For free software, it's really good and getting better.

To contour scenery go to "figures" then "polygon", shape your polygon and specify the height, also click "snap terrain to bottom". It takes some time to figure out.

I'm still new with SCARM and not proficient with all the features yet.

Here's a 4x12 for the Polar Express. It has the scary mountain, the viaduct and the North Pole(elevated reversing loop) for a continuous run. The yard is intended to be a parking for the PE with a MOW track cleaner train. The turnouts have blocks for a conventional layout.

Gotta love SCARM

The buildings are tough to resize as the building and roof are two objects, that even when linked won't resize together. You got the hang of it PDQ.

I was helping new member Sinn with a layout idea and wanted to represent the 670mm x 1800mm modular tables he plans to use, to see how a track plan would fit. Maybe someone else will find this idea useful ...

The way I added the "table" outlines:

In SCARM, in the column at left where you select the track library,

go all the way to the bottom and select "figures" then "rectangle".

Make a rectangle on the screen and size it using the grid reference.

For properties of the rectangle, do elevation zero and height 0.1", then select a color.

Copy and paste to make identical rectangles (drag copy off top of original).

Make them different colors or they will all run together.

Right click to rotate as desired.

Drag the "tables" into position after the tracks are arranged. Unfortunately this covers the view of the tracks in the plan view, but the tracks will display in 3-D view with the "table" colors underneath the track. If there is a better way to do this, I haven't figured it out yet and I'm open to suggestions.

Ace,

I used the same approach to design my cut diagrams to efficiently use a 4' x 8' sheet and develop a plan for the saw guy for module tops.

I was stumped trying to use multiple baseboards in the same the plan, so I used the colored object method. It's the best approach that I've discovered to represent the modules.

Anyway, I changed the height(s) to .0001 and you can see the tracks in the layout view. File v1 attached.

That works! (0.01 will work too). It doesn't show the colored rectangles in 3-D view, but I guess I don't always need that. Thanks for the tip!

Hi Salvagni,

Send me an email and I'll email you the SCARM file. Mine is in my profile.

I found the fastest speed that wouldn't launch it off on the downslope and stopped the throttle there. It will go down faster than it needs to look good. The 036 curve slows the engine some from the engine's wheel flanges rubbing.

You can run it slow enough to look good and still climb\descend the mountain safely.

im new here and new to this "scarm" software, struggled with it for a bit, here are some thoughts i have for a lay out im getting ready to build

Badhorse,

Welcome!

It appears that you have a good working knowledge of SCARM. Here's some comments:

On the right, where the two switches are located, try and use 1 3/8 and 1 3/4 between the two switches on the outside line to get an exact fit. Then you would cut a custom fitter from a straight for the last piece. Select the measure tool at the top and click at the start point and drag it to the end, holding the click. Look at the low left of the screen for the length. That will give you an idea of the distance. Select the measure tool again to turn it off.

The same applies to the other areas that have triangles indicating overlaps. Needs work with smaller pieces to get the correct fit.

At the top left, you'll notice the track is overhanging the baseboard in the turn. You'll have to measure carefully there. The 2D view doesn't have the width of the roadbed. In the 3D view, the road bed is off the baseboard.

Again, you have a good understanding of the software. Now work on the fine tuning elements to get good fitment.

not sure what your talking about with the switches on the right side, but as far as the roadbed well im not gonna use any

never mind, i figured it out

The red triangle on the right side of your diagram is a program warning that your track doesn't fit at that spot.  Also, in any diagram drawing program, being to close to the "edge" might mean that some part of your track might actually hang off your support.  Best to always see some "board" between the edge of your track diagram and the edge of your support!

Chuck

this is just the first incarnation, and i only taught myself to use scarm last night.

Ace, this is off-topic, but I've always wanted to ask the question and this seems like as good a place as any. After being forced to put my track plans on hiatus due to a family illness that resulted in the eventual loss of my mother-in-law, I'm getting ready to start back up. I want to build a modular layout, but I don't want to adhere to any of the various modular design rules.

Looking at your sample design, I assume it's only the benchwork that is going to be modular according to the colors. However, is there any reason I can't design a complete layout and make the entire layout modular by strategically cutting the track in the appropriate places and landscaping each section individually? And then wire it along the lines of a modular layout with quick connectors, etc.? Will using MTH's DCS system make a difference or make it more difficult? How about MTH's ScaleTrax?

The main reason for making it modular is that I'm going to build it in my living/dining room and eventually move it into a bedroom when the bedroom becomes available in the next 2 years or so when our daughter finishes school and finds a teaching job.

Thanks for any and all comments/opinions.

Hi Dave, sorry I didn't notice your post previously but I have sporadic internet access through the summer.

I'm a strong believer in modular layouts but they need a lot of planning for permanently attached track. The example above is not practical to separate according to the colors because of too many tracks crossing so many table joints.

The rule of thumb with modules is to minimize the total number of places where tracks have to be joined across modules, and keep the connections on straight tracks as much as possible. There have been lots of discussions about making track connections between modules. 

I have used the same "core module" on my HO layout for the last 30+ years. It's a 3-lap multi-level oval with sidings in 54" x 72". This "core module" has a wye on one corner which connects to more layout built to fit available space.

Anyhow, my point is that if you can design some module sections that can adapt to different spaces, maybe with connecting sections being varied to suit, it makes a way to expedite moving and reconstructing a layout when necessary.

Another approach is to just make the benchwork modular and build a "tinplate" style layout with all the track, buildings, scenery etc removable. That gives more freedom to change your track plan around if you want. It all depends on what kind of layout you want.

Those are just some thoughts off the top of my head. Now I see that you have another post going where you are making good progress towards planning a new layout.