New layout design ideas, help, Scarm.

If you want to do switching, I would start with a wye at the "T" junction. If you wanted some continuous running along with that, put tight reverse loops at the ends of each leg. You could even hide them with industrial structures. I see a pretty cool layout there.

 If you want a true switching layout and unless you already have an investment in Fastrack. I’d consider using all  Ross turnouts and track. Nothing against Fastrack. But if your looking for Industy type trackage. The perfect ballast slope with gray tone ballast just looks to mainline.

 With Ross. If you weather the track to tone it down. You can get by without ballasting. Like you stated. With just doing switching moves. Noise shouldn’t be a factor. I would lay the Ross track over Homasote. But you could get by going right on the Plywood. Unlike Gargraves. You will have no rail showing below the ties. Way more choices as far a turnouts and curves. Numbered turnouts. Such as a #4. Would work well on this type of layout. Steve has transition curves to get you going parallel after your turnouts if you are doing a runaround track. With I believe 3 centerline spaces. For a real hands on approach and it sounds like everything is in easy reach. I’d go with Caboose Industries ground throws.

 I like the concept of this. You can easily spend hours doing switching moves. 

Yes, you would need plywood under Homasote, but you you don't really need Homasote. Simple fiber board will do. It comes in a variety of brand names, and is about one third the price as well as being easy to get.

             hello Dave,  maybe something like this to fit your 10x19 area...

                                                switching and a line to run on...

    yes, this is a HO track plan...                         was mainly seeing if Dave liked the plans

   layout shape to fit in his 10x19' area...   maybe building something  similar in O scale...

Brian, That's an awesome layout but I'm looking at 4 feet wide so I can reach from either side and T,d at the end for switching which would be 18 inches deep and 14 feet wide. Maybe a lot of building flats on that part it would be up against the wall and the 4 feet by 20 feet down the middle of the room. I really don't want a lift out or duck under.

@briansilvermustang wow what a great layout!  But are you sure that's not S scale, or even HO?  What diameter of curves is used?

Dave,

You say your "table" is 19' x 10'.  From what you describe, I would gues that you room is at least 22' x 14'.    How much space do you actually have to work with and where are the walls and access points.

Jan

Brian, you found a great plan with a workable yard and industrial sidings.  However, that is not O gauge.  Cutting back on the number of classification, staging/ferry, and industry tracks could work in that space for an around the wall layout.  Sharp turns.

I'm not sure how Dave wants to set up his T.  I'm trying to visualize his room.  14' wide at top means he has more than 10', and 20' long I think means more than 20' so he has room to get around.  Might help if we actually saw a rough diagram.

I understand not wanting a drop down/lift up/lift out but I gave up trying to get the layout I wanted by not having one.  Got a Mianne Benchwork Lift-Gate to ease getting in/out of the layout.

1. The room is large but what I want would actually be a large T shaped table 14 feet long  by 18  inches deep on the top of the T which would be against the east wall and 20 feet by 4 feet wide down the middle of the room.                                     

Dave, would you consider an "E"? You'd still have the same access with no duck unders but with about 40% more layout surface

Big_Boy_4005 posted:

Dave, would you consider an "E"? You'd still have the same access with no duck unders but with about 40% more layout surface

Would I be able to run a train on the outside of the switching areas?

Having a car float at one of the ends of the layout would give you a "real world" connection and a way to get cars from storage to the layout.

Okay Dave, my switcher mind isn't really interested in such layouts. But, here's a table to your dimensions and a transition for the tee. The wye at the bottom could be left out and go right into switches after the 45° cross. Also, just the wye as Elliot suggested.

You have to use O36 here to keep things tight. O36 may work the best everywhere. You have the partial curves to work fitment issues and the 10" length keeps the switches from eating up the straight runs.

Play with O72. It may work. 

You can download and use SCARM for free for this layout as you won't exceed 100 total objects.

Dave Ripp. posted:

Big_Boy_4005 posted:

Dave, would you consider an "E"? You'd still have the same access with no duck unders but with about 40% more layout surface

Would I be able to run a train on the outside of the switching areas?

A loop?  You "loose" two sidings, may gain reverse loops,  loose a wee bit of storage track real estate to curves vs corners etc. There are crossings to consider too. I think you have room enough to have a loop.

  20ft? You'd be at about 2.5%, maybe 3%  if you put a grade in up +7" to an elevated loop and or el branch dumps for refeeding ground level industry. Taking 3-4 loaded cars up at a time very possible. An industrial switchback if you really want to keep the grade low.

For a better visual, I elaborated...

Control placement?. If it's close to the top of the T, and the top is pretty active, I'd have to consider butting  the bottom to the wall.  It's a toss up; likelyhood of a shorter walk happening more often (10ft+1.5+14+1.5+10=37ft), vs occasional longer walk when issues are at the 20ft end (close to 60ft; (20+1.5+14+1.5+20)

  As is 20+4+20+ say 5ft in angle.. 50ft-ish most of the time.

I see an E as less walking and a great use of space.

Adriatic posted:

Control placement?. If it's close to the top of the T, and the top is pretty active, I'd have to consider butting  the bottom to the wall.  It's a toss up; likelyhood of a shorter walk happening more often (10ft+1.5+14+1.5+10=37ft), vs occasional longer walk when issues are at the 20ft end (close to 60ft; (20+1.5+14+1.5+20)

  As is 20+4+20+ say 5ft in angle.. 50ft-ish most of the time.

I see an E as less walking and a great use of space.

I'm glad you guys understand the T. I hadn't considered flipping the T if I do this it would drop the top to 9 feet but it could be 2.5 feet deep. The stairway to the basement would make anything other than a T tough to fit in. I want to be able to reach with relative ease. I'd be happy with both of these though I agree the controls would be better at the top of the T.

A couple of looks.

Y module pictured above is used to feed this yard throat modules. 

I understand your T concept, and I should not push you away from what you want (okay, maybe I am).  BUT, there are some really good designers here and if they knew the actual room size and where the stairs are they could come up with some great ideas for you.

Elliot's comment about an E shape could be something like below.  It gives you twice the table top square footage of the T plus allows loop running if you want, plus 4 foot aisles.  The E could face the other way depending on where the stairs are at.  This is using FasTrack O-36 curves with the O-72 Y.

Ron kind of captured what I had in mind with the "E" shape. I had envisioned the "T" Dave posted, just being extended down the side walls. Also, instead of having a compete loop, most of the layout would be single track with reverse loops on the ends, for a display running mode.

       hello again Dave... 

                  what do you think...   something like this...

      maybe go 6 or 7' wide,  giving you 3' on each on each side of a dividing wall

      down the center, more backdrop area...  and you can still run trains

      on a loop sometimes...  and plenty of switching too...

Jan posted:

Dave,

You say your "table" is 19' x 10'.  From what you describe, I would gues that you room is at least 22' x 14'.    How much space do you actually have to work with and where are the walls and access points.

Jan

Jan, Here's the shape of the room. Left hand surgery this morning so no hurry to get started. Reach is important so I still like the T Here's a very bad attempt at Scarm not to scale just for a starter idea.

I think I've gotten a little closer to the E shape Elliot is recommending.  It is on the right, and does add a lot of table top.  The aisles are the 3' minimum width recommended by some layout designers.

Dave, if you want the left side kept open to easily get into the layout, an F shape might work too and would give you a longer run than just up and down the center.  Aisles are 4'.  Again, these are just ideas.  A T would work well for a pure switching layout without a loop.

CAPPilot posted:

I think I've gotten a little closer to the E shape Elliot is recommending.  It is on the right, and does add a lot of table top.  The aisles are the 3' minimum width recommended by some layout designers.

Dave, if you want the left side kept open to easily get into the layout, an F shape might work too and would give you a longer run than just up and down the center.  Aisles are 4'.  Again, these are just ideas.  A T would work well for a pure switching layout without a loop.

Thanks Ron, I actually like the F shape as it leaves more walk around room. Once I rear down the big table I will take the base pieces and experiment a little. I'd like to keep off the wall on the right for better reach on the reverse loop. I was thinking of rounding the end of the table to get a 048 curve and still have reach.

I while ago I doodled a Y shape. Then there are not the hard 90s to navigate. This helped in the flow of a track plan. Loop in the middle various spurs on one end.  I thought about a hidden track at to top to build a wye.

Edmund Schwartzel 060518 posted:

I while ago I doodled a Y shape. Then there are not the hard 90s to navigate. This helped in the flow of a track plan. Loop in the middle various spurs on one end.  I thought about a hidden track at to top to build a wye.

Edmund, I'd like to see your doodle, the more ideas the better the outcome.

CAPPilot posted:

I think I've gotten a little closer to the E shape Elliot is recommending.  It is on the right, and does add a lot of table top.  The aisles are the 3' minimum width recommended by some layout designers.

Dave, if you want the left side kept open to easily get into the layout, an F shape might work too and would give you a longer run than just up and down the center.  Aisles are 4'.  Again, these are just ideas.  A T would work well for a pure switching layout without a loop.

In the version on the right, Ron has exactly captured what I had in mind. One minor detail, the wye going to the center peninsula could be centered. Another switch could then be added and the whole peninsula could be a third reverse loop. 

Then you could take Brian's idea for a view block backdrop and split the peninsula down the middle. This will give you four distinct scenes to work with. You'll want a yard, and the rest can be industries. There will be room for some 3D structures and a lot of flats or low depth buildings.

If I wasn't building my monster layout, I would love a layout like this. 

I found this old post for a 4 x 14 layout. If this could be stretched out to reduce the grade and have the time saver type yard come off the non tunnel end I think it would be perfect. The original poster hasn't been on since 12 of 2016. If anyone good at Scarm wants to elaborate on this in a T shape I'd appreciate it.

I like that.

Did you get that last mail ?

I might eliminate or make the outer tunnel shorter. It would help the grade or allow the lower elevated curve to be higher, allowing yard line to cross the ground loop and under the el, to the the T's cross area (top..or E,F,H, or whatever) of course you could tie that are to the loop once or twice too, for a long run around access, or pushing or pulling from/to the loop, to/from the T-top section.

Adriatic posted:

I might eliminate or make the outer tunnel shorter. It would help the grade or allow the lower elevated curve to be higher, allowing yard line to cross the ground loop and under the el, to the the T's cross area (top..or E,F,H, or whatever) of course you could tie that are to the loop once or twice too, for a long run around access, or pushing or pulling from/to the loop, to/from the T-top section.

Thanks Butch, I wouldn't be apposed to loosing one tunnel this version is 4 x 14 I have a 4 x roughly 20 and 2 x 12 for the time saver.

ACE had some nice design ideas. Adding six feet in the middle to spread the ends wouldn't be that hard. But, that changes the whole look and feel of the design.

I have attached the change with 70" added to sit on 48" x 240".

Now you can work with it. You can highlight(select) the whole layout and paste it on to the T shaped table previously posted.

The scarm file doesn’t load direct from the forum. Right click the file name and save to your folder/desktop location).  Then open Scarm, select; file open, and navigate to the downloaded file location then select open.  Should load properly.  Hope this helps.

TedW posted:

The scarm file doesn’t load direct from the forum. Right click the file name and save to your folder/desktop location).  Then open Scarm, select; file open, and navigate to the downloaded file location then select open.  Should load properly.  Hope this helps.

Moonman posted:

ACE had some nice design ideas. Adding six feet in the middle to spread the ends wouldn't be that hard. But, that changes the whole look and feel of the design.

I have attached the change with 70" added to sit on 48" x 240".

Now you can work with it. You can highlight(select) the whole layout and paste it on to the T shaped table previously posted.

Thanks, I can open and print it but can't post it for others to see. It looks great though.

Here are some pics, Dave. I think that I like the extension as it creates space for some buildings or scenic items in the center.

Here is the file pasted on to the T table shape. I had to remove 10" to provide space for a protentional connection to the T

edit: see new attachment below

Moonman posted:

Here are some pics, Dave. I think that I like the extension as it creates space for some buildings or scenic items in the center.

 

That's beautiful thank you. 

Moonman posted:

Here is the file pasted on to the T table shape. I had to remove 10" to provide space for a protentional connection to the T

 

Thanks Carl but the T will be on the other end.

You used to have to change the file extension from .scarm to .jpg to post the 2d/3d pictures , but I thought that an update here stopped the need for it. Try making a copy & swapping extentions. Maybe another update took the feature out. (im not on windows anymore)

Dave Ripp. posted:

Moonman posted:

Here is the file pasted on to the T table shape. I had to remove 10" to provide space for a protentional connection to the T

 

Thanks Carl but the T will be on the other end.

Ok, here it is with the T flipped. How do you want the ACE plan oriented. As is or flipped? I like the mountain away from the switching T as it is.