Track Plan V1 - Little help from OGR Members

Yes moving it out if the loop might be of benefit. I like Carl's suggestion of using Norms plan where the turntable 28" is its own separate area too.

Kevin I think you nee to label your room on your plan. Where are the doors? Windows? Mechanical HVAC room etc. labeling is easier to visualize.

Kevin,

To build on what Carl said, later in that same thread Norm posted a photo of his old layout with the TT/RH in a different location and slightly different configuration. IMHO, the thing to take away from both photos is the configuration of the whisker tracks.  Note that his are close together directly across from the entry and not spread out like a fan. You both have 9 whisker tracks, but his is only 4' wide and 8' long whereas yours is 6' wide and 8' long. I can't figure out how he did this in RR-Track because his whisker tracks don't line up with the TT in RR-Track. All I get when I look at his file is the same empty box that I see in your file. Maybe Carl can explain it. Anyway, the point is to measure your TT with the 9 whisker tracks and use those measurements when designing your layout, not the measurements RR-Track gives you. It looks to me like the TT in the RR-Track library spaces the whicker tracks further apart than the TT you and Norm are using.

Carl,

Half way through building Norm returned to something more similar to his original layout.  Here's the last plan that he posted.  He currently has a thread on the Scenery  and Structures Forum. 

https://ogrforum.com/t...-eventual-roundhouse

Jan

Team,

Got called into work around noon yesterday, just got home, so I was not able to post the PDF with the room dimensions requested, Plus I see lots of new comments to go through. Attached is the new PDF with a legend of the over all room. I coded that alphabetically. The outside wall, the foundation of the house runs on the right side of the diagram.

Kevin

George, got it - with all the active threads gets a little confusing. Alex, will take a look at the video. My TT is a Millhouse River TT - 28 inches and the RH is from Atloona Model Works 5 stall and one extended on the fight to handle larger engines.  S I am going to read through all these threads and capture as much as possible. I understand the concept of the yard under the TT and yard to reduce the grade - I think that is important - so it looks more realistic. 

Thanks to all. I will pull out the RR-track software and try to muddle though it - Guys thanks a bunch,  You all fantastic.

Kevin 

Dave,

RR-Tracks for me is still a work in progress. Messing around with it a little while ago, cant get it do what I want it to do so operator error - it wins for now.

Getting back to your comments above, yes, I will have a little more space. My only constraint is that my 28 in TT approach track needs to be straight into the first stall on the RH. I wasn't sure If I really wanted a 30 or 34 inch TT and now I regret not getting one of them. I purchased a BB so the only way to get into the RH or yard would be a straight approach. Which begs me now to consider to approaches. 

If I go with your picture above, it totally works, I just need to adjust the approach or simply forget putting the BB on the Table or in the RH - not a problem but since I bought the extended version of the RH it would be cool to have. But, fortunately, not a deal breaker. 

I like the design you proposed that is rock solid. 

Question, where are you proposing it is moved too? Trying to figure it out on the last drawing.

Kevin

Kevin, the last drawing is from Norm's previous layout where he had his TT/RH in a different location. Carl indicated it's the same TT and RH that you have. My intent was to show you a different configuration vs the long approach in the link Carl posted and to show how much smaller his footprint is. However, if your footprint is larger, perhaps because you have the extended RH, then I would figure out where it fits best. I wouldn't give up the extended RH, I'd design around it. If what you have in your current design is what you need for space, then just move it around to see where you like it best.

I'm not sure which design you think it rock solid, but if it's the one where I moved the yard to the front, I think the yard might be too small, but the grades are all below 3.4%. For the heck of it, I tried moving the grade tracks for the yard to the front. It needs some work and one of the grades to the right side of the bridge is up to 4.5%, but I thought I'd let you see it.

I also attached the RR-Track files for you to mess with. I get that RR-Track is still new to you, but you'll get the hang of it.

Dave,

This was what I thought was rock solid, moving the TT and RH off to the side like norm did. Then I think it opens the layout for more options. I though just having it in the middle visually made sense but as I read all these options, now I wonder if Norm has the right idea of segmenting it off to say corner H / G of my drawing then starting from that point.

I do like the addition of the purple tracks in from of the TT. 

I am drawing out a few ideas on paper simple because for me it is fast. Will up load them soon. Alex gave me a few ideas that I like. The TT and RH configuration here is impressive.

K 

Jan posted:

Carl,

Half way through building Norm returned to something more similar to his original layout.  Here's the last plan that he posted.  He currently has a thread on the Scenery  and Structures Forum. 

https://ogrforum.com/t...-eventual-roundhouse

Jan

Jan,

I know. He was laying track and just tore it all apart. I was surprised and impressed. I used one of the early designs to provide Kevin some different ideas using a folded dog bone.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Kevin,

To build on what Carl said, later in that same thread Norm posted a photo of his old layout with the TT/RH in a different location and slightly different configuration. IMHO, the thing to take away from both photos is the configuration of the whisker tracks.  Note that his are close together directly across from the entry and not spread out like a fan. You both have 9 whisker tracks, but his is only 4' wide and 8' long whereas yours is 6' wide and 8' long. I can't figure out how he did this in RR-Track because his whisker tracks don't line up with the TT in RR-Track. All I get when I look at his file is the same empty box that I see in your file. Maybe Carl can explain it. Anyway, the point is to measure your TT with the 9 whisker tracks and use those measurements when designing your layout, not the measurements RR-Track gives you. It looks to me like the TT in the RR-Track library spaces the whicker tracks further apart than the TT you and Norm are using.

Daz and Kevin,

The key is to know the angles for the RH entrances. Then, use the TT in the generic Objects>Buildings library and rotate the whisker tracks to the angle that you need.  I do believe the RH is in the ACC library

The Bowser TT is sized in O Accessories. I don't know the angles on it.

PSU1980 posted:

I am drawing out a few ideas on paper simple because for me it is fast. Will up load them soon. Alex gave me a few ideas that I like. The TT and RH configuration here is impressive.

K 

 

 

 

The paper and pencil approach works. Makes it easy to translate to the software for fitment confirmation.

Well after a few hours of trying all sorts of things I am going to take a brain rest. I have a few ideas on paper but it seems proportionally out of balance - but that is a pencil and paper. I can say one thing, this is brain teaser.

Kevin

Daz, I went up to the RR-Track site and they have a bunch of updates that I just down loaded - they are free so you might want to see if you need them.

Dave and team.

I am liking this one more and more. I am thinking maybe we move the bridge some where else. I have three (3) Silk City Bridges - 2 single bridges that are 24 inches each - maybe we off set the them and one (1) 36 inch double bridge. Either way this is becoming more interesting. I also saw on one of the members post, think it was Norm or Laidoffsick a diesel shed and steam engine service area. With the space to the right of the TT I can add that. The Diesel is MTH and could present a problem but I think it can fit too.

Making progress - AWESOME folks. 

One final question. I am assuming your emails are in your profiles - please advise.

Kevin 

Yes, my email is in my profile. BTW, I don't like how the grade down to the yard on the outside flows. I just did that without knowing what you final space measurements were and I believe it goes too wide. I just posted it to give you an idea of an alternate way to get to the yard at a less steep grade.

FWIW, I used to work out designs with graph paper, tracing paper and one of those template rulers designed specifically for that and I much prefer the software approach.  

PSU1980 posted:

Daz, I went up to the RR-Track site and they have a bunch of updates that I just down loaded - they are free so you might want to see if you need them.

I updated a couple of weeks ago, but I'll check again. Thanks!

BTW, I was a programmer by trade, so this stuff comes fairly easy to me, through there are always tricks to learn from others.

Moonman posted:

Daz and Kevin,

The key is to know the angles for the RH entrances. Then, use the TT in the generic Objects>Buildings library and rotate the whisker tracks to the angle that you need.  I do believe the RH is in the ACC library

The Bowser TT is sized in O Accessories. I don't know the angles on it.

Carl, I found the TT earlier and added it to my latest drawing. However, I'm at a loss as to how to change the angles of the whisker tracks. As near as I can tell, the join points are set, so the only way I know to change them is to turn off auto-join and put tracks at the angle you want without joining them. I must be missing something.

A programmer, my wife was one as well but gave it up about 10 years ago and all she says is read the documents. . I would if I didn't have to print the book to do so. I hate toggling between the document's and applications. I will print it one of these days. Short term the old way will have to work.

Kevin

Dave, one other question how would you change the grade? Make the layout longer or change the design. I was trying to reduce it 2%? Was messing around with the software but I can't seem to change the grade will out messing the entire thing up.

Kevin, we had 27 here today for our early Easter celebration, so I haven't had time to enter your dimensions. Tomorrow I have to finish taxes and pack, so I don't know if I'll get to it before we leave. If I don't, I won't get to it until Friday.

Getting them down to 2% is going to be impossible with the current design. The length of the bridge to the nearest turnout decides how steep the grade it. The only way to reduce it is to lower the bridge or move the turnout further way. FWIW, I played it safe. The yard is at 0", the TT and Black tracks are at 12" and the bridge is at 19". The bridge can probably be lowered, so I lowered it to 18" (6" clearance) and the grades to/from went to 3% or less.

Now, you can lower the other tracks too in order to reduce the grade to/from the yard, but that will reduce your ability to deal with problems. Even 12" is limited by whatever you use for framing beneath the sub-roadbed. I have no idea what kind of benchwork you intend to build, so I can only take the software so far. There are still a lot of unknowns that have to be determined before any design can be finalized. If it weren't for the hidden yard, things would be closer to being done, but you need to decide on benchwork and how much space you want for access to the yard. If you raise the yard to only 10" below grade, that will lessen the grade. If you shorten the yard, that will lessen the grade. Do you need that much storage space or are you just filling the space is a question you need to answer. You can have the yard 6" below grade, but then you'll have a very hard time getting your hands in there.

To show you what I've gone through to keep things straight for the layout I'll be starting next month, here's what I put together to show the various elevations. And I still need to update it because I've decided to change a few things.

Dave,

Wow. Sounds like a great day. I am / have a swamped week so I won't be able to get to my personal PC for at least a week. I would say that my last layout had too little space between "layers" and that was a real pain to get at any thing under the layout - repairs included so lesson learned - leave room. 

My last layout I had three level of viewing specifically because my friends and family had little ones and I wanted them to see it. The next two levels were at 36 and I think by default 50 Cant remember - enjoy your time off.

Kevin

DoubleDAZ posted:

Moonman posted:

Daz and Kevin,

The key is to know the angles for the RH entrances. Then, use the TT in the generic Objects>Buildings library and rotate the whisker tracks to the angle that you need.  I do believe the RH is in the ACC library

The Bowser TT is sized in O Accessories. I don't know the angles on it.

Carl, I found the TT earlier and added it to my latest drawing. However, I'm at a loss as to how to change the angles of the whisker tracks. As near as I can tell, the join points are set, so the only way I know to change them is to turn off auto-join and put tracks at the angle you want without joining them. I must be missing something.

Yessir,

the generic TT that one can size to suit has no active connection points. Rotate a track section and move it close to the TT.  Then the tracks have active connection points opposite the TT.  I am not sure how to work around the absence of the A M W roundhouse .

Moonman posted:

Yessir,

the generic TT that one can size to suit has no active connection points. Rotate a track section and move it close to the TT.  Then the tracks have active connection points opposite the TT.  I am not sure how to work around the absence of the A M W roundhouse .

I see now Carl. I was using the TT in the Atlas library that has connection points, but I see where the TT you mentioned in the Objects section is just an intricate polygon with no connection points and can be sized as needed.

Kevin,

I entered the measurements as best I could. You didn't have a measurement for E, there were 3 D's, there was no F, F seemed like it should have been one of the D's so I filled them in to match the original fairly closely and there was no measurement for the lower left between A and N. I think I got them, but you can double-check. The black in the original, the green is the new and relative to the lower 24":24" corner of the workspace. I then added the purple to show what is the actual floor space that can be used allowing for the doors and captured a separate photo. In your original there is a post or something in the middle and I don't know exactly where it is, if that's what it is. I then moved all the track so there is 24" access on the bottom and right side. I did not draw a new tabletop because it's obvious changes will be needed and we still don't know if you want the tabletop to allow for 24" access all around or what. Sorry, but I need to pack for our trip tomorrow and do some things with the car, so I'll be scarce until Friday. Good luck and HTH.

Team,

Just got back from a tough week of moving folks around the country. Hope you all had a happy Easter. Will any of you be at York? I will look at all these new suggestions and recommendations. Need a few days.

Kevin

After 2 1/2 weeks of business travel and a short vacation it is back to the design. DoubleDaz, the area I did not provide measurements is a door are that is 40 inches wide. This is how I get things in and out of the basement so I can block it so I just ignored the space.

Now back to the design, here is the plan. I am going to print our the design DD provided, make it full scale - so my wife wins - clean the basement up by default before I proceed. Not much to move - couches and a few tables. Then I am going to lay out brown paper and draw this to scale. If i like it, then I will consider this a victory and move to the next step, if I don't then back to the drawing board.

I looked an Norm's as suggested by you all and I like it - might require a few more passed. I did a few sketches - some I like some I didn't I create one I like now I need to transfer that to RR-Tracks so see if it fits. A little more "U" shaped and I think the grade might be a little better - Dave thanks for making me keep that in mind. I don't want to climb grades that are not realistic.

The other thing I am going to do is visit a a few layouts that was suggested to me. Similar spaces with similar design. 

I might even go back to the cross over dog bone that was mentioned earlier in the thread. 

Slow steady progress. Have a great weekend all.

Kevin

George and Dave, I missed the suggestion on moving the TT on the first read. If the TT is moved, will this help reduce the grade? Or is the grade a function of the size of the table? RR-Tracks - still a work in progress

Hey Kevin & Dave,

Dave's designs are awe inspiring and vey cool and interesting.

My personal preference would be to have the turntable located in one of your orginal designed dog bones. Or have the TT off the layout sort of Norm Charboneau all by itself so you could walk around it, but I do not know if this is possible in your space. Daves newer design has further reaches so you will need to crawl under the layout and put access hatches into the layout once it's built. 8'+ deep is a long reach. If that works for you go for it.

Your orginal Dog bones design with its 2' walk around at 7' deep is "reachable" to the middle, IMO. I'm just not into access hatches, duckunders etc at 50 years old my back aches thinking about it. My rambling done, it's not what's best for me but what's best for you! Keep us posted.

George, keep in mind that design was just to show what moving the grades to the front of the layout to reduce them would look like. I didn't intend it to be a final design in any way. I believe I said at one point that I thought the tracks came too far out, but I didn't have time to do anything with them before I left on vacation and Kevin was away on business, so he couldn't review them and comment. It was just to give Kevin some ideas.

Kevin, like George pointed out, you need to look at the reach implications if you expand the layout space. Like I told George above, the design was just to get a look at how things might be done and it was done before I had the latest space specifications. Once you decide how wide you want the access to be, we can work on fixing the layout space and moving tracks around to fit.

As far as the TT goes, it's placement doesn't really affect the grades all that much. The problems are the bridge in relation to the turnouts and the placement of the tracks leading to/from the hidden yard. The closer the turnouts are to each side of the bridge dictates how steep the grade will be. Move the turnouts further away and that reduces the grades on each side. Also, something that hasn't been looked at is exactly how high you want the bridge to be. Right now it's at 18" and the main track is at 12". I don't know if 6" is enough for the cars you want to run, etc., we haven't discussed any of that. And I don't know if 12" is going to be enough clearance for the yard once you consider the benchwork. Still a lot of things to consider.

DoubleDAZ posted:

George, keep in mind that design was just to show what moving the grades to the front of the layout to reduce them would look like. I didn't intend it to be a final design in any way. I believe I said at one point that I thought the tracks came too far out, but I didn't have time to do anything with them before I left on vacation and Kevin was away on business, so he couldn't review them and comment. It was just to give Kevin some ideas.

Kevin, like George pointed out, you need to look at the reach implications if you expand the layout space. Like I told George above, the design was just to get a look at how things might be done and it was done before I had the latest space specifications. Once you decide how wide you want the access to be, we can work on fixing the layout space and moving tracks around to fit.

As far as the TT goes, it's placement doesn't really affect the grades all that much. The problems are the bridge in relation to the turnouts and the placement of the tracks leading to/from the hidden yard. The closer the turnouts are to each side of the bridge dictates how steep the grade will be. Move the turnouts further away and that reduces the grades on each side. Also, something that hasn't been looked at is exactly how high you want the bridge to be. Right now it's at 18" and the main track is at 12". I don't know if 6" is enough for the cars you want to run, etc., we haven't discussed any of that. And I don't know if 12" is going to be enough clearance for the yard once you consider the benchwork. Still a lot of things to consider.

Hi Dave,

I agree with you. I was just thinking of the reach issues with a deep layout. I have a TCA friend who is 74 years young who still does duckunders and access hatches on a large hi rail layout, that works just fine for him. 

Well, I don't mind the hatches and crawling under the table. - you should see some of the spaced at the NJ Hi Railers. No offense to small people but some places are near impossible - I would place a few hatches if needed.

Second, I don't think I can do much wider as their are points in the basement than need to be accessible and a 2 ft walk around is probably the best. Dave, the bridge does not have to be in that spot. When I designed the layout I want to include it because I have 3 single 24 in bridges and 1 36 inch double main bridge. So it we need to move the bridges I am fine with that.

As far as the layout design, I have been fooling around with a new design - pen and paper - because I just screwed up - did not save the file - thought I did an poof - gone. So you will see a had drawn layout shortly. 

I just printed the blank pages with the measurements and will draw what I think might be a little better. Dave and Seacoast - Not sure I have the room for and Island type of build for my TT like Norm did. Second. I think the max height - 2nd level will be somewhere around the 40 ~ 46 inch side. Not sure, I plan to talk to the Mainne Bench folks at York to capture some table in formation.

Thanks for all the great comments and for helping me out.

It's good to know you're planning to use Mianne for benchwork. When you talk to them make sure you discuss access to your yard so we know what height they suggest.

I'll help with RR-Track as much as I can. Even though I'm on vacation, we're working around baseball schedules.

Hi Dave,

Enjoy Baseball - Yankees fan here - should be an interesting year for NY fans

Dave, Seacoast, Alex and team,

So I went back to the paper paper and pencil method and borrowed few layout plans, one was given to me. The other I just sketched out. Nothing to scale and both will have to be converted to RR-Tracks if I want to proceed with these ideas. Got a few friends together today and with input from folks that don't now a model rail road much less how to build them I asked what they would like to see.  So I took them to the NJ Hi Railers and showed them that RR and said what would you like to see in a small basement layout.

V2, the black had drawn one. Nothing to scale, nor the foot print I have - just more of a concept with the idea to keep the grade down to maybe 2.0 to 2.5% and move the bridge away from the TT. Not sure how this will look as my next step is to see if I can modify, in my life time, the file David, George and Alex commented on and the one Dave has bravely modified.

The other drawing is from friend. He drew it and is using it to build his HO layout. I like this one too because the grades appear to be decent. I helped him solve a few wiring issues. This is also possibility - reason TT is not blocked but I feel the overall space will not allow for a 0-72 curves - Again will try to modify the layout offered. 

Here are the photos and the PDF is the hand drawn version

Kevin, I haven't time tonight to try to lay new track, but thought I'd post the benchwork space (in black) that will be available given the latest room dimensions and your desire to maintain the 24" access around it. As you can see, the track as designed will simply not fit, especially the dual main loop on the left side. And while I like the design your friend is going to use with the access aisle, the 5 doors/doorways in your room limit placement of the benchwork along the walls, except for the upper right. I assume he doesn't have to deal with 5 doors and that his will be an around-the-room layout with the access aisle from the entry door.

The dual main loop on the left shows why the room and benchwork dimensions are so important. And I don't remember if you said or not, but I've got all the doors opening "out" of the room "away" from the layout. The 2nd image shows what aisle benchwork might look like with 30" reach around some of the walls. The doors would come in handy for access.

Dave 

The layouts looks like its going have a lot of action once its up and running.

Good luck, John

Hi Dave,

I kinda of figured the second drawing, the one my friend used was not going to work in my space. I had printed out the latest design and - the table you added so I could see the food print.  Tonight, I then kept shrinking the copy until it got close to the footprint of the latest file KM4. 25 reduced copies, you just confirmed what I finally saw - wasn't going to happen.  So much for that version.

Also, the doors are accordion door, the open out into the room - the fortunate things is a curtain will work. 

So I pulled up KM3, your comments on 3/21/2016 above, the one at 5:08 pm, here is a question, I think I am confused, will that version fit my space? I can give up the 2 ft, the area at G140 because that is just a wall with nothing on it.

I ran the simulations again and I am really liking this alot. 

Will you be at York?

Kevin, I'm not sure which version you're referring to as KM3 as I don't see one attached in this thread and I've been working with KM4. I'm not sure it matters though because I think the main track configuration is the same. The only changes I've made to the main layout is to relocate some turnouts. I've also reconfigured the yard and grade tracks, but those aren't the problem at this point.

To illustrate, I've hidden everything but the main tracks so you can see what you're up against. I filled in the bench work and extended it to G-140. The loops at each end are O72/O81 and you can see that they simply won't fit the space in the lower left unless you modify the bench work.

Here's what needs to happen to make the loop fit.

Or something like this. But, you can see by the Blue track how much space is needed for the grades to the bridge to be less than 2.5% (2.2% upper/1.6% lower left) and I haven't even looked at the grades down to the yard yet. It took quite awhile to get to this point because I played with the over/under too long before I gave up. My goal here became to start with something more straightforward to build on. The problem is there is really no place to put the turnouts down to the yard and I'm not at all happy with the crossover or the turnout to the TT all being in the same spot. I'll try expanding the G-140 area to the walls, but I don't think that's going to make much difference.

And, no, I won't be at York.

Just looking at Daves designs and they are great designs but a tight fit. How about an around the walls design? 

An Around the walls design will give you larger curves you don't have to take up huge areas for those peninsulas.  You could go 24-36" deep on the straights too. You would need several liftout or bridges for access for those doors. If around the walls is desirable you could add two or so areas for a large yard, or engine service areas inside the around the walls area by use of large radius wyes. Just a thought.

Dave,

Sorry you will not be at York, was looking forward to meeting you. George, are you planning to attend? If so, let me know my email is in my profile.

Well, I look at these, your right it was KM4, not three my typo but they are the same. Over the past few days, while I was not on the forum much I took the proposed layout to a few folks that have similar spaces or are in the process of building one after months of track work design. I got mixed ideas but all suggested moving the layout to the wall. Almost everyone suggested making the layout wider - F & H meaning wall to wall their except where the door way is. Keeping the K - J walk way to access the door. Then move M to the wall. Which is all doable but then I have not a clue what I would design. It appears that makes the curves fit and the turntable fits. Means pop ups and then I would need to figure our storage.

So I am totally back to the drawing board - maybe the L shape works better than the free form. The other suggestion I got was from my daughter who said " Dad, put the TT at the G end - go wall to wall and two tracks behind the RH. You want people to see it but wall to wall means you need to find a place for all to see it and you need to figure out how to get at it. Start with the most important item you have - I know it is the TT and RH so make that area first."  - HAHA - what does she know - she is a 24 year old magna Com laude scientist who just got a masters degree. Maybe I need to listen.

Back to the pencil and paper.