Would someone be kind enough to help me?

At first glance Gargraves switches (manual) appear to be about 15 bucks cheaper than Ross switches. Are the Ross switches worth the difference? More trouble free?? Ponz

Ponz posted:

At first glance Gargraves switches (manual) appear to be about 15 bucks cheaper than Ross switches. Are the Ross switches worth the difference?

Very definitely YES!!!

More trouble free?? Ponz

 

You cannot beat Ross switches for dependability, variety and service.  I have used Atlas, Gargraves, and Ross over the years and after installing over 200 switches on different layouts, it is the only switch I will recommend.  Ross switches are virtually problem free but if you do happen to have a problem, Steve will make it right with just a phone call.

 

Good luck on your build and happy railroading,

Don

Most definitely YES! We use Ross switches at NJ Hirailers, a lot of them, and they have withstood what  would probably be a lifetime of use on a home layout.

DGJONES posted: ......Ross switches are virtually problem free but if you do happen to have a problem, Steve will make it right with just a phone call.

That's certainly true.

My Ross are superior to my Atlas. Can't speak about Gargraves.

Off topic: How come I'm unable to 'like', or 'reply quote' ?? Could it be something with my PC? At the office those features work fine. Ponz

Ok, sorry it took so long, but I took a shower first.

Anyway, I extended the bottom 6" and added back the O54 curves. I moved the inside stuff and here's the result. I tried O72 and they simply won't work. I also tried adding back the double-crossover at the bottom, but I couldn't find a combo that doesn't throw off the side separation, sorry. The hatch is 20" from the top and 27" from the right wall.

And here are some nominal measurements for your friend to use as a guide. I think they're fairly accurate, but you really won't know for sure until the track is laid. My personal preference would be that you place the crossovers further from the wall. If you use 2x4s, they are 1.5" wide, so you could put the center of the right cross-member 30" from the wall and the left 54". That would give you 24" from center to center and you'd have a 3/4" overhang for both the tabletop and the hatch. Many folks build layouts where the sides are 30" wide, so there is no reason to crowd the track. Once you cut the hatch and start laying track, it will get difficult to fix things if the track comes too close to the hatch. There is no need to go as far right as you absolutely can, 30" from the wall is ample.

NOTE: I just noticed that the little "x" didn't show up, to the 30" range is misleading. It's from where the "x" would be, not from the edge of the hatch.

 

Here's the track list:

 

Gadzooks! Maybe being a cheapskate is worth it after all! I know I'm not going about this the best way possible. I've painted the 3/4 board earth brown with "Restore" stuff from Home Depot. I've already laid much track and am waiting for 3 rolls of "Track-Bed" to place under the track. I'll look into screwing through the track and TrackBed and try and avoid glue. I'm shopping for trestles of some type. I gotta tell ya, I KNEW this hobby wasn't going to be cheap, but man, Lionel and resellers sure are PROUD of this stuff. I have to decide if I want to jack around with using single track for the inside tight curves or pick up some more GG Flextrack and fight it again. Outside loop = complete Inside loop = complete up to where those first two turnouts are I have four 37" lengths of flextrack left which I can probably use for the longer runs on the very inside track. Now I have to decide whether or not I want to order more flex or go individual pieces for the remaining tight curves. Gee, I can remember how much fun it was watching my old MARX set going around the tree in the mid 50s. This is too much like work. Best regards and thanks again for the assistance. Later - Ponz

Well, what you have now is more than a loop around a tree and you decided to "play" with flex track, so more work was to be expected. And at today's prices, I never would have gotten my first train, so I consider myself lucky. Glad to hear things are moving along.

I have about 40 newer in the last 5 years Gargraves Turnouts on my layout.  They all function perfectly.  Excellent product.

I have several Ross Turnouts too.  4-ways and curved.  Again excellent!  I buy Gargraves regular turnouts and for those they don't make I go Ross.

 

I swear by both brands.  

Moving along slowly Dave. More flex track and switches on the way and a couple rolls of wire purchased. My knees and back are pretty sore from crawling around! Ponz

Anyone have AnyRail????

Dave - I met with Dennis Brennen last week.  Heck of a nice guy.  He persuaded me to change my layout to something than would accomodate scenery, so I wouldn't get bored easily.  I've attached a file and hope someone here can open it to view.

If anybody has any further thoughts on tweaking this to my limited space of 13x9, I'm all ears!

Ponz

 

 

Ponz, I installed the trial version of AnyRail so I could see your design and post an image for others to see it too, posting a file without a corresponding photo leaves many people out of the discussion. Not many are going to install software, even free software, just to see a design. I assume you know AnyRail has a 50-track limit unless you buy the full version whereas SCARM has no limit and is free at this point.

At any rate, this is quite a change from your original design. How did you go from 8x8.5 with walls on 2 sides to a 9x13 space? Is this still tucked against those 2 walls? Is this a horseshoe with the center as an access aisle or just a larger table? Either way, you are going to need access hatches in order to reach many of those tracks in the corners and along the walled sides.

My space (photo enclosed) is a 13x10.8x11 horseshoe design with walls on 3 sides. I'm okay with tight O36/O45 curves, so I have more leeway with my design even though the space is essentially the same as yours. I'm not sure how much space I'll have for landscaping, but I prefer running action, being able to switch between tracks, etc. I get the need for landscaping, but 2 trains running in circles and not being able to change directions or go from one set of tracks to the other doesn't appeal to me.

BTW, since you seem to be going with dual mains with concentric curves, did you see Mike CT's recent post on how he used GarGraves flex and kept the distance between tracks even? I can tell right off without measuring that at least some of your tracks are too close, but I assume at this point you're more concerned with the "look" and will space the flex track properly as you build.

Another problem I see is using flex track to design. I had no idea what size curves those bottom loops are, but I could tell they were not O-72. So, I deleted half the layout to avoid the 50-track limit and I was able to come close to reproducing the lower left outside loop with a O42-O54-O63-O63 combination and the inside loop is tighter. I know you plan to run your large passenger cars on the outside loop, but you still have to consider the overhang on both tracks when trains are passing. Tight curves mean more overhang and they determine what engines/cars you can run as well as track spacing to avoid bumps. And since your curves are not one radius, you'll really need to plan when bending the flex to avoid making a section too tight. That's why I prefer to design using sectional track and then substitute flex track when laying track. Check out Mike CT's method and I think you'll see what I mean. The key is drawing the curves on the sub-roadbed and then making sure the center rail follows the design.

As far as my design goes, changing the inner oval to a loop-2-loop and adding a double-crossover allows me to reverse directions and move trains between tracks. It also lets me shrink the sides so I don't need access hatches. Of course, I have the 3 walls to consider whereas you only have 2, I guess. Nothing wrong with the approach you and Dennis came up with as long as it satisfies your goals. No turnouts means if's cheaper to build and you can raise the back like I plan to do to add some elevation and interest. You can also add some spurs to service industries, etc., if you are so inclined.

Dave...Just a back wall. Access on left right and up the middle

 Would you please work up a double loop dog bone in a 9x13 space? Keeping curves to O54 just a smidge less?

Dave....I'm changing rooms.

Ponz posted:

Dave...Just a back wall. Access on left right and up the middle

 Would you please work up a double loop dog bone in a 9x13 space? Keeping curves to O54 just a smidge less?

Ponz posted:

Dave....I'm changing rooms.

That explains it. Having access on 3 sides will make a big difference.

I'll see what I can work up along the lines of your example, but I'm just leaving to run some errands, so it might be a bit.

Ok, got the errands done, so I had time to do a mockup. I made the baseboard a 108"x156"x108" horseshoe with 60" wide sides and a 36" wide aisle. Please note that while the sides could be widened and the aisle shrunk, it wouldn't do any good as far as track layout because the limiting factors are where the 4 tracks pass each other and curves define the placement of those tracks.

Allowances can be made, as shown in the 2nd photo, by snipping some curves, etc. The GarGraves library doesn't offer half-curves like some other track libraries do, so you have to snip them and then cut sectional track to fit or use flex track. I didn't go any further, but if it were my layout, I'd move things enough to fit a double-crossover at the top so trains can run on both dog bones. But then I'd change the inside dog bone to a loop2loop so I'd be able to change directions. In fact, that's exactly what I did as you saw in my earlier post.

My main goal with these examples is to show you what size loops will fit the space as I understand you description. The upper curves can probably be expanded to O63 or O72, but I'm not sure what that accomplishes unless you have a certain landscape in mind or those corners, etc.

 

You asked for a little more room for landscaping and this is what I came up with. Some folks will balk at squeezing the aisle to 24", but I don't see another option. The inner loop around the center is cockeyed because sectional track won't form a concentric curve and that will have to be fixed when laying the flex track.

You can move the lower tracks away from the edge by bending the flex a little tighter than O-54 and O-42, but you need to make sure you maintain the center-2-center spacing. The NMRA recommends 4.5", but your cars might need more or less, I don't know. The only way to find out for sure is to set up some temporary curves and place your passenger cars on them to see what the actual overhang is.

Since you don't have sectional track, I think someone (moonman?) recently posted a way to do this by drawing a curve and using a rectangle the size of the car. The 2nd photo shows how I interpreted what I read using a car that is 5"x20". This might not be close to a realistic size, but you can see how it's both the outside and inside overhang you need to consider. In the example, cars will definitely hit each other. I don't know how this works compared to using tracks and the cars.

I then changed the inner dog bone to a loop2loop, but I'm afraid the resulting "S" curves might cause too many problems, especially for the passenger cars you plan to run on the outside track. I also added a double-crossover between the curves and straights in the upper corners to show you how that would let you run trains on all the tracks in and change directions. The road just shows how it might be landscaped.

Just food for thought.

 

 

DoubleDAZ posted:

You asked for a little more room for landscaping and this is what I came up with. Some folks will balk at squeezing the aisle to 24", but I don't see another option. The inner loop around the center is cockeyed because sectional track won't form a concentric curve and that will have to be fixed when laying the flex track.

You can move the lower tracks away from the edge by bending the flex a little tighter than O-54 and O-42, but you need to make sure you maintain the center-2-center spacing. The NMRA recommends 4.5", but your cars might need more or less, I don't know. The only way to find out for sure is to set up some temporary curves and place your passenger cars on them to see what the actual overhang is.

Since you don't have sectional track, I think someone (moonman?) recently posted a way to do this by drawing a curve and using a rectangle the size of the car. The 2nd photo shows how I interpreted what I read using a car that is 5"x20". This might not be close to a realistic size, but you can see how it's both the outside and inside overhang you need to consider. In the example, cars will definitely hit each other. I don't know how this works compared to using tracks and the cars.

I then changed the inner dog bone to a loop2loop, but I'm afraid the resulting "S" curves might cause too many problems, especially for the passenger cars you plan to run on the outside track. I also added a double-crossover between the curves and straights in the upper corners to show you how that would let you run trains on all the tracks in and change directions. The road just shows how it might be landscaped.

Just food for thought.

 

 

Dave - A 24" walk through isn't an issue.  I tried to work with scarm, but tired of fighting with it.  I'm back in AnyRail mimicking your layouts...

Thanks - Ponz

DoubleDAZ posted:

You asked for a little more room for landscaping and this is what I came up with. Some folks will balk at squeezing the aisle to 24", but I don't see another option. The inner loop around the center is cockeyed because sectional track won't form a concentric curve and that will have to be fixed when laying the flex track.

You can move the lower tracks away from the edge by bending the flex a little tighter than O-54 and O-42, but you need to make sure you maintain the center-2-center spacing. The NMRA recommends 4.5", but your cars might need more or less, I don't know. The only way to find out for sure is to set up some temporary curves and place your passenger cars on them to see what the actual overhang is.

Since you don't have sectional track, I think someone (moonman?) recently posted a way to do this by drawing a curve and using a rectangle the size of the car. The 2nd photo shows how I interpreted what I read using a car that is 5"x20". This might not be close to a realistic size, but you can see how it's both the outside and inside overhang you need to consider. In the example, cars will definitely hit each other. I don't know how this works compared to using tracks and the cars.

I then changed the inner dog bone to a loop2loop, but I'm afraid the resulting "S" curves might cause too many problems, especially for the passenger cars you plan to run on the outside track. I also added a double-crossover between the curves and straights in the upper corners to show you how that would let you run trains on all the tracks in and change directions. The road just shows how it might be landscaped.

Just food for thought.

 

 

Anyway Dave - I have to sell some furniture in my mini-man cave before I can begin to build.  It'll be a while.

 

Ponz

Sorry you're having a hard time with SCARM, but wish you luck with AnyRail, whatever works for you. Being able to make changes yourself will go a long way toward getting something you like. Just remember to post photos of your designs and not just the AnyRail file if you want suggestions.