# Layout for son and dad



## Rabman

So I am going to put together a layout for my son (almost 5-years old) and I to bond over. Something other than Lego. 

So I have designed this in XtrackCad. I think this is about as much space as my wife will allow. It will be located in a part of our rec room. 

I am looking to do something with a couple loops, DCC, I think the outer loop is 22” and the inner one is 20”. I am going off the Peco track models, radius 1 and 2 so I could b wrong. The outer loop by the tunnel will have a little elevation of 2” for some added interest. I will cut the river into the foam board. The bridges on the outer loop will be slightly elevated due to the grade and the inner bridge will be around top of foam elevation. 

Not sure what the theme will be but was going to do some industries. I do have a number of new Peco turnouts that I bought at a garage sale so I will try to use them. I also have a double slip switch that I did not see an area for. 

I think we will have a farm in the corner that just out so my son can play around with some vehicles pushing them around. I am planning on a plywood has with foam on top. Waterfall off the mountain. 

I think I will make the Benchwork in a few pieces to be able to get it out of the basement one day. Not sure how I would seam the scenery together so it can be disassembled without destroying it. 

What are your thoughts on the layout and disassembly in the distant future?


----------



## Nikola

It's a nice layout! Good luck - your son will be very happy.


----------



## Rabman

Thanks for the compliment. I have worked hard on it up to now.


----------



## CTValleyRR

I think that's a fun little layout to start the two of you on. Lots of things to do. Make sure he gets to build some things and actually run the trains (big hands over little if necessary).

I do have two comments though. First is the elevation. It's always problematic, and on a layout this small especially so. Trains hate grades, and our little models are no exception. The steepest I would ever recommend using is 3%. Go much higher than that and you'll find yourself running very short trains, if anything can even climb it. Even at that steep slope, you will need 67" to gain the 2" of elevation change, and that much again going back down. You don't have that much room to play with, even if you were to start the slopes right at the tunnel exits, you need more distance than you have before the tracks need to be at the same height for the crossing and crossover. And with a slope that steep, you will probably need an easement (a section of more gradual slope) at each end to prevent trains from digging their noses in or becoming uncoupled or derailed as they transit onto and off of the slope.

The second is the reversing loop (the section where the digital train is on your diagram). That will need special wiring, which isn't a big deal as long as you plan for it. But you can only reverse in one direction. A train going counter clockwise can turn by going through the reversing loop, but the only way a train going clockwise can reverse direction is by backing through the loop. That's something to consider, although I don't see an easy solution without radical redesign.

Last thought? Don't worry about being able to break it down later, especially if it's the "distant future". Your interests in the hobby, and your son's, will likely evolve over time, and you may be ready to get rid of it long before you need to move it. You can use wood screws or bolts and wing nuts to assemble your benchwork to save the wood. The track you can remove with a putty knife (because you'll want to fasten it down). But for the scenery, it's best to just trash it. If you want to keep large chunks, cut them up with a reciprocating saw and patch them together later, or just start fresh.

Welcome to the hobby, BTW!


----------



## J.Albert1949

Will the "lower" part (where the yard is) be against a wall?
You may need some kind of access to the yard "throat".
It's pretty tough to reach across 4' of table...


----------



## Rabman

Make sure he gets to build some things and actually run the trains (big hands over little if necessary).


My son is a great assistant. That is one of the motivations to doing this. 


“I do have two comments though. First is the elevation...You don't have that much room to play with...”

I was thinking about starting the climb after the turnout by the diamond, level off by the bridge at a height of 1/2”, continue the climb after the bridge and into the tunnel to a height of 1”, level off to the tunnel exit and start to decend to elevation 0 by the RH turnout over about 5 feet. Accent of 1” over 54” = 1.85%, decent of 1” over about 60” = 1.67%. The question is, will the aesthetics make it work the work? Different height tunnel portals, slightly elevated track. Would it be good to elevate the inner loop 1/2”? I think I could keep within 2% as well on the left side, though I would need to start the decent in the tunnel. I don’t think I can run too long of a train with the layout size unfortunately so I hope weight of the consist is a non issue. 

“And with a slope that steep, you will probably need an easement. “

Thanks for the tip on easement.

“The second is the reversing loop (the section where the digital train is on your diagram). That will need special wiring, which isn't a big deal as long as you plan for it. But you can only reverse in one direction. A train going counter clockwise can turn by going through the reversing loop, but the only way...”

I am aware of the wiring issue. I will look of the details of wiring when I get to running the track. 

I know that I can one reverse the direction as you described, but I thought it was better that not being able to reverse the trains at all. 

“Last thought? Don't worry about being able to break it down later, especially if it's the "distant future". 

I am getting a little more confident that the layout is reasonably designed. 

You are right. Sorry for messing up the quoting of your message. Thanks.


----------



## Rabman

J.Albert1949 said:


> Will the "lower" part (where the yard is) be against a wall?
> You may need some kind of access to the yard "throat".
> It's pretty tough to reach across 4' of table...


I am intending to have it on wheels to move it out for build and play. 

Thanks


----------



## DonR

Nice layout for a beginning.

You mention the possible need to 'move' the layout
at some point. One way to make this convenient
is to use the 'modular' method. 

Construct various size modules of 1 X 3 lumber
screwed together (never use nails). Make legs
of the same lumber screwed together to make
an L. This is bolted in the corners to offer more
stability. Bolt the various modules together. They
can then be easily taken apart at moving time.
Attach 1/4" plywood to the assembled group of
modules, or you could cut it to fit each module,
covering the entire benchwork with 2" foam which
will make 'digging' streams and lakes easy.

You probably won't be able to save the layout itself.
But that's ok...by moving time you'll likely have
come up with a different layout.

A word about 'reverse loops'. You can turn your
train around to go the other way on the same track.
With DCC, maintaining electrical phase (polarity) is
automatic using a 'reverse loop controller'. It doesn't
require special wiring other than a pair to an
'isolated' section from the loop controller. The
controller is fully automatic and you never see it.

Don


----------



## Rabman

DonR said:


> Nice layout for a beginning.
> 
> You mention the possible need to 'move' the layout
> at some point. One way to make this convenient
> is to use the 'modular' method.
> 
> Construct various size modules of 1 X 3 lumber
> screwed together (never use nails). Make legs
> of the same lumber screwed together to make
> an L. This is bolted in the corners to offer more
> stability. Bolt the various modules together. They
> can then be easily taken apart at moving time.
> Attach 1/4" plywood to the assembled group of
> modules, or you could cut it to fit each module,
> covering the entire benchwork with 2" foam which
> will make 'digging' streams and lakes easy.
> 
> You probably won't be able to save the layout itself.
> But that's ok...by moving time you'll likely have
> come up with a different layout.
> 
> A word about 'reverse loops'. You can turn your
> train around to go the other way on the same track.
> With DCC, maintaining electrical phase (polarity) is
> automatic using a 'reverse loop controller'. It doesn't
> require special wiring other than a pair to an
> 'isolated' section from the loop controller. The
> controller is fully automatic and you never see it.
> 
> Don


I was going to use plywood for the fascia cut to 3 or 4 inches. Is that good material to use?

Definitely will be bolting the legs to it. I will probably need to cut the 4x8 sheets of plywood down to get them in the basement. Not sure if I will do 4x4 or 2x8’s. Thoughts?

How is 2” foam with under mounted switch machines like tortoise? Would I mount some wood near the surface of the foam or will the tortoise machines work through about 2-3/4” ? 

Thanks for the info on the loop controller and other advice.


----------



## DonR

My guess is that most of us use regular lumber
for fascia which is part of the bench frame, however,
plywood would be suitable.

The dimentions of each module would be determined
by the design of your layout. I have a room size
layout build on modules of various sizes. There are
narrow strips and wide areas using modules sized
accordingly. One of the nice factors of the modular
system is that they can be rearranged when you
change layout design.

I use Peco twin coil turnout motors on my
Peco turnouts so I can't be specific about what
extensions might be available for Tortoise machines.
Some have made their own using piano wire or
thin brass tubing when installed under 2" foam.
If memory serves there has been mention of
extension in the Tortoise manual.

Don


----------



## Rabman

DonR said:


> My guess is that most of us use regular lumber
> for fascia which is part of the bench frame, however,
> plywood would be suitable.
> 
> The dimentions of each module would be determined
> by the design of your layout. I have a room size
> layout build on modules of various sizes. There are
> narrow strips and wide areas using modules sized
> accordingly. One of the nice factors of the modular
> system is that they can be rearranged when you
> change layout design.
> 
> I use Peco twin coil turnout motors on my
> Peco turnouts so I can't be specific about what
> extensions might be available for Tortoise machines.
> Some have made their own using piano wire or
> thin brass tubing when installed under 2" foam.
> If memory serves there has been mention of
> extension in the Tortoise manual.
> 
> Don


So I have reviewed my switches. I have a mixture of Peco Large Radius (2 LH and 1 RH), Medium (2 LH and 3 RH) and Small turnouts (1 LH and 1 RH), and a Medium 3-Way. I know that I didn't draw the layout with these size turnouts. I think I used all Medium. I think I will use the Large Radius LH from the outer to the inner Loop. The Small Radius Turnouts on two industrial spurs, and the Mediums off the diagonals and from the inner to the outer loop. That won't leave me enough, but I have four Atlas Turnouts roughly the size of the Medium Peco's that I can use for some spur tracks. 

The question is should I use them and mix them with the Peco turnouts or try to sell them and buy more Pecos?:SELLIT:


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> So I have reviewed my switches. I have a mixture of Peco Large Radius (2 LH and 1 RH), Medium (2 LH and 3 RH) and Small turnouts (1 LH and 1 RH), and a Medium 3-Way. I know that I didn't draw the layout with these size turnouts. I think I used all Medium. I think I will use the Large Radius LH from the outer to the inner Loop. The Small Radius Turnouts on two industrial spurs, and the Mediums off the diagonals and from the inner to the outer loop. That won't leave me enough, but I have four Atlas Turnouts roughly the size of the Medium Peco's that I can use for some spur tracks.
> 
> The question is should I use them and mix them with the Peco turnouts or try to sell them and buy more Pecos?:SELLIT:


Go back and redesign the layout if you're going to use different radius curves / turnouts than you used for the original plan. The geometry will be totally different and you will find that things don't line up otherwise.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> I was thinking about starting the climb after the turnout by the diamond, level off by the bridge at a height of 1/2”, continue the climb after the bridge and into the tunnel to a height of 1”, level off to the tunnel exit and start to decend to elevation 0 by the RH turnout over about 5 feet. Accent of 1” over 54” = 1.85%, decent of 1” over about 60” = 1.67%. The question is, will the aesthetics make it work the work? Different height tunnel portals, slightly elevated track. Would it be good to elevate the inner loop 1/2”? I think I could keep within 2% as well on the left side, though I would need to start the decent in the tunnel. I don’t think I can run too long of a train with the layout size unfortunately so I hope weight of the consist is a non issue.


Bridges and turnouts CAN be placed on a slope, turnouts must be level side to side. You can't have the diverging leg on a different slope plane than the rest of the turnout, making it tricky to manage.

Anything to add visual interest is a good thing, in my book, but whether the additional effort -- and possibly frustration -- is worth it, only you can answer. My recommendation -- you might be fine with any tweaking and troubleshooting necessary, but will your son have that kind of patience? You might be better off sticking with "simple".



Rabman said:


> “And with a slope that steep, you will probably need an easement. “
> 
> Thanks for the tip on easement.


If you keep your slope to 1.5%-ish as you indicate above, you won't need an easement.



Rabman said:


> “The second is the reversing loop (the section where the digital train is on your diagram). That will need special wiring, which isn't a big deal as long as you plan for it. But you can only reverse in one direction. A train going counter clockwise can turn by going through the reversing loop, but the only way...”
> 
> I am aware of the wiring issue. I will look of the details of wiring when I get to running the track.
> 
> I know that I can one reverse the direction as you described, but I thought it was better that not being able to reverse the trains at all.


Nothing wrong with what you did. I just wanted to be sure you were doing it consciously, and weren't headed for an "oh, crap" moment when you got the layout built.




Rabman said:


> Sorry for messing up the quoting of your message. Thanks.


Use the "Quote" button at the bottom. You can C&P the QUOTE terms in brackets to split the quote into multiple sections to respond separately to different sections, as I did above.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Go back and redesign the layout if you're going to use different radius curves / turnouts than you used for the original plan. The geometry will be totally different and you will find that things don't line up otherwise.


Yes last night I started to select the right turnouts in xtrackcad and realized the huge geometry mistakes I made. I must admit I am getting better using the software now! Lol


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Bridges and turnouts CAN be placed on a slope, turnouts must be level side to side. You can't have the diverging leg on a different slope plane than the rest of the turnout, making it tricky to manage.
> 
> Anything to add visual interest is a good thing, in my book, but whether the additional effort -- and possibly frustration -- is worth it, only you can answer. My recommendation -- you might be fine with any tweaking and troubleshooting necessary, but will your son have that kind of patience? You might be better off sticking with "simple".
> 
> If you keep your slope to 1.5%-ish as you indicate above, you won't need an easement.
> 
> Nothing wrong with what you did. I just wanted to be sure you were doing it consciously, and weren't headed for an "oh, crap" moment when you got the layout built.


Good to know about turnouts on slopes. I think I will keep mine off the slope. 

I think the tweaking will be a Dad job. My son has patience, but maybe not that much. 

I am like you, I like a lot of visual interest so I might do it. 

It’s good an easement isn’t required at that slope. 

Thanks for the quote advice. At least I did better on this response. I understand what you mean about copying and pasting, tough to do on iPhones. This reply was tough.


----------



## DonR

Use your good quality Peco turnouts for the tracks
with highest usage. Put the Atlas turnouts in
seldom used areas. But they also should be where
you can reach them to rerail locos and cars. Sorry,
but that's the way it is...

Don


----------



## Rabman

DonR said:


> Use your good quality Peco turnouts for the tracks
> with highest usage. Put the Atlas turnouts in
> seldom used areas. But they also should be where
> you can reach them to rerail locos and cars. Sorry,
> but that's the way it is...
> 
> Don


Thanks Don. I think I will open the piggy bank and buy two more Peco turnouts.


----------



## Rabman

*New track layout*

Attached are layout drawings using the proper Turnout types. Not as happy with the layout as the original. It has some weird curves. I am using snap track for the curves. Perhaps with flex track, I can make it look better.


----------



## CTValleyRR

If you're comfortable using flex track, then I would use that exclusively. As you've discovered, Snap Track (or any sectional track, for that matter) forces you into a rigid geometry, where flex track will let you develop smooth, sweeping curves which will look much better.

I'm assuming that your software has a flex track tool. Get to know how it works and use it to smooth things out. I think you will be happier. Make sure the tool will not let you install a turn tighter than your minimum radius, too. Most software allows you to set that up to keep you honest.

What are the two yellow sections? Areas where you can't get the track to fit? Flex track will take care of that problem, too.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> If you're comfortable using flex track, then I would use that exclusively. As you've discovered, Snap Track (or any sectional track, for that matter) forces you into a rigid geometry, where flex track will let you develop smooth, sweeping curves which will look much better.
> 
> I'm assuming that your software has a flex track tool. Get to know how it works and use it to smooth things out. I think you will be happier. Make sure the tool will not let you install a turn tighter than your minimum radius, too. Most software allows you to set that up to keep you honest.
> 
> What are the two yellow sections? Areas where you can't get the track to fit? Flex track will take care of that problem, too.


I am using xtrackcad. I am sure it must have flex track though I just haven't found it yet. I think in one of my future iterations, I will use some flex track. I used AnyRail, and I found it easy to used, just not xtrackcad just yet.

Not sure what the yellow sections are. I split a section of curve track in those two sections. It might be a warning message.


----------



## Nikola

It's a nice layout, and flex track will let you tweak it as desired.


----------



## Rabman

Thanks to everyone that has helped out. I have much more confidence that it is a good layout than I did starting. I will tweak the layout with flex track over the next week.


----------



## Rabman

*Now using Flex Track*

So I have spent some time to revise the layout with Flex track. Just one area I need to work out with a radius that is too small. Highlighted in yellow track.

I checked out trying to remove the cross over with a bridge but the grades were over 3.4%. So I redesigned the reverse loop to connect to the inner loop.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Is that red track an alert for where the curve is too sharp? If so, ease it out a bit by putting a little bit of an s curve in the reversing loop.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Is that red track an alert for where the curve is too sharp? If so, ease it out a bit by putting a little bit of an s curve in the reversing loop.


No I just had it selected when I exported the layout. The only issue is the small yellow section. I need to work on that curve a bit.


----------



## Nikola

I like it and am not sure what you mean by 'too sharp'. But then my HO layout has like 9" radius curves. 

Run that wye down the middle of the street like in the old-timey freight-trains-down-main-street days. Google images of the South Brooklyn railway and do a street view of Second Avenue in Brooklyn to see what I mean.

I would also run that one siding into the stream, like the far end of the siding was abandoned and washed away.

But I am weird like that.


----------



## Rabman

Is this the 2nd Ave area you were referring to?

I don’t think I will run the tracks into the river. My son would probably mayhem by running the train into it.


----------



## Rabman

Nikola said:


> I like it and am not sure what you mean by 'too sharp'. But then my HO layout has like 9" radius curves.
> But I am weird like that.


I prefer not to have a 9” radius in the layout to maximize the rolling stock options.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> I prefer not to have a 9” radius in the layout to maximize the rolling stock options.


Even at 18", you will have to be careful of overhang at tunnels and bridges, even if your rolling stock will physically handle the curves.


----------



## MichaelE

Yes, if you are running passenger service, full length 303mm cars will not look right on those curves and may sideswipe another train coming the other way. Lots of overhang with full length passenger cars on 18" curves.


----------



## Rabman

During my work on the layout, I came to realize that I was using 15" and 18" radius curves where I intended to use 20" and 22". I have most of the layout redrawn with them and have a bit of work to go.

How will passenger train coaches look on 20-22" radius curves? I am thinking that even those radius curves will be too small.

Even though I work in passenger rail, I might need to stick to shorter freight cars.

Thoughts?


----------



## DonR

I have one less than 22" radius curve but my 70 ft.
passenger cars have no trouble with it...even backing.
I'm not sure how the typical 80 ft cars would look.

Longer car ends protrude outward on small
radius curves, while their body
center sections hang over and can catch some
scenery.

Don


----------



## Rabman

DonR said:


> I have one less than 22" radius curve but my 70 ft.
> passenger cars have no trouble with it...even backing.
> I'm not sure how the typical 80 ft cars would look.
> 
> Longer car ends protrude outward on small
> radius curves, while their body
> center sections hang over and can catch some
> scenery.
> 
> Don


Thanks. Good to know!


----------



## MichaelE

22" and 24" radii are more suited to full length pax cars. My last layout had a max of 22" curves and Amtrak full size cars didn't look very good although they negotiated the curves with no troubles. Just way too much overhang to look good to me.

I'm hoping for better visuals with the 24" and partial 25" curves on my present layout. I have no rolling stock that length yet to see about that.


----------



## Nikola

Rabman said:


> Is this the 2nd Ave area you were referring to?
> 
> I don’t think I will run the tracks into the river. My son would probably mayhem by running the train into it.


Yes. Follow north from around 69 st to 39 st. You will still see signs of the R running down the middle of second avenue with sidings into buildings on either side. Until recently none of it was paved over and most was still cobblestone. Also go a block east to first avenue. At 39 st the tracks turned east and ran through what is now a parking lot under the BQE (the old 3rd avenue el) down an open cut and into the 39 st yard and the West End line. Much interesting trackage can still be seen using the Google.

And I would also run the train into the river at that age! Maybe even still.......


----------



## Nikola

Rabman said:


> I prefer not to have a 9” radius in the layout to maximize the rolling stock options.


Understood. Only weird folks like me have them that tight. Was just making the point that what you thought was too tight, relatively speaking, might be OK. That is ultimately for you to decide, of course.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> During my work on the layout, I came to realize that I was using 15" and 18" radius curves where I intended to use 20" and 22". I have most of the layout redrawn with them and have a bit of work to go.
> 
> How will passenger train coaches look on 20-22" radius curves? I am thinking that even those radius curves will be too small.
> 
> Even though I work in passenger rail, I might need to stick to shorter freight cars.
> 
> Thoughts?


One of the first issues of Model Railroad Hobbyist had an interesting analysis of car length vs curve radius. In brief:
2-1/2 times car length = Minimum for reliable operations
3 times car length = Reasonable inside overhang
4 times car length = Reasonable outside overhang
5 times car length = prototypical appearance and no issues with coupling on curves.

There are some models of mid-to-late 19th century coaches out there which are more like 50 scale feet long; once you get into the 20th century, you're in the neighborhood of 80'-ish length.

The only way to be certain how things will look is to get some samples and test.


----------



## Rabman

MichaelE said:


> 22" and 24" radii are more suited to full length pax cars. My last layout had a max of 22" curves and Amtrak full size cars didn't look very good although they negotiated the curves with no troubles. Just way too much overhang to look good to me.
> 
> I'm hoping for better visuals with the 24" and partial 25" curves on my present layout. I have no rolling stock that length yet to see about that.


Since my curves won’t be that large, I don’t think I will get any 80-85 ft coaches. 😞


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Rabman said:
> 
> 
> 
> During my work on the layout, I came to realize that I was using 15" and 18" radius curves where I intended to use 20" and 22". I have most of the layout redrawn with them and have a bit of work to go.
> 
> How will passenger train coaches look on 20-22" radius curves? I am thinking that even those radius curves will be too small.
> 
> Even though I work in passenger rail, I might need to stick to shorter freight cars.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the first issues of Model Railroad Hobbyist had an interesting analysis of car length vs curve radius. In brief:
> 2-1/2 times car length = Minimum for reliable operations
> 3 times car length = Reasonable inside overhang
> 4 times car length = Reasonable outside overhang
> 5 times car length = prototypical appearance and no issues with coupling on curves.
> 
> There are some models of mid-to-late 19th century coaches out there which are more like 50 scale feet long; once you get into the 20th century, you're in the neighborhood of 80'-ish length.
> 
> The only way to be certain how things will look is to get some samples and test.
Click to expand...

Does that mean a coach 8” Long would need a 32” radius (x4) for a reasonable outside overhang?


----------



## Rabman

*New track layout*

Well I tried to get a crossing in the design but could get it right and have larger curves. I redesign things with a 2nd radius inner curves and 3rd radius outer curves. I added the complete reverse loop track, so three tracks go through the mountain. I think it is looking pretty good. I don't have any elevations in the design just yet. The roads haven't been relocated yet. I do have a double slip switch but don't think I have any purpose or spot for it. It makes me sad because our Union Station in Toronto has a lot of them.


----------



## Dennis461

Rabman said:


> ..... I do have a *double slip switch* but don't think I have any purpose or spot for it. It makes me sad because our Union Station in Toronto has a lot of them.


Easy answer, put it right up front where you can see it in action.
Redraw entire layout from there


----------



## Rabman

Dennis461 said:


> Rabman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... I do have a *double slip switch* but don't think I have any purpose or spot for it. It makes me sad because our Union Station in Toronto has a lot of them.
> 
> 
> 
> Easy answer, put it right up front where you can see it in action.
> Redraw entire layout from there <img src="http://www.modeltrainforum.com/images/smilies/redface.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Embarrassment" class="inlineimg" />
Click to expand...

That is great out of the box thinking 😁


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> Does that mean a coach 8” Long would need a 32” radius (x4) for a reasonable outside overhang?


Exactly right.


----------



## MtRR75

I just found this thread. I have three suggestions.

(1) Regarding long passenger cars and curves... In addition to the radius of the curve, you need to consider the separation distance between the "parallel" curves, where 2 or 3 tracks are curving side-by side. There are guidelines for this separation distance, but clearance is highly dependent on the length of your longest cars and where the trucks are mounted under the body of those cars.

The best way to figure this out is to temporarily attach sections of parallel curved tracks to a flat base (using your desired radii). Then put two of your longest cars on adjacent tracks and scoot them back and forth past each other to check for clearance. I found that the most likely collision was when the overhanging end of the car in the inner curve met the overhanging center of the car on the outer curve.

(2) On your latest track plan, you have three tracks going through tunnels on the mountain. I think it would make a much more interesting layout if you cut back the mountain so that the inner most track runs over the river on a bridge. Then you could have the river drop over a waterfall just behind the bridge then flow under the bridge.

(3) You have tracks running very close to the edge of your table. I suggest clear Plexiglas sides to prevent trains from hitting the floor. Mine only stick up about 2" above the table, but it is enough to catch anything that derails or gets accidentally bumped -- which WILL happen.

Glass shops sell Plexiglas. You can cut it on a table saw and sand and drill holes in it as you would wood. Or you can pay the glass shop to cut them for you. You can see what the Plexiglas sides look line in my "My Layout" thread. They show up in several pictures of Post #18.

http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?t=91833&page=2


----------



## Rabman

MtRR75 said:


> I just found this thread. I have three suggestions.
> 
> (1) Regarding long passenger cars and curves... In addition to the radius of the curve, you need to consider the separation distance between the "parallel" curves, where 2 or 3 tracks are curving side-by side. There are guidelines for this separation distance, but clearance is highly dependent on the length of your longest cars and where the trucks are mounted under the body of those cars.
> 
> The best way to figure this out is to temporarily attach sections of parallel curved tracks to a flat base (using your desired radii). Then put two of your longest cars on adjacent tracks and scoot them back and forth past each other to check for clearance. I found that the most likely collision was when the overhanging end of the car in the inner curve met the overhanging center of the car on the outer curve.
> 
> (2) On your latest track plan, you have three tracks going through tunnels on the mountain. I think it would make a much more interesting layout if you cut back the mountain so that the inner most track runs over the river on a bridge. Then you could have the river drop over a waterfall just behind the bridge then flow under the bridge.
> 
> (3) You have tracks running very close to the edge of your table. I suggest clear Plexiglas sides to prevent trains from hitting the floor. Mine only stick up about 2" above the table, but it is enough to catch anything that derails or gets accidentally bumped -- which WILL happen.
> 
> Glass shops sell Plexiglas. You can cut it on a table saw and sand and drill holes in it as you would wood. Or you can pay the glass shop to cut them for you. You can see what the Plexiglas sides look line in my "My Layout" thread. They show up in several pictures of Post #18.
> 
> https://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?t=91833&page=2


Thanks for all your advice. I especially liked the suggestion about moving the 3rd track outside the tunnel. I have redesigned the layout to do that. I think I will need to get creative on the bridge designs.


----------



## CTValleyRR

I think that's a very serviceable design for a first layout. Maybe relocate the river slightly so that it's not quite so close to the turnout points, especially if you're planning to use under the table switch machines.

Otherwise, since your son is probably eagerly awaiting this, I'd say get building and run it for a while to see how you like it.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> I think that's a very serviceable design for a first layout. Maybe relocate the river slightly so that it's not quite so close to the turnout points, especially if you're planning to use under the table switch machines.


Good idea and point about the switch machine. Thanks


----------



## Rabman

So here is the design with the bridges moved. I think this may be the keeper.

I went out an bought the flex track and wood to make the bench-work today. I think I am going to start out making this DC, not DCC. I do intend on making it DCC in the future.

Any advice in where to locate the seams on the bench-work? I am intending on making it in a few segments as I don't believe I can get a 4x8 sheet of plywood or foam down the stairs of my basement.

The steps I intend on following are:



[/
Build the bench work
Install plywood on the top of the bench work
Glue foam to the plywood
Prime the foam and bench work
Lay out the track layout on the foam
pin the track to the foam to try out the layout to see if there are clearance issues
Install the cork and glue it down
Glue track down to the cork.
Cut out the foam for the river and install the bridges
Install scenery.
LIST]

This list isn't meant to be exhaustive. I have left out wiring, etc.

Thoughts?


----------



## CTValleyRR

Just to make sure you know, you don't NEED plywood under the foam. L-girder joists on 18" centers is plenty strong enough.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Just to make sure you know, you don't NEED plywood under the foam. L-girder joists on 18" centers is plenty strong enough.


I am aware of that design. I was intending to use plywood to make it more durable because I have wonky floors, so I need it a little stiffer. See my next post for the detailed design.


----------



## Rabman

So here are some updated CAD drawings showing the bench work super imposed with the plywood base showing and not showing. The different colours are the four pieces of plywood to facilitate getting it in to the basement. The plywood does go over the bench work, but I have it below the layer level of the bench work so it is visible. It doesn't appear there is any interference with the under surface switch machines I will have. Though some is close, about 1-1/4" away from track centerline.

The bench work will be constructed with 1"x 3-1/2" fascia, shown in brown (Notty Pine), and 1" x 1-7/8" (Notty Pine or plywood) bench work structure and 2" x 3" (Pine). I am using 5/8" plywood underlay with 1" blue foam above it. The plywood will butt up against the inner edge of the fascia board and sit on top of the bench work. The top of the fascia is at the top of the foam elevation.

I will glue and screw everything.

I will see if there is too much deflection in the arrangement. I am intending on having either 4 or 6 legs depending on how it turns out. If I do, I will beef up the structure afterwards a bit. 

Any thoughts on the whether you think the design as is will be problematic?


----------



## Rabman

So I worked with my son and we got most of the lumber cut for the benchwork. 

Progress!


----------



## MtRR75

Rabman said:


> I will glue and screw everything


A few suggestions for benchwork construction.

(1) Don't glue the benchwork together -- especially the legs. Screws are plenty strong enough. Unglued benchwork is easy to partly disassemble if needed for corrections, changes or for moving the layout.

(2) Put some 1x2" diagonal supports on the legs -- in both directions. They will keep the table from wiggling when bumped. Wiggling can derail a train. The diagonals don't have to go all the way to the floor -- half way down is plenty strong enough -- and still leaves you room to get under the table for wiring.

(3) Put screw-in feet on the bottoms of your legs -- the kind that can be adjusted by just turning them. This will make it easy to level your layout -- and re-level it if you move it. A layout that is not level means that trains will struggle uphill somewhere on the layout.

(4) Put some 3/4" or 1" holes in your vertical supports under the table -- for running wires through. Easier to drill before assembly.


----------



## Rabman

MtRR75 said:


> Rabman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will glue and screw everything
> 
> 
> 
> A few suggestions for benchwork construction.
> 
> (1) Don't glue the benchwork together -- especially the legs. Screws are plenty strong enough. Unglued benchwork is easy to partly disassemble if needed for corrections, changes or for moving the layout.
> 
> (2) Put some 1x2" diagonal supports on the legs -- in both directions. They will keep the table from wiggling when bumped. Wiggling can derail a train. The diagonals don't have to go all the way to the floor -- half way down is plenty strong enough -- and still leaves you room to get under the table for wiring.
> 
> (3) Put screw-in feet on the bottoms of your legs -- the kind that can be adjusted by just turning them. This will make it easy to level your layout -- and re-level it if you move it. A layout that is not level means that trains will struggle uphill somewhere on the layout.
> 
> (4) Put some 3/4" or 1" holes in your vertical supports under the table -- for running wires through. Easier to drill before assembly.
Click to expand...

Using your numbers:

1) how ofteb would you screw the plywood to the verticals? I was thinking every 8” or so. 

2) good point

3) good point

4) what size holes would you do? Is 3-4, 1/2” diameter holes sufficient? I don’t want to go too large as the verticals are only 1-7/8”. 

Thanks for your advice.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> Using your numbers:
> 
> 1) how ofteb would you screw the plywood to the verticals? I was thinking every 8” or so.
> 
> 2) good point
> 
> 3) good point
> 
> 4) what size holes would you do? Is 3-4, 1/2” diameter holes sufficient? I don’t want to go too large as the verticals are only 1-7/8”.
> 
> Thanks for your advice.


Well, I've already noted that plywood isn't necessary. It's actually too flexible to add any rigidity, especially if it's less than 3/4" thick. You can obtain the same rigidity with a few triangular gussets in the corners. But whatever.

It's important that you keep something in mind as you work: if it holds together, it's good. You're not building a storm shelter or earthquake protection here. Most bench work is vastly overengineered for what is going to go on top of it, and therefore much heavier and more expensive than it needs to be. 1 screw every 8" or so is fine.

If your floor is a little wonky, the screw-in feet are about the best investment you can make. The low tech solution is to buy a bunch of shims and slip them under the legs as necessary.

As far as holes for wiring, again, it depends on what you're doing. If you think you need to run wires with a suitcase connector already attached, then your holes need to be big enough to accommodate these. Likewise, if you want to run RC cables controlling your turnouts (a solution I highly recommend, BTW), then the holes need to be sufficiently large to feed the connectors through. 5/8" should cover just about anything.

But again, that's not strictly necessary. Some folks are much fussier about wiring than others are. Personally, I just tack it to the joists, and I'm fine with the gentle loops of slack that hang down an inch or so. YMMV.


----------



## MtRR75

Screws every 8" is fine.

As for holes in your verticals, since your verticals are only 1 7/8", I would not bother to drill holes. Just let the wires loop below the verticals. (My verticals are 3.5", so I used holes.)


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Rabman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using your numbers:
> 
> 1) how ofteb would you screw the plywood to the verticals? I was thinking every 8” or so.
> 
> 2) good point
> 
> 3) good point
> 
> 4) what size holes would you do? Is 3-4, 1/2” diameter holes sufficient? I don’t want to go too large as the verticals are only 1-7/8”.
> 
> Thanks for your advice.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've already noted that plywood isn't necessary. It's actually too flexible to add any rigidity, especially if it's less than 3/4" thick. You can obtain the same rigidity with a few triangular gussets in the corners. But whatever.
> 
> It's important that you keep something in mind as you work: if it holds together, it's good. You're not building a storm shelter or earthquake protection here. Most bench work is vastly overengineered for what is going to go on top of it, and therefore much heavier and more expensive than it needs to be. 1 screw every 8" or so is fine.
> 
> If your floor is a little wonky, the screw-in feet are about the best investment you can make. The low tech solution is to buy a bunch of shims and slip them under the legs as necessary.
> 
> As far as holes for wiring, again, it depends on what you're doing. If you think you need to run wires with a suitcase connector already attached, then your holes need to be big enough to accommodate these. Likewise, if you want to run RC cables controlling your turnouts (a solution I highly recommend, BTW), then the holes need to be sufficiently large to feed the connectors through. 5/8" should cover just about anything.
> 
> But again, that's not strictly necessary. Some folks are much fussier about wiring than others are. Personally, I just tack it to the joists, and I'm fine with the gentle loops of slack that hang down an inch or so. YMMV.
Click to expand...

Well I am an engineer. We over design everything!

How would RC cable work with my switch layout? I need to control all the switches from the bump out near the reverse loop entrance. Is there a way to control the force exerted on the switch points. I do have a 4-year old. 5 by the time the switches are installed. Lol

I have already decided not to control the turnouts with DCC. I was thinking about using toggle switches on a control panel.


----------



## Rabman

MtRR75 said:


> Screws every 8" is fine.
> 
> As for holes in your verticals, since your verticals are only 1 7/8", I would not bother to drill holes. Just let the wires loop below the verticals. (My verticals are 3/5", so I used holes.)


Thanks


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> Well I am an engineer. We over design everything!
> 
> How would RC cable work with my switch layout? I need to control all the switches from the bump out near the reverse loop entrance. Is there a way to control the force exerted on the switch points. I do have a 4-year old. 5 by the time the switches are installed. Lol
> 
> I have already decided not to control the turnouts with DCC. I was thinking about using toggle switches on a control panel.


There are several options to do this. My preferred solution is micro servo motors from Tam Valley Depot. These are just about as plug-and-play as you can get in this hobby.

Basically, you install a servo motor under each turnout, with a wire protruding up through the table and through the hole in the throwbar of each turnout.

The servos are connected to a controller card (the Octo III), with one card controlling up to 8 servos. The controller card is connected to a push button and LED indicator light, which can either be mounted on the fascia or a separate panel. Standard RC cables (widely available on the internet) are used to make all these connections.

Check out the website here: www.tamvalleydepot.com If it looks like the direction you want to go let me know (either here or PM). I can provide pix and further advice.


----------



## MichaelE

I would rather over-engineer than under-engineer. 

My tables are strong enough to support me crawling around on them when I was drawing out the track diagram on the plywood sheets before cutting. I want a rock solid table with absolutely no movement. 

When I was a kid I always had table problems because I didn't know how to build a structurally sound table for my plywood. This led to track problems and derailments.

I learned a long time ago that an operationally sound railroad begins with the table and the base.


----------



## CTValleyRR

MichaelE said:


> I would rather over-engineer than under-engineer.
> 
> My tables are strong enough to support me crawling around on them when I was drawing out the track diagram on the plywood sheets before cutting. I want a rock solid table with absolutely no movement.
> 
> When I was a kid I always had table problems because I didn't know how to build a structurally sound table for my plywood. This led to track problems and derailments.
> 
> I learned a long time ago that an operationally sound railroad begins with the table and the base.


No argument. But my benchwork and table top is rock solid, with only 2x2 legs, angle braces, and L-girder joists. It will hold my weight (225 lbs) with ease.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> There are several options to do this. My preferred solution is micro servo motors from Tam Valley Depot. These are just about as plug-and-play as you can get in this hobby.
> 
> Basically, you install a servo motor under each turnout, with a wire protruding up through the table and through the hole in the throwbar of each turnout.
> 
> The servos are connected to a controller card (the Octo III), with one card controlling up to 8 servos. The controller card is connected to a push button and LED indicator light, which can either be mounted on the fascia or a separate panel. Standard RC cables (widely available on the internet) are used to make all these connections.
> 
> Check out the website here: www.tamvalleydepot.com If it looks like the direction you want to go let me know (either here or PM). I can provide pix and further advice.


The stuff you noted above seems very interesting and reasonably prices. Not sure how much shipping would be to Canada though. How do these servos compare to the Tortoise ones?

When you were talking about RC cable, I thought you were talking about rigid wire that goes through a plastic sleeve. Which is why I asked the question I did.

Thanks for the info. When I get to that stage, I will ask more questions.


----------



## Rabman

So here is the progress on the benchwork so far. Happy with the way it is coming together.

I still have some plywood to install on the top and the fascia. Then the legs.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> The stuff you noted above seems very interesting and reasonably prices. Not sure how much shipping would be to Canada though. How do these servos compare to the Tortoise ones?
> 
> When you were talking about RC cable, I thought you were talking about rigid wire that goes through a plastic sleeve. Which is why I asked the question I did.
> 
> Thanks for the info. When I get to that stage, I will ask more questions.


Tortoises are a somewhat different animal, although they work similarly, but in my one try, I found them much more difficult to wire. Pricing is comparable at around $18 per turnout (the servos are cheaper, but add in the price of the Octo III and the other equipment), depending on what kind of quantity discount you can get.

Can't say about shipping to Canada, though (although another member who lives in Ghana managed to get some shipped there without too much fuss). Send them an e-mail and inquire; they're very good about responding to e-mails.


----------



## Rabman

This is what it’s all about. Dad/Son time.


----------



## sid

ya letting the lil ones do stuff is very good . they get a great time helping and use the big boy tools. coming along nicely


----------



## Rabman

So I am have done a minor redesign of the trackwork with two options. I can add a curved turnout at the bottom to add a spot for storage of one railcar, or locomotive. Or a second option of adding the curved turnout and a double-slip switch to store a potential of 3 locomotives near the top of the layout. I have a spare curved turnout and double-slip switch, which is why I selected them. The one track is right at the edge of the layout but I will have some edge protection there.

What are your thoughts? I have highlighted the options in red.

As an aside, the xTrackCad software has ST-245 curved turnouts in the library, but the one I have is a ST-243. I have read that the 245 replaced the 243. Does anyone know if they are the same dimension wise?


----------



## CTValleyRR

Can't help with the turnouts, sorry.

In the upper right, I'm assuming that's a double-slip turnout, not a crossing, but in any event the tails on the turnouts really aren't long enough to do any good. You could shove a lone car (with the loco trailing) into the the stubs on the right, but the one to the left is unusable for anything but a lone loco. I would just out one simple siding up there, and not try to cram in extra track. It doesn't add any value.

Also, you need to make sure you wire that reverse loop in the center correctly, you you will have a short. Can't remember if that has been pointed out already.


----------



## Rabman

SO the benchwork is progressing. I have the legs on it. Quite sturdy.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Can't help with the turnouts, sorry.
> 
> In the upper right, I'm assuming that's a double-slip turnout, not a crossing, but in any event the tails on the turnouts really aren't long enough to do any good. You could shove a lone car (with the loco trailing) into the the stubs on the right, but the one to the left is unusable for anything but a lone loco. I would just out one simple siding up there, and not try to cram in extra track. It doesn't add any value.
> 
> Also, you need to make sure you wire that reverse loop in the center correctly, you you will have a short. Can't remember if that has been pointed out already.


I was aware that I would only be able to use them for locos. I have the double-slip switch and hoping to use it. 

Someone did advise me of the reverse loop. 

Thanks


----------



## Nikola

Rabman said:


> So I am have done a minor redesign of the trackwork with two options. I can add a curved turnout at the bottom to add a spot for storage of one railcar, or locomotive. Or a second option of adding the curved turnout and a double-slip switch to store a potential of 3 locomotives near the top of the layout. I have a spare curved turnout and double-slip switch, which is why I selected them. The one track is right at the edge of the layout but I will have some edge protection there.
> 
> What are your thoughts? I have highlighted the options in red.
> 
> As an aside, the xTrackCad software has ST-245 curved turnouts in the library, but the one I have is a ST-243. I have read that the 245 replaced the 243. Does anyone know if they are the same dimension wise?


I like it. Nothing like a double-slip switch. Perhaps extend the upper left red siding by curving it downward. Could be a track in the middle of a street as in an industrial area.


----------



## Rabman

So I have made some progress over the long weekend. I have the benchwork mostly complete. I have the foam cut and ready to glue down. One of the things I have noticed, many people have the writing on the foam on the top. I was wondering if there was any reason for them doing that. I did notice how I have it oriented, there is a little 3 inch wide bump lengthwise on the foam about an 1/8” high. I may reorient the foam to have the bump on the bottom. Might have issues with that as well though. Can you sand the foam?

Also redesigning the track plan to take out the double-slip switch from the top right. I may put it in the industry track on the right side. Still toying with the idea. 

I have watched a number of videos on laying track. 

I may need some help on where to install insulated joints in the coming weekend and some wiring advice once I finalize the track layout. 

One concern I have is where I have the river and bridges crossing it. From the plywood to the bottom of the ties, I will have about 1-1/4” elevation difference. Is that enough? I think I will need a girder bridge or truss bridge. Any thoughts?

I also got evicted from the rec room for the layout. My wife didn’t like it. It is now in the basement bedroom. It will work out nicer.


----------



## Rabman

One other item. The middle of the benchwork does deflect about an 1/8” when I push Down on it with a fair amount of weight. Is that an issue? I can put center legs in if it is.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> One other item. The middle of the benchwork does deflect about an 1/8” when I push Down on it with a fair amount of weight. Is that an issue? I can put center legs in if it is.


Really, that's tough to answer. Did you use joists and plywood as you originally intended? If so, did you orient the joists perpendicular to the plane of the plywood? Did you glue your foam to your plywood? If so, there should be no flexing.

If it's the foam rocking back and forth in the frame with the pressure of your hand as you lean on it, then you should probably glue it down. If you're actually flexing the structure using many pounds of force, then you should be fine -- you won't have that much weight on it.

To answer some of your other questions:
1) It doesn't matter which side of the foam faces up. Most people cover the foam with a thin layer of something to make more realistic terrain (I use Sculptamold). If you're just going to paint the foam, then plain side up is better, since the printing often leaves a slight imprint in the foam surface, which may be visible after painting.
2) The bump is probably dimensional differences in the foam sheets, and reorienting it to the bottom won't fix it. You can smooth / shape foam with a rasp or coarse sanding block. That's why it's so popular.
3) Only you can say whether 1-1/4" is "deep" enough for your river valley. That's about 9 feet in HO. Many trains run closer to the water surface than that. Your water itself will only be about 1/8" thick, so that's not a problem. You can use whatever bridge suits your fancy, including a scratch-built arrangement. The track itself is actually strong enough to span short distances; the structure is mostly for show.
4) Track laying isn't hard. Take your time and do a good job. Assuming you'll be using DCC, the easiest solution to the reversing loop is just to insulate gaps at the ends of the turnout legs and wire the whole loop to the reversing unit.
5) I assume you learned your lesson on making layout decisions without consulting the boss. Don't do that again.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Really, that's tough to answer. Did you use joists and plywood as you originally intended? If so, did you orient the joists perpendicular to the plane of the plywood? Did you glue your foam to your plywood? If so, there should be no flexing.
> 
> If it's the foam rocking back and forth in the frame with the pressure of your hand as you lean on it, then you should probably glue it down. If you're actually flexing the structure using many pounds of force, then you should be fine -- you won't have that much weight on it.
> 
> To answer some of your other questions:
> 1) It doesn't matter which side of the foam faces up. Most people cover the foam with a thin layer of something to make more realistic terrain (I use Sculptamold). If you're just going to paint the foam, then plain side up is better, since the printing often leaves a slight imprint in the foam surface, which may be visible after painting.


Good to know.



CTValleyRR said:


> 2) The bump is probably dimensional differences in the foam sheets, and reorienting it to the bottom won't fix it. You can smooth / shape foam with a rasp or coarse sanding block. That's why it's so popular.


I will try a sanding block.



CTValleyRR said:


> 3) Only you can say whether 1-1/4" is "deep" enough for your river valley. That's about 9 feet in HO. Many trains run closer to the water surface than that. Your water itself will only be about 1/8" thick, so that's not a problem. You can use whatever bridge suits your fancy, including a scratch-built arrangement. The track itself is actually strong enough to span short distances; the structure is mostly for show.


I would love a deeper river valley. Would it be worth it to cut in to the plywood to do it?



CTValleyRR said:


> 4) Track laying isn't hard. Take your time and do a good job. Assuming you'll be using DCC, the easiest solution to the reversing loop is just to insulate gaps at the ends of the turnout legs and wire the whole loop to the reversing unit.


That was what I was thinking but wasn't sure. I will research connecting a reversing unit.



CTValleyRR said:


> 5) I assume you learned your lesson on making layout decisions without consulting the boss. Don't do that again.


Well I did consult with the boss. They just changed their mind when they saw the size. That is their prerogative I am told. LOL


----------



## Rabman

Well the foam is all glued down...hopefully well enough. I certainly would not recommend using the stuff I did. Stay away from Lepage No More Nails...the stuff did not flow as well as regular caulking or any other tubed adhesive I have used before. Be warned. Hopefully it adheres well enough.


----------



## Rook

Rabman said:


> This is what it’s all about. Dad/Son time.


Can I ask why you choose HO? Your little guy is on a computer already? Nice bench.


----------



## Rabman

Rook said:


> Can I ask why you choose HO? Your little guy is on a computer already? Nice bench.


I chose HO because I personally find N-Gauge:

1) too small to deal with. 
2) It's too delicate for my son and to rerail stuff.
3) I also have a bunch of HO from my childhood (nothing fancy) that I would like my son to play with. Most of the track I had was brass, so that will not be used and will be sold if I can find a buyer.
4) I think (may be wrong) that the availability of HO stuff is greater.

I like that N-Gauge is compact and the layout doesn't take as much space in the house though.

Yes my son can operate some basic functions on a computer, and likes to say "Hey Google, play Thomas the Train on the Family Room TV" through our google home.

Thanks for the bench compliment.


----------



## Rook

I bought a bachman steam starter set in HO. The space issue drove me to N. I'm surprised how easy the N was to get used to. The autorailer makes it easy to slip cars on the track gently. Doubt I will be doing much drilling on my locos however lol. They are not cheap!


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> I would love a deeper river valley. Would it be worth it to cut in to the plywood to do it?


Again, that's up to you. It's not hard to do that with a jigsaw. The only trick is that you have to make it waterproof or the resins we use to make water will escape... and that's a real mess. You can also add another layer of foam on top of the first.



Rabman said:


> Well I did consult with the boss. They just changed their mind when they saw the size. That is their prerogative I am told. LOL


NO!!! That's *never* happened before! :laugh: At least she didn't wait until you were finished and then say, "that wasn't really what I wanted".


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Again, that's up to you. It's not hard to do that with a jigsaw. The only trick is that you have to make it waterproof or the resins we use to make water will escape... and that's a real mess. You can also add another layer of foam on top of the first.
> 
> 
> 
> NO!!! That's *never* happened before! :laugh: At least she didn't wait until you were finished and then say, "that wasn't really what I wanted".


It is hard to believe!


----------



## Lemonhawk

why not add another layer of foam and put the river in it rather than cut into the benchwork?


----------



## Rabman

Lemonhawk said:


> why not add another layer of foam and put the river in it rather than cut into the benchwork?


I think for a few reasons:
1) I already put the fascia on the perimeter to be flush with the 1" of foam I have.
2) I would need to buy one or two more sheets of foam at $35 each.
3) It would raise the layout another inch which I would prefer not to do.
4) It wouldn't be too much work to cut in to the plywood top with a jig saw.

Attached is a x-section of what I am thinking. The blue hatched section is plywood and the red section is the blue foam. I would water proof the foam section and the side walls would be scuptamold or plaster clothed to look like rocks.


----------



## Rabman

*Progress*

So after a short vacation and some track layout redesign I started to lay out the track centrelines on the benchwork. Seems to be going well so far. I haven’t done the big curves a thing the ends as I am waiting for a soldering iron I bought to arrive. Then I can sold r the flex track before I bend them to prevent any kinks. I am also getting some plaster cloth and wire for the power feeds. I intend to solder the feeds to the bottom of the rails. I also bought some woodlands scenic 2% starter strips and risers for the two loops that go over the rivers. Once I get reassured the track layout is workable, I will install the risers, put plaster cloth over them, install the.cork trackbed, then install the tracks. It will take me a while to do all of that.


----------



## sid

wahoo its coming along .


----------



## Rabman

*More progress!*

So I made some more progress today. I got some risers installed and cork roadbed. Also laid out the reverse loop. 

If anyone has suggestions, let me know.


----------



## Rabman

One of my next steps will be to put plaster cloth over the risers. Does anyone have any suggestions? The starter risers are quite small at the thin edge. Should I reserve the cloth for further up the riser and just put joint compound near the thin edge?


----------



## Magic

I put the plaster cloth down about one inch beyond the start of the riser, made for a smoother transition.
I also used a sanding block to cut down the top of the incline and the riser to make that smother as well. 
I cut back the riser about an inch and a half. Just enough to lessen the sharp angle.

I also put the cloth all the down to the base of the table to get rid of those open areas.

Magic


----------



## Rabman

Magic said:


> I also used a sanding block to cut down the top of the incline and the riser to make that smother as well.
> I cut back the riser about an inch and a half. Just enough to lessen the sharp angle.
> Magic


I am not sure if I understand what you mean by this. Are you referring to the transition from the sloped portion to the level portion? What grit sandpaper do you use?

Thanks


----------



## Magic

Correct, from the incline to the level riser. Cut into the level riser
just enough to smooth out the transition from incline to level.
I used one of those coarse foam rubber sanding blocks.

Magic


----------



## Rabman

Thanks


----------



## Rabman

*Reversing Loop / Insulated Joint question*

So I have a bit of a question. See attached photos for locations. 

On my reversing loop, I can install the insulated joints at location “A” or “B”. Location “B” would include the spur tracks and the 3-way switch which I don’t think is necessary. The other issue is the curves turnout starting at B, appears to have molded in rail joiner which I am concerned about removing and causing damage to the turnout. 

Is there any downside putting the insulators at “A”? It also seems tougher to install them directly under turnout ties as they are close to the end of the rails. The longest train to go through the loop would probably be the length of the spur tracks.

Thoughts?


----------



## Rabman

Also, are there any electrical concerns wrt to double slip switch in the reversing loop? Any need for insulated joints around it?


----------



## Dennis461

*need more info*

Can you post entire layout plan? I thought there were at least two reverse loops in original design.

DC or DCC?


----------



## Rabman

Dennis461 said:


> Can you post entire layout plan? I thought there were at least two reverse loops in original design.
> 
> DC or DCC?


I am going to go with DCC. Possibly I may start out with DC if it is not a lot of wasted work.

Here is the layout that I think I am going with. The orientation of some of the spur lines may change a bit depending on the industries I buy. That will be the last sections I lay the track on which is why I didn't put cork down in those areas.


----------



## DonR

No problem with the slip turnouts within the
reverse loop. You would need insulated joiners
at 'A' (just above the lower turnout) and just
below the upper turnout. The entire set of attached spurs
would all be powered thru your reverse loop
controller.

I would advise going with DCC from the outset
since you have the reverse loop in the design. You
would need to set up a fairly complex set of
switches for it if you started with DC.

Don


----------



## Dennis461

*First look give me this*

DC will be complicated, but doable.
My discussion is in regards DC.
At least four main blocks needed.
With DC, you connect a non reversing power supply, then have one reversing toggle switch for each block.

e.g. a simple loop is one block, need one reversing toggle switch. (This is why many power packs have one throttle control and one reversing toggle switch.
An outside loop and inside loop, is two blocks. The outside train can run forward (clockwise CW), the inside can run reverse.
S0 one reversing toggle for each loop.

If you want two different speeds, each block gets it;s own variable power supply. This is why some power packs have two throttle and two reversing switches.

Now add two reversing loops like yours, two more reversing toggle switches. 
I see a RED and a GREEN loop, insulated joiner minimum in picture. Combine pictures to get all insulated spots.

Now, any track, spur connected inside the rev. loop can stay connected as long as the train cannot get out of the reversing loop.

I am not familiar with DCC, but your layout may be complicated enough to make the switch (pun intended) away from DC.


----------



## Rabman

DonR said:


> No problem with the slip turnouts within the
> reverse loop. You would need insulated joiners
> at 'A' (just above the lower turnout) and just
> below the upper turnout. The entire set of attached spurs
> would all be powered thru your reverse loop
> controller.
> 
> I would advise going with DCC from the outset
> since you have the reverse loop in the design. You
> would need to set up a fairly complex set of
> switches for it if you started with DC.
> 
> Don


Thanks for the advice Don.


----------



## Rabman

Dennis461 said:


> DC will be complicated, but doable.
> My discussion is in regards DC.
> At least four main blocks needed.
> With DC, you connect a non reversing power supply, then have one reversing toggle switch for each block.
> 
> e.g. a simple loop is one block, need one reversing toggle switch. (This is why many power packs have one throttle control and one reversing toggle switch.
> An outside loop and inside loop, is two blocks. The outside train can run forward (clockwise CW), the inside can run reverse.
> S0 one reversing toggle for each loop.
> 
> If you want two different speeds, each block gets it;s own variable power supply. This is why some power packs have two throttle and two reversing switches.
> 
> Now add two reversing loops like yours, two more reversing toggle switches.
> I see a RED and a GREEN loop, insulated joiner minimum in picture. Combine pictures to get all insulated spots.
> 
> Now, any track, spur connected inside the rev. loop can stay connected as long as the train cannot get out of the reversing loop.
> 
> I am not familiar with DCC, but your layout may be complicated enough to make the switch (pun intended) away from DC.


Well that sounds very complicated for an interim period. I might bite the bullet and go DCC from the outset. 

Thanks


----------



## MtRR75

Rabman said:


> I am going to go with DCC. Possibly I may start out with DC if it is not a lot of wasted work.


If you are going to switch to DCC, do it now -- unless you really like wiring.

Your layout is remarkably similar to mine, which is wired for DC.









I have 16 blocks, 17 turnouts, and a reversing track. This requires 16 block switches, 15 turnout switches, 4 directional switches, and 48 wires from the control panel to the layout (32 for power control and 16 for turnout control).

If you follow Dennis' recommendation for your insulated joiners you will have 7 blocks. If you want to park locos on any of the sidings (and have them stay put) you will have to insulate those tracks, as well. That would give you as many as 15 blocks. This would require 32 wires for power control.

If you stick to DCC, you only need two insulating joiners -- one at your "B" and the other at the other end of the diagonal track, just before it rejoins the inner loop. This would give you just two blocks, requiring only 4 wires for power control.

P.S. If you really hate wiring, you can leave the turnouts unwired and move them manually as needed. You can always add remote turnout control later.


----------



## Rabman

MtRR75 said:


> If you are going to switch to DCC, do it now -- unless you really like wiring.
> 
> Your layout is remarkably similar to mine, which is wired for DC.
> 
> View attachment 461230
> 
> 
> I have 16 blocks, 17 turnouts, and a reversing track. This requires 16 block switches, 15 turnout switches, 4 directional switches, and 48 wires from the control panel to the layout (32 for power control and 16 for turnout control).
> 
> If you follow Dennis' recommendation for your insulated joiners you will have 7 blocks. If you want to park locos on any of the sidings (and have them stay put) you will have to insulate those tracks, as well. That would give you as many as 15 blocks. This would require 32 wires for power control.
> 
> If you stick to DCC, you only need two insulating joiners -- one at your "B" and the other at the other end of the diagonal track, just before it rejoins the inner loop. This would give you just two blocks, requiring only 4 wires for power control.
> 
> P.S. If you really hate wiring, you can leave the turnouts unwired and move them manually as needed. You can always add remote turnout control later.


I think you guys are definitely steering me to DCC. I am not afraid aid of the wiring but want to run trains sooner than later. I am going to use electric turnouts. Thanks


----------



## sid

ill 2nd an third dcc i really like although im really new to n scale . it was super easy for me just plug an play basically mine is simple layout nothing complex


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> I think you guys are definitely steering me to DCC. I am not afraid aid of the wiring but want to run trains sooner than later. I am going to use electric turnouts. Thanks


Presumably you mean you want the turnouts driven by switch machines -- tortoise, servomotors, or similar? This isn't hard either. If you are going to use under the layout machines, drill a 3/8" hole under the throwbar of each turnout before laying track. It will make installation of the machines much easier.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Presumably you mean you want the turnouts driven by switch machines -- tortoise, servomotors, or similar? This isn't hard either. If you are going to use under the layout machines, drill a 3/8" hole under the throwbar of each turnout before laying track. It will make installation of the machines much easier.


Yes. I am not sure if I am going to use tortoise or tam valley servos. Any idea which would work out cheaper all in with the dcc electronics and motors?


----------



## Rabman

*Plaster Clothe*

So I have made progress and got 2/3rd of the plaster cloth over the risers. 

Hopefully I did a good enough job.


----------



## Rabman

*Rotate photos*

Any idea how to rotate the photos when posting? They show the proper orientation on my iPhone.


----------



## sid

i use my computer to adjust photos . thats the only way i know. love how your layout is coming along. im watching hahahah Thanks for posting pics ect. really enjoy watching it come along .


----------



## Rabman

sid said:


> i use my computer to adjust photos . thats the only way i know. love how your layout is coming along. im watching hahahah Thanks for posting pics ect. really enjoy watching it come along .


Thanks for the compliments. I will keep posting as I go along. Hopefully the trains don't derail once I finally get the tracks put in place.


----------



## Rabman

Does anyone know of a nice looking 2-track Car/Locomotive shop building?


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> Yes. I am not sure if I am going to use tortoise or tam valley servos. Any idea which would work out cheaper all in with the dcc electronics and motors?


The price difference between the two won't be enough to matter, and wil depend on quantity discounts, etc. Tam Valley lets you take the quantity discount for the total number you plan to buy, even if you don't buy them all at once. 

In any case, this aspect of your layout is so critical that it's not the place to go cheap. For my money, the Tam Valley Depot stuff is so much simpler to install and set up that it's a no brainer.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> Does anyone know of a nice looking 2-track Car/Locomotive shop building?


Have you tried the Walthers website (www.walthers.com)? They are the largest wholesaler of model train merchandise in North America, if not the world. Not the best place to purchase (they always sell MSRP so as not to compete with their dealers), but they have a lot of what is available. They list about a dozen, and they don't carry everything by a long shot.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Have you tried the Walthers website (www.walthers.com)? They are the largest wholesaler of model train merchandise in North America, if not the world. Not the best place to purchase (they always sell MSRP so as not to compete with their dealers), but they have a lot of what is available. They list about a dozen, and they don't carry everything by a long shot.


Checked out there site. Lots of stuff. Not sure I found what I am looking for. I’ll keep looking. I need to know the track spacing so I think I need to find the car house before I lay the spur tracks.


----------



## Rabman

I am wondering how smooth the plaster clothe has to be on top of the Woodland risers. Where the overlaps are on the clothe there are a bit of a bump. If I sand it, I think it would expose the fabric, is that an issue? Can I smooth it at a little with the cork roadbed when I sand it? Nothing I have seen on youtube or read seems to comment on it at all. The photos above show what I mean. I have cleaned it up a little with some extra layers of clothe on top, with fewer seams, but it still is not perfect.

Help please.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Those tracks are good candidates for flex track. You put the spacing where you need it to suit the building, not try to find a building with a given track spacing.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> I am wondering how smooth the plaster clothe has to be on top of the Woodland risers. Where the overlaps are on the clothe there are a bit of a bump. If I sand it, I think it would expose the fabric, is that an issue? Can I smooth it at a little with the cork roadbed when I sand it? Nothing I have seen on youtube or read seems to comment on it at all. The photos above show what I mean. I have cleaned it up a little with some extra layers of clothe on top, with fewer seams, but it still is not perfect.
> 
> Help please.


I don't see any photos, but I know what you mean. You actually didn't need to lay plaster cloth under where the roadbed is going to be. Sand it down. It doesn't need to be perfect -- the roadbed provides the necessary flat surface. Just make sure that you don't leave any bumps big enough to cause bumps in the top of the roadbed.

As far as exposing the gauze texture, why does this matter if you're going to hide it under roadbed and ballast? After you get the roadbed down, it's a good idea to paint a thin layer of plaster over the cloth anyway. This will ensure no fibers show through.


----------



## BCFx

Rabman said:


> Does anyone know of a nice looking 2-track Car/Locomotive shop building?


Something like this?


----------



## BCFx

CTValleyRR said:


> ...
> As far as exposing the gauze texture, why does this matter if you're going to hide it under roadbed and ballast? After you get the roadbed down, it's a good idea to paint a thin layer of plaster over the cloth anyway. This will ensure no fibers show through.


I agree with this. I've learned the hard way that the smoother you make your sub-road bed now, the smoother the cork will be and the better the track will be.


----------



## Lemonhawk

Just as in real life the sub roadbed needs to be smooth and level side to side. If its not, then the trouble just multiplies. Sand it all smooth.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Those tracks are good candidates for flex track. You put the spacing where you need it to suit the building, not try to find a building with a given track spacing.


That's good to know. I am using flex for the area.


----------



## Rabman

BCFx said:


> Something like this?


I like it. What is the length of loco that will fit inside?

Where do you get one?

Thanks


----------



## Rabman

BCFx said:


> I agree with this. I've learned the hard way that the smoother you make your sub-road bed now, the smoother the cork will be and the better the track will be.


I think you are right based on all the tile work I have done around the house. I think I will break out the sander.


----------



## Rabman

Thanks all for the plaster clothe advice. All the youtube videos I watched had the clothe cover the riser all around - including under the roadbed. Certainly would have been easier just butting the clothe up to the side of the cork. Live and learn!

I am going to get out the sander and smooth it out. Won't be until next week as I will be busy the next few days.


----------



## Lemonhawk

Take your time, you only get to build this layout once!


----------



## Rabman

Lemonhawk said:


> Take your time, you only get to build this layout once!


I am taking my time.


----------



## Magic

A sander may be a bit of overkill. It doesn't need to be as smooth as a baby's bottom.
Just make sure there are no high or low spots and it's level from side to side.
I just use a course foam sanding block. Cork roadbed will level out the small stuff.

Magic


----------



## Rabman

Magic said:


> Just make sure there are no high or low spots and it's level from side to side.
> Magic


That’s what I will strive for.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Lemonhawk said:


> Take your time, you only get to build this layout once!


On the other hand, it's common practice to produce a rough draft before a final version. One of the biggest mistakes a modeler can make is to stop doing anything for fear of doing the wrong thing.

When I got back into the hobby in the early 2000's, I started building a 4x8, redesigned, ripped out and rebuilt, and started again. After running that for about a year, I realized the limitations, and rebuilt large sections into a 5x12. That one lasted almost 10 years; I'm now at work on my 4th, which is a complete and total redesign (14x16).

Granted, you don't want to cause problems by rushing, but you get as many shots at this as you want!


----------



## Rabman

On version 2 my son can do the hard and dusty work.


----------



## tankist

Hi Robman, just my 0.02 worth - never say never. You said your son is 5 now, he still will be to you to do the dusty stuff if your version 2 happens to happen in half a year - year from now. Whatever happens don't be to afraid of backtracking.

That said, on pictures you posted of the risers I don't see too intence of a iregularities . Your roadbed can smooth it further if glued with caulk (will be good sound deafening as well) I advise keeping ruler/straight edge close

Regards


----------



## Rabman

*Mainline roadbed done*

So I sanded the plaster cloth over the risers. I think it came out quite well. I finished laying the cork roadbed on the main lines. I have a little work to do on the reverse loop because I had to swap the double slip switch with a left handed turnouts because the structure under the plywood would have interfered with the servo I am going to use. 

I need to figure out the curve bridges over my future river. I will have to scratch build a few girder bridges I think unless anyone has any thoughts. 

I think all is progressing nicely.


----------



## Dennis461

I have sliced a girder bridge down the center and spread the sides out for better clearance. You could build a trestle for double tracks, then there are no clearance issues. A temporary support can allow trains to run while designing/building your bridge.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Several companies sell bridge parts and pieces to assist with scratchbuilding.


----------



## MichaelE

I'll be using the plywood sub-roadbed as the bridge decking and will disguise it with those bridge parts CTValley describes.

You'll never know it's there.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Several companies sell bridge parts and pieces to assist with scratchbuilding.


What companies sell the stuff?


----------



## Rabman

Dennis461 said:


> I have sliced a girder bridge down the center and spread the sides out for better clearance. You could build a trestle for double tracks, then there are no clearance issues. A temporary support can allow trains to run while designing/building your bridge.


A trestle bridge sounds more interesting, but I would have only 2-1/4 inches from the bottom of tie to the plywood of the benchwork on the outer loop and 1-3/4” on the inner. Would that be enough clearance? I can cut in the plywood if absolutely necessary.


----------



## Rabman

MichaelE said:


> I'll be using the plywood sub-roadbed as the bridge decking and will disguise it with those bridge parts CTValley describes.
> 
> You'll never know it's there.


I did think about this method for building a girder bridge originally. Does it need to be plywood or can you use solid wood like pine? Is 1/4 inch sufficient? How do you model the rivet heads?


----------



## CTValleyRR

The big names are Grand Central Gems for wooden trestles and Central Valley Model works for steel parts.

Plastruct and Evergreen Styrene sell more generic plastic parts that would also work.

A Google search might turn up a few more.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> The big names are Grand Central Gems for wooden trestles and Central Valley Model works for steel parts.
> 
> Plastruct and Evergreen Styrene sell more generic plastic parts that would also work.
> 
> A Google search might turn up a few more.


Thanks for the sources of materials.


----------



## Rabman

*Laid the first track*

A milestone has been met. I have laid the first track for the layout!


----------



## Rabman

I did that for the completion of the mainline track. The track I laid the other day with less pantry items seems smooth. Dodged a bullet on that thanks to the smooth cork roadbed. 

My son is already testing out the track.


----------



## Rabman

*First operating session*

A major milestone. The first operating session with an SD-40 pulling a CN 5-Pack intermodal Train. This is the longest loco and railcars I have and the worked on both the inner and outer loop. The C425 loco was doing a drive by to say hello!

Just had one area that interfered and caused a derailment. The turnout tie bar on the curved turnout was too close to the main line and hit the side bolsters of the C425 trucks. A quick snip with the side cutters solved that.


----------



## Rabman

Son operating.


----------



## BCFx

Layouts looking good. 
Good choice for a railroad!!!


----------



## Rabman

BCFx said:


> Layouts looking good.
> Good choice for a railroad!!!


Thanks


----------



## Rabman

*I need Help!!!*

So I have the layout running with a DC power supply to verify the track work. All seems to be working well so far with no derailments. With the exceptions of running through a turnout improperly set. Oops! There is one turnout that may have a slight kink at the curve rail coming off of it, but so far no operations issues. I may fix it in the future if it becomes one.

I will be switching to DDC power when I buy the equipment. I am seriously toying with the idea of running DCC++ with Arduino equipment. I do like the electronics side of things.

So I have some questions on wiring. The first picture shows the locations and polarities of the power feeds to the track. I have denoted where the feeds will come from the output of the auto-reverser. Does anyone see any errors or the need for any additional feeds, i.e. between turnouts at crossovers? I am using all Peco insulfrog turnouts which are power routing.

The second photo is an excerpt from the DCCWiki page. It indicated that I should not have complete loops in the bus or rail. Is this critical or something that is negligible on my size layout. If it is critical, I will need to try to get insulators on the inner and outer loop which I currently do not have. Any thoughts from the experts?


----------



## DonR

There has been high level discussions of the
effects of bus loops. It does seem best to 
use just a 'straight line' bus and do not
connect the outer ends.

However, most of us have ovals in some form
in our layouts. That is, of course, a loop. I have
had one for years on my DCC layout
and have seen no problems from it.
Thus, I see no reason to break up your layout 
with insulated joiners to avoid a track loop.

Electronic perfectionists can present high level
formulas that demonstrate their determination
that track loops are to be avoided. I won't argue
with them, I don't know enuf. But, at the same
time, as a practical matter, I have had no problem with
a continuous oval DCC track.

Don


----------



## Rabman

Thanks Don


----------



## Rabman

*More progress and stuff on order*

Well I have made more progress and stuff is on order. I laid some track in the reverse loop. My double slip switch is now laid. I had some issues at on end where the curvature of the flex track was not mating up with the adjacent rail because of the soft insulated rail joiner. I cut the out rail plate tabs on a tie and glued it in place to push the rail over a little. Have lots of foam pins to hold it in place while it dries. Hopefully that solves things as it was causing derailments. I will know tonight. 

Well I decided to go with DCC++ and bought a few Arduinos, voltage bucks to lower my laptop power supply voltages from 19.5 volts to 15 Vic, a motor shield for DCC++ and another different motor shield for a separate Arduino to power servos for turnouts, SG90 servos, etc. I got a starter kit as well. All in, the cost was about $280 Cdn with a lot of extra stuff. This would have been the cost of just a Zephyr. I still need to buy some push buttons for the turnouts.

I look at this as a learning exercise which will add to the enjoyment and some frustration.


----------



## Rabman

Well the railway has its first building. Cheated on this one thanks to BCFx. The locomotives can now get repaired. Temporarily set in place.


----------



## Rabman

I have done a proof of concept driving servos with an Arduino and 16 Servo driver board. 

I wrote the rough program to toggle the servos at the push of a button. Hooked up three servos of the 14 I will need for the layout. 

Not pretty at the moment. 

I need to revise the program some more and build the mounts for the servos. Still waiting on delivery of the servo RC wire extensions.


----------



## BCFx

Rabman said:


> Well the railway has its first building. Cheated on this one thanks to BCFx. The locomotives can now get repaired. Temporarily set in place.


:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Rabman

So I installed my new AR1 last night for the reversing loop. It was working fine but I started having my DCC++ base station power shutting off.

I corrected that problem. 

My shorter 4 axle Atlas C425 loco has no issues going through the reverse loop. My 6 axle EMD SD7 is having more issues. It derails going into the curved turnouts. It is also kicking off the base station power going through some other turnouts. I suspect their might be a back to back wheel gauge issue. I will have to check them. I bought it used at a train show in July. It was well behaved prior to the AR1. Can their be any correlation? Turnouts it is having power issues outside of the reverse loop weren’t there before. 

I need to check the curve turnout for gauge problems. Not sure if it is a level issue. 

I will take some photos later.


----------



## Rabman

*Derailment issue*

So the first challenge I am tackling is the derailment on the curved PECO turnout. As mentioned the 6 axle EMD SD7 is having issues derailing going into the curved turnout. It can trail through the switch properly.

It appears the point rail is tight gauge. I don't have a NMRA gauge but used calipers to make measurements. The measurements are taken where the inside measurement part of the caliper is pointing to. Not to say these are 100% perfect measurements. I took the measurements widening the caliper jaws until the point rail started to move.

The tangent flex track is measuring at approximately 16.6 mm with these calipers as a comparison. The photos below show the gauge at various locations in the point rails. Do you think this is the cause of the lead wheel on the SD7 climbing where I am pointing with the red wire. 

What are your thoughts? Is there a way to re-profile (curve) the point rail or adjust the pivot point of the point rail?


----------



## J.Albert1949

Re the derailing SD7 --

Looking at your "point pics" above, could the actual point-of-derailment be the "joint" between the point rail and the frog rail?

An _off-the-wall_ suggestion:
Try turning the engine around, end-to-end.
Does it run any better that way? 

Final thought:
You could try replacing the turnout with another copy (of same).
Or... if nothing else works... revise the plan slightly and use a different turnout size.


----------



## tankist

This looks like peco setrack. I abandoned the idea of using it. The big curve was passable for most engines, but even 4 axles and some cars wouldn't transition through the diverging curve consistently. I'd say either limit running only very short equipment through there or rearrange your layout to use different switch.


----------



## DonR

Have you tried the SLO MO derail test?

Run the loco as slow as it will go. Use bright
light, get down close, when a wheel STARTS to rise,
STOP. If you get the same results in the same place with
repeated runs, that is where there is a problem. It could
be the gauge as your measurements may have indicated,
but, very often derailing on quality turnouts such as
Peco is caused by vertical misalignment, possibly because
of some 'twisting' motion.

Are the points 'nesting' into the stock rail properly?

Have you checked the gauge of the wheels that derail?

Does the derailing truck have good rotational 'play' and
does it 'rock' correctly? 

I had a brand new Bachmann F7 that was derailing where
no other loco or car did. I could find no reason for that but
discovered that it did well as trailing loco in a pair. It seems
that after running trouble free for some days the trouble
went away. My guess, it needed run time to 'break' it in.
'
Don


----------



## MichaelE

But...but, these are Peco turnouts! The Gold Standard. You mean they are out of gauge?

Can't be. Impossible.


----------



## tankist

no, what i meant is that Peco setrack line with its extreme curvature (approaching 15") was designed to run short rolling stock, something like E69 locomotive and early 2 axle cars. its diverging line not only sharp but breaks aside to abruptly at points. expecting it to handle a 6 axle loco is just way to optimistic. 
that said the straight turnouts of setrack line can be tuned enough for modern power to negotiate it. as to curved setrack i personnaly gave up on tuning it 

now as to me saying "gold standard" that was your imagination Michael. what i did say is that material that you chose for your build has very serious flaws (your choice really surprised me g given the rest of your layout) - that's quite a difference don't you think? if you disagree and feel like defending your choice you can bring your argument, or not if you don't feel like. at any rate i'm not sure why do you have to be salty with me, i didn't sell you the material or advised to use it, i'm just pointing out it's well known flaws.


----------



## Rabman

J.Albert1949 said:


> Re the derailing SD7 --
> 
> Looking at your "point pics" above, could the actual point-of-derailment be the "joint" between the point rail and the frog rail?


I am pretty sure it is derailing at the point indicated. 



J.Albert1949 said:


> An _off-the-wall_ suggestion:
> Try turning the engine around, end-to-end.
> Does it run any better that way?


When I reverse the locomotive through the turnout it is fine. It doesn’t derail. It it pretty consistent in derailing going can first. 

I checked the front truck and it appears to be free moving. 



J.Albert1949 said:


> Final thought:
> You could try replacing the turnout with another copy (of same).
> Or... if nothing else works... revise the plan slightly and use a different turnout size.


Not looking forward to that. That will be a last resort.


----------



## Rabman

tankist said:


> This looks like peco setrack. I abandoned the idea of using it. The big curve was passable for most engines, but even 4 axles and some cars wouldn't transition through the diverging curve consistently. I'd say either limit running only very short equipment through there or rearrange your layout to use different switch.


Might have to use short equipment. I don’t have the space to make too many adjustments.


----------



## Rabman

DonR said:


> Have you tried the SLO MO derail test?
> 
> Run the loco as slow as it will go. Use bright
> light, get down close, when a wheel STARTS to rise,
> STOP. If you get the same results in the same place with
> repeated runs, that is where there is a problem.


I did run it slow. Didn’t use a flashlight. I will do some more tests on the weekend. 



DonR said:


> It could be the gauge as your measurements may have indicated,
> but, very often derailing on quality turnouts such as
> Peco is caused by vertical misalignment, possibly because
> of some 'twisting' motion.


I will have to check it out some more. As mentioned in another reply it only derails in the cab forward direction. Leads me to believe it might be the front loco truck. How much vertical misalignment is too much?



DonR said:


> Are the points 'nesting' into the stock rail properly?


Not sure I would know if they do. They seem centred. 



DonR said:


> Have you checked the gauge of the wheels that derail?


I did but with callipers. I don’t have a gauge. 



DonR said:


> Does the derailing truck have good rotational 'play' and
> does it 'rock' correctly?


Might be some. There is a plastic brake beam with tread shoes that hits the coupler box but appears to be on both ends.


----------



## Lemonhawk

Mark the spot things happen with a push pin, lets you focus on a narrow range of track, keep refining the pin location then you can see check to see what the track problem is at that point.


----------



## Rabman

So I cleaned up so wiring under the layout on the weekend. 

Also bent the point on my curved turnout a bit. No longer derailing at the point. Now derailing after the frog when it passes the guard rail.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> I did run it slow. Didn’t use a flashlight. I will do some more tests on the weekend.


You need to use a flashlight. It is important to see EXACTLY where the wheel starts to come up off the rail. That's where your problem is.



Rabman said:


> I will have to check it out some more. As mentioned in another reply it only derails in the cab forward direction. Leads me to believe it might be the front loco truck. How much vertical misalignment is too much?


Any, really. You should be able to run your fingertip across the surface of the rail without it catching on anything.





Rabman said:


> Not sure I would know if they do. They seem centred.


Centered isn't what you're looking for. You're looking for a gap between the point rail (the moveable ones) and the stock rail (the ones that don't move). In fact, there should be a slight indentation in the stock rail so that point rails are almost flush when they are thrown in that direction. Any gap there allows the flange to "pick the points", passing between the tip of the point rail and the stock rail, so the wheel ends up on the ground between the rails.




Rabman said:


> I did but with callipers. I don’t have a gauge.


You should get a gauge. They aren't expensive, and they are the quickest, most effective, and in fact the most accurate way to check the correct gauge of the rails and points, and the depth of flangeways.



Rabman said:


> Also bent the point on my curved turnout a bit. No longer derailing at the point. Now derailing after the frog when it passes the guard rail.


So maybe it wasn't sitting flush with the stock rail. But the problem is that you still don't know WHERE it is derailing. You know where the derailment gets so severe that the whole truck comes off. There is a big difference between those two. I once had a derailment problem where everything derailed 15 degrees into a curve, but only if traveling in one direction. Turned out they were derailing at a crossing 3 feet away, but the truck only totally came off at the point where the flange should have started guiding the truck around the curve.


----------



## Rabman

*I gave up*

After spending too much time trying to make the curved turnout work, and couldn’t - I ripped the thing out. 

I am in the process of putting the 3-way turnout in its spot. We will see how it works out! Fingers crossed!

The only downside to minimize the amount of track I had to rip out I will have a piece of 15” radius track to make it fit. My thinking is that I am no worse off because the curve turnouts diverging track was a 15” radius. 

I laid the 3-way in place and the SD7 made it around without any problems. I will install the track tomorrow.


----------



## MtRR75

Rabman said:


> After spending too much time trying to make the curved turnout work, and couldn’t - I ripped the thing out.
> 
> I am in the process of putting the 3-way turnout in its spot. We will see how it works out! Fingers crossed!
> 
> The only downside to minimize the amount of track I had to rip out I will have a piece of 15” radius track to make it fit. My thinking is that I am no worse off because the curve turnouts diverging track was a 15” radius.
> 
> I laid the 3-way in place and the SD7 made it around without any problems. I will install the track tomorrow.


The 15" radius curve may be your problem. Some 6-axle locos will not negotiate 15" radius track. If you have a loose piece of 15" curved track, turn the loco over (best to put it in loco cradle). Then set the track on the wheels and see if all 12 wheels will fit inside the rails -- without being forced in (i.e. with a tiny amount of play).

P.S. I just noticed that the area that you are rebuilding seems to have an S curve (when the turnout is set to the curved track). The S curve could also be contributing to your problems.


----------



## CTValleyRR

I'm afraid MtRR is right on this one: the problem wasn't with the curved turnout per se, but with the radius you used. There isn't a lot of HO equipment longer than 40 scale feet that is happy with 15", and adding a turnout into the mix probably didn't help.

And I'm also afraid that the 3 way won't be any better, and may be worse. It looks like that area is awfully tight to begin with -- maybe one of those places that seems to work on paper / digitally, but doesn't work when actual models try to traverse it.


----------



## Rabman

MtRR75 said:


> The 15" radius curve may be your problem. Some 6-axle locos will not negotiate 15" radius track. If you have a loose piece of 15" curved track, turn the loco over (best to put it in loco cradle). Then set the track on the wheels and see if all 12 wheels will fit inside the rails -- without being forced in (i.e. with a tiny amount of play).
> 
> P.S. I just noticed that the area that you are rebuilding seems to have an S curve (when the turnout is set to the curved track). The S curve could also be contributing to your problems.


I have put the SD7 on the 15” curve and it does seem to have some extra travel. I did run it on the right divergent path through the turnout and it appears to be fine. I know my SD40-2 won’t be going through it. 

There will be a slight S-curve on the left divergent path. The cork roadbed isn’t glued down at the end. The intention will be to have some tangent track off of it to minimize the s-curve as much as possible. I do have many constraints in the revering loop due to layout space.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> I'm afraid MtRR is right on this one: the problem wasn't with the curved turnout per se, but with the radius you used. There isn't a lot of HO equipment longer than 40 scale feet that is happy with 15", and adding a turnout into the mix probably didn't help.
> 
> And I'm also afraid that the 3 way won't be any better, and may be worse. It looks like that area is awfully tight to begin with -- maybe one of those places that seems to work on paper / digitally, but doesn't work when actual models try to traverse it.


If you look at one of the posts above, the gauge on the curved turnout was as low as 16.03mm. Forget who mentioned it was tight , tight, tight. Tried to adjust it a little but it just sprang back. That combined with the slight misalignment in the level of it, just made the situation worse. 

Hopefully the 3-way works out. I will keep you all posted!


----------



## Rabman

Well the SD7 goes through both divergent tracks on the 3-way. Even the S-curve. Yay!


----------



## tankist

On reverse curves ends of cars are pushed to different sides - make sure your longest cars stay coupled .


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> Well the SD7 goes through both divergent tracks on the 3-way. Even the S-curve. Yay!


The real test will be if it actually pulls a train through that area without uncoupling or derailing.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Rabman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the SD7 goes through both divergent tracks on the 3-way. Even the S-curve. Yay!
> 
> 
> 
> The real test will be if it actually pulls a train through that area without uncoupling or derailing.
Click to expand...

Already tested. It worked. Didn’t try my 70 ft intermodal 5-packs because I never intended to run them through. Just relegated to the outer loop I’m afraid.


----------



## MtRR75

Rabman said:


> Already tested. It worked. Didn’t try my 70 ft intermodal 5-packs because I never intended to run them through. Just relegated to the outer loop I’m afraid.


Did you try both directions?

For a really stern test, try backing the train through the turnout(s) in question -- slowly -- and in both directions again. If it passes all of these tests, you should be good to go.


----------



## Rabman

MtRR75 said:


> Rabman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already tested. It worked. Didn’t try my 70 ft intermodal 5-packs because I never intended to run them through. Just relegated to the outer loop I’m afraid.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you try both directions?
> 
> For a really stern test, try backing the train through the turnout(s) in question -- slowly -- and in both directions again. If it passes all of these tests, you should be good to go.
Click to expand...

I did both directions, and with loco and caboose lead. 

More testing to do but so far so good.


----------



## Mustafa

My tables are strong enough to support me crawling around on them when I was drawing out the track diagram on the plywood sheets before cutting. I want a rock solid table with absolutely no movement.


----------



## Rabman

MtRR75 said:


> Rabman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already tested. It worked. Didn’t try my 70 ft intermodal 5-packs because I never intended to run them through. Just relegated to the outer loop I’m afraid.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you try both directions?
> 
> For a really stern test, try backing the train through the turnout(s) in question -- slowly -- and in both directions again. If it passes all of these tests, you should be good to go.
Click to expand...

I have been operating through the reverse loop for weeks and since I replaced the curved turnout with the 3-way turnout I have had no derailment issues on the right divergent path.


----------



## Rabman

As mentioned we have been operating for a few weeks. 

I have built a few buildings over the last few weeks and have laid down three spur tracks this morning. 

Still need to weather the buildings.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Looks like you need to weather your foam as well!!! 

No worries. Rome wasn't built in a day, nor will your railroad. You're making progress and enjoying the journey. .


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Looks like you need to weather your foam as well!!! <img src="http://www.modeltrainforum.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Big Grin" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> No worries. Rome wasn't built in a day, nor will your railroad. You're making progress and enjoying the journey. .


It will all be covered with scenery. My son is having too much fun poking holes in it so far to do any work on it.


----------



## Rook

Rabman said:


> I have been operating through the reverse loop for weeks and since I replaced the curved turnout with the 3-way turnout I have had no derailment issues on the right divergent path.


Nice to have that hurdle out of the way!


----------



## Rabman

Got the zip ties installed around the servos and aluminum channel to increase the reliability of the setup and I think they may work. Also installed the two servos on the 3-way turnout. That was a little bit of a challenge getting the two piano wires through the throw bar holes. I mounted both servos on one aluminum channel which complicated the matter but I think will be better for longevity. All the turnouts on the layout have servos on them are now working.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> Got the zip ties installed around the servos and aluminum channel to increase the reliability of the setup and I think they may work. Also installed the two servos on the 3-way turnout. That was a little bit of a challenge getting the two piano wires through the throw bar holes. I mounted both servos on one aluminum channel which complicated the matter but I think will be better for longevity. All the turnouts on the layout have servos on them are now working.


Build a fixture to help you get those piano wires through your throwbar holes. It's way easier than fishing for them.

Take a length of brass tube with an inside diameter that is a snug fit for the piano wire (without forcing) and the thinnest outside diameter you can find. Cut it to about 2" longer than the thickness of your layout at it's thickest point. Feed that down through the hole in the throwbar until it protrudes from the bottom of your layout (a couple of turns of masking tape around the top to keep it from slipping all the way through). You may need to drill out the hole slightly.

Slide the piano wire into the tube from under the layout and fasten the servo / stall motor / whatever to the underside of the layout. Then pull the tube back up through the layout, and your wire will be perfectly threaded throuh the turnout throwbar. It takes longer to crawl under the layout than it does to thread the wire.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Rabman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got the zip ties installed around the servos and aluminum channel to increase the reliability of the setup and I think they may work. Also installed the two servos on the 3-way turnout. That was a little bit of a challenge getting the two piano wires through the throw bar holes. I mounted both servos on one aluminum channel which complicated the matter but I think will be better for longevity. All the turnouts on the layout have servos on them are now working.
> 
> 
> 
> Build a fixture to help you get those piano wires through your throwbar holes. It's way easier than fishing for them.
> 
> Take a length of brass tube with an inside diameter that is a snug fit for the piano wire (without forcing) and the thinnest outside diameter you can find. Cut it to about 2" longer than the thickness of your layout at it's thickest point. Feed that down through the hole in the throwbar until it protrudes from the bottom of your layout (a couple of turns of masking tape around the top to keep it from slipping all the way through). You may need to drill out the hole slightly.
> 
> Slide the piano wire into the tube from under the layout and fasten the servo / stall motor / whatever to the underside of the layout. Then pull the tube back up through the layout, and your wire will be perfectly threaded throuh the turnout throwbar. It takes longer to crawl under the layout than it does to thread the wire.
Click to expand...

I think I am following what you are saying. My wire is pretty close to the diameter of the throw bar hole. Typically on other servos, I was dropping the wire from the top, then bending it, installing it on the servo horn, then screwing the horn on to the servo. Unfortunately this one on the 3-way, the two servos needed to face each other with no room to screw the horns on easily. 

Hopefully I don’t have to replace them for years.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Rabman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got the zip ties installed around the servos and aluminum channel to increase the reliability of the setup and I think they may work. Also installed the two servos on the 3-way turnout. That was a little bit of a challenge getting the two piano wires through the throw bar holes. I mounted both servos on one aluminum channel which complicated the matter but I think will be better for longevity. All the turnouts on the layout have servos on them are now working.
> 
> 
> 
> Build a fixture to help you get those piano wires through your throwbar holes. It's way easier than fishing for them.
> 
> Take a length of brass tube with an inside diameter that is a snug fit for the piano wire (without forcing) and the thinnest outside diameter you can find. Cut it to about 2" longer than the thickness of your layout at it's thickest point. Feed that down through the hole in the throwbar until it protrudes from the bottom of your layout (a couple of turns of masking tape around the top to keep it from slipping all the way through). You may need to drill out the hole slightly.
> 
> Slide the piano wire into the tube from under the layout and fasten the servo / stall motor / whatever to the underside of the layout. Then pull the tube back up through the layout, and your wire will be perfectly threaded throuh the turnout throwbar. It takes longer to crawl under the layout than it does to thread the wire.
Click to expand...

I think I am following what you are saying. My wire is pretty close to the diameter of the throw bar hole. Typically on other servos, I was dropping the wire from the top, then bending it, installing it on the servo horn, then screwing the horn on to the servo. Unfortunately this one on the 3-way, the two servos needed to face each other with no room to screw the horns on easily. 

Hopefully I don’t have to replace them for years.


----------



## Rabman

Here is a photo of the 3-way turnout servo installation.


----------



## Rabman

Here is a photo of the 3-way turnout servo installation.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> Here is a photo of the 3-way turnout servo installation.


That's some seriously thick wire. You might want to go a little thinner -- you want some spring in the wire to ensure it holds the points snugly against the stock rail.

If you ask nicely, I'll take a crawl under my son's layout with the calipers and measure the wire I used.


----------



## Lemonhawk

You might look at the way switchmaster (hankscraft) 
http://www.builders-in-scale.com/bis/sm-home.html
work. Their operation looks like it would better fit servo operations than trying to emulate how other stall motor machines work. Switchmasters a much easier to install and can easily be installed after the turnout is in place.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Tam Valley servos are oriented vertically, so the horn is on the bottom. All you need is a fulcrum at the top of the servo (aircraft plywood or styrene both work fine) and a 3/8" hole under the throwbar (which you can drill prior to installing the turnout. You don't need as much throw this way, either. 

It looks like you have and otherwise standard SG90 servo buried in there. I can mount these (actually a mounting plate with the fulcrum hole in it epoxied to the top of the servo) with double sided foam tape to extruded styrofoam and they hold just fine. No need for the heavy hardware -- certainly not aluminum channel.


----------



## Rabman

I think the wire I used was 0.40” if I recall or slightly smaller. Heard nothing but issues with the thickness of the tortoise ones so I used a little thick. Knock on wood, all of the servos are dialed in and working now. From what I read there is a benefit of the servos sweeping in a larger arc as it distributes the wear on the gears more. 

Using them in the horizontal plane would have avoided the issue with the wire height varying as the servo arc’d. That would’ve been a major benefit as the wire does go up and down a bit. If I was to do it again, I would like at the horizontal plane as an option. 

For now, all are installed and working so I will leave them as is.


----------



## CTValleyRR

I agree -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I guess I wasn't clear in my explanation, though. The throw of the servo is why you run the wire through a small hole that serves as a fulcrum in a wood or styrene plate mounted on the servo. This large motion at the bottom (at the horn) translates to much smaller motion at the other end. It was the motion at the top end that I was referring to when I said you don't need much throw.

The wire still moves up and down slightly, but not enough to matter. In the center of the throwbar's travel, the wire stands proud by about 1/32 of an inch.

I'm not sure where you heard that there were a lot of problems with tortoise wires. I've only heard of very infrequent problems.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> I agree -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
> 
> I guess I wasn't clear in my explanation, though. The throw of the servo is why you run the wire through a small hole that serves as a fulcrum in a wood or styrene plate mounted on the servo. This large motion at the bottom (at the horn) translates to much smaller motion at the other end. It was the motion at the top end that I was referring to when I said you don't need much throw.


I understood what meant. If the horn is let say 1” from the pivot and the pivot is approximately 2” to the throw bar, the movement of the horn would be half the movement of the throw bar. So if the throw bar needed to move a 1/4”, the horn would only move 1/2” which is not much. 



CTValleyRR said:


> I'm not sure where you heard that there were a lot of problems with tortoise wires. I've only heard of very infrequent problems.


Quite a few websites.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> Quite a few websites.


Yeah, I'd wager I could find quite a few websites to support just about any crazy theory I cared to name. Some of these folks have trouble because they don't know what they're doing.

The horns on my servos travel through approximately 80% of their potential range. The spring in the thinner music wire allows this to happen while also providing the pressure to hold the points in place.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Rabman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a few websites.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'd wager I could find quite a few websites to support just about any crazy theory I cared to name. Some of these folks have trouble because they don't know what they're doing.
> 
> The horns on my servos travel through approximately 80% of their potential range. The spring in the thinner music wire allows this to happen while also providing the pressure to hold the points in place.
Click to expand...

Good to know.


----------



## Rabman

*Starting the tunnel*

I have started the tunnel on the layout. It is early days.

I need to think about the tunnel portal. Differing heights and closely spaced tracks.


----------



## Rabman

Not sure why the 2nd photo is rotated. Doesn't show its rotated in Explorer.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Both Chooch and Woodland Scenics make a variety of tunnel portals, in a variety of patterns (wood, cut stone, random stone, concrete). The Chooch ones are already painted and weathered. A double portal will work fine there.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Both Chooch and Woodland Scenics make a variety of tunnel portals, in a variety of patterns (wood, cut stone, random stone, concrete). The Chooch ones are already painted and weathered. A double portal will work fine there.


I am not sure a standard off the shelf double portal would work. Here is the foam structure so far.


----------



## Chaostrain

The portal looks really great. A job well done!


----------



## Rabman

Chaostrain said:


> The portal looks really great. A job well done!


Thanks. I just need to figure out the best way to finish it. 

Need to glue all the foam together.


----------



## Lemonhawk

See Martins method of building tunnel portals "Model realistic Tunnel Portals" under "Structures"


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> Thanks. I just need to figure out the best way to finish it.
> 
> Need to glue all the foam together.


Textured styrene or paper sheets.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> I am not sure a standard off the shelf double portal would work. Here is the foam structure so far.


Well, what you have there is not a double portal (two parallel tracks), but two side by side single portals. I like what you've done, though.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Rabman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure a standard off the shelf double portal would work. Here is the foam structure so far.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what you have there is not a double portal (two parallel tracks), but two side by side single portals. I like what you've done, though.
Click to expand...

I think I have a challenging situation. 

Tracks are too close for single portals. Also at different heights so I think this will be a custom job. 

I am not too fond of rocky/natural portals so I think I may follow a YouTube video I saw where he scored foam with a knife if a block pattern, covered in a thin layer of plaster, then painted it. Thought it turned out quite well. 

This is a fake stone I made last night out of foam. I think it came out well. 

Thanks for the tips.


----------



## Rabman

So the mountain is all glued together except for the portals. Still thinking about them. 

Planning on using sculptamold and hydrocal for durability on the rocks and scenery.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> I think I have a challenging situation.
> 
> Tracks are too close for single portals. Also at different heights so I think this will be a custom job.


It's challenging, but not as bad as it looks. At the risk of being a terminology Nazi, single vs double portals are defined by how many tracks they span, not their width. Hence two singles.

If you wanted to use a commercial casting, you simply offset the portals by a little. This would be an especially good simulation of an area that was originally single track (at least in the tunnel), then double tracked later.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> If you wanted to use a commercial casting, you simply offset the portals by a little.


That's an interesting idea.


----------



## Rabman

So here is my initial attempt at making a tunnel portal. It is glued together and I still need to add some joint compound and paint it. 

I am following MarklinOfSweden’s technique.

Sorry for the rotated photo. 

I’ll see how it turns out before making the second one. I will post updated photos when I finish it.


----------



## Rabman

Well as it turns out, I do not have the skills of Martin on my first attempt. In my opinion, my finished portal isn’t what I am looking for. 

I will try again!


----------



## Rabman

So I finished the sculptamold on the mountain. I think it came out pretty well. I just need to finish the two portals and it will be ready for painting. I am pretty happy with how it turned out. 

Does anyone have any idea how to rotate photos when you post them? The show up properly in Windows, only they are rotated when I post them.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Coming along nicely. Sculptamold is a great product.

The only thing I would have done differently would be to add some scoring with the edge of your palette knife, trowel, or whatever you're using. Especially where rock has been cut, or has fallen away due to the natural erosion process, you will see roughly parallel deep cracks, either horizontally or on a diagonal, depending on how the rock formed, plus more or less vertical ones.

See the picture of the Shawangunk Escarpment in NY State below for an example (this is a naturally formed cliff -- the only man-made feature there is the road):


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Coming along nicely. Sculptamold is a great produce.
> 
> The only thing I would have done differently would be to add some scoring with the edge of your palette knife, trowel, or whatever you're using. Especially where rock has been cut, or has fallen away due to the natural erosion process, you will see roughly parallel deep cracks, either horizontally or on a diagonal, depending on how the rock formed, plus more or less vertical ones.
> 
> See the picture of the Shawangunk Escarpment in NY State below for an example (this is a naturally formed cliff -- the only man-made feature there is the road):
> 
> View attachment 483720


I carved some cracks in the rock this morning. Thanks for the photo. 

Just checked the tunnel today...it is still soft after 36 hours. How long does sculptamold take to dry?

Maybe I mixed the stuff too wet?


----------



## CTValleyRR

Rabman said:


> I carved some cracks in the rock this morning. Thanks for the photo.
> 
> Just checked the tunnel today...it is still soft after 36 hours. How long does sculptamold take to dry?
> 
> Maybe I mixed the stuff too wet?


Depends on conditions. I've had it take as long as a week to fully cure, when it was fairly cool and somewhat humid (early October, not climate controlled).

It really depends on how thickly you put it on, not so much how much water you used. Personally, I try for the consistency of oatmeal, enough that the chunks of newsprint mostly dissolve, but thick enough that it says where I put it.

You can hit it with a heat gun or hair dryer to try to speed things along.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Rabman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I carved some cracks in the rock this morning. Thanks for the photo.
> 
> Just checked the tunnel today...it is still soft after 36 hours. How long does sculptamold take to dry?
> 
> Maybe I mixed the stuff too wet?
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on conditions. I've had it take as long as a week to fully cure, when it was fairly cool and somewhat humid (early October, not climate controlled).
> 
> It really depends on how thickly you put it on, not so much how much water you used. Personally, I try for the consistency of oatmeal, enough that the chunks of newsprint mostly dissolve, but thick enough that it says where I put it.
> 
> You can hit it with a heat gun or hair dryer to try to speed things along.
Click to expand...


Thanks. It’s getting there.


----------



## Rabman

CTValleyRR said:


> Coming along nicely. Sculptamold is a great product.
> 
> The only thing I would have done differently would be to add some scoring with the edge of your palette knife, trowel, or whatever you're using. Especially where rock has been cut, or has fallen away due to the natural erosion process, you will see roughly parallel deep cracks, either horizontally or on a diagonal, depending on how the rock formed, plus more or less vertical ones.
> 
> See the picture of the Shawangunk Escarpment in NY State below for an example (this is a naturally formed cliff -- the only man-made feature there is the road):


So what do you think about this change in the one section?


----------



## CTValleyRR

That looks MUCH better -- a little work with some washes and it will look AWESOME!


----------



## Rabman

More progress. I only have two rock moulds so it is taking a while to make all the rocks. 

I have about a 1/4 done. I finished around the waterfall.


----------



## Rabman

It has been a while since my last update. I have started to weather a building. Pretty happy with how it’s turning out.


----------



## Rabman

So I have been working a little more on buildings. A little weathering and building.


----------



## MichaelE

The rock facing looks really good.

If you want to do more at the same time, you can use several layers of aluminum foil to create rock molds. 

I don't have a link, but there is an instructional video on You Tube demonstrating this simple method of casting rock faces.


----------



## Rabman

MichaelE said:


> The rock facing looks really good.
> 
> If you want to do more at the same time, you can use several layers of aluminum foil to create rock molds.
> 
> I don't have a link, but there is an instructional video on You Tube demonstrating this simple method of casting rock faces.


I have taken a break on the mountain for quite awhile now. Needed to change it up a bit. I may look at that technique for some of the backside and top. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## Rabman

Here is my first attempt at weathering the gravel company.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Looks good!


----------



## Rabman

Finished most of the gravel company. A bit more to go. Pretty happy with how it’s turning out.


----------



## Chaostrain

Definitely looking like it's been around for awhile. I think you're on the right track.


----------



## J.Albert1949

"Gravel company" looks good.
But those are IRON ORE cars you've got underneath it!


----------



## Rabman

Well with the exception of the conveyers the gravel company is finished. Thanks for the kind words everyone!


----------



## MichaelE

Think you did a fine job on the weathering. Very realistic.


----------



## Rabman

MichaelE said:


> Think you did a fine job on the weathering. Very realistic.


Thanks. Always good getting positive feedback!


----------

