# New layout design



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

As I am building my layout table, I only have two more 1/2 inch foams to add. It will happen this weekend. It will be 3 inches thick. Should I go for one more 1/2 inch form? 

Right now, I am working on better layout. I am trying to avoid 15" curves and stay at least 18" or boarder curves. It is looking much better than my original design. It is not final yet. Have couple ideas to add.

Near top view of 3D layout









Current layout in draft









Any thoughts?


----------



## jlc41 (Feb 16, 2016)

Are you going to use flex track? I see you are crossing the river in 3 places with curved track is why I ask. Getting curved bridges could be a challenge depending on length.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Have you checked the grade needed for the tracks over
the tunnel? You may have more than a 2% rise that
could cause you some trouble.

Don


----------



## /6 matt (Jul 7, 2015)

I think we could use a little more info. What scale is this? HO? What's your max grade? Also what is the clearance between that back track and the edge of the wall.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

Of course, it is going to be in HO scale.

Yes, I am planning to use flex tracks in some area, including the bridges. 

The height on the left side of the river, they are all at 3" which is the reason for the foam to be 3" thick.

The grade would be less than 2.1°. Should I get it under 2°? 

The back track would be 2 inches away from the wall.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

After checking the grades on the right area, the backtrack is at 1.3°.

The track inside the tunnel, lowest point is 1.1" high. On that point, left side of that point is 2.0° grade. On right side of that point is 2.1° grade.










Will check the grade on the one that goes over the tunnel when I get home tonight.

Of course, all the turnouts are zero grade. They could not be changed on the SCARM.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

Checked the grade on the track that goes over the tunnel. It is 2.0°.

All of the grades should be fine, so far. Right?


----------



## MtRR75 (Nov 27, 2013)

When you use grades, you need easements at both ends of the grade -- gradual transitions from flat to sloped. If the change in slope is abrupt, you will get derailments and loss of electrical pick-up from the track.

I know nothing about how your track program works. Does it automatically allow for easements? If not, can you force it to do easements? Or do you have to just know that the grade will have to be adjusted for easements when you build the track?

If your track program does not automatically allow for easements, you will find that your grades will become steeper once you add in the easements during track building.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

Mixy would know the answer to that question for the easements for the solution since it is his software design. 

For now, I know that it does not have that at all. I am well aware of easements and I will take care of it during the building. I have plenty of discarded formboards to be used for the easements. In fact, I just got more foamboards. It will be up to 3 inchs thick, leaving plenty room for river and tunnels. Of course, there will be a hole or two for checking for the derailment inside the tunnel. I will figure it out for the access.

Also, on all turnouts, it could not be graded at all. It stays at zero grade and could not be changed. Actually, I rather have the turnouts stay at zero grade, so there would not be any derailment issue.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

MtRR75 said:


> When you use grades, you need easements at both ends of the grade -- gradual transitions from flat to sloped. If the change in slope is abrupt, you will get derailments and loss of electrical pick-up from the track.
> 
> I know nothing about how your track program works. Does it automatically allow for easements? If not, can you force it to do easements? Or do you have to just know that the grade will have to be adjusted for easements when you build the track?
> 
> If your track program does not automatically allow for easements, you will find that your grades will become steeper once you add in the easements during track building.


Depending on what he's running, easements may not be necessary if he keeps his grades at 2% or lower. I have un-eased 2% grades on which all my equipment operates reliably. He should set up a test section and run a few trains to be sure.

You can add vertical easements by creating shorter segments of track and assigning a slope to them, gradually increasing the incline to that of the main slope. Cumbersome, but functional.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

When you use flex track on a grade let it find it's own
slope. It will create it's own easements, top 
and bottom. When it does,
place your support material under that. Job done.

Don


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

Just finished laying the last foamboard, adding up to 3 inches high on table. Now I am ready to start laying tracks for test/trial run. Tunnels will not be digged at this time.


----------



## MtRR75 (Nov 27, 2013)

CTValleyRR said:


> Depending on what he's running, easements may not be necessary if he keeps his grades at 2% or lower. I have un-eased 2% grades on which all my equipment operates reliably. He should set up a test section and run a few trains to be sure.


The key phrase there is "depending on what is running..." I may be more sensitive to this, as I have all steamers. Some steamers easily lose electrical contact to some of the drive wheels with the slightest change in track angle.


----------



## MtRR75 (Nov 27, 2013)

bluenavigator said:


> Mixy would know the answer to that question for the easements for the solution since it is his software design.
> 
> For now, I know that it does not have that at all. I am well aware of easements and I will take care of it during the building.


That's fine. I just wanted to be sure that you knew that the addition of easements would likely increase your maximum grade in the space allowed (or reduce the clearance height -- if you can afford that).


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

MtRR75 said:


> The key phrase there is "depending on what is running..." I may be more sensitive to this, as i have all l steamers. Some steamers easily lose electrical contact to some of the drive wheels with the slightest change in track angle.


Yessir. That's why I qualified it. And also recommended testing it.


----------



## /6 matt (Jul 7, 2015)

While you guys were busy beating the dead horse on grades and easements that should be ok, nobody mentioned that one of his spurs are facing the wrong direction and he will need a runaround.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

/6 matt said:


> While you guys were busy beating the dead horse on grades and easements that should be ok, nobody mentioned that one of his spurs are facing the wrong direction and he will need a runaround.


What wrong direction? Which spur? Is it on the left side of the layout?


----------



## /6 matt (Jul 7, 2015)

It's the spur on the bottom actually. If you trace a imaginary train exiting the yard then the train will travel counter clockwise around the layout which means when it enters the bottom spur the locomotive will be trapped and unable to drop off cars. All you have to do is create a runaround either on the mainline or the spur itself. A runaround is a short section of double track that allows the locomotive to run around the cars it's gonna drop off so that it can push them into the siding. Make sense?


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

Honest with you, I do not get it. There is no spur on the bottom of the layout. Please clarify the location of the spur. 










For the whole layout, check the first post.


----------



## /6 matt (Jul 7, 2015)

bluenavigator said:


> Honest with you, I do not get it. There is no spur on the bottom of the layout. Please clarify the location of the spur.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's the track you have labeled inside and also spur #1


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

Okay, on that spur, I have not decide what to do. I am considering that spur to be side line to allow other locomotive to go by, acting like third rail, along with other two rails. Or that I just move the spur back down for something to drop the rolling stocks down for some kind of industry. I am trying to avoid putting the turnout on the incline, so that I do not have to deal with derailments. 

For the future third rail, it will be expand into "L" shape, along with first two rails. That area will be bridges over the river. Also, I have not decide what they would include yet.


----------



## /6 matt (Jul 7, 2015)

So you are thinking of using it to pull a train into to be passed by another train? Also if your trackwork is really good, it is possible to lay a turnout on a grade and have reliable operation.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

/6 matt said:


> So you are thinking of using it to pull a train into to be passed by another train? Also if your trackwork is really good, it is possible to lay a turnout on a grade and have reliable operation.


Yes, I am considering that option. Will see about that after finishing laying the tracks and how it works for me.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

Laid the tracks with no problem. It is not completed at all, just a loop with side yard, just exact same from the layout diagram that I worked on. 

Anyone have trouble running DD40AX and DD40 through ST244 (Peco curved right turnout)? I am referring to the right side of the ST244 turnout. I think that it could not handle larger ones like DD40/DD40AX.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

Uh-oh, they could not go through 18" radii tracks. Oh great... I know that they run through 22" radii tracks, just fine. What is the smallest radii track can they go through? 20"?


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

So far, I had been playing with the DD40AX and DD40, it seems that 19" minimum radii curve is the answer. 18" curve will allow one wheel to pop off the track. It is hard to notice the wheel but at full speed, it will pop off right away. At slow speed, it is hard to notice the wheel start to lift off the track. However, on the Peco right curved turnouts (double ST244), at slow speed, on turnout, going right and right again, I can see the wheel start to lift clearly. It would not lift the wheel if it goes through ST244 on right then left on next ST244. 

It seems that double ST244 turnouts have to set a little farther from each other to avoid this. Or use broader turnout than ST244 if attach to ST244. IE: SL86 with ST244 are okay together.

I like to think that 20" radii is the ideal minimum curve for both DD40/AX. 

Back to drafting board.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

It seems that it is not possible to have mainline with 22" curves and not being blocked by overpass bridges inside 4x8 area. I need mainline to be a loop with side turnout for extension area. I am ready to throw the towel in and abandon the loop idea or sell DD40AX locos. Decisions... decisions... decisions...


----------



## time warp (Apr 28, 2016)

bluenavigator said:


> It seems that it is not possible to have mainline with 22" curves and not being blocked by overpass bridges inside 4x8 area. I need mainline to be a loop with side turnout for extension area. I am ready to throw the towel in and abandon the loop idea or sell DD40AX locos. Decisions... decisions... decisions...


If you are fighting them now, you most likely will have to continue fighting them. Small layouts do require some concessions. Even the prototype railroads have restrictions on large equipment.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

For now, I am redesigning the layout to have tunnel and yard and bridge and partial loop. The partial loop will be completed with the extension tables, which will be built much later in the future.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

bluenavigator said:


> It seems that it is not possible to have mainline with 22" curves and not being blocked by overpass bridges inside 4x8 area. I need mainline to be a loop with side turnout for extension area. I am ready to throw the towel in and abandon the loop idea or sell DD40AX locos. Decisions... decisions... decisions...


Well, yes, generally a 4x8 layout does not allow for the operation of large locos on a loop. The tight curves and / or steep grades are incompatible with long wheelbase locos.

I would do two things if I were you.
1) Make sure you test the loco pulling a train of approximately the length you want to run on your layout. Often, while you can coax the loco alone thru a tight radius turn, there is either too much friction to pull a train, or it requires too much coupler swing, and the loco will pull the following cars off the rails.
2) I would look at making a 2' wide donut instead. If you add 2' wide aisles all around your 4x8, you're actually using an 8x12 area. You can make a very nice donut in that space.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

I had built 22" loop in oval shape. It runs well but by change it into different design, with turnouts and stuff, it isn't doable anymore. 

I had it run through 18", 19" and 20" radii, I find 20" to be ideal size for smooth operation. 18" is doable but risky. 19" is okay so I go for a inch more. 

I want at least 3" clearance under the bridge. It does not work with the design that I had made. It is 9th design since the original layout that I made on the first post on this thread. I got 2.5" so far.

Here is the latest layout that I had made so far.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

I am on 11th draft. Just added 4" inch to 48", it works for larger radii, turning 4' 4" x 12' table. Simple 4 inches wider make a big difference. 

I am getting there!


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

Here is the 11th layout that I had created that allows larger locos. Mainline has 22" minimum. 

The couple things left to add - endlines for such functions like coal mine processing plant and rolling cars/loco repair shop.



















Any thoughts? Suggestions?


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

I am getting there. Got good clearance for the track going under the bridge. It is 3/4", just below the track but I know that it is not correct because of the bridge gridle will be more lower. Just wonder how much lower?

Current layout:










3D View:










View of clearance:










The locomotive is on the track with the trackbed laid on the decline from in the locomotive's forward direction.


----------



## wvgca (Jan 21, 2013)

looks good, a lot of opportunities for small industries and scenery, I will want to follow this thread


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

What is the vertical clearance between the tunnel tracks and the inner loop in the lower left? You will need a lot of clearance there to make convincing -- or even serviceable -- terrain on top of the tunnels. Probably 5-6" would be best, certainly no less than 4".


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

CTValleyRR said:


> What is the vertical clearance between the tunnel tracks and the inner loop in the lower left? You will need a lot of clearance there to make convincing -- or even serviceable -- terrain on top of the tunnels. Probably 5-6" would be best, certainly no less than 4".


That is exact feedback or idea or suggestion that I need to hear. For these two tunnel entrances on the lower left corner, they are not even 4" high for the clearance. In fact, the left area of the layout is at 4" high, meaning much lower clearance height for these tunnel entrances. 

Guess that would mean that I have to trash entire layout design.

Thank you for the feedback.


----------



## time warp (Apr 28, 2016)

CT is correct if you want a convincing tunnel entrance, but I would try to maybe re imagine that particular spot instead of trashing your entire good design.
You can disguise the " underpass" some other way if necessary, by allowing the track to disappear into a cut there in the midst of trees or a poured concrete arrangement like you would find around stations in older large cities.
In Indianapolis, for example, you can sit it the Subway sub shop and watch trains go by all day on the elevated trackage around the old station downtown. All kinds of trackwork converging in one spot in a dizzying array of bridges and concrete risers and retaining walls. 
I would also encourage you to study some photos of John Allen's Gorre and Dephetid railroad. There are numerous examples in his work that stir the imagination. Roger Hensley's ECI also is a good reference to some concealment ideas. I've seen it in person and his trackwork seems to come and go from nowhere.
Maybe a little "illusion" is all you need.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Yes -- exactly as TimeWarp said. I'm not advocating that you throw the baby out with the bathwater, just look at what you have and see if you can correct things. 

You will need about 3-1/4" of clearance above the lower tracks for your trains. Then, figure some kind of support for the upper level (foam / plywood, whatever) and roadbed and that's probably adding at least 3/4" of space above it to where the bottom of the next piece of track is. My 5-6" figure comes from the height of a commercially-made tunnel portal. You can always scratchbuild a smaller one. Or it can look goofy. I lived with that on my first layout for a while after making the same mistake.

You might try putting a slight downward slope on the tunnel tracks to gain some more vertical clearance.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

Hummm.... Have to dump transfer table. It can wait and can be added on the expansion table later. Would consider that area to have simple yard for something, nothing was determined yet. Have to break connection on the bottom between main loop and internal yards/incline ramps. It will not work due to the clearance issue on the tunnels at all of three entrances.

Actual, the "sealevel" is supposed to be at 1", allowing me to have the river in there, meaning that the top level on the left side, it has to be at least between 5 1/2" to 6" (5" higher over the "sealevel" at best.) The tunnels are at 1" elevation.

Have to rethink for the yards/switching area in the middle. Possible connect them at top right corner since they are pretty close at same elevation. Originally, in that corner, I had considered make it part of the mountain with tunnels. There is nothing above that area, meaning the tunnel clearance would not be any issue but might be issue for turnout accessible, meaning need a simple pull-off plate off the mountain to be placed with some trees to hide the plate.

*working on the changes.*


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Instead of seeing "sea level" as 1", it might be easier (and safer -- because you can't accidentally forget about the extra inch) if you just designated the lowest level of track as "altitude 0" and go from there.

Yards can pretty much be at any altitude (although they should be flat). Things like turntables or transfer tables, because they require significant space below grade level, can be tricky to place on an upper level, especially one above a tunnel. Similarly, if you plan to use under-table turnout motors, make sure they won't end up being in the middle of your tunnel.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

That is weird. Not sure what happened to the last post after clicking "View First Unread."

Now I can see the last post, after posting this one. 

Other than that, I think that I got it all. Upper yard on the left is at 5.75, meaning 4.75" higher than the where the tracks at at these three entrances of the tunnel. I think that they are okay for now. On the middle area on the right side, it could be town or something simple industry, still to be determined. I am still juggling between having mountain set up at the top right corner or not. 










Upper yard









River on top side









Right side - no mountain









Right side - with mountain - it would be much higher than shown, due to the limitation of the SCARM for creating higher contour.


----------



## time warp (Apr 28, 2016)

Very nice, the arrangement of the waterway adds beautifully.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Can't see it at work (unfortunately). Hopefully, I'll remember to take a look tonight.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

Right now, I am really happy with the final layout. Just a few minor changes would be done there and here during the progress of building on my table. 

For the mountain bit, I could add it but I will decide if it is worth the time to add it. Of course, I just realized that I need the backdrop to be there. I do not want to paint the walls. Might be thin sheet to be placed there. Not sure if I want to do that or use hard poster paper instead... Hummmm any suggestions for that? Would appreciate it more for the feedback. 

Feedback for something else that you noticed that I might overlooked, of course, I would appreciate it more. 

For the middle area, I am still juggling the idea of the town or industry area to be set. If the mountain being added, it would make more sensible to have either rock or coal industry to be set. Coal mine near the river.. hummm... not sure if that is realistic or not...

If the town is to be set, it would make realistic to have Amtrak service, which I do have trains/coachs to be used.


----------



## time warp (Apr 28, 2016)

Once you get started and it starts to come along, you are bound to see some things differently and some parts you will like better than others. It will evolve.
You've got a good start


----------



## Mixy (Dec 14, 2010)

CTValleyRR said:


> Depending on what he's running, easements may not be necessary if he keeps his grades at 2% or lower. I have un-eased 2% grades on which all my equipment operates reliably. He should set up a test section and run a few trains to be sure.
> 
> You can add vertical easements by creating shorter segments of track and assigning a slope to them, gradually increasing the incline to that of the main slope. Cumbersome, but functional.


Yes, for grades up to 2% usually there is no need for vertical easements. However, that also depend on the rolling stock which will be operated on the layout. Diesel engines and regular freight and passenger cars can handle even steeper grades without easements. But some steamers can have problems as shown in the diagram below:










Also, some couplers may suddenly uncouple when the train is passing on a grade without a proper easement, but that also depends on the rolling stock and coupler models. 

SCARM does not allow vertical easement as per single track, but that can be done manually for several sequential short tracks in the plan. Or if you are using flex-tracks, these can be easily split into smaller pieces.

In the reality, you can easily bend sectional or flex tracks without build-in roadbed in order to make an easement, but for tracks with build-in roadbed, you will probably need to use several short tracks to achieve that.

Mixy


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Stupid me, I forgot to look at the track plan. So kind of generic here.

For a free-standing backdrop, I have experimented with foam core, Gatorfoam, WS profile sheets, and tempered hardboard. I've also heard of people using large pieces of styrene purchased from sign making companies, but never tried it myself.

If you need to curve it, tempered hardboard will probably suit you best. Styrene would probably also work well for that. If there are no curves to be managed, Gatorfoam is my material of choice. Think foam core with a thin veneer of wood.

My backdrop is only 12" above the scenery -- high enough to add a nice effect, low enough to see and reach over.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

I do agree with the easements, good for longer locomotives, which I do have two of them. I keep the inclines limited to 2%, which I do have the Woodland Scenic Incline/Deline starters, which are all 2%. That way, I will not make any incline going higher than 2%. 

CTVRR - Thanks for the suggestion! Would consider that. A foot high would work for me.


----------



## Chip (Feb 11, 2016)

LOL! I got my Bachman DD40AX to take 15" curves "at speed" by "chopping the chins" off it! The ladders prevented the trucks from travelling far enough, now it's an "all terrain" train! If you are not TOO "proto" picky it's a way to go. On grades, I'm going to go to 4% but only in 1-2% increments, "Zero" to 2%, to 3%, to 4%, and back down, 3%, 2% to "zero"% resulting in ten foot long runs but doing it like that will increase what I can run on that line and I can brag about having 4% grades. LOL!


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

It's so easy to create most vertical easements using flex track.

Simply let the unsupported track find it's on levels, then
build supports for the resulting slope. Make sure the
'middle of the flex section is 'over' the transition point.

The same method can be used with the upper easement.

Don


----------

