# 8ft x 8ft framework



## johnfm3

I am looking to build my first layout. In this diagram below, it displays a 8ft x 8ft platform with the first layer base frame work in place.

My finished layout will be 3 layers tall with a 12 loop helix in the middle 4ft x 4ft section. Each loop will have 4 in separation. The layer deck seperatin will be about 2ft apart with the over all height at just about 6ft (top of layer 1 being at 2ft and layer 2 being at 4ft)










Here is the picture of my layout base setup.










Currently I am planning on using two 2x4s at the very bottom and 4x4s for the vertical. And then 1x4s for all the main frame work.

The question is, can those 4x4s be replace with 2x2s??? (assuming adjustment of the bottom two 2x4's). Would 2x2's be strong enough or should I stick with 4x4s for that part.

Thanks,
John


----------



## The New Guy

johnfm3 said:


> Would 2x2's be strong enough...


Good heavens yes. 

2x2 is a concession to those who fear drunk uncle Andy dancing with Beatrice from accounting on the train table during the annual Spring mixer.

1x is more than adequate for all things MRR.

BTW, that's a very ambitious first. It should be fun to watch come together.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

I agree that 4x4s are overkill. However, I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable with just using 2x2s. If it were me, I'd glue and screw together two 1x3 or 1x4 boards in an "L" shape for my main vertical supports. I think that would give you increased stiffness over 2x2s without all the mass of 4x4s.

Very interesting layout. I don't think I've seen anything like that with the helix at the center of the layout. I look forward to watching your progress on building it. Please post pictures as you go.

Mark


----------



## CTValleyRR

Make an L girder by screwing and gluing a 1x3 with a 1x2 in an L shape. This will be plenty strong, resist flexing in both dimensions, and be much cheaper.

It also might be a good idea to try something less complex if this really is your first go-around at layout constraction. It's easy to get overwhelmed and give up.


----------



## johnfm3

As far as this being a ambitious first layout. When broken down, its really not that hard or complex. Its 3 rows of 2ft deep shelf's that are 24ft long with a helix as the method to get between levels. I am just wrapping those shelf's around in a 8ft x 8ft square instead of securing them to a wall. And hiding the helix in the middle. The shelf's are built from 1x4 and will be properly jointed together and squared up in much the same manor as one would building a layout on a wall.

I considered the "L" shape style leg as a option. But I believe the L shape leg will not work as I am not holding up the structure from the out side corners but the middle 4ft x 4ft cut out of the inside edge as shown in the second picture. I can use 1x4s to build a hollow 4x4 post which is not hard to do and would give me the benefit of running wires between the levels and the helix in a hidden manor.

If anyone has a drawing they are willing to share of how they think a L shape leg could work, I am totally interested in seeing it. I do have a pretty complete wood shop with routing table, jointer, 15 inch planer, band saw, drill press, and sliding chop saw. As well as a dust collection system. Currently trying different ideas to see what will work. My self I am the king of "OverKill" which brought me to ask this question to all you here. I am open to suggestions and would love to see drawings of how it could be implemented.

As far as the concern of the possibility of me getting overwhelmed and giving up. I can promise that wont happen. I have done far harder things from furniture building to building Jeeps including wiring and fuel injection. The part of this which scares me and which will be the part I will need the most help on is the land scape and weathering. Getting the track laid down on the 3 levels I suspect will be pretty straight forward. This is a challenge I am ready to confront and overcome.

A piece of history about me. By definition, this is not my first train layout if you count the first one my G'Pa, and Father built for me when I was 6yrs old. You can imagine how much help I was in building it at 6yrs old. Not I didn't think I did more than really done. 3 weeks or so ago, I was watching youtube videos which led me to HO Trains. That prompted me to pull out my old (35 yr old) Athern Southern Pacific 6441 and pay a shop to repair it. As a result of that, I am motivated to do this. I want to recreate a part of my history and start something new with my kids which provided me fun memories which I held tightly until now. I had that layout till I was almost 20 when it was destroyed due to bad priorities. And now its time for me to rebuild something to replace it. Again, I am not giving up on this.

There will be a build thread in the "My Layout" section of this forum. And I will post to this thread when I have done that.

More pictures to come.

Thanks for the comments.
John


----------



## The New Guy

johnfm3 said:


> ...I believe the L shape leg will not work as I am not holding up the structure from the out side corners but the middle 4ft x 4ft cut out of the inside edge as shown in the second picture...


I'm not seeing the problem. A rigid shelf assembly supported on four piers. each "side" counterbalanced by the other three. The only real force involved is compression and sheer, and 1x isn't going to compress with a model RR.

But as like all things MRR it's your table. Some really go for those thick legs.


----------



## The New Guy

True, not hard. A helix can be a big first bite, but not impossible. I had no thought of completion or quitting. The typical first go round is just that, a go round on sheet goods. Three levels warrants an ambitious label based on the typical.

It'll be fun to see this come together.


----------



## johnfm3

The New Guy said:


> I'm not seeing the problem. A rigid shelf assembly supported on four piers. each "side" counterbalanced by the other three. The only real force involved is compression and sheer, and 1x isn't going to compress with a model RR.
> 
> But as like all things MRR it's your table. Some really go for those thick legs.


I am open to what your saying, but don't seem to be grabbing the image your trying to explain. If you so inclined, please draw it up so I can better understand.

I have some errands to run. As soon as I get back, I will thro up a quick picture (from sketchup) of my interpretation of what I think your trying to say. Probably later tonight.

Thanks,
John


----------



## Bwells

Will you be able to shimmy under the bottom bench work to get inside the helix?


----------



## johnfm3

Bwells said:


> Will you be able to shimmy under the bottom bench work to get inside the helix?


Yes, there will be 2 ft to crawl under. And the center of the helix has a 30 inch opening.

John


----------



## Bwells

Okay, I saw the cross ties on the floor with what appears to be a "sister" to span the joint and thought of my back! I take it the 30" is what is left after the helix is built. CTV's idea of "L" corners would give you more diameter for the helix.


----------



## johnfm3

CTV: So after much thought on the suggestion of going to a corner base (L shape) legs, it has taken a complete design of the base and I will have to relocate some track. So now the layout will have the 4 inside legs as before, but it will have a more needed out bound set of legs at the very outer corners.

BWELLS: With the redesign, those crossed 2x4's are gone. The helix has a 48in outer diameter, 2 rows of tracks (22inch radius and 18inch radius), and a 30in inner diameter hole.

Regarding helix: The outer diameter track only goes up 1 level at a time. The inner diameter track goes straight from the top to the bottom. And there will be no crossing over from the inner to outer tracks except on the top and bottom levels. But not in the helix.


----------



## Bwells

Got it! It sounds like you will need two separate helix's that do not share the same subroadbed. Don't forget the easements you will need when entering and leaving the helix.This can be done within the helix or after exiting or before entering. For a 2% grade, allow at least two feet to go to zero, preferably more. Just thoughts of course. Sounds like you know what you are doing!

Edit: What are you planning on using for subroadbed, Ply?


----------



## johnfm3

Bwells said:


> Got it! It sounds like you will need two separate helix's that do not share the same subroadbed. Don't forget the easements you will need when entering and leaving the helix.This can be done within the helix or after exiting or before entering. For a 2% grade, allow at least two feet to go to zero, preferably more. Just thoughts of course. Sounds like you know what you are doing!
> 
> Edit: What are you planning on using for subroadbed, Ply?


I kind of know what I am doing. I can say I have a plan and I feel confident with my skill levels in working with wood and fabrication. What parts of the plan will need to be adjusted as I wont have taken into account an aspect, that will be the big question. I have spent many the hours watching youtube videos of people who know alot more than I. Thats why i am asking questions here. To fill in the gaps of information I have not been able to sort out up to this point. And during the building when the learning process is in full swing, when I hit a road block, I am sure to post it on my build thread.


----------



## johnfm3

Bwells said:


> Edit: What are you planning on using for subroadbed, Ply?


Yeah. Looking at 1/2 inch ply. I was considering laminating the helix in 4 layers of 1/8 in, but all the videos I have watched on the topic have shown just using standard ply. So for my first attempt, I going to go that route.

John


----------



## Bwells

!/2 should be plenty provided you have the headroom. I'll post some pictures of a radius arm jig I built that you maybe interested in. Hooks onto your router and does precise cuts. I just have to find them! It would be perfect for the helix.


----------



## johnfm3

Bwells said:


> !/2 should be plenty provided you have the headroom. I'll post some pictures of a radius arm jig I built that you maybe interested in. Hooks onto your router and does precise cuts. I just have to find them! It would be perfect for the helix.


That would be much appreciated. Thanks


----------



## CTValleyRR

I was away in a backpacking trip, and a lot of water hads gone over the dam since, so i won't rehash everythjng else. 

Sorry if you took my first comments the wrong way. I was not attempting to challenge your skills or your experience. In MY experience, a lot of newcomers get overwhelmed. Glad you seem to be up to the challenge.

I wasn't, however, commenting on just the benchwork, but the totality of the project. Rest assured, though that if you're ready to tackle it, there are lots of folks here who will be glad to help.

Do you have a track plan in mind, beyond the helix?


----------



## johnfm3

CTValleyRR said:


> I was away in a backpacking trip, and a lot of water hads gone over the dam since, so i won't rehash everythjng else.
> 
> Sorry if you took my first comments the wrong way. I was not attempting to challenge your skills or your experience. In MY experience, a lot of newcomers get overwhelmed. Glad you seem to be up to the challenge.
> 
> I wasn't, however, commenting on just the benchwork, but the totality of the project. Rest assured, though that if you're ready to tackle it, there are lots of folks here who will be glad to help.
> 
> Do you have a track plan in mind, beyond the helix?


No harm. I am the noob and no one here knows me or my background. I didn't want to come on as a "Know it all" (which I don't). I do have fabrication and wood working skills and a less than polished ability address peoples concerns with out coming out harsh or wrong.

I more than welcome advice. My ability to visualize things has always been difficult. So I tend to ask for images and such so that I better understand ones thought process.

I do have a track plan in the works. I will grab images from my sketchup plans. Layer 1 is pretty well set. Layer 2 and 3 mainline are in place and more or less identical and I will need to address the industry lines based on further thoughts. Really would like to give layer 2 and 3 some individuality.

In short there will be a continuous loop thru all three levels for the passenger train. I am in the air as to how to deal with the 2 industries. 

Thoughts
1) Layer 1 is only the Southern Pacific passenger train departure location and train yard. SP destination will be on the 3rd layer. Layer 2 will just be scenic passage to get from 1 to 3 for SP.

2a) Logging and Coal mining done on 1 layer (not necessary the same) and the product destination (aka the saw mill and coal refinery) is on another layer other than layer 1.
2b) Keeping each industry on a single layer

3) Industries will use the main line, but be able to branch off so not to interrupt the SP.


----------



## johnfm3

Pictures comming


Here is the completed layout as I envision it.









Layer 1 Train Yard









Layer 1 Train Yard top view









Layer 2 Mainline top view









Layer 3 Mainline top view


----------



## johnfm3

So what has not been added in these plans yet is any elevation differences on single layers. And I may add some minor elevation and such.

I kind of have a idea for a single straight track to go from inside a mountain to a structure where a small 3 car coal train transport coal from the mine to the main train. Kind of thinking a hand cart with 2 guys pumping pulling 3 small scale 3ft x 3ft coal carts.


----------



## CTValleyRR

I see from your track plan for level 3 that you are a Walt Disney fan! o

Looks like a nice plan there. You might want to rethink the use of the double crossovers, though. They are tricky to wire, not very prototypical, and very expensive (MSRP $100).


----------



## johnfm3

CTValleyRR said:


> I see from your track plan for level 3 that you are a Walt Disney fan! o


I don't see what your seeing, layer 2 kind of looks like mickey mouse (sort of), but that wasn't the intention. :worshippy:



CTValleyRR said:


> Looks like a nice plan there. You might want to rethink the use of the double crossovers, though. They are tricky to wire, not very prototypical, and very expensive (MSRP $100).


Yeah, you can only guess what the helix is going to cost me @ 12 layers tall. Both tracks requiring 12 pieces to complete 360 degrees. Totaling 288 (2x12x12) pieces of corner track at $1.09 for Atlas code 83 a piece works out to $313.92 (pre tax and shipping).


----------



## CTValleyRR

johnfm3 said:


> I don't see what your seeing, layer 2 kind of looks like mickey mouse (sort of), but that wasn't the intention. :worshippy:


Yeah, when I scrolled back up, I thought the caption was below... it's level 2. Just yanking your chain, though. I didn't think it was intentional.


----------



## johnfm3

CTValleyRR said:


> Yeah, when I scrolled back up, I thought the caption was below... it's level 2. Just yanking your chain, though. I didn't think it was intentional.


Kind of figured :rippedhand:. Hail to the mouse.... lol (now that you pointed that out, I will never see that section the same. It must change)

So looking at the Walthers double crossover from modeltrainstuff...
http://www.modeltrainstuff.com/Walthers-HO-8812-Code-83-6-Double-Crossover-p/948-8812.htm

These drop-in replacements for existing Walthers Code 83 products come fully assembled with: 
- Pre-wired Jumper 
- Isolated frog with built-in connection; an access point allows you to convert to a live frog if desired 
- Powered points with correct polarity 
- Improved point clearance gaps to prevent short circuits from metal wheelsets 
- Insulated tie bar 
- Tab reinforcement to hold points more securely 
- Option to power frog through switch machines 


These are what I am considering purchasing. The 2 double crossovers is kind of essential for my train yard. May not be prototypical, but this layout is my interpretation of a run thru the cascade mountains. Not a replica this time.

As trains come into Layer 1 from the helix along the track which comes out of the loop counter clockwise and behind the train station and repair structure, after going to the other side of the layout and around the reversing loop, they pull in to the train station engine first, then need to reverse all the way around the reversing loop again to enter back into the train station with engine facing out.

The track in the middle of the reversing loop on the right side is where a train yard will be. On the plans you see only 2 lines. I may see about 3 or so. Depending on cosmetic's and space.

As I get all my thoughts on this thread, I will be pulling this info into a more organized structure for the build thread I will be starting next.

Thanks for talking thru this with me.
John


----------



## DonR

Very interesting concept. 

There is one situation on your level one that you
may want to look at. You need a 'run around' 
capability. You have spurs that a loco would need to
BACK a car into, and you have spurs that a loco would
have to push a car FORWARD into. To do this the
loco needs tracks that will permit it to get on the
OTHER end of a car.

Don


----------



## johnfm3

DonR said:


> Very interesting concept.
> 
> There is one situation on your level one that you
> may want to look at. You need a 'run around'
> capability. You have spurs that a loco would need to
> BACK a car into, and you have spurs that a loco would
> have to push a car FORWARD into. To do this the
> loco needs tracks that will permit it to get on the
> OTHER end of a car.
> 
> Don


Thank you. The premise (spelling) of this track layout is to display my SP passenger train. I am not looking to take part in any operational tasks as I am assuming from my research that my layout will not be supportive of what people are looking for. I will never deny someone from running on my layout, and would love to show it off.


The main thought process of this layout...
On layer 1, the SP 6441 train engines and cars will be in a "Ready to Depart" state at the 2 loading tracks. With a spare engine and dummy car sitting in the repair facility to be joined to the lead engine if needed.

Looking at layer one as a clock.
The SP train station (with first 2 tracks) and loading docks are the 2 tracks at the 9 o'clock corner of the layout. That building behind station loading area is the repair facility for SP 6441. That round structure at roughly 11 o'clock is a place holder for what will be the fueling structure area. The repair first passenger loading track will most likely be my programming track. And the track which I will cut power too so nothing on it runs (aka my first 6441 and cars when on display) when I am running my other trains.

The reversing loop on the Right at the 1 o'clock location is how my trains will reverse direction in correlation to the cars.

The double cross overs at the 6 o'clock location is how I will get around cars on the middle track that leads to the extra train yard in the middle of the reversing loop. All cars will be pushed into or pulled out of that train yard at the 3 o'clock location. I may add more tracks at the train yard at the 3 o'clock location depending on cosmetics and space. And I may tie them together at the far inside as well. Space and cosmetics will dictate that.

I really need layer 1 built and the continuous loop mainline for SP put on the other 2 layers before I evaluate the other 2 industries and there loading and storage needs based on space and wants such as adding elevation for better space use.


----------



## johnfm3

I would like to take a moment to thank everyone who is commenting and asking questions about my layout I am working the plans out on. This is helping me talk thru my plans and work out kinks as well as getting things written down which will be added to the Build Thread when I start construction.

As it stands, if I can make the L shaped legs work, I am looking at entirely built from 1x4's and needing 50 8ft lengths for all the framing and about 12 sheets of plywood. And this will give me about 72 ft of travel if attached to the wall (not including travel in the helix)


----------



## pat_smith1969

A quick note.. your inner circle is going to be an 18r circle.. is there any way to bump that up to 22 with the outter being 26? Some of the larger locos are a bit pickey about 18R radius.. while most say they will do 18r, I have found that some "do 18r" better than others. 

If you build furniture I have no doubt your skills are good enough to build the bench-work. 
" Getting the track laid down on the 3 levels I suspect will be pretty straight forward. "

Please don't sell the track step short, it is by far the most important step in the whole project. You really need to be meticulous about laying the track. 
I am pretty new too and I took this step for granted, I wanted to get to the decorating stage. because of that I ended up spending weeks tearing up sections of track and replacing them... All I am saying is that you need to take your time on this step (something CTValley advised me several times during my track building phase). 
Easements are critical.


----------



## johnfm3

pat_smith1969 said:


> A quick note.. your inner circle is going to be an 18r circle.. is there any way to bump that up to 22 with the outter being 26? Some of the larger locos are a bit pickey about 18R radius.. while most say they will do 18r, I have found that some "do 18r" better than others.


At this time, I have no interest of running longer than the F7 (I think that's what they are) engines such as a the SP 6441.

More so, due to limited space where this is going I have a max diameter of 48 inches for the helix, which forces my first largest size as 22in R (44 inch diam) and the next size of 18in R (36 inch diam). This will allow me to have a 2 ft deep shelf all the way around. As well as a much simpler helix construction.

This gives my overall size 8ft x 8ft.



pat_smith1969 said:


> If you build furniture I have no doubt your skills are good enough to build the bench-work.
> " Getting the track laid down on the 3 levels I suspect will be pretty straight forward. "
> 
> Please don't sell the track step short, it is by far the most important step in the whole project. You really need to be meticulous about laying the track.
> 
> I am pretty new too and I took this step for granted, I wanted to get to the decorating stage. because of that I ended up spending weeks tearing up sections of track and replacing them... All I am saying is that you need to take your time on this step (something CTValley advised me several times during my track building phase).
> Easements are critical.


Totally understood and agreed. Which is why I need to get the mainline down in a manor which I can move around till I get the 2 other industries in place. Then lock the entire down. I don't see getting to landscaping and such done till next summer.


----------



## pat_smith1969

Those F7 units are pretty nice.. they do great on the smaller turns too. At 18r you will be able to do some of the larger locos if you later chose to.. My Intermountain 40-2 states that it "easily does" 18r and the great engineering that went into the loco makes me believe it. I had an Athearn that would not do 18r, but it was pretty old and had been abused before it got to me.


----------



## johnfm3

pat_smith1969 said:


> Those F7 units are pretty nice.. they do great on the smaller turns too. At 18r you will be able to do some of the larger locos if you later chose to.. My Intermountain 40-2 states that it "easily does" 18r and the great engineering that went into the loco makes me believe it. I had an Athearn that would not do 18r, but it was pretty old and had been abused before it got to me.


Thanks for the insight.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Unfortunately, the only way to know for sure whether a given piece of equipment will handle a certain radius (or turnout number, for that matter) is to test it.


----------



## johnfm3

So I know this is not a layout question, but I really dont want to start a new thread for this question.

I have 3 Southern Pacific 6441's. Whats involved in changing the numbers on 2 of them? Part of me wants to change my original to 1983 (the year I got it). But thats probably the one I will leave original.

Second question, what is the standard method of numbering trains?


----------



## CTValleyRR

Well, the reason to start a new thread would be so that other people who might be interested in renumbering a loco might see it and get help, whereas they might ignore a thread on someone building an 8x8 3 level layout. But whatever. It's not wrong either way.

To renumber a loco, remove the old one and add a different one. Probably the easiest way is to "patch" it like real railroads do. Paint over the old number (and the paint doesn't need to match -- prototype patchouts often have grossly mismatched colors), and add a decal over that with the new number. This would reflect a prototype unit which had been renumbered but was not yet in for a full repaint. You can buy decal paper and make your own, or buy pre-printed number and letter sets. Either waterslide or dry-transfer decals work. 

If you don't want the "patchout" approach, you have to strip the old number. Many products will work. I use one called ELO (Easy Lift Off), formerly made by Floquil / PollyScale and now sold by Testors. Just gently stroke the number with a cotton swab or microbrush dipped in ELO until the number comes off, then quickly wipe the excess ELO away so as not to damage the underlying paint. Then apply decals as above.

If you have a really steady hand, you can create a stencil and paint the new number instead of decaling it, but this is a much trickier to get right. 

As far as numbering, I assume you mean numbering locomotives rather than trains. Trains are also identified by number on timetables, train orders, etc., but the equipment making up that train will differ on a daily basis. But whichever you mean, there is no standard method. Each railroad does it differently. While there is usually some internal logic at each railroad, there is no standardization across railroads. And just to make things more confusing, they often change numbering schemes (hence the "patchout" I refer to above).


----------



## pat_smith1969

I think with Locos most people use road numbers from a prototype.. What I have done on my layout (remember I am failry new to this, so I don't consider myself an expert) is went to the DM&IR website and looked up their historical list of locos in service . I found a loco that matched the one I had (Birkshire 2-8-8-4) and used one of those numbers. In my case that particular loco was placed in an outdoor museum in my home town so I chose that number from the couple of locos of that same model. 

The one thing to consider about Locos is that if they have lighted train numbers, it might make the re-numbering a bit harder as you wouldn't want one number plastered all over the loco and the lighted placard to have another number.

But honestly unless you are going to be doing some type of competition or some such.. you can number it however you want... Might I suggest numbering your loco with your Bank number and the tender with the PIN to that bank number???? If you do please send me pictures!!!


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

pat_smith1969 said:


> What I have done on my layout is went to the DM&IR website and looked up their historical list of locos in service . I found a loco that matched the one I had (Birkshire 2-8-8-4) and used one of those numbers.


This is basically what I've done when decaling an unlettered caboose on my layout. I went looking for a historical list of cabooses for the railroad I'm modeling and chose a number from a similar looking caboose that once existed in real life. This will work for locomotives or any other rolling stock.

Mark


----------



## Chip

pat_smith1969 said:


> I think with Locos most people use road numbers from a prototype.. What I have done on my layout (remember I am failry new to this, so I don't consider myself an expert) is went to the DM&IR website and looked up their historical list of locos in service . I found a loco that matched the one I had (Birkshire 2-8-8-4) and used one of those numbers. In my case that particular loco was placed in an outdoor museum in my home town so I chose that number from the couple of locos of that same model.
> 
> The one thing to consider about Locos is that if they have lighted train numbers, it might make the re-numbering a bit harder as you wouldn't want one number plastered all over the loco and the lighted placard to have another number.
> 
> But honestly unless you are going to be doing some type of competition or some such.. you can number it however you want... Might I suggest numbering your loco with your Bank number and the tender with the PIN to that bank number???? If you do please send me pictures!!!


THAT is most likely the funniest post I have read on here!:appl::smilie_daumenpos::thumbsup::laugh:


----------



## CTValleyRR

pat_smith1969 said:


> Might I suggest numbering your loco with your Bank number and the tender with the PIN to that bank number???? If you do please send me pictures!!!


I'd be happy to do that. I have a kid in college. You wouldn't get enough to buy a piece of flex track!


----------



## johnfm3

pat_smith1969 said:


> But honestly unless you are going to be doing some type of competition or some such.. you can number it however you want... Might I suggest numbering your loco with your Bank number and the tender with the PIN to that bank number???? If you do please send me pictures!!!


I will get right on that ....


----------



## johnfm3

CTValleyRR said:


> I'd be happy to do that. I have a kid in college. You wouldn't get enough to buy a piece of flex track!


You and I both... Infact, now that I think about it, I may use his bank account information.

Maybe people will feel bad and put money in there. :dunno:


----------



## johnfm3

So with these 3 train engines, I am not looking for prototypical, but more out of the box from athern. I suspect this will be something I will most likely pay someone to do for me as there is too much sentimental attachment to one of these (which will be left original), and the others how they relate to it.

Any following trains I will go more prototypical.


----------



## johnfm3

So I have been using this time which I have been quite to work with my new wood shop and try assembling a few decks to see what works and what doesnt.

I am not happy with the end results. a 2ft by 8ft deck which had 5 cross supports (1 every 2 ft) had too much deviation in measurement. With the smallest measurement across at 23 15/16 inches. And the largest being 24 and 3/16 inch. A difference of 1/4 inch seems too much to me. And I am thinking part of the problem is the poor quality construction grade 1x4's. part of the issue seems to be the thickness of each piece varies at different locations on the board.

As much as I am confident my measurements of the cross supports are exact, I am concerned with the way I have accomplished this working with a chop saw and trying to support 8ft lumber on a deck thats no larger than 20 inches, and only 10 inches to the blade.

So as too my quietness, I am currently working on a chop saw station with a 8ft fence on one side and the ability for a stop block to improve my chances of repeatable accurate cuts. Got the idea from Norm Abrams (spelling) of New Yankee Workshop. Only difference from his and mine is I wont build a mobile one. And my fence will be on one side of the chop saw, not both.

The other thing I determined I need is more clamps. I lost so many things when we reduced down our home to a smaller place. Now I am replacing some of it.

More to come.
John


----------



## johnfm3

So would I sound crazy if I said I am considering cutting all my frame lumber from ply wood to ensure accurate thickness and measurements?

Or am I just over paranoid about my measurements?


----------



## redman88

Your going to end up making cuts anyway. Plywood could end up being stronger and lighter.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Well, John, I've been woodworking for a lot of years.

What you're seeing is the normal variation in thickness for construction grade lumber. Unfortunately, non-cabinet grade plywood is no more dimensionally accurate than the lumber you've been using. I've found as much as 1/8" deviation at opposite ends of a 4x8 sheet of 3/4" AC ply. For benchwork, you can easily live with those variances, so I wouldn't worry about it. Your frustration due to your perceived poor performance is understandable, but it won't matter as you build your layout. Fine cabinetry this is not; no one will care after it has a layout on top.

Unfortunately, the solution to your longer term problem (accurate dimensions) is to upgrade your shop. I'm guessing that your new woodshop doesn't include a planer and jointer. Use of these tools with cabinet grade lumber will allow you to get your stock to an exact (and uniform) dimension before you begin working with it. You should also have some kind of outfeed support on your miter / chop saw. I'd recommend a miter saw stand, which will give you support for boards ranging from 2-6 feet. Sounds like you may be building something like this yourself. A stop block is easily created with a piece of scrap lumber and a clamp, so long as you have a fence or something to support it.

And BTW, the golden rule of woodworking is "You can never have too many clamps". I have 28, in various configurations, and I still run out.


----------



## johnfm3

CTValleyRR said:


> Well, John, I've been woodworking for a lot of years.
> 
> What you're seeing is the normal variation in thickness for construction grade lumber.... Your frustration due to your perceived poor performance is understandable, but it won't matter as you build your layout. Fine cabinetry this is not; no one will care after it has a layout on top.


Ok, I can accept that am looking for too much perfection out of my build in concern for the need of accuracy with my build.




CTValleyRR said:


> Unfortunately, the solution to your longer term problem (accurate dimensions) is to upgrade your shop. I'm guessing that your new woodshop doesn't include a planer and jointer.... You should also have some kind of outfeed support on your miter / chop saw. I'd recommend a miter saw stand, which will give you support for boards ranging from 2-6 feet. Sounds like you may be building something like this yourself.....


I thought I had commented before on my wood shop in a prior post. I don't own Jet or any other high quality tools, but I do own Craftsman hand and power tools and my Grizzly brand of the following
15 in Thickness Planer
6in wide Jointer with 48in long deck
Shaper with router spindle included
Dual stage dust collection

...and my Ryobi sliding compound miter saw. I purchased a 50 inch Bora clamp guide which I have come to love for long cuts across the ply with my skill saw. As such I have purchased a 100 inch version so I can perform the long cut down a 4x8 sheet of ply. As soon as that comes, I am going to start building my chop saw station which will be long enough to hold 8 ft lumber to 1 side of the blade.




CTValleyRR said:


> And BTW, the golden rule of woodworking is "You can never have too many clamps". I have 28, in various configurations, and I still run out.


yeah, I don't have enough. My friend calls it his sickness as he says you can never have enough. I currently have 8 total. Dewalt hand grip clamps of 2 different sizes. And then a bunch of various size C clamps. Needless to say, I need to buy some pipe style clamps and various size pipes.

My setup has treated me well for beds, bookshelfs, and night stands. But this project is pushing my skills and forcing me to think beyond my skill set to learn more. Which is the main attraction to this project.


----------



## johnfm3

Status update:
I know I have been quite for a while. I have been buying new track every 2 weeks since the start of this thread. Not a lot each time, but with in my budget given its the holiday season.

I have been forced to slow down my progress on this. With the holiday season starting, so starts the Hunney-Do list (holiday edition). Which resulted in my getting approval from the wife for purchasing another new tool. I am now the proud owner of a Grizzly G0765 Metal Lathe which is currently being shipped as I type and should be delivered on Monday. This should be found useful in many of my hobbies such as my 69 barracuda restoration (along with my boys and wife's classic cars) all the way to my RC crawlers and this hobby.

In closing, happy Thanksgiving to all.
Thanks,
John


----------



## johnfm3

Things have stopped at this time for holiday purchases. As said before, the holiday edition of the honey do list is still in progress. Wife and I had been struggling with the possibility of a divorce in our future after 10 yrs. That being said, we are really focusing on US this holiday season with intent to rebuild. Mean while I will continue to purchase track and supplies.

There probably wont be much being posted on this tread till first of the year.


----------



## johnfm3

Well, I have made more purchases including 3 gently used Life Like F7 engines. 1 Southern Pacific and 2 Santa Fe. I have been told I may have over paid for them. I know little of the brand name, and have not seen them in person yet. Pictures to come when they are delivered.

I have also purchased more track. Another 100 count of 22 inch curve.

My total track as of now
ATL-511 Atlas HO Code 83 Track 15" Radius Curve 36 (23ft)
ATL-512 Atlas HO Code 83 Track 18" Radius Curve 148 (113 ft)
ATL-513 Atlas HO Code 83 Track 22" Radius Curve 164 (115 ft)
ATL-500 Atlas HO Code 83 36" Super-Flex Track with Wood Ties 5 (15ft)

Between the 18 and 22 inch curve, I have almost the full amount to complete the 13 layers of the helix. 10 layers of 22 inch and 12 layers of the 18inch.

total footage of track purchased so far is 266ft

I need 100 count of 18 as well as 22 inch radius curve to complete the helix and leave me with misc track to suit needs I may find in the layout. Then I need to focus on purchasing flex track. And finally I need to look at turnouts and crossovers.


----------



## johnfm3

So Santa has been really good to me this season. I received 2 Athern F7 Southern Pacific Engines (one which came with a dummy B car). This gives me a new F7 ABA configuration in Southern Pacific.










Xmas evening my wife an I found 2 proto 2000 E7's Southern Pacific which my wife purchased. One is New Old Stock and was sold as never ran. The other one was gently used but was damaged during shipping. Broken hand rails.

Here are images of the NOS one.


















At this time, I now have 10 engines which include 8 F7's and 2 E7's.
1 of my SP F7's is sitting on my desk at work.


















My holiday time off has been very productive. I also got some free funds and time at the same time to get the things needed and build the Chop Saw station. This has worked out really well. I used it to build the legs for its base which resulted in a accuracy which I am very impressed with. Pictures of that to come by Monday evening.

I will be starting the build of the layout shortly. And at that time I will be stating a new thread on it.


----------



## Magic

F7s in Daylight livery, how cool is that. Nice find.

Magic


----------



## johnfm3

Well, I have an image of the Chop Saw Station to provide. I am still working on the legs and deciding on whether or not to build cabinets below. 5 of the 6 legs have been built, and am almost ready to attach them to the base.










I am really happy with the results. I now have a 8ft fence on top of the 10inches from the blade which the chop saw provided. This has been built with one 4ft x 8 ft sheet of 1 1/8 inch toung and grove and six 1x4's.


----------



## johnfm3

Nothing new has been done as Washington has been under a cold snap and has maintained weather in the teens and low 20's. Needless to say trying to glue anything will not turn out.

All 6 legs have been built, now I have to get the remaining base structure built then secure them to the chop saw station.

I still have about $900 worth of track to buy which includes the needed turnouts, crossover's, and flex track. So hopefully I will have all the track needed in the next 4 months.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

Looking forward to seeing the support structure come together. Its going to be a very unique layout. I know what you mean about the cold weather here in the Pacific Northwest. Hopefully it will break this coming week.

Mark


----------



## johnfm3

Mark VerMurlen said:


> Looking forward to seeing the support structure come together. Its going to be a very unique layout. I know what you mean about the cold weather here in the Pacific Northwest. Hopefully it will break this coming week.
> 
> Mark


Thanks. After building the chop saw station with a full sheet of plywood (which I ripped down to the needed size), I must say I am considering building much of the support structure from plywood.

For example, I am considering using hollow legs. If I use 2 sheets of 3/4" plywood, I would have enough lumber to create four 6ft hollow 4"x4" inner post as well as four 2ft 4"x4" outer post. I would still have a 32in x 8ft sheet of lumber left. With the post being hollow, I could run electrical thru the legs in a hidden manor. 

In my above example, that is a lot of glue and joint work. Which makes the cold weather a major enemy to me.

Now that I have built the chop saw station, the next jig I need to build will be the circle cutting jig for the band saw. I have seen some good designs from "The New Yankee Workshop" which has several episodes on YouTube. This jig will ensure I build an accurate helix as easily as can be.

Over all, I am really looking forward to getting stated on this layout design. I am in the middle of a couple of different projects requiring my time and funds including this train layout, a 69 Plymouth Barracuda build, and my RC rock crawlers.

One of my most recent purchases for my Barracuda which I think maybe beneficial to this project is a small Grizzly 7x14 desktop lathe. I am using it to build suspension bushing for a aftermarket suspension system I am installing.


----------



## johnfm3

Up until now, I have been purchasing curves and flex track which has been all Code 83 manufactured by Atlas. Tomorrow being payday, I am planning on buying more track. this time I am looking at purchasing turn outs or crossovers.

Which brings me to my question. Which manufacture of turns outs do people prefer and why?

Walthers is the only company (as far as I can tell) which sells a Double Crossover which I plan on having 2. Not concerned about being prototypical with this. My layout has been planned around 2 of them so far on the first layer. More may show up in upper levels if so desired. Walthers also has curved turn outs of different shapes.

And then there is Atlas turn outs. Options seem to be more limited in Atlas. But there seems to be some physical differences between the different ones which I am not quite sure of.

I am assuming picking the right turn out is kind of trial and error to see what works best on my layout.

Any guidance here?


----------



## Magic

For the time, money and effort you are putting into this project I would recommend 
Peco or Walthers turnouts. Both are very good.
I like the Walthers curved turnouts much better than Pecos.
Actually for code 83 I prefer Walthers all the way. I have used them both.

Magic


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

I also have Walthers code 83 curved turnouts on my layout. I think I have about 5 of them. They helped me tremendously with trying to modify a track plan to fit into a little bit smaller space than it was originally designed for. They have worked very well for me and I would recommend them. I don't have experience with other curved turnouts to compare them to however.

I designed my layout using AnyRail software, so it wasn't a matter of trial and error to see what fits. I know they will exactly fit because of the software. AnyRail has models for the various manufacturers of track components which appear to be accurate. So if it works in the CAD software, it will fit in real life. AnyRail isn't very expensive, so it was well worth it to me. I think you also used CAD software for your layout. You should double check if they have models of the Walthers curved turnouts so that you can verify the right turnout for your needs.

Mark


----------



## johnfm3

Magic said:


> For the time, money and effort you are putting into this project I would recommend
> Peco or Walthers turnouts.
> Magic


Thanks for commenting on the "...the time, money and effort..." and reminding me. Prior to starting this thread, I had started watching YouTube videos of train layouts from very simple to very elaborate layouts while I looked for inspiration and ideas of how things work. As I have been going thru this process, I have always considered my design small and more simplistic from what I perceive to be the norm. The most complex thing about my layout will be the centralized helix. And that just adds a technical difficulty which with some thought accurate design can be overcome.



Mark VerMurlen said:


> They helped me tremendously with trying to modify a track plan to fit into a little bit smaller space than it was originally designed for.


So when I started this thread I stated I was only going to be running F7's for the time being. Of course over the holidays I found my self the owner of 2 E7's as well. Are you familiar with the E7 size engines and is there a particular turnout size which you find works better than others for engines the size of E7's?

Where can I find a explanation for the difference between a #7 vs a #6.5 or #4 turnout?



Mark VerMurlen said:


> ....I think you also used CAD software for your layout. You should double check if they have models of the Walthers curved turnouts so that you can verify the right turnout for your needs.
> 
> Mark


I used Google Sketchup to draw up my layout plans. Mainly for the ability to visualize framework size and the layout plan I had in my head. Sketchup has no train objects in it like AnyRail. I did try using some train software and had a problem learning to use it to build the framework I wanted which was why I went back to what I know well.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

johnfm3 said:


> Where can I find a explanation for the difference between a #7 vs a #6.5 or #4 turnout?


The turnout numbers come from a formula that basically defines how sharply the divergent track angles off from the main route. The smaller the number, the sharper the angle. You should have no problem with #6.5 or #7 curved turnouts on your mainline with most any kind of loco. I think I've got both sizes on my layout and I've been running an F7 (2 axle trucks), SD9 (3 axle trucks), and Mikado 2-8-2 steam locomotive on them without any problems. I'm not sure how really long steam locomotives (like a Big Boy) might work on them since I don't have anything that long. I personally wouldn't use a #4 turnout on mainline track, but it could be useful in a yard where speeds are lower and you need to save space. My sharpest turnout is a #5 which I have used in my yard. All my mainline turnouts are #6 or higher.

You might want to consider purchasing AnyRail and re-layout your track plan with it. It will allow you to create nice smooth track lines, especially leading into and away from turnouts, including the Walthers curved turnouts. You can set it to warn you if you go below a minimum radius anywhere on your track plan which I also found extremely useful.

Mark


----------



## johnfm3

Mark VerMurlen said:


> The turnout numbers come from a formula that basically defines how sharply the divergent track angles off from the main route. The smaller the number, the sharper the angle. You should have no problem with #6.5 or #7 curved turnouts on your mainline with most any kind of loco. I think I've got both sizes on my layout and I've been running an F7 (2 axle trucks), SD9 (3 axle trucks), and Mikado 2-8-2 steam locomotive on them without any problems. I'm not sure how really long steam locomotives (like a Big Boy) might work on them since I don't have anything that long. I personally wouldn't use a #4 turnout on mainline track, but it could be useful in a yard where speeds are lower and you need to save space. My sharpest turnout is a #5 which I have used in my yard. All my mainline turnouts are #6 or higher.
> 
> You might want to consider purchasing AnyRail and re-layout your track plan with it. It will allow you to create nice smooth track lines, especially leading into and away from turnouts, including the Walthers curved turnouts. You can set it to warn you if you go below a minimum radius anywhere on your track plan which I also found extremely useful.
> 
> Mark


Thanks for the feed back and suggestions.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Mark VerMurlen said:


> The turnout numbers come from a formula that basically defines how sharply the divergent track angles off from the main route. The smaller the number, the sharper the angle. You should have no problem with #6.5 or #7 curved turnouts on your mainline with most any kind of loco. I think I've got both sizes on my layout and I've been running an F7 (2 axle trucks), SD9 (3 axle trucks), and Mikado 2-8-2 steam locomotive on them without any problems. I'm not sure how really long steam locomotives (like a Big Boy) might work on them since I don't have anything that long. I personally wouldn't use a #4 turnout on mainline track, but it could be useful in a yard where speeds are lower and you need to save space. My sharpest turnout is a #5 which I have used in my yard. All my mainline turnouts are #6 or higher.
> 
> You might want to consider purchasing AnyRail and re-layout your track plan with it. It will allow you to create nice smooth track lines, especially leading into and away from turnouts, including the Walthers curved turnouts. You can set it to warn you if you go below a minimum radius anywhere on your track plan which I also found extremely useful.
> 
> Mark


Good explanation of turnout numbers from Mark. I'll just add that I also use Walthers Shinohara code 83 turnouts exclusively, and I've never had a problem with one. The tie structure is a little thicker than the MicroEngineering flex track I use, but not enough to cause any problems.

I'll second the recommendation for AnyRail. For me, it's the perfect balance of power and user-friendliness. I've seen people try to design a layout by actually putting track sections or paper templates down, and most of them end up tearing their hair out in frustration. If you are a reasonably competent user of Sketchup, or any other CAD tool, you can master AnyRail in about 15 minutes. The time you save using it will repay the cost many times over.


----------



## johnfm3

CTValleyRR said:


> Good explanation of turnout numbers from Mark. I'll just add that I also use Walthers Shinohara code 83 turnouts exclusively, and I've never had a problem with one. The tie structure is a little thicker than the MicroEngineering flex track I use, but not enough to cause any problems.
> 
> I'll second the recommendation for AnyRail. For me, it's the perfect balance of power and user-friendliness. I've seen people try to design a layout by actually putting track sections or paper templates down, and most of them end up tearing their hair out in frustration. If you are a reasonably competent user of Sketchup, or any other CAD tool, you can master AnyRail in about 15 minutes. The time you save using it will repay the cost many times over.


So it looks like AnyRail is roughly $60 at the time of this post. I will consider making that my last purchase before laying track down.

Thanks,
John


----------



## johnfm3

So the tax man was not kind to me this year which impacted my purchasing ability for a while. That being said, I was able to recover and made what I think will be my last large purchase with exception to the turnouts. I bought 100 count of 3ft code 83 flex track and 3 Southern Pacific (black widow theme) Intermountain loco's with dcc and sound. These loco's were the last 3 that "Model Train Stuff" had and Intermountain said there is no intention of continuing the model for several years. Excluding the turnouts, the remaining things to purchase will be cork bed and the rail connectors along with rail cutters.

I have one or two more wood working jigs to think thru and build. One for sure is going to be a circle cutting jig for the band saw to build the helix.

And I think I need to address one last question on this thread regarding the deck. I am thinking of using 1/4 inch ply wood (or even 1/8) then laying 1in foam board over. I have seen many different approaches to this topic and still unsure as too the route I will go.

I believe I am about ready to start a build thread and documenting my journey of this project.


----------



## Bwells

Have you thought about building a radius jig for your router? It would be much easier to move the cutting blade than the sheet of ply and all pieses will be exactly the same.


----------



## Lemonhawk

The turnout number is a ratio that sets the frog angle. The frog angle on a #6 is base on 6 units along the straight track then go up one unit and draw a line back to the start. That's the angle at the frog. There is no curve after the frog, the curve is all somewhere between frog and end of the points.


----------



## johnfm3

Bwells said:


> Have you thought about building a radius jig for your router? It would be much easier to move the cutting blade than the sheet of ply and all pieses will be exactly the same.
> View attachment 292961


As much as I need to build something like that, a router bit is much larger than a band saw blade. Which means that much more material is being wasted. So I use a piece of ply to make 4ft diameter cuts (minus the thickness of the router bit x2) or only make one full 4ft diam circle out of each sheet of ply. This versus the minor loss of material when using my band saw.


----------



## Bwells

Do you by chance have a drawing of how you would nest together multiple cuts to minimize loss? I did quite a few and estimate I wasted at least a 1/2 sheet.


----------



## johnfm3

Bwells said:


> Do you by chance have a drawing of how you would nest together multiple cuts to minimize loss? I did quite a few and estimate I wasted at least a 1/2 sheet.


I am cutting 2 full circles that have a 4ft diam and are 8in wide to hold 2 tracks, one 22inch radius and the second a 18inch radius.

After cutting the outer circle, I will cut in 8 inches and cut the inner circle.

I am not planning on cutting multiple quarter round sections to glue together. Even though if I did do that, I could get 2.5 rotations with quarter or half rounds per sheet.


----------



## Bwells

Okay, I think I understand. so you will get two full circles out of one piece of ply.


----------



## johnfm3

Bwells said:


> Okay, I think I understand. so you will get two full circles out of one piece of ply.


Correct. Where each layers meet, I will route back about 1 or 2 inches and glue there. So in the end, I wont have a full 360 degrees, but close enough. With 13 joints, I will have lost about 1 ft of rotation at 1 inch per joint.


----------



## Bwells

You will end up with a LOT of waste. Sounds like you have a plan though. Pleases post pictures.


----------



## johnfm3

Bwells said:


> You will end up with a LOT of waste. Sounds like you have a plan though. Pleases post pictures.


In my opinion, exceptable waste. Where I will have waste in wood product, I will make up in time to build. And we are only talking about 6 or 7 sheets of plywood for a 13 layer helix which in itself is huge and a undertaking. And a challenge I am looking forward too. Where if I did half rounds I would only be saving 2 sheets of plywood. So a $60 or $70 savings. On a project this big and expensive, its not enough to justify the extra work. I am also expecting that I will have ways to use the scrap wood on later projects. So the scrap wont be wasted, just not used on this layout.

I will definitely be posting pictures. If possible I plan to also post youtube video of this journey.

Thanks for your interest in this project. Hopefully its one that remains interesting.


----------



## johnfm3

*I am back...*

OP here. Its been along time since I started this thread. And I am now coming back to it. Lots of changes to share.

First some history as to whats been going on. My chance to be apart of fatherhood from the beginning happened. My wife and I were successful with IVF, and in Aug 2018 had a baby Boy. This is number 6 in the house, but its my first from birth and my second child. He had a rough first year, but seems to be showing a lot of strength and doing better.

With the above going on, I have done nothing more than keep collecting and buying. My train fleet has grown quite a bit. I even have the Union Pacific George Bush 4141. And recently bought some Athern Southern Pacific PA-1's.

Back to the topic of this thread. I am now in a place with my life where i can start focusing on building this layout. I have alot of track, and even started cutting lumber and letting it sit to see how stable its going to be in the long run. I have found working with 4x6's is a great option for alot of my dimensional lumber needs.

My layout is going to change some. Originally I wanted a 4ft x 4ft helix in the middle of a 8ft x 8ft. I have even considered adding a 1ft extension to 2 sides to make it 9 x 9. For track plan reasons, I am going to change this alot. I am going to stay with the 9 x 9 concept. And put the helix in the upper left or right corner. Giving each layer a L shape made of three 4 x 4 squares. And 1 ft along the back side of helix to get around the helix.

What I am building now is a train yard and mountain range return loop based on two 4ft x 6ft which I am hoping to keep simple to get this layout started. With my son in my life, I am changing the direction I am taking with this build.

I have just posted in the WTB section as I would like to pay someone on to build me custom Code 83 HO turnouts which I need for the train yard.

22 in radius corners with 18in radius turnouts in Left and Right. So that I can fit in a 48in area for turning around.


----------



## Dennis461

johnfm3 said:


> ...
> 
> I have just posted in the WTB section as I would like to pay someone on to build me custom Code 83 HO turnouts which I need for the train yard.
> 
> 22 in radius corners with 18in radius turnouts in Left and Right. So that I can fit in a 48in area for turning around.


You will get lots of opinions on this part.
But consider this, if you do not have the skill, time, or desire to build your own turnout, how will you be able to maintain it?

IMHO, re-arrange so you can use factory made turnouts. That way any problem in the future could be quickly remedied.


----------



## CTValleyRR

While custom turnouts can solve a lot of problems, they can introduce a lot more if you don't have the skill to maintain them yourself. Turnouts with curved diverging legs might sound like a good idea, but those curved legs often introduce an abrupt S curve that can be a cause of derailments. A #4 commercial turnout, laid properly and connected with flex track, would be a lot more reliable, operationally.

My recommendation would be to find a commercial solution that fits your space. MicroEngineerings ladder track system is one readily available commercial solution.

I would invest in some planning software (if you haven't already) and plan this out before you invest any money in custom-built components. I'm having trouble conceiving of a trackmplan where a curved divergent route gains you very much in terms of tolerability and flow, considering fouling points and minimum track spacing. What's the point of cramming loads of track into a small, area if you don't allow enough room for rolling stock on the tracks?


----------



## johnfm3

Dennis461 said:


> You will get lots of opinions on this part.
> But consider this, if you do not have the skill, time, or desire to build your own turnout, how will you be able to maintain it?
> 
> IMHO, re-arrange so you can use factory made turnouts. That way any problem in the future could be quickly remedied.


The only way I can rearrange is to push building till I have a bigger house or more kids move out and my wife approves of my taking over the rec room with a train layout. I have already pushed this out 2 yrs almost since my last post. I could easily have to push this out another 7 to 10 yrs to meet all the criteria.

Maintenance should be nothing more than cleaning and lubricating. right? And if its breaks, that is a replacement where I will buy another if I am unable to make them at that time. But if they are built well, they should give me years of trouble free usage.

I have very limited space I am working with. And I am trying to make this operationally pleasing as well as cosmetically.


----------



## CTValleyRR

johnfm3 said:


> The only way I can rearrange is to push building till I have a bigger house or more kids move out and my wife approves of my taking over the rec room with a train layout. I have already pushed this out 2 yrs almost since my last post. I could easily have to push this out another 7 to 10 yrs to meet all the criteria.
> 
> Maintenance should be nothing more than cleaning and lubricating. right? And if its breaks, that is a replacement where I will buy another if I am unable to make them at that time. But if they are built well, they should give me years of trouble free usage.
> 
> I have very limited space I am working with. And I am trying to make this operationally pleasing as well as cosmetically.


You obviously haven't had a chance to read my previous post yet, but I think you're heading for "operationally frustrating" rather than pleasing. Good layout design OPTIMIZES the use of track in a given space, not MAXIMIZES it.

The other huge mistake one can make in this hobby is rushing to completion. Enjoy life, enjoy your new addition to your family, and enjoy the hobby. Throwing junk together just so you can have a layout NOW isn't going to lead to long-term satisfaction.

Why don't you post the plan that you're considering building and let some of the experienced folks here give you ideas on how to improve it. You've waited this long; a few more days, weeks, or even months won't hurt.


----------



## johnfm3

CTValleyRR said:


> You obviously haven't had a chance to read my previous post yet...


Yeah, I had not seen your post until now. I have tried using track planning software with no luck. Everything I tried was rejected. And I gave up. I am almost at the point of paying a consultant to just sit with me to plan out what I want with what I can do. I did my planning on Sketch Up based on track options I have available.


----------



## johnfm3

Ok, I bought RailModeler Pro for my Mac Book Pro. I will give it another shot. My last experience with this was not promising.


----------



## johnfm3

So to start with, in working thru the complexity of building my desired layout, I stumbled across this layout and saw that it would make a great staging yard.




















It looks like its two 4ft x 6ft in a L configuration.

I have drawn up 2 versions of the above to work with my wants.



















The 2 helix are single loop with a 4 inch elevation. I may see if I can get away with 3 inch lift. And the side track is elevated to match and will be a trussle for where trains and loco's will have work done on the underside such as welding.

The difference between the 2 is the location of the siding.

The 2 loops will be concealed in a mount much like the above layout. The outter loop on the right side will be covered from the double cross over to the top at about the 12 oclock area.

The lower left section of the left 4x6 will be the staging yard.

This is not what I would say is crowded. And a majority of the right section will be in a mountain.


----------



## johnfm3

CTValleyRR said:


> Why don't you post the plan that you're considering building and let some of the experienced folks here give you ideas on how to improve it....


I have provided the plan to the staging yard. As you can see on the Left 4x6 board, where the three 30in turnouts are, those things take a lot of space. I really wish for 24in corner with 18in turnout. And you can see how that would help me.

John


----------



## CTValleyRR

You have much bigger problems than how to fit those curved turnouts in. Everything you're trying to do here takes a lot of space, and two 4x6 sections just don't contain the real estate that you would need to do it. Your plan doesn't look crowded because while what you have drawn fits on the drawing, it doesn't actually meet the space requirements of the features you're trying to include.

Your helices appear to be about 14" radius curves, your flextrack curves appear to have variable geometry with what looks like unacceptably sharp kinks in the middle of them. If you actually intend to run that PA1 you picked up, you'll need to have no curve sharper than 22", and that will be pushing it. It also looks like you're trying to use turnouts with curved diverging legs, and your longer equipment won't like that, either. 
That layout you posted probably has one spiral inside that mountain, not two. I could sketch out a track plan for the original photos, but it would have a lot fewer elements in it than you are trying to cram in.

If you want to include three tracks as you have indicated (which won't work as a yard because you have no way to move cars in and out short of a solitary engine. If the engine goes in first, how do you get it back out without shoving the whole train back out, and then how do you get your loco to the other end of the train? But anyway, your only hope of fitting anything like that in there would be to take a turnout off of that top track right where it comes out of the tunnel and use as much of the center of that left hand loop as you can.

Does your layout software allow you to set minimum turn radii, maximum grades, and so forth? Set those parameters and obey them strictly, otherwise you're just setting yourself up for failure.


----------



## johnfm3

CTValleyRR said:


> Your helices appear to be about 14" radius curves, your flextrack curves appear to have variable geometry with what looks like unacceptably sharp kinks in the middle of them. If you actually intend to run that PA1 you picked up, you'll need to have no curve sharper than 22", and that will be pushing it.


Yeah, the Helix's are a 15 inch radius. For the most part, I only expect my F7s to run the mountain course of this layout. Luckily I have a bunch of F7s. My PA-1, E7,s, and E8/9 wont be able to run on much of my planned layout till the home remodel when I dig out the crawl space and build a large layout like what most people envision as a acceptable layout with the 24in minimal curves and less than 1 degree elevation change.

I have to believe that when I free hand this, I will be able to make adjustments to get close to what this plan is suppose to represent. Shoot the software said the layout my father made for me 35 yrs ago was not possible. yet I had it for several years. Probably was not to acceptable standards, but if we let that stop him then, I wouldn't have the memories I have now.

This layout concept is also why I am asking for anyone who can help me free hand turnouts. I would like 24 inch outer corners with 18 or 15 in turnouts. this would make the upper left corner far more do-able with out a kink.

As far as my yard, a train coming in from the top will go around the outer loop clock wise, go past the staging track, and back the cars in, then pull forward to the next track, and back the next set of cars in, and so on till all 3 tracks are filled. The engine will never go in first. The exit of this section of track is the lower run. The Entrance is the upper. Which helps set the direction of the trains.

the main layout is more of a Coal, Gold/Ore, Wood product layout. And this section will be small passenger cars for moving the crew to the camps in the different levels.

We have to have 2 spirals. 1 going up, and 1 going down. Infact, if you can zoom in, you will see 2 upper loops and 2 lower loops. I am almost thinking there may not be a helix in it and is 2 separate runs.


----------



## MichaelE

That turnout in the extreme upper left is going to have to be moved back several inches which will change the track geometry coming out of the curved turnout below it on the drawing. While it may fix the abrupt entry into the curve somewhat, it will be a tight radius to fix this.

I think you are going to have problems with operation if you use most of this track plan. Things are going to look much differently when you start laying track and winging it at that stage is not going to be productive.

The curves are too abrupt coming out of a straight sections at the double cross-over with no easement at all, and in fact what I would call almost a reverse-easement.


----------



## johnfm3

MichaelE said:


> That turnout in the extreme upper left is going to have to be moved back several inches ....


Ok, I ran thru the layout again and tried to soften the layout more. So after removing one of the staging tracks, that open up some space above to soften the corners with 15 in radius corners. though I took up some of that space by rotating some as other wise the whole layout was pushed right.

I was unable to find the double cross over I already own in the software, and mine is under 24 inch long. Its a Walthers 984-8812. So that will open up space along the Right side to ensure better corners on that right side.

Though the software is not showing it, I would be using 22 inch radius in the upper and lower Right 90 degree turns. If the front has to come off the layout and on a trussle, then so be it. An extra 4 inches is no biggie.

The biggest thing I am dealing with is the lack of information in the software regarding turnouts. I have no idea what departure angle each of the atlas turnouts are. It would be nice to have that track information in the software. So i am having to guess. Does a cheat sheet exist for this?


----------



## johnfm3

I am not overly thrilled with photo bucket... :-(


----------



## MichaelE

Try Imgur instead. It's free with no conditions.


----------



## CTValleyRR

johnfm3 said:


> I am not overly thrilled with photo bucket... :-(


No one is anymore. It's better if you just embed the photos directly into the thread from your computer. Here are directions for doing so:
https://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?t=2595


----------



## Big Ed

What I do to post a picture,
1,When your typing your post, look up top & click on the paper clip.

2,That opens a box then click browse.

3,That will open another box find your picture where ever it is in your computer. (say downloads,camera,files wherever your picture is.)
When you find the picture click on it then click open, it will then be in your box where you clicked browse.

4, Then click upload, wait to make sure it uploads.

5, After it uploads x out that box & go back to your post box where you are typing and click the paper clip again and click insert attachments.

Your picture should be in the thread.


Note, if the picture won't upload most likely it is too big.
If you don't see the paper clip that is an easy fix too.


----------



## CTValleyRR

johnfm3 said:


> Ok, I ran thru the layout again and tried to soften the layout more. So after removing one of the staging tracks, that open up some space above to soften the corners with 15 in radius corners. though I took up some of that space by rotating some as other wise the whole layout was pushed right.


I can't see what you did because Photobucket isn't sharing nicely. The problem, though is the 15" corners. Most HO equipment just doesn't like curves that sharp. 2-1/2 times the length of your rolling stock / locos is a rule-of-thumb minimum. So basically, anything longer than 6" is a non-starter; and that's most of your locos. The other problem is that even if you can coax your equipment around those curves, you're going to have a lot of overhang, both inside and outside the curves. This is going to make having those tight curves with tunnels, cliff faces, etc. very problematic. If you insist on using them, do yourself a favor and set up a test track so that you can see if what you are planning really will work with your equipment. 



johnfm3 said:


> I was unable to find the double cross over I already own in the software, and mine is under 24 inch long. Its a Walthers 984-8812. So that will open up space along the Right side to ensure better corners on that right side.


That's a fairly common piece of track; doesn't say too much for the quality of the software you're using. Is it the Railmodeler Pro, or are you using Atlas's junk freeware (which doesn't contain anyone's track but theirs)?



johnfm3 said:


> Though the software is not showing it, I would be using 22 inch radius in the upper and lower Right 90 degree turns. If the front has to come off the layout and on a trussle, then so be it. An extra 4 inches is no biggie.


.

Well, you could do that, but if you're going to cantilever something out over the edge, why not properly support it? Put a couple of joists out there and just bump the whole edge out. A flimsy trestle being all that separates your train from the floor is a recipe for disaster.

In a perfect world, you wouldn't try to squeeze a layout into a given footprint, but rather determine how much space you have available, design a layout that fits in those parameters, and then design benchwork for underneath. This frees you from the limits of a box when you design it.



johnfm3 said:


> The biggest thing I am dealing with is the lack of information in the software regarding turnouts. I have no idea what departure angle each of the atlas turnouts are. It would be nice to have that track information in the software. So i am having to guess. Does a cheat sheet exist for this?


Again, I'm not sure what software package you're trying to use. It looks like you're using Atlas Snapswitches, though, which don't have a departure angle, but a segment of an 18" curve coming off of them. If you're using a quality turnout, with a straight diverging leg, then you can calculate the departure angle. The turnout number gives you that information: it's the ratio of the distance forward to the diverging distance. IOW, a #4 turnout diverges from the main by 1" for every 4" from the frog (measured along the through leg). If you really want the departure angle, take the sine of the distances.

Of course, this shouldn't be an issue, because a decent software package should handle this for you.


----------



## johnfm3

CTValleyRR said:


> I can't see what you did because Photobucket isn't sharing nicely.....
> 
> Of course, this shouldn't be an issue, because a decent software package should handle this for you.


To the 2 topics covered here. Will try posted options for adding images. Thanks. 

As far as software, I bought RailModeler Pro. After trying to describe my intent, I broke down and paid the $40 on the Apple store for it.

Regarding the Tressel idea, I was not thinking a flimsy setup, I was going to to use plywood base supported by 1x4 lumber and then make it look like a long bridge. That being said, I am going to push it to 5 ft wide in stead of 4 ft So it will be 5ft x 6ft. I may even push the 6ft to 7 ft now.... Well see.

To throw a kink in the gears, that layout i showed above, came back for sale on line again for $350. Its not exactly what I want, as its 2 separate loops powered by DC, a lower and a upper. But I could get started on learning structure building an scenic work. The mountain is well done, but its built into the frame and not removable for servicing the track.

I had completed the build of the first 4x6 deck, and it turned out great. Cutting my lumber from 4x6x8 was a great way to ensure I had straight lumber. We will see what happens.


----------



## johnfm3

Here were the images I was trying to show earlier.


----------



## johnfm3

Deleted. Double Post.


----------



## johnfm3

Here is the last change that really softened the curves including that upper Left one.


----------



## CTValleyRR

In the upper left, it doesn't look like you softened the curve so much as just shoved the kink further out.Maybe it's ok, and just tricking the eye because you have at least 2, maybe 3 different radii in there. 

A better way to handle the 3 tracks would be to move the spur on the mountain lop back to the front, where it is in post#94, then place a turnout on that top track right where it exits the tunnel, use that center space for a small yard. Make your curve on the left one nice, smooth curve.

And ditch the Atlas Snap Switches for a better quality one.


----------



## johnfm3

CTValleyRR said:


> In the upper left, it doesn't look like you softened the curve so much as just shoved the kink further out.Maybe it's ok, and just tricking the eye because you have at least 2, maybe 3 different radii in there.
> 
> A better way to handle the 3 tracks would be to move the spur on the mountain lop back to the front, where it is in post#94, then place a turnout on that top track right where it exits the tunnel, use that center space for a small yard. Make your curve on the left one nice, smooth curve.
> 
> And ditch the Atlas Snap Switches for a better quality one.



Well, a interesting situation happened. While starting to build the frame work of my layout my wife was on Offer-Up and found the above layout for sale again. Apparently, it sold and that sale never completed. I met the owner last night and paid cash for delivery this Saturday.

I found out more about it that what was told in the add. A train can travel the entire layout between both levels. There are 2 controllers and either one can control the train thru the entire layout. The layout is broken down into districts so that you can control 2 trains seperately of each-other. Its basically ready for DCC and block detection if I understand it correctly followed by JMRI and automation.

I am super stoked. This basically gets me what I wanted minus the entrance and exit tracks for the main multi level 8x8 layout I will be building in the future. But I believe this will be a good start for the next year or 2 while I learn other aspects of the hobby such as structure building.

Images to come.

John


----------



## johnfm3

Ok, so here is the purchase and the starting point of my layout. This will become the diesel repair facility and fueling as well as a return loop.


----------



## Magic

Pretty nice layout, looking good.
Seems to run good as well.
Good find.

Magic


----------



## johnfm3

Magic said:


> Pretty nice layout, looking good.
> Seems to run good as well.
> Good find.
> 
> Magic


I am pretty happy with the purchase. I got off lucky as I bought it with out looking at it in person.

As i stated above, there are some track issues where flex track meet in corners and have kinks. I will need to pull some nails, straighten the joint, solder the 2 pieces of track, then soften the area where the two tracks meet. These kinks have prevented my larger loco's from running such as my PA-1.

Does this sound like a proper way to correct the problem?

This layout has nothing soldered except for power feed wires to track. None of the track is glued down, only nails every so often.

Is it possible to glue track down in place with out lifting it? Such as while gluing down the gravel road bed?

The minor problem I have is how to scenic this layout. I am going to have to look at it and see how i can make it interesting where I can add lights and such. Really its almost not possible as there is no place for a town other than at the base where the train yard will be. That leaves the mountain bare. I am going to probably run some high power towers with lights, then have them terminate to a power station which feeds the train repair facility.

Definitely going to add a couple of Jeeps (CJ's or YJ's) trying to climb the mountain from the right side. At least then I can get some headlight and taillights. And try to add interest during the night time runs when I want a darker run.

I really need/want someone to come to my house and look at what i have and consult me on where to go with the priority's to get this layout up to par again.


----------



## CTValleyRR

I think your PA not running has more to do with the curve radius than any kinks. The PA doesn't just have 3 axle trucks, but very long ones at that. Your PA may never run properly on those curves; mine can just barely handle a 22" radius.

Any kinks in the track should be corrected, but you may have to pull up large segments of track to do it. Best practice is to solder the joints with the track straight, THEN curve it. What kind of turnouts are those? If they're Snap Switches, you might want to consider replacing them as well, althoughthat will change the whole geometry and require a lot of rework.

Simply ballasting the track will glue it down, and that may be your best bet. You can also lift it slightly and spread a little caulk under it with a putty knife.

As far as helping in person... there appear to be over a dozen Pierce Counties in the US, none of them close enough to me for it to be an option. Sorry.


----------



## johnfm3

CTValleyRR said:


> I think your PA not running has more to do with the curve radius than any kinks. The PA doesn't just have 3 axle trucks, but very long ones at that. Your PA may never run properly on those curves; mine can just barely handle a 22" radius...
> 
> ...As far as helping in person... there appear to be over a dozen Pierce Counties in the US, none of them close enough to me for it to be an option. Sorry.


I have updated my profile to specify that I am in Wa... lol

I will say regarding the PA-1, much of the exposed track that I ran the PA on did fine, with exception of the 1 outer track where the kink is due to not being soldered. And why I will be making it a priority to go thru the entire layout to solder and glue. The track in the mountain is the big question I will need to investigate.

John


----------



## CTValleyRR

johnfm3 said:


> I have updated my profile to specify that I am in Wa... lol
> 
> I will say regarding the PA-1, much of the exposed track that I ran the PA on did fine, with exception of the 1 outer track where the kink is due to not being soldered. And why I will be making it a priority to go thru the entire layout to solder and glue. The track in the mountain is the big question I will need to investigate.
> 
> John


The exposed track isn't where the tightest curves are. Hidden track is always a potential trouble spot.

Is there any access to the inside of the mountain?


----------



## johnfm3

CTValleyRR said:


> The exposed track isn't where the tightest curves are. Hidden track is always a potential trouble spot.
> 
> Is there any access to the inside of the mountain?


yeah. 2 holes where I can pop my head in to perform maintance


----------

