# Building my first layout



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

Hi all,

I'm going to share my journey from beginner to (hopefully) moderately competent operator so that a) other beginners can learn along with me and b) because I need all the help I can get!

Like many of you here, I enjoyed model - and real - trains immensely as a kid. My parents bought me an HO Marklin layout from a hobby shop when I was around 6 or 7, and I had a Lionel set as well. There are still some Z scale Marklin trains in book cases at my parents' house, so I must have played with those as well. One cool fact is that I got to ride on the real 4449 Daylight train when I was young, somewhere around the Sacramento area if memory serves.

Anyway, I've aged thirty years since that time and have been re-bitten by the bug, though I'm learning it is a much different bug than it used to be! DCC and sound effects change the game immensely (duh), and the trains seem to run smoother and slower, though I remember caring only for how _fast_ a train would go when I was a kid.

So a few weeks ago I spent 3 hours annoying the owners of my local train shop. After too many questions and inspecting every engine and most of the rolling stock on the shelves, I finally left having decided to go with:
- HO
- DCC
- Hand-laid Atlas Code 83 track

I hand my concerns about available space in my garage, but decided to go with HO over N because the models looked a bit more detailed and my local shop had greater selection in HO. There was an available 96'x16' shelf in my garage that I had in mind, and while I knew my options would be limited there, I figured it would be enough to get me started.

I came home with a Digitrax Zephyr, 6 feet of track, and this setup:
- 1x Atlas Master Alco RSD-5 with Loksound (I think)
- 3x Athearn Roundhouse tank cars









Here is a Video of the loco doing its thing. I chose this one because it looked old and cool, sounded like a WWII fighter (I later learned that's because the Alco RSD-5 had a V12 engine, much like many WWII fighters did), and had a short wheelbase.

It took only a few minutes to realize that 8' of narrow shelf wasn't going to cut it. I also learned that hammering track nails into waferboard is met with, at best, a 60% success rate. And lastly, I learned the value of an insulated roadbed (which I did not buy), as I could often hear the hum of the motor over the sound effects.

To address the space issue, I added a folding panel to one end of the shelf.


































While it did work, each time I erected the wing, I had to spend a minute or two fiddling with the tracks so that they lined up. As you can see in the pictures, I added a number of screws, which are ugly, so that I could adjust the alignment of the rails more easily. The pictures also highlight my "measure once, cut twice" strategy I employed while building this addition.

I spent the next few days staring at my garage, working out a table that could give me some additional real estate with the ability to quickly get out of the way so that the garage's other occupant (a car) could use it as well. My requirements after the first experiment were:
- Light weight
- As large as possible
- No folding mechanism underneath the track
- Assembly / tear down in less than 30 seconds

The next post begins what will be my first real layout build!


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

There has, in the past, been discussions of suspending
a layout in a garage. You might peruse some of the
posts on this subject here:

http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?t=489&highlight=Suspended+garage+layout&page=11

There are other things to consider when using
the garage as home to a layout.

The layout be subject to large variations in temperature
and humidity. These cause expansion and contraction
of the track which can result in kinks and other
annoyances. Humidity can affect electrical conductivity
which is important for smooth running trains.

The often open large garage door results in dust and
the like blowing in on the layout. You'll need to clean
the tracks before every use to avoid loading the loco
and car wheels with materials picked up from the track.

Don


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

*Benchwork*

I allocated about 12 feet of length (front to back of garage), and up to 6 feet of width for this project. Lumber comes in 6 foot lengths so I settled on 6x12 for the layout. I decided to attach the 12 foot side to the opposite wall that my shelf is attached to, with hinges, so that it can swing up and down like a murphy bed.

To keep things light, I used 1x4 wood and wanted to try steel cables for triangulation.























NOTE: the wavy look on one of the 1x4s on the top right of the above photo is from some odd chamfering that the lumber came with - it is (mostly) straight.

At this point I was unsure if I wanted to suspend the benchwork from the wall or build legs. Here is a picture of it suspended from the wall.















If you're wondering what the large notch is all about, in a rare moment of foresight I realized that when the garage door rolled back with the benchwork stowed, it would interfere. So it is for garage door clearance, as you can see below.















Here is one of the steel cables I used for triangulation. Surprisingly, it worked pretty well and the frame resists "trapezoiding", minus some flex of the 1x4 mounted to the hinges. In hindsight I should have cut the 2x4 bolted to the wall and spaced out the hinges to the corners.







Here it is in its stowed position. Because of the 6' width, the frame eventually hits the ceiling with about 15 degrees to go before vertical. I knew this would happen, and I'm okay with it because the track will need some room between the benchwork and the wall when stowed, if I'm going to have any altitude at all. Here are my max allowable heights when stowed.







So at 12 inches from the wall side of the board, my structure cannot exceed 4.5 inches in height.

As you can see, I've chosen foam for my layout surface. This stuff is not easy to find around the SF Bay Area, and all I could locate was 1 inch thick 4x8 foot sheets. I will lay a second layer on top and begin the cookie cutter elevation pieces with it.







Here is a picture of the chains used to secure the stowed benchwork.







Here is the layout surface from the underside. Initially, I tried securing the foam with caulk but wasn't thrilled with the results. I then bought a high/low temp glue gun and reattached the foam sheets with that (using the "high" temp setting, which didn't seem to melt the foam), as well as some screws at the corners. It seems very rigid, but for good measure I've decided to add some angle braces to support the frame around the hinges, which you can see the beginning of below. After all, this thing isn't going to get any lighter and I don't want the foam sheets to be stressed.







At this point, I decided to work on the track layout before laying the second layer of foam. I do have a few questions that I'll probably figure out the hard way later, but if anyone has the answers, I'll take 'em.
- Should I cut out the cookie cutter sections before gluing the second layer of foam? That seems more difficult, but I am concerned that I won't be able to separate the layers after I glue them together.
- Anyone have any brilliant ideas for legs? They need to fold so that I don't hit my head on them when the layout is stowed. I am sure I can come up with something, but nothing has really jumped up and bit me yet. Right now I have two flimsy 1x2s mounted on hinges along the outermost frame rail, but I am 100% certain I will kick them out from under the table in short order.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## D&J Railroad (Oct 4, 2013)

You will learn much by these efforts. 
I can only encourage you to not give up no matter how bad the results may turn out. 
You took a major step of bypassing the traditional 4X8 sheet of plywood. 
The major thing I see in your current design is reach. How will you do track work or scenery let alone retrieve rolling stock at the center of the layout by the wall?
Wiring should be easy with this design however, you can never leave anything loose on the layout when you lift it up out of the way.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Reach and leg issues*



Oliver37 said:


> I allocated about 12 feet of length (front to back of garage), and up to 6 feet of width for this project. Lumber comes in 6 foot lengths so I settled on 6x12 for the layout. I decided to attach the 12 foot side to the opposite wall that my shelf is attached to, with hinges, so that it can swing up and down like a murphy bed.
> 
> To keep things light, I used 1x4 wood and wanted to try steel cables for triangulation.
> 
> ...


Oliver37;

You have made some real progress. I'm going to suggest possible changes for your consideration, and also agree with some of the advice/cautions that others have already given you.
First the reach issue already, and wisely, pointed out. As long as one side of your layout is attached (hinged) to the wall, you are going to have reach issues with your wide table. One way to avoid this, and still keep your present table, would be to do away with the hinged system and go for a vertical lift system of cables that would hoist the table, flat, up to just below the garage ceiling. This, if done closer to the center of the garage, would mean you could have access to all sides of the table. Reach would then be drastically improved. 
Second, humidity. I have a garage layout. Even in San Diego, with a mild, and stable, climate there are temperature and humidity changes in my garage. I have built my layout with small, lightweight, 'L-girder' shaped, members that resist warping by their shape. Also all the wood is painted to seal out moisture.
A less mild, and more humid, climate will only make warping worse. I recommend painting all the wood portions of your layout. If you should ever decide to change the shape/size of your layout to the point of building new, or additional, benchwork, I recommend using smaller wood 1x3 and 1x2 in an L-girder shape. This will be very resistant to warping and as strong as the 1x4 you now have. 
Third, it's usually better to design a track plan first and then build the benchwork to fit that plan. To some extent, because of the overall space we have, we also need to confine any track plan dreams to the space/budget available too. Just think about what YOU want to end up with before committing a lot of money and effort to building something you may later regret. For example, another possibility would be a shelf type layout around some of the walls of your garage. This is what I have and I'm happy with it. However you have to do what you want, and there's no earthly reason that it has to be the same as anyone else's. An advantage of the shelf idea is that you can still park a car in the garage, without need to remove every single locomotive and railroad car from a layout that hinges up. A vertical lift layout might be able to do the same, if some sort of clear plastic walls surrounded it, to keep trains from falling off.
There are plenty of ways to build a layout. Whatever you chose will be best for you.

good luck;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

Best advice I can give you is to keep at it and learn, but don't forget to stand back, think a bit, and be prepared do undo some or all of it when you realize you have painted yourself into a corner. I'm not saying you have done that, or are doing that, I say that at some point your own mind may come to that conclusion on its own, and for your own reasons. We almost all of us go through this learning, and we have to accept that we might need to rethink, restructure, or start again with a brand new concept from scratch. 

Above all, try to have fun, keep notes ("Note to self; never, EVER, try a duckunder entrance again. EVER!!!" That kind of thing.), and be content with having to fiddle a bit, especially with the tracks. Sometimes just correcting a bit of alignment at a joint solves a persistent derailment problem there.

What you build for certain reasons, can be undone for different reasons. It's fluid in time. Each time you do this, with some learning, will have better and more gratifying results.


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

*Track Layout*

Duplicate post, sorry


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

*Thank you and track layout*

Hi all,

My initial post somehow didn't survive the posting process (or it is not approved, but I can't tell), so here goes again:

Thank you for the comments. Don (and others), after reading your comments it looks like I should, at the least, paint the framework. I can also stiffen it up with additional gusseting, though I wasn't sure if wood could be "muscled" into not warping, though it sounds like it can. Yes, my garage is also dusty so I will have to contend with that. Ken and Traction fan, I am aware of the reach issues and plan to cut a portal, as indicated in my track layout drawing below. I have also included pink reach radius circles based on my measured reach. Some of the areas will be hard to get to, but hopefully not impossible.







I believe the plan achieves the following:
A) A "22 inch" loop with no turns radii smaller than 22 inches
B) An "18" loop with no radii smaller than 18 inches
C) A twice-around combination loop that uses A and B
D) The ability to fully segregate A and B so that neither uses the other's track (there may be easier ways to do this, but I thought it was a good idea)

(light yellow = 20" radius, dark yellow = 18 inch radius, gray = greater than 22" radius)

I probably used far too many turnouts / crossings, but I could not figure out how to make A, B, and C happen with fewer. I also have two switch yards, which may be overkill.


----------



## SBRacing (Mar 11, 2015)

Love that sound.
In my opinionthere is no such thing as too may turnouts.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*cut out*



Oliver37 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> My initial post somehow didn't survive the posting process (or it is not approved, but I can't tell), so here goes again:
> 
> ...


Oliver37;

Ultimately, as long as you're happy with it, that's all that matters. The cutout, or access hatch, will help you reach more area; good. It will also mean ducking under the table and trying to hit only the open space of the cutout, and not bash your head, or other body parts, in the process. Bad.hwell:
Such duck under schemes tend to get old really fast, if you need to use them much. Another consideration is age and flexibility. I also have a duck under access hole that was really the only way to get to some hidden track on my layout. I'm 69 and partially disabled, so that duck under is a lot harder to use than when I was younger.
Some things I've done to make it a little easier to use are, 
1) Rounding off every bit of wood along the crawl under route. 
2) padding all the area around the hole with cellular foam packing material. That way, if I make body contact with the benchwork, I'm less likely to hurt myself.
Yes, it is quite possible to build ("muscle") wood that resists warping. To illustrate how this works, think of bending two pieces of metal. One is a simple flat strip, and the other is a piece of angle stock. Assuming both are about the same thickness and made of the same material, the flat strip will bend fairly easily. The angle iron however will not bend at all using the same amount of force that bent the flat strip. To bend the angle at all, you would need to apply so much force that it would buckle and somewhat destroy the angle stock. 
Apply the same shape to wood, and you have what we model railroaders call "L-girder." The flat joists you have now are like the flat strip of metal. Warping is basically a type of bending. If you glue and screw two flat boards together to form a wood angle, they will resist warping very well. Painting the wood is a good idea too. On my garage railroad I did both. The "L-girders don't need to be large. You could make one from two pieces of 1x2 or 1x3 and even cut them thinner than their original 3/4" thickness. The result would be just as strong as those 1x4 beams you used, but much lighter.
Two switch yards is not necessarily overkill. They could be in different towns. After all, real railroads link many towns and cities; each with some switching. Some model railroaders build a hilly ridge, or two sided backdrop down the middle of their layouts. This divides the railroad into two separate scenes. Each side has some industry and switching. This makes the train's travel a lot more realistic than just running round and round the all too visible loop(s.) 

As for dust, well we all have to fight that battle. You might construct some sort of box that your table could fold up into. It would need to be lined along the mating edges with weather stripping in order to keep dust out.


good luck with your ambitious project;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos: 

P.S. The photo shows the bottom of one section of my railroad. Notice the small "L-girders" and the painted wood.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

‘Thank you for the comments. Don (and others), after reading your comments it looks like I should, at the least, paint the framework. I can also stiffen it up with additional gusseting, though I wasn't sure if wood could be "muscled" into not warping, though it sounds like it can.’

I have a horrible feeling it will warp, rather than add gussets add diagonal bracing to the structure, this would help prevent it like this door.


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

Hi all,

SBRacing, I agree, the sound of the loco is so cool! I don't know how I lucked into that one. Traction fan, thank you so much for the detailed reply. I am 38 and can move about pretty well, but I am also 6'1" and I'm not trying to kid myself that popping in and out of the portal will be fun. In theory I shouldn't need to use it very often; primarily for building the layout and re-railing. Hopefully that works out 

Cyclops, considering where I am in my build, I think the angled braces will be the way to go. It will be difficult to attach them "inside" the structure since the surface has already been added, but I can easily screw them onto the underside.

On the subject of fixing mistakes before I make them, I realized that my standard Atlas #543 and #542 turnouts have a pretty tight angle. I had already planned to swap them out for remote versions of the same turnout (I had just grabbed a few manual turnouts off the shelf of my local train shop a few weeks ago, before I knew anything about anything), but I think I will have to change a few of them out for different models.

Either I am blind, dense, or both, but I found it very difficult to locate documentation for Atlas turnouts. Usually when things are right in front of me I cannot find them...ask my wife. Because I've been trained to think in terms of radius, that is what I was looking for. So I drew up some 18 inch and 22 inch circles in AnyRail and mated a few different turnouts to them. These are 18 inch radius circles and it looks like #543/#542 and #541/#540 line up with those








So my 22" loop will need different turnouts. I've laid a some roadbed already, but I think I've done so underneath only one of the #542 turnouts (under an actual #542 near the top of the photo below)







Circled in red are the turnouts that I know I will need to replace. Circled in yellow are the turnouts that will be used for switching and turnout around trains, so they are, perhaps, okay at 18 inch radius. Speaking of which, you can also see that I have done something different with my center switchyard: there is now a runaround track so that I can move an engine from one end of a train to another, and the whole thing is now part of a turnaround wye that I use to can turn engines and smaller trains around. It is not connected because AnyRail shows a short circuit when I do (which I expected), and I have't figured out how exactly that all works yet...something about isolating track and a polarity switching apparatus.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Concerns*



Oliver37 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> SBRacing, I agree, the sound of the loco is so cool! I don't know how I lucked into that one. Traction fan, thank you so much for the detailed reply. I am 38 and can move about pretty well, but I am also 6'1" and I'm not trying to kid myself that popping in and out of the portal will be fun. In theory I shouldn't need to use it very often; primarily for building the layout and re-railing. Hopefully that works out
> 
> ...


Oliver37;

Turnouts in general, are not made to a radius. The exceptions would be curved turnouts, which usually state the radius of their inside, and outside, curves. Another "sort of radius" turnout is the Atlas HO-scale "Snap Switch" which is designed to fit in place of an 18" radius piece of sectional track. 
Real, full-size, turnouts, and other model turnouts, are sized by something called "frog number." The frog number is the amount of sideways divergence from the straight track route that takes place in a given length of forward travel through the frog. (Sounds real simple huh! ) 

Actually it's not as bad as it sounds. A #4 frog (which you may have in your present turnouts) means that the wheel travels one mm. off the straight line in only 4mm. of forward movement. On the other hand a #6 frog (commonly used, along with 22" radius curves, as minimum mainline standards on better model railroads) will require 6 mm of forward travel to move the wheel the same 1mm sideways. The short and simple form is that the higher the frog# of a turnout, the gentler the angle between the TWO STRAIGHT routes. Normal turnouts don't contain any curved track.
A turnout can be built into a curve without worrying about maintaining a perfectly unchanging radius throughout. Introducing a little bit of straight track won't hurt anything. 
It's actually the abnormal Atlas "Snap Switch" turnout that might be a problem. It contains a short bit of straight track, (the moving points section) and 18" radius curved track, and a built-in kink between the points and the rails they feed. This is not my favorite turnout, but it can be improved in some ways, but not in one important way, it's still a very tight curve. 
Please read the attached pdf file "Improving Atlas Turnouts" for a detailed explanation. If you do replace any turnouts, (and you may not have to) I strongly recommend using Peco turnouts instead of Atlas. Why? Because they are very well made, quite reliable, and ruggedly constructed. They are extremely unlikely to cause derailments. 

I'm confused by the picture of the door with Cycleop's photo next to it. I hope you don't plan to build your table like that door! Not only will it be very heavy, but it won't help in preventing warping. The diagonal braces on the door help keep the rectangular door from changing its overall shape into some sort of parallelogram, from sagging, due to gravity. The prospective problem you're concerned about is the individual boards in your table's frame warping into curled, non straight, shapes. Gluing a 1x2 along the side of each 1x4 that you now have should do the trick. I would also paint all the wood.

Wyes, and reverse loops, do require special wiring. Basically fit insulated rail joiners to all three turnouts in the wye. Then an extra reversing toggle switch will be needed to change the direction of the locos travel on one leg of the wye. Insulating all the joints is not strictly necessary,you will likely end up jumpering around some of them. However having the joiners in place, when you fasten down track, wont hurt, and may save pulling a turnout back up to add them. My own layout has two wyes. I cut gaps in the center of each wye track. This electrically makes the three turnouts, and their short, attached, curves, three separate electrical zones. The gaps are cut in both rails , at the center of each bridge.

regards;

Traction Fan :smilie_daumenpos:
View attachment Improving Atlas turnouts.pdf


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

Traction Fan, thanks again for the reply. I guess that explains why the radius info is so hard to find! I have been looking up Atlas details, primarily, so I guess that is why I figured all turnouts have a radius. Interestingly, I picked up a few Atlas Custom Line turnouts before I read your post, and printed on the underside of the of the ties are the words "22R SNAP SWITCH". 







Anyway, since I have not actually laid any track yet, I will look more closely at Peco. I assume there won't be any issues combining it with Atlas flex track (which I have around 30 feet of)?

I will get back to bracing later this week, but in the meantime here are some updates on the top side of the layout. It seems as though the first crossing roadbed has lined up, more or less, correctly.







This cookie cutter method works really well! I bought two Woodland Scenics 3% grade kits, and since my sub roadbed is 1" foam and is pretty rigid already, I've needed to place a pylon only every 8 inches or so. The finished grades are much more rigid than I thought they would be and I should be able to get away with only one grade kit for my whole layout.








It's nice when the clearance math works out the way it should.







Here's the finished 4x8 panel ready to be stowed in its upright and locked position for the first time.







Here's a pic of what may be my first major "oops" of my build...or it may just be okay. I had planned to make some sort of bridge at the top of the radius here, but I did not take into account the height of the bridge itself.







As you can see from the red arrow above and the pic below, the top of the roadbed is going to nearly touch the wall when stowed, leaving zero room for any girders. So most likely I will build the top section as a mountain (with zero height above the roadbed) and place two bridges where the green boxes are. I should have about 1 inch of height between the roadbed and the wll, so hopefully I can find something that fits that requirement.


----------



## JerryH (Nov 18, 2012)

You might want check the clearance from the top of the rail to the bottom of anything over the rails. It should be 3" for HO. If you have less, some taller rolling stock than that tank car may not fit through.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Have you thought about building trestle bridges instead? Everybody loves a good trestle bridge, and most of the ones I've seen are all below the track line.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*More clearance?*

Oliver37;

Glad to see that the track plan is lining up on the real layout for you, well done!:appl:
The picture of your roadbed almost hitting the wall looks a bit scary to me. After living almost 70 years, and building/repairing things for most of my life; I have seen way to many manifestations of "Murphy's Law, to discount it. If any part of your layout can possibly "almost" hit the wall. then sooner, or later, something you worked hard to build, WILL hit the wall!  
Can you add wood between the wall and the non-moving half of the hinges? That would give you a better safety margin, when the layout is raised. 

As for the bridge girders, they can be below track level. In fact railroads prefer to build them that way. It's cheaper for them to construct, and maintain; and wide loads won't have above-track girders to hit. Such bridges are called "deck girder bridges", and they are, by far, the most common type on railroads, and highways for that matter. If you look again at the photo of the wye, in my preceding post, you will see that all three bridges are deck girder ones.

Shdwdrgn suggested a trestle, and that's a good idea. They are also built with their main structure, including girders, below track level. The only parts above track would be handrails for the catwalks and, If you are crazy enough to model an electrified railroad, like me, the catenary & supports. I presume you won't have that problem with your diesel/steam railroad!:laugh:

Another bit of advice, based on hard experience, try to make that access opening as big as you possibly can. Mine is just wide enough for me to fit through it, and that has been an ongoing, nagging, problem for me. From your diagram, it looks like you might have to move some track to do it, but even if you cut out every bit of table between the loops of track, not just a square, it would help. Even better would be to add a foot,or two, to the overall length of the table, in order to get more space between those loops, for a bigger opening.

The "difference" between Atlas's "Snap Switch" (basic) turnouts, and their "custom line" (more expensive) turnouts, can be significant, or no difference at all. Witness you photo of a "Custom Line" 22" radius turnout that is lettered "Snap Switch!" Some of their Custom Line turnouts are actually based on frog#, like everybody else's. Atlas does make #4, #5, and #6 custom line turnouts. I couldn't see the top of you 22"radius turnout in the photo. It may, or may not, have the problems outlined in "Improving Atlas Turnouts." 

Yes you can use Peco turnouts with Atlas track. Just make sure the rail code is the same on both turnout and track. For instance, If you are using Atlas "code 83" track, then buy a Peco "code 83" turnout. If the track is code 100, then the turnout should also be code 100. So what's this code business mean? It's simply a measurement of the height of the rail in 1000ths of an inch. The code 83 rail is smaller, and closer to scale size, than the code 100. Either will work fine, it's just easier to have the same size rail on all the pieces of your track. 

Photo below shows Garrison Creek trestle, on my layout. It shows the type of deck girder construction I mentioned.

Keep up the good work, and have fun!

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

Hi Everyone, thanks again for the replies. I still haven't solved the wall problem (if it ends up being a problem), but I have a few options if / when it is, such as spacing out the base of the folding mechanism, lowering the bridge height from 4" of clearance down to 3.5" or so, or removing a piece of drywall).

That said, I have been busy! The first thing I did was strengthen the framework a bit by adding these diagonal braces, which spread out the load across most of the width of the frame when stowed, as opposed to just the three hinge points.







I have begun to drop wires down from the turnouts, which presented my first minor problem - I don't have a drill bit long enough to reach all the way through on the elevated sections. So the wires make a bit of a lateral journey in this example.







As you can probably see, I am still using Atlas track/turnouts. I may switch to Peco at some point, but I have invested some decree of time in learning about Atlas, and I don't really have the time to learn about turnout motors, sizes, etc from another brand. Also, my local train shop sell Atlas and it's just easier right now.

After kicking out the legs 5 too many times, I decided to try suspending the table by cables from the wall. You can see them occupying the same eye hook as the retention chain here.







I was concerned about removing the leg from the center of the table, so I built sort of an upside-down suspension bridge beneath the table to stiffen the structure between the edges.







Over-engineered? Yes! And it's not as stiff as an actual leg (the eye hooks seem to move in the wood slightly, which adds some spring to the table), but I don't have to worry about kicking the legs anymore, or if I remembered to unfold them. And I got to build an upside-down suspension bridge! Between the tensioners on the bridge and on the suspending cables themselves, I was able to adjust the edges level and then "draw" up the center section so that it is flat all the way across.







Back to the top side now, the "south loop" is nearing completion.







Here is a video of this loop in action after some very slow speed tests. These curves are the tightest on the track and the three-axle trucks on my RSD-5 have no trouble with them (as expected, but I still breathed a sigh of relief).

Around this time I ran out of cork roadbed, so I went to the train shop and...came home with this!. It wasn't quite as spontaneous as it looked, as I'd been researching F series locos to accompany my mid-50s RSD, and finding a western railroad paint scheme online hadn't been easy. So when I saw this one on display in a nice SP Black Widow livery I had to buy it. It's an F3 and comes with the B unit as well as the A unit in the video.

By the way, this DCC stuff is really fun, and pretty impressive. My last memories of model railroading from my childhood were of (pretty nice, at the time) Marklin locos that couldn't travel less than what looked like a scale 20mph without jolting to a stop. After discovering that both of my new locos were programmed to start at speed step three, which is still quite slow, I changed the CVs so that they start at speed step one.  As you can see in this video, the control, even at 1/87th the size, looks almost lifelike. Pretty cool. And if you're wondering, no, the RSD-5 could not pull the F3 B unit 

Speaking of traction, I've carried a high level of paranoia about maintaining my 3%-or-less grade rule. Out of curiosity, I presented the RSD with a challenge to see how much of a grade it could actually climb. Granted, the loco  in this video did not have any cars behind it, but it was still fun. I stopped the loco before the end of the track, and measured the grade around 9% afterward. Since it could have kept going, I am going to call it 10%. This made me feel a bit better about my layout, even if I do end up with a patch of track at 3.1% here and there.

Okay, back to the build...and my first bone headed mistake. I somehow screwed up the easiest measurement of all - where the garage door cutout is on my layout plan. Long story short, for some reason I placed the a few inches too low on my drawing, so I had to build a benchwork extension to accommodate the widest 22" radius loop. Probably not a bad thing as this strengthens the weakest part of the table, but it still cost me several hours between thinking through it, driving to Home Depot, and building it.







With that challenge cleared, it was time to start drawing out the "north loop".







Begining to add the elevation:







Nearly complete! All I need to do is lay the track and build that bridge...and then a million other things!


----------



## Mark VerMurlen (Aug 15, 2015)

Looks great! Always a milestone to get some track down and have a locomotive run on it for the first time. Congrats on your progress.

Mark


----------



## Dennis461 (Jan 5, 2018)

*turnouts on the main line*



SBRacing said:


> Love that sound.
> In my opinionthere is no such thing as too may turnouts.
> 
> ......


I have a different thought...
The yard near the front has too many turnouts on the mainline.
IMHO.

I would redesign so only one turnout is on the mainline, then the ladder builds from that single turnout.


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

Dennis461 said:


> I have a different thought...
> The yard near the front has too many turnouts on the mainline.
> IMHO.
> 
> I would redesign so only one turnout is on the mainline, then the ladder builds from that single turnout.


Actually, I like your idea. Is this what you were thinking? Only issue is that I lose some trackage in the switchyard. The longest segment drops down to 36 inches and the shortest is about 20 inches. Still enough to have fun with though.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

This may be totally crazy, but I've seen the work you've done so far... What if you made a hinged section that folded down in the door clearance area and extended your yard across that whole length? Many people use hinged sections to provide access through room doorways, and if you used piano hinge through that much length then the track should line up nicely when you fold the board back up into position. Add a couple crossovers between the four legs of the yard and make some of the legs shorter to provide space for industrial buildings, there's a lot you could do with that extra space. If nothing else, make the extra section detachable and have it slide into place with dowels to lock the position.


----------



## tullnd (Jan 3, 2018)

I'm really liking Shdwdrgn's suggestion. That section can be removeable and powered/signalled by some quick-disconnect wiring. The yard as laid out now is not useable really, but with that extension piece there, it'd be fine. No real "modelling" to be done on that piece other than some ballasted track. With some dowels to hold it's spot, you could line up the track and just have quick-disconnect power/signal wires to use when in place. Can just be laid against a wall or something when disassembled, but gives you a great staging section when the train layout is in use.


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

Hi all,

Thanks again for the replies - I have changed the switch yard around because of them.

In other news, yesterday I completed one of three circuits on the layout!







To celebrate, I ran some locos around for awhile and noticed a few things:

1) You guys were right - Atlas crossings do suck. The troughs on the frogs appear too shallow, as literally every loco's and car's wheels lift up, and sometimes, over the rail when crossing. I plan to file them down.

2) I have one (I think) DCC issue that I am going to ask for your help with. In this area...








...certain locos short-circuit the layout. I believe this to be true because the Digitrax display briefly shows the [] [] [] [] icons, then resets itself. During this time, all locos stop and then resume a second later. What makes it weird is that each loco causes a different reaction:
a) Atlas RSD-5, short-circuits the layout 75% of time time in three areas 
(see video)
b) BLI Shark - Digitrax display flickers briefly but locos usually keep running
c) BLI Light Mikado - Digitrax display flickers briefly but locos keep running
d) Intermountain F3 A/B - seems impervious to the whole issue (see video, with A and B separated)

Have any of you seen this before? It's my understanding the Atlas crossings rout power through each route separately, without making contact with the cross. The shorts seem to occur _between_ the crossings, but it seems awfully coincidental to me. I guess the other possibility is that the turnout between them is causing the issue?

There are two other areas on the layout that also seem to have very brief and intermittent short-circuit flickers. If I can understand what is going on with this one, I think I can work out the others.


----------



## Dennis461 (Jan 5, 2018)

"
1) _You guys were right - Atlas crossings do suck. The troughs on the frogs appear too shallow, as literally every loco's and car's wheels lift up, and sometimes, over the rail when crossing. I plan to file them down._"

I suspect the curve rail connected to the crossings is making the wheel flange catch on the frog point. If you have a crossing not installed yet, connect some straight track to it and see if your problem loco/car makes it through OK.

And...

You are moving awfully fast on your layout ! How did you reach the back of the layout to install roadbed and track? I have a 18" radious reversing loop and I had to climb up onto the layout to reach the back corner.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

Sounds like the locos wheels are shorting out over the switches somewhere. Run the locos individually and note where the short occurs. I’m not familiar with Atlas switches so maybe someone else could comment. 

I should get rid of those crossings and replace them with points and dispense with the loop, but that’s just from a visual point of view but it may solve your problem.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen (Aug 15, 2015)

Here's what I think is going wrong. Take a look at the frog that I've circled below:









I think that some of the wheels on your locomotives are bridging the gap between the right and left rails as the wheels roll through the frog. What I would do to test this, is put a very small piece of electrical tape on just the diverging rail at the point it meets the frog. Don't impede the wheel from following the guides. If this fixes all your locomotives, then you can do something more permanent to resolve this. You could put some nail polish on this spot to insulate it or you could try to file the rail a bit so it doesn't get as close to the other rail as it is right now.

Hope this helps identify your problem.

Mark


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

There are saw blades I've seen in pretty much every hobby shop, a deep rectangular piece with some fine teeth that be used with a miter box for cutting plastic. When I'm building turnouts I will fill the area underneath the frogs with solder, and then use this saw from the top side to smooth out the surface of the solder between the rails so there is a good depth for wheels to travel through... I'm thinking you can use the same saw to cut slots in the plastic along the side of the rails and provide the full depth needed in those crossings. And if the wheels are catching on the points as Dennis461 suggests, the deeper slots may help guide the wheels along the proper path.

One thing I remember about Atlas track is that their guard rails allow for an awful lot of slop. If you push a truck through the intersection of your crossing and apply a little pressure to make the wheel shift to the outside of the curve, the wheels should roll through without touching the points because the guard rails on the inside rail should prevent the wheels from shifting over too far... However if the crossing has too much slop then the guard rails are essentially worthless and do not actually hold the wheels in the proper path. As a possible fix for this, you can get styrene strips in as small as 0.010" thickness. Perhaps a bit of this glued to the guard rails (along with proper filing to smooth out the entry into the modified guard rail area) will be enough to draw the wheels back to their proper path through the crossings?


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Crossings*



Oliver37 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Thanks again for the replies - I have changed the switch yard around because of them.
> 
> ...


Oliver37;

I don't want to be a Grinch here but, If the Atlas crossings are causing problems, why use them? The two in your photo appear to serve no practical purpose. One track just crosses the other, and then crosses right back. Turnouts could replace these two crossings ad get them off the layout, and out of your hair. Before you grab a file to deepen any flangeways, crossing, or turnout, be aware that you may accidentally hit, and damage, some of the small metal jumpers that Atlas uses to carry power through the crossing, or turnout. Also before deciding that the flangeway is too shallow you might check it's depth against an NMRA gage. (To be continued as I have to get to Costco) 

Traction Fan


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

First things first: Mark, thank you! Your guess was spot-on. I don't know if I would have figured that one out, or if I did it would have taken a long time.

Here is what I tried:







And the result is in this video.

Looking more closely, the left and right rails are exceptionally close to one another here. Most likely, the RSD-5's six-wheeled trucks negotiate the turnout frog differently than the other locos' four-wheeled trucks, and briefly make contact.









Dennis and Shdwdrgn, thanks for the ideas re: the wheel flanges catching the crossing frogs. I will look at them more closely before I take a file/saw blade to anything.

Traction Fan, don't worry about being a grinch. I'll admit, my crossings look ridiculous. But they do serve one primary purpose that was important to me: allow a twice-around loop and two completely segregated loops on the same layout. The weird crossing/turnout combo is part of the twice-around loop, seen here. Green is "lap one" and pink is "lap two".








In theory I should be able to let a train run this loop indefinitely without having to set any turnouts as I go.


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

Dennis461 said:


> "
> You are moving awfully fast on your layout ! How did you reach the back of the layout to install roadbed and track? I have a 18" radious reversing loop and I had to climb up onto the layout to reach the back corner.


Sorry, I forgot to answer your question about reaching the back of my layout. I climb underneath and pop up through this portal. It is still a long painful reach to some segments, but it got the job done.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Your railroad, your rules.*



Oliver37 said:


> First things first: Mark, thank you! Your guess was spot-on. I don't know if I would have figured that one out, or if I did it would have taken a long time.
> 
> Here is what I tried:
> 
> ...


Oliver37;

If that's what you want, OK. You are the only one who has to be happy with your track plan. The point I was trying to make about checking the flangeways on your crossings with a gauge would be to see how far off they are in both depth, and width, and if they are the right distance from each other. Any one of those things could make your locos and/or cars bump as they passed through the crossings. An NMRA gage can check all of those things, and a lot more things around the railroad. It can also see if the wheels on one, or more, locos are themselves out-of-gage. That could also cause bumping. 
You may find that the cause is something other than insufficient flangeway depth, and not have to cut at all. Or you may find that the depth is close to what it should be, and you don't have to cut very deep. I don't remember (I'm Old: ohwell whether or not I have sent you this pdf file. It shows the gage I'm talking about being used to find inaccuracies on an Atlas turnout. You may not need, or want, to do any of the suggested improvements to your turnouts, but you can see pretty clearly, how the gage could be used to check out those crossings. Another thought if the Atlas crossings don't work well, could you use a different brand of crossing? Peco, or Walthers/Shinohara may have better crossings; they certainly have better turnouts.

good luck, 

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


View attachment Improving Atlas turnouts.pdf


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Ah suddenly it makes sense! I too was wondering *why* you had that little bubble with the double-crossovers but now I see... One of the crossings actually is part of the lead-in to the yard, so if you ignore the yard tracks completely you actually only have a single crossing on your mainline.

You're still early enough in your build that you might consider attached the yard to the pink track instead of the green one, and thus eliminate one of those crossings to make your mainline a little more reliable.


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

*Time for some updates!*

With a new child and work / life / actual building of the layout, I haven't made time to post. Here are the latest updates.

1) Bridges have been built

2) New locos and weathering

3) All track has been laid

4) New wheels / trucks

5) Some scenery work

*Bridges:* I used a sheet of balsa wood, and will add girders to each side later. I think. For now, they don't look good but they work.









*New locos and weathering:* I picked up this little VO-1000 switcher - I really like it. https://photos.app.goo.gl/IX7upiqzdeL02x8Y2

I also started to get into weathering, continuing my trend of taking a difficult project and adding more difficulty. But it is fun!









*All track has been laid (more or less):* I have not finished the wye yet, as I know it will short circuit the layout without proper setup, and I haven't had the time to figure out how to deal with it yet. But the rest of the track is down, complete with a (slightly) extended switch yard.









Many of the freight cars I've ordered off ebay have arrived with plastic wheels, which have quickly shown me the value of metal wheels. These plastic trucks seem to roll poorly and derail easily. I tried out a set of Kadee equalized trucks, which work fairly well, but not noticeably better than some of the other non-Kadee-metal-wheeled trucks in my fleet.







So I purchased some Intermountain "semi scale" wheels, which look a bit more prototypical, and gave them a try. They work really well, and I have begun to standardize on those.

*Some scenery work:* I have decided to model, loosely my home turf of the SF Bay Area. We have a lot of light-colored dirt around here, so I started with a bunch of dirt and dirt colored ballast for the switch yard.








Since it is my first time doing any of this, I've made a ton of mistakes. After learning the hard way that even a few specs of dirt will prevent a turnout from moving, I completed the rest of the ballast work with a little more care.









Overall, things are coming along, I am having a blast, and I am learning a lot. As many of you warned, the Atlas turnouts, and to a greater extent, the crossings, are very high maintenance. I've been able to get the turnouts all to cause very few derailments, but they and the crossings are still involved with too many short circuits. I have not given up, but I may have to remove some of them down the road.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

The solution to derailments and short circuits isn't to remove turnouts / crossings, but to address the issue that is causing the problem. I know it's tedious, but have you checked all your flangeways for clearance issues, all your rails and wheels for proper gauging, and all your trip pins to make sure none are hanging too low (or couplers sagging). 

It also looks to me like you have at least o e reversing lop in there which may be causing shorts at turnouts. If you can go out the straight leg of any turnout and somehow arrive at the diverging leg going the opposite direction, you have a reversing loop. This will require special wiring, just like your Y.


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

CTValleyRR said:


> The solution to derailments and short circuits isn't to remove turnouts / crossings, but to address the issue that is causing the problem. I know it's tedious, but have you checked all your flangeways for clearance issues, all your rails and wheels for proper gauging, and all your trip pins to make sure none are hanging too low (or couplers sagging).
> 
> It also looks to me like you have at least o e reversing lop in there which may be causing shorts at turnouts. If you can go out the straight leg of any turnout and somehow arrive at the diverging leg going the opposite direction, you have a reversing loop. This will require special wiring, just like your Y.


These are some good points - I should have explained what sent me down the Kadee Truck --> Intermountain wheel path. When I bought the VO-1000 switcher, it was literally incapable of traversing any crossing, as a wheel from one or both trucks would lift over the rail and cause the loco to lose electrical current. It was surprising, because my Intermountain F3 A/B, BLI Sharknose, and Atlas RSD5 could deal with the crossings okay most of the time, especially after I filed down the plastic frogs, which were generally closer to one another than my wheels were wide.

Before I filed the crossings further into oblivion however, I finally bought an NMRA gauge, and sure enough, one axle from each of the VO-1000's trucks was way out of spec! I called Bowser and they offered to send some new wheels, but while they were explaining how to get the axles out of the truck, I went ahead and did it with them on the phone. It was easy to space the wheels out myself from that point on, and I let them know they didn't need to send me anything. Sure enough, the VO-1000 ran like a champ after that.

I then checked every wheel in my inventory, and as you can imagine, many of the freight cars were out of spec (though none of the other locos had any issues). Long story short, I realized how important good, in-spec wheels were and decided that they were a good place to invest some money.

Anyway, I still encounter the occasional short circuit on crossings or turnouts. I thought I had them all worked out, as my in-spec VO-1000 ran through them smoothly and the RSD5 was happy ever since I filed the frogs down. A few days ago though, the Sharknose - which had been faultless up to that point - shorted out over one of them. So that is what I meant by high maintenance. The issues are inconsistent, and vary from loco to loco.

The specific issue seems to be here, though it has been improved significantly by filing down the frogs:







As the wheel crosses through the frog, the flange can make contact with a red rail while the rest of the wheel is still in contact with the black rail.

By filing the rails away where they join into the plastic frog, I have reduced the frequency of these events down to perhaps 1 in 30. But that is still a lot.

To tell you the truth, the crossings are still a bit of a mystery. The rails do not come in close proximity to one another like they do in the turnouts, so it must be something else. I do not think it is wiring, since locos pass through without a problem 95% of the time.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

The NMRA gauge has a slot to check flange thickness, too. New wheels might help.

You can also insert a very thin piece of styrene into the flangeway to prevent the contact from being made. I have heard of people doing this with clear nail polish, but I have never tried it myself.


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

*Switch Machines*

Because I am incapable of finishing any one thing completely on this layout, I've started to tinker with switch machines.

Also, when I first began, I didn't pay much attention to the look of the little snap switch solenoids next to the Atlas turnouts. But as time wore on and little by little parts of the layout began to resemble a real railroad, those snap switch motors were ALL I could see!

Tortoise switch machines appealed to me, but I was concerned that 2.5" of foam and cork would not play nice with the actuating rods. So I picked up one Railcrew Switch Machine to try out.

Since I did everything wrong it took me about three hours. Mind you, I've never wired up *any* kind of switch machine, so any of you guys would have it done in 15 minutes. Anyway, I like it! I don't think I'll mind the fact that they SNAP very quickly vs. the slower Tortoise movement, as I won't be able to see many of the turnouts moving anyway. Also, there's no doubt that the points are seated firmly next to the rail with these things.

Here's a video and a picture of the progress.


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

One of the things I like about this layout is that you have density of track for continuous running.

I am not a fan of switching layouts. For continuous running, I prefer almost no track (a lot of sceney) or maximum track (a lot of trains running).

That layout is very cool!


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Oliver37 said:


> Tortoise switch machines appealed to me, but I was concerned that 2.5" of foam and cork would not play nice with the actuating rods. So I picked up one Railcrew Switch Machine to try out.


Did you pick up the functional switch stands and targets that go with it? These are pricey, but very nice. I bought a bunch for my layout (I devised a bell crank to use them with TVD servos). I took out the parts I needed and sold the rest on eBay, which made the price much more bearable.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Switch machine linkages*



Oliver37 said:


> Because I am incapable of finishing any one thing completely on this layout, I've started to tinker with switch machines.
> 
> Also, when I first began, I didn't pay much attention to the look of the little snap switch solenoids next to the Atlas turnouts. But as time wore on and little by little parts of the layout began to resemble a real railroad, those snap switch motors were ALL I could see!
> 
> ...


 Oliver37;

Several more switch machine things for you to consider. 

1) If you like Tortoise motors, you can use them with thick foam. You may have to mount them horizontally rather than in their normal vertical orientation; and use a different linkage, between turnout and Tortoise, than the "waving wire" used when they are vertical, and don't have to penetrate thick foam.
A while back I invented this manual, cheaper alternative to a Tortoise machine. I made two versions. The first mounts vertically, and operates like a Tortoise, using a waving wire. The second version is specifically intended for thick foam use. It mounts horizontally, and uses a rotating linkage which can be as long as you like. This same setup can be used with a real Tortoise motor if you like.

2) The black motor you have installed is very fast. If you want slow movement of the points, those motors are available with different gear ratios. The original manufacturer is a company called "Hankscraft." I have many of their motors some as slow as 1rpm. I use these for semaphores. I use their 7rpm motors to operate turnouts. 

3) Finally there are many manual means of operating turnouts. One of the most popular is the Caboose Industries ground throw. My own switch machine is manual and there are all sorts of others. Some use automobile choke cables. Manual methods are all much cheaper than electric ones. I don't know if cost is an issue for you or not.

On a different subject: The wheels shown exiting the plastic frog of the crossing, in your photo, won't be able to short if you crazy glue a thin strip of plastic along the outside surface of the two rails that come together in the frog. Suitably painted the plastic strips would be nearly invisible.

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:

These photos show a semaphore, and several turnouts,on ,my layout, that are operated by Hankscraft motors. The pdf files explain and show photos of my switch machine, and the linkage used in the second version.

















View attachment Introductory letter for $5 switch machine.pdf


View attachment Assembly instructions for $5 switch machine..pdf


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

Nikola said:


> One of the things I like about this layout is that you have density of track for continuous running.
> 
> I am not a fan of switching layouts. For continuous running, I prefer almost no track (a lot of sceney) or maximum track (a lot of trains running).
> 
> That layout is very cool!


Hi Nikola, thank you for your kind words! There is definitely a lot of track, which probably comes at the expense of looking prototypical. But it's tough to have it all...unless my next door neighbor is okay with me expanding the layout into his garage 



CTValleyRR said:


> Did you pick up the functional switch stands and targets that go with it? These are pricey, but very nice. I bought a bunch for my layout (I devised a bell crank to use them with TVD servos). I took out the parts I needed and sold the rest on eBay, which made the price much more bearable.


CTValleyRR, they actually come with the switch stands, which is nice. I ended up tearing out the scenery shown in my previous post since after it was all built up, the apparatus was as high as the rails. Here's a pic from this morning's rebuild with a few more components of the switch stand. I still need to trim the brass wire and add the targets (trying to sort out which target styles Southern Pacific used in the 1940s).









And traction fan, thank you for your excellent advice, as always. I've seen some videos of push/pull wire turnout control and I am impressed. Cost is certainly an issue for me, but two kids, a job, and business school are also on my list of current issues, so time is the (slightly) more precious commodity to me at moment. I've already learned why they call this "the greatest hobby in the world" - there are so many enjoyable rabbit holes to travel down that I don't think I will finish for many years!


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Money and time?*



Oliver37 said:


> Hi Nikola, thank you for your kind words! There is definitely a lot of track, which probably comes at the expense of looking prototypical. But it's tough to have it all...unless my next door neighbor is okay with me expanding the layout into his garage
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oliver37;

I hear you about the demands on your time. Yes, your layout, like everyone else's will indeed take years to build. 
It really doesn't take any more time to install a manual turnout control than an electric one. So, if you chose, you can save the money, without sacrificing any time. If you use something pre-made, like a Caboose Industries ground throw, or an automobile choke cable (yes you can still buy them, though I haven't seen a car with a manual choke, or a carburetor for that matter, in a few decades!) then the install time is the same, or less, than would be used to install a Tortoise, or other commercial machine. Even If you elected to build something like my machine, or some other manual linkage, the build time is typically measured in minutes, not hours.

Regards;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Choo Choo97! (Feb 28, 2018)

That is a way cool setup you have there, #37!
I, too am seriously considering getting back into an HO set. 55 years ago, a buddy of mine and I started out on a 4x8, but it never panned out. From there, I just accumulated more stuff and never built another layout. The stuff followed me from Buffalo, NY to Akron, OH, and all the way out here to Colorado. Still laid around. I finally sold it all dirt cheap to some cat, and that was THAT
Now, since I've always dug trains, and was a railroader myself for 31 years, you would think I had had ENOUGH! But No! Here I am hanging around and just as lost as a ***** in church, trying to get some ideas of what to build for a layout.
What I'd LIKE to do, if at all possible, is somehow locate 2 Baldwin AS16s one power, one dummy and use that as my "theme" I used to watch them from my Grandma's house when I was a kid. The Erie had 16 As 16s, and they ran the Buffalo-Niagara Falls line using these exclusively. I would also like to throw in a passenger circa that same time frame. Was thinking of an old NYC a & B (dummy and power) and have that as well.
I probably can go as large as 5x8 for my space. 
I am looking for used stuff, auctions etc etc; plus I have to build a board to handle it. Thank you for the example, BTW. 
Anyway, I've jumped in, found that the water's fine, and I am ready to build something (Just don't tell my former co workers)
THanks


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Some info that might help you*



Choo Choo97! said:


> That is a way cool setup you have there, #37!
> I, too am seriously considering getting back into an HO set. 55 years ago, a buddy of mine and I started out on a 4x8, but it never panned out. From there, I just accumulated more stuff and never built another layout. The stuff followed me from Buffalo, NY to Akron, OH, and all the way out here to Colorado. Still laid around. I finally sold it all dirt cheap to some cat, and that was THAT
> Now, since I've always dug trains, and was a railroader myself for 31 years, you would think I had had ENOUGH! But No! Here I am hanging around and just as lost as a ***** in church, trying to get some ideas of what to build for a layout.
> What I'd LIKE to do, if at all possible, is somehow locate 2 Baldwin AS16s one power, one dummy and use that as my "theme" I used to watch them from my Grandma's house when I was a kid. The Erie had 16 As 16s, and they ran the Buffalo-Niagara Falls line using these exclusively. I would also like to throw in a passenger circa that same time frame. Was thinking of an old NYC a & B (dummy and power) and have that as well.
> ...


Choo Choo97;

Welcome back to model railroading! Have you checked our "For sale member to member" section, and E-bay, for those AS16 locomotives you are looking for? You said you were, "trying to get some ideas of what to build for a layout." Look in our "Beginner's Q&A", and "Layout design" sections. You might find something there that will inspire your next layout. In that 4'x8' or 5'x9' space you have you could build a decent HO-scale layout, or a more complicated one in N-scale. Those are the two most popular scales, and each has a wide selection of locos, cars, track, and accessories available.

With your long experience as a professional railroader, you could also answer questions from some newer people. You must know many things about real railroads that most of us don't. In fact I have a question for you right now. On model railroads, we use rail joiners. Before welded rail, real rails were joined by steel channels with multiple bolts holding the rail ends to each other. Are they called fish plates, joint bars, or what?
Attached below are some pdf files that may help you get started planning, and building, your new layout. One may also help you save some money. Prices have increased quite a lot in the fifty+ years you've been away!

Have fun;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:

View attachment Where do I start (revised version).pdf


View attachment MODEL RAILROADING ON A BUDGET.pdf


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

Lots of track in a small space. Neat. Did you cut the hole in the wall to allow more clearance when you tilt up the layout?


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

Choo Choo97! said:


> That is a way cool setup you have there, #37!
> I, too am seriously considering getting back into an HO set. 55 years ago, a buddy of mine and I started out on a 4x8, but it never panned out. From there, I just accumulated more stuff and never built another layout. The stuff followed me from Buffalo, NY to Akron, OH, and all the way out here to Colorado. Still laid around. I finally sold it all dirt cheap to some cat, and that was THAT
> Now, since I've always dug trains, and was a railroader myself for 31 years, you would think I had had ENOUGH! But No! Here I am hanging around and just as lost as a ***** in church, trying to get some ideas of what to build for a layout.
> What I'd LIKE to do, if at all possible, is somehow locate 2 Baldwin AS16s one power, one dummy and use that as my "theme" I used to watch them from my Grandma's house when I was a kid. The Erie had 16 As 16s, and they ran the Buffalo-Niagara Falls line using these exclusively. I would also like to throw in a passenger circa that same time frame. Was thinking of an old NYC a & B (dummy and power) and have that as well.
> ...


Thank you for the compliment! Interestingly enough, I bought almost the exact set you describe - Baldwin AF16 powered A / unpowered B - a few months ago. Since that time I've narrowed my focus to "west coast" Southern Pacific and this Broadway Limited Baldwin set (PRR) doesn't really fit anymore. Send me a message if you're interested!


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

deedub35 said:


> Lots of track in a small space. Neat. Did you cut the hole in the wall to allow more clearance when you tilt up the layout?


Yeah, kind of a long funny story. I measured everything out and designed the elevated section to be very close to, but not make contact with, the wall when stowed. When I took some measurements after it was built, the elevated section was inexplicably 1" taller than it should have been. Since that meant it would interfere with the wall, I cut the hole you mention. 

The punchline is that I measured wrong...the second time...and there never was any interference. I still have to patch up the wall


----------



## Magic (Jan 28, 2014)

Measure twice, cut once and patch the hole later, got it.

Magic


----------



## Dennis461 (Jan 5, 2018)

OMG, a Baldwin with marker lights, windshield wipers and an antenna! I may need to take a trip to the Hoppy Shop and catch up


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

*Railcrew Switch Machine #2*

I had purchased 3 of these units, and the other day I set about installing the second one.

While I was really happy with the first unit, I did notice that the toggle switch had to be toggled *very* firmly in one direction for the switch to be activated. The other direction worked fine.

I bring it up only because after wiring up the second Railcrew Switch Machine, it did not work. I assumed that the issue lay somewhere in my wiring, soldering, or in some other user error, but to make a long troubleshooting story short, it was the toggle switch that came with the second switch machine - completely dead.

While replacing the toggle at my own expense would not be a big deal, I would like my 2 hours back spent troubleshooting and then ultimately re-wiring 

Anyway, I bring all of _this_ up because the second switch machine motor also had an issue: lots of slop in the mechanism. Why does this matter? It does perform its primary task of throwing the points from one side to another. But in so doing, the axis that the motor spins on moves, which means that the target stand will move, which means that it will rip out of its base if I were to install it. Here's a video (sorry about the grunting - I was holding my breath while trying not to shake the camera!).






So I am now using switch machine # 3 for the second install, and both the motor and the toggle switch work great. I'm not giving up, but I do have a call in to Rapido to try to a) get the defective units replaced and b) try to have my expectations set about future dead units. The following stats are not great:

- 2 of 3 toggle switches with some sort of issue
- 1 of 3 motors with some sort of issue

Hopefully it's just bad luck because I do like the end result.

The other minor challenge, outlined briefly in a previous post, are the railroad ties spanning between the stock turnout ties and the target stand. For the life of me, I cannot figure out the correct way to use "base" frame piece that underlies this tie extension. It is way too long to jive with Rapido's recommendation to place the motor 1" from the rail, or with the supplied tie rods (which are more or less the right length for 1"-from-the-rail placement). This base is also thicker than the ties themselves, so it needs to be placed below the cork roadbed, or cut even shorter so that it never reaches the cork. The latter is my preferred strategy, but it seems odd that I would have to cut this thing in half for it to work with the other components in the kit.

Its wonky height adds another variable, as it is too tall to sit on top of the motor if the motor is the same height as the cork. If the motor is recessed so that it is the same height as the foam underneath the cork, then the tie extension is not tall enough. So I have this improvised solution that is slightly time consuming and makes adding ballast in the right places difficult.









For reference, I stacked a new tie extension on top of my trimmed down version in this pic, so you can see that it really is twice as long as it (seemingly) needs to be:









All this being said, I am moving forward, just at a slower pace than I'd like to be.


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

Hi Everyone,

I have a little progress to share.

First of all, I won an eBay auction for one of these:









My version is an Atlas Master Gold Alco S2 with DCC and Sound. I love the sound of these things and have been looking for an SP version, so I was pretty happy to win the auction.






Here's my growing 1940s/1950s era SP fleet:









Yes, I have too many switchers but they are so cool! I guess the S2 and VO-1000 can be my two yard switchers, the RSD-5 can be a road switcher, and the F3A/B set can be my mainline hauler. All I need now is a logging train 

I've found my rhythm with the Railcrew switch machines, with two installed and running smoothly. Rapido also offered to send me a bag o toggle switches since a few of them have failed, which I appreciated!














The next step has been to add a hillside. As has been the case with everything, I had no idea what I was doing. I bought some Woodland Scenics plaster sheets and started gluing things out of my trashcan onto the layout. The plaster sheets went over the rubble, and lo and behold, I have some hills.









After that, I bought some matte beige paint for $0.79 at Michael's and painted the hillside. This color is pretty close to the color of Northern California dirt, which is the area that I am going to try to model. On top of that, near the roadbed, I sprinkled some actual dirt, and I will pour the ballast on after.









I just picked up a static grass machine and some golden brown grass. Hopefully in the not-too-distant-future I end up with something like this:


----------



## Magic (Jan 28, 2014)

Those switch machines look pretty nice.

You're moving ahead and learning as you go, that's what it's all about.
You're making some nice progress, keep us posted.

Magic


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

Magic said:


> Those switch machines look pretty nice.
> 
> You're moving ahead and learning as you go, that's what it's all about.
> You're making some nice progress, keep us posted.
> ...


Thank you Magic! Overall progress is slowing, but it is becoming more fun at the same time. It's funny how one's standards change: when I started, I justed wanted a loco for me, a loco for my daughter, and a loop of track. 

Fast forward three months, and the missing ties under the rail joining clips are completely unacceptable! A few hours spent cutting ties into three pieces of the right lengths and gluing them down separately and the problem is solved, but I probably laid a quarter of my track in that amount of time back in January. It's a very different hobby for me now than it was then.


----------



## 89Suburban (Jan 4, 2017)

Nice work.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those switch machine flags supposed to be green for the train coming through the points when aligned for the track he's on?

Nice progress.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

You may be right, Michael. Ordinary
switch stands do show green flag for
track the points are set for.

The pictured flags are somewhat different.
It may be that the Pointed green flag is
indicating for which track the points
are set.

Maybe Magic, one of our more experienced members,
can enlighten us. 

Don


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

MichaelE said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those switch machine flags supposed to be green for the train coming through the points when aligned for the track he's on?
> 
> Nice progress.


Different railroads use different color schemes. It's tough to generalize.


----------



## J.Albert1949 (Feb 3, 2018)

_"Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those switch machine flags supposed to be green for the train coming through the points when aligned for the track he's on?"_

Green - the normal (main) route

Red/Yellow - diverging route

That's how it works on the big trains.


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

*Flags*

Hey guys, I think you're all probably right 

I did some research on Southern Pacific flags, and most info seemed to indicate that they were either red or yellow, and you either saw them or you didn't (no green arrow, like I am using).









There was some conflicting info on which way was which with regards to lining up with the mainline vs the diverging line, so after all was said and done I decided do what made the most sense to me  After all, if I'm not mistaken, the brand/model flagstands that come with the kit were technically not used by SP anyway, so I'm okay with a little deviation from prototype here.

The red double-doughnut thing will indicate that "you are lined up to go straight" 100% of the time, as seen from the engineer's perspective. The green arrow will mean "you are going to diverge in the direction of the green arrow" 100% of the time. No one asked, but my toggle switches are moved in the direction that the train will go, after the toggle is complete.

I understand that, in the real world, sometimes the flag orientation rules would change, depending upon whether the mainline was straight or curved, but figured I would confuse myself more than I already do if I tried to factor that in.

I will take this opportunity to reiterate that Rapido has taken care of me and my toggle switch issue very well. I'm convinced that they stand behind their products and will continue to expand my use of them on my layout.:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

As I mentioned in a previous post (I think), I've standardized on Intermountain Semi Scale 33" wheels. These are "code 88", .088" wide wheels that are narrower and more prototypical than the standard .110" wide wheels. They are not perfectly scale, as I believe that is around .06" wide or so.

Anyway, these wheels are great. I don't think I've had a derailment that wasn't caused by a low-hanging coupler or some other mistake of mine, and obviously they roll very well too.

After experimenting with a variety of weathering techniques involving paint and chaulk, I've settled on two coats from a Woodland Scenics rail painting pen, color "Rusty Rail". Here's my production line - the 4 wheels on the right have just received their second coat, while the 8 wheels on the left have received only one coat. The paint dries matte, and underneath the shadow of the car and somewhat hidden behind the truck, they look as good as anything else I've done.








And one that has dried. After the wheel is gauged and installed in the truck, I paint the backside and axle with the same paint pen (just one coat).









I've also started with some static grass work, which I am not that happy with. It is 2mm, which is a scale 7" tall, but many of the fibers have laid down and it looks like mouse fur. It doesn't help that my rolling hills of California look more like jagged peaks, but...live and learn.

I ordered some taller 4mm grass, that is also more golden, and will add that in when it arrives.


----------



## cardking411 (Mar 21, 2018)

*size*

what size is your layout


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

cardking411 said:


> what size is your layout


Hi cardking, it is about 74" feet deep by 12 feet wide, minus a little chunk for garage door clearance when stowed.


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

*Grass and other scenery*

I received a few shipments of longer and different colored static grass; all variations of golden / yellow. The first to go onto the layout was Peco Golden Wheat. The name is a little misleading, as it's really "greenish yellow fibers mixed with red fibers, for a net result of golden-ish".









While I awaited the next shipment, I assembled one of two Bowser 70 Ton Covered Hoppers that I ordered. These are pretty nice kits! Most of my rolling stock has been made up of older Athearn or Roundhouse kits, which I was fine with, but these are quite a bit more detailed. After assembly and weathering:









The next order of static grass came in so I sprinkled some of that on. I realized, too late, that I forgot to *turn on* the static grass machine though, so this batch of grass just turned into a pile of fibers. After waiting for the glue to try, I took some packaging tape and applied it all over the grass, then peeled it up. This actually resulted in some natural looking blotchiness, which combined with some gravel and correctly-applied static grass, began to resemble a hillside. Here's a picture of it with the glue still wet.









Next up was some mainline ballast. The Woodland Scenics ballast is lighter in color than what I've observed around where I live, so I mixed it with some black asphalt at a ratio of 1 cup to 1 tablespoon. As you can see, this darkened up the ballast quite a bit (the ballast in the spoon is what it looks like out of the container), and is more analogous to real gravel, in my opinion.









Here's a picture of the completed ballast work on the mainline.









And a glamour shot of the V0-1000.









I've also begun to assemble an old corrugated metal fence to separate the switch yard from the mainline. Here's the first segment.









Here's a video of the F3 A/B lugging my growing roster up the grade.


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

So nice.


----------



## Magic (Jan 28, 2014)

Oliver your RR is starting to shape up nicely. Looking good.
Nice to get some trains running as well.

Where did you get that corrugated metal fence?
I have a spot that it would be perfect for it.

Magic


----------



## rwslater (Oct 25, 2017)

Oliver you layout is coming out great. The fence looks great and the golden rolling hills of CA. are coming along nicely.

Robert


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

*Fence*

Hi guys,

Thank you for the kind words. Here's a parts "list" for the corrugated fence in my previous post:









I like the Builders In Scale (that's the brand under the price tag) corrugated metal, as it is pretty thick and is actually corrugated.









Anyway, I cut the metal into segments, then glued it onto some fencing from Tichi that I had previously painted brown. After the fence was built, I weathered it in this manner:
1) Used a mixture of Alcohol+DecoArt Burnt Sienna paint (ratio...a lot of alcohol to a little paint), dripped down from the top of the fence. I let it dry then applied again
2) "Medium Rust" and "Soot" chalk dusted on dry
3) Testors Matte spray applied from many feet away (probably 3 feet above) so the chalk didn't wash away.

The thinned alcohol/paint mixture drips very nicely, and leaves a white, almost abrasive residue that the chalk likes to adhere to.

Here's the backside:


----------



## 89Suburban (Jan 4, 2017)

Looking good!!!


----------



## Magic (Jan 28, 2014)

Thanks for the details on the fence, will look into it.

Magic


----------



## Homeless by Choice (Apr 15, 2016)

*Problem viewing pics in this #68 reply only*

I don't want to hijack this thread but I can't see the pictures in Oliver37's Reply #68. I only see the circle in the center with the horizontal dash for each pic in this REPLY only. I see the pics in all the other replies in this thread. Any ideas? I am interested in the corrugated metal. Here is what I see:
LeRoy


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

If it's any consolation, I don't see the pics either.


----------



## Homeless by Choice (Apr 15, 2016)

CTValleyRR said:


> If it's any consolation, I don't see the pics either.


OK 

I am glad to see that it is not my computer problem.

Thanks,
LeRoy


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

Hey all, wow, what a fail. It looks like a lot of my images were hidden behind my google log-in for some reason. I just fixed the last post, will update the others soon. Sorry!


----------



## Oliver37 (Dec 24, 2017)

It's time for a long-overdue update!

I have embarked on two projects since the last update:
- A steam loco with decoder install
- Going al natural (with scenery)

Firstly, the new loco. After searching around the web for a small SP loco for my smallish-radius corners, I settled on the Bachmann 2-8-0. I had seen one or two on eBay but after a month or so of looking, I was unable to locate any with the SP road name. So I settled on a Western Pacific version, which a) did travel in the area I am modeling and b) could be converted to SP relatively easily. This is what I was going for:









I found them at Trainworld for $89, which seemed too good to pass up, even if I added in the cost of a sound decoder later. I was pleased with the look of the loco, but good god, the mechanical operation of it was shockingly bad...and I expected it to be bad. It was so poor that I returned the loco for another, which ran basically the same. Trainworld was great with the returns process.

Here's what the two models ran like out of the box. 




Maybe my (low) expectations were too high, but I expected it to at least run smoothly at *some* speed.

Anyway, after asking around on another forum, I decided to try to make it work. I disassembled the running gear and found one of the problems:








As you can see, one of the guide rods coming out of the piston is bent. After straightening it out, the loco ran much more consistently...my only remaining complaint being the (expected) poor speed control. Curiously, the first loco seemed to exhibit the same characteristic, but I didn't inspect it before sending it back. Maybe it had the same problem.

Moving on, I purchased a TCS Wow decoder and embarked on my first every decoder install, with some trepidation. There are pretty decent instructions on TCS' website, and the install went well. Here's the Bachmann motherboard that I removed:








The tender had pre-drilled speaker holes and I mounted the speaker face down as shown. I had to build up the stanchions to clear the speaker, and I used cork to do that.
















Here's the motherboard installed after I soldiered the wires onto the pads.








To my utter disbelief, everything worked the first time I set the loco on the track! This was my first time hearing and using a TCS decoder and I can say the sound quality is a cut above Loksound and BLI (which are the only other decoders I have used). The motor control, as you can see below, is extremely good, comparable to Loksound to my eye.






Now on to scenery. I have generally struggled finding the right colors to match the "northern California in the summer" look I'm going for. The static grasses I have tried are either too yellow or too brown - the true gold remaining elusive. The ballasts I've tried are either too light or two dark, and the dirt, while close, is actually too light.

One of my other hobbies is mountain bike riding, and as spring has changed to summer, the colors I was looking for began appearing right before my eyes. So why not make my own base material from real, California grass?? To test the general process, I grabbed some oak leaves on one of my rides and stuffed them in my pocket. Then I bought these items at a dollar store for a grand total of $5:








I added the leaves to a blender, mixed in some water, and voila! Yes, I know it looks like something else, but there are just leaves in there:








After letting it dry and filtering through my two strainers, I was left with a fine brown dirt to lay down under my oak trees...if I ever get around to adding them. 








Buoyed by this success, I tried the same technique with golden dried grass, but it did not work very well. The grass was much more fibrous and no matter what I tried, I was not able to turn it into a powder.

Undeterred from my new "nature knows best" initiative, I grabbed some rocks on another ride. After crushing one of them with a hammer, and straining the pieces with my two strainers, I was left with three grades of rock: fine powder, medium gravel, and large rocks. I wedged one of the large rocks into a hillside, then drizzled some of the finer pieces beneath it, here:








I crushed one of the other rocks, which had some different colors in it, and added pieces from both to another section of the layout:








Now, I am not exactly sure what I built in the picture above (a creek bed? A random rock deposit? Something that wouldn't exist in nature?), but I like the overall look.

Just yesterday, as I finished up another bike ride, I realized I was quite close to an actual set of railroad tracks, so I grabbed a couple ballast rocks. Next project...making my own ballast!


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

Nice technique and great recycling of found materials!!


----------

