# My First layout build



## LaunchPad (Nov 24, 2018)

This is my first layout I'm looking to build simple but not too complex for my first time. I'm trying to get the curves to be even any tips to get them more uniform?


----------



## crackymule (Nov 1, 2018)

I like the curves you have. The less symmetric the more realistic is IMO and more fun to watch.

What software did you use for that?


----------



## LaunchPad (Nov 24, 2018)

I used SCARM. I'm still getting acclimated with it but I like it so far. 



crackymule said:


> I like the curves you have. The less symmetric the more realistic is IMO and more fun to watch.
> 
> What software did you use for that?


----------



## Stumpy (Mar 19, 2013)

crackymule said:


> I like the curves you have. The less symmetric the more realistic is IMO and more fun to watch.


This.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

There is a serious radius change in the upper right
curve that could cause problems with larger locos and
cars.

The two spurs in the upper switch track are short.
Are they long enuf to hold your cars?

Also, the tail of your lower spur track seems quite short.
Is it long enuf to hold your loco and a car or two?

Don


----------



## LaunchPad (Nov 24, 2018)

DonR said:


> There is a serious radius change in the upper right
> curve that could cause problems with larger locos and
> cars.
> 
> ...


No, I may end up having to angle it more so that I can add more track. Upper right? Looks like that is the one with the least amount of radial variation. Is there a way you know of to keep my radii at a better constant? And what radius is best for 4x8' as wide as possible but enough to keep it on the board?


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Mental flip flop. I meant the changing radius in
the upper LEFT curve. You could somewhat flatten
it out to restore a proper radius.

Some use a pencil tied to a string which is anchored
to your top to mark a continuous radius which you
can use as a guide for track laying.

If you can add an extra foot to your width you can
achieve a 22" radius which permits operation of
the bigger diesels and longer cars.

Don


----------



## LaunchPad (Nov 24, 2018)

DonR said:


> Mental flip flop. I meant the changing radius in
> the upper LEFT curve. You could somewhat flatten
> it out to restore a proper radius.
> 
> ...


Awesome, well I did this on the computer software, but I know that's the layout I'm aiming for. But I think I may try that and see with the 22" radius, it might give me extra to do something else with it as well


----------



## Chops (Dec 6, 2018)

"No, I may end up having to angle it more so that I can add more track."

This is a very unique plan, and I like it, a lot. It combines the simple oval circuit with a point-to-point. 

My own opinion, is what benefit would having "more track" do for this? Would that add six inches or so? 

As it stands, it has an uncluttered look and really exceptional operational possibilities. If you were to add in some DCC, then you would be looking at running two trains on the main while shunting that inner point-to-point. 

I've never used SCARM, but I like looking over layout plans, and seen quite a few computer drafted plans, but this is really one of the more interesting ones I can recall seeing. My error, that I am weaning myself off of, is trying to do much. I see an empty spot and want to add a siding, a passing track, another turnout, and then end up wondering why it has such reliability issues. 

That being said, I really hope we get to see what this looks like when it goes into production.


----------



## LaunchPad (Nov 24, 2018)

Awesome thanks for the insight. I do plan on doing DCC++ that way I can build my own system. I'm pretty comfortable with arduino. I'm just trying to find out how to wire it up efficiently. 



Chops said:


> "No, I may end up having to angle it more so that I can add more track."
> 
> This is a very unique plan, and I like it, a lot. It combines the simple oval circuit with a point-to-point.
> 
> ...


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Chops said:


> "No, I may end up having to angle it more so that I can add more track."
> 
> This is a very unique plan, and I like it, a lot. It combines the simple oval circuit with a point-to-point.
> 
> ...


Meh. It's a variation on a 4x8 oval, and as such will never be unique. That's not necessarily a bad thing, especially if the OP's purpose is to keep it simple. I would also hardly call that center section "point to point", except by a very broad definition. I definitely think, though, if you want multiple trains and some kind of shuttle operation, you would need a lot more layout to make that practical. I think watching two trains chase their tails on the loop while you drive endlessly back and forth in the center would get old really fast.

"More track" can mean several things. What Don is referring to is that the sidings aren't long enough to really do anything with, and the tail on the switchback isn't long enough to actually use the adjacent siding, because it won't hold a loco and one or more cars, so all you could do on that siding is park an engine there.

More on the other definition below.



Chops said:


> I've never used SCARM, but I like looking over layout plans, and seen quite a few computer drafted plans, but this is really one of the more interesting ones I can recall seeing. My error, that I am weaning myself off of, is trying to do much. I see an empty spot and want to add a siding, a passing track, another turnout, and then end up wondering why it has such reliability issues.


Personally, I think there are better options than SCARM out there. Back when it was free, it was a good deal, but if you're going to pay, there are better choices out there. But whatever. Look in the Layout Design Forum; there are two sticky threads with lots of designs, most of them drawn with software.

As far as adding track willy-nilly, you're right -- that rarely results in a better layout. But it had nothing to do with reliability issues. Good track work is good track work. As long as you have an adequate supply of power, it should be fine. Add extra power feeds if you need them.

My own preference is for a somewhat more realistic purpose for my track. I will never build a true point-to-point layout, because sometimes I just like to watch a train run. But I still like not being able to see it all the time. My layout is C-shaped, so I can look right, left, or straight ahead, but I can't see the whole layout at once. You can see my design in the threads I mentioned above. And all of my spurs and sidings have a reason for their existence: either to serve an industry, pick up passengers, or service locos. And there is lots of room for scenery and structures.

Now, don't think I'm trying to tell anyone how to build a layout or judge anyone's design. I'm not. Your layout, your rules. I'm just trying point out a different way of doing things, perhaps one you haven't considered.


----------



## Chops (Dec 6, 2018)

Interesting discussion, your points (no pun intended) are interesting and useful. 

There was a consumer study done a few decades ago, and probably many like it, in where it was determined that a consumer received as much gratification from purchasing something for $5 as they did for $500. 

I am fortunate to belong to a fixed plant Club, and the designers really wanted to pack in as much interchange and track and crossings and turnouts as they possibly could. There are turnouts and diamonds and reverse loops galore- and much of it subterranean. In fact, there are so many layers to the HO layout that fully 2/3 of the time, depending on which of the three main lines one uses, that one's train is completely out of sight. One has to listen keenly for the sound of wheel on rail, or wheel on tie, or the dreaded sound of plastic bouncing off concrete flooring, to know where one's train is. 

For all this, the HO guys, by vast majority, limit their running of trains primarily to the most visible of the three mains, and then only in a very broad roundy-roundy that takes about three minutes to orbit at about a scale 45 MPH. And it does get tedious. I do agree. 

When DCC first started ramping up in the early '90's, a consortium of the membership purchased and installed a $3000 DCC system. It came with a manual fully more than an inch thick. The system was run exactly twice, shut down, and never moved another train. So complicated is the simple task of addressing a locomotive that only one other guy ever attempted to try it, and failed. 

As I explore the vicissitudes of simplicity, I will run two trains on an analog main and time it so the slower of the two trains will make the passing siding in time to allow the faster to roar past, then bring out the slower train to chase the tail. Given the dimensions of the layout, this is an interesting diversion. 

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video has be about 10,000. If wanting to further the discussion, please take a peek at *"PC Expresso"* under the model rail video forum.


----------



## J.Albert1949 (Feb 3, 2018)

Some of the curves in the OP's plan look _WAY_ too tight for most equipment.

Is that a 4x8?
You'd better switch to a different planning app, that's more realistic about the curvature.

Also, the spur on the right may prove too short, unless all you plan to use it for is an engine and one car, or possibly two cars.

For planning software, you might also try the free Railmodeler Express app.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

J.Albert1949 said:


> Some of the curves in the OP's plan look _WAY_ too tight for most equipment.
> 
> Is that a 4x8?
> You'd better switch to a different planning app, that's more realistic about the curvature.
> ...


The software I use (Anyrail) bags you mercilessly if you have a curve (even an S curve or a kinked track joint) under your minimum radius or a slope exceeding your max. You don't have to listen to it, but it's really obvious. If SCARM does that, it's not the default.

That, in my opinion, is one of the biggest virtues of track planning software: it keeps you honest. I can't recommend any software that doesn't force that on you.


----------

