# Starting a new layout



## pat_smith1969 (Aug 21, 2016)

SO I moved into a new house. I had to destroy my old layout (baisc 5x10 rectangle). I kept most of my turnouts and other itmes (flex track did not make it however). 

My new space is quite a bit different from what I had. I have a 25 foot wall I can use. The layout can be 3 to 4 feet (picture is has 3 feet) deep with 3 foot ends sticking out (have to refer to pic). 

I have an idea what general things I want in my new layout and could list them but I am a bit stuck getting started. I don't want to lay some track, then decide I need to pull up large sections for modifications. I suspect some of that will happen but I would like to keep it to a minimum.

The cruxt of the issue is I am modeling the DMIR and to do so I need at least 1 ore dock.. and those are HUGE. The picture attached shows a potential location for the docks and an adjacent pier. The circles of track you see are there for me to get a visual of an 18 inch and a 22 inch circle.. to make sure the trains can turn around.


----------



## Spence (Oct 15, 2015)

Best of luck with the new layout. With this great forum you should be able to get all of your questions answered.


----------



## pat_smith1969 (Aug 21, 2016)

took me a minute to figure out how to force dropbox to share the photo but I got it now.


----------



## pat_smith1969 (Aug 21, 2016)

When I am in the basement and not working on the layout I like to have a train or two running in a loop.. just to have them running while I am doing something else.. so I am thinking I need at least two "main lines" that (if switched properly) are loops. 

Near the ore dock I would love to put a small city on a hill (if you have been to Duluth you would seriously get it). But I am not sure I can make that happen. 

Somewhere I would like a decent size ore mine.. which would be a pretty large pit. 

Probably would need one or more logging branch lines/spurs. 

GOTTA have a bridge or two, a waterfall, and a yard of some type.


----------



## pat_smith1969 (Aug 21, 2016)

Here is what I came up with so far.. I dont care for it much. 

Since WHEN did SCARM become paid software? I got this far into the setup and it told me I have to pay for it to add more track. When I setup my last layout I did not get that error, and it had more "things" in it.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Yeah, so it's probably best not to open that can of worms. Suffice it to say that Mixy decided it was time that his hobby project became a source of income. It's now a commecial product, and if you upgraded to the latest version, you're pretty much screwed. Either pay him the ransom, or purchase a different product from a reputable company.


----------



## Mixy (Dec 14, 2010)

CTValleyRR said:


> Yeah, so it's probably best not to open that can of worms ... Either pay him *the ransom*, or purchase a different product from a reputable company.


CTValleyRR, are you claiming that SCARM software is ransomware??? Or my work is waste of money, cause I am not the reputable company from which you purchased your track planning software? What exactly is your problem with me???

Mixy


----------



## regorsky (Jul 19, 2015)

*can of worms*



CTValleyRR said:


> Yeah, so it's probably best not to open that can of worms. Suffice it to say that Mixy decided it was time that his hobby project became a source of income. It's now a commecial product, and if you upgraded to the latest version, you're pretty much screwed. Either pay him the ransom, or purchase a different product from a reputable company.


So why open it????


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Mixy said:


> CTValleyRR, are you claiming that SCARM software is ransomware??? Or my work is waste of money, cause I am not the reputable company from which you purchased your track planning software? What exactly is your problem with me???
> 
> Mixy


I guess you really must be suffering from either a massive inferiority complex, or deep down, you have an nagging concern that you didn't handle your conversion to paid software properly.

I don't have a problem with you -- although you can lose the attitude mentioned above.

I don't have a problem with your software or the fact that you are now charging for it.

I DO think it was extraordinarily unfair of you NOT to make it crystal clear to your current users that upgrading to the new version would limit their use of the product to 100 pieces -- where formerly it was unlimited -- without paying your licensing fee. You want money for something that was previously provided free of charge, from people to whom you had already provided it for free, and who were entitled to assume what they had gotten for free would not require payment after the fact. So now users like poor old Mr. Smith here can't edit things they have already made in the free version, with no way to get it back. Yes, in my mind, that's too close to ransomware for comfort. 

You made a decision for what you thought were good reasons. You implemented that decision. Now you have to live with the consequences of that decision. The time to be concerned with how that was going to affect your reputation was before you did it. Whining about how people treat you, or change their opinion of you, as a consequence of that decision doesn't help your case.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

regorsky said:


> So why open it????


I didn't intend to go into the detailed explanation about what happened and whether it was fair or not.

If you go back and read the thread, most of us DIDN'T think it was fair and aboveboard. I guess we'll be revisiting that again.


----------



## pat_smith1969 (Aug 21, 2016)

Thanks for the information folks, I now understand what is going on with SCARM.

I would like to direct this thread back to the original topic if I can please. 

CTValley, you have been extremely helpful in the past (when I did my first layout) and I welcome any thoughts you might have to offer for this one.. that goes for anyone else as well.


----------



## Mixy (Dec 14, 2010)

Sorry Pat, but I need to reply to the CTValleyRR's ongoing charges against me and my software that he started several years ago.



CTValleyRR said:


> I guess you really must be suffering from either a massive inferiority complex


I guess that you are a psychologist and now you're trying to cure me? Thanks, but no need of such "help".



CTValleyRR said:


> I don't have a problem with you -- although you can lose the attitude mentioned above.
> 
> I don't have a problem with your software or the fact that you are now charging for it.


Really? So why you are commenting on me and my software in such way??? 



CTValleyRR said:


> I DO think it was extraordinarily unfair of you NOT to make it crystal clear to your current users that upgrading to the new version would limit their use of the product to 100 pieces -- where formerly it was unlimited -- without paying your licensing fee.


Crystal clear, you say? Let see what is written on SCARM website:

On the main page:









On the download page:









If you expect something like big red flashy banner that says "I am now charging, do not download my new software", sorry, but that is either not the right way to convert a free software to a commercial product.



CTValleyRR said:


> You want money for something that was previously provided free of charge, from people to whom you had already provided it for free, and who were entitled to assume what they had gotten for free would not require payment after the fact.


So? Is there a law or rule that I am not allowed to start asking to be paid after my beta software has matured? Is it a crime that I want some money for my work now after I was developing and sharing SCARM for free for the past 7 years? Or I do not have the right to switch to commercial model? Why?



CTValleyRR said:


> So now users like poor old Mr. Smith here can't edit things they have already made in the free version, with no way to get it back. Yes, in my mind, that's too close to ransomware for comfort.


The unregistered (free) version of SCARM can open, review, print, export pictures, show parts list, view in 3D, simulate a running train and even edit a track plan (using the tracks already placed on the drawing plot) that was created in previous beta version of the program. Everything is there and nothing in lost. In the other hand, the ransomware encrypts your files and you cannot do anything with them until you pay the ransom. Can you catch the difference?



CTValleyRR said:


> You made a decision for what you thought were good reasons. You implemented that decision. Now you have to live with the consequences of that decision. The time to be concerned with how that was going to affect your reputation was before you did it. Whining about how people treat you, or change their opinion of you, as a consequence of that decision doesn't help your case.


I am living pretty good and healthy life and I do not complain. I can ever live with persons like you, who had nothing to do with SCARM or me, but are using every opportunity to attack me and my work (do you remember your first posts about SCARM several years ago ). What I cannot accept is when persons like you are misleading others, claiming that I am some criminal, who wants to steal people's track plans and then ask a ransom for that. Well, that is very "fair" tactic, for sure.

Mixy


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

@pat 

Try using AnyRail. I have been using them now and it is a lot easier to use. In the free trial, you only have 50 pieces of track to work with, but there are several ways to get around that and get "more" out of it without having to get the license. 

I use to us SCARM, but deleted it after the bad customer service reports we were hearing about on the forum. 

If you would like to know about some tips and tricks that I found using AnyRail's free trial, send me a PM, I'd be glad to help.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Mixy said:


> Sorry Pat, but I need to reply to the CTValleyRR's ongoing charges against me and my software that he started several years ago.


No, actually, you don't.

If you recall, we discussed this several years ago. You made a covert out of me, because I thought you really were doing this for the love of the hobby, and after that, I often recommended your program. Then you pulled this stunt, and forever lost me. 

No amount of screenshots, protestation, claiming to be the injured party, or attacking me can change that. You rolled the dice, now pay the price. I'm done with the discussion, here or anywhere. You think you were right, I don't. Let it go at that.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

pat_smith1969 said:


> Here is what I came up with so far.. I dont care for it much.
> 
> Since WHEN did SCARM become paid software? I got this far into the setup and it told me I have to pay for it to add more track. When I setup my last layout I did not get that error, and it had more "things" in it.


I would expand the right side into a loop. The left side is more problematic. Keep the lower loop, at 18" radius, with access to the whart, and make that into your main which joins the loop on the right side. Bring the track off the ore dock into an 18" turn where the track runs outside the main loop, and run downhill at a 3% grade (you'll need about 8-1/2 linear feet to do it) so you can join the other loop. You can put other spurs and maybe even a crossover, on th inside of the main loop.


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

is this modeling something like the Two Harbors, MN loading docks?


----------



## pat_smith1969 (Aug 21, 2016)

I was hoping to do a little town on the side of a hill and try to make it reminiscent of Duluth.. maybe do a Radison hotel and toss a lift bridge in there somewhere.. it will not be anywhere close to protypical but if I can get the essence of it I would be happy. The other end will be a Mine, not sure which one but one of them from the Iron Range.. add a couple other small mines and some logging spurs.. a farm.. that is about all the room I have...

Alternately I will make it reminiscent of Two Harbors (where I grew up) and plop a Split Rock Light house somewhere, all of it will run to the mines like described above.. not sure yet. I am open to suggestions.


----------



## Mixy (Dec 14, 2010)

CTValleyRR said:


> If you recall, we discussed this several years ago.


Yes, I recall that very well - you indirectly charged me that I am making just a piracy copy of AnyRail (your favorite software that you paid for). Let me refresh your memory:



CTValleyRR said:


> That said, there is a free program out there called SCARM (Simple Computer-Assisted Railway Modeler) developed by a guy in Eastern Europe (Hungary, maybe) who goes by the screen name of Mixy. Supposedly, he does this out of the simple pleasure of doing it. *It is very similar to Anyrail (bordering on piracy, if you ask me).*


Well, nobody asked you about that, but you suggested others that I am a thief. Even when SCARM at that time had much more features than AnyRai like instant 3D viewer and the user-created 3D figures, and was clear that it is based on a different approach. And now, you continue to attack me, not for intellectual theft, but for ransoming!!!

Why you are outraging me??? Just because I am from Eastern Europe? Is this some kind of ethnic discrimination or what? 



CTValleyRR said:


> No amount of screenshots, protestation, claiming to be the injured party, or attacking me can change that. You rolled the dice, now pay the price.


I already paid it here and you was quite active there even after I apologized for my simple human reaction. And because that post was copied on other places, it was actually paid triple and even more. How much more до you need???



CTValleyRR said:


> I'm done with the discussion, here or anywhere. You think you were right, I don't. Let it go at that.


Great. Don't start it again. You can think whatever you want, but stop throwing groundless accusations and insults on me or my software.

Mixy


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Comments*



pat_smith1969 said:


> SO I moved into a new house. I had to destroy my old layout (baisc 5x10 rectangle). I kept most of my turnouts and other itmes (flex track did not make it however).
> 
> My new space is quite a bit different from what I had. I have a 25 foot wall I can use. The layout can be 3 to 4 feet (picture is has 3 feet) deep with 3 foot ends sticking out (have to refer to pic).
> 
> ...


pat_smith;

It looks like you have a decent amount of space available for a layout of some sort. Three feet of depth is a long reach if the benchwork is at normal height. Four feet is impossible. You could lower the layout to a height where it can be operated sitting in a rolling chair. Then (by standing up) the three foot reach will be a little more reasonable. Four feet, I would not recommend, unless you have easy access to both sides of the layout.
Then when you list things you want, a huge ore dock. an open pit mine, a lumber operation, and a reasonable representation of a city (Duluth, yes, been there, I get it) on a hill, that space seems to shrink down to way too crowed/too dang small. 
Here are some possible things you can do to get a little closer to your dream layout. 

1) Selective compression.

Nearly all of the open pit mine could be on a backdrop, with only a loading facility actually modeled. I don't know if this would be prototypical, but I would suggest a track going into a building. The other end of the tunnel this building conceals would be closer to the ore dock. With two long, hidden, tracks; you could do a "Loads in, empties out" operation in the classic, John Armstrong style. 

2) Change to a smaller scale.

This may sound radical, especially since you have HO turnouts, and presumably rolling stock. However, If you do switch to N-scale, your available space effectively doubles. Your tight curves suddenly become the broad curves needed to accommodate a DMIR Yellowstone steam locomotive (like the real one in the Duluth museum of transportation) and what DMIR fan wouldn't love to see one of those monsters pulling a long string of ore cars? Bachman offers a Yellowstone in N-scale, and Atlas makes N-scale ore cars.

3) Selective omission

Think long, and hard before you start laying track. Is there something, like the lumber operation, that you could live without; or relocate to "off the layout?" The less you try to cram into any space the more realistically, and usually more long term satisfyingly, you can model the features you keep.

good luck;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:

PS. Click on the link below for more info on how to get started.

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


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Comments*



pat_smith1969 said:


> SO I moved into a new house. I had to destroy my old layout (baisc 5x10 rectangle). I kept most of my turnouts and other itmes (flex track did not make it however).
> 
> My new space is quite a bit different from what I had. I have a 25 foot wall I can use. The layout can be 3 to 4 feet (picture is has 3 feet) deep with 3 foot ends sticking out (have to refer to pic).
> 
> ...


pat_smith;

It looks like you have a decent amount of space available for a layout of some sort. Then when you list things you want, a huge ore dock. an open pit mine, a lumber operation, and a reasonable representation of a city (Duluth, yes, been there, I get it) on a hill, that space seems to shrink down to way crowed/too dang small. 
Here are some possible things you can do to get a little closer to your dream layout. 

1) Selective compression.

Nearly all of the open pit mine could be on a backdrop, with only a loading facility actually modeled. I don't know if this would be prototypical, but I would suggest a track going into a building. The other end of the tunnel this building conceals would be closer to the ore dock. With two long, hidden, tracks; you could do a "Loads in, empties out" operation in the classic, John Armstrong style. 

2) Change to a smaller scale.

This may sound radical, especially since you have HO turnouts, and presumably rolling stock. However, If you do switch to N-scale, your available space effectively doubles. Your tight curves suddenly become the broad curves needed to accommodate a DMIR Yellowstone steam locomotive (like the real one in the Duluth museum of transportation, and what DMIR fan wouldn't love to see one of those monsters pulling a long string of ore cars? Bachman offers a Yellowstone in N-scale, and Atlas makes N-scale ore cars.

3) Selective omission

Think long, and hard before you start laying track. Is there something, like the lumber operation, that you could live without; or relocate to "off the layout?" The less you try to cram into any space the more realistic, and usually more long term satisfyingly, you can model the features you keep.

good luck;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:

PS. Click on the link below for more info on how to get started.

View attachment 356394


----------



## pat_smith1969 (Aug 21, 2016)

traction fan said:


> pat_smith;
> 
> It looks like you have a decent amount of space available for a layout of some sort. Then when you list things you want, a huge ore dock. an open pit mine, a lumber operation, and a reasonable representation of a city (Duluth, yes, been there, I get it) on a hill, that space seems to shrink down to way crowed/too dang small.
> Here are some possible things you can do to get a little closer to your dream layout.
> ...


I totally get your point of having too much clutter.. 

I love your idea of moving some of it off to a "backdrop" kind of thing. Below are some pics that is inspiring me. Once I get my track modeling software sorted out I can put some of it into design. 
Here is the open pit design I was talking about( I would definately have to compress it a lot).. since I am basically doing a glorified Dogbone style setup I was thinking one end-loop can be kind of made into a mine pit. Basically convert the center of the loop into a mine. 








Here are some mines I can just throw on the side of the main line, or a real small spur

























Just some ideas I pulled off the internet that would not take up too much space but add interest.


----------



## pat_smith1969 (Aug 21, 2016)

as far as the logging operation goes... I was not really thinking about a whole operation.. but rather a few spurs/sidings with some logs on the side of the rail and some dudes cutting down trees - this would be kinda nestled amongst trees. With how harsh the mines will be visually I think I will need a lot of greenery to compensate. Here is another pic that inspires me.. I am envisioning this as one of the main runs down the length of the setup.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Sounds good*

pat_smith;

The first photo, of the open pit mine looks like an excellent backdrop for the ore source. The second photo shows a loader, which with a bit of modification, could serve as a disguise for that "loads in empties out" notion I suggested. With open topped cars, it's obvious whether they're full or empty. This makes it tough to explain,even to your self, let alone visitors, why you're hauling the iron ore back to the mine.:smilie_auslachen: 
On the subject of mines, maybe you might consider modeling just one (the open pit iron mine.) That big an operation would generate plenty of freight traffic, all by itself. We all want to include this, and that, and that too, but realistically we don't have the room to convincingly model much of what we would like. My own layout leaves out at least two towns with station stops for passengers, and potential industrial switching for freight. I also had to leave out most of the miles of track between the three places I decided I would portray. Even though I model in N-scale, have a double deck layout and about the same length of wall available as you do, I just could not fit any more places, or more than a fraction of the three I chose; in that space. I'm not sure how you're going to do that in HO-scale, but I certainly wish you luck. 
Back to the pit, for a moment. I definitely get the idea of having one of the end loops surround the pit. I had the same idea for one of my modeled towns, Black River, Wash. They had an open pit coal mine nearby and I had a loop in that location. The problem I encountered was that I'd have to model the whole pit, if the track was to circle it. That shoots the idea of putting the big part of the pit on a backdrop. I ended up faking it by locating the (now imaginary) coal mine "off the layout". Coal hoppers come and go (from staging tracks) and pass through the tiny part of Black River that I had room to model. The "mine" is simply "further down the track." 
Since an open pit iron ore mine is a highly desired feature on your layout, you're not likely going choose to do the same thing. I do suggest that you re-locate the pit away from the loop, even though they fit together well, and the real pits often did have track around them, as shown in your first photo. The advantages of "backdroping" 99% of this huge industry outweigh the things previously mentioned, at least in my opinion.
Of course anything to be on, or off, your layout is strictly up to you, and that's exactly as it should be.
I can only advise and suggest, based on my own experience, and what I've learned from others. I know you are not a beginner, because you mentioned a previous layout having to be destroyed. I don't know if you read my attachment, via the link I sent, or not. One of the points in there is a strong recommendation that layouts in general should be of sectional construction. Then. if/when you move, you have a better shot at being able to take all your years of hard work with you. I have been through a house move, just as you recently have. Fortunately my sectional railroad was able to move with me. While the new home did not have exactly the same size and shape space available, I was able to adapt the layout to fit the new space fairly easily.

Again, good luck on your new layout! Post photos when you can.

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## pat_smith1969 (Aug 21, 2016)

The reason I posted this is to gain from other's hard fought experience, so I definitely appreciate your input and take it to heart. 
I have not read the attachment yet but plan to, still unpacking the house so that take most of my "free time". My RR build is still a month or two off from breaking ground. 
I am considering doing a few dioramas first to get practice at various aspects of scenery. I like doing dioramas because they get done in a relatively short period of time and you get a nice result. 

This will be my second layout so while not a newb.. I am still pretty green. I learned a TON on the first one (a 5x10) but made enough mistakes that even though I COULD have moved the layout I really wanted to re-lay all the tracks again. I am not moving again....I plan to die in this house and if not I am sure moving again will kill me. I don't plan on that happening any time soon though (hopefully). 

I like the modular idea, I can get even more space if I have the left "wing" of the layout removable.. if it is bigger than it is now it will block access to a water heater when/if it goes bad.. but If I make that wing removable I could add a couple feet to that side. Lots to consider..


----------



## thomp237 (Sep 30, 2017)

pat_smith1969 said:


> The reason I posted this is to gain from other's hard fought experience, so I definitely appreciate your input and take it to heart.
> I have not read the attachment yet but plan to, still unpacking the house so that take most of my "free time". My RR build is still a month or two off from breaking ground.
> I am considering doing a few dioramas first to get practice at various aspects of scenery. I like doing dioramas because they get done in a relatively short period of time and you get a nice result.
> 
> ...


Pat,

I sent you a PM

Jim


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Sections & dioramas*



pat_smith1969 said:


> The reason I posted this is to gain from other's hard fought experience, so I definitely appreciate your input and take it to heart.
> I have not read the attachment yet but plan to, still unpacking the house so that take most of my "free time". My RR build is still a month or two off from breaking ground.
> I am considering doing a few dioramas first to get practice at various aspects of scenery. I like doing dioramas because they get done in a relatively short period of time and you get a nice result.
> 
> ...


Pat;

Yes I can certainly understand that unpacking from your move takes precedence over model railroad construction. I also share your dread of moving! I've yet to meet anyone who enjoyed that activity. My two daughters moved fairly often. They always moved from one upstairs apartment, to another upstairs apartment. That just put the icing on the cake as far as moving was concerned! 
Your Idea of starting small is a good one. You mentioned building a diorama first. If you can accurately plan the size of the module, or section, that will be near the water heater, do you think it could BE the diorama? If so, the effort put into the diorama would be used permanently as part of your railroad. The attachment covers this idea a bit, since I'm a big fan of building layouts in sections. That system has benefits other than ease of moving a layout with your household. (May you never have to! Amen.:laugh 
Building one section at a time, lets you get into laying track, wiring, ballasting, scenery, Etc. on a limited basis, and lets you work sitting down at a table, rather than having to stand, bend, crawl, work overhead, etc. This makes construction much easier.
In any case, good luck with your unpacking, and when you are able to start on your railroad, feel free to ask questions. We're here to help.

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------

