# How important is it that the computer layout use the exact track available?



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

I've got a layout in SCARM that I really like, and I'm hoping to install it when some Atlas track I've ordered arrives. 

The order included 11" radius curves but SCARM doesn't have 11" radius in Atlas N scale. Most of my layout in SCARM is with 9" radius [edit - 9-3/4"]. Obviously it's not going to be the same, because the curves and loops will be 20% larger, but I'm not sure about what to expect when I start connecting track. 

Am I likely to be okay with a few adjustments, or is it likely I'll have to do a complete redesign after trying to put it together?

Obviously without seeing the layout there's no way for anyone to tell me for sure. I'm just asking about a general rule of thumb here.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

I suspect you'll find that it takes a lot of adjustments if you go with different radius track, that's a 20% difference!

Even though my track planning has the correct sizes, I found that when I actually started putting track down and checking fit, that many adjustments needed to be made. I can't even imagine how much adjustment it would have taken if my plan was 20% smaller than what I was actually building!

FWIW, that seems like a significant shortcoming in the track planning software, I fired up AnyRail and RR-Track, both include Atlas 11" radius N-scale track. I looked at code-80 track, code-65, and code-55 track. All had the proper sizes of track.


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> that seems like a significant shortcoming in the track planning software, I fired up AnyRail and RR-Track, both include Atlas 11" radius N-scale track.


I agree! I'm not at all satisfied with SCARM, it doesn't do a few things like I think it should. Being new to all this I haven't gotten around to other software yet but it sounds like I should go ahead and look into AnyRail and RR-Track and see how they compare.

Thanks!


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

You'll find that RR-Track, while being very capable, is much more difficult to learn than AnyRail. Of all the track planning software I've looked at, AnyRail is the easiest to jump in and start designing. The authors are also very responsive if you email them and point out something that's missing. I got them to add a whole family of missing O-gauge tubular track switches, I was surprised they jumped on it as fast as they did.


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

Which of those two is easiest to output from, whether to save an image of the track to post here, to print onto paper to have on the table while connecting track, or even to print full size (as I've seen some people do on a few videos but not something I'd need at all)?


----------



## Mark VerMurlen (Aug 15, 2015)

I bought AnyRail for my track planning software and I highly recommend it. It only runs on Windows, so if you have a Mac, you'll need Windows emulation software to use it. I've not had any issues with printing from it. I've printed my layout on letter size paper, poster size paper, and even at 1:1 scale for tracing on rolled paper (done at a FedEx store). Its also easy to export jpeg images for posting to the forum. It can also print out a parts list for the track pieces that you've used on your layout plan. If you use flex track, it also makes very nice smooth transitions and sweeping curves. It also does layers, so you can print any combination of layers, which I also found very useful for the various purposes I used it for (just track, building placement, landscape placement, benchwork, block/turnout/signal naming, etc.) Its been worth every penny.


----------



## Big Ed (Jun 16, 2009)

Your building a 16' x 3'?
I would just build a loop then add on, you can sort of follow the plan you made up on scarm with some improvising.

I never used any track programs, way back when, most track plans went down on paper.
Or in the mind of the builder.
There were no programs available at one time and many great model RR's were built.

Build the loop and run some trains.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Mushtang said:


> I've got a layout in SCARM that I really like, and I'm hoping to install it when some Atlas track I've ordered arrives.
> 
> The order included 11" radius curves but SCARM doesn't have 11" radius in Atlas N scale. Most of my layout in SCARM is with 9" radius. Obviously it's not going to be the same, because the curves and loops will be 20% larger, but I'm not sure about what to expect when I start connecting track.
> 
> ...


You said SCARM had "9" radius". Atlas sectional track is 9-3/4"radius not 9". I don't know if that's your typo, or another problem with SCARM.
If it's SCARM's error, then things will get very ugly. If SCARM thinks almost 10" = 9" and doesn't have 11' radius at all, that will cause problems.

Traction Fan


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

Here's my plan, schematic only. There are two main loops which travel nearly all the way across the 16' surface. Opposite ends are elevated so they will cross over each other and not be as boring as this looks in the image.

There's also two transfer paths so a train can move back and forth between the loops as needed, or if I want to run two trains at the same time they can remain completely separated on the different loops.

And finally I will have two auto reversing loops within each loop so that I can change the direction that a train goes around the track. Each track will have only one AR loop but they're in opposite directions, so a train may have to switch loops in order to turn around and then switch back to the loop it was on.

I've drawn this out in SCARM but the actual layout looks nothing like this so it's much more difficult to follow, but that's what my thinking was when I first sketched it out on paper. I can post my layout here from one of the programs once I get one with the correct track radius'.

There will probably be a few spurs as well so I can park cars off the track. I'm not going to have a yard with multiple spurs at this time. The room offers the possibility for additional tables and if I expand someday I'll definitely have a working yard.


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

traction fan said:


> You said SCARM had "9" radius". Atlas sectional track is 9-3/4"radius not 9". I don't know if that's your typo, or another problem with SCARM.
> If it's SCARM's error, then things will get very ugly. If SCARM thinks almost 10" = 9" and doesn't have 11' radius at all, that will cause problems.
> 
> Traction Fan


It was me summarizing, not really a typo nor an error with SCARM.


----------



## Aard D'Vaark (Aug 1, 2019)

using the 'right track' library in ANY computer layout program will reduce the deviance induced by the program to the final layout, just sayin'


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

A layout the size and complexity you propose cries out for FLEX track. It comes in 3 foot sections
that you can cut and bend to comp[ly with your track plan. Additionally, it eliminates the many
joiners required for sectional track which improves electrical conductivity. And it would likely
cost less than the sectional system.

The 'reverse loops' that you propose are rather short. It is generally thought that any 
such isolated section should be longer than the longest lighted passenger train. The reason
being that your train should not be spanning the entry and exit insulated joints at the same time. That 
could result in a short circuit.

Also, you must be careful when wireiing the two main loops to avoid a short circuit. I assume
you will be DCC, however, I'll use
DC polarity to illustrate how to do it. The OUTSIDE rail of the top loop should be POSITIVE.
When your train moves to the lower loop, you would have that positive polarity follow, thus
making the INSIDE rail of the lower loop POSITIVE. No insulated joiners required.
To do otherwise you would require 2 additional reverse loop controllers.

To better understand, draw your layout using RED pencil for the Outside rail and
BLACK pencil for the inside rail of the TOP loop and reverse for the bottom. You
would see that RED never meets Black, thus no short circuit.

Don


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

Thanks for the long post, a lot of great tips here!



DonR said:


> A layout the size and complexity you propose cries out for FLEX track. It comes in 3 foot sections that you can cut and bend to comp[ly with your track plan. Additionally, it eliminates the many joiners required for sectional track which improves electrical conductivity. And it would likely cost less than the sectional system.


Good thinking! But I have LOTS of flex track already (30 pieces), just waiting on the curved pieces I ordered online to arrive.



> The 'reverse loops' that you propose are rather short. It is generally thought that any such isolated section should be longer than the longest lighted passenger train. The reason being that your train should not be spanning the entry and exit insulated joints at the same time. That could result in a short circuit.


Also a great thing to point out. But as I said that sketch is only schematic so you wouldn't be able to tell actual length of the loops from that. I'll try and post an image of the SCARM design when I get home tonight. The reverse loops on that are very long, which makes it difficult to see what they actually are on the design. This will make it more fun to watch the train go around as well as keep the loops long enough to avoid short circuits if I should get any cars that require power.



> Also, you must be careful when wireiing the two main loops to avoid a short circuit. I assume you will be DCC, however, I'll use DC polarity to illustrate how to do it. The OUTSIDE rail of the top loop should be POSITIVE. When your train moves to the lower loop, you would have that positive polarity follow, thus making the INSIDE rail of the lower loop POSITIVE. No insulated joiners required. To do otherwise you would require 2 additional reverse loop controllers.


You are correct to assume DCC. I should have mentioned that. As of yet I don't have the Automatic Reverse controllers to put into the system but I'll definitely need two of them.


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

Here's the SCARM export JPG. As I said, it's hard to tell by looking at this what lines are the transfers, which are the reverse loops, and which are part of the large loops. Also, there are two spurs here that are not shown on the schematic above. 

Feel free to criticize, make helpful suggestions, or anything else. It's a first attempt and I'm sure there's plenty of room for improvement. You guys probably see problems here that I wouldn't realize is an issue until I get it installed and something wasn't working well.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Looks like spaghetti, is there some sauce available?


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

I'm new here and can't tell. Is that a criticism, as in train layouts which use a lot of track aren't preferred, or are you just being funny?


----------



## Big Ed (Jun 16, 2009)

Mushtang said:


> I'm new here and can't tell. Is that a criticism, as in train layouts which use a lot of track aren't preferred, or are you just being funny?


Trying to be funny
I am sure it is just an attempt of humor.

It will be a busy RR once built.


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

Just making sure. I did ask for criticism so I wouldn't have been upset. Mostly I was making sure that I wasn't trying to do too much. 

A lot of times people new to a hobby will try and do what they think they'll like at first but people who have been doing it for a long time know better. Astronomy comes to mind, people buying a telescope who have never owned one before may think that getting the most magnification is better when in fact there are other things far more important to consider, such as light gathering power that a bigger diameter offers.

In this case I didn't want to have a boring oval with a few spurs, or a figure 8 with a yard. The layouts I've most enjoyed watching in train museums and stores had multiple trains going on multiple tracks, crossing over each other, and long enough so you can watch a train for a while before it completes a circuit. So that's what I was trying to come up with here. I'm starting slow with just two main loops for two trains but there is space available in my hobby room to expand the table for more track someday.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Mushtang said:


> I'm new here and can't tell. Is that a criticism, as in train layouts which use a lot of track aren't preferred, or are you just being funny?


Just a joke, I like lots of track, allows you to run lots of trains.  I'm building this, I like track.


----------



## Big Ed (Jun 16, 2009)

I am sure he will confirm what I said.

I always advise to build the table with an expansion in mind.
It seems like a lot will build the table then right away expand it anyway. 
If you have the room use it from the get go, then you will not have to expand? 
Even if you don't use the extra room right away it will be there installed and waiting for rail.
Like I said a lot expand right after they get done with what they made.

But that is me, it is your RR and you can do what you want.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

I agree with Ed, I was thinking a bit smaller when I started my layout, but I expanded it to pretty much take up all the space I had. There didn't seem any good reason not to just go for broke.

In looking at the track plan, I would think about multiple trains running and insure that they can do so unattended if desired. I see a lot of junctions, and it appears it might be difficult to route more than two trains unattended with no chance of collisions. Given your desire to run multiple trains, I'd perhaps consider making the loops a bit more independent. I also like the look of several parallel tracks with trains running in opposite directions.



Mushtang said:


> The layouts I've most enjoyed watching in train museums and stores had multiple trains going on multiple tracks, crossing over each other, and long enough so you can watch a train for a while before it completes a circuit. So that's what I was trying to come up with here. I'm starting slow with just two main loops for two trains but there is space available in my hobby room to expand the table for more track someday.


You should shoot for something like this.  This is a holiday display these guys set up each year, in 2016 they had 30 trains running simultaneously. It's a multi-level display that has several helixes, automated trolleys, etc. It's up for a couple of months at a local Grange hall and then they tear it down until next season. Each year they try to add some neat additions. I didn't get to last year's display, I have to make it to this year, eager to see what was added.


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> I see a lot of junctions, and it appears it might be difficult to route more than two trains unattended with no chance of collisions.


Two is all I'll be going for. After I expand and have more tracks I'll see about getting more trains.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen (Aug 15, 2015)

I have a few comments to offer you on your layout design.

1) With a plan this complex, I think you really need to use a software package that models the exact track pieces you plan to use, especially sectional pieces. Drawing the plan with 9" curves when you expect to use 11" is going to cause significant changes as others have pointed out. Also different turnout makes have different geometry that can cause issues as well.

2) You appear to have a mix of sectional track and flex track in this plan. If I were building this, I would use flex track for everything except turnouts and any crossovers you may have. It sounds like you've already got some sectional track on order. You can certainly use that, but it decreases the flexibility you have in your track plan. Any chance you can return what you don't use?

3) Since you plan to have more than 2 trains some day, I'd make provisions for a pull through yard along the bottom edge of your plan. You've currently got a single spur there. I would at the minimum extend that to merge back into your mainline. That way you've got an entrance and exit for a future yard. Then in the future, you can fan that single track into multiple tracks that becomes your yard to hold multiple trains.

4) You don't say if you are planning any type of landscaping or structures for your layout. Some people just want track, which is fine. But if you are planning any landscaping or buildings, you should consider how that will affect your track plan. The main reason I mention this is that the center portion of your layout has several tracks approximately evenly spaced across the width of your layout. That might make it challenging to place interesting scenery or buildings between the tracks. I also agree with GRJ that having side-by-side tracks with trains passing in opposite direction adds a lot of interest. 

5) You mention the ends of your loops will be at different levels so the loops pass over one another. Are you expecting any of your track to be in tunnels or otherwise hidden? You want to avoid having any turnouts within tunnels. I've violated this on my own layout with one turnout being hidden, but luckily its been a rock-solid turnout that hasn't given me any problems. Just know that turnouts tend to be trouble spots that can need attention from time to time. 

6) You've got a lot of length, so I'm not too worried about what grades you might have as your track rises and descends from different levels. However, you should pay attention to this to make sure you don't have overly steep grades. Most people try to stay below a 2% grade (meaning a ratio where it rises/sinks 2" over a length of 100").

Those are most of my thoughts as I look over your layout design. Hope this helps you with your planning.


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

Things to avoid -- s-curves, kinks and turnouts on curves. If this is your first layout, take it in steps and do just a simple loop with the turnouts in place to get your feet wet. The key to making a layout you will use is excellent track work. If you're constantly having to rerail the cars or locomotives, you will loose interest. Take you time an take baby steps. Its likely that after making a simple loop and getting it sort of working you may end up tearing it up and starting over. We have all done that to some extent!


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

Mark VerMurlen said:


> I have a few comments to offer you on your layout design.


 Thank you for this feedback! 



> 1) With a plan this complex, I think you really need to use a software package that models the exact track pieces you plan to use, especially sectional pieces. Drawing the plan with 9" curves when you expect to use 11" is going to cause significant changes as others have pointed out. Also different turnout makes have different geometry that can cause issues as well.


It was discovered that my radius is 9-3/4" which isn't as big of a difference, but it's still a very valid point. And I'm most definitely going to try and get it all into a software package before I begin track installation. 



> 2) You appear to have a mix of sectional track and flex track in this plan. If I were building this, I would use flex track for everything except turnouts and any crossovers you may have. It sounds like you've already got some sectional track on order. You can certainly use that, but it decreases the flexibility you have in your track plan. Any chance you can return what you don't use?


The pieces of straight track on the plan that are not flex track are there because I also have a bunch of straight pieces that I am hoping to utilize. However, if it will be better to use the flex track and not the shorter pieces then I will do so. That's what I bought the flex track for I guess. The curve pieces I bought I still want to use to make sure the curves are accurate. A few tests I've done with the flex track already trying to make curves that looked good didn't go well.



> 3) Since you plan to have more than 2 trains some day, I'd make provisions for a pull through yard along the bottom edge of your plan. You've currently got a single spur there. I would at the minimum extend that to merge back into your mainline. That way you've got an entrance and exit for a future yard. Then in the future, you can fan that single track into multiple tracks that becomes your yard to hold multiple trains.


This may or may not be a layout that remains if I eventually expand my table space. By the time I'm ready to expand I may decide to come up with something else just to have something different on that table, I may have learned some issues with it that I could eliminate, or I may decide to keep it and just connect the new section to the spurs like you suggested. This table goes down one side of the room. In the future it could cross the end of the room and come back up the other side in a big U shape. Lots of potential for that.



> 4) You don't say if you are planning any type of landscaping or structures for your layout. Some people just want track, which is fine. But if you are planning any landscaping or buildings, you should consider how that will affect your track plan. The main reason I mention this is that the center portion of your layout has several tracks approximately evenly spaced across the width of your layout. That might make it challenging to place interesting scenery or buildings between the tracks. I also agree with GRJ that having side-by-side tracks with trains passing in opposite direction adds a lot of interest.


This may be a reason to change the layout in the future. I'm not planning on doing any landscaping for now. I'll be learning track, wiring, DCC, foam inclines and declines, etc. with this build. That's a lot to learn. I'm sure if I ever do expand I'll continue on with the landscaping and buildings. I'd love a mountain with a couple of tunnels through it someday but not yet.

Because, as you mentioned, this layout doesn't really lend itself to buildings or whatever it's likely to need to change. For that reason I think I'll keep all the foam inclines in place with pins and not glue anything down. If I decide to keep it I'll glue everything down later. Same with solder - just track joiners for now unless in order to get this to work I need solder. I'll probably still connect the controller to a bus line under the table and feeders up to several locations on the track - if nothing else just to learn about how that works. I've also got a lot of powered turn outs that can be connected to switches that I'm going to want to get working. No idea if they can also be controlled by my DCC controller so I'll dig into that someday.



> 5) You mention the ends of your loops will be at different levels so the loops pass over one another. Are you expecting any of your track to be in tunnels or otherwise hidden? You want to avoid having any turnouts within tunnels. I've violated this on my own layout with one turnout being hidden, but luckily its been a rock-solid turnout that hasn't given me any problems. Just know that turnouts tend to be trouble spots that can need attention from time to time.


Good advice! Keep that stuff coming!! I'd like to have some part of it in a tunnel, maybe the elevated section along the back wall can have a large foam tunnel to just set on top of it, but I'll make sure I don't include turn outs if the tunnel is a pain to remove. 

Something I just thought of... if a long section along the back wall is covered by a rectangular tunnel maybe I'll route some track along the top of it for a two layer effect. I'd need some windows in the tunnel to really enjoy how cool that would be.



> 6) You've got a lot of length, so I'm not too worried about what grades you might have as your track rises and descends from different levels. However, you should pay attention to this to make sure you don't have overly steep grades. Most people try to stay below a 2% grade (meaning a ratio where it rises/sinks 2" over a length of 100").


I've got some of the Woodland Scenics 2% grade incline/decline sets as well as a box of 2" risers. This is where me being new to the hobby requires me to take the word of those who will know better, but that 2% sure doesn't look all that steep and the 4% seems better. It also seems like steeper than 4% wouldn't be a problem. But again, I've yet to put a single piece of incline on my table with track on it, and once I get it going I'm sure I'll have a better understanding of why most people/websites suggest 2% as the highest grade! No worries there, I'm sticking with 2% for that reason.



> Those are most of my thoughts as I look over your layout design. Hope this helps you with your planning.


It does! And thank you so much!! There may be some changes to the design which will help me greatly in the long run because of your reply.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen (Aug 15, 2015)

Mushtang said:


> The curve pieces I bought I still want to use to make sure the curves are accurate. A few tests I've done with the flex track already trying to make curves that looked good didn't go well.


There are a couple of best practices for making good curves with flex track. When you need more than 1 piece of flex track to complete your curve, you should solder the pieces together while they are still straight and then bend them to shape afterwards. That eliminates the tendency for a kink to form in the curve at the joint. Also its important to draw a good centerline for your curve and then be sure when you lay the track to keep it on the centerline. Another advantage of using flex track for your curves is that if you use a layout app like AnyRail, it will automatically do "ease in" and "ease out" for the curve which will improve the reliability of trains running on the curve. Since your layout is around 3 ft wide, I'd really recommend printing the track plan at full size on roll paper at a print shop and directly tracing it. That's what I did with my layout and it worked exceptionally well. As others have said, getting the track "bullet proof" is important for reliability. Having trains derail is very frustrating and discouraging.



Mushtang said:


> Something I just thought of... if a long section along the back wall is covered by a rectangular tunnel maybe I'll route some track along the top of it for a two layer effect. I'd need some windows in the tunnel to really enjoy how cool that would be.


Generally, its your lower level track that lends itself to being in a tunnel more so than higher track. One thing you could do is have rolling hills/mountains across the center of your layout. Your lower level track could tunnel through the hill/mountain and the higher level tracks could just be "cuts" through the terrain. I would suggest smaller length tunnels with perhaps more of them than a single longer tunnel. This will create visual interest as the trains appear and disappear through the tunnels rather than have a train disappear for a long period of time. Some people might want a train to disappear for a long time to reduce the obviousness of a circular layout, so that's up to you. In that case, you'll want multiple trains running so you aren't waiting around for the one train to reappear.


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

Mark VerMurlen said:


> Generally, its your lower level track that lends itself to being in a tunnel more so than higher track.


Maybe I worded it poorly, but that's exactly what I meant. The lower track would be under a rectangular tunnel (all of this will be just foam board, not planning landscape or mountains until a future build) and then run one of the other tracks on top of that rectangular tunnel fully exposed.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Mustang

I see what you mean...the enhanced drawing of your layout is mind blowing...sure looks like a plan that would give you
lots of scenic possibilities...I can see hills and valleys...bridges and tunnels...trestles and crossings.
It's also obvious that you would have ideal length isolated sections for your 'reverse loops'. 

But why are you using curved sectional pieces when you have a supply of flex track? You can bend
the flex to the exact radius your plan requires and not be limited to the radius of the sectional availability.

You are one of us. We don't have 'elite' members. We want you to be open and free to ask
questions and expect opinions. based on experience. As a matter of fact,
our members truly do look forward to helping the new guys. Your proposed layout is
going to be an inspiration for an, as yet, unknown new guy who is also unsure how to begin in
the hobby. It is quite different. When you get the final 'go' be sure to post it in Layouts of Members
thread.

Don
.


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

DonR said:


> But why are you using curved sectional pieces when you have a supply of flex track? You can bend the flex to the exact radius your plan requires and not be limited to the radius of the sectional availability.


Only because of what I said above about not being confident that my curves with the flex track would look right, and work right. But Mark addressed that in post #26 so I may give his suggestion a try. Or, I might still use the curve track for this layout, and go with what he mentioned in the future layout where I completely redo it and include landscaping and buildings. Nothing has been decided for certain quite yet.



> We want you to be open and free to ask questions and expect opinions. based on experience. As a matter of fact, our members truly do look forward to helping the new guys.


I appreciate that, and I've been posting a lot on this forum over the past few weeks. The replies have been super helpful! I like this place!



> Your proposed layout is going to be an inspiration for an, as yet, unknown new guy who is also unsure how to begin in the hobby. It is quite different. When you get the final 'go' be sure to post it in Layouts of Members thread.


You bet I will. I realize that some members will look at it and think, "Eww, that's no good, I don't like how Mushtang did"... something. And some others may look at it and really like it. To me all feedback is useful and I don't mind people telling me why they don't like something I've done. Criticism often gives me something new to consider, learn, etc. And just because someone else doesn't like it doesn't mean that I won't still love it.


----------



## Big Ed (Jun 16, 2009)

Do you know that you can hand lay down track?
Just need the ties and rail, a lot of work too.


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

Yeah, well he says, "Sol doring eye ron" so he clearly can't be trusted.


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

Mark VerMurlen said:


> I'd really recommend printing the track plan at full size on roll paper at a print shop and directly tracing it. That's what I did with my layout and it worked exceptionally well.


Do you remember what you paid for the full size print, and how big was it?


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

Why employ computerized track planning ? They didn't have or need it in 1958 or 1968...John Allen, George Selios, and Bill Darnaby didn't need it ? If you determine the entire area where you can have a MRR and build an open grid or L girder bench in that foot print you can then sketch out a miniature of that and design a main line on top of it.. You can also do a full size approximation right on the floor where bench will be..The only draw back would be if you're against employing flex track or hand laying track, two mediums which permit freelanced spirals (curves) and tangents (straight track) similar to the 1:1 scale's planning..But I'd imagine even pre-shouldered or any panel track could still be fitted into a penciled out, hand made plan, anyway...


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

Why employ model railroads at all? They didn't have or need them in the middle ages. Hahaha. 

Just playing.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen (Aug 15, 2015)

Mushtang said:


> Do you remember what you paid for the full size print, and how big was it?


I don’t remember since it was several years ago. Be sure to specify a black and white printer since that is much cheaper than color. A print shop should be able to give you a quote. See my first couple posts here on MTF of my layout build: Modified Peace River HO Layout



telltale said:


> Why employ computerized track planning ? They didn't have or need it in 1958 or 1968...


That’s like asking “Why use a computer spreadsheet? It can be all done with a pencil and paper.” It’s because it’s much faster, more versatile, and can be very precise. You can try out multiple options easily and undo mistakes. There’s a reason drafting tables are history and design is done on CAD these days.


----------



## VTtrainguy (Jan 18, 2019)

Mushtang said:


> Feel free to criticize, make helpful suggestions, or anything else. It's a first attempt and I'm sure there's plenty of room for improvement.


How important to you is it that the appearance of your railroad reflect real world appearance? The midsection of your track plan has multiple single track lines going more or less in the same direction, but each on it's own Right of Way, a configuration not commonly seen in the real world. I think it will give your railroad an "artificial" look, besides complicating terrain and scenery. If you only are interested in continuous running, and don't care about the visual impression, so be it; it's your railroad. It does however risk boredom setting in.
If, on the other hand, you were to group some of those long straight stretches together into a couple 3 or 4 track mainlines at different elevations with maybe a passing siding or two, I think you'd have a much more interesting appearing and operating road, with more space freed up for scenery and structures, and more operational options to keep the interest up. If the lower level mainline were following a river valley, and the upper one was winding it's way through the hills it might have more scenic interest and real world plausibility.
My friends in the Experimental Aircraft Association are prone to "EAA Syndrome", where they spend every penny and every minute for years building an airplane in their garage, fueled with visions of fly-in breakfasts, airshows, and the annual pilgrimage to Oshkosh, the "Sturgis" of aviation. So after years of blood sweat and tears they climb into their new creation for first flight, scare themselves shitless, and get one of their friends to finish the test flying, while they put their new toy up for sale in Trade-a-Plane and start building another. Model railroaders have been known to imitate this pattern, though the motivation is generally boredom, not terror. It's surprising how quickly continuous running can get boring. It's all about fun. Plan for it.


----------



## Mushtang (Aug 27, 2020)

VTtrainguy said:


> How important to you is it that the appearance of your railroad reflect real world appearance?


That's something that I've given a lot of thought to while I've been planning over the last few weeks. There's got to be a line where I say, "Well, it's that way because it's a model sitting on a table, and it's okay even though no real railroad would... (something)". I mean, it's going around in circles less than a scale mile long total, how realistic is that? 

Zero freight or people ever actually get moved around. No smoke or steam comes out of the locomotive (some models let you put drops of stuff to get a white puff coming out the top, but never the dark sooty coal exhaust and the steam never comes out the sides). And for now, with this particular layout, the entire thing will be on foam sheets, inclines, and risers, without track bed, ballast, landscaping, sky, and so on. 



> The midsection of your track plan has multiple single track lines going more or less in the same direction, but each on it's own Right of Way, a configuration not commonly seen in the real world. I think it will give your railroad an "artificial" look, besides complicating terrain and scenery. If you only are interested in continuous running, and don't care about the visual impression, so be it; it's your railroad. It does however risk boredom setting in.


The middle area does seem less fun on this plan, you're definitely right about that. I kind of thought that when it came time to lay it out I might be able to add in a few curves with the flex track to keep it from being entirely a uniform direction.

The tracks, however, are not all the same heights which may help. There's several inclines in there, and one of those tracks is at the 2" height all the way across. In a recent discussion on this forum I was discussing tunnels and decided I'd also try and rearrange things in my design to allow me to run a ground level track all the way along the back wall and cover it with a rectangular "tunnel", but maybe cut big windows to be able to see the train. Not sure about the windows. Another track could run across the top of it. These would be the transfer tracks to take the trains from one loop to another, and since each loop has one end elevated it would be an easy design change to incorporate (I think). As soon as I get into AnyRail I'll know. The previous design was done in SCARM. 



> If, on the other hand, you were to group some of those long straight stretches together into a couple 3 or 4 track mainlines at different elevations with maybe a passing siding or two, I think you'd have a much more interesting appearing and operating road, with more space freed up for scenery and structures, and more operational options to keep the interest up. If the lower level mainline were following a river valley, and the upper one was winding it's way through the hills it might have more scenic interest and real world plausibility.


Definitely something for me to keep in mind when (if) I do the next phase where I expand to additional tables and go with some landscaping and scenery. Thanks for the tips!!



> My friends in the Experimental Aircraft Association are prone to "EAA Syndrome", where they spend every penny and every minute for years building an airplane in their garage, fueled with visions of fly-in breakfasts, airshows, and the annual pilgrimage to Oshkosh, the "Sturgis" of aviation. So after years of blood sweat and tears they climb into their new creation for first flight, scare themselves shitless, and get one of their friends to finish the test flying, while they put their new toy up for sale in Trade-a-Plane and start building another. Model railroaders have been known to imitate this pattern, though the motivation is generally boredom, not terror. It's surprising how quickly continuous running can get boring. It's all about fun. Plan for it.


Well said. And this is exactly the reason I'm not gluing anything down and doing landscaping from the start. I'll be able to make changes this way. Someday I might make things more permanent but by that time I'll have learned a LOT more about what doesn't work, what I don't like, what I really would want to have in a layout, etc. At this point I'm really just guessing about all those things.

I really appreciate you taking the time to post your thoughts!! This is exactly the kind of feedback I'm hoping for, it makes me think about what I'm doing and gives me other ideas which can only improve the final layout. Thanks!!!


----------



## Original Woody's Workshop (Jan 29, 2020)

I tried the trial of SCARM. It seamed to work just fine, so I bought a key. The thing I found out about SCARM is once you get past 50 items, the way the program is designed it slows way down the more you add items. For the purpose of which I bought it, it is useless. However, I have created several interesting small layouts. They are all at the point of slowness that adding buildings and structures will take an extremely long time. I set the size at 9' x 54" for a small corner in the living room. 
While AnyRail looks to be a nice program and is recommended by some of the top modelers today, I'm exploring XtrkCAD. It's totally free, and there is a learning curve. There are several tutorials on YouTube for it and within a couple hours I had bench work down in a 12'x24' room in the shape of an E. 3 main lines down at different elevations with conversion points. All I have left to do is pick and place sidings for commerce and decide how many yards I want to keep it uncluttered looking but still have a decent functional and realistic layout. All of which are N Scale using Atlas Code 55 track. I'm not a fan of the attached roadbed to the track. I'm sure it has it's place for some modelers, it's just for me.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

I found XtrkCAD too cryptic, so I ponied up for AnyRail. That's what my design is drawn in.


----------

