My ONE and ONLY project ...

[goscrewyourselves]

#2 was what I was meaning, #3 would be an option but would limit accessibility to wiring etc. Go with #2. A jigsaw will do that too, just that it's easy to break blades when you can't see what's underneath.

Tony - Option #2 is probably your best option although not the easiest one. As Toot said #3 could lead to wiring accessibility issues.

Willie

Thanks guys, that was the way I was leaning as well #2 that is. #3 would work though, I think, but would have to drill a hole through the base ply so I could still run the wiring beneath the layout for access. Hmm, that being said, the wiring between the track and the base board would be concealed and, Murphy's Law, that would be where any wiring issue happened for sure.

So, looks at though I have some serious cutting to do then, my wife's gunna luv me!

 

[goscrewyourselves]

Surprise surprise, one or two more changes

Thoughts about this plan, especially from our resident "Yard/Siding Specialists"?

I don't know why I added the extra track on the western side, maybe just for a little variety or scenic look out or something. Any reason will work

I changed the reverse loop section of track for two reasons:

1. To give a longer section within the reverse loop that will accommodate up to 15 cars with engine, and
2. So I had room to include a small depot or siding or something to break up the layout from east to west and add some interest.

Anyway, I know you guys get tired of all the changes, but I really do think this will work unless anyone see's anything particularly erroneous with it. Just keep in mind there "could be" a small siding included in the reverse loop area. That can be done right without screwing up the reverse loop wiring/electrics?

Something like this:

 

[fcwilt]

Hi,

Remember that with a single reverse section you will have to back the train through to reverse the train again.

Frederick

 

[goscrewyourselves]

Frederick,

Yep I see that. The main purpose of that track was to devide the layout into two distinct sections for a little more diverse scenery options. My plan is to use the cross overs to compensate for the change of direction.

Not perfect by any means, just a bit more work for me to do when running trains and when I decide to use the reverse loop section

 

[goscrewyourselves]

Most of this afternoon was spent removing more of the HO track and scenery and have now only got to remove the lake and surrounding area. That will be tomorrow's task.

So far I have filled 3 extra large contractor bags with the old layout and dulled 2 saws in the process. I can't believe just how much foam and plaster went into that build. The new layout wont have any foam in it, I don't think, and only half the plaster being an open grid and cookie cutter layout.

Speaking of that, this is the approach I am going to take ... something a little out of the norm but might be forced due to circumstances. Once I have everything cleared from the bench work and the extension bench work in place, I am going to lay the Track Plan on the current (still fixed in place) ply and trace around it as if I was using it as the sub road bed. I'll then cut it as you would any cookie cut sub road bed, and remove the off cuts so I'll be left with a "flat" cookie cut sub road bed - make sense so far?

If I am able to remove that sub road bed from the framework, then all will good. If I can't, and I suspect this will be the case, I will re cut the track plan using new ply and sit that on top of the track plan that will still be attached to the bench work framing. Basically, the ply that will still be on the bench work will form my template for the new ply and act as a base for the risers.

I think doing that will give me the benefits of an open grid/cookie cut sub roadbed and make putting in the risers that much easier. If that is how things turn out then the risers will more than likely be 2 X 4 so I will be able to "angle" the tops to match the grade and get a good solid flat track with equally solid joins where necessary.

Hope all of that makes some sort of sense - I know what I am talking about I think, and I think it will all become clear when I can start with the pictures of the build.

 

[Lynnb]

Most of this afternoon was spent removing more of the HO track and scenery and have now only got to remove the lake and surrounding area. That will be tomorrow's task.

So far I have filled 3 extra large contractor bags with the old layout and dulled 2 saws in the process. I can't believe just how much foam and plaster went into that build. The new layout wont have any foam in it, I don't think, and only half the plaster being an open grid and cookie cutter layout.

Speaking of that, this is the approach I am going to take ... something a little out of the norm but might be forced due to circumstances. Once I have everything cleared from the bench work and the extension bench work in place, I am going to lay the Track Plan on the current (still fixed in place) ply and trace around it as if I was using it as the sub road bed. I'll then cut it as you would any cookie cut sub road bed, and remove the off cuts so I'll be left with a "flat" cookie cut sub road bed - make sense so far?

If I am able to remove that sub road bed from the framework, then all will good. If I can't, and I suspect this will be the case, I will re cut the track plan using new ply and sit that on top of the track plan that will still be attached to the bench work framing. Basically, the ply that will still be on the bench work will form my template for the new ply and act as a base for the risers.

I think doing that will give me the benefits of an open grid/cookie cut sub roadbed and make putting in the risers that much easier. If that is how things turn out then the risers will more than likely be 2 X 4 so I will be able to "angle" the tops to match the grade and get a good solid flat track with equally solid joins where necessary.

Hope all of that makes some sort of sense - I know what I am talking about I think, and I think it will all become clear when I can start with the pictures of the build.

Hi Tony its nice to come back to the site for a visit and see you have relanded. The method you speak of is exactly the way to go , using a sheet of plywood , tracing out where the rail bed will be , cutting out the rail bed leaving the rest for structure area. The rail bed can then be raised or lowered at will. The only thing I may add is to have the benchwork as an open grid type , it just gives more flexibility.

 

[logandsawman]

Hi Tony, will not be commenting on the track plan as I find those of a particular taste, however if pushed I would offer an opinion.

However, I did read an earlier post about not using the plastic joiners and simply cutting the track. I will confess to doing this in a location and finding that the ballast did a fine job of keeping the tracks aligned.

Note, however, that I used no cork so the ballast was securely glued to the plywood. In some places, strips of plywood cut wider than the track was used to simulate roadbed without actually using cork. Some find the sound of the wheels against the track affixed this way soothing!

 

[goscrewyourselves]

Hi Tony its nice to come back to the site for a visit and see you have relanded. The method you speak of is exactly the way to go , using a sheet of plywood , tracing out where the rail bed will be , cutting out the rail bed leaving the rest for structure area. The rail bed can then be raised or lowered at will. The only thing I may add is to have the benchwork as an open grid type , it just gives more flexibility.

Lynn,

That is exactly what I intend to do. The only difference that there "might be" between mine and "conventional open grid/cookie cutter, is the sub-roadbed (ply) that will be raised for grades will be an exact duplicate of what I cut out of the existing (unable to remove successfully) ply. The existing ply will act as a "base board" for my risers. Basically, instead of attaching the risers to the sub frame (as normal) they will be attached to the base layer of ply.

After pulling out about 80% of the HO layout and seeing all the foam and plaster and mess, open grid is definitely they to go.

Hi Tony, will not be commenting on the track plan as I find those of a particular taste, however if pushed I would offer an opinion.

Dave, your absolutely correct when you say a track plan is personal preference or of a particular taste; none the less, I am always interested in other peoples thoughts and ideas. A second, third, fourth etc pair of eyes will inevitably spot something or come up with an idea that, in my case, hadn't considered or even thought of. In short, if you have a thought, feel free to tell me if you would like to.

However, I did read an earlier post about not using the plastic joiners and simply cutting the track. I will confess to doing this in a location and finding that the ballast did a fine job of keeping the tracks aligned.

Note, however, that I used no cork so the ballast was securely glued to the plywood. In some places, strips of plywood cut wider than the track was used to simulate roadbed without actually using cork. Some find the sound of the wheels against the track affixed this way soothing!

I did ask about cutting the track for gaps as opposed to using those nasty (very little) plastic insulated joiners. I knew it could be done but wasn't sure how well the track would remain aligned.

An idea I am contemplating is to connect one section of flex to another by removing some of the rails of one piece of flex and moving the rails of the second piece into the ties of the first leaving a gap between the rails. This, I think, will keep the track aligned and solid BUT still enable me to have the gaps without insulated joiners or having to cut anything. Does that sound feasible to you?

 

[fcwilt]

Hi,

Don't try cutting gaps in a curved section of flex track - it will most like cause problems.

When I HAD to put the gaps on a curve I removed the rails from the ties and pre-curved them to the desired radius (give or take a little) using a rail bending tool from Fast Track.

Then I slid the rails back into the ties, glued the piece down and when the glue was completely set I then cut the gaps.

I used Peco Code 83 flex track which worked well using this approach. With other brands YMMV.

Frederick

 

[goscrewyourselves]

Frederick,

Yep, that sounds a lot like what I was contemplating. At the moment "luck is on my side. I have started drawing out the track plan on the existing ply and it looks as though all of my joins (thus far) are going to be on straight sections of track. If I can get the "actually track" down as it appears in the schematic, the only gaps I will need (for the reverse section) will also be on straight sections so one less thing to worry about - so far.

I did ask this a few posts back but am after confirmation that I can have the siding in the "reverse loop" section of track - the part in green in the above schematic - without causing electrical issues. In short, is the siding okay where it is without causing problems? If it is going to be an issue, I will remove it, it isn't that important.

 

[fcwilt]

That passing siding should not be a problem electrically speaking.

Frederick

 

[goscrewyourselves]

Thanks Frederick, that is what I wanted to hear. Now I a m curious as to why you stipulated "electrically speaking". Do you see a problem else where?

 

[fcwilt]

Thanks Frederick, that is what I wanted to hear. Now I a m curious as to why you stipulated "electrically speaking". Do you see a problem else where?

No problems - I'm just unsure how a passing siding would be used in that location.

Frederick

 

[goscrewyourselves]

AH okay, well I don't really know either - just thought it broke that area up a little and gave me some more scenery options. I didn't really have a reason for putting it there, just thought it was a good idea at the time

 

[goscrewyourselves]

Most of this evening has been spent drawing the track plan onto the existing Ply, to make sure it will all fit as per SCARM. So far very few adjustments have had to be made, which is a bonus. It is interesting to see the plan in "full scale" instead of on a computer page. It really brings the whole thing (as much as has been transferred) into perspective.

I'd post a picture but the pencil on the ply doesn't show up too well. I intend using 1/2" tape over what has been drawn to show it up AND to give me a line for when the time comes to bring out the Jig Saw.

 

[logandsawman]

Hi Tony, looking back at post 48, the method of staggering the cuts, even by something like 2", and sliding or repositioning the ties is exactly how I did my flex track, and it worked well.

As for the track plan, I think less track is more, especially with your scenery and building skills!

 

[2Tracks]

Tony.....I like the looks of your plan with the varieties of elevations that you have. Nice that you have room for more yard tracks if you want. I'm finding that I want more yard tracks so I'm going to redo my layout, among other things.......

You shouldn't have to insulate the gaps that much. I am guessing you have a short reversing section and a normal length train covers over both ends.

RBMNfan....sorry, missed your post earlier, you are correct, it is a short reverse section (37") on one leg of the wye. And the trains I'm running are way longer then that. As Crandell had pointed out in the PSX-AR instructions he had used the double gaps, I saw the instructions but was unclear on how to implement them. Have you used the double gap method? OK, with one set of gaps, there is one reverse section, with two sets of gaps, now there are three reverse sections, so are all of these sections hooked to the PSX-AR, and how does all of that work electrically?

 

[goscrewyourselves]

Hi Tony, looking back at post 48, the method of staggering the cuts, even by something like 2", and sliding or repositioning the ties is exactly how I did my flex track, and it worked well.

As for the track plan, I think less track is more, especially with your scenery and building skills!

Dave, Thank you for the compliment re my scenery skills and hopefully this time that will be even better thought out and created. Once I get everything drawn out, as it will be on the layout, I'll take another look at things with regards the room. As it stands at the moment, I have two main areas for scenery and a few small areas. Just how small those areas actually are and what can be done with them is yet to be seen.

Staggering the joins is how I did the Shed track work and, as you said, it did work well even with only an inch or less in places of stagger. I remember the issues I had trying to match track when trying to cut it for a "straight across join" and was more trouble than what it worth. As such, all of my joins (if not on a straight section) will be staggered naturally this time.

Tony.....I like the looks of your plan with the varieties of elevations that you have. Nice that you have room for more yard tracks if you want. I'm finding that I want more yard tracks so I'm going to redo my layout, among other things.......

Thanks 2Tracks but if anything, room pending for scenery, I might remove that yard. I like a lot of track for running trains, just not a lot for the sake of having it if it compromises the scenery side of the layout.

This may not seem logical but, in my opinion, when people look at a layout it is the scenery they are fascinated by and drawn to. Sure they like the trains but they end up being a secondary interest to the scenery and what those trains run through.

I think elevations are important. A flat layout, especially of the size of mine, looks far too plain and uninteresting. Elevations turn the layout into a more visually 3 dimensional thing. Elevations also allow for more interesting scenery and, ultimately, longer track work.

 

[goscrewyourselves]

Afternoon All,

This afternoon saw the completion of the HO removal. I now have a "clean" (scenery/track free) area to work with despite it currently being laden with those things needed for the removal.

https://vimeo.com/232389781

The ply has been cleaned of all glue that was in the way and looks good with the exception of the right hand side. The ply there is patched in and that was fine for a table top with foam layout, just not for an open grid/cookie cutter approach. Due to the extension, of that side, the existing corner ply will be replaced with a single sheet. There will be about a 10" extension to the font of the bench work as well; although, I think I can just add a separate piece of ply for that extension. That will be dictated by where the track will sit.

On an off note, YES I am ashamed of the state of the room. Prior to the start of laying the road bed and track, the entire room will be "emptied" of everything that does not need to be there for this build, as will all the "stuff" on the shelves. Much of it is left over HO stuff and will probably be discarded except for the engines that my wife wants. The walls will be refurbished and painted and then, and ONLY then, will the actual build commence.

Anyway, that is where I am at for now. The next update wont probably be until the room is cleared and the walls repaired.

 

[2Tracks]

Thanks 2Tracks but if anything, room pending for scenery, I might remove that yard. I like a lot of track for running trains, just not a lot for the sake of having it if it compromises the scenery side of the layout.

This may not seem logical but, in my opinion, when people look at a layout it is the scenery they are fascinated by and drawn to. Sure they like the trains but they end up being a secondary interest to the scenery and what those trains run through.

I think elevations are important. A flat layout, especially of the size of mine, looks far too plain and uninteresting. Elevations turn the layout into a more visually 3 dimensional thing. Elevations also allow for more interesting scenery and, ultimately, longer track work.

Tony, yes, that's were I'm have a hard time with my layout, I want it all. Big trains, big scenery, lots of everything. But with limited space, it's getting everything put together, at a compromise. If I had a huge space too work with, I know I would want more, it wouldn't seem like enough......