Hello, I am a new model railroader. For the last week, I read a lot of stuff about railroad and model railroading in general but now is the time to do something.
I want to plan my first layout so I would like to know if there is a good application that I can use on my Mac 10.5.8 and that will let me plan my layout?
Keep in mind that I have a Mac 10.5.8
Thanks for your help!
I am not familiar with the detail of Apple OS specs but many Apple computers will now run Windows and Windows applications. If yours is one of those, then you might look at CadRail or 3D Planit, both of which run on a Windows operating system.
Or Google “model railroad planning software for mac” and you will find several listing for Mac compatible railroad planning programs.
Thanks Roger but I don’t plan to run a Windows program. If there is one available, I would prefer a Mac application.
Thanks for your help!
To run Windows based applications on the Mac’s, you need to load a copy of Windows on top of your Mac OS. There are a few Mac specific track planning applications:
There may be more out there, but since I only have Windows on my PC’s, I do not keep up with the current Apple specific applications.
Jim
I’ve used both RailModeler and Empire Express. EE works great and should be sufficient unless you really want 3D images, etc. Same with RalModeler. I don’t have the need for 3D/terrain design so I’ve been happy with both. If I had to choose one I would go with Empire Express. It’s been a solid Mac app since the pre-OS X days, and it still works fine on 108.4 Mountain Lion.
I have a MacBook running 10.7.4, and used RailModeler 4.1.6. It worked fine to create a track plan, and I am not a CAD type guy.
You can download the software and try it before buying it. and it is priced I think about $40.00.
Aflyer
I got Mac OS X 10.6 and used RailModeler. It’s ok. There’s a learning curve to it and personally I haven’t got the time to become an ace at it. I ended up going with Adobe Illustrator since I know that program very well. I found planning everything in 1:1 scale and using turnout diagram PDFs from Central Valley was pretty convenient. It worked pretty well, and I get a really accurate idea how everything will line up.
It makes it easy to replicate the track arrangement as use a roll printer from Kinkos and print out the plan full size and laminate it to the subroadbed.
I have found WINE/WINEskin works great for running a Windows app. I used WINEskin to run MS Visio. WINE is open source and completely free. WINEskin is the same way. Neither need a full version of MS Windows to run your Windows apps. I personally recommend WINEskin. It puts the .EXE into a virtual container with a custom version of WINE. Makes it nice if you need different versions of WINE to successfully run a picky Win .EXE
http://wineskin.urgesoftware.com/tiki-index.php
Chris Palomarez
Thanks guys. I have tried the three different applications you suggest me but I’m not satisfied so I think I will use paper and pencil instead 
The only problem is that I really don’t know the types and size of the tracks that I should use and how to start creating my plan layout.
That works too.
When you plan a switch, say a number six, you would draw a triangle where the long side is 6 in and the smaller side is 1 in. For a number 8, long side is 8 in and the short is 1 in, number 4, longside is 4 in and the short is 1 in. See the pattern? The long side of the triangle is the frog number and the constant is the 1 in.
The overall length of a turnout, this is just my own technique and by no means completely accurate but it works for me, take the frog number, say a #6, divide it in half, =3, then add that to the frog number 6+3=9in for the overall length of the turnout. This of course will differ from manufacturer to manufacturer. A number 8 I plan 8+4=12in for the overall length of the turnout.
My favorite way to plan is 1:1 and get a larger roll of newsprint paper and xerox a few of the turnouts you plan to use. Lay the thing out on the floor and start drawing with a pencil and placing the xerox copies of turnouts where you think you want them to go. It’s actually a neat way to interact with the design. [8D]
Chris Palomarez
You can download full size templates of various size turnouts and other trackage from the Fast Tracks website at: http://www.handlaidtrack.com/. Print a few of these and use them to get an idea of the dimensions.
Joe
That is not even remotely accurate enough for layout planning. Length of Walthers Code 83 HO #5 is 10.35". Length of Peco Code 83 #5 is 8.27". Your computation would be 7.5", far off from either.
Put two or three turnouts together and the difference is huge. Bad advice
I use CVT and not afraid to manipulate the track to fit the design so it works great for me! [:P]
Don’t HATE!
The original poster is a beginner and in N scale, so Central Valley does not apply. And still being off by 25% or so is not accurate enough for planning any kind of tight area, CVT or not.
How did a desire for accuracy become “hate”? Everybody gets a trophy, eh? Just do not give inaccurate advice and no one will call you on it.
No fighting guys. I appreciate your help but I think I will have to stick to paper and pencil.
Dang you are one grumpy dude…don’t forget to have fun!
Not everything you “think” as bad advice is though. You aren’t the authority. Instead of being rude about trying to call out what you think is an error, perhaps a more friendly and socially acceptable response would be to ask for a clarification. Then I can show how and why this works for me to achieve a little more flexibility in planning.
By discussing the topic instead of asserting it’s “wrong” and being rude, might give some insight to track planning. Not here to fight. Just trying to help.
Chris
Not necessarily bad advice at all - for several reasons.
Even the most accurately scaled and drawn track plans almost always get modified when implementing full size. In full size track laying, there are tolerances in one’s work. Are your gaps between sections of track 1/16 inch, 1/8", or hard butted? Which gap size did your drawing or your software model? And how accurately? Did you lay your flex track to the exact radius your drawing used? Or is the radius plus/minus 1/2"? How accurately does your plan model your method of laying easement curves with real track? And your drawing/software most assuredly did not model the dimensional changes in the benchwork from changing humidity. If you claim to actually lay the track exactly as planned, I would tend to throw the BS flag - or assume a severe case of constipation. [:)]
When seeing things full size, ideas of where the track and lineside structures/scenery should be tend to change. It’s the difference between a 2D paper model, and the 3D real scene. None of us are perfect are translating from a 2D model to a 3D full-size scene in our mind’s eye.
More germane to this thread - turnouts are not sacred, inviolate objects. They can still function normally after being trimmed - or even curved. For cutting, you just have to leave enough straight beyond the points or frog to fit rail joiners - and that’s not much. Most manufactured #6 or #5 turnouts are much more consistent from make to make in the distance from the points to frog than they are in overall l
Fred,
The differences noted in turnout dimensions are not inconsequential. Those differences can be crucial to the viability of a plan in tight or complex situations. Although I agree that reality often requires modifications to plans, they can be minimized by adequate planning.
That was my experience. I have a modest layout that has track elements which were dependent on an accurate plan, especially regarding turnouts. I used a computer program for the detailed plan (after conceptual sketching) and determined turnout sizes as accurately as humanly possible. The actual construction was almost completely in conformance with the plan with only minor, dimensionally fractional adjustments.
I also agree that as-built drawings of any project are “critical to operations and maintenance;” however, to characterize initial plans as “garbage in comparison” is a bit over the top, I believe. My experience as an architect for almost 50 years was that the as-builts rarely differed significantly from the initial plans.
There is no harm in being as accurate as possible.
Dante
What i was getting at with my rough measurement of the distance between the frog and the ends of the points. You generally don’t want to fuss with 9 inches of a number six turnout unless you are an advanced modeler. Keep them straight if at all possible. Everything past the frog… Get out the rail nippers and simply remove if you need to fit the turnout into a location.
The actual manufacturer length of the turnout doesn’t matter really, it is the frog and points that will get you. Thus my “safe” formula so you won’t be locating points of an adjacent turnout in the same location of a frog of the other.
See - clarification is all that was needed [B)]
Chris Palomarez
Especially since the Original Poster is a newcomer, an estimation method that is significantly too short (or too long) compared to actual components is a real potential problem. In actual building, the overall length of the chosen turnouts would be a better “measuring stick”. These are easily obtained on-line, so it seems to me that there is no compelling reason to generate “guesstimation” formulas.
Especially in yards and tight industrial areas, an inch or two discrepancy for each turnout can quickly turn into an un-buildable snarl. I don’t personally see a benefit to beginning with known incorrect dimensions (but I’ve only designed 100+ layouts for myself and others, so what do I know?)
It seems to me that a good first step for the Original Poster would be to choose a manufacturer and model of turnouts, and then use those actual dimensions for planning.
For full-sized planning on the floor or benchwork, scans or Xeroxes of the actual parts work very well.
Best of luck.
Dante
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
As indicated in my 1st post, turnouts are fairly standard in dimensions from point to frog for a given turnout number. Where they vary greatly by manufacturer is in the lengths added on to the ends. If one is willing to trim these ends to fit the situation, then one has a very different set of turnout dimensions from those in the software, and tighter track arrangements are quite practical. I will point out that the Turtle Creek beginner’s project layout in Model Railroader trimmed turnotus to fit - the changed dimensions were printed in a side bar on one of the installments. The PH&C project layout even “curved” and trimmed Atlas #4 turnouts to get the track where it was wanted.
If one is not willing to trim turnouts, then accurate software helps greatly in making sure the track arrangement is achievable.
The rule of thumb in my engineering and project work is that the last 10% of accuracy costs as much as the first 90%. That is the “harm” in being as accurate as possible.
In addition to small layout building, I have worked in boatbuilding, in remote communication site construction,