One more thing... RR-Track Software?

[Anonymous]

I can't believe there aren't reviews of this software somewhere. I couldn't find any on this Forum archive or here either http://www.raillinks.com/modelrr/pages/Software/
Anyone using it who could share some thoughts? Thank you!

[aspinallar]

I have used this software for both my O guage indoors. Later I downloaded the G Guage library too.
Works well.
Allows lots of creativity. It's way easier to move around things on your screen than moving track on your layout.
You can estimate costs of your empire.
Calculates grades if you really want to.
Print out layouts.
Add layouts to posts! [although I can't see how at this forum]
You can save your layouts as either Bitmaps which you can share with anyone or RRTrack files which you can share with other RRTrack fans.

I find it gives me a good idea of what's going to happen, but in the end I put it together by hand and make adjustments as I go

Original software came in the mail on a CD, additional Libraries are available for downloading.

MTH trains includes this software with their O guage sets BUT you cannot put additional libraries with this 'free' stuff.

[piercedan]

I have been using rrtrack for years now.

I really like how you can get a 3d look at the design.

You can edit the .ini files to correct the costs of the track/accessories and get real cost figures.

[Capt Bob Johnson]

Being computer challenged, I found it a bit difficult to experiment with. Played around with it for a couple of weeks, put it in drawer, and did the pencil on paper thing!

While it probably works wonderfully for those who use and understand computer antics, it wasn't my cup of tea!

I liked the concept (well enough that I was very willing to spend the $$$ to buy it), but found that understanding and using it would take a longer learning curve than I was willing to devote to it!

One major problem I have with these things is the wiggle factor. Just because you have it all figured out and exact on the plan, just wiggle a few 16ths of an inch in joining track sections, or spring that curve so it's 20'02" diameter and it throws the whole works out of adjustment and you wind up using the old Mark I eyeball to get things to line up!

That's my [2c]

[ballhog24]

I've had RR Track for a few months now. Even though I haven't tapped into the more advanced parts of its' usage, I've enjoyed being able to work with layouts and see what it might look like, before I start putting track down.

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Capt Bob Johnson


One major problem I have with these things is the wiggle factor. Just because you have it all figured out and exact on the plan, just wiggle a few 16ths of an inch in joining track sections, or spring that curve so it's 20'02" diameter and it throws the whole works out of adjustment and you wind up using the old Mark I eyeball to get things to line up!

That's my [2c]

Bob,

What "wiggle factor"[}:)][}:)][;)]??

Programs like RR-Track are perfect to do doodling with snap track. I've seen it metioned once or twice that things may not line up (on the drawing) as expected.

That's where programs like CADrail step in. But if you get a headache from RR Track, you'll have a migraine from CADrail, because there is much more to it and that includes much more learning.
However the results are like day and night! [;)][:)][;)]

[ttrigg]

OK guys, now don't get me wrong here, because I like to fiddle around on my computer, and I like to go outside and play with my trains.

I know I played with many different "ovals" on the concrete patio, before putting it onto the dirt. But I was able to look at the train going around in endless circles, before I put in any of the switches. Going through a hundred designs on the computer does not give you a single second of watching the train go down the track.

I cannot understand the seemingly endless fascination with computer designed trackage. I fail to see the fun in looking at multiple variations on a single layout. Now I could understand if you were sketching out the parts you like (that was already in the dirt) just before doing a "remodel".

Maybe that's because I like to play in the dirt too much.

Get OFF the computer and play in the dirt!!!!! That's what I have to say about ALL the computer train design software.

Now for those guys where the snow reaches half way up a Giraffe's hind leg, I could understand playing TRAIN GAMES or working on a upgraded layout design. EXCEPT for Marty. Anyone who can build a rotary snow plow that can actually throw the snow, needs to play in the snow and make more movies of it throwing the snow so the rest of us can admire his work again and again and again and again and again and again and again...................

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ttrigg

OK guys, now don't get me wrong here, because I like to fiddle around on my computer, and I like to go outside and play with my trains.

I know I played with many different "ovals" on the concrete patio, before putting it onto the dirt. But I was able to look at the train going around in endless circles, before I put in any of the switches. Going through a hundred designs on the computer does not give you a single second of watching the train go down the track.

I cannot understand the seemingly endless fascination with computer designed trackage. I fail to see the fun in looking at multiple variations on a single layout. Now I could understand if you were sketching out the parts you like (that was already in the dirt) just before doing a "remodel".

Maybe that's because I like to play in the dirt too much.

Get OFF the computer and play in the dirt!!!!! That's what I have to say about ALL the computer train design software.

Now for those guys where the snow reaches half way up a Giraffe's hind leg, I could understand playing TRAIN GAMES or working on a upgraded layout design. EXCEPT for Marty. Anyone who can build a rotary snow plow that can actually throw the snow, needs to play in the snow and make more movies of it throwing the snow so the rest of us can admire his work again and again and again and again and again and again and again...................

Tom,

We may not watch the train go down the track on the 'puter, except if we want to.[;)][:)]
OTOH since we incorporate realistic grades, easements and curves chances are we won't see the actual train stall, derail and lurge, either.
And of course I would guesstimate that while you put down your oval in the dirt I have figured out a complete layout including everything that is involved on that puppy i.e. how things will operate, where the industries, towns go and why etc. etc.

And as I mentioned some time ago, our customers would take a dim view of getting a layout plan with a notation "If this doesn't work, just move things around a little!" [;)][;)][}:)][:D][:D]

[Anonymous]

I believe track software could be a usefull tool to those who are building a scale layout or trying to model a prototype railroad. I myself though of using this to see if I could put the Waynesburg yard in my barn for a switching layout. However no track software was needed to tell me it wouldn't fit without compromises. Just a ruler and and the scale next to the yard drawing in a book.[;)]

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by carpenter matt

I believe track software could be a usefull tool to those who are building a scale layout or trying to model a prototype railroad. I myself though of using this to see if I could put the Waynesburg yard in my barn for a switching layout. However no track software was needed to tell me it wouldn't fit without compromises. Just a ruler and and the scale next to the yard drawing in a book.[;)]

Matt,

No kidding![:D][8D][:D]

Now the next step is to go to "selective compression" which means condensing the essentials of that yard to what space you have.
What you try to preserve is the function of the yard minus all the extra tracks which are there because of high traffic volume. Unless of course you have tons and tons of rolling stock.[;)][:)][:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ttrigg


I cannot understand the seemingly endless fascination with computer designed trackage. I fail to see the fun in looking at multiple variations on a single layout. Now I could understand if you were sketching out the parts you like (that was already in the dirt) just before doing a "remodel".

Hahaha... I look at a computer screen 9 hours a day, so coming home and playing with one isn't something I want to do more of. I can appreciate the 'what if' capability software like this brings to layout design, but eventually, you have to fire the engineering team and start laying track.

My main interest in RR-Track was help with grades and positioning a helix or two. However, I can figure that with a level, some string and a few stakes. I plan on using flex track, so knowing the exact number of each and every piece of sectional track isn't something I want to pay $100 to do.

Thanks for the thoughts all. I think I'll just skip the software this time around.

[GRR7315]

CAD, rrtrack and pencil and paper..... have them all! Thought the computer programs would be faster to use, does take a little time to familiarize! Realigning the RR right now and have it on paper, will use the rrtrack to actually setout the trackwork (keep track inventory).

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HUDSONG1

CAD, rrtrack and pencil and paper..... have them all! Thought the computer programs would be faster to use, does take a little time to familiarize!

They are just tools; learn how to use them and you save lots of time.

Don't open the manual and you'll waste lots of time.

Of course then there's the aptitude. [;)][;)]

[Anonymous]

I questioned the integrity of RR-Track, with regards to tubular O, after failing to have it duplicate two of my existing layouts. Even with the wiggle/compensation factor maxed out, the layouts would not line up in multiple locations. The support guy said my track had to have been forced together for the software not to be able to recreate it. It is a fact that tubular is giving and forgiving, and found it interesting that the real track was laid without any apparent or intentional "force" fitting. I run all types of consists without problems, yet the virtual world of RR-Track is telling me it can't be done! I would presume the software is more effective with rigid types of track. RR-Track, sorry, but your "forced together" explanation is little more than a convenient excuse (IMHO). Other than that, hopefully future upgrades will fix the tubular shortcomings. Sounds like plenty of folks here have no problems with RR-Track, but in my situation it has proven to be untrustworthy, and therefore of little value. "Try it before you buy it" applies here. Wish I would have!

Rich.

[whiterab]

Getting back to the original post.......

We found that RR-Track was extreemly helpful when we started our second layout. In order to get more space, we built (and continuing to build) on a heavy slope in a ravine behind the house.

Because of the slope and the existing topology, RR-Track was great in going through dozens and dozens of interations to get the right combination of large curves and low grades to fit with the existing landscape. It also allowed us to break the layout into phases so we didn't have to build everything at once and get up and running sooner.

Setting grades and track levels is a bit tricky in the software but it does work. One suggestion is to keep many variations filed. Never know when you have to backup to a previous version of the layout when things just don't work out.

All in all, while it was sometimes picky about how you did things, the software was very useful and quite fun to play with the different variations one can come up with to fit in a given space.

The inventory section was helpful in knowing what amount of track we needed for each phase.

[Anonymous]

I'm new around here. I've been recently asked to build(install) a garden railway for someone. The area is about 42' X 20'. I was considering the software to help design it, but will just use a friends first. $100 is a lot of money for a one time show. I'm still a little leary, about taking it on. The client is not a rivet counter, and just wants to have three main lines, some passing sidings, and maybe a return loop. Thanks for your opinions

[Greg Elmassian]

I used RR track for my layout (see www.elmassian.com to see the layout).

I have a small space, but wanted to keep minimum 10 and 14 foot diameter curves. I would never have been able to accomplish it without the software.

It lets you quickly snap track together to get want you want. There are settings to let you "relax" the joints between sections to make things fit.

It is very easy to use, you click on the piece of track you want to use, labelled with both the manufacturers part number and also radius and description, and drag it to where you want. Drag it close enough to another section, and it joins the tracks.

Yes, the track databases are not "perfect", there can be some small variations between what you lay out and what the track actually does, but most importantly, if you have it on the screen, you can go outside and put those pieces together and they will fit.

For $99 it is a bargin.

Regards, Greg

[jmiller3v]

I am amazed there isn't a freeware version yet.