Running on Different Levels

[Weymatt]

Can I run Railmaster Pro on diffent Levels?

[Chrissaf]

Can you be specific with regard what you mean by "different levels"?

.

If you mean that your layout is physically split vertically into a ground level and an upper level. Then being DCC all the track, both upper and lower should be connected together into one single electrical layout. RailMaster will be completely oblivious to this and treat both levels as a single layout.

.

If you mean, can I run one instance of RM to operate the lower level in one Windows Window and a second instance of RM to operate the upper level in a second Windows Window ... then no you can't.

.

If your reference to "different levels" has got nothing to do with the layout being physically on two levels then I don't have the foggiest idea what your question relates to with respect to RailMaster & RailMaster PRO.

[Weymatt]

Hi Chrissaf

Many thanks for you rapide responce.

I will try to clarify, I have tracks, one going up and and a return back to the start, they are conected with rising tracks to each level in a continuous run and return on all three levels. My problem is how to show this graphically on my Railmaster Pro layout, or am I missing something?

Many thanks for any assistance you can offer.

Cheers

Matthew in Dorset UK.  

[Chrissaf]

OK right ... your question actually relates to how you represent a multi-layer layout graphically on the RailMaster track plan.

.

My layout is over three layers and I have represented it in my RM track plan. Unfortunately I cannot post an image of my RM track plan to demonstrate it as the current forum BUG (still unresolved) prevents me from posting an image.

.

What you have to remember is the the RM track plan does not have to become an exact representation of what you see on your layout in the flesh. It is just a logic plan. There is no technical need to have all your tracks on your plan connect together, the plan doesn't work that way. There is nothing to stop you from dividing your track plan screen area up into a different area for each distinct level. They do not need to be joined together on screen.

.

The only track elements that do need to be shown on the track plan are the plan elements that are configurable, such as points and signals etc. In other words, any track plan element that does not have a 'right click dialogue box' is not strictly needed to be shown on the plan.

.

EDIT: I have found a 2016 thread where my track plan is posted as an image [5th post down on the page].

.

https://www.hornby.com/uk-en/forum/elevated-tracks/?p=1/

.

Copy and Paste the URL text above into your browser {clickable links are also affected by the current forum BUG].

.

Now with reference to my track plan, the upper middle section of my plan marked 'Branch Loop' is physically UNDER the very top section where the 'Station Loop' is indicated. Note the GAPS in the track plan routes to the right of the 'Freight Siding' area. These GAPS indicate that the vertical twin track section passes over the top of them. The KEY thing is the plan does not have to show the horizontal tracks going under the upper level connected together. Having GAPS in track plan routes is perfectly OK.

.

This link below from a 2018 post [3rd post down on the page] shows a SCARM 3D representation of my layout. The same layout represented in the RailMaster track plan described above. It is not a particularly good image for the purposes of this thread, but you can just about see how the track that disappears in tunnels under the upper area is represented in my RM track plan.

.

https://www.hornby.com/uk-en/forum/cad-programmes/?p=1

.

 

[Weymatt]

Hi Chrissaf

Thanks again will give that a try!!!

Matthew

[Weymatt]

Hi Chrissaf

Thanks again will give that a try!!!

2 days on I have laidout three layouts, one for each layer as now I understand that physical conections are not required it makes sence. Regarding your other post reference upper level crossing rails I did use crossings to accomplish this it looked good to me  but appreciate your logic that trains that go under in a tuunel are not visable in the real World and also your "continuity explanation" indicates there is no requirement for them to be connected. 

Matthew