DoubleDAZ posted:...If you and David don't understand this now, then I'm the one who surrenders, I don't know how to explain it any better.
...
DAZ, with all due respects, then I think it's time for you to surrender on that point. 
You're completely missing the point that I tried to make earlier -- namely once you start adjusting track heights with open grid framework vs. the plywood platform mentality, then you actually have very few places where ANY track is completely level.
In the last plan I posted, V1B (which didn't have the grades finalized), I'll say that generally speaking the TT area and the bridge over to the passenger station yard area will likely be completely "level". Aside from that, a large portion of this layout will have grades that rise and fall in order to provide the appropriate clearances. And the grades are nowhere near the severity that you've represented. In addition, there's absolutely nothing wrong about turnouts being on a modest grade. We've seen that many times on popular model railroads that have been featured in magazines as well as right here on the forum.
We (once again) seem to be exerting more unproductive energy on these issues you're hung up on, than actually moving the ball forward. We've maintained ALL ALONG that there would be compromises necessary to shrink the layout from the full 20x40 O-scale rendition. No surprises there. Yet despite all of that, I've given RD a version of this compressed layout that is quite "build-able" given his space requirements. If RD decides he wants to go Ross/Gargraves instead of Atlas-O, even that's not a show-stopper. It's just that he may then decide it's in his best interested to stick with basic turnout crossovers rather than the more intricate Atlas-O design with double-slip switches. It's not as if people haven't used the Ross/Gargraves combo on spectacular layouts before. It's been done all the time. And this one will be no different.
David
