14x24 Atlas-O Layout Plan. With 11x19 FasTrack Version. Short Video of Trains Running Added!

Switching the yard ladder fouls the inside main.   Agreed.   I have gotten used to designing small layouts where compromises have to happen.   If two operators, then one can switch the yard while the other runs the outside main.   But even better if I could have three operators, one on each main and one switching the yard.   Or for solo operating, two trains circling unattended while one switches the yard.   

I will look for a re-alignment that avoids this problem.

Here is an alternative to think about.   It has a conventional corner location for the washroom, easy for guests to get to, but operators must stop the trains on the mains to lift out the bridge.   And we lose the generous and lovely curves near the bridges, two spurs, and the viewblock that has been discussed.   Trade-offs.  

I extended the staging track into the access area to make swapping cars easier, but getting to the access area is not that easy anyway, so not sure if this is an improvement.

No change on the switch lead fouling the inside main yet.

Ken-Oscale posted:

Here is an alternative to think about.   It has a conventional corner location for the washroom, easy for guests to get to, but operators must stop the trains on the mains to lift out the bridge.   

Ken, can’t they duck under the lift out?

If it were me, I would keep the beautiful broad curves (awesome visual) and use the facilities inside your house. But it is not my call.

This variation adds a passing track in the lower right - but kills that access area.   The passing track can be accessed from the front access area to add/remove cars more conveniently than in the upper right.   

A re-alignment so the yard can be switched from the yard lead without fouling the inside main.   Roughed-in to look at and consider.   The inside main goes through just two double-slips.

Getting pretty expensive with all of these turnouts!

SantaFeJim posted:

Ken-Oscale posted:

Here is an alternative to think about.   It has a conventional corner location for the washroom, easy for guests to get to, but operators must stop the trains on the mains to lift out the bridge.   

Ken, can’t they duck under the lift out?

If it were me, I would keep the beautiful broad curves (awesome visual) and use the facilities inside your house. But it is not my call.

 

Ducking under the bridge needs a layout at a higher level.  Can be done of course, you are correct, but I wasn't planning on that for viewing access by little kids from the front area, which does not have a lot of width for a step for them to stand on.   And when I "need to go", I don't want to have to crouch down to get under the bridge, if you get my meaning.

Re the restroom, [small] RV bathrooms are typically 21" wide and that has never been an issue for me in many years of use. Thus to me 24" ID would be generous. This bathroom was (previous RV) 30" wide with sink (the floor pan was 21" wide) by 35" deep. It worked well. The step-in is because this was a so called "wet bath" wherein you could shower sitting on the toilet, a feature probably not needed in a train-room 

Probably moot though, because if you are hiring out the bathroom work they will have to follow code and that will be substantially larger, Bothe width and depth.

Lew

geysergazer posted:

BTW, excellent yard lead. You really will be able to have trains running while simultaneously doing classification work in the yard. John Armstrong would approve of your trackplan.

On edit: Traffic on the yard lead will still foul the inner mainline. I'm not sure how that would best be addressed.

I see a potential problem with the staging/interchange track. Because it is almost out of reach you won't be able to easily change consists. For me interchange is of crucial importance because it represents the whole outside World and thus the other half of operation. That is, I use my interchange track (which is actually a return loop in an adjacent room) as a fiddle yard where I build incoming consists using the old O-5-O switcher (hands).

         

Ya, on my list of #aroundtoits is to do a more workmanlike job of the return loop but in the meanwhile it does function as needed. The paintbrush, as well as being a dusting tool, indicates the next set of cars to be worked into a train. I don't use switch-lists or waybills but simply cycle through a set of possible consists. Someday when I'm really bored maybe I'll see if my math-foo is up to the task of determining the total number of consist variations and their frequency of occurrence.

Lew 

Lew - just wondering what diameter curve that is for the reversing loop and if there's enough room to stick an Atlas 24" turntable in there ?

This version: realigned turntable and locomotive service track and area.   And trying a mountain with tunnels.

Ken-Oscale posted:

Naturally, its even better as a 12x24:

Go with this design, it is the best so far. The only change I would make is adding the passing track on the lower right.

Richie C. posted:

geysergazer posted:

         

 

Lew - just wondering what diameter curve that is for the reversing loop and if there's enough room to stick an Atlas 24" turntable in there ?

That is O31 Fastrack so the OD is 34.5" and the ID is 27.5"

Lew

I went back and re-read the comments about the Atlas slip-switch, and decided I had better replace them with conventional turnouts.   I looked at converting to Gargraves and Ross, but that would not save/improve very much - not enough to change the configuration.

At either side, there is along curved lead, with industry tracks at the end.   Arrivals eastbound from either main can use the east yard lead (O81); arrivals westbound from either main can use the west yard lead.   Then either back-up or maneuve to the west lead, and from their into the yard.   

Access/reach is good, with one problem and one note:  the widest part of the yard is too wide to get to the back, and out of reach from the upper-right access area.   Note: access inside the mountain for the lower right.

I like your concept. I offer some suggestions, FWIW

• Perhaps you can keep the end doors for ability to move large pieces of wood, etc, into the train space.
• Railroad height. Model railroads always look better when they are higher.
  • For the occasional child, a movable step, with a low rail. Since you don’t appear to have any operating accessories, a child’s interest will quickly wane. Experience
  • If you raise the elevation, you can tuck a lower level staging yard into the plan, located near the front of the yard area, with, hopefully, a reasonable grade to reach a merge with the main trackage. The present staging track location almost guarantees it will seldom be used.
    • That given, the area along the back wall could be used for a station façade and a city façade (like John Armstrong’s model RR). I assume passenger service.
  • If you raise the elevation access to the accesses will be a bit less painful.
• Depending how you arrange the toilet, you could run the track through a corner of the bathroom and hide the fact with a mountain.
• There are several industry tracks with no obvious space for industries.
• Depending on the grade required, you could raise the engine service area above the end curves with a suitable tunnel and provide more room.
  • I assume from the turntable that you will be running steam. Must you have a turntable? If your layout represents a division point you can do without and leave considerably more room for engine servicing facilities. Including the inevitable diseasels…

Here is the design at present.  Discussion to follow, but opinions and observations welcome!

A lot of RR in the space, looks like fun!   I think I could live with a small bathroom, after all, we're there to run trains, right?

I can accept the small bathroom in the lower left as in your most recent drawing.   Provided you include this sign inside the door.

And just don't put a camera car in your consist if you're going to be running trains through the restroom.   

I agree with much of what has been posted so far.  Bathroom OUTSIDE the ovals.  Also, the comment about accessibility of the staging track in the far corner.

Curious, what do O90 curves get you, that O72 doesn't?  And if you're running large steam locos, will a 24" turntable be enough??

One more thing... as much as possible get a guarantee about the INSIDE dimensions of the finished building.  I went through this with my own house.  The studs and drywall took away almost a foot!!

Ted S posted:

Curious, what do O90 curves get you, that O72 doesn't?  And if you're running large steam locos, will a 24" turntable be enough??

Wider curves make a lot of larger locomotives and rolling stock look much more natural.

I like the final plan the best.    The removal of the double slips I think is a good idea and getting the yard lead clear of both mains is good.