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

Good luck.  I hope you build it.

William 1 posted:

Good luck.  I hope you build it.

Thanks William, that is the plan, I have the money and approval from the wife.   Still need to talk to a contractor, make sure I have all my easements accounted for (look again at the property plat), check with the city, check with the home owners association.   And another think about my health/mobility - Am I really up to building a layout of this size?   I am getting better with occasional set-backs (yesterday was a bad day - today feels great!).   So construction next year gives me more time to be sure I can handle this project.   I am building my 4x10 Nickle Plate Road layout as a test of my capabilities- making progress on that small layout.

And make a final decision on the "micro" restroom.   I am looking at the possibility of creating a paved walkway beneath the deck at the back of the house, to run to a restroom on the other end (which serves the pool/hot-tub and as a changing room).  Just an alternative, I still favor the "micro" restroom in the layout building.

Consider thinking down the road.  The RR is built.   The mainline is up and running,  in a flat circle.

Then the creative juices start reflowing, "how about a twice around over under mainline".  Too late at that point, but not too late now.

Maybe consider revamping the basic R.O.W. to mix up the mainline.  Running mainline trains over and under with up and down grades adds considerable visual interest.  Especially with a dual main line.

In my experience, we all like to incorporate a variety  of available sidings for potential switching operations but activity frequently boils down to running trains.  

Working along the premise that when you cannot exceed the length and width, go up and down; I offer a suggestion:  As you construct the benchwork, allow an unencumbered structural provision to keep twelve inches clear directly under the platform to possibly add a subway system down the road.  Lionel  and MTH have some real nice subway trains.

Note black painted subway level.

I decided to visually separate the inside/3rd main from the three yard tracks in the upper right.   So the yard lead/3rd main is clearly running somewhere else and not part of the yard.  The minimum curvature in the yard is O81.

I had pondering the idea of extending the mountain in the upper right over the mainlines:

Pulling back the tunnels below Wolf Creek to reveal the 3rd inside main.  Better?

I am also experimenting with an idea:  I like the concept of elevating the double-track mainline, as the prototype does, with more roadbed and ballast.   Track running in the yard and through towns is at a lower level, closer to the layout surface.   So I thought about elevating the 3rd/inside main a bit above the table surface by 1/8".   That sounds like a small amount, but will be discernable to the eye when viewing the layout within about 3' or so.   The effect in the illustration that I have posted is small, but you can see it when you click on the illustration to zoom it (on my large monitor) on the 3rd/inside main on the right side and through Three Forks.

So I will have three levels of tracks (not counting the grade up to Wolf Creek and Cascade), starting at 0" in towns and the yard, where the tall Altas track is laid directly on top of the vinyl grassmat and ballasted.   Then an additional 1/8" of elevation for the inside/3rd main, then ballasted.   Then 1/2" of elevation beneath the Atlas track for the double-track mains.   There will be small grades to reach these levels, at 1%.   And three different colors of ballast - pretty light gray for the double-mains, down to the yard and towns at a darker gray.  I did the left side 3rd/inside main and around Deer Lodge as well.   All three mains will be at 0" elevation through Helena Yard due to the cross-over connections to the yard.

I often see real mainline roadbed/ballast in a staggered elevation of two levels, roadbed and subroadbed, with perhaps different slopes to the ballast for the two levels and different colors (lighter for the newer ballast at the top).   Whether by design/intent or a result of reconditioning the ballast periodically as part of maintenance.

An example video with four trains running: (no sound)

Love It....  

That is just too cool.  I can't help but notice that it has attracted a good audience.  

Is the software smart enough to hide the train as it enters the tunnels?

That is dandy, Ken!!  That layout will certainly pack in a lot of interest!!

I love the design!  Does your software have the ability to create a 3D rendering, to illustrate the vertical separation between mainlines?  The only true "over & under" is the NS interchange on the right side, correct?  And you're gaining 7" of vertical separation in about 20 feet, right?

Thanks so much for sharing your excellent design and thought process.  Pretty soon we'll look forward to seeing pictures of the real thing!!

Ken - your plans look great!  Your layout looks like it will be an abundance of fun.  

Abundance of fun!!  That is an excellent way of putting it, Pat!!

Ken, does the software capture the video? I wish SCARM did that?

DoubleDAZ posted:

Ken, does the software capture the video? I wish SCARM did that?

Hey Dave.   To create these video recordings, I develop the layout in AnyRail.   Then export the layout to a file understandable by TrainPlayer (math behind the track as a spreadsheet), and export a pic of the layout.   Then import the layout math and pic into TrainPlayer, place trains on the track, get the trains moving.   Then, while TrainPlayer does its thing, I use MS Powerpoint to create a screen recording (no control over frame rate and such).   If I had a mic capturing the sound output from TrainPlayer, the recording would capture that as well (I just didn't bother with that this time).   I would like a higher frame rate, but of course the file would get larger, and the forum limits a post to 100MB, which is about 2min+ of these recordings at the set frame rate.

Ted S posted:

I love the design!  Does your software have the ability to create a 3D rendering, to illustrate the vertical separation between mainlines?  The only true "over & under" is the NS interchange on the right side, correct?  And you're gaining 7" of vertical separation in about 20 feet, right?

Thanks so much for sharing your excellent design and thought process.  Pretty soon we'll look forward to seeing pictures of the real thing!!

Thank you Ted!   AnyRail does a 3D rendering, but its not really that good, so I rarely use it, but sometimes.   The only real grade is as you observe, on the BNSF climing at the top and over the right side and across the long bridge to Cascade.

The grade climbs 9" in 24 feet (about 3%, the precise 3% would be 9" over 25').   I use the approximation of Woodland Scenics inclines, which is based on inches climbed in 8', or 96", which is close to 100 inches.   So Woodland Scenics is off a bit on the math, but then easier to use based on 8', 4', 2' etc, much more convenient and practical.

SantaFeJim posted:

Love It....  

 

That is just too cool.  I can't help but notice that it has attracted a good audience.  

Is the software smart enough to hide the train as it enters the tunnels?

 

Jim, TrainPlayer will recognize tunnels, check the recording I inserted at the top of this thread.   For a better recording, I would need to align the track section joints with the tunnel portals (which would mean revising the layout with flex track and creating joints under the tunnels - more work than I want at the moment).   Even if I do that work, still the cars disappear and reappear as a whole, "winking-in" and out of the layout, rather than a gradual transition.   Perhaps there is a way to break track in TrainPlayer advanced versions, I am just using the basic edition of the SW.   Too bad this effect is not better.   Even so, it is fun to be able to see trains run the layout.   

In TrainPlayer, you can run individual trains under control, throw switches, couple and uncouple, blow the horn/whistle, import loco specific sound files, and set trains to run automated routes.   

Tom Tee posted:

Consider thinking down the road.  The RR is built.   The mainline is up and running,  in a flat circle.

Then the creative juices start reflowing, "how about a twice around over under mainline".  Too late at that point, but not too late now.

Maybe consider revamping the basic R.O.W. to mix up the mainline.  Running mainline trains over and under with up and down grades adds considerable visual interest.  Especially with a dual main line.

In my experience, we all like to incorporate a variety  of available sidings for potential switching operations but activity frequently boils down to running trains.  

Working along the premise that when you cannot exceed the length and width, go up and down; I offer a suggestion:  As you construct the benchwork, allow an unencumbered structural provision to keep twelve inches clear directly under the platform to possibly add a subway system down the road.  Lionel  and MTH have some real nice subway trains.

Note black painted subway level.

Ted, you make good points.   Perhaps there is room to have the two mains change elevations and swap positions.   I started with the idea of a double-track main, I really like that.   But you make a valid point, perhaps giving up that design goal to have more vertical "play" would be worth it in the long run.  [somewhat more difficult construction - I have been trying to do an easy to build design.]   Perhaps I could have the 3rd/Inside branchlines climb or descend - I will think some about that idea.

"In my experience, we all like to incorporate a variety  of available sidings for potential switching operations but activity frequently boils down to running trains."   True for me!   Perhaps this layout will be different, with the operating plan, switching, a small yard, etc.

Subway - that is an idea.   I had considered that perhaps a future expansion would be some kind of under the table layout, as you suggest, but my thinking has not gone far down that path.   If I set the layout height at 48", then an under the table subway would be easy to view.   I am not a big fan of subways, however.

I had looked a bit at adding an elevated On30 layout (which I have done on a number of other plans), rather than something more below the layout.  Perhaps interchanging at Cascade.   I haven't found a good way to do this yet.

Thanks! - Ken

Some thinking about getting more elevation "play" into a basically flat layout (with some small elevations of mainlines, and the BNSF to Cascade grade).   A limitation is the viewing area in front, I don't want to block that clear view across the layout, so that rules-out a number of ideas.  And I need clearance to scoot under the tables to the access areas in the two corners (upper left, and under Wolf Creek). 

So I have this idea to get more elevation changes, without actually much change to the layout track plan.   I want construction to be simple on flat tables, not complex like Tom's pic above.     But, its no big deal to lay sheets of 1" thick foam, or 2" thick foam, and use Woodland Scenics inclines and risers, on top of a flat table of 2" foam 4x8 sheets.   So with 0" elevation as the lowest level at 42" actual height, I have the yard at 1" and tracks descend to the towns in both directions.   The double-track mains climb at 2% to 2" increase to 3" in height.   The BNSF to Cascade is unchanged, except starting at 1" and reaching its apex at 10".

So in front of the viewing area, the double-mains are at 3" above the table surface (45" from the floor), and the towns themselves are at 0" (42" from the floor).   An interesting view, so the eyes have things to look at level, below, and above to the mountains.   And then across the room to the yard/engine service at 1" and the BNSF branch climbing to the right.  Anyway, what do you think?  Scenic detailing not yet done for the changes.

Also exploring the possibility of an On30 above the UP staging track/mountain.

Ken-Oscale posted:

SantaFeJim posted:

Love It....  

 

That is just too cool.  I can't help but notice that it has attracted a good audience.  

Is the software smart enough to hide the train as it enters the tunnels?

 

Jim, TrainPlayer will recognize tunnels, check the recording I inserted at the top of this thread.   For a better recording, I would need to align the track section joints with the tunnel portals (which would mean revising the layout with flex track and creating joints under the tunnels - more work than I want at the moment).   Even if I do that work, still the cars disappear and reappear as a whole, "winking-in" and out of the layout, rather than a gradual transition.   Perhaps there is a way to break track in TrainPlayer advanced versions, I am just using the basic edition of the SW.   Too bad this effect is not better.   Even so, it is fun to be able to see trains run the layout.   

In TrainPlayer, you can run individual trains under control, throw switches, couple and uncouple, blow the horn/whistle, import loco specific sound files, and set trains to run automated routes.   

Ken, I watched your with the “tunnel effect” and now I understand why you did not use that feature in your last video.  It really distracts from the overall viewing experience.

Having said that, I have another question.  Can you expand the viewing window to include the lower right hand corner of your layout?

FYI, this is quickly becoming my all time favorite thread on the OGR Forum.  Thank you and Keep up the great work.

Ken, I did some research after I posted my question and figured out that you exported the design for TrainPlayer and I found references to PowerPoint, but couldn’t tell if you used that or if TrainPlayer did the video directly.  I have an older version of PowerPoint that doesn’t have the capture option. I’m not sure if it’s worth upgrading just for that. Thanks for the information.

"In my experience, we all like to incorporate a variety  of available sidings for potential switching operations but activity frequently boils down to running trains. "

Very interesting. My experience has come to be just the opposite. The more varied and interesting I make switching operations the less absorbing I find looping trains to be. By now the only thing that loops on the Plywood Empire Route is the Royal Gorge because that is when I reminisce about riding  trains.

It truly is a matter of different strokes for different folks, isn't it?

Lew 

So, working on the idea of doing more at elevation:   a try at adding an On30 loop and route.   Yes, just a circle, for continuous running, but perhaps a back-and-forth could be worked out.   Bachmann On30.   I might think of this as an "operating accessory" that adds, motion, color, and more trains to see.   I am not yet convinced, but am interested.

I am thinking about this On30 idea, invest in an automation system, so the train backs out of the siding in the lower left, runs the circle twice, heads across the bridge and along the ridge, then back to the circle, around twice, and into the siding.   Press a button and the sequence starts, and then repeats after a delay interval.  Cool?

I was asked about a smaller version using Lionel FasTrack:  Less than 12 by 20:

A bit more work refining the On30 "operating accessory" on the left.   A back and forth run, with a short train staged on the siding, or perhaps two short trains taking turns, under automation.

I looked at using a "Y" rather than a circle at the lower left.   Not quite enough room for the "Y" legs, unfortunately.

It's a great looking plan, for sure!  Have you had any more thoughts on the building it will go in?

Just for fun, I thought to try this basic layout design/configuration in Z scale.  2' x 6'.  Using Rokuhan (Japan) track with integrated roadbed.

This track radius will run everything in Z, including the BigBoy and Challenger.   DCC is available in the locomotives!

Mark Boyce posted:

It's a great looking plan, for sure!  Have you had any more thoughts on the building it will go in?

Thanks Mark.   Still working on my health and retirement, so decision time is "on hold".  Unfortunately .   Well, retirement finances are fine, I wanted to last another year or two (I'm 62), but then my activity ability is not strong enough yet - getting better at a snail's pace.

I’m sorry to learn that, Ken!  Get yourself well.  Everyone has been telling me to take my knee replacement recovery slowly.  The older we get, the more we have to take care of ourselves.

Mark Boyce posted:

I’m sorry to learn that, Ken!  Get yourself well.  Everyone has been telling me to take my knee replacement recovery slowly.  The older we get, the more we have to take care of ourselves.

Yeah, I have heard that knee replacement is "not too bad", but then my sister and father-in-law had a time with it, long recovery.   If my sister can get well, I have promised her and her husband a trip out to Denver by rail, then ride the rails up the "front range" to the hot-springs resort town of Glenwood Springs.   A fantastic train ride!  Mountains, Colorado River.   Good motivation for her to get healed from the first knee, and then do the second.   Hoping she will be 100% by August of 2020.

That sounds like a great plan!  My wife has had both knees done.  Our surgeon says it takes a year for complete healing and strengthening.

Ken-Oscale posted:

I was asked about a smaller version using Lionel FasTrack:  Less than 12 by 20:

Ken, 

I have been following this thread, and love the thought of the FasTrack Route. 

do you happen to still have the plan and more importantly, list of required track?

thanks,

Steve

I liked this plan and followed its development closely.  When Ken published his 14' x 24' plan it intrigued me as being a candidate for the redesign of my current layout.  But my room is 24' x 28'.  How often does one have more space than what's required? 

I feel that the best use of the 4 feet is to increase the length of the yard.  An obvious use of the 4 feet.  I tried to enter Ken design into SCARM.  He used sectional track plus a couple pf pieces of flex.  I don't know what his max diameter curves were, but his minimum curve is O72.  All mainline switches were #5s.  He did have one O72/O54 curved switch which I eliminated.  My mainlines are O99/O108 the rest is O81 and O72.

If I adopt this plan, I will have to reflect this right to left.  I have my access door 6 feet from the lower right.

Jan

Ken

  Great track plan!

Looking forward to updates 

Al

Steve asked about the FasTrack version above.  Here is the AnyRail file.

Download the free trial version of AnyRail.  Download this AnyRail file, open it.  Use "Info" to see the list of track components.

are you going to use dcs or conventional or both.  Which track do you like best and why?  Thanks

I don't know how plausible this would be, but what if, to get some more over/under action, you extended the BNSF extension in front of the doorway (using a removable bridge), and then had it go down and reconnect just after the roundhouse turn? This would require going with the bathroom-less option and probably losing Deer Lodge and the On30. Basically, it's turning the BNSF Connection into the third main and making Three Forks the out-and-return switching short line. Just a suggestion. And please post any progress you've made over the quarantine!

Restroom? Isn't this near the house? I see you moved it to the corner, that is better. But why a restroom? That's a lot of plumbing and expense.

Nice plan Ken.

Took another look at the Atlas-O plan.  Updated minor issues, added elevation markers, clarified, and measure the engine house stalls (24") and the sidings at Cascade.   Still looks good to my eyes, no big issues to change or additions.

@Jan posted:

I liked this plan and followed its development closely.  When Ken published his 14' x 24' plan it intrigued me as being a candidate for the redesign of my current layout.  But my room is 24' x 28'.  How often does one have more space than what's required? 

I feel that the best use of the 4 feet is to increase the length of the yard.  An obvious use of the 4 feet.  I tried to enter Ken design into SCARM.  He used sectional track plus a couple pf pieces of flex.  I don't know what his max diameter curves were, but his minimum curve is O72.  All mainline switches were #5s.  He did have one O72/O54 curved switch which I eliminated.  My mainlines are O99/O108 the rest is O81 and O72.

If I adopt this plan, I will have to reflect this right to left.  I have my access door 6 feet from the lower right.

Jan

Jan, what grade did you end up with on the purple line, climbing from the yard to cross over the yellow line?  Looks steep - 6%?

So glad you followed this design thread, and were inspired to work up your own version for your space!  A huge compliment, coming from you, I have admired your work, and learned from your discussions and comments!😎

@GregHess posted:

are you going to use dcs or conventional or both.  Which track do you like best and why?  Thanks

TMCC/Legacy (already own), with DCS (already own), and conventional control option (of course!).  All good!

@Will posted:

Restroom? Isn't this near the house? I see you moved it to the corner, that is better. But why a restroom? That's a lot of plumbing and expense.

Actually, no longer need the restroom option.  We added another restroom/changing room with shower, for access to the pool and hot-tub, a short distance away from this proposed location (about 24'), access is paved, no steps.   But its a neat design element, and couldn't bear to just wipe it out, so it still shows as an option.   Good news for me!

Does your software auto implement different track for the layout or do you have to redo the plan?  I cant afford atlas and do not want fast track either.  I would love to see in gargraves and or scaletrax.

@GregHess posted:

Does your software auto implement different track for the layout or do you have to redo the plan?  I cant afford atlas and do not want fast track either.  I would love to see in gargraves and or scaletrax.

Ah, no, that would be an awesome addition to the SW!  But with different vendors offering different diameter curves, and the turnouts are shaped differently between manufacturers, I can see why that idea is not implemented.

@BurkusCircus52 posted:

I don't know how plausible this would be, but what if, to get some more over/under action, you extended the BNSF extension in front of the doorway (using a removable bridge), and then had it go down and reconnect just after the roundhouse turn? This would require going with the bathroom-less option and probably losing Deer Lodge and the On30. Basically, it's turning the BNSF Connection into the third main and making Three Forks the out-and-return switching short line. Just a suggestion. And please post any progress you've made over the quarantine!

Burkus, I guess I don't follow, sorry.  But thanks for the suggestion, and please feel free to clarify!

I could see extending the elevated BNSF to Great Falls, across the doorway at the bottom, with a long lift-out, and have it swing in the lower-left corner at Silver Bow to connect to the trackage now the UP junction, and so back to the outside mainline.  This would not be a completely independent loop, there would be shared trackage between the turnouts on the left (the one in the clear space between tunnels (with a stream), and the upper left turnout that starts the BNSF elevated line.  That could be worthwhile:  redoing Silver Bow to make room for the new mainline to pass through.  Usage would require that the door be locked, but that is OK; others do that sort of thing.

Deleting the bathroom option (no longer needed for me), would allow me more flexibility to retain Silver Bow in some form.

Exploring the idea of a connection across the front door (lift out bridge) to Silver Bow.  O72 minimum.  About 3% from Cascade siding at 7" down to mainline connection at 2".   Modern era: Montana Rail Link, BNSF, UP (and pretend to NS).  Ancient:  Milwaukee Road and NP.

I have thought about double-tracking the bridge across the door, that might be very useful, but I don't want to crowd the viewing area by about 6".

With all these great changes could you repost your Anyrail file?

Greg, I haven't made any changes to the 12x20 FasTrack version.

After a long delay, and much thought:  I have found a 15x26 garage plan with loft that I would like to build, but have been unable to find a contractor.  The site is a bit complex with a buried power line to the house to be relocated, and a tree to be removed.  So thinking that the complexity might be what is dissuading contractors (?), I thought perhaps an easier 14'x24' garage without a loft might be an easier build, no tree issues, but still the power line relocate.

So I am looking at this 14'x24' plan right now on a break.  Back to work today.  I recently looked at YouTube videos of a layout along these lines, and liked watching the trains running, and navigating the sweeping curves.

Comments appreciated!

Five hidden staging tracks are beneath the yard, 6" below.

Ken, my favorite track plan is the folded dog bone which is what you have above. That is because when a train leaves a scene it comes back from the direction it left in. I really like the track plan you posted above. My one concern would be if there is a derailment it would probably in the 5th staging yard track on the lower level furthest away from the layout edge and the other 4 tracks will be full of trains. Do you have a plan to have access to the lower staging yard tracks?

Phil, I agree. With this version, I have also added return loops, so a train can run both mains on the way out, hit the return loop, and then run both mains on the way back, for a nice long run, returning in the opposite direction.

Derailments in the worst location:  On the second diagram, the white area is open beneath the yard/turntable, and the hidden staging is 6" below.  So I can get under there on a low rolling chair, and access.  Not ideal, but doable and not too uncomfortable.

At the other end, the hidden staging is accessible from the access area in the upper left, and will be open, but not so easy with the outside main kind of in the way at an in-between height as it is climbing at that point.   

Thanks! -Ken

Phil, I also am planning to have a removable rock face, or wall, in the front of the hidden staging, which can be removed for reach access to the staging.

Hard to see, its directly above the MRL/BNSF logos.

Ken, that sounds great. You definitively got those issues covered. Good luck with your layout.

Great!  Good chat, Phil.

Here is the fellow that inspired my redo/new approach:  RBP Trains:  He is having WAY too much fun!!

Here, with some people for scale:

Wow!  It's been a year since I looked at this thread.

Ken, the grade of the Cascade line is 4.7%.  That'll mean short trains and/or helpers like at the Cumbers.NM.  There is about 7" of clearance where the grade crosses the Deer Lodge/Three Forks.  I got a great deal on a couple AtlasO Deck Girder bridges and thought of how I could incorporate them into your design. As you, I envisioned this design as a of a major Class 1 railroad and a short line serving mining and timber industries.  I moved the incline to be inside the UP mainlines as as not to foul the main line.

Jan

PS.  Typo, my room is 14' x 28'.

Jan, good to hear from you!  If you have a track plan you could share, that would be cool to see!

In this next, I am experimenting with On30.  I am trying an On30 loop around the town, running in the street, with structures around the hill.  And in the upper left, a decoration On30 alignment hosting a static loco and a couple cars.

Track diameter indications, and a little more scenery work: stream and tunnel portals and taller hill.

Control systems: Legacy + LionChief.

In general, I think that the 6" track centerline separation of FasTrack is TOO large, preferring the 4.5" of Atlas-O.  But here, I am taking advantage of the 6" with a track height difference of about 6" in elevation, so there is more room for a scenery edge between the heights.  Still, the 6" separation in the yard is too much.  I might customize the O72 FasTrack turnouts and remove the 1-3/8" separators between turnouts to compress it a bit, for the better visuals.

Just to see, removed the 1-3/8" sections between O72s in the yard.  Not a lot of difference, not sure its worth it.  But for now, I will plan on it, it also gives a better separation between the inner mainline runs and the yard.

I thought to re-arrange the industry spurs at the bottom.  The idea is to allow switching of the power plant and the cattle pen & milk can without fouling the mainline.  Switching can use the turnout and lead of each other's approach for backing up when switching the opposite industry.

The Morton Salt tower is a bit better, using the turnout off the Yard Lead track as length for backups.  Maybe not enough, but better than before.

Unfinished, but sketching in some On30 ideas.  Thinking that after mostly finishing the O-gauge, and I want something new to add to the layout, I may want to add an elevated On30 line to connect the town hill with the ridge in the upper left.  Something different to do, and it would look kind of cool, but not sure how to justify it logically.  But, anyway...

By extending the hill at Three Forks into a ridge, a separation occurs that makes a new locale, which I have named Cascade.  So that makes four "places" in the layout:  Missoula Yard, Missoula station on the left, Cascade industry spurs, Three Forks town around the hill.  That is a good thing, adding to the feeling that the railroad is connecting different places or locales together, and giving the visitor/audience a sense of more things/places to absorb and enjoy.

I was curious to see how it would look if the ridge from Three Forks extended to cross the mainlines.  Not sure.

Some decorating with trees of various sizes and types.  I ballasted the section of double-track that is at the same height.  The inside main is level at 6" everywhere, and the outside main rises and sinks between 0" around the turntable, and 6" around the hill at Three Forks.

And ballasted the yard.

I covered the 1/4 circle O84 alignment in the upper right beneath the area for a couple of houses, at 8" in elevation above.  The track is accessible from below.

10' Garage door at the right, facing the driveway and street.  Can be opened for open houses and bringing in materials.

There are a couple of challenges for reach/access that I have not resolved, deep in the Cascade area for one.

Checking how 4x8 sheets of plywood or foam would cover the layout efficiently.  7 sheets plus some pieces:

A side-by-side comparison of two 14'x 24' concepts:

(A)  Design goal: maximizing curvature: O90/O99 minimum mainline diameters with #5 turnouts, O72 in the branchlines, with Atlas-O track.

(B)  Design Goal: maximize mainline run length with sweeping curves, O72/O84 minimum mainline diameters, with O72 turnouts, using Lionel FasTrack.

Looks like (A) may have more human space. (A) has nicely defined towns for switching.

(B) Has the hidden five-track staging/storage yard under the visible yard. (B) has a better implementation of an On30 railroad.  (B) yard tracks are slightly longer and straight.  (B) is a better fit for a conventional garage space, with the overhead door opening into the human access area.

Both have an entryway space for visitors.

Added a long custom steel lift-out bridge with Atlas-O track, as a cut-off, connecting the outside line on the lower, with the inside line of the upper right.  The layout currently has one long passing track on the inside main at the left, which is the yard lead at the bottom running past the station and yard ladder to the inside main at the top.  This bridge may add some additional operational variations.  It does add a loop route:  starting at the station on the yard lead/bypass/arrival track, heading down;  take the crossover to the outside main; across the steel bridge; onto the inner main and around to the yard bypass/lead to the station.

Added another tunnel at the bottom.  Might look good, and might support the possible On30 connection.

Looks like the On30 might be able to make the grade to cross the mainline O at Cascade. 

I have the On30 roughed-in, without bridges and trestles and some structures.  The O-gauge grade is 2%.  The On30 had a grade of 5% on the approach to cross over at Cascade, from the loop at Three Forks.

I will do a test to ensure that the Bachmann On30 steam locos can make 5% with a few cars.  The minimum radius on the On30 is about 19.5", or 39" diameter, which is comfortable for On30 that can do 15" radius.

I am considering lengthening the garage by two feet, and adding a door on the other side.  On the site for the structure, there is a 10' easement to the property line, between the garage and a privacy fence with the friendly neighbors.  I need to be able to access this area to keep it clean, and to store kayaks and perhaps add a small shed for train stuff.

This does make the human space more pleasant!

UPDATE:  Well, construction is well underway, completion expected in a few weeks.

The building is my studio/train room.  I went with 15x25 OD.  It works as a detached garage for after I am gone, adding value to the property.   The attic loft is high enough to stand in, so lots of accessible storage there, very happy about that!

My boss asked me to stay on at the University through July 2022, so that is my target retirement date, at 65 years.  I can go earlier, if things change.

My health is much better, I had a stent put in one larger artery five weeks ago, which was 80% clogged, and the difference is amazing!  I can move and do things now, so the future for trains and etc. looks better.  I am working out in cardiac rehab, loving it!

Rather than one large layout occupying the entire space, I am thinking about this.  O layouts and an S layout, plus room for my computer desk.   Not sure I should attempt a really large layout, anyway, this looks more manageable.

Will have a mini-fridge, and maybe a microwave.  Bathroom is close by, we put one in a few years ago in the basement close to the pool, as a changing room with two-person shower.  About 20 steps away.

The large O layout is O72/O60 diameters, FasTrack command control + LionChief, with train staging tracks under the mountain.  On30 narrow gauge elevated.  The smaller layouts will be on wheels, perhaps lift-able to the ceiling (I have a suspended 6x12 O layout in the garage, not operating.)  Ceiling is just short of 9 feet, feels like a nice space inside.

Thanks everyone, I will keep you updated!

Ken I am happy the stent was a success! That's great news. Looks like a well planned and executed structure.

Your layout designs are top-notch, so whatever you do I'm confident you will enjoy it.

Thanks Jack, very much appreciated!  I am surly looking forward to moving in (which will be a ton of work itself!)

The smaller layouts imply you are more interested in sitting and watching trains and interacting with them.    Everyone has their own way to enjoy the hobby.    I prefer more interaction, making up and breaking up trains, and switching industries.     So I would look to the large layout, but from my experience, I would reduce the mainline to single track with passing sidings - double track takes up a lot of real estate in O.     Again that would require more interaction just to  run more than one train.

It might be a good idea to ask yourself, when you get the layout to the point of trains running - probably scenicked and all, what are  you going to do?    Are you just going to quit, and sit and watch stuff, or if you like building tear it all down and start another one with a different theme.

Hi Jim.

Fair question, I appreciate the thought.  I have been posting layout designs on this forum for quite a few years, and this thread dates back to 2019.  So I have thought much about what is the "ideal" layout for me.

Short answer is:  all or any of them!  I like so many features of many layouts, its hard to be sure what is the best for me, until I get to run the actual layout for an extended time.  A few things that are consistent:  I like to run trains.  Switching is OK, but not a priority.  I like to have multiple trains available on the layout so I can rotate which ones are running.  I also like new ideas and new layouts.  So having multiple layouts in the room will keep up the excitement and pleasure for me.  Obviously, smaller layouts are easier to complete, and know that I am haphazard about building layouts - I have many interests and activities that draw my time.

I also like single track roads with sidings, that is very cool to have a train wait for another to pass.  But I weigh that against the pleasure of having multiple trains running while I train watch.  I would love a long single-track scenic layout with three or four towns, but I am not great at scenery, and I don't think I could pull off a lot of scenery that I would be satisfied with.  One of my favorite Clint Eastwood quotes from one of his movies is: "A man's got to know his limitations."

Hmm, having a single track line perhaps in your dogbone configuration with a passing siding or 2 would be interesting.    To satisfy your interest for multiple trains, make a double ended yard along the back wall, call it what you will but use it for staging trains.    With 4 tracks you could have 4 trains ready to go, two in each direction.   Run one, than another, move one to a siding and then run another in the opposite direction etc.    These do not have to be hidden just because they are staging.    You could make the all open and scenic it as a yard.     Or if you are all passenger service, scenic it as a large double ended passenger terminal.     

This idea would also work with the double track main.

Jim, you are clear that you like more interaction with trains, and the single-track with passing sidings clearly requires this, unless layout automation is implemented.

Can you show us your layout?  Perhaps a diagram of your layout - so we can see and learn from you about your approach.  That would be very interesting to me.  Perhaps I can be persuaded to refine my ideas, lots of time for design changes before I lay down my first rails.  Or if not that, perhaps a diagram of someone else's design that you admire??

Here is a design that I did a few years back for a client, which I think, is closer to your vision.  Double-track rather than single track, but otherwise, lots of switching, multiple towns, a huge yard, lots of interaction, but one can still sit back and watch four or more trains run while you enjoy a cold one.  And the elevated line IS single-track with passing sidings.  What do you think?

I don't have that kind of room, obviously, and perhaps not the skills and time to pull off something like this.

Great Software! The animated trains are terrific! What is the name of that software?

I'm a SCARM user primarily.

L

I thought to add an update: the Train Studio has been complete for a while now, and I have most of my trains moved in.  Its 15x25 O.D. so subtract 8" for interior dimensions. Layouts are not far along yet:  I have O, S, and N layouts to fit if I can.  Interior look from the front:

I have my plan "finished" for the S layout, about 5x12.  But still considering ideas for the O layout.  I am working on this plan now with Atlas-O:

Looks great Ken! Like the layout.

Great space, Ken. I think you might miss not having a good size yard to store trains on and would vote for the initial design. Perhaps just an O and S layout rather than three just to keep some open space - maybe an old-fashioned pinball game, too ! I am also a fan of watching multiple trains run and interact on double mains and, with command features like Legacy and the ability to set constant speeds, you can keep multiple trains running for a very long time w/o any concern.

I know you said you had a loft for storage, but you might also want to consider some Glen Snyder wall shelving for at least some storage and display of engines and rolling stock. 

@Ken-Oscale posted:

No Sound

...

I was playing around yesterday, and came up with this design.   I have been "approved" to add a 12x20 or 12x24 train building structure adjacent to our home and parking apron.  [perhaps in a couple years post retirement.]   For fun I came up with this design to see what could go.

• Wide curves:  O90 minimum curves, #5 mainline turnouts
• Mostly sectional, two lengths of flex
• My wants: a staging track, yard, turntable, double-track main, some industry switching
• Good access and reach so I would enjoy working on the layout, and more likely to make progress rather than put-off because of hassle
• A front viewing area for casual viewers and kids (everyone seems to want to "see" the layout, even if for only a view minutes while conversation ranges)
• Restroom included
• Will be heated and cooled (window air, electric faux fireplace), North Georgia
• Side barn-door delete, front door only

Comments, suggestions, criticisms most welcome!

...

Nice design. What software did you use for the design/animation?

With trees and a bit of shaping.

Matt, I am mostly using AnyRail for the design, which then interfaces with an export to TrainPlayer for the animation.

Congrats on getting the studio built! Your layout designs here and in the book were my inspiration to dive headlong back into trains!

Maybe I will end up with something along these lines.  The "N" gauge might need to be beneath the "S" gauge:  terribly crowded.  "Z" gauge is in a big pull-out drawer beneath the top of the desk.

I really like the ability to throw my turnouts using TMCC/Legacy, that works well enough and is convenient and saves wiring:  I am doing that with the S layout now.  The new Legacy 3 integration bridge will allow me to run my LionChief locos from the handheld, that is a nice advance!  I sure wish Lionel would offer a #4 or #5 turnout with 4.5" center-rail spacing in O FasTrack.

I will need to test this idea with the Atlas-O, so I will set up a test section, with under-table switch machines (Fastrack has those integrated in the roadbed) with a TMCC interface, to see how much hassle and expense is involved.  Will set up a #5 cross-over and try the curved turnout as well.  All before I commit to the layout.

The "Z" gauge drawer is nearly the size of the desk surface: a double-track oval with a few spurs.