A Three-Train/Three-Loop Lionel FasTrack Layout on Two 4x8s, O36 Minimum

Decorating with some trees:

Terrain fine-tuning, ballast, and more trees:

This is a link to an earlier version of this layout.  This newest thread version is a bit more precise and slightly better.  But both are good enough to build. 

Earlier version:

Newest version:  this one has better cross-overs in the upper right loop, more gentle curves with O72.  Better graphics.  A small yard.

You are an artist sir. Would you share the track list for this latest? I’m completely revamping my old layout with this as inspiration but I want to keep my Ross track and switches. The list would help me greatly in converting the Fasttrack. 

I too would like to see a fastrack list if possible. Love your work

Comparing the older and newer versions of the layout design, the major change that enables other positive changes, is the connection on the LEFT inside loop that makes a return loop.   In the newer version, the connection goes through and uses a portion of the RIGHT inner loop. 

Earlier, I resisted this alignment, as it requires that a perimeter running train interfere with a train on the inner RIGHT loop in order to run the return loop connection around the LEFT inner loop.  That is a negative aspect:  running the return loop connection involves the outside perimeter AND BOTH the RIGHT and LEFT inner loops.

So why make the reverse loop connection in this "all-consuming" alignment?  The first advantage is that the RIGHT inner loop is longer (better with a slightly longer run).  And second, the added length allows the cross-overs to be constructed with much smoother O72 curves and the O72 'Y', a big plus.  And third, the revised RIGHT inner loop now has better opportunities for spur alignments, including even a small yard.   Fourth, I was able to make the FasTrack section joints at a closer tolerance - important as FasTrack has zero flexibility with compression due to its rigid plastic roadbed, and joints can be stretched only a small amount.  I started the new version with a complete restart from zero, to make sure I had all the joints and alignments as perfect as possible.

So its a tradeoff: a convoluted return loop run involving (and perhaps stopping) trains on both inner loops  VS  the advantages just mentioned.  Which way do you think is a better way to make the reverse loop connection?

After discussions with the editor at OGR magazine, I should not publish a labeled track diagram or a list of track sections needed for layouts that might appear in the magazine.   Subscribers want original work in the magazine, not a re-publication of layout plans published openly and freely on the forum.   Sorry to disappoint, but I understand the reasoning.

I am working on a concept that builds this layout from a single 4x8 sheet, to the "L" pictured above, and then to a "U" shape not previously shown, in three stages.  I have the layout designed, now I have to create the illustrations in three phases, and write the article.

The article will be longer than I usually do for the magazine.   If it is not suitable for publication, I will post all materials here on the forum.  Best I can do for now.

That’s fantastic!  When will your article be published?  

@The Southerner posted:

That’s fantastic!  When will your article be published?  

The article has not yet been written, let alone submitted for consideration.  Realistically, 3 months at the very earliest, 4 or 5 months more realistically:  IF accepted for publication.  We shall see.

I am now thinking the final 'U' shaped layout should be built in 4 phases rather than 3.  Building in stages adds additional "wrinkles" and complexity to the design process, but not the final design itself, nor will it make construction more complex.

Ken,

Your original version of this was my inspiration to go and buy a ton of track pieces.... Still need to find yet more 1 3/8 track pieces, and still some switches. Happy to see there are more O-36 switches in the latest rendition, as I already have a few of those. I do plan on building a U layout as you had mentioned you had a plan for that aspect as well. Cant wait to see the outcome of it once it comes to fruition.

@Ken-Oscale posted:

After discussions with the editor at OGR magazine, I should not publish a labeled track diagram or a list of track sections needed for layouts that might appear in the magazine.   Subscribers want original work in the magazine, not a re-publication of layout plans published openly and freely on the forum.   Sorry to disappoint, but I understand the reasoning.

I am working on a concept that builds this layout from a single 4x8 sheet, to the "L" pictured above, and then to a "U" shape not previously shown, in three stages.  I have the layout designed, now I have to create the illustrations in three phases, and write the article.

The article will be longer than I usually do for the magazine.   If it is not suitable for publication, I will post all materials here on the forum.  Best I can do for now.

Hi Ken -- was this ever published? The 3 phase plan would be perfect for my space. Thank you.

@Ken-Oscale Following up on this as well. Getting back into O-Gauge and I am going to plan/build one of your great designs over the next few years with my son. Your 12x8 L and U shape FasTrack layouts you have posted here are both great options and I could see starting the process on a 4x8 and then expanding over time to add the additional pieces and expand the layout, just as you have mentioned about the phasing in your last post. Just wondering if you were able to publish that article, or if not, if you can share your phased approach here. If it's published, then all the more reason for me to become a subscriber.

Thanks!

@Ken-Oscale Was really interested (for the future) the layout in this thread. Are you still planning an article on this one for the magazine?

Mister Ken, I am amazed by your visions & creativity, ironically my talents lie in making things happen, you design it, I can build it....  That being said, really interested in a couple of your designs (this one in particular).  Count me in as wanting to know the status of your article & if this layout is available.

Thanks much

Ric