New Atlas-O extended O54 version. O60/O54 revision (plus other features) to the 12x12 Ideal Layout, Re-Imagined Plan

Wow! That's a lot of action in a 12' x 12' space.

George

Another masterpiece, Ken

I was interested to see if I could make two improvements:  1)  An outside loop of minimum O60 Fastrack, to accomodate O54 locomotives and equipment.  2)  To remove all O36 (and the O42-compound).  

This is how it turnout out:  The main drawback is the choke-point in the aisle of 20".  But the operator space was enlarged, and the yard tracks lengthened a small amount.

I saw an opportunity for another improvement:  I pulled the passing track around toward the bridge, and moved the yard inside.  I was able to make the approach to the yard from the right, all O60, and the turnouts are O60, and the yard curvature is O60, so O54 locos can reach into the yard.

Switching the yard looks like fun, the yard tracks are longer, the long passing track around the yard allows one to park a train and take it apart, and drill cuts down into the yard.   There is a bit of a yard lead for switching.  And there is even a wye track located conveniently close to the yard lead!   The operator can get to both ends of a train on the passing track.  Pretty good!

The "operator well" is enlarged again, comfortable for two, perhaps three operators.  The "newer" 3rd continuous loop is now a good bit bigger.  The mainline route reverse-loop to reverse-loop is now a good bit longer, and more interesting to see trains run past the yard.

All other features previously mentioned are preserved.  I will probably add one more industry turnout and spur in the upper right loop.

"Switching the yard looks like fun, the yard tracks are longer, the long passing track around the yard allows one to park a train and take it apart, and drill cuts down into the yard.   There is a bit of a yard lead for switching.  And there is even a wye track located conveniently close to the yard lead! "

Just noticed how you have that arranged, including the wye. That looks like fun! You can use the wye as a run-around. Wow, the possibilities!

George

After revising the top reverse loop with more industry and Lionel's Gravel Run Quarry train set.

Overall, substantial improvements and enhancements to the "Re-Imagined" Plan!

Thanks for posting this.  While it doesn't exactly fit my space (what does?), it gives me some ideas for configuration for revising my setup.

You are welcome! 

If you or anyone else sees an opportunity to add more improvements to this plan, I am interested!

Ken

It be nice if the yard was double-tracked, so that you could still run the outer loop with the reverse loops. Might be convenient when the bridge is off to still be able to run all three trains.

Good idea Burkus, I had not thought of that!  I did realize that using the yard precludes the outer reverse-loop to reverse-loop route. 

I have thought through the idea, and it looks like it can work.   Stay tuned, I will share how it works out.  

Here is a solution.  I am pausing to think, the trade-off I am not happy with, is the access to the yard from the O60 outside route.

@Ken-Oscale posted:

After revising the top reverse loop with more industry and Lionel's Gravel Run Quarry train set.

Overall, substantial improvements and enhancements to the "Re-Imagined" Plan!

 

Hi Ken,

How are you planning to address the upper level elevation change by the cattle pen? It looks like the spur track is pretty close to the lower level loop. Would that need to have a retaining wall for the elevation change? I expect the elevation difference between the upper and lower level is 7" to 8" to allow for clearance.

George

@George S posted:

Hi Ken,

How are you planning to address the upper level elevation change by the cattle pen? It looks like the spur track is pretty close to the lower level loop. Would that need to have a retaining wall for the elevation change? I expect the elevation difference between the upper and lower level is 7" to 8" to allow for clearance.

George

Yes, I see that as well, but I will work on those kind of clearance issues after I figure out if I can restore O60 access to the yard.

A version that retains the O60 approach to the yard (now from the left, not the right) and all other previous features.   Lots of re-alignment, and some roadbed trimming to eliminate the 1-3/8 fitters.  Roughed-in, more clean-up needed.

Better alignment at the inner loop cutoff.  Still cleanup needed.

Nice track plan. I see the ability to have trains running independently on 3 loops? One elevated, one at the bottom of the plan going through the tunnel, and one all the way around the outside. Also ample opportunities for switching. Very well done. I assume some of the clean up will be those sidings fouling the main line.

What is the software you use?

After more clean-up.   There is now an all O60 return loop, allowing O54 trains to reverse direction (one way).  O54 trains can reach into the top three spurs off the upper loop.   If a couple cars are used to "reach in", O54 trains can pull a cut from the quarry spurs.

I have colored the O48 limited track sections with a light grey, to better highlight where O54 locos can go (everything brown):

Very nicely done!

Ken, you are a wizard at this stuff!

Peter

@Putnam Division posted:

Very nicely done!

Ken, you are a wizard at this stuff!

Peter

Thanks Peter, I appreciate that.   It takes a lot of time, but I really enjoy it.  Its fun for me to look for ways to optimize and perfect a design, and then see how it looks as a layout with terrain and structures.  -Ken

FasTrack is hard to work with, very time intensive trying to get everything to fit to small tolerances.  Systems with flex track are MUCH easier to design with.

This version includes a handful of small changes, the big change is the re-alignment of the route to the upper loop, this is now a moderate 3% all the way to 6" in elevation.

I was able to extend the O60 on the inside passing track through the tunnel (at the bottom).  Not sure how often this would be useful, but it would allow an operator to "stage" a train (O54) on this track.  

I forget that the part of the inside loop beneath the Suburban Station is O48 (and no way to extend it to O60).  So O54 equipment CANNOT complete the wye.  Too bad!!

Its tempting to see that the track plan is close to being all O60, but those two gray curving sections plus the section inside the tunnel by the station, cannot be increased without shrinking the 20" access pathway choke-point.  

It is clear that this track plan could go together easily using a track system with O54 curves, and widen the aisle-way some.  So I decided to throw some Atlas O54 in to allow the wye to be used by O54 locos.   Its not too bad to trim Fastrack to allow Atlas's conversion joiners to allow FasTrack to mate with Atlas track, I have done it twice with good results.   So here is how it might look with some Atlas O54 sections (minimal).

If the entire layout were to use Atlas track, everything but the elevated loop could go O54 comfortably, allowing the main-level loop-to-loop route to be all O54.  The elevated loop would be O45, accommodating O42 equipment.

After considering the trade-offs, I decided to look at making the wye O60 so O54 locos and cars can run the wye, with long enough legs (the bottom leg running all the way under the upper level at O60). This also allowed each yard track to extend 16+ inches.

I gave up the longer passing track around the yard, and the ability to run the O60 route around the yard while another train is circling the lower loop.  Since the upper loop is still O48 limited, I thought this would not be that useful(?)

No longer any Atlas O54 track, or custom-cut O60 curves.

An O54 train can reverse direction using the wye, with backup moves.

I was in Colorado last year, riding Amtrak from Glenwood Springs to Denver, and our train had to wait for a meet with the westbound Amtrak (running late).   We had to pull onto one leg of the wye to allow the other train to run past us, then we backed-up and and resumed our direction to Denver.

I brought forward the lower double-track tunnel portal.  I am thinking that the track in this area would be hard to reach, and the scenery hard to do, as it is lower than the elevated area.  A long reach and down would be hard.  

Now the reach to the track is from beneath the elevated area, accessed when one is in the lift-out access.

\

The lower left corner and upper right corners are the weak points for access/reach.

Your layouts are great they stretch the imagination of what can be done in a reasonable sized space. Could you possible share the anyrail file for the latest fastrack version of this layout. Thanks And RR

@Adirondack RR posted:

Your layouts are great they stretch the imagination of what can be done in a reasonable sized space. Could you possible share the anyrail file for the latest fastrack version of this layout. Thanks And RR

Thanks very much.  Sure, I will post the AnyRail file, later when I have a moment.

Here is the AnyRail file for the track plan, for anyone interested.

If the room door was in the upper left hand corner with 2 bridges, couldn’t the passageway to the far right be removed and all curves increase so 054 engines could travel the entire layout? Correct me if I’m wrong, I see most homes with doorways in a corner not middle of wall. I think this is an excellent layout that could be modified to “real life” available spare bedrooms. Just my opinion for what it’s worth.

If Fastrack is keeping you from an all-O54 plan, and the third loop, why not convert it to Atlas and have the outside O-54?

thanks for posting the anyrail file 

@Trainmstr posted:

If the room door was in the upper left hand corner with 2 bridges, couldn’t the passageway to the far right be removed and all curves increase so 054 engines could travel the entire layout? Correct me if I’m wrong, I see most homes with doorways in a corner not middle of wall. I think this is an excellent layout that could be modified to “real life” available spare bedrooms. Just my opinion for what it’s worth.

I agree, that would work well, allowing access into the center operating area, and also allow the curves to expand to O60.  But the drawback is that there would now be large areas of the layout that are inaccessible, or with reduced accessibility.

When the original 1947 plan was put forward, folks were expecting to have to crawl on top of layouts to access, and repair.  Not so good for most people, and scenery can't be well detailed if operators will be crawling on top.

Good idea, I will give it some more thought!

@BurkusCircus52 posted:

If Fastrack is keeping you from an all-O54 plan, and the third loop, why not convert it to Atlas and have the outside O-54?

Well the plan started as a revision to the 1947 Lionel plan, using Lionel's popular FasTrack.   And then it has evolved over many revisions to a much better layout.

So sure, it has occurred to me that a conversion to Atlas or Gargraves/Ross or maybe Scaletrax  would work well.   I have been tempted to do it, but not yet ready to commit to another major redesign until I was sure I had extracted all the good stuff from this concept.

What track system would you recommend for a redesign?

Anyone who would like to see a redesign with a track system that supports O54 curves, please click the LIKE below.

If there is enough interest, I will do it (perhaps 10 or more LIKEs).

If you want to recommend a particular system, add a reply with your suggestion and perhaps a "why".

Ken, as usual your layout design wizardry SUCKED ME INTO your design and i did mucho "finger tracing" for imagining how the trains would travel throughout this layout.

I like it so much that I ask permission to keep an image. I'd only pick at the choke point at the top of the layout at the back to back switches. Too bad that cannot allow two trains to pass each other.  Keep going!!

@redjimmy1955 posted:

Ken, as usual your layout design wizardry SUCKED ME INTO your design and i did mucho "finger tracing" for imagining how the trains would travel throughout this layout.

I like it so much that I ask permission to keep an image. I'd only pick at the choke point at the top of the layout at the back to back switches. Too bad that cannot allow two trains to pass each other.  Keep going!!

Thanks Jimmy!  I think I see what you are driving at, and there does not seem to be space to make it double-track through that with the O60 minimum.  But perhaps it will be possible with O54, I will keep that in mind.

So is a first O54 version, using Atlas-O.  Clean-up needed.  

Its O54 min everywhere, except for the elevated loop, which is O45, running O42 locos and equipment.

4 yard tracks rather than three.  Some decent length.

Nice two-train options on the lower (main) level.  Two trains can follow each other around the loops without using the reverse loops, or follow each other around the outside loop over the bridge.

After some clean-up, back to two spurs in the upper right loop:

Looks cool!  But still I don't like the 20" aisle-way.  I can make that larger, if I convert the inside passing track curve to the right of the yard ladder to O45 minimum.  Any opinions?  Is 20" doable for most folks? 

Access to the lower-left and upper-right is still a problem.   

A switcher working the yard can use the tunnel on the inside loop as a yard lead.  -Ken

I re-worked the yard for greater center rail spacing and O63 curves to aid in coupling on the curves.

Working on the yard, with larger diameter curves, again with the idea of better coupling of cars.   From the right, O99, O90, O81, O72.

Yard tracks are a little bit longer, the longest is 73 1/2 inches.

Regarding the aisle pinch point of 20":  I see that OSHA requires a minimum of 28 inches for an aisle approaching an exit.   Is 20" doable do you think?

I thought to add two more access hatches to solve (most) of the access problems.

Considering the outside two loop route (no reverse-loops, not across the bridge):  total length of this route is somewhere in the vicinity of 60' - which is enough for two 10' trains to follow each other with 20' of separation.

With a train on the elevated O45 loop, and another on the main-level route past the yard and running one leg of the wye in the tunnel, that is FOUR trains can run easily without (much) operator intervention!  This layout design certainly evolved far beyond Robert Sherman's vision in 1947, or my imaginings in first tackling a redesign in 2018.  Its been fun and satisfying.   And yes, I would like to build it, but its just beyond my capabilities this year.

Love to see the evolution of this plan Ken. One other operating option that could be nice is to let a train run from the top reverse loop up the hill to the 045 loop and back down. It would require adding a switch from the ground level loop to get back to the outer track to the top again.
I think the small industrial sidings may need to be sacrificed or at least modified to fit the extra switch to make the reverse work but it could be an interesting option.
A 12 X 12 plan that can handle 4 trains at once is a lot of action for the size of the layout.

Bob

@RSJB18 posted:

Love to see the evolution of this plan Ken. One other operating option that could be nice is to let a train run from the top reverse loop up the hill to the 045 loop and back down. It would require adding a switch from the ground level loop to get back to the outer track to the top again.
I think the small industrial sidings may need to be sacrificed or at least modified to fit the extra switch to make the reverse work but it could be an interesting option.
A 12 X 12 plan that can handle 4 trains at once is a lot of action for the size of the layout.

Bob

Good idea!  That route was "lost" with the addition that made the double-track to the bridge.

Here is a roughed-in try  for this idea:

Cleaner version of above:

Looks good Ken. And you created a run-around for the quarry too!

@RSJB18 posted:

Looks good Ken. And you created a run-around for the quarry too!

Right!  And this version adds back in a short lead for switching the quarry:

@RSJB18 posted:

Thanks again for the suggestion!!

Have you put any more thought into moving the doorway into the upper left corner and increasing the radii in the upper right? I acknowledge it would reduce the isleway but would better fit an existing bedroom.

@Trainmstr posted:

Have you put any more thought into moving the doorway into the upper left corner and increasing the radii in the upper right? I acknowledge it would reduce the isleway but would better fit an existing bedroom.

Trainmstr:  I assume you are referring to the FasTrack version?  The recent Atlas versions are all O54, on the main level, so no need to increase diameter.

The most recent FasTrack versions have a turnout located in the area (upper left corner), so I would have to look at earlier versions.  Looking over earlier versions, it looks like you would have to accept custom made curved bridges.  I might have to work on relocated one turnout. 

Rather than do any work blind, can you give me the measurements of where the door is from the upper left corner, and the width of the door?  I hope it swings-out, an door swinging-in would be a big problem.   Perhaps the door can be replaced with a sliding or folding door.  Can you comment please?

For the aisle with the current bridge (which would get narrower), I would probably fill-in the area with a wide river, maybe 4" below grade.

It would be a 30” door on the left wall that swings into the room parallel to the top of the layout as it presently exists. Doesn’t have to be fast rack, Gargreaves & Ross is fine

@Trainmstr posted:

It would be a 30” door on the left wall that swings into the room parallel to the top of the layout as it presently exists. Doesn’t have to be fast rack, Gargreaves & Ross is fine

Something along these lines then?  If not FasTrack, then this is the Atlas-O, replace with any other track system allowing O54 if you prefer.

Looks good!

I did some work on the upper level town:  I removed the operating accessories, thinking these are two far away to reach and view, and replaced them with the animated freight station and a warehouse.  I also added another spur.  And reworked the house and store section.

Here showing two options for entry into the operating space:  Corner, and Center.  The plan can be rotated and/or flipped to accommodate the room. 

The reverse curve track in the center of the elevated loop is now clear, its not doubling as a siding for industry.

I have been wondering for a few days, about the reliability of the Atlas-O curved turnout (O72&O54).  The above version shows one in use connecting to an O72 'Y'.   There have been suggestions that the Atlas-O double-slip switch turnout is not reliable, but I am not sure what I have heard about the curved turnout.   I could replace the curved turnout and 'Y' with two O54 turnouts, for a less "elegant" solution.

Does anyone have experience with an Atlas-O curved turnout (recent manufacture, perhaps within last 5 years)??  Thanks for any information!!

So I was running trains, and trying some switching on my little 4x10 layout, which emphasized what I already knew:  its pretty darn hard to couple on a curve!   I took a look to see if I could increase the diameter of the yard tracks.  With a couple of adjustments, I was able to go to O108, O99, O90, O81.   I think I may order some of these wide diameter tracks to see if coupling can be acheived, and under what circumstances.

About 73.5" on the longest yard spur.  The three in-most yard tracks all have straight sections of track before the curve, which will help with coupling a cut of cars on the straight, which may then extend across the curves to the end of the spur, and the coupling can be achieved on the straight sections.

More work in the yard:  I was able to add a small engine house (custom built, 18"long outside dimension) on a new spur.  And the longest yard track is now 75"+.   The center rail spacing in the yard is 4", which should be OK with the wider curves - not much overhang with O54-limited equipment at these yard diameters: O81, O90, O99, O108.

Its tight, but looks like Lionels operating coal loader can go in the engine house siding, if placed over an O54 curve.

Comparing the evolution of this layout plan.  I find it useful to look at how track plans have evolved, positive and negative:

Robert Sherman's 1947 design in 12x12.  This original design is open with lots of space for scenery.  I don't think that it uses the space well.  Even so, it IS an attractive and engaging design.  Access is a problem, requiring crawling on the layout for maintenance and derailments, meaning the scenery has to be rugged and removable, OR some type of over-layout scaffold used.  With the passing track, it can be a two-train layout.  O27 or O31 minimum.

My FasTrack design for Run 306 of OGR:  The trains are SCALE equipment, not compressed trains for O36, so the layout will seem bigger when running compressed equipment.  This layout can reasonably support three trains.  O42 everywhere (O48 & O42compound).

The most recent O60/O48 FasTrack version:  better than above, but with narrow access pinch-point.

The current Atlas-O version:  it is pretty dense with track, though there are good scenery elements and interest.  It can support four trains: one each on the elevated and inside loops, and two trains following each other around the main line (either the outer oval across the bridge, or the looping route (without using the reverse connections).  O56 on the main surface, O45 on the elevated loop.

Perhaps if the upper loop were deleted the plan would become more open and emphasize scenery a bit more.

I went back to the latest FasTrack version, and expanded the yard curves to O96, O84, and O72, the idea being to increase the ability to couple on the curves in the yard.  The longest yard track is 79.5".

Ken,

I always love watching how your layouts evolve. They are great and have given me so many ideas. 

By nature I am more more of a minimalist though I realize that the size of O scale often makes it difficult to have a lot of action, without dense track work. So I think it would be interesting to see what this plan would look like without the upper loop. It would free up space to move the mainline to the left a few inches and add some possibilities to the yard area. Maybe space for an engine service area - a couple tracks.
These are just thoughts I had.

Keep up the great work!

Carl, here is a look at the space without the elevated loop.  What to do with the open space?

@Ken-Oscale posted:

Carl, here is a look at the space without the elevated loop.  What to do with the open space?

Wow Ken, thanks.  And this changes things a lot.  Without that upper loop, it does open the space.  My thoughts - and you don’t need to redraw these ideas as they are just ideas - are that a small engine service area could be added with a 1 or 2 stall engine house.  This would move the engine house from where it is and open that track as another yard track.  Also, a small town could be placed more toward the wye on the left.  

This does change the operating possibilities change from pervious plans.  At the same time, for those who like to run trains more then switch, this opens a lot up.  Rolling hills and cuts would replace the tunnels that previously existed.  If this was the Midwest, a relatively flat terrain would be normal.  For access, a panel could be placed in the center, maybe under part of a town.

Again, just thoughts.

Keep up the great work.  Your plans provide so many ideas for people in this forum I am sure.

Thanks Carl!  Here, I shifted the layout over some as you suggested, which increased the pinch-point access to about 21".  Roughed-in.

Here is a 3D view of the Atlas-O, O54 w/elevated O45 version:

Just wondering for now:  would it be worthwhile to convert the upper level loop and long grade to reach it, to MTH Scaletrax?  With the lighter rail and wider tie spacing, the Scaletrax might look like a branchline, built to a lower standard than the heavy Atlas-O track?

Scaletrax does not have O45 or O42 turnouts, I would have to use O54 turnouts, and then flex to complete the loop at perhaps O44.  Confirmed this would fit in the current footprint for the upper loop.

Here it is with Scaletrax for the upper loop and long incline.

The above doesn't look much different with Scaletrax vs the Atlas-O for the elevated.

Here is a pic borrowed from superotrackdon on this interesting thread, that compares five track systems, and conveniently has Scaletrax and Atlas-O next to each other.

I think that the difference between the two is readily apparent, and makes a convincing case for heavy mainline (Atlas-O) vs light branchline trackage (Scaletrax).

@Ken-Oscale: I just found this thread but I'll watch with interest as I have a 12'9"x12'6" bedroom (corner entry) that I someday hope to make a layout in. I'm wondering how much "action" could be added if the lift-out bridge had double track. Had you considered that?

BTW, I'm now following your posts. You seem to be a Guru when it comes to layout plans!

@James in VA posted:

@Ken-Oscale: I just found this thread but I'll watch with interest as I have a 12'9"x12'6" bedroom (corner entry) that I someday hope to make a layout in. I'm wondering how much "action" could be added if the lift-out bridge had double track. Had you considered that?

BTW, I'm now following your posts. You seem to be a Guru when it comes to layout plans!

Hi James.   Because the upper loop is single-track, I am not seeing much that can be enhanced by making the lift-out bridge double-track.

I could double-track the upper-loop with O45 (affecting the industry tracks and etc.).   That might add something.  -Ken

@Ken-Oscale posted:

Hi James.   Because the upper loop is single-track, I am not seeing much that can be enhanced by making the lift-out bridge double-track.

I could double-track the upper-loop with O45 (affecting the industry tracks and etc.).   That might add something.  -Ken

Ken, many thanks for your reply! Perhaps a double-track lift-out bridge would be a square peg in a round hole considering the level of design maturity in your layout. As a starting point of a new layout design, how much flexibility (more action) do you believe is added if your access is double tracked? Even more complicated is the fact that I have a corner entry to work with. That seems to necessitate the lift-out bridge being at a 45 degree angle with the adjacent walls.

@Ken-Oscale posted:

Carl, here is a look at the space without the elevated loop.  What to do with the open space?

First Ken as usual, great job!  I love this plan!

Question: were the 3D views with the cloudy blue sky background generated with AnyRail?  If not, what software?  Very nice!

My suggestion is this... add back a couple of the lost industries inside the open space.  Freight station, seed & feed, etc.

Now... instead of a 3% climb to an upper level, why not go down 3% to hidden staging!?  I'm exploring this option on my own layout design.  If you hide the descending ramp track behind some scenery and put a reversing loop on the staging level like you did on the upper level of the original design, you no longer have to "fake" a connecting line.  Trains will disappear "off stage" and new ones will magically appear in their place.  New locos to be serviced, new freight loads for local industry, etc.

I'm not sure whether I'll incorporate hidden staging on my own layout because of the difficulties with building it, and a few concerns about steepness of the grade.  But for both hands-on operating and train watching for visitors, the ability for trains to appear and disappear without physically lifting them off and putting them in a box, is huge.  Please think about it!

@Ted S posted:

First Ken as usual, great job!  I love this plan!

Question: were the 3D views with the cloudy blue sky background generated with AnyRail?  If not, what software?  Very nice!

My suggestion is this... add back a couple of the lost industries inside the open space.  Freight station, seed & feed, etc.

Now... instead of a 3% climb to an upper level, why not go down 3% to hidden staging!?  I'm exploring this option on my own layout design.  If you hide the descending ramp track behind some scenery and put a reversing loop on the staging level like you did on the upper level of the original design, you no longer have to "fake" a connecting line.  Trains will disappear "off stage" and new ones will magically appear in their place.  New locos to be serviced, new freight loads for local industry, etc.

I'm not sure whether I'll incorporate hidden staging on my own layout because of the difficulties with building it, and a few concerns about steepness of the grade.  But for both hands-on operating and train watching for visitors, the ability for trains to appear and disappear without physically lifting them off and putting them in a box, is huge.  Please think about it!

Thanks Ted, yes the 3D was done with AnyRail, this one did turn out nice!

One could populate the "people-space" with more layout, but I prefer to have a comfortable space for two people to work in. 

I like your idea for hidden staging beneath the main layout section, but it would be hard to get to, build and service, as you mention.  The veritical access hatches would have to penetrate through the hidden staging level.   Maybe...   

To keep the elevated AND add hidden storage, the layout would need another run of a descending grade, probably also on the left, widening that area.   Maybe three storage tracks with a reverse loop.