Sectional Layout Design, 3 Variants: Atlas-O O54&O63; Atlas-O O72/O81; American Models S48/S54.

Pleasing looking layout.  Grades are steep on a curve, but depends on equipment and consists.  Modules that are 4 x 8 and 5 x 9, even 3 x 8 not very transportable.

I would respond that the modules are based on say 4x8 or 5x9 sheets.  But, the actual modules are 3x8 and then 5x5 for the curvebacks.  So more transportable that you might think.  The 3x8 modules will go around curves and up stairs OK.  The 5x5 sections I have not tried personally. 

The 5x5s are circular/curved corners, which can help a lot getting around obstructions.

Thanks for the discussion!

Ken,

If, as you say, the mainlines are using O-63 and O-54 curves, how can your end blobs be only 5 x 5?  Wouldn't they at least have to be 5.5 x 5.5 to handle the O-63 curve?  Maybe you should re-title the thread to "Design of a Modular O63 Layout."

Chuck

A Great Layout design once again Ken. Just thinking out-loud, How about 2’x4’ modules that you could bolt together? How big is this layout? Is the scale of the boxes Grids 4” ? Have a good day.

Modular for shows or modular for when you move? How often would they be taken apart and moved in other words? Smaller better for frequent moving. George mentioned 2 x 4s but I wouldn't use those for anything but a permanent layout to save money. Overkill structurally.

Sectional might be more appropriate term.  Modular implies interchangeability.

Brendan

@Brendan posted:

Sectional might be more appropriate term.  Modular implies interchangeability.

Brendan

Thanks, I agree.  Title changed.

@Seacoast posted:

A Great Layout design once again Ken. Just thinking out-loud, How about 2’x4’ modules that you could bolt together? How big is this layout? Is the scale of the boxes Grids 4” ? Have a good day.

Yes, the grid is 4".  Yes, could use smaller sections, but that increases the construction complexity.  I did not mention minimizing complexity of construction as a design goal.   If I put a great priority on transportability, then smaller sections would be better.

@PRR1950 posted:

Ken,

If, as you say, the mainlines are using O-63 and O-54 curves, how can your end blobs be only 5 x 5?  Wouldn't they at least have to be 5.5 x 5.5 to handle the O-63 curve?  Maybe you should re-title the thread to "Design of a Modular O63 Layout."

Chuck

Wow! Big mistake on my part, the blobs are actually 68" in diameter.  So consequently, they must be sectioned, I suppose two sections.  I will revise.  Thanks for pointing this out.   

I started with an idea in mind (O54), and then forgot to check to see if the evolution was still inside that idea, and I had expanded beyond it.

Thanks for the critique!   Revised, and highlighting the section boundaries.

Here, I tried to bring part of the track away from the rectangular walls, for the scenic effect:  the trains and track running through the scenery.

Perhaps a mountain & tunnel:

Very nice design and fantastic use of space while still leaving plenty of room for scenery.

@Will posted:

Modular for shows or modular for when you move? How often would they be taken apart and moved in other words? Smaller better for frequent moving. George mentioned 2 x 4s but I wouldn't use those for anything but a permanent layout to save money. Overkill structurally.

Hi Will, 2'x4' modules size, not 2"x4" grid framework Lumber.

A turntable barely fits

Better yard, with a short yard lead

Better yard complex: passing track and yard lead:

@Seacoast posted:

 

Hi Will, 2'x4' modules size, not 2"x4" grid framework Lumber.

 

Oops, my bad.

Experimenting with terrain in the turnback "blob" at the bottom:

Some more terrain and a draft try on the town:

Fitting in a the coal mine:

The layout ended up being 11'8" by 16'8"

This removable bridge  creates a connected loop route of O63 diameter.

This alternative connecting bridge creates a reversing route in one direction.

After ballasting and some terrain fill-in:  And added a connection to another road in the upper right corner.

Decorating with some trees:

The connecting lift-out steel bridge in this position allows the out-and-back operation, from the yard, heading out to switch the industries, and then cross the bridge and return to the yard heading in.

Here is a satisfyingly long and interesting out and back route from the yard, serving the main industries as trailing point moves.

• Starting at the yard throat at 1
• past the cross-over at 2 to reach and serve Morton Salt at 3
• passing the mine entrance at 4 and then taking the crossover at 5
• then continuing through 6 to take the steel lift-out bridge at 7
• then under the bridge at 8 and around to serve the power plant at 9
• then continuing past 10 and past the steel bridge switch at 11
• then take the crossover again in the opposite direction at 12 
• serve the mine at 13, and then around the curve at 14
• through the crossover straight, at 15, and then the yard throat return at 16.

Out-and-Back route from the yard serving industries as trailing-point moves.

This variation adds set outs (optional) at the connecting route in the upper right corner:

• Starting at the yard throat at 1 (left-hand running)
• past the cross-over at 2 to reach and serve Morton Salt at 3
• passing the mine entrance at 4 and then taking the crossover at 5 (now right-hand running)
• then continuing through 6 to take the steel lift-out bridge at 7 (left-hand running again)
• then under the bridge at 8 and around to serve the power plant at 9
• then continuing past 10 and optionally set out interchange cars at 10B
• past the steel bridge switch at 11
• then take the crossover again in the opposite direction at 12 (now right-hand running)
• serve the mine at 13, and then around the curve at 14
• through the crossover straight, at 15, and then the yard throat return at 16.

I thought it might be worthwhile to have two tracks at each industry, for switching full/empties.

I changed my mind and decided to go for a dramatic river and bridge scene:

And a 3D view:

The maximum grade on the curved turn-back loops is 2.9%.  I prefer 2%, but less than 4% is acceptable.  So 2.9% is a win.  Because the grades are entirely curved (O54 and O63) the grades will feel steeper in operation.  Its not a large layout, so 50 car trains are possible but not normal operations.  

Hi Ken, that is really nice, I like your design and the operational abilities.  A plan very well thought out with many possibilities.  What size room is that for?  Thanks for sharing.

@J. Motts posted:

Hi Ken, that is really nice, I like your design and the operational abilities.  A plan very well thought out with many possibilities.  What size room is that for?  Thanks for sharing.

Thanks J. Motts, I appreciate that.  The layout space is 11'8" wide, and 17' long, so would fit in a room with those dimensions or larger.

-Ken

A quick look at how big this would be expanded with O72/O81 curves:

Regarding the O54/O63 plan, the two parallel mains are actually long:  2 trains per main is easy, 3 trains possible, and even four trains per main can be done (assuming all trains are well speed matched) with 10 car trains.  For train watching, 2 trains per main (4 trains) would be pleasant and interesting.

I did a revision so that all mainline turnouts are now #5 or O72.  The cross-overs are #5.  I used some O54 in the yard and for industry trackage.

Once more refining and perfecting the yard and yard track center spacing:

There are just two O54 turnouts in the yard, and two more O54 turnouts serving industries.  There is one O72/O54 curved turnout at the yard throat.  The rest is O72, O72 'Y', and #5.  Both crossovers are #5 turnouts.

Reach and access are pretty good.  Most of the tracks are within a 30" reach. 

The three corners and the center of the curve-back loops are beyond that distance.  I use a step ladder and lean out resting my belly on the top step, to reach about 10" further, for a reasonable reach of 40"-42".  The curve-back loops are about 68" wide, for a reach of 34" to the center.

The yard has a switch lead passed the yard tower.  There is one passing track and yard run-around track.  Parallel track center spacing is 4.5" except in the yard, where it is 4.25".  Vertical clearance where tracks cross over one another is 6", or about 5.25" after subtracting for roadbed and rail height, and support structures for the bridges/trestles.

Correction, there are just three O54 turnouts in the yard, and two more O54 turnouts serving industries.  There is one O72/O54 curved turnout at the yard throat.  The rest is O72, O72 'Y', and #5.  Both crossovers are #5 turnouts.

Expanding to O72/O81 makes the curve-back loops about 89" across, for a reach of 45" to the center.  Maybe doable with my step-ladder.

An experiment:  I made the right-side passing-track crossover a pair of O54 turnouts with a 1-3/4" straight separator.  This adds a couple of inches in usable length to the passing-track, and a bit more than that on the length of the storage at the end of the passing track.  Since the yard throat is O54 anyway (O72/O54 curved, then a #5), I though perhaps this is not too bad a compromise.

I added a locomotive escape track, so a train can pull into the yard/passing track and the head-end loco can cut-off and escape back to the engine terminal.   Supports a 16" loco at present being cut-off.

The practical length of a train less loco is 88", to fit into the passing track used as an arrival and departure track.  Of course a train could be longer and fit into/broken across two yard spurs.

The mainline side of the passing track was about 93" long, so less than an 88"train+16"loco unfortunately, so one train of a passing pair must be smaller than the yard max. 

So instead I pushed the curved yard throat turnout 'around the curve' one O54 section length to get a 103.5"" long passing track on the mainline side.

There is a bit of an optical illusion where the track comes off the O72/O54 turnout by the Yard Tower, looking like an "S" curve.  There is no "S" curve, so I added the blue line, which is perfectly parallel to the wall and table edge.

Great work as always Ken.

@Ken-Oscale posted:

A quick look at how big this would be expanded with O72/O81 curves:

Ken, 

can we see entire layout with these 072/081 curves.

thanks.

@R.Cabrera posted:

Ken, 

can we see entire layout with these 072/081 curves.

thanks.

I'll work on it, perhaps this weekend.  -Ken

A first draft of O81/O72 version:  Max grade is 2.6%.  It has a big reach problem in the curve-back loops.

One more yard track compared to previous version.  Turnouts are O72 or #5.

Some ideas on access:

Another redo of the yard.  I created a longish passing track (purple) that also contains the yard throat and the yard switch lead, using all #5 turnouts.

Another yard version, this one with a loco escape track in yellow.  Longer yard spurs.

One more yard version, with two entrances to the turntable.

Ken

If you keep going, your're going to make me want to start all over again.  But, I won't. 

@Ken-Oscale posted:

One more yard version, with two entrances to the turntable.

Ken,

This design just keeps getting better IMHO. Can't wait to see more of the evolution!

Thanks for the encouragement gents!

Trying some terrain ideas (and ballasting):

More terrain work:

Hello Ken,

Your track plan is really coming together now!  I really like it.  

The only question I have is are there any locomotive servicing facilities being planned as well i.e. coal tower, ash pit, water tower etc? 

@Allegheny posted:

Hello Ken,

Your track plan is really coming together now!  I really like it.  

The only question I have is are there any locomotive servicing facilities being planned as well i.e. coal tower, ash pit, water tower etc? 

Yes, I just haven't added them yet!   Thanks!

Here is what I have been planning.  The ashpit can be emptied into the conveyor to a waiting hopper on the other turntable lead track.  The water tank could go a number of places, I may move it, and probably add additional tanks.  In this position, the water tank can service locos on both adjacent tracks.

@Ken-Oscale posted:

More terrain work:

Ken,

Just keeps getting better!!!

If reach was not an issue? What would you do in the areas you provided for access.
I personally use a Topside Creeper which would allow access with the current benchwork dimensions.

Looking forward to see your creativity.

RC.

@R.Cabrera posted:

Ken,

Just keeps getting better!!!

If reach was not an issue? What would you do in the areas you provided for access.
I personally use a Topside Creeper which would allow access with the current benchwork dimensions.

Looking forward to see your creativity.

RC.

Thanks so much RC!

As I mentioned before, this expanded O72/O81 plan has problems with reach and access.   I solved what I could, as you see.  What remains a problem is the large turn-back "blobs".   For this reason, I did my original plan as O54/O63 with much better access and reach.  Responding to requests, I have looked at this expanded version and its problems/limitations.

I like the Topside Creeper, and have thought about buying one many times.   I use a short step-ladder where I can step up one or two steps and the lean across the top step, supporting my weight with my stomach on the top step (yes, tiring), which gets me a 40" plus reach.   

The bottom blob is not as bad, with nearly 360 degree access, the center is out of reach.  The bottom blob is about 84" across, so only the very center is beyond a 40", and that may work with and extended stretch/reach for just a few minutes.

The top blob is the real problem, with the top right corner impossible.   It looks like something will have to be sacrificed in order to create an access hatch inside the circle.  Either the yard will have to be compressed, or the turntable has to go.

Here is a 2x2' access hatch in the upper right "blob", losing three yard track lengths and one turntable whisker.   Perhaps a superb craftsman can build three yard tracks across the hatch and have them connect at both end reliably.   I doubt that I can do it. 

So I put something interesting in the hatch, in this case Menard's Oak Point nuc plant.

Ken....I am really liking this design.....I am getting a 20x30 attic room in a year and have designed a similar sized layout for 072/081. My plan is all one 1 level.....my problem is that I can only think in 2 dimensions. I like the over/under aspect to bring more interest to the space. However, I am blanking on how I would do the curved trestles over the yard. Can you tell me what you envision there?

Peter

More terrain work.  I made an Oak Point plant complex, with a chain-link fence around the perimeter, helping to disguise the seam with the access hatch.   About ready to decorate with trees.

With some trees and the lift-out connecting bridge between the loops.

With the O54/O63 version (about the same scale) for comparison:

Maybe I like the lower section of the O54/O63 design.  Trying it:

Ken,

Couldn't you make the turntable drop down and use it as an access port?  Some folks have done this with great success.   In this manner you wouldn't have to loose any yard track.

@Allegheny posted:

Ken,

Couldn't you make the turntable drop down and use it as an access port?  Some folks have done this with great success.   In this manner you wouldn't have to loose any yard track.

Surprising idea!  How does one guarantee the alignment of all the whisker tracks, or do they drop down as well (not just the turntable).

This version has a run-around track as well as two approaches to the turntable.

This version has straight yard tracks (looks better), but a longer distance between yard tracks (5.5", looks worse for a yard):

The extended yard track can occasionally serve the nuc plant, when major equipment arrives by rail, during normal nuc plant refurbishment.  Maybe a flat car with a transformer load or with replacement piping would look right spotted there.

Ken,

What size turntable are you envisioning? Do you have a track and parts list you can share?

Thanks

RC.

@R.Cabrera posted:

Ken,

What size turntable are you envisioning? Do you have a track and parts list you can share?

Thanks

RC.

Both layouts use the Atlas-O 24" turntable, which can handle a wide range of O-gauge locos.

Additional clean-up:

I was interested in how this plan might look in S-scale.  Using American Models track, which looks good, is realistic, runs Flyer trains, and includes flextrack.   I went with S48/S54 diameter minimums (S40 or r20 is the "standard" for S).  11' x 15'6".

I did not want to go with smaller minimum diameters, so as to keep the grades in the curve-back loops at 3% or less.   And the widest turnouts are S54, matching the outer diameter min.

More ballasting and the power plant and Morton Salt spurs.

@Ken-Oscale posted:

Additional clean-up:

Ken, looks great!!! Does the design use Atlas sectional track or flex track or combination.

Can you share a parts list including structures etc.

This design is a perfect match for my space.

Thanks. RC.

@R.Cabrera posted:

Ken, looks great!!! Does the design use Atlas sectional track or flex track or combination.

Can you share a parts list including structures etc.

This design is a perfect match for my space.

Thanks. RC.

R.C., its a combination of sectional and flex.  The structures are mostly from Menards, with some Lionel, and houses from MTH.

I can post a copy of the AnyRail file for the track, and you can look at and display the track sections at your leisure.  AnyRail is free to use to look at a layout, but if you want to change and save with more than 50 pieces, you need to purchase.   Anyway, you can look at a layout with more than 50 sections, just can't save.

I am glad this looks like a good fit, I would love to see you build it and post pics as you go along!  -Ken

@Ken-Oscale posted:

R.C., its a combination of sectional and flex.  The structures are mostly from Menards, with some Lionel, and houses from MTH.

I can post a copy of the AnyRail file for the track, and you can look at and display the track sections at your leisure.  AnyRail is free to use to look at a layout, but if you want to change and save with more than 50 pieces, you need to purchase.   Anyway, you can look at a layout with more than 50 sections, just can't save.

I am glad this looks like a good fit, I would love to see you build it and post pics as you go along!  -Ken

Ken, That would be great. I will purchase AnyRail this morning. Looking forward to the files.
As for building the layout, absolutely, I will post start to finish updates and photos/videos.

I may have to continue to pick your brain in the interim 

RC.

@R.Cabrera posted:

Ken, That would be great. I will purchase AnyRail this morning. Looking forward to the files.
As for building the layout, absolutely, I will post start to finish updates and photos/videos.

I may have to continue to pick your brain in the interim 

RC.

RC, here is the AnyRail file for the track plan.  Let me know if you have questions.  -Ken

Ken, thank you.

BTW, I send you and email separately. Did you receive.

again, many thanks.

RC

RC asked about the possibility of adding hidden staging tracks.   I came up with this idea, running the staging tracks beneath the elevated track section, concealed by the elevated terrain.   Staging tracks are level, so no grade to reach them.  #5 turnouts, minimum diameter O99.   You can see the entrance to the staging tracks is a tunnel portal beneath the support for the double-track steel bridge over the yard.

Similar staging tracks can be added for each of the other two versions of the layout.

Here I am working on a terrain revision, in order to create a continuous elevated terrain on the lower left.  The idea is to run the hidden staging tracks beneath this elevated terrain over to the right to connect with the level mainline, so the staging tracks are double-ended.

I had to create a waterfall so that the river is elevated over the staging as well, and then drops over the fall to the main surface level.  This area needs a bit more refinement.

Here is the exposed double-ended staging track.  Only one #5 turnout is hidden, in the upper left, but is reachable from the access area.  The minimum diameter is O81.

And here with the elevated terrain and tracks.

Pretty hard to reach a derailment in the staging track area - no fix for that at present.  But with #5 turnouts and O81 minimum, derailments SHOULD be rare 😉.   Better run dead slow on entering and exiting to reduce the risk.

Alternatively, for those who are risk-averse, the staging tracks could be the (original) single-ended, and ending at the maximum reach beneath the elevated scenery, from the upper-left access area.

There could be an opening in the level foundation in the lower-left corner, to allow a person beneath the layout, to reach the hidden staging tracks.  Not fun, but might work out, perhaps better than nothing.

Perhaps a board with indicator lights, to show how far a train has advanced in each staging track, will help.

Perhaps a grabber stationed at each access area will help to extend the reach:

I thought that the double-ended hidden staging idea justified some more design time.   I decided to "daylight" the underneath access area in the lower left, to enable better access and increase the comfort level with the hidden staging.  

More fine-tuning, I wanted more separation on the left, between the highline and the lower-main with the power plant.

This idea adds a connection on a grade (blue) to replace the steel bridge reverse connection which allows the out and back from the yard route, then heading back into the yard.   This connection is at a 4% grade, at the limit of acceptability, but the good news is that the grade can be taken DOWNHILL to complete the out and back route.

The revised steel bridge connecting the turn-back curves is now optional, not needed for the out and back route.  But it allows trains to reverse direction the other way.   So with this option, the layout now has reverse connections in both directions, to turn trains.

The max grade in the turn-back loops is 2.6%.

Here I have added the hidden staging to the O54/O63 version of the layout:

Hard to reach any of the hidden staging tracks.  The turnouts are in the clear, however.

As reach and access are good, perhaps this idea will work to get at the hidden staging tracks:  three scenery and track "topper" modules that lift out exposing the hidden staging.   These "toppers" must fit precisely on top of the hidden staging & elevated scenery.  Electrical connections are contacts beneath the toppers, that make contact when the topper is set in place.  For emergency access, rarely used (hopefully).

The O54/O63 version with steam locomotive facilities, some cleanup and other details:

I have been wanting to work in a station, so I squeezed-in Lionel's Suburban Station.   Servicing Lionel's Animated Freight Station, the Barrel Loader, and the warehouse is a bit of a switching puzzle - taking some time and moves to spot cars.   Other details added.

I gave up the short yard lead past the town structures, as I realized that working the arrival/departure track and the longer spurs would require fouling the mainline past the curved turnout anyway.   So it was of limited value as a yard lead.   If the freight station is clear, that spur can still be used as a lead for short moves, so that function is not entirely lost.

I tried to show with pavement, where passengers would wait for trains.   Unfortunately, long switch moves in the yard that need to foul the main will also block this access at times.   Acceptable, except a safety issue with passengers milling around waiting for a train, so a brakeman will have to descend and clear waiting passengers - I guess a reasonable operation.

@Putnam Division posted:

Ken....I am really liking this design.....I am getting a 20x30 attic room in a year and have designed a similar sized layout for 072/081. My plan is all one 1 level.....my problem is that I can only think in 2 dimensions. I like the over/under aspect to bring more interest to the space. However, I am blanking on how I would do the curved trestles over the yard. Can you tell me what you envision there?

Peter

Hi Peter, sorry for the delayed reply.  The bridges over the yard are made from sectional track sections.  I think that a variety of wood-style trestle bents would work, perhaps even some commercially available could be fitted.   Maybe one trestle bent between each pair of tracks.

We have seen other folks build supports using dowels painted to look like concrete.  A custom girder bridge could be done, wrapping the edges of the track with a bendable material, then detailing and painted to look like steel.

Some ideas anyway.  -Ken

No problem and thank you so much, Ken........I have RRtrack (I am not very good using it) and have copied the basic design. I re-angled the overpass over the yard so I could commission someone like Jim of BridgeBoss to make me a double track truss bridge.

Because I have a door on the upper left and the lower right, I reversed the design. I plan to have the layout with access on all sides. I will be using the walls for shelves to display my collection.

I am using Ross track and switches.

My scenery will be urban/city/industrial. On the upper left wing of the layout, I have a lead and left room for a possible transfer table.

I have at least another year before I have the room......this is 2nd design I have looked at for the space. I am trying yo be very measured and look at all possibilities.

Ken, I love your work......you are a master at layout planning.  What excites me about this design is that there is an over/under aspect....I would never be able to think of this on my own....I only seem to be able to think in 2 dimensions. Thank you for all the neat plans you post. I am an avid reader of your posts and plans.

My next step is to add reverse loops. I can see one with a removable bridge across the access gap. I can see another starting in the bottom part of the layout, coming off the loop, crossing under the embankment and rising to the inner loop on the top right.

Thanks again,

Peter

Wow!  Very cool Peter!   Thanks for your praise, but even better is to see that you are working on your own interpretation of the idea!  Very interesting and exciting to see!   

Thanks for sharing your design, and please keep us informed as you evolve your design and then begin your build.

I like your idea for a straight double-track custom bridge.  I remember reading that one of the custom bridge builders could handle bridges with curves.  I have looked at the curved bridges over the yard, and wondered myself if I should try a redesign to see if a straight bridge could work in.

Cheers!  Ken

@Putnam Division posted:

No problem and thank you so much, Ken........I have RRtrack (I am not very good using it) and have copied the basic design. I re-angled the overpass over the yard so I could commission someone like Jim of BridgeBoss to make me a double track truss bridge.

Because I have a door on the upper left and the lower right, I reversed the design. I plan to have the layout with access on all sides. I will be using the walls for shelves to display my collection.

I am using Ross track and switches.

My scenery will be urban/city/industrial. On the upper left wing of the layout, I have a lead and left room for a possible transfer table.

I have at least another year before I have the room......this is 2nd design I have looked at for the space. I am trying yo be very measured and look at all possibilities.

Ken, I love your work......you are a master at layout planning.  What excites me about this design is that there is an over/under aspect....I would never be able to think of this on my own....I only seem to be able to think in 2 dimensions. Thank you for all the neat plans you post. I am an avid reader of your posts and plans.

My next step is to add reverse loops. I can see one with a removable bridge across the access gap. I can see another starting in the bottom part of the layout, coming off the loop, crossing under the embankment and rising to the inner loop on the top right.

Thanks again,

Peter

 

Peter, I like the way you have designed your yard.   It looks like there may be an opportunity to create a run-around opposite the yard lead connecting track.   The long curved spur might be able to connect with a pair of turnouts to the yard lead, if you bring the lead's turnout a bit further down on the mainline.  -Ken

Thank you , Ken.....I will look at that soon. I really appreciate it!

Peter

Hello Ken,

Maybe I missed something, but did drop the idea of the larger radius curves and go back to the smaller radius curves as I see you now have more yard track?

@Ken-Oscale posted:

Peter, I like the way you have designed your yard.   It looks like there may be an opportunity to create a run-around opposite the yard lead connecting track.   The long curved spur might be able to connect with a pair of turnouts to the yard lead, if you bring the lead's turnout a bit further down on the mainline.  -Ken

Ken,

How would the 072/081 design look if you reversed it like Peter intends? curious if you would change anything?

i too have a door in the lower left hand corner of the room though I have an additional 4 feet of width available. I’m wondering if it would inspire a change in any way.

As always great work Ken.

RC.

@Allegheny posted:

Hello Ken,

Maybe I missed something, but did drop the idea of the larger radius curves and go back to the smaller radius curves as I see you now have more yard track?

Hi Allegheny, I have three versions I am working with in this thread, jumping between them as ideas occur.  That is confusing, I am sure.  So the O54/O63 uses the smaller diam. curves, whereas the O72/O81 uses the wider curves.

I may try the O54/O63 as an article for submission to OGR, its smaller size MAY work for the magazine, where the larger version probably will not fit.  So I have put a bit more effort into the O54/O63 version, which was my original start.   I got into the O72/O81 version following suggestions, and it turned out to be interesting.   I may do the S-gauge version for OGR as something unique and small size.

Ken

@R.Cabrera posted:

Ken,

How would the 072/081 design look if you reversed it like Peter intends? curious if you would change anything?

i too have a door in the lower left hand corner of the room though I have an additional 4 feet of width available. I’m wondering if it would inspire a change in any way.

As always great work Ken.

RC.

Off the top of my head, I would start by just flipping the entire layout.  With 4 feet of extra width, I would bring over the yard loop 4 feet, expanding the yard, and also increasing the squeeze-point distance between the loops.   Maybe also stretch the bottom loop 3 feet.  I might be able to decrease the grades if I stretch each loop some.

The O72/O81 layout seems to have "everything", with the latest addition being the downgrade connection for the out-and-back and optional bridge to reverse both ways.   I would probably look to see if I can extend the downgrade connection so as to reduce the grade to closer to 2.5%.  Other ideas might occur.

RC, is this something you would really like to see?  That is, would you really build an extended version?

Thanks!  -Ken

Edit:  maybe stretch the access areas a bit for comfort.

@Ken-Oscale posted:

Off the top of my head, I would start by just flipping the entire layout.  With 4 feet of extra width, I would bring over the yard loop 4 feet, expanding the yard, and also increasing the squeeze-point distance between the loops.   Maybe also stretch the bottom loop 3 feet.  I might be able to decrease the grades if I stretch each loop some.

The O72/O81 layout seems to have "everything", with the latest addition being the downgrade connection for the out-and-back and optional bridge to reverse both ways.   I would probably look to see if I can extend the downgrade connection so as to reduce the grade to closer to 2.5%.  Other ideas might occur.

RC, is this something you would really like to see?  That is, would you really build an extended version?

Thanks!  -Ken

Ken,  I would love to see what it looks like. I have the space so I am not opposed to using it.

thanks Ken.

RC.

@R.Cabrera posted:

Ken,  I would love to see what it looks like. I have the space so I am not opposed to using it.

thanks Ken.

RC.

RC, here is a simple flip and extension of the layout for your space.  Without any fixes or enhancements.