Wow Dave and Peter; you two have been busy!! Well, this afternoon I setup my 6% track, Z4000, TIU, and some engines 0-4-0, 0-8-0, F3, RS1, and the largest the WM H9 Consolidation. As I was finishing our younger daughter and her husband showed up to record my wife playing piano accompaniment for our daughter's voice students' recital this Friday. She has some piano students as well. Therefore, my testing was postponed so we don't have the noise of engines straining up the Blackwater Line on the recital recording. 
I could tell Dustin to filter out the engine noise, but he is too good to our daughter to be nasty to him. 
So I will check in here.
Yes Dave, you got the idea I was thinking of. Thank you everyone for the suggestions. Yes, my only reason for turning trains is to have a way to move loads one way and empties another, with throwing some mixed freight now and then. No matter how we d it, I think there will be one pesky switch that I will have to reach from a access hole. Even if I put the most money and the greatest care into installation of roadbed and track, my buddy Murphy will make sure that is the one that will give me trouble. 
At least it should be at the end of the railroad that has the highest head clearance. The biggest problem with this plan when compared with John's is that in John's the two towns are separated so that an operator's back is turned to one town when facing the other town. That is the best part of John's plan, I think. This plan doesn't need as steep a grades as John's If I desired, but the towns are almost side by side, just separated by elevation and whatever scenic features I can come up with. I knew that when I was doodling in SCARM yesterday, but wanted to see an alternative where I didn't have to cross over and worry about vertical clearances.
The idea of even being able to run 3 trains at a time is something I wasn't expecting. Yes, my plan is to have a train stopped on the passing track, for a passing train. While it would be nice to be able to uncouple the engine to cut a train and double up the hill, it isn't practical on this small a layout. Besides, if I really had the desire, I could rig up some sort of wheel chalk to slip behind the train manually. I probably won't bother. Short trains are the name of the game here. I will run the long ones on the Ceiling Central RR in the next room. Right now I have one 14-car train and one 15-car train I have been running there.
At this point, I think I have two nice alternatives to ponder. I hope no one feels bad if I pick something over another. I greatly appreciate everyone's ideas!!!!!!!!! This is the first layout, other than the Ceiling Central, where I had someone to bounce ideas off of. The Internet has made such a wonderful contribution in brainstorming with like minded folks. I was totally a lone wolf until the time period between the last layout and starting in O gauge. I don't know about Peter, but I know the rest of us started out before way before the Internet age. One more thing, in either plan, I have to figure out how I will make the scenery of the grade resemble the Blackwater Canyon, since there are tracks lower. Just something else to work on in a small room.
John,
I did finish reading the book after we got home this afternoon. Very good ideas! I like the information about the length of cars for each size curves. While the concept is not new, I have never seen anyone actually produce a handy chart before. I think the book is good for anyone, especially the folks who get bored with loop running layouts. Let me know if you got that email Monday. I will send another too, when I get a chance.
I will report back once I have had a chance to do the grade testing. I plan to run an engine with no cars, then keep running back adding one car at a time and record what each engine does. Here is the setup; some old Woodland Scenics foam grades, a 2% on top of a 4%. No I do not plan to use them on the layout. They are something I played around with 20 years ago, and still had. Thank you again, everyone!!
