NEW IN RUN 300-Aug/Sept OGR! Page 41: 10 X 10 "L" North Ridge mountain RR layout plan.

Nice looking plan!

This version adds the Menard's Power Plan, a great structure!   Also added: a tunnel, farm house, and the rotating beacon tower.  I was able to squeeze in a second (short) track at the mine.

I like it Ken!

looks good. Switching and the ability to let trains run. I could make that fit in my space one day too.

One of the best uses of space I have seen in a long time.  Proves there is a solution for the O scaler with limited space.

Thanks for appreciating the design Gents!   I like that the layout is able to offer long sweeping curves and a long yard (counting the yard lead and run-around track), even though the minimum curve on the inside route is O-36.   Cutting two 4X8 sheets and fitting them together on the angles gives the 10 X 10 space (by cutting a diagonal 2 feet in from each side to make the point.)

The Menard's Morton Salt tower is added to the yard.   The 3rd yard track now serves as the lead to the Morton Salt tower, doing double duty.  To service Morton Salt, cars on this track may have to be pulled out temporarily to clear for the salt cars, adding more switching operations.

Like those plans.  Keep up the good work Ken.

Ken,

I asked about the 3D because it's helpful at looking at a final product. I like the shape and flow of this plan. There are a few concerns:

1. The track spacing will make the scenery finishing of terrain a little tricky.
2. The height of 5" is really tight for height clearances when built.
3. I am not sure about the reliability of the curved switches. I have read enough finicky issue threads.

So, I built it using your photo to get some 3D looks. Nice looking!

Somewhere I have a photo of a portable table/layout used by a guy at show in this shape.

The use of multiple diameter curves really creates a good flow and realistic look. Very creative!

When you export this Anyrail file to the simulator application, will it fill in terrain?

Those 3D views are great, MoonMan, thanks for providing those!   I will comment on your points below:   

1. The track spacing will make the scenery finishing of terrain a little tricky.  >>>Yes, the curved bridge at the bottom will be interesting to build and space the supports.
2. The height of 5" is really tight for height clearances when built.   >>> I think it is OK, there will not be any scale locos or cars on this O-36 layout, so traditional and smaller than scale will be OK.   I have measured with my cars and locos and 5" seems to be just fine.
3. I am not sure about the reliability of the curved switches. I have read enough finicky issue threads   >>>  I also recall past concerns, but the track configuration worked best with the curve switches.   I have thought that conventional turnouts could be substituted and started (but not finished) a rework.   I will post the revision when I have a chance.   But perhaps the curved turnouts are no longer problem, seems like a couple years at least since we had comments on the forum about them.

Thanks again for your insights, and for the 3D versions.

Ken

Ken: Great design and really looks great. How/what did you use to make the design I am in the planning process for a new layout in our new house and trying to figure out what would be the  best and easiest system/way to plan/draw the layout. First the bench work and then the track design? 

Ken-Oscale posted:

Those 3D views are great, MoonMan, thanks for providing those!   I will comment on your points below:   

1. The track spacing will make the scenery finishing of terrain a little tricky.  >>>Yes, the curved bridge at the bottom will be interesting to build and space the supports.
2. The height of 5" is really tight for height clearances when built.   >>> I think it is OK, there will not be any scale locos or cars on this O-36 layout, so traditional and smaller than scale will be OK.   I have measured with my cars and locos and 5" seems to be just fine.
3. I am not sure about the reliability of the curved switches. I have read enough finicky issue threads   >>>  I also recall past concerns, but the track configuration worked best with the curve switches.   I have thought that conventional turnouts could be substituted and started (but not finished) a rework.   I will post the revision when I have a chance.   But perhaps the curved turnouts are no longer problem, seems like a couple years at least since we had comments on the forum about them.

Thanks again for your insights, and for the 3D versions.

Ken

I agree on the curved switches - they can be tuned for one's equipment - they really work well in this track plan - maintains the flow - I would only spend the time to put in regulars as a cost saving option.

Ken- I built my layout with 5" clearances based on Lionel's trestle set, and it works for most small equipment. I have 2 K-Line MP-15's that I had to remove the horns from the top of the cabs though. If you can squeeze out another 1/2" it would help.

MoonMan, here is a version without the curved turnouts, substituting O-54 turnouts.   I used some flex track to make two of the curves fit nicely.

Rick, I use AnyRail for layout design, it seem to be the easiest with the smallest "learning curve".  Work for me, but others like scarm and RR track.

RSJ and Moonman, I will see if another 1/2" can work with the 3% grade.   It looks like the grade can now climb to 6", with two turnouts on grade, which I try to avoid.  5.5" in height to the elevated turnout on the left, so if  the grade ends at the switch, we are OK for 5.5".

Ken-Oscale posted:

MoonMan, here is a version without the curved turnouts, substituting O-54 turnouts.   I used some flex track to make two of the curves fit nicely.

If I am working on an actual build plan with Atlas, I try to use cut sectionals or Gargraves flex. One really can't bend Atlas.

Carl, Atlas makes flex track in 40" lengths, so I used that.  Most of the layout is sectional to get the curves correct.

RJT posted:

Ken: Great design and really looks great. How/what did you use to make the design I am in the planning process for a new layout in our new house and trying to figure out what would be the  best and easiest system/way to plan/draw the layout. First the bench work and then the track design? 

Lots more involved, but the short answer is define the available space and design the track plan with paper and pencil. The type of track plan and the required support will lead you to the appropriate Benchwork.

Ken's track plan could be built with at 3 different styles of Benchwork. table, open grid with risers, table with cookie cutter cut-outs for elevations.

Let your mind's eye and imagination work on the track plan and what you want it to do. Then, software will create an accurate build plan.

Ken-Oscale posted:

Carl, Atlas makes flex track in 40" lengths, so I used that.  Most of the layout is sectional to get the curves correct.

I know, my friend, but it is so stiff it cannot be bent easily.

I started with the benchwork configuration (two 4X8s cut as shown).   Then I worked the track plan.   I like to use 2" 4X8 sheets for the table top, so I could trim the table top to follow the track.   I use 1" foam sheets to layer up the the elevations.   I like to use Woodland Scenics risers to get the track grade correct supporting the track, then fill in the spaces with foam sheets cut to fit.

Woodland Scenics risers are based on 8' lengths, or 96 inches (not quite 100 inches).   So their 3% grade is actually 3.125% grade.

Carl, I defer to your experience with Atlas flex.   These curves are not sharp (O-54 minimum), and some are quite broad, so perhaps that will work?   Wide curves work OK?

Ken-Oscale posted:

Carl, I defer to your experience with Atlas flex.   These curves are not sharp (O-54 minimum), and some are quite broad, so perhaps that will work?   Wide curves work OK?

I don't want to fight it - I don't even attempt it. Anyone can be determined enough to find a way. if I need a non-standard radius, I use GG.

ScaleTrax can be option, but I haven't built anything with it yet.

Carl, good comments.  I'll pick up a piece of flex track and see what I can do with it.  -Ken

So if this were my track plan I would have one wish, in the lower left side where the inner reverse loop and the outer loop are at the same level I would make every effort to include another pair of turnouts to connect them affording you the ability to reverse trains and interconnect the two levels.  Tracing the existing route now it appears that once a train crosses from the outer to the inner loop and returns to the outer loop eventually there is no way to get back to the inner loop without backing up.  Space may not be available for that additional crossover but it may be worth a look.  Otherwise I am saving this design in my file of things worth saving.

Thanks NECrails for putting this in your save file.   I think that I see what you mean about changing back over from inner to outer, but the idea is that a train will go through the reverse loop at the top of the mountain, and then will be able to use the cross-over to go back to the outer loop.   Once the train is back on the outer loop, there is no route back to the inner.   The idea is that a train will head into the yard and get broken up.   I will look at it to see what is possible. 

-Ken

As NECrails suggested, I have added a connection at the lower left to bring trains from the outerloop back to the inner loop.   Unfortunately, the added O-54 turnout is a bit out of reach and below the bridge.   I will look at optimizing this later.

And this one realigns the curves to the "bow-in" at the center of the layout to add mores space between track and terrain just below the cross-over.   Adds space for a train station (but not the Menard's really nice one).

I added staging tracks at the bottom, and some terrain adjustments.   Now climbing to 6" of elevation at the mountain top and at the top of the ridge (the turnout is at 6" elevation level).  The only turnout on grade is the one just below the station.

Ken  I completely understand your idea about operations.  If the plan doesn't support the additional crossover or that is not what you have in mind for sure leave it out.  I thought it would afford a bit more operational flexibility.  One can lengthen the main line fun by passing through the layout several times via different routes before returning to the yard.  As I said before great use of small space, can't wait to see pics of the build out.

NEC, I added a cross-over at the bottom of the layout that I think does what you suggest - a great idea actually, adds a lot of operating options.  Its under the bridge and may not be apparent at first.   

Here it is re-oriented as a 6.5 X 12.5 instead of 10X10.   If you have an additional 16" on each side you then will have all around easy access and reach to the entire layout.

And being able to get all around the layout gives  you great views from many directions, which adds much interest to watching the trains run.

Below is the layout plan with the mine loop and a tunnel removed for clarity.  On the left side are two turnouts, one to the yard, and the other is a crossover to the inside loop-to-loop.   This adds operating variety as NEC suggested, and also is a convenient reverse loop from the yard, for turning an engine or train to get it ready for the next run.  (No need for a turntable - no room for it either.)

Here is how it would look as a 6.5 X 15.5, with easy all-around access, and two staging/connecting tracks.

Minor improvements to the original "L" design, with elevation and grade boxes.

Most turnouts are O-54, with two O-72, two O-36 to serve the mine, and three O-45.

Hi Ken. I've been following this track plan as it has matured and I like it a lot--enough to build it I think. But I want to make a change by adding a part of another track plan on the right side. The section I want to add is 7 feet wide and 13 feet long and would make your design into a U-shaped layout. I got the add-on section from this forum. See the attachment to this post. The section I want to add is on the right of the attached plan. So if you cut 18 inches off of the right side of this plan and use only the rightmost 7 feet of the attached plan, I think you will see what I am getting at. I like your original plan because of all the bridges--I think they add a lot of visual interest. How's that for a simple-minded thought process?! My trackage will be standard Lionel 3-rail o-gauge. I'm not really following any prototype. I just want the whole thing to be one big toy I can play with, build on and enjoy throughout my retirement. Anyway, if you can imagine the two plans together as I have described, let me know what you think.

Good idea, makes for an interesting layout.   Some work involved of course, to bring the two together, but should make a nice "U" shaped layout.   The grades on the right-hand section elevated may need some thinking.

Well I love your plan.  I am going to build it. As you say some work needs to be done to match grades between e two sections and to re-purpose some of both plans. But it will end up with all kinds of operating possibilities and fun in the building. All the best to you. 

Thanks much Don, best of luck on the layout build, it should turn out great!   Please share pictures of your build as you go along!

Regards, Ken

I am delighted to report that a revised version of this layout plan with an accompanying article, has just appeared in RUN 300 August/September 2018 issue of O-Gauge Rail-Roading!   

As always, Allan and the editorial staff did a beautiful job with the article, please check it out!