14x24 Atlas-O Layout Plan. With 11x19 FasTrack Version. Short Video of Trains Running Added!

Another winner.....Ken you are amazing!

Peter

Naturally, its even better as a 12x24:

Oooo! I have definite train-room envy.  That is going to be a very nice space.

WRT track-planning, I especially like the three-stub-siding industrial area (lower right). I have done this on my pike and it provides very interesting switching operations. Sort of an abbreviated Inglenooks switching puzzle. I find an Inglenooks to be much more realistic and prototypical than switchback-timesaver puzzles:

Depending on what is incoming and what is outgoing this four-industry area can take 40 minutes (actual, not scale time) to do the switching.

Lew

Nice Lew!   Thanks for that, looks very good, and good point!

I think this next is an improved 12x24:

I think I can delete a couple of turnouts from above, without loss of function or access to the yard:

BTW, excellent yard lead. You really will be able to have trains running while simultaneously doing classification work in the yard. John Armstrong would approve of your trackplan.

On edit: Traffic on the yard lead will still foul the inner mainline. I'm not sure how that would best be addressed.

I see a potential problem with the staging/interchange track. Because it is almost out of reach you won't be able to easily change consists. For me interchange is of crucial importance because it represents the whole outside World and thus the other half of operation. That is, I use my interchange track (which is actually a return loop in an adjacent room) as a fiddle yard where I build incoming consists using the old O-5-O switcher (hands).

Ya, on my list of #aroundtoits is to do a more workmanlike job of the return loop but in the meanwhile it does function as needed. The paintbrush, as well as being a dusting tool, indicates the next set of cars to be worked into a train. I don't use switch-lists or waybills but simply cycle through a set of possible consists. Someday when I'm really bored maybe I'll see if my math-foo is up to the task of determining the total number of consist variations and their frequency of occurrence.

Lew 

The bigger, the better.  24' is better than 20', that's for sure.

A restroom would be great, but kinda' hate to see it in the center area of the layout.  It will always be a view block, no matter where you stand in the building.  Any chance of utilizing a small portion of the 4' x 24' front porch area for a restroom?

Huh. Moving the staging/interchange track to the inside edge would make possible re-alignment of the Main tracks so the yard lead would no longer foul the inner Main.

Lew

Ken,

Chances are you are only gong to get this opportunity once.  My advice, do whatever it takes to build the 12 x 24 version.  Those extra couple of feet will take your excellent layout to a superior layout.

Best of luck with whatever decision you choose.

Is that really a Restroom?

I have to agree about changing the location of the bathroom; looks like a big eye-sore in middle of room and blocks full layout view.  However, something nobody has mentioned - if you plan to run your trains around the loops a lot, the last thing you want is a double-slip switch on that main line.  No matter who makes it or how carefully it is installed, running through that switch a speed will just be one headache after another.  Stopping that yard lead from crossing the inner mainline will solve the potential derailment problem as well.

Chuck

Ken, I like the concept of the plan a lot.  Knowing you, you will try many arrangements between now and then so I have no worries about you finding the best solution.  Putting a restroom in the building is a great idea!  I see the initial idea is to keep it out of a corner and make use of the full 12x20/12x24 for broad curves.  Paul has a good idea.  If not on a front porch, could it go in the lower left of the guest viewing area?  Just another thought.

I like the bathroom as a view-blocker for the same reason I like tunnels. The human mind loves a bit of mystery and view-blockers provide it. A train disappears and there is a tiny bit of bated breath while we wait for it to reappear. IMO it works.

Lew

The rest room is right by the yard.  If Ken moves it down across the main viewing area, then I am totally with you, Lew!!!

Ken-Oscale posted:

 

My suggestion: 

Move the restroom to the outside of the layout.  Let’s say that you are having a run session with 3-4 friends over.  Earl had lunch at Chili’s and it included a large order of onion rings and a side of baked beans.  Every 15 minutes he enters and the tuba concert shakes the walls.  Do you really want him to open the door?  

PS -  I know you are not serious, nobody in their right mind would put a chitter in the middle of their layout.  Not even cousin Eddie.

Mark Boyce posted:

The rest room is right by the yard.  If Ken moves it down across the main viewing area, then I am totally with you, Lew!!!

Got it! Yes, absolutely. Good catch, Mark.

Lew

All the advice is good.

Double slip switches are pretty uncommon in the USA except in some of the old large passenger stations.   Probably for same as the reason above, they require a lot maintenance and tend to create places for derailments.

the yard lead crossing the main would be nice to eliminate if possible.     Generally, only switchers will use the lead and only freight cars, so the radius/diameter of the yard lead could be smaller than the mains and roundhouse leads and any passenger traffic.   so you could possible rearrange the lead to access both an arrival/departure track and the class tracks inside the inner main  using a smaller radius.     The A/D track/s are used to hold an arriving train off the main until broken down, or to build a new train for departure.    they are best double ended.

the restroom sticks out like a sore thumb in that location.    As was suggested, could it be put on the "porch" or perhaps at one end or the other with the mains only passing behind it.    the mains could be going through a tunnel.    

And having earl over after Chilis - or a large Cinncinnati Chili 5 way might make the whole place unhabitible for periods of time.

I cant see how that bathroom is feasible. 3x3 as drawn is an airplane bathroom and you eat another ~8" of space with the framing and drywall (so you're either 28" square or 44" square). I dont even know if building code allows it to be that small. If you gotta have a bathroom (it adds the need for plumbing which is otherwise unnecessary), then stick it in a corner, not in the middle of the layout. Both for the above mentioned reasons and also for re-sale. No one will understand why there's a bathroom in the middle of a building that small. 

Honestly, in a 12x24, I think I'd run back across the driveway. 

Thanks everyone for the comments and discussion.   Lots of design "trade-offs".  First the "fun" one, the "powder room".

• Yes, 3x4 OD is very much small/micro, but I found plans that fit that space with a space-saving commode and a tiny wash basin in the corner, with the door swinging out.  Clearly not ADA compliant, but it works.  "Tiny Houses" are all the rage with some innovative space usage features.
• I also found another idea for a combined commode&washbasin fixture.   
• Why inside the layout:  access - if outside the layout then I need to figure out how operators will access the powder room - get across the mains.   Not easy.   Then the space needed expands because the door has to swing out to somewhere, again cramping/shrinking the mainlines, reducing length of yard spurs, and a host of other consequences.   When inside the mainlines, the door swing area is into the operating area.
• If inside the layout its easy to duck in and out: no tracking of dirt and leaves and whatnot in and out of the layout room from the great outdoors.   And little kids need to go too, and at inconvenient times:  with this layout they can duck under the bridges and "hit the head" with little fuss.   And some of us older guys need "to go" often, depending...
• Scenery construction often needs access to water (depending on technique).   With water in the center of the layout this is easy and convenient.   Easy for water to wash brushes and etc.
• "Air quality" concerns.   Perhaps an "industrial strength" bathroom fan will do.   Or two fans.  I think this concern is "overblown" (pun intended).
• Washroom on the porch.   Really!?  How will that look to my neighbors and the homeowner's association.   No go.   Perhaps sticking out the back (into the yard).   But the building is pre-designed and the lumber comes pre-cut, saving construction costs.   Modifying the plan adds substantial costs - I am not trying to build a second house here, or even a "tiny house".

Future resale of property - inconvenient location in the middle of the space.  True.   But its my space for my purposes now.   

Jim, I guess I will have to live with your assessment that I am not in my "right mind".   There are so many advantages to putting it inside the mains that argue the other way.   Sure, its "outside the box thinking".

Re-locating the washroom to the lower-left corner and deleting the industry tracks there might be a good alternative.   Two less walls 4" in width each.   Cramps the viewing space some though.   Not quite as convenient as its past the lift-out bridges - one has to stop the action on both mains to "hit the head".

Mainline through the double-slip turnouts.   I have been concerned about this myself.   Did a search and did not find concerns about these Atlas turnouts.   But perhaps I have missed these issues?

I may have gotten complacent after using the nearly bullet-proof FasTrack turnouts.   

The double-slips save so much darned space they are tempting.   Perhaps I should look at using Ross/Gargraves.   Ross has #4 turnouts that will save some space.   As they say if football "Its a game of inches".   

Switching the yard ladder fouls the inside main.   Agreed.   I have gotten used to designing small layouts where compromises have to happen.   If two operators, then one can switch the yard while the other runs the outside main.   But even better if I could have three operators, one on each main and one switching the yard.   Or for solo operating, two trains circling unattended while one switches the yard.   

I will look for a re-alignment that avoids this problem.

Here is an alternative to think about.   It has a conventional corner location for the washroom, easy for guests to get to, but operators must stop the trains on the mains to lift out the bridge.   And we lose the generous and lovely curves near the bridges, two spurs, and the viewblock that has been discussed.   Trade-offs.  

I extended the staging track into the access area to make swapping cars easier, but getting to the access area is not that easy anyway, so not sure if this is an improvement.

No change on the switch lead fouling the inside main yet.

Ken-Oscale posted:

Here is an alternative to think about.   It has a conventional corner location for the washroom, easy for guests to get to, but operators must stop the trains on the mains to lift out the bridge.   

Ken, can’t they duck under the lift out?

If it were me, I would keep the beautiful broad curves (awesome visual) and use the facilities inside your house. But it is not my call.

This variation adds a passing track in the lower right - but kills that access area.   The passing track can be accessed from the front access area to add/remove cars more conveniently than in the upper right.   

A re-alignment so the yard can be switched from the yard lead without fouling the inside main.   Roughed-in to look at and consider.   The inside main goes through just two double-slips.

Getting pretty expensive with all of these turnouts!

SantaFeJim posted:

Ken-Oscale posted:

Here is an alternative to think about.   It has a conventional corner location for the washroom, easy for guests to get to, but operators must stop the trains on the mains to lift out the bridge.   

Ken, can’t they duck under the lift out?

If it were me, I would keep the beautiful broad curves (awesome visual) and use the facilities inside your house. But it is not my call.

 

Ducking under the bridge needs a layout at a higher level.  Can be done of course, you are correct, but I wasn't planning on that for viewing access by little kids from the front area, which does not have a lot of width for a step for them to stand on.   And when I "need to go", I don't want to have to crouch down to get under the bridge, if you get my meaning.

Re the restroom, [small] RV bathrooms are typically 21" wide and that has never been an issue for me in many years of use. Thus to me 24" ID would be generous. This bathroom was (previous RV) 30" wide with sink (the floor pan was 21" wide) by 35" deep. It worked well. The step-in is because this was a so called "wet bath" wherein you could shower sitting on the toilet, a feature probably not needed in a train-room 

Probably moot though, because if you are hiring out the bathroom work they will have to follow code and that will be substantially larger, Bothe width and depth.

Lew

geysergazer posted:

BTW, excellent yard lead. You really will be able to have trains running while simultaneously doing classification work in the yard. John Armstrong would approve of your trackplan.

On edit: Traffic on the yard lead will still foul the inner mainline. I'm not sure how that would best be addressed.

I see a potential problem with the staging/interchange track. Because it is almost out of reach you won't be able to easily change consists. For me interchange is of crucial importance because it represents the whole outside World and thus the other half of operation. That is, I use my interchange track (which is actually a return loop in an adjacent room) as a fiddle yard where I build incoming consists using the old O-5-O switcher (hands).

         

Ya, on my list of #aroundtoits is to do a more workmanlike job of the return loop but in the meanwhile it does function as needed. The paintbrush, as well as being a dusting tool, indicates the next set of cars to be worked into a train. I don't use switch-lists or waybills but simply cycle through a set of possible consists. Someday when I'm really bored maybe I'll see if my math-foo is up to the task of determining the total number of consist variations and their frequency of occurrence.

Lew 

Lew - just wondering what diameter curve that is for the reversing loop and if there's enough room to stick an Atlas 24" turntable in there ?

This version: realigned turntable and locomotive service track and area.   And trying a mountain with tunnels.

Ken-Oscale posted:

Naturally, its even better as a 12x24:

Go with this design, it is the best so far. The only change I would make is adding the passing track on the lower right.

Richie C. posted:

geysergazer posted:

         

 

Lew - just wondering what diameter curve that is for the reversing loop and if there's enough room to stick an Atlas 24" turntable in there ?

That is O31 Fastrack so the OD is 34.5" and the ID is 27.5"

Lew

I went back and re-read the comments about the Atlas slip-switch, and decided I had better replace them with conventional turnouts.   I looked at converting to Gargraves and Ross, but that would not save/improve very much - not enough to change the configuration.

At either side, there is along curved lead, with industry tracks at the end.   Arrivals eastbound from either main can use the east yard lead (O81); arrivals westbound from either main can use the west yard lead.   Then either back-up or maneuve to the west lead, and from their into the yard.   

Access/reach is good, with one problem and one note:  the widest part of the yard is too wide to get to the back, and out of reach from the upper-right access area.   Note: access inside the mountain for the lower right.

I like your concept. I offer some suggestions, FWIW

• Perhaps you can keep the end doors for ability to move large pieces of wood, etc, into the train space.
• Railroad height. Model railroads always look better when they are higher.
  • For the occasional child, a movable step, with a low rail. Since you don’t appear to have any operating accessories, a child’s interest will quickly wane. Experience
  • If you raise the elevation, you can tuck a lower level staging yard into the plan, located near the front of the yard area, with, hopefully, a reasonable grade to reach a merge with the main trackage. The present staging track location almost guarantees it will seldom be used.
    • That given, the area along the back wall could be used for a station façade and a city façade (like John Armstrong’s model RR). I assume passenger service.
  • If you raise the elevation access to the accesses will be a bit less painful.
• Depending how you arrange the toilet, you could run the track through a corner of the bathroom and hide the fact with a mountain.
• There are several industry tracks with no obvious space for industries.
• Depending on the grade required, you could raise the engine service area above the end curves with a suitable tunnel and provide more room.
  • I assume from the turntable that you will be running steam. Must you have a turntable? If your layout represents a division point you can do without and leave considerably more room for engine servicing facilities. Including the inevitable diseasels…

Here is the design at present.  Discussion to follow, but opinions and observations welcome!

A lot of RR in the space, looks like fun!   I think I could live with a small bathroom, after all, we're there to run trains, right?

I can accept the small bathroom in the lower left as in your most recent drawing.   Provided you include this sign inside the door.

And just don't put a camera car in your consist if you're going to be running trains through the restroom.   

I agree with much of what has been posted so far.  Bathroom OUTSIDE the ovals.  Also, the comment about accessibility of the staging track in the far corner.

Curious, what do O90 curves get you, that O72 doesn't?  And if you're running large steam locos, will a 24" turntable be enough??

One more thing... as much as possible get a guarantee about the INSIDE dimensions of the finished building.  I went through this with my own house.  The studs and drywall took away almost a foot!!

Ted S posted:

Curious, what do O90 curves get you, that O72 doesn't?  And if you're running large steam locos, will a 24" turntable be enough??

Wider curves make a lot of larger locomotives and rolling stock look much more natural.

I like the final plan the best.    The removal of the double slips I think is a good idea and getting the yard lead clear of both mains is good.