"Folded Dogbone vs Loop layout" was 18' x 12' Layout Design

I like the plan. Lots of action and the two-level approach is something I wish I'd done.  Good decision on Ross.

If I'm reading your plan correctly, you're gaining 7" of vertical height on the left side, through about 151" of track length, including a lot of curves.  That's a 4.6% grade, almost as steep as the Lionel #110 Trestle set.  With rubber-tired locos and speed control you can get away with murder.  But personally I wouldn't be comfortable with anything steeper than 2.5%. 

Since it's not advisable to build a yard on graded track, I would scrap the gold/yellow 3-track yard on the diagonal part of the platform, and start your grade one full track after the underpass.  That will give you a much longer "run" to achieve the height increase, and a gentler grade.

To promote easy access, I would put the single gold siding in FRONT of the new, graded mainline, on the diagonal, instead of horizontally inside the "bowl" where it would be hard to reach for coupling, etc.   My $.02. 

Scott,   Not familiar w this software but think I know what i'm looking at (scale wise).  Looks nice. I like the large curves - esp for the larger O scale stuff that requires 042's and 054's and the upper track plan.  I'm 12-16 mo away from starting a build.  Trying to maximize space is part of the fun - I think.  I'm leaning Ross as well but still debating controller location, type.  I love their 3 and 4 ways'.  Enjoy the build and have fun,

Tom     

Hi Scott,

 Visually, the blue line loop is going to hide a lot of the yellow underneath. Does Railmodeller have 3D objects so that you can see that? Hidden switches will be the ones with derailments from finicky cars.

Ideally, having the loop on a mountain and the yellow line running outside the mountain (steep, cliff sides) would solve that, but, it looks like there isn't space for some O90 on the bottom yellow.

I know the space is limiting the design. You will find the yellow line on the angle and the passing siding will be a pain because Murphy's Law will require that you will have to access the track along the wall many more times than you envision. If you set the base table height at 40", you could make a roller seat to scoot under that area. I would fill the openings and put two access hatches in to reclaim the real estate.

I do like how the design operationally forces a long run to change directions to access the sidings. More play value. 

You are close to a good design. 

Are the gray items the mechanicals for the house?

The Ross track is very nice looking track and the switches and motors are solid.

here is a build thread where you can get ideas.  Look for the access hatch technique and the scooter seat for sitting and working under the layout.

Hidden Pass Junction by Alex Muller(Ingenerio No 1 - OGR forum name)

Scott, I use RailmodelerPro also.  I cannot seem to get the level of detail you have on your plan.  Things like the baseboard, and what looks to be a water heater and other details I see.  

Many thanks to all of you for your thoughtful comments, close reading of the plans, and insights offered. To be sure, if I hadn't mentioned it earlier, I'm indebted to many on this forum for the education you've provided over the past two years. 

My apologies as well for my delayed response. I had been leaning into this project over the winter, but my wife and I are expecting baby #3, literally any hour now, this project has been temporarily "sidetracked."  I do anticipate that building it later this summer will be an opportunity to involve my 6 and 3 year-olds in various capacities.  

To the questions/comments above:

Carl: You're absolutely right. In the iteration I'd shared, I clearly failed to migrate the adequate rise/run sequence into the curves, as on an earlier version I was able to achieve the grade changes with no more than a 3.5% slope and I avoided any rise in the passenger station /yard on the lower level.  I've also been working on an arrangement in which the lower level isn't nearly as concealed by upper level track. 

Dan: I've found RailmodlerPro to be incredibly fluid to use. In full disclosure, I'm a recovering architect, but for the detail, I just created the shapes (rectangles) for the wall's and similarly for the furnace unit and water-heater. I leave them on locked layers so as to avoid any interference when drafting the track plans.   I've found it useful as otherwise, I tend to be overly optimistic with potential clearances between things (and I'm not getting any smaller!)

Finally, as the build may be a few months out, I've been trying to get more facile with SCARM due to its 3-D rendering and simulation capabilities. I'll say that its definitely a step backwards in terms of intuitive use, but it does have some great features and i'm excited to simulate the trains on the layout to satisfying my interests ahead of any chance to build. 

Thanks again to all, and more soon (once I get my SCARM version ready to share).

Scott 

PS - attached are some of my earlier discarded iterations. 

Hello all,

I can't believe its been over a year since the thread above began. Shortly after my last post, we welcomed a third child into the family and as you might imagine, anything hobby related was relegated to the 'caboose' as we got our bearings on life with 3 kids under age 6.   I've continued to explore a few concepts for the same space and am closer to pulling the trigger for the layout.  

Attached below are two schemes - neither is complete - but I wanted to share nevertheless for any insights and assessment from your collective experiences as to which direction may be the most promising.  

The "dog-bone" Option is inspired by the work of @Obsidian and the "loop option" was inspired by @Ken-Oscale.  

* I've shifted over to a gargraves+ ross switches plan for the time-being.  

Dog-bone option:

- Pro's: Over-under action and more complex running scheme than a loop

- Cons: Limited opportunities for townscaping; second "station" might be difficult to accommodate. (Right now, its envisioned that there is a passenger terminal in the lower left area of the design- loosely - modeled to be Chicago Union Station. 

Loop Option: 

- Pro's:  More accessible yard, and extension of straightaways allow for more complete passenger platforms etc.  Its not modeled well yet - but the thought is that the platform on the lower right would include the a passenger terminal station and city-scape above grade.  

- Con's:  Loop scheme - hard to differentiate between one destination and the next, limited multi-level activity, 

Attached are the scarm files in addition to jpgs.  

Welcome your thoughts/ critiques / advice.  Many thanks in advance, 

Scott 

A very serious flaw with the loop option is that it requires you to climb under the layout to get into the middle area to work on and generally gain access to the sides and back of the layout.  You will be amazed at quickly that grows old.  And as you grow older it will wear you down even more.

@Dick Malon posted:

A very serious flaw with the loop option is that it requires you to climb under the layout to get into the middle area to work on and generally gain access to the sides and back of the layout.  You will be amazed at quickly that grows old.  And as you grow older it will wear you down even more.

Dick, I quite agree......a Mianne lift section could be an option. 

I had a Duck Under layout for 10 years 1993-2003, when I was 40-50.....and it got very old very fast. 

Peter

Dick and Peter,

Thank you for your note: The lift-out bridge is something that I had been envisioning but hadnt yet detailed. If I end up with the loop concept, i'll revise further to group the tracks more closely and allow for the lift out.   

 Any other reactions or thoughts on the comparative options? 

thank you

Scott