A Three-Train/Three-Loop Lionel FasTrack Layout on Two 4x8s, O36 Minimum

Optimized: reduced the section count ($) by eight sections.   Two curves are smoother near the O60 crossovers, with six O72 1/2 sections.  Alignment is more "perfect", no gaps, no compression at the section joints.

Construction of the cross-overs between the perimeter route and right inside circle, might be worth a look:

Nice and smooth flow, very easy for O36 equipment.

As usually happens with FasTrack, there are lots of little sections (1-3/8, 1-3/4, 4-1/2).  Lionel ought to package them by the dozen for a discount.  OR (better), Lionel should introduce a small expandable section (not kidding), that I have shown before, and is available in

Z gauge Rokuhan. and Kato N Unitrack 

And add it to their S FasTrack as well.   Lionel could make good bank with this section, and more folks would be inclined to build FasTrack layouts if it is easier to make fractional connections.  [And would save me tons of time😉, optimizing is the most time-consuming aspect of designing FasTrack layouts to tight specifications.]   I submitted the idea to Lionel by email - fingers crossed!

Added fourth yard track, these are all short, 25" or 22".

Ken,

I really like this plan. I’m embarrassed to ask but would you share a list of the track pieces? I’ve always been awful at track geometry and try as I might I haven’t quite figured this out.  

@The Southerner posted:

Ken,

I really like this plan. I’m embarrassed to ask but would you share a list of the track pieces? I’ve always been awful at track geometry and try as I might I haven’t quite figured this out.  

You will have to sort it yourself, this is how it is presented by the SW.  Chose the turnout type you like (remote or command).  Remember that the O60/O72 turnouts come with two 1-3/8" sections each (roadbed trimmed), so you need less of those separtely.

6-12014, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Straight 10". 18
6-12015, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Curve 18", angle 45º (O36) 14
6-12019, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Crossing 6". 90º 1
6-12022, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Curve 18", angle 22.5º (O36) 4
6-12023, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Curve 18", angle 11.25º (O36) 19
6-12024, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Straight 5". 3
6-12025, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Straight 4 1/2". 15
6-12026, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Straight 1 3/4". 31
6-12035, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Buffer/Bumper (Light) 5". 9
6-12042, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Straight 30". 4
6-12043, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Curve 24", angle 30º (O48) 6
6-12055, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Curve 36", angle 11.25º (O72) 6
6-12057, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Left turnout 13 1/8". (O60) (remote) 1
6-12059, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Buffer/Bumper 3 5/8". 2
6-12073, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Straight 1 3/8". 40
6-16828, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Left turnout 13 1/8". (O60) Command Control 2
6-16829, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Right turnout 13 1/8". (O60) Command Control 2
6-16832, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Wye turnout 12". (O72) Command Control 7
6-16834, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Curve 24", angle 15º (O48) 14
6-16835, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Curve 24", angle 7.5º (O48) 10
6-81946, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Right turnout 10". (O36) Remote/Command 7
6-81947, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Left turnout 10". (O36) Remote/Command 2
6-81948, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Right turnout 15". (O48) Remote/Command 1
6-81949, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Left turnout 15". (O48) Remote/Command 1

Thanks so very much. I think you should write a book on this. Publish some of your plans but also teach people how to think it through. You definitely have the chops for it!

I'm a new member and have been following all your FasTrack layouts posted on OGR. I think they are great and they inspired me to attempt my very own first track plan. I am still working on trying to get everything to connect on paper! I totally relate to your comment regarding the large number of mini sections of track one needs to complete a FasTrack plan. Check out my first post FASTRACK LAYOUT HELP? A CHALLENGE. 

@drtock posted:

I'm a new member and have been following all your FasTrack layouts posted on OGR. I think they are great and they inspired me to attempt my very own first track plan. I am still working on trying to get everything to connect on paper! I totally relate to your comment regarding the large number of mini sections of track one needs to complete a FasTrack plan. Check out my first post FASTRACK LAYOUT HELP? A CHALLENGE. 

Thanks Drtock.   I commented in your design thread.

How about this track plan on two 5ft X 9ft tables?  It would leave room on the perimeter for scenery and keep the trains away from the layout edges.

Charlie

Thanks Charlie. At this time on the track plan the platforms shown are an approximate guide for the space I have. You are totally right, in the final plan two 5x9 tables would be perfect. alan

This is a great plan and similar to this other one of yours I bookmarked awhile back.  https://ogrforum.com/...h-menard-s-buildings

Would it be possible to show what it would look like in RealTrax with O42 on the outside loop and O31 on the inside loop?

I am hoping to build this once my daughter moves out of her nursery.  And the day draws nigh.

Ken Love this layout. Is it possible to post the anyrail version? Thanks 

@Adirondack RR posted:

Ken Love this layout. Is it possible to post the anyrail version? Thanks 

Glad you like it!  Here is the AnyRail file for this track plan:

Ken,
Many years ago when I was planning my layout I read about easements in a Model Railroad Tips and Trips book.  So when I finally built my current layout, using FastTrack, I made the easements using the following curves. An 048curve, a 036curve, a048 curve, a 036curve and a 048curve. Seems to me this method results in fewer pieces of track used, fewer joints and quieter operation. Is there a big difference in curve radius  in the method you use and curve radius method I have used?

BTW Ken I enjoy reading your layout posts and articles in OGR. Keep up the good work!

@ncdave posted:

Ken,
Many years ago when I was planning my layout I read about easements in a Model Railroad Tips and Trips book.  So when I finally built my current layout, using FastTrack, I made the easements using the following curves. An 048curve, a 036curve, a048 curve, a 036curve and a 048curve. Seems to me this method results in fewer pieces of track used, fewer joints and quieter operation. Is there a big difference in curve radius  in the method you use and curve radius method I have used?

BTW Ken I enjoy reading your layout posts and articles in OGR. Keep up the good work!

Thanks Dave!   I am using more small sections to more closely approximate O42 for those compound curves.  In case someone has O42 limited trains, these can run the outside perimeter route.   Yes, more sections (and more $).   The other reason is for a smoother curvature that better parallels the O36 curves.

Now here is the REAL challenge! Where would some Scenic Barriers be placed so its not just looking at all track!

I envision a mountain with logging in the upper left, small rural town in the lower left, and a city in the upper right. 

Roughed-in some terrain ideas:

Some structure ideas, a pond, roads:  Steam loco service facility uses one of the yard tracks.

Decorating with some trees:

Terrain fine-tuning, ballast, and more trees:

This is a link to an earlier version of this layout.  This newest thread version is a bit more precise and slightly better.  But both are good enough to build. 

Earlier version:

Newest version:  this one has better cross-overs in the upper right loop, more gentle curves with O72.  Better graphics.  A small yard.

You are an artist sir. Would you share the track list for this latest? I’m completely revamping my old layout with this as inspiration but I want to keep my Ross track and switches. The list would help me greatly in converting the Fasttrack. 

I too would like to see a fastrack list if possible. Love your work

Comparing the older and newer versions of the layout design, the major change that enables other positive changes, is the connection on the LEFT inside loop that makes a return loop.   In the newer version, the connection goes through and uses a portion of the RIGHT inner loop. 

Earlier, I resisted this alignment, as it requires that a perimeter running train interfere with a train on the inner RIGHT loop in order to run the return loop connection around the LEFT inner loop.  That is a negative aspect:  running the return loop connection involves the outside perimeter AND BOTH the RIGHT and LEFT inner loops.

So why make the reverse loop connection in this "all-consuming" alignment?  The first advantage is that the RIGHT inner loop is longer (better with a slightly longer run).  And second, the added length allows the cross-overs to be constructed with much smoother O72 curves and the O72 'Y', a big plus.  And third, the revised RIGHT inner loop now has better opportunities for spur alignments, including even a small yard.   Fourth, I was able to make the FasTrack section joints at a closer tolerance - important as FasTrack has zero flexibility with compression due to its rigid plastic roadbed, and joints can be stretched only a small amount.  I started the new version with a complete restart from zero, to make sure I had all the joints and alignments as perfect as possible.

So its a tradeoff: a convoluted return loop run involving (and perhaps stopping) trains on both inner loops  VS  the advantages just mentioned.  Which way do you think is a better way to make the reverse loop connection?

After discussions with the editor at OGR magazine, I should not publish a labeled track diagram or a list of track sections needed for layouts that might appear in the magazine.   Subscribers want original work in the magazine, not a re-publication of layout plans published openly and freely on the forum.   Sorry to disappoint, but I understand the reasoning.

I am working on a concept that builds this layout from a single 4x8 sheet, to the "L" pictured above, and then to a "U" shape not previously shown, in three stages.  I have the layout designed, now I have to create the illustrations in three phases, and write the article.

The article will be longer than I usually do for the magazine.   If it is not suitable for publication, I will post all materials here on the forum.  Best I can do for now.

That’s fantastic!  When will your article be published?  

@The Southerner posted:

That’s fantastic!  When will your article be published?  

The article has not yet been written, let alone submitted for consideration.  Realistically, 3 months at the very earliest, 4 or 5 months more realistically:  IF accepted for publication.  We shall see.

I am now thinking the final 'U' shaped layout should be built in 4 phases rather than 3.  Building in stages adds additional "wrinkles" and complexity to the design process, but not the final design itself, nor will it make construction more complex.

Ken,

Your original version of this was my inspiration to go and buy a ton of track pieces.... Still need to find yet more 1 3/8 track pieces, and still some switches. Happy to see there are more O-36 switches in the latest rendition, as I already have a few of those. I do plan on building a U layout as you had mentioned you had a plan for that aspect as well. Cant wait to see the outcome of it once it comes to fruition.

@Ken-Oscale posted:

After discussions with the editor at OGR magazine, I should not publish a labeled track diagram or a list of track sections needed for layouts that might appear in the magazine.   Subscribers want original work in the magazine, not a re-publication of layout plans published openly and freely on the forum.   Sorry to disappoint, but I understand the reasoning.

I am working on a concept that builds this layout from a single 4x8 sheet, to the "L" pictured above, and then to a "U" shape not previously shown, in three stages.  I have the layout designed, now I have to create the illustrations in three phases, and write the article.

The article will be longer than I usually do for the magazine.   If it is not suitable for publication, I will post all materials here on the forum.  Best I can do for now.

Hi Ken -- was this ever published? The 3 phase plan would be perfect for my space. Thank you.

@Ken-Oscale Following up on this as well. Getting back into O-Gauge and I am going to plan/build one of your great designs over the next few years with my son. Your 12x8 L and U shape FasTrack layouts you have posted here are both great options and I could see starting the process on a 4x8 and then expanding over time to add the additional pieces and expand the layout, just as you have mentioned about the phasing in your last post. Just wondering if you were able to publish that article, or if not, if you can share your phased approach here. If it's published, then all the more reason for me to become a subscriber.

Thanks!

@Ken-Oscale Was really interested (for the future) the layout in this thread. Are you still planning an article on this one for the magazine?

Mister Ken, I am amazed by your visions & creativity, ironically my talents lie in making things happen, you design it, I can build it....  That being said, really interested in a couple of your designs (this one in particular).  Count me in as wanting to know the status of your article & if this layout is available.

Thanks much

Ric