New Atlas-O extended O54 version. O60/O54 revision (plus other features) to the 12x12 Ideal Layout, Re-Imagined Plan

Wow! That's a lot of action in a 12' x 12' space.

George

Another masterpiece, Ken

I was interested to see if I could make two improvements:  1)  An outside loop of minimum O60 Fastrack, to accomodate O54 locomotives and equipment.  2)  To remove all O36 (and the O42-compound).  

This is how it turnout out:  The main drawback is the choke-point in the aisle of 20".  But the operator space was enlarged, and the yard tracks lengthened a small amount.

I saw an opportunity for another improvement:  I pulled the passing track around toward the bridge, and moved the yard inside.  I was able to make the approach to the yard from the right, all O60, and the turnouts are O60, and the yard curvature is O60, so O54 locos can reach into the yard.

Switching the yard looks like fun, the yard tracks are longer, the long passing track around the yard allows one to park a train and take it apart, and drill cuts down into the yard.   There is a bit of a yard lead for switching.  And there is even a wye track located conveniently close to the yard lead!   The operator can get to both ends of a train on the passing track.  Pretty good!

The "operator well" is enlarged again, comfortable for two, perhaps three operators.  The "newer" 3rd continuous loop is now a good bit bigger.  The mainline route reverse-loop to reverse-loop is now a good bit longer, and more interesting to see trains run past the yard.

All other features previously mentioned are preserved.  I will probably add one more industry turnout and spur in the upper right loop.

"Switching the yard looks like fun, the yard tracks are longer, the long passing track around the yard allows one to park a train and take it apart, and drill cuts down into the yard.   There is a bit of a yard lead for switching.  And there is even a wye track located conveniently close to the yard lead! "

Just noticed how you have that arranged, including the wye. That looks like fun! You can use the wye as a run-around. Wow, the possibilities!

George

After revising the top reverse loop with more industry and Lionel's Gravel Run Quarry train set.

Overall, substantial improvements and enhancements to the "Re-Imagined" Plan!

Thanks for posting this.  While it doesn't exactly fit my space (what does?), it gives me some ideas for configuration for revising my setup.

You are welcome! 

If you or anyone else sees an opportunity to add more improvements to this plan, I am interested!

Ken

It be nice if the yard was double-tracked, so that you could still run the outer loop with the reverse loops. Might be convenient when the bridge is off to still be able to run all three trains.

Good idea Burkus, I had not thought of that!  I did realize that using the yard precludes the outer reverse-loop to reverse-loop route. 

I have thought through the idea, and it looks like it can work.   Stay tuned, I will share how it works out.  

Here is a solution.  I am pausing to think, the trade-off I am not happy with, is the access to the yard from the O60 outside route.

@Ken-Oscale posted:

After revising the top reverse loop with more industry and Lionel's Gravel Run Quarry train set.

Overall, substantial improvements and enhancements to the "Re-Imagined" Plan!

 

Hi Ken,

How are you planning to address the upper level elevation change by the cattle pen? It looks like the spur track is pretty close to the lower level loop. Would that need to have a retaining wall for the elevation change? I expect the elevation difference between the upper and lower level is 7" to 8" to allow for clearance.

George

@George S posted:

Hi Ken,

How are you planning to address the upper level elevation change by the cattle pen? It looks like the spur track is pretty close to the lower level loop. Would that need to have a retaining wall for the elevation change? I expect the elevation difference between the upper and lower level is 7" to 8" to allow for clearance.

George

Yes, I see that as well, but I will work on those kind of clearance issues after I figure out if I can restore O60 access to the yard.

A version that retains the O60 approach to the yard (now from the left, not the right) and all other previous features.   Lots of re-alignment, and some roadbed trimming to eliminate the 1-3/8 fitters.  Roughed-in, more clean-up needed.

Better alignment at the inner loop cutoff.  Still cleanup needed.

Nice track plan. I see the ability to have trains running independently on 3 loops? One elevated, one at the bottom of the plan going through the tunnel, and one all the way around the outside. Also ample opportunities for switching. Very well done. I assume some of the clean up will be those sidings fouling the main line.

What is the software you use?

After more clean-up.   There is now an all O60 return loop, allowing O54 trains to reverse direction (one way).  O54 trains can reach into the top three spurs off the upper loop.   If a couple cars are used to "reach in", O54 trains can pull a cut from the quarry spurs.

I have colored the O48 limited track sections with a light grey, to better highlight where O54 locos can go (everything brown):

Very nicely done!

Ken, you are a wizard at this stuff!

Peter

@Putnam Division posted:

Very nicely done!

Ken, you are a wizard at this stuff!

Peter

Thanks Peter, I appreciate that.   It takes a lot of time, but I really enjoy it.  Its fun for me to look for ways to optimize and perfect a design, and then see how it looks as a layout with terrain and structures.  -Ken

FasTrack is hard to work with, very time intensive trying to get everything to fit to small tolerances.  Systems with flex track are MUCH easier to design with.

This version includes a handful of small changes, the big change is the re-alignment of the route to the upper loop, this is now a moderate 3% all the way to 6" in elevation.

I was able to extend the O60 on the inside passing track through the tunnel (at the bottom).  Not sure how often this would be useful, but it would allow an operator to "stage" a train (O54) on this track.  

I forget that the part of the inside loop beneath the Suburban Station is O48 (and no way to extend it to O60).  So O54 equipment CANNOT complete the wye.  Too bad!!

Its tempting to see that the track plan is close to being all O60, but those two gray curving sections plus the section inside the tunnel by the station, cannot be increased without shrinking the 20" access pathway choke-point.  

It is clear that this track plan could go together easily using a track system with O54 curves, and widen the aisle-way some.  So I decided to throw some Atlas O54 in to allow the wye to be used by O54 locos.   Its not too bad to trim Fastrack to allow Atlas's conversion joiners to allow FasTrack to mate with Atlas track, I have done it twice with good results.   So here is how it might look with some Atlas O54 sections (minimal).

If the entire layout were to use Atlas track, everything but the elevated loop could go O54 comfortably, allowing the main-level loop-to-loop route to be all O54.  The elevated loop would be O45, accommodating O42 equipment.

After considering the trade-offs, I decided to look at making the wye O60 so O54 locos and cars can run the wye, with long enough legs (the bottom leg running all the way under the upper level at O60). This also allowed each yard track to extend 16+ inches.

I gave up the longer passing track around the yard, and the ability to run the O60 route around the yard while another train is circling the lower loop.  Since the upper loop is still O48 limited, I thought this would not be that useful(?)

No longer any Atlas O54 track, or custom-cut O60 curves.

An O54 train can reverse direction using the wye, with backup moves.

I was in Colorado last year, riding Amtrak from Glenwood Springs to Denver, and our train had to wait for a meet with the westbound Amtrak (running late).   We had to pull onto one leg of the wye to allow the other train to run past us, then we backed-up and and resumed our direction to Denver.

I brought forward the lower double-track tunnel portal.  I am thinking that the track in this area would be hard to reach, and the scenery hard to do, as it is lower than the elevated area.  A long reach and down would be hard.  

Now the reach to the track is from beneath the elevated area, accessed when one is in the lift-out access.

\

The lower left corner and upper right corners are the weak points for access/reach.

Your layouts are great they stretch the imagination of what can be done in a reasonable sized space. Could you possible share the anyrail file for the latest fastrack version of this layout. Thanks And RR

@Adirondack RR posted:

Your layouts are great they stretch the imagination of what can be done in a reasonable sized space. Could you possible share the anyrail file for the latest fastrack version of this layout. Thanks And RR

Thanks very much.  Sure, I will post the AnyRail file, later when I have a moment.

Here is the AnyRail file for the track plan, for anyone interested.

If the room door was in the upper left hand corner with 2 bridges, couldn’t the passageway to the far right be removed and all curves increase so 054 engines could travel the entire layout? Correct me if I’m wrong, I see most homes with doorways in a corner not middle of wall. I think this is an excellent layout that could be modified to “real life” available spare bedrooms. Just my opinion for what it’s worth.

If Fastrack is keeping you from an all-O54 plan, and the third loop, why not convert it to Atlas and have the outside O-54?

thanks for posting the anyrail file 

@Trainmstr posted:

If the room door was in the upper left hand corner with 2 bridges, couldn’t the passageway to the far right be removed and all curves increase so 054 engines could travel the entire layout? Correct me if I’m wrong, I see most homes with doorways in a corner not middle of wall. I think this is an excellent layout that could be modified to “real life” available spare bedrooms. Just my opinion for what it’s worth.

I agree, that would work well, allowing access into the center operating area, and also allow the curves to expand to O60.  But the drawback is that there would now be large areas of the layout that are inaccessible, or with reduced accessibility.

When the original 1947 plan was put forward, folks were expecting to have to crawl on top of layouts to access, and repair.  Not so good for most people, and scenery can't be well detailed if operators will be crawling on top.

Good idea, I will give it some more thought!

@BurkusCircus52 posted:

If Fastrack is keeping you from an all-O54 plan, and the third loop, why not convert it to Atlas and have the outside O-54?

Well the plan started as a revision to the 1947 Lionel plan, using Lionel's popular FasTrack.   And then it has evolved over many revisions to a much better layout.

So sure, it has occurred to me that a conversion to Atlas or Gargraves/Ross or maybe Scaletrax  would work well.   I have been tempted to do it, but not yet ready to commit to another major redesign until I was sure I had extracted all the good stuff from this concept.

What track system would you recommend for a redesign?

Anyone who would like to see a redesign with a track system that supports O54 curves, please click the LIKE below.

If there is enough interest, I will do it (perhaps 10 or more LIKEs).

If you want to recommend a particular system, add a reply with your suggestion and perhaps a "why".

Ken, as usual your layout design wizardry SUCKED ME INTO your design and i did mucho "finger tracing" for imagining how the trains would travel throughout this layout.

I like it so much that I ask permission to keep an image. I'd only pick at the choke point at the top of the layout at the back to back switches. Too bad that cannot allow two trains to pass each other.  Keep going!!

@redjimmy1955 posted:

Ken, as usual your layout design wizardry SUCKED ME INTO your design and i did mucho "finger tracing" for imagining how the trains would travel throughout this layout.

I like it so much that I ask permission to keep an image. I'd only pick at the choke point at the top of the layout at the back to back switches. Too bad that cannot allow two trains to pass each other.  Keep going!!

Thanks Jimmy!  I think I see what you are driving at, and there does not seem to be space to make it double-track through that with the O60 minimum.  But perhaps it will be possible with O54, I will keep that in mind.

So is a first O54 version, using Atlas-O.  Clean-up needed.  

Its O54 min everywhere, except for the elevated loop, which is O45, running O42 locos and equipment.

4 yard tracks rather than three.  Some decent length.

Nice two-train options on the lower (main) level.  Two trains can follow each other around the loops without using the reverse loops, or follow each other around the outside loop over the bridge.

After some clean-up, back to two spurs in the upper right loop:

Looks cool!  But still I don't like the 20" aisle-way.  I can make that larger, if I convert the inside passing track curve to the right of the yard ladder to O45 minimum.  Any opinions?  Is 20" doable for most folks? 

Access to the lower-left and upper-right is still a problem.   

A switcher working the yard can use the tunnel on the inside loop as a yard lead.  -Ken