Sectional Layout Design, 3 Variants: Atlas-O O54&O63; Atlas-O O72/O81; American Models S48/S54.

Pleasing looking layout.  Grades are steep on a curve, but depends on equipment and consists.  Modules that are 4 x 8 and 5 x 9, even 3 x 8 not very transportable.

I would respond that the modules are based on say 4x8 or 5x9 sheets.  But, the actual modules are 3x8 and then 5x5 for the curvebacks.  So more transportable that you might think.  The 3x8 modules will go around curves and up stairs OK.  The 5x5 sections I have not tried personally. 

The 5x5s are circular/curved corners, which can help a lot getting around obstructions.

Thanks for the discussion!

Ken,

If, as you say, the mainlines are using O-63 and O-54 curves, how can your end blobs be only 5 x 5?  Wouldn't they at least have to be 5.5 x 5.5 to handle the O-63 curve?  Maybe you should re-title the thread to "Design of a Modular O63 Layout."

Chuck

A Great Layout design once again Ken. Just thinking out-loud, How about 2’x4’ modules that you could bolt together? How big is this layout? Is the scale of the boxes Grids 4” ? Have a good day.

Modular for shows or modular for when you move? How often would they be taken apart and moved in other words? Smaller better for frequent moving. George mentioned 2 x 4s but I wouldn't use those for anything but a permanent layout to save money. Overkill structurally.

Sectional might be more appropriate term.  Modular implies interchangeability.

Brendan

@Brendan posted:

Sectional might be more appropriate term.  Modular implies interchangeability.

Brendan

Thanks, I agree.  Title changed.

@Seacoast posted:

A Great Layout design once again Ken. Just thinking out-loud, How about 2’x4’ modules that you could bolt together? How big is this layout? Is the scale of the boxes Grids 4” ? Have a good day.

Yes, the grid is 4".  Yes, could use smaller sections, but that increases the construction complexity.  I did not mention minimizing complexity of construction as a design goal.   If I put a great priority on transportability, then smaller sections would be better.

@PRR1950 posted:

Ken,

If, as you say, the mainlines are using O-63 and O-54 curves, how can your end blobs be only 5 x 5?  Wouldn't they at least have to be 5.5 x 5.5 to handle the O-63 curve?  Maybe you should re-title the thread to "Design of a Modular O63 Layout."

Chuck

Wow! Big mistake on my part, the blobs are actually 68" in diameter.  So consequently, they must be sectioned, I suppose two sections.  I will revise.  Thanks for pointing this out.   

I started with an idea in mind (O54), and then forgot to check to see if the evolution was still inside that idea, and I had expanded beyond it.

Thanks for the critique!   Revised, and highlighting the section boundaries.

Here, I tried to bring part of the track away from the rectangular walls, for the scenic effect:  the trains and track running through the scenery.

Perhaps a mountain & tunnel:

Very nice design and fantastic use of space while still leaving plenty of room for scenery.

@Will posted:

Modular for shows or modular for when you move? How often would they be taken apart and moved in other words? Smaller better for frequent moving. George mentioned 2 x 4s but I wouldn't use those for anything but a permanent layout to save money. Overkill structurally.

Hi Will, 2'x4' modules size, not 2"x4" grid framework Lumber.

A turntable barely fits

Better yard, with a short yard lead

Better yard complex: passing track and yard lead:

@Seacoast posted:

 

Hi Will, 2'x4' modules size, not 2"x4" grid framework Lumber.

 

Oops, my bad.

Experimenting with terrain in the turnback "blob" at the bottom:

Some more terrain and a draft try on the town:

Fitting in a the coal mine:

The layout ended up being 11'8" by 16'8"

This removable bridge  creates a connected loop route of O63 diameter.

This alternative connecting bridge creates a reversing route in one direction.

After ballasting and some terrain fill-in:  And added a connection to another road in the upper right corner.

Decorating with some trees:

The connecting lift-out steel bridge in this position allows the out-and-back operation, from the yard, heading out to switch the industries, and then cross the bridge and return to the yard heading in.

Here is a satisfyingly long and interesting out and back route from the yard, serving the main industries as trailing point moves.

• Starting at the yard throat at 1
• past the cross-over at 2 to reach and serve Morton Salt at 3
• passing the mine entrance at 4 and then taking the crossover at 5
• then continuing through 6 to take the steel lift-out bridge at 7
• then under the bridge at 8 and around to serve the power plant at 9
• then continuing past 10 and past the steel bridge switch at 11
• then take the crossover again in the opposite direction at 12 
• serve the mine at 13, and then around the curve at 14
• through the crossover straight, at 15, and then the yard throat return at 16.

Out-and-Back route from the yard serving industries as trailing-point moves.

This variation adds set outs (optional) at the connecting route in the upper right corner:

• Starting at the yard throat at 1 (left-hand running)
• past the cross-over at 2 to reach and serve Morton Salt at 3
• passing the mine entrance at 4 and then taking the crossover at 5 (now right-hand running)
• then continuing through 6 to take the steel lift-out bridge at 7 (left-hand running again)
• then under the bridge at 8 and around to serve the power plant at 9
• then continuing past 10 and optionally set out interchange cars at 10B
• past the steel bridge switch at 11
• then take the crossover again in the opposite direction at 12 (now right-hand running)
• serve the mine at 13, and then around the curve at 14
• through the crossover straight, at 15, and then the yard throat return at 16.

I thought it might be worthwhile to have two tracks at each industry, for switching full/empties.

I changed my mind and decided to go for a dramatic river and bridge scene:

And a 3D view:

The maximum grade on the curved turn-back loops is 2.9%.  I prefer 2%, but less than 4% is acceptable.  So 2.9% is a win.  Because the grades are entirely curved (O54 and O63) the grades will feel steeper in operation.  Its not a large layout, so 50 car trains are possible but not normal operations.  

Hi Ken, that is really nice, I like your design and the operational abilities.  A plan very well thought out with many possibilities.  What size room is that for?  Thanks for sharing.

@J. Motts posted:

Hi Ken, that is really nice, I like your design and the operational abilities.  A plan very well thought out with many possibilities.  What size room is that for?  Thanks for sharing.

Thanks J. Motts, I appreciate that.  The layout space is 11'8" wide, and 17' long, so would fit in a room with those dimensions or larger.

-Ken

A quick look at how big this would be expanded with O72/O81 curves:

Regarding the O54/O63 plan, the two parallel mains are actually long:  2 trains per main is easy, 3 trains possible, and even four trains per main can be done (assuming all trains are well speed matched) with 10 car trains.  For train watching, 2 trains per main (4 trains) would be pleasant and interesting.

I did a revision so that all mainline turnouts are now #5 or O72.  The cross-overs are #5.  I used some O54 in the yard and for industry trackage.

Once more refining and perfecting the yard and yard track center spacing:

There are just two O54 turnouts in the yard, and two more O54 turnouts serving industries.  There is one O72/O54 curved turnout at the yard throat.  The rest is O72, O72 'Y', and #5.  Both crossovers are #5 turnouts.