They do differentiate between switches WITH extensions and WITHOUT extensions - I am using the ones with extensions - if that makes a difference.
Here's a photo of what the switch looks like. One has to use the extensions on the turn-out end, unless one modifies a standard piece of track. So, you are correct in using that track selection.
This is what I get when I tried to replicate your plan - it doesn't work.
So one of the programs is wrong 
Ned, as I told you before, it's only the 060 switch or 060 curve. It is a problem with RMP. RR-Track has been around a long time and SCARM is new on the scene, but both result in the 060 reverse loop needing spacing adjustments.
This is very disheartening.
Might as well finish it sir - make sure the rest of it works - but lets move the turnout for the sloping down line to the front - put the o-72 turnout there and wrap it around to connect - less of a grade and I can see it better. I attached my full attempt so you can see what Im talking about. Adds .5" or so (who knows since this program seems to be flawed ) to the layout - but it greatly reduces the grade.
Take heart-The program is not flawed, it has everything else as it should. It's the only software available for mac. The gap that you see is what needs to be compensated for that RMP shows as ok. Let's wait and see when they respond to me. Then we should get to the bottom of it. Your build is ok. You can finish it.Just don't use anymore 060 switches. Let the r-loops stand as you have them and complete the plan with what you have.
Thanks
Try this simple test
Connect three pieces of 060 curve track.
Remove the center piece.
Now insert an 060 switch with extensions.
It should not fit and it should look like these from RR-Track and SCARM. You see that it is ~ 1/2 track off.
Yeah..........
Something is off with this program
Yeppur. That is the only switch the will not replace a full curve. You can search the forum for replace curve with 060 switch and read some the posts by disgruntled builders that assumed it was like all of the others. See for yourself with 036, 048, 072 even 031 , if they have it the library. 031 sw. is not available yet, but SCARM and RR-Track have it.
So, don't hate on the software. They can correct it. You really would have been p$%^ed if you were building it and discovered the issue.
You can force it to work by cutting the inside roadbed off for the 1 3/8" where the small extension goes in. See the rectangle of the overlap where the 2 arrows are? It's a tricky cut because you are cutting a straight line on the curved end.
I thinks it's easier to adjust the track if you in the planning stages rather than a track change to an existing layout.
Ill wait and see if they can fix it - I really do want to use the O-60 curves as I dont have the space to use the O-84/O-72 variant - So I will have to use your way of fixing it and go off your plan.
If you dont mind finishing the plan with the modification I tried to incorporate?
That way al least I know that its done and will work while I wait for RMP to fix itself.
Thanks!
What you think of the deep crossover for the 2 r-loops/ Dom's suggestion, but not figure 8 looking. Takes the S out it.
The other solution is to use 072 switches with the 060 S's. It lengthens the inner loop. I just started on trying that. I like the deep cross. There's minor alignment where the arrows are visible, but that's like an 1/8" or less laterally. That fits in real life without a lot of pressure on the track joint.
I can complete it to verify fitment. Try to get me clear screen captures of section of the layout zoomed. Then I will be able to read the track numbers. if you can change them to display name instead of part #, that would be cool.
on one side and the Pennsy style countryside on the other. You gain some length on the reversing loops, and elongate the "snaking" too.
Knowing your preference here may be important.
I like controlling from a short side or corner. This gives me a good view of both sides of the train as it snakes wildly across the short length of the layout. (I think this is the narrow gauge voice in my head whispering or something
).
If you can live without the zig zagging, and prefer slower transitions Id think you'd prefer the deep cross in the long run.
(And I totally get not wanting a perfect figure 8!)
And thank you! for accommodating my silly #$% . All! 
on one side and the Pennsy style countryside on the other.The s curve r-loops open up more of the center for scenery. Not the best for the train, but it's a toy train, so it can snake. Plus, the double r-loops provide an alternate route around the scenery in the center by crossing over and crossing back on the same run. Throw all four switches to out.
So, keep the r-loops. It's probably what your eye saw to begin with.
Ned, you may have already stated this earlier in the discussion, but are you dead set on using Fastrack? Seems like a lot of these little fit issues would be non-existent if you went with a flextrack system that is easier to cut and modify.
Ned,
RailModeller Support replied and has asked if you would send the layout to them. The version that you have that completes the 060 r-loops erroneously.
My email is in my profile. I can then forward their reply to you , so you deal directly with them.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
