Rubin’s New Layout

Congratulations on a great space for a new layout. I put your mainline plan into SCARM just to get a feel for the layout. I can't read the pictures toward the top, if you could take them straight down so the pages are in focus it would help.  I would work on the plan and benchwork right now and worry about the electronics and control panel later. A couple of questions:

Where are the walls?

Where is the viewing area?

The curve track is Gargraves O72 & O54?

Will the kids have access to everywhere or do you want to concentrate the action accessories?

Is this only for the kids or is there me time?

Do we need a yard?

Do we need industry?

Are you a looper or do you like switching?

Any other wishes?

Some suggestions for a great layout with some good operations:

-Upper two switches: add a 3rd for a reversing wye.

-Loco servicing or yard area in bottom left loop (better location than original drawing); also make it a reverse loop

-Yard, passenger station, or operating accessories on left side and center section

-City or town on center and/or left sections

-Removable or swing bridge between center and left sections

Edward and Dylan,
Thank you very much for your thorough responses and comments. I really appreciate them.
1) the layout follows in the but the three room walls. The top wall is 19 feet and the two sidewalls are also 19 feet, although the room does extend to 25 feet and the return loop that is not shown on the right hand area will be extending the layout to the full 25 feet on that side, I cannot extend on the left side due to the presence of the emergency egress window.

2) the main viewing area is the area between the left and center portions of the layout and is 4 feet wide until it narrows between the loop and the center area.
3) the curves are indeed 072 and 054.
4) the kids will have access to all areas, though only with parental supervision

5) I’d like a yard emanating out of the area Mark yard lead at the upper part of the center Peninsula. This could tie into the siding on the left side of the peninsula and if I move, the red mainline to the right, I should be able to have a more extensive yard, I also might want to go down to 054 radius in the yard lead in order to make it, double ended, and perhaps tie into the siding at the left.

6) we do need industry and places for operating accessories. I do like to build weather and kick bash structures. The area is now labeled as I – 1 and I-2 as well as some of the area at the very “top“ of the layout would be suitable for both an industrial backdrop, and a lot of the false front factory buildings that I already owned. I also have several HO scale industrial buildings that I have wanted to keep Bashan to forced perspective background for years time will tell…

7) I am a runner, but I also do like to switch  I have long thought about installing KD couplers on my freight cars in order to make switching better.

I have long thought about installing KD couplers on my freight cars in order to make switching better.

Dylan, I really appreciate your suggestions but I think in order to do that the red line could no longer pass over itself, but rather would have to be built at ground level as it sits. Now it is a rather fluid over and under figurehead encompassing the entire layout. I have, however, added a potential additional crossover for reversing loop purposes, as shown in blue on the plan  

My thought for the part of the red line that passes over the center Peninsula is that I would use RGS trestles and girder bridges on both ends and then an atlas 40 inch truss bridge in the middle. This will be a costly venture and I’m open to any other suggestions.

I haven’t had a turntable on any of my layouts till now, and I guess I could do without one, and just run my engines with trains out of the various sidings. The turntables that I really like are quite pricey so I may settle for a 24 inch atlas turntable for at least the foreseeable future.

. The turntables that I really like are quite pricey so I may settle for a 24 inch atlas turntable for at least the foreseeable future.

i’m really excited about doing this project and I really appreciate your input. But I’m also really concerned about my 71 year old body with replacement knees being able to tolerate the necessary time under the layout to wire this thing.

the necessary time under the layout to wire this thing.

I hope that the new pictures over attached to this email with their bolder color annotations, are more helpful than the last batch  

Thanks again for your help and thoughts. I’m really looking forward to hearing from you soon.

thanks again for your help and thoughts. I’m really looking forward to hearing from you soon.

RUBING

Photos not included. Sorry

From the photos I was able to complete the plan. There are slight dimension differences with the CAD, but its close enough. The first set of plans is a close to the hand drawn ones I could get. The second set is some changes I would make.  Yard, sidings, ect. The 6' x 17' center section has such a opportunity for balance between scenery and track that it needs a lot of detail. Overall I think your off to a great start. its too bad you don't use SCARM, but you can download and run in demo mode to see details.

Edward,

I really appreciate your effort, insights and help. The Scarm image really helps with visualization. I agree with you about structures and detail, but then that’s what I really enjoy.
As I make progress, I’ll try to post some pictures. Keep those thoughts coming!

Thanks again.

Nice updated track plan. It looks like a fun layout to run, plus it's pretty big. There's plenty of space for accessories, switching, towns/cities, and scenery. The point-to-point operations from the yard on the right side and the loops on the left and center are a cool feature, too. I would suggest moving the crossover switches before the left-side loop to make it a reverse loop. Then add a second crossover to allow a train to reverse from either direction.

@RubinG posted:

Edward,

I really appreciate your effort, insights and help. The Scarm image really helps with visualization. I agree with you about structures and detail, but then that’s what I really enjoy.
As I make progress, I’ll try to post some pictures. Keep those thoughts coming!

Thanks again.

It's my pleasure as I enjoy design work and CAD. I did not quite understand where the walls are. Mainly I am worried about access to the left peninsula. Is left of the left peninsula the path to the emergency exit or is it between the left and center?  Also what do you think about raising the left peninsula front half about 2 inches to ease the grade and give us room for a crossover as suggested by @Dylan the Train Man.? It would create a down ramp to the lift bridge at the back on the inside track. I am going to play with the red loop and try to make it all O72. Just the thought of running a New York Central big boy with 21 inch Pullman cars over the viaduct make me wish the layout was done.

Dylan,

Thank you very much for your suggestions regarding the loop on the left side, but I’m not sure how I could do that because that is where the grade elevation begins and allows me to maintain a 3% grade through the point where the upper lines thaw my original plan to use my two lift b crosses f the Lions the lower one.
EdwardG -I really like the changes you’ve made but I have a couple of questions:The “Y” has been moved to the left which means that I will not have room for the river crossing utilizing both of the lift bridges I own. For locals here that would invoke the flats as would the waterfront photo backdrops I intend to use.  I guess the bridges can stay in their boxes, but…

2) I really like the you fleshed out the right hand side of the layout, but did you mean to suggest the I not do the the loop that was not shown on the drawing but would extend from it?
in any event, as Edward said, it really looks like a fun layout.
thanks again,

Rubin

Edward,

The boundaries of the layout ARE the walls of the room, at least on the left, right and top. The loop on the left abuts the emergency egress window and the entry aisle to to the room. The right side can be extended about 7 feet further along the wall and no more than six feet wide at the base in in order to accommodate the adjacent work area and then the entry area into the layout area. I can draw a map and attach it if you’d like.
mom very glad that you find the viaduct as exciting as I do. I’m an NYC, Pennsy  and New Haven fan. My longest engine is the NYC L-1 Mohawk, by design. My assembler cars are no longer than 18”. But what is the “ Big Boy” referred to? I know the UP Big Boy , but NYC? I’ve Also got PA and FA’s in all three road names, SW-1 switchers, RS 1&3s. and a whole host of others to enjoy. None are even as big as a Niagara. Now all I have to do is get this monster built and running.
I look forward to seeing your next suggestions.

Edward,

Just to ensure that I was clear enough on where the walls are, I thought that I’d send pictures of the bench work as it exists, showing the position relative to the walls, entry way, etc.

Thanks again,

Rubin

1-The “Y” has been moved to the left which means that I will not have room for the river crossing utilizing both of the lift bridges I own.

there is a little room to move the Y to the right. How much do you need, and what is the size of the bridges.

2-did you mean to suggest the I not do the the loop that was not shown on the drawing but would extend from it?

I want to keep the loop, I just don’t know where it is

3-I can draw a map and attach it if you’d like.

that would be great

4-But what is the “ Big Boy” referred to?

I call all big steam engines “Big Boy”, like people say Coke when they mean soda.

Did you see this above — “Also what do you think about raising the left peninsula front half about 2 inches to ease the grade and give us room for a crossover as suggested by @Dylan the Train Man.? It would create a down ramp to the lift bridge at the back on the inside track.”

Rubin, I just saw your thread this evening for the first time.  First, I will say I am glad to have been an inspiration for you.  I hope I don't lead you astray.  I will look over the current plan later, but thought I would make a few comments off the cuff.

Your room looks wonderful!  Many thanks to you wife!  I think the benchwork looks great; sturdy construction. 

As for the turnout control, you probably remember I setup AIUs to be able to control all mine with the remote and put the DZ push button switches on the edge of the layout.  I have found it cumbersome to use the remote for switches and opted for the push buttons.  My plan is to make at least two local panels for the push button switches.  I still have 3 new DZ1000s to wire up.  Hopefully next winter.

Edward, Your SCARM plans look great!  Guys like Rubin and I really appreciate folks like you who have CAD skills.  I was an electrical draftsman back in the T-square, pencil, velum days!  I was good at copy-paste and relabel in CAD when I moved into telecom engineering the last decade of my working days. 

Edward and Dylan,

We could do as you suggest and raise the left peninsula. It may be a brilliant solution, so long as I am able to preserve the river crossing area for the bridges ( which is one of the reasons I didn’t double track the mainline all around. ). The length of the lift bridges is 30” plus 6” on each end to allow for a straight approach.

Im looking forward to seeing what Scarm and your beautiful mind come up with.

Happy Father’s Day to all,

Rubin

Very nice train room Rubin. I like the plan overall and am jealous of your space. My parents had a large addition put on our house (25x20) when I was little and my father wanted to extend a full basement under it for my (our) trains, but the added cost was not in the budget unfortunately.
My only comment so far is that I agree with using separate panels for switches. Personally I like to see the turnout positions and that would be impossible from a central location.
Also, plan to put the operating accessories where little hand can reach.

Keep us posted!

Bob

I decided to do an inventory of what I have before starting to lay track. To my shock ( which shouldn’t have been the case), I found that I only have one pair of 072 RCS and two pair of AtlasO 072 turnouts. The rest are 054 or even 036 by Atlas. At “only” 13x14 my last layout demanded sharper curves. The only other  072 turnouts are in the box leftover Lionel O 8x 14 layout I built in the early 80’s, which won’t do me much good. I also have all of my Super O from an 8x 8 layout I built in my parent’s basement during my teens.
By my count, I will need at least 5 pair of RCS 072 turnouts more to build the plan you’ve all been so gracious to help with planning. I guess it’s time to talk to Steve B and maybe EBay so I can get moving. Although I may well try to make use of all the 054 curves and turnouts that I already own.
I also may have to digress so that I can have something running when my grandchildren come over Labor Day.

just keeping you up to date…

Enjoy the long weekend.
Rubin

Good morning all,

Before I head off to Home Depot to buy some more 1x 4’s and then call to order those switches, I thought it might be fun to share a kitbashed model based on West 3d Street in downtown Cleveland. I built this over twenty years ago. Each business is named for one of my children and each a full interior. The staircase on the side is scratchbuilt from styrene as are the interiors.
This model will definitely have a place on my new layout.
Hope you enjoy,

Rubin

Here is the new top left with room for the bridges, the Y is gone, replaced by a crossover, although not sure you need it if the lower left loop becomes a reverse loop. I used RCS 100's for the new crossover instead of O72 and was going to rework the others, but it's up to you. The track may be too close to the walls, do you have a preferred distance? (center rail to wall) More to come...

I don't want be a spoiler here, but it seems to me you have an awful lot of space-eating benchwork because of tangent (straight) track, especially on the center peninsula. You mentioned Gargraves: have you sketched your plan freehand? If you can use flexible instead of sectional track you can eliminate all long, boring straightaways except where you actually want one. I find that gentle curves make a layout look larger and improve viewing of trains. When I built in a space such as yours (albeit in HO), I used flexible track and made myself two templates out of sections of plywood: one for my minimum radius and one for what I called my "cosmetic" radius, which was twice minimum.  I made sure that any actual tangent track wasn't parallel to the backdrop or the fascia of the layout, except for yard tracks.

I accepted a single duckunder so my line for continuous running could use the entire circumference of the room as well as a "blob" in the middle. The blob had an S-curved passing siding but otherwise had no other switches.

My inspiration was an around-the-basement layout designed by Jim Six that never left the walls and had only a single-track main line.

Bob M.

RubinG

Do not let price get in the way of a turntable.  Your plan is great for a homemade $10 turntable as it would be close to the tables edge.  Tt is easy to build too and any size you want and install anywhere.  Details on how to build below.

https://ogrforum.com/...ra-027-layout?page=1     Post 9

TT operated with red knob on bottom, but TT can be built with electric motor too.  Mine is detailed for my 027 toy train layout, but it can be any size, any where and any level of detail

Charlie

Grandpa to Grandpa Tip ...

The great grandkids in my extended family know how to operate the trains -- including four THOMAS series trains -- but my modest 15x19-feet L-shaped layout doesn't hold their attention for the trains for long.  After a train makes a few laps around the layout, they realize it will continue along its route without their involvement, except for an occasional route change through a switch(es).

Instead, they want to play with the many operating accessories on my layout through the control pushbuttons I mounted on the fascia boards around the perimeter. Their most-favored accessory is the Lionel Culvert Unloader and Culvert Loader, probably because they like to "coax" the culverts along their route and/or into or out of the waiting gondolas. The Lionel Sawmill (because of its illusion) and Oil Drum Loader (because the oil drums must be re-loaded by hand) are next-most favorites. Then the Lionel Barrel Loader and Lumber Conveyor.

Hands-on fun may explain why kids favor Lionel's Ice Station, Milk Car, Merchandise Car, and others that must be re-loaded by hand; i.e., five-finger engineering. An example:  I created a Dinosaur Park with two corrals for adult and juvenile dinosaurs. Kids want to load the plastic, to-scale dinosaurs by hand from a corral to a waiting gondola for transport aboard the Lionel/LCCA Dinosaur Train to the "Summer Feeding Grounds" and return.

I've observed that my high-ticket accessories  (MTH Fire Station, MTH Gas Station, MTH Car Wash, and MTH Mel's Diner are fun for them to watch, but one cycle of animation may be enough for them. Probably because they can't "play with it" hands-on. Same for some other accessories that are fun to watch as "eye candy" but not much inherent play value.

When grandkids grow up, running trains along self-varied routes may capture their attention along with simulated RR activities:

   * Picking up milk cans at a dairy farm and delivering them to a local dairy for processing as ice cream
   * Loading coal from a mine and delivering it to a Power Generating Plant
  *  Picking up automobiles from a factory, loading them onto a flat car, and delivering them to a car dealership
   * Loading cattle at a trackside Cattle Corral and transporting them in a Cattle Car to a stock yard
   *  Loading logs at the forest and transporting them in a Log Dump Car to a Sawmill
  *   And so on ... they'll learn WHY railroads came into being.

Just saying ...

Mike M.   LCCA 12394   

Rubin, the buildings with interiors look fantastic!  You are right, you definitely need to have them on the layout.

Bob M.’s comment about not having long straight tracks is a good point.  I would have made mine curve some if I had more room.

Grandpa, to Grandpa, to Grandpa, I scanned through the thread but I didn’t see an indication as to the age of the grandkids. In my continuing layout development I have involved my grandkids. My eldest, who was 14 at the time has an artistic flair. With stencils and spray paint she did the clouds on the wall. My grandson who was 10 at the time learned how to measure the necessary width for the carpet padding under the tracks and to do the cuts. That really saved my back and knees. Recently, at age 11, he pulled all of the wire and learned the important roles of “holder” and “gofer”. He also enjoys having his own tool belt. My point is to include them to whatever level of involvement to which they are capable and/or have an interest. There’s much to be learned on a practical level in building and designing a layout besides just running trains.

Mike and Tranquil Hollow,

We share common values when it comes to our grandchildren. It’s a beautiful thing! My challenge is that we have seven, ranging in age from 8years to 8 months and I am trying to build a scale oriented layout, albeit incorporating virtually every accessory mentioned. The late Jim Barrett to some extent suggested the way to do so.
Tranquil Hollow, I love the way you’ve the older kids. I can’t wait.
Bob M-

Bob M- I use only Gargraves flex except for the curves because bending Gargraves is an awful lot of time consuming work. But both Mark and you are correct. I just haven’t figured out a way to throw a couple of curves into the peninsula and still have a substantial yard. Perhaps I’ll experiment with curving the elevated track on the curb peninsula.
Edward, I think the clearance from the center rail to wall, especially on (even) an 072 curve needs to at least 3.5 inches and center to center on an 054 / 072 curve needs to be 5.5. Attached is a picture. I took using an old Williams GG1 and an 18” passenger car.
Thanks to all for sharing.

Thank you, Mark. My favorite hobby activities are building/ weathering structures and weathering cars and locomotives subtlety so that they look used but not at the scrap yard’s door. I also bought “Grandpa Jack’s Hobby House” from Menards because my wife’s beloved late father was an engineer and a tool guy. He was not into trains but in the fashion of the 50’s and sixties did build his kids a train set.  This model, after suitable detailing and weathering will be my tribute to him.

That sounds like a great tribute, Rubin! 

Good luck!  Only a recommendation.  Make sure you keep everything within 24 inches of easy reach and NO duckunders.  None of us are getting younger.  It never ceases to amaze me in our scale that people are still creating duckunders and even crawling on top  layouts.  Both will cause you, grief, agony, despair, time and money down the line.

An ideal layout would be one where any person could simply walk up to a layout and easily reach whatever.

Well it's come to that time when we have gives and takes. To make the lower left loop O72, the benchwork needs to grow, hence the center peninsula need to shrink. I think O72 is worth the extra effort, but it's your layout. We can stay at O72, go back to the mix of O72 & O54 or go to O63. Let me know.

The elevation of the left side really helps keep the grades under 3%...

I am calling the long route Mainline, and the small dog bone Branch.

What's new in version 5...

• Mainline is now all O72
• Added access hatch inside loop
• Moved spurs inside loop for reach.
• Added crossover above loop.
• Moved mainline to 4 inches from left wall.
• Moved mainline to 5 inches from back wall.
• Set elevation for left side to 2.25 inches
• Corrected error on baseboard center peninsula.
• Show new recommended baseboard to support O72
• Shaping of mainline and branch center peninsula

Know to do:

• Shaping of mainline and branch center peninsula
• Fix access to yard so Mainline and Branch do not interfere with each other when pulling out of yard.
• Aline branch line on right with hidden return loop

A lot to take in, await comments....

Looks good, Edward.  I concur on the 072 change in the lower left.  Yes an access hatch would be needed inside the 072 turnback there.

Edward,

You are amazing and generous! While I want to give your efforts en the center areathe respect and time they deserve,

The left loop will have to settle for 060 on the outside and 054 on the inner siding. Otherwise I have to shorten the center area or narrow it, really diminishing its value.
if the grades up and down on the left side begin, say, 6” after the double crossover you’ve shown, I’m not sure that the 3% grade will do it. But if you’ve measured it, I accept that as gospel.
while I said that could raise the loop on that side by 2” so the up and down grades will be lesser, I am concerned that this will make things too high for my young grandchildren, even with the stool I’ve bought for them. This isn’t a “no,”just a consideration I’m thinking about.

i have some other thoughts as well, so more tomorrow. Thank you again.
Rubin

Edward,

Thank you once again.

Here are some more thoughts about the changes or suggestions you’ve presented.

1) In order to accommodate the new curves as well as the universal 072 curves, instead of straightaways, it looks as though the passing sidings have been shortened a fair amount. It appears as though freight trains may be limited to 6 cars and 18” passenger trains to only 3-4 cars. If I am correct, this seems very short for a layout of this size. One thought would be to actually double track the main all the way around, which would lower the radius curve to be used, at least on the inner track. Another possibility would be to also extend the passing sidings on the center and right lower level. This too would require losing the extra curves and perhaps shortening the radius of the curves that remain. I agree that the curves are attractive, but trains that are too short can give the whole layout a tinplate look ( a Mohawk with four cars, e.g.).

I’m not locked into anything here, but I am trying to offer my perspective.

Some other thoughts:

When I tried to rough out the peninsula loop extending from the right side, I could not make it work with space available ( by my own choice to preserve a work area of 3X5 feet) and a curve bigger that 063 ( which means AtlasO, I surmise). Attached is the scale rough out that I’ve drawn. It also has the difficulty of adding a significant additional amount of under layout climbing for wiring, etc. So I ve drawn a rather large  access hole.

The double crossover you’ve added would be neat and very functional. But when I priced the Ross double crossover with motors and fully wired, it was about $850.00! I’m not questioning its value or price, but with everything else that’s got to be bought, that’s a next year item at best. Ditto for the yard entry 4 way, although I do have a 40 year old never used set by Bill Benson. I know they need to be wired and that there were reliability issues, but I guess I won’t know till I try. The price will certainly be right.

Finally ( for now), I ‘d really appreciate any thoughts on how to build and be operational in stages.

Thanks again to each and all of the group. I look forward to your thoughts and advice.

Rubin

@Mark Boyce posted:

Edward, Your SCARM plans look great!  Guys like Rubin and I really appreciate folks like you who have CAD skills.  I was an electrical draftsman back in the T-square, pencil, velum days!  I was good at copy-paste and relabel in CAD when I moved into telecom engineering the last decade of my working days. 

Mark, Thank you for the kind words. I still have my t-square, triangle, and slide rule somewhere collecting dust. I jumped on to computers as fast as I could.

I thoroughly enjoy your build thread for a couple of years now. A while back I took the time to read it from the beginning…Wow way a journey.

Did a deep dive into how this layout would run and found a lot of unnecessary stuff. Unless you plan to run multiple trains in a complex pattern, i.e. trains waiting at turnouts for other trains to pass, the plan can be simplified. You still can get from the mainline to the branch and back. Also fixed access to the yard.

Thanks for the new challenges…

The left loop will have to settle for 060 on the outside and 054 on the inner siding. Otherwise I have to shorten the center area or narrow it, really diminishing its value.

-New loop design – blend of original and latest. 063 on the outside and 054 on the inner siding.

if the grades up and down on the left side begin, say, 6” after the double crossover you’ve shown, I’m not sure that the 3% grade will do it. But if you’ve measured it, I accept that as gospel.

-Grades are tight. Right now you’re at 3% and no easement. There is only so much run between the river bridge and the turnout into the inner loop. It’s pushing the turnout into the loop further down to the front.

while I said that could raise the loop on that side by 2” so the up and down grades will be lesser, I am concerned that this will make things too high for my young grandchildren, even with the stool I’ve bought for them. This isn’t a “no,”just a consideration I’m thinking about.

-In my life experience, “This isn’t a “no,”” is a no. I removed the elevation, but understand the constraints in the answer above. Even 1 inch would help.

In order to accommodate the new curves as well as the universal 072 curves, instead of straightaways, it looks as though the passing sidings have been shortened a fair amount. It appears as though freight trains may be limited to 6 cars and 18” passenger trains to only 3-4 cars. If I am correct, this seems very short for a layout of this size.

-Correct, sidings were shortened, in the new plan they are close to the paper plan:

Measurement after transition curves, usable space.

Left loop: paper plan 135” new plan 156”

Lower center: paper plan 83”, new plan 79”

Lower right: paper plan 85”, new plan 86”

Upper: paper plan 88”, new plan 75”

One thought would be to actually double track the main all the way around, which would lower the radius curve to be used, at least on the inner track. Another possibility would be to also extend the passing sidings on the center and right lower level. This too would require losing the extra curves and perhaps shortening the radius of the curves that remain. I agree that the curves are attractive, but trains that are too short can give the whole layout a tinplate look ( a Mohawk with four cars, e.g.).

-Not sure the sidings were ever long enough, how long do you want them?

When I tried to rough out the peninsula loop extending from the right side, I could not make it work with space available ( by my own choice to preserve a work area of 3X5 feet) and a curve bigger that 063 ( which means AtlasO, I surmise). Attached is the scale rough out that I’ve drawn. It also has the difficulty of adding a significant additional amount of under layout climbing for wiring, etc. So I ve drawn a rather large  access hole.

-I need to work on that area and the whole right side. If you could elaborate on the work area and layout extension it would help. Maybe a picture?

-O63 is Gargraves

The double crossover you’ve added would be neat and very functional. But when I priced the Ross double crossover with motors and fully wired, it was about $850.00! I’m not questioning its value or price, but with everything else that’s got to be bought, that’s a next year item at best. Ditto for the yard entry 4 way, although I do have a 40 year old never used set by Bill Benson. I know they need to be wired and that there were reliability issues, but I guess I won’t know till I try. The price will certainly be right.

-The crossover provided little effect, so it was removed. The 4 way yard should be less expensive than the 3 switches it’s made with. I don’t know what a “Bill Benson” is?

Finally ( for now), I ‘d really appreciate any thoughts on how to build and be operational in stages.

-On the to-do list…

Thanks again to each and all of the group. I look forward to your thoughts and advice.

My pleasure, keep those challenges coming…

What's new in version 8...

• Removed crossover above loop.
• Set elevation for left side to 0 inches
• Redesign of left loop.
• Corrected error on passing siding right side.(from paper plan)
• Redesign mainline and branch meet center peninsula
• Fixed access to yard so Mainline and Branch do not interfere with each other when pulling out of yard.
• Extended passing sidings

Know to do:

• Shaping of mainline and branch center peninsula
• Align branch line on right with hidden return loop

@Edward G posted:

Mark, Thank you for the kind words. I still have my T-square, triangle, and slide rule somewhere collecting dust. I jumped on to computers as fast as I could.

I thoroughly enjoy your build thread for a couple of years now. A while back I took the time to read it from the beginning…Wow way a journey.

Thank you very much, Edward!  I'm glad you have been following along with mine.  Reading from beginning to end is turning into something akin to reading "War and Peace" 

@Edward G posted:

This plan looks nicely cleaned up.  I'm following along both the gray mainline and the red mainline.  Both seem to be an out and back.  It seems engines would have to be hand turned.  That is quite alright, but am I missing something??

Edward and Mark,

Thank you both once again.
Edward, I’ve attached a more filled in version of the lower level return loop area than I had previously provided. One way to deal with the problem noted would be as suggested in the new drawing, ie, the left branch would attach to the end of the lower level passing siding and the right side of the return loop would attach to the right most yard track, allowing for the return. At least the two rightmost yard tracks could then be extended and form a passing siding.
I thought about putting the yard or a potential turntable on the center island, but for now I’d be better off simplifying and getting this thing built and running asap. Also I really like the center space for a really nice urban scene(s).
Mark, the engine turning is an issue, but only for steam, which I do love to run. The F units ( as long as AA), geeps, etc are no problem.  Whole trains are no problem using the loops. But I’ll still have to figure out a way to turn steam.
Edward, the lower level return loop is not “ hidden,” as you can see.
I’ve attached a photo of the south wall of the layout room. The display case is 168” long. The second photo shows that the wall ends at the entry way and emergency egress window. I don’t want to use the whole wall because the exit and work area I’d like to preserve.

One thing to add: the two foot width of the access aisle is really too narrow, given the 46” height of the duck under into the aisle between the center and right hand layout area. As to what do ??? Ideas welcomed, with appreciation.
As to Bill Benson, in the 90’s, He made some of the first three rail sound equipped brass three rail PA 1 and other locos. I have one of his B&O docksiders and had one of beautifully painted Great Northern 2-8-8-0 steamer. They looked and rain fairly well on 042 curves. But they are far from current standards. And even his switches were far from ideally designed. But his signals and relays were solid. I still have several. He also had a fabulous large layout in his warehouse in Akron. He passed away not long ago. RIP.

RUBIN

Rubin, thank you for some more ‘give and take’ on your layout ideas.  Yes, you are like me and like steam engines, but they require a lot of extra considerations, (and I think are harder to accommodate on smaller layouts.). That doesn’t mean it can’t be done; we just have think more and discuss between each other more.  I agree the aisles are narrow.  It is tough in our space constraints when you have a loop on the peninsula.  I have to think too hard for ideas anymore.

I had not heard of Bill Benson either, though I only mover to O Gauge from smaller scales in 2012.