Which of these two layouts would you build?

Thanks for the comments and suggestions!  Bob, I liked your idea on moving Morton Salt - check out this new version.   

Folks....the layout is coming down in three years.  Scenery is the last thing to go in, the first thing torn down, and likely not usable on the new layout.  Ergo, it's of the least "value", IMHO.

I get the criticism of layouts that have too much track.  But in this case, lay the track, run the trains, and see what you like so that you can build the next layout to your liking.  No every idea will be a good one....but many will.

The EXPERIENCE of building this temporary layout and all that will be learned from it is WAY more important than the final layout itself, IMHO.  The knowledge gained and enjoyment incurred trumps how this layout will be finished.

Ken-Oscale posted:

Thanks for the comments and suggestions!  Bob, I liked your idea on moving Morton Salt - check out this new version.   

Even better........why could this layout not be incorporated into the 'new' layout??? John Allen did this twice with the G&D  IIRC and the results were great. I could see this layout becoming the peninsula of a larger layout.  

I really like Fastrack, but went with Atlas due to the noise. Many here have reported that using carpet, carpet pad or something similar will really quiet it down. Also many folks say the Fastrack noise doesn't bother them so if you already have it and like it that would be good. I still like it myself and may do something with it like a temporary layout or something someday? I ended up really liking the Atlas track better after selecting it, and I still really do like that the best. Fastrack would be second on the list though and their command control switches are pretty cool too.

Berkshire President posted:

You don't HAVE to ballast the layout....but you'll learn a great deal and gain meaningful experience nonetheless building this layout.

FWIW, simply using cork or foam roadbed looks surprisingly better than just screwing track to a table top, whether it's Atlas, Gargraves, Ross, or what have you.

I wouldn't use Fast Track simply b/c of the "ballast".  Rather, use whatever track system you will ultimately end up with to save significant $$$ down the road.

I agree with the above that the Atlas track does look better with roadbed of some sort, even if it never gets ballasted. The roadbed does add a lot to the looks. Of course this is all personal preference and you as the end user is the one that needs to be happy with the results. I do also like your new option 3 Fastrack plan too. As others have said, you have come up with some very nice track plans that I think will provide interest and enjoyment in running trains.

Ken: I like #2 but some thoughts to consider are you going to move when you retire then 1 would be easier to move but if you are staying put I like 2 I also think 2 would give you more flexibility in keeping it and incorporating into your new layout. Plus it looks like it would much more interesting to run/play with trains. 

Berkshire President posted:

Folks....the layout is coming down in three years.  Scenery is the last thing to go in, the first thing torn down, and likely not usable on the new layout.  Ergo, it's of the least "value", IMHO.

I get the criticism of layouts that have too much track.  But in this case, lay the track, run the trains, and see what you like so that you can build the next layout to your liking.  No every idea will be a good one....but many will.

The EXPERIENCE of building this temporary layout and all that will be learned from it is WAY more important than the final layout itself, IMHO.  The knowledge gained and enjoyment incurred trumps how this layout will be finished.

I have to say that your last statement regarding the experience is dead-on.  It is impossible to know everything about how a layout will behave, look, and feel by describing it on paper (or on a computer screen).  In recognition of that, build it and see.  And be sure to tell us what you learned from the experience!

George

I noticed this thread earlier today, but wanted to wait for some other "comments" before adding mine.  The vast majority of responders chose #2 to be built. But, did anybody notice that you were comparing a 5x12 to a 7x13 layout size?  And everybody picked the 7x13 layout.  Surprise, surprise?

Just something to think about.

Chuck

Really good discussion points here, well said.   This is not my first layout, I have completed two others in O-gauge, and worked on layouts in HO, N and a garden railroad.   Point about scenery completion is a good one - I am not really talented with scenery anyway - I install basic ground cover, trees, buildings, perhaps a road, and little else (my version of completed).   By that stage I am much more tempted to run trains than to "work" on the layout.   I can't help it! 

Incorporating this layout into my retirement layout is a good one, but for that layout I am hoping to be able to build larger diameter curves - O-60 and O-72, but perhaps this could be a core layout in some way, so I will probably think about this some (now that you have me thinking about another layout plan).   An around-the-room with O-72 and this as a peninsula would be a first thought, which would work pretty well - thanks Dave.

We have no plans to move, the house is paid for and is a "home base" for the kids.   We already live in the "sunny south" (I escaped from North Dakota 35 years ago!).   Actually I am in North Georgia, and a bit cooler and more comfortable year-round.   We do get snow and ice during the winters (and the drivers here don't know what to do about it).

The difference in appearance on paper vs reality is also a good observation.   I am well aware that this room isn't really a large one for O at 10 X 14.   It looks almost spacious as a track plan, but the aisle widths are actually very tight.   Consider the computer desk, put a chair in front of it and at the maximum is 4 feet from desk to the indentation of the layout.   Definitely not a lot of space.   But I like the idea of being surrounded by trains!   Anyway, this  is an argument in favor of something like option #1, the room would feel more spacious as a work and living area even if just for one person.

-Ken

Ken, on the 2nd layout, is it possible to substitute GarGraves track sections for the Atlas O?  AO is super expensive (it does look really nice though) and is not always in stock, most of the time its not in stock.  If that were a possibility, I'd definitely consider trying to stick that sucker in my current train/workroom.  Like I said earlier, its a great design and has lots of possibilities.

J Motts

Thanks JEM, that would certainly work.   I will give that some thought.

If I did 3-rail, I'd go with # 2 an take out several of the spurs on the inside. They're both 'spaghetti bowl" track plans...

Funny maybe it's a personal  taste thing but I like layout #1 but with wider radius curves. Layout #2 seems to me more cluttered. If this is to be eventually incorporated into another layout yet to be built then #1 will be easier and will look better. 

I took another pass at Option #1 because it can support wider diameter curves as suggested above - I made the outer loop O-60.   Unfortunately, the inner loop-to-mountain-loop can't go to O-48, there just is not sufficient room.   The power plant siding is now a decent length for a cut of coal hoppers.   This is Fastrack except for the mountain loop, which is Atlas-O.   Outer loop, connecting and power plant siding turnouts are O-60.   Inside route turnouts are O-36.   Layout corners are broadly curved for easier access and moving around the layout.

This option leaves a bit more space between the layout and furniture, perhaps creating a more open look, and a more livable space.   With that said, i do prefer the layout plan of options 2 & 3.   This layout will be on a table that rolls easily, and can be pulled out for access to the top of the layout.

Why not see if you can add a foot in length and a foot in width.  Then you can increase the radius of  the inner  loop curves. Since #2 was larger in the first place.

Number 2 for sure.

If I expand option #1 to the size of Option #2 then it becomes as cramped as Option 2&3 - those plans already have other prefereed advantages like the small yard and interesting track plan.  Option #1 is still a possibility because it has the advantage of having more aisle space and is more livable.

A larger Option #1 would make the center difficult to reach - well beyond the 30" recommended, even if pulled-out for 360 degree access (access as shown is easy from 3 sides).

p51 posted:

If I did 3-rail, I'd go with # 2 an take out several of the spurs on the inside. They're both 'spaghetti bowl" track plans...

That's my feeling too. It's always a good idea to leave more space for structures and scenery elements. If you think in terms of creating many individual scenes, you can make a small layout appear much bigger.

Jim

Jim, so you would eliminate the (small) yard by dropping these spurs?  To become just one industry track - how does that add industry?  Perhaps I don't "get" what you have in mind.

Perhaps it would be useful to repurpose the yard tracks to add one more industry, and condense the layout.

If I eliminate the yard tracks, I could also drop the run-around track (no need for it in that case), and then the track plan could be condensed for more aisle space.

Ken,

I wasn't thinking so much of adding industry, but of freeing up some space for scenic elements. IMO whatever the size of the layout, you need some "empty" space for creating scenes.

True, you might lose some switching action, but the overall appearance of the layout is improved IMO.

It's all a matter of personal preference. Some may prefer to forgo scenery to add as much track as possible. It's all what appeals more to you. I always lean toward more scenic possibilities at the expense of some trackage.

Jim

This version fits the space better.   It is Fastrack mostly (no roadbed or ballasting required) with Atlas-O for the elevated mine and bridges.   The grade had to go up to 4% to 5.5", but no turnouts are on grade.

The outer route is O-48 minimum, the loop-to-loop is O-36.   Turnouts are mostly O-60, with one O-48 at the station, two O-72 at the top near the tunnel, and on the Atlas-O elevated, three O-54.

Perhaps there are four primary scenes:  1) the yard with powerplant, engine house and station; 2) the ridge with tunnel;  3) the yard lead area with the two bridges; and 4) the mine and mountain top.

A few more scenic details:  a switch tower, longer tunnel, and abandoned On30 line at the mountain top.

Keeps getting better.......you have great design skills. 

Here is the plan I am leaning toward (today at least).   It has a number of aspects in its favor:  fits the space well leaving me room to move around;  its on a rolling table (already existing) so I can slide it around for access and construction;  it includes O-60 for the outside loop of Fastrack;  it includes a long On30 narrow-gauge loop.   Its complicated in some ways, simple in others - many trade-offs.

Thanks for all the comments and suggestions - much appreciated.   I tried a redesign combining elements of both layout designs.

This layout has O-60 for the outer loop with O-72 and O-96 easements, so it will run O-54 locomotives comfortably.   The inner loop-to-loop is constructed with compound curves of O-36 and O-48 to approximate O-42 with smooth curves.   All turnouts are O-60 except O-54 and an O-72 "Y" for the elevated Atlas-O grade and mountain top.   There is also a long loop of On30, which will be cool.   So I can sit back and watch 3 trains do their thing going around the layout.

Lots of interesting terrain and grades.   Grades will not be hard using Woodland Scenics 2% and 3% inclines to get the grade right.   Since these are foam I can cut out sections for bridges, and then fill in the terrain with more foam sheet pieces.   This part will be fun, I will be interested to see how this looks in reality.

It doesn't really have a yard, but it looks like one in the center.   This is really parallel tracks, one is a mainline and one is an industry spur, and the middle track is available for storing cars.   The reverse loop can also serve as a "run-around" track for switching.

I like the gentle bend-in in the bottom center using O-96 curves.   The shape is then mirrored in the elevated O and On30 routes.   And the shape is also echoed with the industry sidings under the elevated track. 

I was able to work in seven of my prized Menard's lighted and detailed buildings.

The track is primarily Fastrack, but with Atlas-O for the incline and trestle up to the mountain top.   There will be three types of track: Fastrack, Atlas-O, and On30 (drawn using Kato Ho Unitrack) which will add to the interest.   There is only one transition from Fastrack to Atlas-O which keeps things simple.

There is a 3% grade inside the mountain, so I had to ensure that there was sufficient clearance under the mountain as the inner loop-to-loop climbs and the exits the tunnel.   The mountain top is 7.5" elevation, with a minimum clearance of 5.3" between the hidden grade and the mountain top, which should be sufficient but tight.

There IS a lot of track in this plan, but also lots of green space and interesting terrain, so I hope that balances out.   Having two curves hidden under the mountain helps I suppose - makes me consider adding another tunnel - but then I like being able to see the trains.

Here is just the track plan (less the room) so you can see it better/closer.

I added info boxes that combine three elements of data: the elevation at that point; the grade %; and the direction of the grade.

The length of the reverse loops defines the maximum length of a train, which is approximately 14-15 feet, which is fine.

I reviewed the comments in this thread, and gave more thought to the ideas of less track/spurs and more scenes and scenery.   I thought I would give this a try:  I deleted the spur under the trestle - I never came up with an industry there anyway - and I added a tunnel at the upper right, which matches the elevation of the narrow gauge line.   I put in a hiking trail there, and a picnic table.   There is a spot for great photographs of the narrow gauge train as it passes by on the curve - so there will be a railfan there taking pics.

I don't like hiding so much of the outer loop under tunnels, just my preference for being able to see the trains.   But this idea makes sense and may be a better layout.

I decided to build this version, and have begun accumulating the command control turnouts (so I can use the "track as my power bus" concept, with few wires to run).   I purchased one of the new Menard's bridges which is very nice.   And I now have all of the buildings that I will need.   I will start with the outer loop and the cross-over to the inner loop section.   I have yet to take down the current 4X12 layout, and then I have the benchwork/table to build.   I have all the track needed for the outer loop, and much of the track for the inner route.

What do you think of this revision?

Hello Ken,  Could you post the AR part file for this one please.  I have an area that 'may' fit IF I can stretch it...

Thanks !

Fastrack Guy

This one too please!

Fastrack Guy

FT Guy,

Here is the track plan and AnyRail file for the first one:

Thanks for that Ken,

I have an area that at its narrowest is 5' wide.  Right away it is not the easiest layout to try and simply add a 10" piece to make longer as there are soft bends...    My furnace would fit right in the centre and the layout ' wrap around' it.  I was hoping to stretch it slighty ( need that centre to be 5')

I also have lots of o-72's that I would substitute where you have 60's.   I will also replace the Atlas with Fastrack... I do not have any Atlas...  LOTS of FT...

Going to give it a try later tonight.  I will let you know how I make out.

Bryan

Ken,

   Show me #2 with an outer 072 FasTrack set up, for running my JLC TMCC GG1, pulling the big Military transport train.   I would give this engineering layout a try.  It looks to have a lot of cool options, but I need the bigger outside loop engineering design.

PCRR/Dave

Dave, I will look at the design, will likely take a couple of days.   The wider loops with O-72 should give a bit more room for yard tracks or other industry - or just more scenery.

-Ken

Dave, here is my first try at it:  It stretched to 8X17 to accommodate O-72 for the outer route, with easements of one section of O-84 or larger.  Do you have that much space?   Access inside the O-72 loops may be a problem - access hatches?

All turnouts are O-72.   The yard is all O-72 so your big engine can navigate.   The inner route is O-60 climbing to Atlas-O for the mountain loop, which needed O-54 diameter, running over the lower level routes creating a tunnel.

Hi all,

I hate to bump an old thread but the last 5.5 ft x 12 ft layout you posted above should fit perfect in a space I have to work with. It’s almost a 10x20 room but the stairs leading down to it, the A/C handler and the H/W leave me a useable space of about 6x14.

Ken would you mind posting the Anyrail or SCARM file if you still have it? I having been trying to design something with O72 curves in SCARM but I have to face reality that I just do not have enough room for it. It is also far more difficult to design a layout than I thought it would be. O60 curves is a good compromise. I have looked at your other layouts and you do have a gift for designing them.

I do not have any track yet but it was down to old tubular style or FasTrack. I plan on going Legacy so FasTrack turnouts make sense.

Thanks

Eddie

https://ogrforum.com/...28#73368898784885028

And while we're bumping this thread, I'm curious regarding what was ultimately done with the design.  The thread is about 4 years old, and the original post mentioned a 3-year window - was the layout built, and if so, how did it turn out?

Ken spends so much time creating layout designs and answering questions - I hope he found the time to build one.

Maybe it is like a Tootsie Roll Pop and the number of licks. We may never know.