Very nice Jose’. You are really providing a lot of good ideas. I too like drawing #2.
Doc Tom
I’m going to be the odd man out, but I prefer door number one, because there is more room between the loops for “stuff.”
Hi all,
Since planning is one of the best parts of garden railroading, here am I again with possible alternatives for Shawn’s new layout.
I have thought about replacing the two return loops with a single loop that makes double duty; that is quite easy and is indicated schematically in figure 3.
Figure 3 – Concept of a single, double duty return loop
As it can be seen, the right loop is part of two different return loops; this layout implies two additional turnouts, which allow for several new, although uninteresting, operational modes: roundy round the two partial loops, or continuous running in a figure of eight pattern.
Of course, such a layout is dangerously close to a train set layout. It was chosen so as to make the general concept clear. In reality, the layout would be adjusted as indicated in figure 4. The general geometry is now more pleasing and the basic concept is less evident.
Figure 4 – Actual layout with single, double duty loop and two additional turnouts. All the track is at the same level.
Still, the layout in figure 4 is too geometric for my liking. If we analyze it carefully, it becomes clear that the central turnouts can be substituted by a crossing – losing the additional operating modes but rendering the system more purposeful. A crossing at different levels can provide more dramatic vistas, as the track weaves its way around the layout.
Of course, that implies that part of the layout in not level, which can be a chore for the live steam locomotives that Shawn often operates, requiring remote control of the throttle for a realistic operation. So, it is important that part of the layout, at least the outside loop, be level.
Considering at the crossing point, a rail head to rail head clearance of 10’’ – suitable for small to medium sized engines – and a maximum slope of 3%, then a total length track of 28’ will be necessary each side of the crossing: those 28’ can be obtained on both return loops or on a single loop.
When using both loops one of them must rise to the bridge, while the other descends to the crossing. The lower point of the crossing will then be the lowest point on the layout, which can pose drainage problems; however the approaches will be shorter. In figure 5 a layout with both sloped loops is indicated.
Figure 5 Layout with bridge crossing and both loops with slopes.
Note that in this case the outside loop is at constant level 4”, while both return loops are sloped to a maximum of 3%: the lower one goes from level 4” to 0” under the bridge climbing to 4” on the other side, while the upper one climbs from level 4” to 10” over the bridge descending again to 4” on the other side.
Using only one of the loops with level variation, the approaches must be longer, but there are less drainage problems on the layout and the second return loop is also level and easier on manual control live steam locomotives. In figure 6 the layout is totaly flat save for one of the loops.
Figure 6 Layout with bridge crossing and only one sloped loop
This layout seems a good compromise with several advantages: most of the layout is level, the sloping loop is good for scenic interest and the track plan hides its basic functions, which are not readily apparent. The sloped loop, with a maximum incline of 3% - quite modest for a logging branch, really - will be accessible only to RC live steam locos (and electrical ones, of course) - but it can be done with short trains or geared locomotives.
This is my favorite option and a color scheme of its scenic possibilities is indicated in figure 7.
Figure 7 – Scenic sketch of single loop dual function layout
Sorry for the lengthy post, hope you like the ideas
José Morais
Headmaster of the Lapa Furada RR
You are on a tear there, Jose.
I like Fig. 7 but Fig 4 might be closer to what Shawns looking for.
Jose
Nice work.
With the next Fig. can you incorporate the ability to run the two loops separate with the option of cross over/connection?
Just an Idea!
I don’t think Shawn wants an over and under layout due to his live steamers. I don’t think he wants to run with RC. Gots to be level
Can a live steamer handle a 3% grade, with freight cars? I ask because I don’t know.
One might consider reducing the grade to the overpass by lowering the track at the “underpass” by three or four inches. If the overpass is at plus 6 inches, and the track it crosses is at minus 4 inches, there is still a 10 inch separation, but the grades are dramatically reduced.
The switch at bottom center would necessarily be an inch or two lower, too, but there is enough track to make that work.
I like that there are reversing loops.
There aren’t any reversing loops. Follow it with your finger.
I like how it meanders through the area.
A live steamer can handle it. But it has to climb the grade without stalling, thus it will speed down the grade. a little scary at times:p that’s why you need the RC.
Tom Ruby said:
There aren’t any reversing loops. Follow it with your finger.
I like how it meanders through the area.
Actually, Tom, there are, all you have to do is throw the switch. 
As Steve said above, the layout in figure 6 can have its maximum grade reduced to 2% if the point bellow the bridge is also lowered. That alternative is indicated in figure 8, below. Although the maximum grade is now quite manageable by all live steam RC locomotives, the inconvenient of this alternative is that both loops are now out of bounds to manual control non geared locomotives.
I think some experiments are in order…
Figure 8 - Layout with 2% maximum grade
Jose Morais
Headmaster of the Lapa Furada RR
Jose, you’re having too much fun! (those are great track-plans)
Wish you’d been around a few months ago
Jose, why would figure 8 be out of bounds to non r/c rod locomotives, where figure 6 would not be out of bounds?
I don’t run live steam, so I have no way of knowing.
I have an over and under layout. But all my live steamers are Manuel geared.
Steve:
The difference between the layouts in figures 6 and 8 is that in the layout of figure 6, only the long return loop is graded, with a maximum grade of 3%, while the other return loop is flat as is, in all cases, the outside loop. So, simple manually controlled live steam locomotives can easily work in the outside loop and in the short return loop.
In figure 8, both return loops are graded, in opposite directions (when one climbs the other goes down, and vice versa); in this case, the maximum grade on the large loop is easier (maximum of 2%) but the short loop is also graded, so that manual, non geared, control locomotives will only work easily on the outside loop; in the other loops, speed variations are to be expected.
Note that geared locomotives - like the Regner Lumberjack and the Accucraft Dora - can climb walls and so can work over these grades with no problem, even with manual control.
José Morais
Headmaster of the Lapa Furada RR
those are some pretty neat layouts there! the outside loop would make a nice run without grades for a live steamer. they could easily manage the cross tracks with radio control or with geared engines. Lots of interest and room for scenery.
Wow great track plans Jose. Lots to think about. Recap all the track plans.
1 I like the original track plan Ken and Vic thought up. What I like is it allowed me to go with a 10ft dia curves and had limited number of switches. O also liked the flow of the layout. I like track that winds through the landscape.
2. Jose came up with great track plan that has two reverse loops. I really liked that plan but I found the 10ft dia reverse curves would not work.
3. Jose came up with two more options on page 5. I liked option one because the mainline had a nice flow to it but I had to go smaller on the curves. The second option kept the larger curves but I feel I loss the curviness on the mainline.
4. The option on page 6 are great but the first few Im really loosing the curviness and like Jose stated, its become more like a train set. Anything with a grade is out because of the live steam. My goal is to be able to operate the live steamers manually. A geared engine can make the grade but some throttle adjustment would be required. The other issue is I really only have about 150ft or so of track to play with.
As of now Im looking at option 2 on page 5 but try to make it more curvy. I like Jose’s first plan with the curviness.
Shawn, do you actually think that you have any say in this? Let your elders decide. We have the experience. 
Yes Shawn just stay out of it. We will tell you what you want!