Beware...

...in the first pic: The S curve created by the junction of the curve leading to the top right switch (#6 Left).

Neat that you can print out your track plan!

Andre

I like it, looks good!

Terry

The S curve is over-rated

it gets so that the slight wobble in a curve that creates the glimmer of an S sets people off. I've seen S curves on layouts that cause no issues.

Full size prints are a good

Full size prints are a good idea.  I did that with my current railroad and found some areas that on the plan looked good but didn’t work out when the printout was pinned to the top of the bench work.

it gets so that the slightly

Like in your average yard?  

Beware of those evil S curves!  I did read John Armstrong's discussion and realize there is a balance there - I try to keep my S curves "broad" if I expect to be running long cars through them, such as a cross-over - use #8 turnouts in the crossover instead of #6 turnouts, for example.

As for full-size prints, it depends on your skills and how you work.  For hobbyists who are inexperienced in track laying or need some sort of aid, killing a few trees and printing out lots of full size track templates can be a good idea.  It just depends.  I didn't find the need to use them so far but I've found I can do track but my modeling skills are definitely not that great on the other hand.

Printed plans

Printing the full size plan is a nice help.  I did that with my two previous layouts.  The option I choose for what to do next is trace the plan with a pounce wheel (a spiky wheel in pizza cutter like format) to trace over the plan and leave a line of little dents in the plywood (O scale layout) or foam (N scale layout).  Then remove the paper, trace with a pencil or marker.  Slightly longer description and a couple pics on my blog:  https://rices-rails.blogspot.com/2011/09/transfering-plan.html

The layout I’m currently planning, I’m not using cad.  So there will be no full sized printing.  But it should be pretty easy to extend tangents to intersect known edges, measure where those points are, and transfer those to the plywood.  With the tangents in place, it should be easy to use pieces of scrap ply on boxes piled up to layout height and measure out lines parallel to each tangent at a distance of the radius plus easement offset to locate the curve centers.

S Curve shouldn't be a problem

The curved track is about  25" radius. And into the turnout is the diverging route so a train is going to be going through fairly slowly anyway. And I don't run real long trains. 

Or are you referring to the siding that swings off to the right? Either way it's a slow movement, so it should still not be a problem.

forget the S. looks good.

Another thing to keep in mind

Another thing to keep in mind is the amount of the curve. On turnouts it is generally less than ten degrees for a turnout so the car or locomotive does not move a lot from the straight path. I suspect it would be more of an issue if the curve involved two 45 degree curves in opposite directions.

S curves

Lot of people are afraid about the use of S curves.

I design my track between turnouts or group of turnouts with the yardstick method and I try to use a minimum of straight track between them, but this method design naturaly a lot of S curves with really cool flowing track.

I really invit you to make a try of the use of the yardstick method design; it give natural flowing  track in a minute without the need of complicated calcul and design.

I never had any trouble with the designed S curves even in Yard; my Alexander yard, the biggest in my system,  is itself designed in a S broad curve schematic because he is located around a corner of my train room.

Train running foward or reverse in this yard didn't seem have any trouble since many years.

Of course I run slow train, because I use nearly only steam power for my 1935-1940 period and short cars of the 33' and 40' maximum lenght but with the use of  train as long of 20 cars as  I designed the layout plan

If you design S curve with no sharp easement they aren't a problem with a properly laid track.

More interesting they give a more natural look of the track wich is flowing around the scenery.

Even my main line has numerous S curve along the way to avoid as much straight track along the walk around benchwork design I use, this give also a more natural look at the track which is snaking in the scenery.

But we come back to rule number one for any layout, the track in any configuration need to be perfectly laid, the lay track need to be check and check again and need to not suffer of any mistake.

Rule two for me is the use as far as possible of the broadest curve you can design, forget scenery but use first broad curves and adapt your scenery and benchwork to these broad curves as far as possible.

Most of the turnouts offered on the market have quiet sharp angle diverging route, open this angle with broad easements as far as possible in your design.

Some months ago I have open a topic about S curves and their use on the MHR forum

Perfect

Perfect! I talk about this in my Run like a Dream: Trackwork book. As long as you follow the curve radius guidelines (See MRH issue 001) and use easements on your curves, you can pretty much stop worrying about S curves. Easements automatically build in the needed compensation so that S curves aren’t much of a problem, so they’re way overblown as a issue done this way. The curve through turnouts of #5 or larger are also of such an increased radius that S curves just aren’t the big bug-a-boo they’re made out to be.

Where S curves start to get nasty is when you're running tight radius curves under 3.0x per the curve radius guidelines. Otherwise, if you’re following the curve radius guidelines with easements, you can relax. S-curve issues automatically are resolved!