Debating between Two Layouts: So I ask the Experts which would be the more fun of the two?

The one on the right will allow two trains to run long loops. The one on the left allows one long loop and one short loop only. I would go with the one on the right.

That was my thought.
I do like the segregated siding and yard in the one on the left.
But the one on the right gives the two long loop runs where a passenger train can leave the station and then leave the short loop to go around the inner long loop without effecting a freight running on the outer long loop.

On the right for sure.

I see what looks like a station.  Where's the rest?  Buildings?  Roads?  Industry, Commercial, Countryside?   Think about where and how these things might go on your layout BEFORE you lay track.  You will be very glad you did.

Have Fun!

Ron

I vote for the one on tbe left. Those long sidings are important.

Short answer = RIGHT

Donald

Ron045 posted:

I see what looks like a station.  Where's the rest?  Buildings?  Roads?  Industry, Commercial, Countryside?   Think about where and how these things might go on your layout BEFORE you lay track.  You will be very glad you did.

Have Fun!

Ron

My plan is to have some industry at the vertical siding at the bottom left, and at the angled siding at the top left, with some other buidigs and such I the top right area..

Tommy posted:

I vote for the one on tbe left. Those long sidings are important.

Thsnks Tommy,

I really like that long siding as well, and the fact that it truly segregates the yard from the loops.

But I also really like the ability to run a passenger train out of the ststion, and out onto thst long, inner loop, while another train could be running on the outer loop.

I am really torn between the two, and look to you all, that have experience running your trains, two weigh in, as you have, on which would be more satisfying over all.

Thanks again for your comments,

Roger

My original layout was similar to your left (original) plan.   Now that I've configured two separate loops (like your plan on the right), I'm having more fun.   Sometimes you just want to let your trains run at different speeds in opposite directions and watch them pass at different points around the loops.   When you want to do switching and build consists you can do that on the inner loop while another train runs around the outer loop.  I also like that your plans include a reverse loop.   All 3 rail plans should have a reverse loop for no other reason than you can without special wiring.  Either way you'll have more fun because you are playing with trains!

Ken

Obsidian posted:

My original layout was similar to your left (original) plan.   Now that I've configured two separate loops (like your plan on the right), I'm having more fun.   Sometimes you just want to let your trains run at different speeds in opposite directions and watch them pass at different points around the loops.   When you want to do switching and build consists you can do that on the inner loop while another train runs around the outer loop.  I also like that your plans include a reverse loop.   All 3 rail plans should have a reverse loop for no other reason than you can without special wiring.  Either way you'll have more fun because you are playing with trains!

Ken

Thanks Ken, that is the info that I am looking for, from kuys who have experience with different layouts.

While I do really like that long siding, and segregated yard on the left, I am inclined to agree with you that the two longer loops could really be more fun, watching those longer trains passing each other as they traverse those longer routs. It would be like the passenger trains actually have somewhere to go.

With the correct block scheme, I should be able to move the passenger train out onto the outer loop, while moving the freight train to the inner loop to park cars and rebuild consists.

Still kind of torn though.

Thanks again,

Roger

The right one IS the right one. Two long loops are better than one.
Have fun!

RSJB18 posted:

The right one IS the right one. Two long loops are better than one.
Have fun!

Thanks for weighing in.

Just from looking at it, it depends on what you like to do. You seem to like passenger train service and that would kind of imply the right one is better for you, because it allows running the trains through longer loops (and can do cool things like run two passenger trains in different directions, which is kind of neat (to me). 

The plan on the left might be better if you are into yard or freight operations with the way it is laid out, lot of point to point action, more than the one on the right (which also has possibilities, of course). 

bigkid posted:

Just from looking at it, it depends on what you like to do. You seem to like passenger train service and that would kind of imply the right one is better for you, because it allows running the trains through longer loops (and can do cool things like run two passenger trains in different directions, which is kind of neat (to me). 

The plan on the left might be better if you are into yard or freight operations with the way it is laid out, lot of point to point action, more than the one on the right (which also has possibilities, of course). 

Yea, I like both, which makes it a hard choice, but I am leaning toward the two long loops. Two trains in different directions on those loops seems like lots of fun action, especially a freight on one and a passenger on the other. 

My vote is for #2, on the right.

I'm no expert, but I think the one on the right will give you better operation.

RWL posted:

I have added to my  original layout that I posted earlier, by making two full long loops and still keeping the small upper loop.
I believe the one with two long loops to be the more flexible, and usable of the two.
This layout also makes the smaller upper loop a bit larger as well.

I have attached a jpeg of the original and the new option.
What do you all think?

I'm not being demeaning, mean-spirited or sarcastic, flip a coin.  These are both spaghetti bowls of track-work.

The questions are:  What kind of railroad do you want...display or operational?  What is your theme or area of interest?  What is the purpose of the layout?  Is it a toy with accessories or a rivet by rivet operation or something between?

Most importantly, what will be your and others interaction/participation in your layout?

There is so much more to the creation of a layout other than just arranging track to fill a space?

What exactly is it that you want to accomplish?  What is your goal?  These questions need to be answered prior to deciding how to arrange track.

Best wishes and good luck with your project.

John C. posted:

RWL posted:

I have added to my  original layout that I posted earlier, by making two full long loops and still keeping the small upper loop.
I believe the one with two long loops to be the more flexible, and usable of the two.
This layout also makes the smaller upper loop a bit larger as well.

I have attached a jpeg of the original and the new option.
What do you all think?

I'm not being demeaning, mean-spirited or sarcastic, flip a coin.  These are both spaghetti bowls of track-work.

The questions are:  What kind of railroad do you want...display or operational?  What is your theme or area of interest?  What is the purpose of the layout?  Is it a toy with accessories or a rivet by rivet operation or something between?

Most importantly, what will be your and others interaction/participation in your layout?

There is so much more to the creation of a layout other than just arranging track to fill a space?

What exactly is it that you want to accomplish?  What is your goal?  These questions need to be answered prior to deciding how to arrange track.

Best wishes and good luck with your project.

 

 

   

I concur with John above.  Unless the layout is built in the center of a large room there are several issues with the track plans.  A few of them are:

1.  The curves appear to be too sharp for anything but small equipment.  If you want to run large steam or scale length cars then you need at least O-72.  I would suggest that at least one O-72 loop is a requirement for modern layouts.

2.  Most of the switches appear to be too far from the front edge of the layout to easily reach.  You always get derailments and other problems at switches.  The maximum distance most of us can easily reach is 30 inches from the table edge.

3.  They are complex plans.  You are going to need complicated wiring unless your trains are command controlled.  Switches that are close together cause some 3 rail engines to stall because the pickup rollers end up on insulated track sections.  

4.  There isn't enough space for buildings and scenery.  Of course, this may not be important to you.

5.  The layout could be expensive because of the number of switches, etc.

6.  In many cases a simple layout is better and more satisfying.  

John Armstrong, the great layout designer, said you need to figure out your have to haves and your druthers before you begin designing a layout.  I have seen many successful layouts built in a similar manner to the ones that you propose but they all have the issues listed above.

Good luck,  NH Joe

Thanks Joe, these are all good points, and I will try to speak to them.

First of all, I have been working on this layout design over the past two years, and a lot of thought has gone into it, but these suggestions deserve my consideration. 

1. The curves are O31 and O42,  I do not have any desire to run scale scale length cars, nor any long locos. Everything that I have seems to run fine on 031.

2. I have access to the back side of my table, as I have it on casters, and can, easily, roll it away from the back wall.

3. I will have to take a good look at complexity of the layout.

4. I have room for a couple of industries, and an area for a small town scene in the upper loop at the right. I really want to store as many trains on the layout as I can, I feel that running trains is a more important consideration than having a lot of scenery, but I will think hard about this one.

5. I plan to build this layout over a few years, adding as time goes on.

6. I will see where I can simplify this layout.

Thanks again for the comments,
Roger

Make room for scenery. You have lots of track.

I am something of a minimalist when it comes to track on a layout (any scale), so I would agree with some of the other comments made about having a whole lot of trackwork with little room for scenery and accessories (I particularly enjoy scenery building). That said, it's your layout and you can and should do things the way you want.

The U-shaped layout I am currently building will have just a single main line and one or two long passing sidings. There will be at least one yard area, and possibly two, along with a number of sidings to serve several industries. I hope to come up with something that will provide operational capabilities for a single operator or for at least several operators. Eventual expansion will include an engine servicing facility via a peninsula in the now-very-large open area of the U.

Allan Miller posted:

I am something of a minimalist when it comes to track on a layout (any scale), so I would agree with some of the other comments made about having a whole lot of trackwork with little room for scenery and accessories (I particularly enjoy scenery building). That said, it's your layout and you can and should do things the way you want.

The U-shaped layout I am currently building will have just a single main line and one or two long passing sidings. There will be at least one yard area, and possibly two, along with a number of sidings to serve several industries. I hope to come up with something that will provide operational capabilities for a single operator or for at least several operators. Eventual expansion will include an engine servicing facility via a peninsula in the now-very-large open area of the U.

I was pretty much set to go with the two long loops, but am now heavily considering staying with the single loop with the long siding. I may drop the yard to two spurs, or at least shorts the third to make more room for industry on the left spur off the main line.

You have all given me things to think about.

Thanks, Roger