Which Layout Plan is Better?? Please vote!

I prefer (and it is personal preference) the Headley as less "paved with track".  It kind of depends on whether you want to run trains in a modeled scene, or display trains with little attention to scenery.

I'd combine the elevated Chippewa with the turntable of the Headley.Sort of a Chippeley.

I like the Headley.......the 1st one has too much track for my taste and I am dimensionally challenged.........I can only think in 2 dimensions.....

Great work on both of them.....

Peter

Chippewa

I lean more so for the Headley. I like the idea of a turntable that allows more ready motive power.

Chippewa is a little too busy for my likes.

I’d vote for Chippewa. While it is a bit busy (not a crime in my world), IMHO, it does offer more action and variety. I particularly like Minnesota Junction. While I have always wanted a turntable (not enough room ), in this case, I think the small size will limit it’s usefulness (only two of the whisker tracks are as long as the table). I think some of the “industrial sidings” could hold extra engines just as well.

My one cents worth!!!

Chippewa

TM Terry posted:

I lean more so for the Headley. I like the idea of a turntable that allows more ready motive power.

Chippewa is a little too busy for my likes.

Ditto!!  I don't like layouts that are busy.

Thanks for the great comments and observations so far!  There is more discussion of each plan:

Chippewa Central

John Headley's Plan

My preference is for the Chippewa as I like operations.  It would be nicer if it was in O72 and larger curves.

Jan

I like the Chippewa for most of the reasons stated above. It does have a lot of track, but it seems to flow nicely and offers a good balance of "train running" with some switching. In my opinion, the elevated section adds another dimension too- pun intended ;-) 

I am late for the voting but Chippewa for me.

Ken - Headley, but both look great.

Sean

My vote is for the Headley because:

060 minimum Curves. When it comes to curves, the bigger the better.

Turntable. Always cool.

I like the one with the turntable, but I don't like the crossover on that one.

Which do you like better....

KEN!!!! WHERE WERE YOU WHEN I STARTED MY LAYOUT 15 YEARS AGO?????!!!!

So many great plans, your posts are an excellent resource!!   I contemplate tearing down the plan I "made as I went" and starting over with one of the ones you have posted.

It would be nice if these could all be cataloged in one place. Thankyou for all of the great layout ideas!

Oh.......I prefer the John Hadley.

I like the Headley layout BUT I would not have the crossover  X that is at the front of the layout on the mainline. The crossover X will keep you from running 2  long trains on the mainline tracks.  You will need to have a way to get to the back switches on the mainline.  The duck under track at the front of the layout should be designed to be removed when you get to old to duck under the track.  The turntable is OK if you have engines you want to display but If you like switching I would use the area for tracks for an engine house and/or industries.

Headley.  

 Ojibwe   (Chippewa )

Chippewa 

Headley -

The other has too much track, too many possible routes.  That isn't for me.  On observation on Headley though, some of those engine tracks look mighty short. 

I like the Headley, but to be honest I find all plans entertaining.  I have taken a few bits of several of your designs and added them to plans. Always enjoy your post, thanks.  Nick T.

IMO, I vote for the Headley layout for some big factors. 1. You have a turntable with easy access to locomotives, and an easy turnaround. 2. You have the availability to have O60 minimum radius and O72, that without, you would not be able to operate heavy and long equipment. Most models have a minimum recommend radius of both. 3. I think that doing an N scale loop on top of the tunnel is a unique thing that not many people do on a layout. Small details will always add up to better enjoyment and usage of the layout.

If it's not too late to vote, I vote for the heady, I like lots of switching .

Chippewa.

Headley

Chippewa.  I prefer the double-crossover in lieu of the single cross-over which may lend itself to collisions if one is not careful.

Rick

Great feedback.  I like the options both designs provide and check off most of the items on my wish list.  For me it comes down to my interest in elevation changes vs the turntable and 060 minimum.

Chippewa- I like lot's of switching and watching trains run loops. The TT is a nice option but maybe on a separate table. As it sits now I think it's too small to be of much use.

Bob

Chippewa Central:  O-48 minimum curvature, O-60 minimum turnout

I prefer the Headley but would remove the turntable in favor of switching opportunities and I would eliminate the crossing section to allow for longer trains.

-Greg

split almost 50/50 at this point.  Great comments.  I have a couple of days to think about it and have a few comments.  The Headley one is a design I spent over a week with Ken, tweaking to best work in our space, with the most options we could fit.  At this point I had no intention of modifying until I start laying out track and seeing how it functioned.  Ken's idea of a turntable intrigues me, but until I got the core layout installed, I was no going to purchase any pieces for that turntable area.

One point I would like to make is the design is based on the train equipment I already own.  I have a reasonable size inventory of trains already.  The layout intent is to maximize the options of running what I already own.  Because the only option until I moved was floor layouts no larger than 048, I limited my inventory to trains that only run on 036 or larger.  That consists of semi-scale and short scale engines (scale are mostly early diesel models).  The  largest engine in the stable will not arrive until next year.  That is an MTH E8 RF&P on pre-order.  It will run on 036, but needs larger loop to look decent.  An 072 loop to let that engine with the longer passenger cars run became a requirement.  Both designs meet that requirement.  The one issue I had with the Headley  is the lack of elevation changes.  I have a Shay I picked up from a forum member that would be nice to run up and down a hill.

The Chippewa design intrigues me because of the elevation changes.  it's outside 072 loop is similar on both layouts.  I like the visual of the bridge over the lower track in that design.  My Grandfather was not only an engineer for Southern in his day, but also had a second career at a bridge builder.  The more bridges the better for me.  The longer run in the interior is a nice addition, but I understand the comments about the 048 track vs the 060.  This option also is 9" shorter.  In the space I'm working with, the Headley layout left approximately 2 feet on each end of the layout for access.  The Chippewa adds 9" to that space.

Out of the two the Chippewa does look to be a bigger landscaping challenge, with the steep sides on the hill vs the Headley.  A bigger challenge for a first time layout build.  It's fun to consider both and have really enjoyed the process of working with Ken on two great options for my first layout.

John Headley

Ken, I like the one that you drew for me better.  I have the framework completed and getting ready to make a large investment in all new fastrack. 

-Blake

First, a big thank you to all who commented and voted.   Your observations are insightful and quite interesting!   I invite folks to continue voting and commenting as thoughts occur.

I am glad that a couple of folks liked the "Minnesota Junction", as that feature took a ton of time to put together.   I wanted these track sections to snap together tightly and without miss-alignment or internal stress or compression within the small internal space of the junction, so the connection tolerance for Minnesota Junction is 1/32" (with a lot of small fitter sections of track).   I have worked on the Chippewa over multiple years, trying with O-36 and 12' and 14', but this attempt turnout out better.   Here is a roughly 4.5' x 12' O-36 plan that is somewhat similar (with the elevated loop and grade flipped), which I actually constructed years ago (but did not get far with scenery):

A "Minnesota Junction" looks like it could be crafted into John's plan, if he should so desire (adding 4 more turnouts).   Or the crossing eliminated as some have suggested (though I think it is a good feature).   There are crossovers between the main lines at the top of John's plan so trains can move between the inside and outside routes without the crossing.

If John were interested, the 'N' gauge amusement ride loop could be replaced with a loop and more of elevated On30 track, for more bridges and scenic interest, but without the grade.   Just an idea that could be explored.

As has been observed, the cool turntable fits tightly but is only 24", and some whisker tracks are short.

Of course the Chippewa could be stretched a bit to use more of John's space, if desired.

Both plans have the similar challenges with access and reach.   Both plans could benefit from a yard and staging tracks for more trains, but not within the existing footprint.

Anyway, both are good plans with lots of interesting train running, switching, and scenic features, so it would seem to come down to personal preferences, and what John Armstrong would call one's "givens and druthers".

One possible version of the Headley plan with an On30 narrow-gauge railroad added.   Shown as an over-under, but could be constructed as a figure-8 with a crossing, or loop instead.   To satisfy my own curiosity.   A spur or two yet to be added.   Adds more scenic and terrain features, with more bridges/trestles and tunnels.

I like the Headley(the original one). I'll have to look more at the newer version(sorry I'm late).

One thing I do like for me is height differences. I would definitely want some hills to climb.