Which looks better?

Option one looks something like my 10'-by-5' O gauge layout which is just a loop of track. I have a tunnel/hill, creek, bridges and structures in an arrangement similar to your first rendering. I think the proportion of scenery to track is better in the first design, especially for a small narrow gauge railroad. Also, the changes in elevation surrounding the track are important.

MELGAR

I would prefer the one with more track and operating possibilities.

Steve

MELGAR posted:

Option one looks something like my 10'-by-5' O gauge layout which is just a loop of track. I have a tunnel/hill, creek, bridges and structures in an arrangement similar to your first rendering. I think the proportion of scenery to track is better in the first design, especially for a small narrow gauge railroad. Also, the changes in elevation surrounding the track are important.

MELGAR

 

Very nice, Im assuming that's 0-54 curves? Ive been debating if i wanna try to make the table a 5x8 as opposed to a 4x8.

Hi Greg.  It looks like you put more effort into the scenery on the first layout; the scenery is more "complete."  But the operational possibilities are limited.  If you added more scenic detail, the second one could be just as nice.

One other thing I noticed: the stream on the right side just goes under the road and track.  I like the idea of a stream, or other terrain features that are below track level.  It's easy to do if you build your layout using multiple layers of foam board.  Consider putting some kind of bridges in your design where these features cross water. 

By the way, what software are you using to draw these?  Thanks for sharing!

Ted S posted:

Hi Greg.  It looks like you put more effort into the scenery on the first layout; the scenery is more "complete."  But the operational possibilities are limited.  If you added more scenic detail, the second one could be just as nice.

One other thing I noticed: the stream on the right side just goes under the road and track.  I like the idea of a stream, or other terrain features that are below track level.  It's easy to do if you build your layout using multiple layers of foam board.  Consider putting some kind of bridges in your design where these features cross water. 

By the way, what software are you using to draw these?  Thanks for sharing!

Atlas Track Planning Software.

Greg,

I find if difficult to critique someone else's track plan without knowing what their goals are for the layout.  John  Armstrong called them "Givens and Druthers".  Some insight into how you plan to operate the layout and what type of equipment you plan on running would be helpful.

UPMav#488 posted:

MELGAR posted:

Option one looks something like my 10'-by-5' O gauge layout which is just a loop of track. I have a tunnel/hill, creek, bridges and structures in an arrangement similar to your first rendering. I think the proportion of scenery to track is better in the first design, especially for a small narrow gauge railroad. Also, the changes in elevation surrounding the track are important.

MELGAR

 

Very nice, Im assuming that's 0-54 curves? Ive been debating if i wanna try to make the table a 5x8 as opposed to a 4x8.

Atlas O-54. I bought a 10' by 5' piece of birch plywood and had it cut into two 5' by 5' pieces. This made the layout more easily transportable.

I would also point out that the second track plan has only one reversing loop, so a train's direction can be reversed just once while running forward. You may want to have something like a "figure 8" to create another reversing loop.

MELGAR