Which of these two layouts would you build?

I like #2. 

I like # 2

Ken - layout no. 2 looks like it would give you better access to rear portion of the layout. Layout no. 1 looks to be a long reach to the back.

Sean

I like #2. More operation and a yard to show off your collection.

Mark

I prefer #2 only because of the different viewing locations; much more interesting I think.

#2 for all the above reasons. The yard area is nice. I like lots of bridges. The entire layout is not the usual rectangular "bowl of spaghetti."

Ken,

Go with number 2. When you are finished, there will be more details for you to look at and enjoy.

Alan Graziano

#2 is very cool........If I was running traditional stuff....I'd be tempted......

Edit: After looking at the plans more.......a question...did you design them??? If so you have a true talent!!! Still #2 is just fantastic! 

NUMBER 2!!!!!  Very nice design. 

Rick

I like 2 but would go with 1 if you know it only has a limited life - the reason being simply that you will get to running trains on more complete layout faster where as with "2" you could well find you never runit!

MIKE

Dos

Number 2 will look better running longer trains and doesn't seem so packed in.  More natural.  2 also has more track storage which is always good, allows for more staging and some interesting switching action.

Number 1 makes for some interesting routing though.

As others have said, #2.  That said, you mentioned this will only be until you reach retirement. Will this layout remain in operation, or will it be torn down and resurrected as a 12x18?  If the latter, I'd opt for something much simpler, just so you can run trains. Unless you're a super-modeler (not doubting your abilities, but rather mine...) 3 years will fly by, especially if you're still employed, as I assume you are. I'd hate to make relatively little progress on getting everything wired-up, scenic'd, etc, only to tear it down.

Additionally, give some thought to your 12x18 as far as track required.  Like you, track cost is a consideration, not a constraint for me, but it frustrates the snot out of me because I went and purchased a bunch of Atlas 036 for my prior layout of 3 years ago, but now I only use one circle's worth of it. Same thing with switches. Do you want to purchase extra switches only to decide on a broader radius in the future?

Surprise! I agree with the majority about #2, which does not look like a 4x8, although both have way too much track for MY tastes, leaving little scenery or structures as reason to exist.  As America is paved with shopping mall parking lots, too many layouts are paved with track.

Definitely #2.  Lots more potential for switching fun here.  Plus, I like how it breaks up the old-fashioned "oval-in-rectangle" design - much more visually interesting for me.  The added viewing and approach angles are also a big plus. 

2

2

#2 for sure, a lot better track plan and looks more realistic......more spread out.....

Number 2 is definitely more interesting, and seems like more fun to operate and build.

I like #2 as well. you can adda vertical backdrop right berhind the Power plant and still see what's on the other side with that angled isle. a Key to these layouts are the backdrops in the center so one does NOT see the train 100% of the time.

I would also go for plan 2. I think it's a lot more interesting and has a lot more there for trains to do. Although I think both layouts are very nice and interesting plans, if you have the room go with the larger one. As I said before plan 1 is probably about as good as one could get for a layout that size.

As for some of the above comments about #2 taking longer to be able to run trains, I think you can do the bench work and whatever is needed to lay the track and be able to run the trains while you are finishing the rest. It may cause a bit of inconvenience in a place or two, but running trains is a big plus, IMO. When you get tired or frustrated with working on something, just start up the trains a run them for a while. 

Another thought, I used Mianne bench work (really like the stuff, I'm sold on it) and it was very easy to get the basic bench work up and ready for track. Took a total of about 8 hours for a 6'x16' layout and no mess to clean up when it was completed. I had Home Depot cut the plywood into more manageable sized pieces for me.

Not sure that is a consideration for you, but it really speeds things up and is very easy. The dis-advantege may be that it would probably cost a bit more than building from scratch. However, if you consider the time spent building from scratch, I think you would be ahead with the Mianne. The Mianne is also easily re-configured or added on to should you ever want to change anything. You could possibly even start out with plan 1 and change to plan 2 at a later time. That would probably be a little work and even more if all the scenery was added. Anyway, just something to consider, if you haven't already. 

Looking at the layouts & before reading anyone's reply, I would go with #2 .

Jack

y 

#2  It's a landslide!

I like the two mainlines, one with the loop to loop operation along with a bit of industrial switching possibility. If this shape is not conducive to your space, or you have additional space, the plan can be "massaged" and/or expanded to fit.

Don't get hung up on the Atlas track just because there is a list of pieces for the plan. This can be done with GarGraves and Ross track just as easily.

I also vote for track plane 2, more accessible for viewing and the bridges add visual highlighting.   

Two. It's appealing from the air, which is really irrelevant, but there you are anyway. The access quotient looks better, also. 

Have you considered GarGraves/Ross trackage? Available, reasonably realistic - if you spray paint it first (the chrome must go), and clean the rail tops.

I'd go for two as well....

Why no thoughts about around the outside on 30 inch shelves?     Why is everyone locked into tables?

2--love it!

#2 is a REAL and interesting layout.  Very impressive/cool.

#1 will be trains chasing their tails.....and will get boring fast....IMHO.

Without doubt, option two.

Option 2 is my vote.

Layout two. But remember it is your railroad

Thank you everyone for your opinion.   Special thanks to those who put some thought into their reply and shared their insights.  I found that valuable.   

Like everyone else, I prefer Option 2 for obvious reasons.   My concern about it comes down to time to build and I don't want to ballast all that track.   I have had a good experience with Fastrack over the years, so I thought that I should explore one more possibility - Option 2 but with Fastrack (Option 3).   There are pros and cons to the track layout with Fastrack - some improvements over the Atlas-O.   See what you think.

The footprint is just a bit larger, and just barely fits the space with the access aisle.  I feel more confident that I can get this one up and running in a few months.   I don't move as well as I used to, and can't work physically for long periods, so time to construct with a minimum of problems and troubleshooting is important.

Someone asked why not an around-the-room layout.   The left had side has two floor-to-ceiling windows.   The right hand side is open to the family room.   There is a door at the lower right.   So it just would not work out.  However and on the other hand, I actually have a ceiling layout in this same room, almost running, using Fastrack, which runs above the window and door framing.

If you're worried about the effort involved in ballasting all that track (and given the 3-year timeframe, it's a legitimate concern), then don't ballast it.  Three years will fly by, and you will probably learn some new things during that time, so ease of disassembly and ease of reusing components will make life easier in the long run.

And I like the different angles and views on #2.

Ken- I love your creativity with track plans. One thought though, maybe move the  Morton's plant over to the small connecting spur in the corner. This would create another switching move apart from the power plant. I don't thing coal hoppers and salt hoppers would be on the same branch in real life either. Maybe you could widen the benchwork a bit and add a switch and a spur to service the salt plant and let the straight spur along the wall be storage for empties.

If you don't want to ballast everything then check out Paul2's posts on What Did You Do On Your Layout Today thread. He has a good method that gives the appearance of ballast without actually ballasting the track bed.

Bob

HI Ken,

I really like layout #2, that is a very interesting track plan.  It makes for interesting running possibilities .

Keep up the great work, I like it.

J. Motts

Mallard4468 posted:

If you're worried about the effort involved in ballasting all that track (and given the 3-year timeframe, it's a legitimate concern), then don't ballast it.  Three years will fly by, and you will probably learn some new things during that time, so ease of disassembly and ease of reusing components will make life easier in the long run.

And I like the different angles and views on #2.

You don't HAVE to ballast the layout....but you'll learn a great deal and gain meaningful experience nonetheless building this layout.

FWIW, simply using cork or foam roadbed looks surprisingly better than just screwing track to a table top, whether it's Atlas, Gargraves, Ross, or what have you.

I wouldn't use Fast Track simply b/c of the "ballast".  Rather, use whatever track system you will ultimately end up with to save significant $$$ down the road.

Hi Ken:

I like your option # 3 (Option 2 done is Fastrack). After working with Traditional Tinplate on my home layout and Atlas on my club's layout, I converted my home layout to Fastrack & am very happy. After several years of regular operation, have only had 1 straight section fail and both 36" & 48" switches have been flawless. In addition, Fastrack would be reusable on your future expanded layout.

Tony

Up on "The D & H Bridge Line"

colorado hirailer posted:

Surprise! I agree with the majority about #2, which does not look like a 4x8, although both have way too much track for MY tastes, leaving little scenery or structures as reason to exist.  As America is paved with shopping mall parking lots, too many layouts are paved with track.

 

 

I agree with both thoughts above.  I like #2 and there is way too much track in both designs.  I would try to reduce the amount of track and segregate accessories between areas of green (trees).  Your drawings are excellent, by the way.

George