Thank you everyone for the votes and input. As much as I would love to run a yard and turntable I'm going with layout 1 for now for a couple reasons.
1- the cost is alot less then layout 2 for the obvious reason less switches, no turntable, and just overall less track
2- due to me being in the navy and never staying in one place for more then 3-4 years it just makes more sense to go with the simpler option and hopefully in 2 years when I go somewhere else (probably back home) hopefully have more room to build the layout I really want which is a mixture of both
I am going to play around and see if I can make the outer loop O60 and inner to O48 so I can run pretty much anything. I'll post a picture of that layout and since I'm already playing around on the program I'm probably going to post a photo of my dream layout to.
I vote on #2. Here's why:
I believe the reasons above detail why there would be much more fun, interest, and play value with #2 compared to #1.
That's what I had in mind: I really like TTs/Roundhouses, so I would want to keep that feature. But that's just me.
I like 4 - 6 but as KRM said to many switches.
Life's hard, even harder if your stupid John Wayne
http://rtssite.shutterfly.com/
I agree with 8ntruck. Work with the layout awhile before scenery additions.
Side question: Are you a "player" ( just watching/running the trains) or are you an "operator" (controling the trains as an engineer ie. running, switching etc.)?
Wish you well.
It depends on what you like to do.
I like to run long trains, so layout #1 looks better to me.
If you like to build and re-arrange trains, deliver cars to sidings, etc., layout #2 will give more opportunities for that kind of action.
Remember, you are in charge of your railroad. Build what you want. Run the layout for a while before doing much scenery to see how well you like it. If it turns out that you don't like it, it will be much easier to change around without having to rennovate the scenery.
Good luck.
KRM My , #1 but with less under tunnells. It looks cleaner and has less switches. Switches = problems. Long deep tunnells = problems. Wider curves = biger engines. Less clutter = more room for layout scenes. JMHO
My ,
#1 but with less under tunnells. It looks cleaner and has less switches. Switches = problems. Long deep tunnells = problems. Wider curves = biger engines. Less clutter = more room for layout scenes.
JMHO
Thank you for your input and your right about the tunnel my plan was to make a hallowed out mountain and inside the right figure 8 loop cut a hole in the table big enough to be able to reach all three tracks which is one of the reasons it comes out so far so that the hole is hiden. The other loop would just be a small town.
Do you mean somthing like this.
I like Figure 1's design, three loops, two outer plus one inner, with tunnels. Three loops mean more action, tunnels give the trains a place to disappear to. With all that going on you get the effect of the layout being much bigger than it really is, the observer's eyes can't focus on all things at once.
If I had 6 x 15 feet to play with that's what I'd do! I have to be happy with the good 'ol 4 x 8, but I've got three loops plus a tunnel and what I mentioned earlier works for me. Let me add my loops are all closed loops, I don't do any switching (unless it's "Hand O' God" style ) nor do I desire to. I just set 'em up and watch 'em roll. Closed loops do minimize derailment problems though.
Long deep tunnels shouldn't be a problem as long as you give yourself a "back door" into them to correct any mishaps.
Joined 1-21-2011 TCA 13-68614
Kev, From The North Bluff Above Marseilles IL.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month