Z Scale Layout

[sjonese]

2011021.aspx

Here is my 2nd attempt at Z scale, This is a 3' X 5' table top layout of my own design. This is still in the design stage yet.

I din't know if the picture is visible but the picture is in the photo gallery

Please let me know if this is good layout, a bad layout or any changes that would make it more interesting or fun. I plan on running three or four trains at the same time on this layout and maybe do a little switching. I will be using a Digitrax DCC to run the four trains and one more train on my first Z scale layout at the same time.

I also need to know what track is better Marklin or Micro-Trains?

I am going to break this layout into four separate blocks just in case one shorts out, that it does not shut down the rest of the trains.

Please give me some feedback on this so I can make it the best layout I can.

Thanks,    sjonese

[abbieleibowitz]

I like the plan. It offers a lot of "running" if you just want to let the trains run, or enough switching if you want to do that. I don't have any experience with Z scale. Do people "operate" or focus on just running trains? My one comment is that the connecting spur you've got on the right side connecting the upper level to the lower level comes to the front of the layout. That puts a ridge in front of the lower level tracks in the front of the layout, which can make for an awkward scenery challenge. I realize that in Z scale that ridge is only about an inch high, so maybe it won't be an issue.

Abbie

[Texas Zepher]

sjonese

Please let me know if this is good layout, a bad layout or any changes that would make it more interesting or fun. I plan on running three or four trains at the same time on this layout and maybe do a little switching.

It depends on what the goal is. My first thought when I saw it was that of two separate layouts on top of one another (the red and the black) connected by two tracks.  That is a large amount of track crammed into a small space.  If you want to set 3 or 4 trains out and just let them run in loops than I guess it is an OK layout.   Even so it might not be too interesting because one can see where the train is going to be next.  On the other hand if the number of trains is reduced to just 2 they could make use of  the interconnecting tracks and it would not be as easy to predict the future route of the train.  In that case one could remove a lot of the double track and I think it would be visually more interesting.

Related to the large amount of track I do not see hardly any scenic possibilities.

As for the switching areas, the one on the top is interesting.  It could have the same interest but increase the capacity by bringing the tail of the "Y" on the right down directly into the siding instead of taking it into the other spur even if that involved a crossing.    The switching area on the bottom is actually the same configuration only in reverse.  It requires consuming both main lines and the junction track just to make a run around move.

 

[galaxy]

I echo Texas Zephyr in that it looks to busy, to cramed in there.

I would run only one loop up top, not two, and I wonder about those tight curves up there...what kind of trains will you be able to run. {short locos, short cars}.

Yeah, agreeing with TZ you really have two layouts one on top the other..I think a simple loop on top would be fine. Are you going to be able to ge to derailments in the tunnels knowing z scale is so tiny?

Also so crammed in there there really isn't much room for scenicking or for industries at your sidings?

If you want straight operations only, it could work, If you want others to view and enjoy it, I would go less track, adn more scenery.

I dunno, give it a try if you want, see if it will work.