Wow, six months later and you still haven't decided on a scale or the shape of your layout.
I'll make it easy for you. Let me pick it. Go with HO scale and select the "G" as the shape.
Why? Simply because your heart is with HO scale and the "G" is an efficient use of available space. Resist the temptation to block off that electrical service panel. Not only does code require access, but in an emergency, you may need to get at it quickly.
Rich
Alton Junction
Hello once again.
Sorry I've been MIA past couple of months - spent most of the time spinning in circles in my head between H0 and N (it is very exhausting).
Also, spent the time drawing more layout shapes (I'm getting better at it!) although none of them seem to lead me anywhere. Just not getting that "right" vibe from it.
Here is a selection - I'm up to #33 so far. You can see all of them from the folder.
I'm having a hard time imagining where things would fit in any of these shapes...
I sort of settled on H0, with N as a fall-back, only realizing that I need another 2-3' on top of the 12', to have a decent aisle space and a peninsula. Curse the 12' size, it's neither here nor there!
Even entertaining a helix idea and multi-deck setup, to extend the mainline run. Some people tell me that you could put a lot of railroading into 18" depth, but I'm not seeing it.
That's my update, all and any comments, ideas, critiques, etc. are welcome.
YouTube Channel
Website
You have plenty of room for HO. You just have to realize that 50 car trains aren't going to cut it. Heck, our club layout stretches 160 feet long and while once in a while we drag out a 100+ car coal train, it severely clogs up the layout. Most trains run 15-20 cars.
Steam locos in most scales need a bit of TLC to keep running smoothly, or at least a bit of tweaking. In my time period there was pretty much 3 different steam locos running, I have models of 2 of the three (one is a one-off, used only in the engine shops), one has been done in plastic for a couple of runs now, and the other is pretty much brass only (and I am pretty much not willing to pay what they usually go for). Most any diesel I need ia vailable in plastic, and if not factory painted, the paint scheme is simple enough - it's all one color, so painting my own is not a problem.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Thanks Randy, I see what you mean now. Myself, I would prefer to do a no-lix as it saves space and could visually be made to look intersting (plus gives trains a longer run).
Speaking of a no-lix, I really liked how it was done on the Hillside Central Railway - here's a YouTube video showing the layout and the route trains take between levels:
I thought it was a great idea to make the trains run on the outside perimeter, then once enough clearance is achieved, go under the tabletop towards the back and then continue down until tracks merge with the lower level.
There are no cutouts in the tabletop, no worrying about clearing the framework or any supporting brackets holding that level, etc.
And yes, I would focus mostly on the transition era (I like steam locos) either in H0 or N. I feel today's railroading reduced all that variety down to a handful of monster size diesels, MUed and pulling never-ending autorack consists. Meh.
Sadly, the more I read about steam in N Scale, more disappointed I get. It seems the thin selection of the N(ot available) scale is even thinner once all the bad performers are removed. What's left is a handful of hard to find locomotives, at mid to high prices. And even among those, some need a bit of tweaking as well...
The best bet for you in your space for the amount of cars you seem to want and action, is to limit yourself to an older era. Just taking boxcars in HO, 40' ones look great on 18" curves but go up to 50', even though they will still make it, the curve needs to be bigger to look great, like 22", go 60' and it goes up to 27" etc., basically 4.5" per 10'. I am sure N scale has a similar chart. Now you can go smaller curves and it will work but the visuals are not as good.
This is to fit in my space, but it's the direction I've been going. Upper left is the lower level staging loop, below that in about the middle is the helix, second level is not shown, but it will go over top the lower level and there will be another loop on toop of the one shown in the upper left. Instead of a helix, that could also just be a turnback curve with the vertical seperation gained via "no-lix", grades along the run.
Hi Randy,
Thanks for your suggestions, I'm just finding it hard to convert words into visualization in my mind. Could you quicky draw something up (perhaps over what was already posted earlier here to make it easier) or perhaps if you have a pre-made drawing?
Somethign else to keep in mind, also more sage advice from John Armstrong - stack the loops.
With the G shape, if there is enough space for a turnback curve, you don;t need to cut across the open side of the G with aa lift gate or other contraption for continuous run - you loop back and on the one biggest blob, stack loops above one another. If there is wnough room, the looops can be multi-track and also be the staging yards. The tail of the G with the turnback can be used to gain altitude to start a second deck, if there is enough distance around the G you can have level town areas plus still have enough room to gain reasonable clearances between decks without resorting to impossible grades. This is similar to how my plan is developing, although I have a double track main and will have a helix at the end of the first level to get me to the start of the second, and at the far end, two loops stacked over one another with multiple tracks to be the staging.
On a single level this could also be implemented as a dog bone, a double track main for most of the run and then a loop on either end. For decent operation this would require with both loops to be extra wide, or some alternate form of staging, vs stacking the loops so that only one end needs an extra-wide loop.
--Randy.
TrainzLuvrFrom your experience, what combination of materials works best with KATO Unitrack, when it comes to sound dampening?
Extruded foam seems to me to always be a sounding board to some degree. Unsecured loose foam sheets like the video are the worst.
I saw a layout with a "soft" layer between the Unitrack and a plywood subroadbed that was very quiet. This was a thin, soft craft foam -- the Woodland Scenics roadbed is similar, but likely more expensive.
TrainzLuvrI've been trying to source homasote up here
Homasote dealer finder. You are looking for "Homasote 440" But personally, I don't think Homasote adds anything when using Unitrack. It's great for handlaying or for flextrack with track nails.
There are also dealer finders for extruded foam. Call the dealers first before driving to find out the stocking situation and/or minimum order.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
TrainzLuvr DSchmitt For foamboard. Are there any specilaist insulation dealers in your area. The big box stores in my area don't have it, but tere is an insulation dealer in the "big" city about 50 miles away that does. There are suppliers of building materials in the area, but I believe they only sell to General Contractors and professional license holders. Not sure if they also have a minimum quantity orders, as well. Come to think of it, I do have a GC friend, maybe I could "coerce" him to be a middeman for my hobb...err building needs. ;)
DSchmitt For foamboard. Are there any specilaist insulation dealers in your area. The big box stores in my area don't have it, but tere is an insulation dealer in the "big" city about 50 miles away that does.
There are suppliers of building materials in the area, but I believe they only sell to General Contractors and professional license holders. Not sure if they also have a minimum quantity orders, as well.
Come to think of it, I do have a GC friend, maybe I could "coerce" him to be a middeman for my hobb...err building needs. ;)
You could ask. The company I am aware of actually at one time had an ad advertising the material to model railroaders. I bought 3 or 4 sheets. It was many years ago.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
DSchmittFor foamboard. Are there any specilaist insulation dealers in your area. The big box stores in my area don't have it, but tere is an insulation dealer in the "big" city about 50 miles away that does.
cuyamaNote that loose Unitrack on top of foam is about the noisiest combination possible, especially when running locos alone at high speeds.
That's good to know, thank you.
From your experience, what combination of materials works best with KATO Unitrack, when it comes to sound dampening?
Should I only use plywood as a surface, or do I combine it with rigid foam board, homasote, or something else?
I've been trying to source homasote up here, but it does not seem to be a widely popular material, while a 2" rigid foam board is out of stock quite often at my local big-box hardware stores, not leaving me with much choice.
Note that loose Unitrack on top of foam is about the noisiest combination possible, especially when running locos alone at high speeds.
TrainzLuvrIt has been suggested to us to do both - put H0 in-front and put N at the back, creating a false perspective and depth.
Hard to pull off successfully and thus rarely worth it.
TrainzLuvr wants me to pick one so we can get going
Good advice.
Good luck with your layout.
I apologize for being absent for the last 3 months, though I kept busy during that time (while the dreaded Winter went on and on...)
I started hanging out at the near-by MRR club, and as it turns out, they organize model train flea markets, twice a year even!!!
Suffice to say, I partook in their Spring event and was overwhelmed by it. So many model trains in so little space...
Got a video from the flea market up on my YouTube channel:
Also, I bought couple of KATO N Scale Variation sets; a few Atlas locomotives and some rolling stock, then setup a small layout to test things out.
Overal, even N Scale takes space, granted less than H0, but now I can see the curves N needs to look nice. I like KATO turnouts as they are both manual and remote, all in one. And the track seems solid and foolproof with roadbed built in.
What I don't like are the whining, squealing, and grinding noises that these N SCale locos make:
Turns out replacing wheels on the Atlas locomotives with KATO ones reduces the grinding noise, but whining and squealing of the motors is still there, ugggh:
I find the noise of N Scale locos a bit irritating, and I wish to have sound in them, but with tiny spaces available inside, not all could accomodate for it. Plus I like steam locos, and it appears to me there's much less of those in N than H0.
My SO and I have also had a chance to go on our first ever layout tour (Doubleheaders MRR Tour) at the end of March. That turned out to be such a wonderful experience.
We visited 8 different layouts (2 club and 6 home ones), spoke to people there and took lots of photos and videos (I'll be posting layout videos on my YouTube channel, as I edit them).
The tour showed us that we could build in H0, as some layouts were in about the same space that we have. Others were just...HUGE, spanning an entire basement (George Watson's Bear Mountain Southern Pacific )
While my SO favours the N, she is really indifferent to the scale and just wants me to pick one so we can get going. But, I feel like I'm back to square one...
It has been suggested to us to do both - put H0 in-front and put N at the back, creating a false perspective and depth. Though it seems to me it might be twice as hard to pull that out of a hat.
So, that's my update. And, I'm still open to whatever words of wisdom anyone can impart. Thanks!
Thank you everyone for your comments and suggestions.
So the concensus for my space is the G shape, regardless of the scale used. I would like to avoid a helix in H0 as to me that is a space monster, which most people prefer to tuck away somewhere.
I wish I had a nook somewhere I could put the helix in, but the space I've shown is the final space. I can't go below the columns since that would block access to the rest of the basement (it was a challenge to get even this much approved by the "committee"...just kidding, of course :) ).
I did spend a lot of cycles contemplating H0 vs N, yet I feel I haven't reached the decision point yet. What I did accomplish is find a local MRR club really close to where I live, which I plan to visit in a week or so.
My "cunning" plan, if all goes well, is to get access to their H0 layout and hopefully be around like-minded people, while learning many MRR things hands-on. And perhaps they will benefit from my skills in the process as well.
But ultimately, it might quench my thirst for H0, let me run some of my equipment there, and free me of having to make a scale choice. Then I could model N at home and have access to H0 at the club. A potential win-win situation.
I'll post an update once I visit the club, and maybe I'll have a clear(er) direction what I'm doing in the space at home.
Is the other side of the pillars the wife's forbidden zone?
As the Brits say, you could always go "pear shaped" - j/k.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
You want a long run.... How about double decking the whole affair. Extend the upper right blob out to 5' so it is large enough to house a 30"r helix (orange line). Position a backdrop on the lower deck to hide staging (dk green line).
Alan
Freelancing the LK&O Railroad
TrainzLuvr RRR_BethBr, I'm trying to understand your suggestions from the last two paragraphs regarding designing around G, but I'm having a hard time seeing it in my minds eye. Could you please elaborate on I'd also be very tempted to use that extra linear run to create enough vertical separation to allow a sublevel for staging and a turnaround loop (or double ended staging) beneath the sceniced portion of the layout. What exactly are you referring to, the linear stretch touching the two columns? Where would you start going into the sublevel and where would you emerge from it?
RRR_BethBr,
I'm trying to understand your suggestions from the last two paragraphs regarding designing around G, but I'm having a hard time seeing it in my minds eye. Could you please elaborate on
I'd also be very tempted to use that extra linear run to create enough vertical separation to allow a sublevel for staging and a turnaround loop (or double ended staging) beneath the sceniced portion of the layout.
What exactly are you referring to, the linear stretch touching the two columns? Where would you start going into the sublevel and where would you emerge from it?
Yes, that's the area I'm talking about. Here's a rough sketch based on your plan #6:
The main yard would be on the upper (modeled) level, with realistic track work, etc, though I'd almost certainly try to discretely incorporate a reverse loop for continuous running. Leaving the yard, we'd start heading down a gentle, but constant, grade as the train winds its way through the modeled scenes of towns/industries. At the point I show the tracks passing through the backdrop at lower left, we're heading on to the staging sub-level, and the line turns grey to indicate that. I'd run staging under the main yard, and include another reverse loop to facilitate continuous running, where trains could come in from the stagin level, climb the grade through the railroad, and end in your yard.
With some real cleverness, it might even be possible to include a 'ramp' track back down to staging at the rear of the main (modeled) yard, so trains could 'continue on' beyond your railroad.
The other option I would consider, is to use the aisle you already have to leave for electric panel access as a place to put a 'fiddle yard' for staging, behind a full-height backdrop that would hide the train-building operations going on there. That would probably require you to turn the 'G' back around the other way though. What side of the room would the fiddle yard be, along the far right wall, or? Would it connect through a swing out bridge of sort?
The other option I would consider, is to use the aisle you already have to leave for electric panel access as a place to put a 'fiddle yard' for staging, behind a full-height backdrop that would hide the train-building operations going on there. That would probably require you to turn the 'G' back around the other way though.
What side of the room would the fiddle yard be, along the far right wall, or? Would it connect through a swing out bridge of sort?
I was thinking along the right side of the layout, like this (even rougher) sketch:
Trainzluvr:
It seems to me that you want to go HO scale despite the curve radii challenges. I'm basing that simply on the way that you talk about HO scale vs N scale. HO scale you speak of positively, but N scale you keep asking if you will be satisfied.
FWIW, when I look at N scale I say "nice, but not for me". It just doesn't appeal to me. I scratch build switching locomotives and railcars/trucks in HO and HOn30. Trying to do that in N scale would seem to me to be an exercise in frustration, but that's me and what interests me.
Here is a suggestion that might help you make the choice. Forget about the 'chainsaw' layout approach. Put some of your locomotives and rolling stock in front of you in both scales. Then ask yourself "which ones do I want to reach for first?", or, "which locomotive would I like to hug?". Yes, I'm serious about the 'hug' part! Which locomotive(s) do you really love?!?
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Thank you all for your posts.
Choops,
That was one of the shapes I had on the B-line but I keep putting it aside because of that large empty area in the middle left. My partner keeps telling me that I'm like "go big or go home", trying to use every square inch of space.
Looking at it, I think I'm on my way to understanding the "quality" run part, because of a choice made not use every square inch of space in favour of a layout that works on more than one level (scenic, operational, etc).
cuyama,
To be fair, I only have those two autoracks because they are the most-extreme cases. I bought them for the exact reason of seeing what the largest equipment does to various curve radii. I do have a number of passenger cars that are about the same length but would probably work even in 24" radii, unlike the autoracks.
We had some discussions about "G" vs donut, and although my partner is kind of indifferent to either, we both like organic shapes better. Yes, that's neither here nor there when it comes to fitting track, so it's more of a curiosity.
lifeontheranch,
Soul searching for H0 vs N to me is probably the toughest decision I have to make. I still need to shake off the feeling of "hold me gently or I'll break" that N gives me. :)
rrebell,
I do not mind modern North American equipment, although to be honest it looks too plain and all the same to me, built for a single purpose - to maximize the capacity. I find older North American units, and especially European equipment much more pleasing, for many reasons.
And there lays the conundrum, H0 has the selection of equipment I like in abundance, yet N offers me better choices in overal track length and scenic possibilities in my space.
Now, my current equipment roster is perhaps 8 or so locomotives, 9 passenger and maybe two dozen or so freight cars in H0. Then 3 locomotives, couple of passenger and 20 or so freight cars in N.
I do have a dozen or so PECO c100 turnouts (mostly small and medium, a few large and curved) and Atlas straight and curved sectional track (15, 18, 22 deg). Nothing in N though.
My question for everyone is going back to "Will I be happy with N scale?" and "Will I be happy with equipment restrictions that come with a 26” (or whatever) radius in HO?”
Someone could be happy with anything (or the first thing). Build H0 and never really know fully about N, or vice-versa. Should've, could've, would've.
Do I investing into any more equipment to build a "chainsaw" layout for that scale (or both)? Furthermore, what type of a "chainsaw" layout(s) do I build, how much track, scenery, level of completion, etc. should it/they have?
I will obviously have to buy track to build, but if it's going to be torn down, is it worth investing any money to begin with?
Am I over-analyzing all this? I seem to only have more questions.
Since you like modern equipment go n. Some of the stuff you showed looks best on 36" radius at least in HO which would be a more manigable 18" in N. Although the size of the stuff maters when you get older, modern stuff tends to be much bigger than the stuff from my layout era the 1930's, like twice an long or bigger.
cuyama Personally, I think the purpose of a chainsaw layout is to build experience and answer questions. What are the key questions you'd like to answer? If the key question is "Will I be happy with N scale?", then it should probably be an N scale layout. If the key question is, "Will I be happy with equipment restrictions that come with a 26” (or whatever) radius in HO?”, then it should be an HO layout.
Personally, I think the purpose of a chainsaw layout is to build experience and answer questions. What are the key questions you'd like to answer? If the key question is "Will I be happy with N scale?", then it should probably be an N scale layout. If the key question is, "Will I be happy with equipment restrictions that come with a 26” (or whatever) radius in HO?”, then it should be an HO layout.
See where this is going? Do the soul searching first, then build a layout or a chainsaw. If you just dive in without knowing the "why" then you will likely spend a lot of time and money only to end up dissatisfied with the hobby. Nobody wants to see that happen. It truly is the World's Greatest Hobby if done for the right personal reason(s).
cuyama You can build a lot of the things you want into that space – just not everything. Good luck with your layout.
You can build a lot of the things you want into that space – just not everything. Good luck with your layout.
Sage advice.
TrainzLuvrMy space seems incompatible with H0
It's compatible with HO -- with compromises. Smaller radii (and corresponding limitations on equipment) allow a walk-in lobed arrangment like the "G" to work. Donut-style layouts would allow larger radii, but have their own trade-offs.
Your photo shows some of the largest modern equipment. If you want to run that, then it places demands on the minimum radii that aren't so severe with other layout eras and concepts. And if you want it to be double-track; that uses more space, not just for the extra track, but for the crossovers needed to enter and leave yards, for example.
N scale offers much more flexibility in the same space, of course.
TrainzLuvrIf I was to build a "chainsaw" layout, what kind of a layout do I build, how big, what shape, scale? Do I just find a plan on the internet I like and dive into it?
As far as where it’s located, I'd suggest something that's non-inuitive. I might build it in an L-shape partially against the wall that in the future will be the 36” “keep clear” aisle. Then you can start construction of the later layout in the far corner and still have a path clear to the electrical box for a while before you must take down the chainsaw.
You have more space than many model railroaders will ever have the good luck to enjoy. You can build a lot of the things you want into that space – just not everything. Good luck with your layout.
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/r270/15875426_10210145517508748_465228777900503975_o.jpg?oh=40d2254d634eff0d284672c801b5b9c9&oe=58DC58C7
Consider using the space on the other side of the columns as an operator area. You are gaining layout area without building into the space.
The above layout I envision a main yard along any of the three long runs. There could be some staging below between A and A. ho scale. Easy access to electri panel.
Steve
It seems I have quite a bit of soul searching to go through then. I grew up around trains, had relatives work on the railroad. I honestly can't poinpoint exactly what I like about trains, something about machines on tracks that always appealed to me.
I like watching trains pass-by or shunt cars around, trackwork disappearing into the distance, or curving through the valleys, signals changing aspects or turnouts switching points; I like freight just as much as passenger trains; steams, diesels, electrics, no matter, I like it all. :)
I don't even know where to start if I was to narrow things down. And I'm not sure I want to take away from the wholeness of experience that trains are to me. Sigh.
If I was to build a "chainsaw" layout, what kind of a layout do I build, how big, what shape, scale? Do I just find a plan on the internet I like and dive into it?
As I was tired of imagining various curve radii, I though it would be worth while seeing them instead, and comparing the scales as well as cars in real-world space.
Those autoracks are on the 26" curve, and it appears barely enough for them, although that flatbed has the same footprint as autoracks and it seems it could make the 24".
And then the sad realization of the size of H0 curves needed to make a full turn and how it fits (or doesn't) inside my space. To the right is a mockup of a small yard made with compound ladders. Not fitting much as the track before and after the yard would need another foot or more, and then make the turns.
My space seems incompatible with H0 as my train area depth is only 12' which falls short of two full turns at 28" and a decent aisle space in-between. :(
Looking at N, I could make full turns at 16" or 18" radius and have multiple aisles in-between.
TrainzLuvrThank you for those H0 donut ideas. In your expert opinion, is what you have shown here really the most I can get in the space (when it comes to donuts)?
Those were quick ideas I knocked out using the yard from another project while waiting for an appointment. So they aren’t presented as perfection, just an idea of what fits.
“Most” is subjective. Those donuts are sort of balanced ideas with double-track mains, a small active yard, some switching, some staging, and a reasonable length of run. One could probably re-design to emphasize more of any of those elements – but not all of them. Layout design is an exercise in trade-offs. If one was willing to forgo the movable gate to enter the inner layout (and use a duck-under instead), for example, one could probably work in another loop of track to subterranean staging.
As I once told my boss when I worked in product management, "You can have it fast, cheap, or fully functional. Pick two."
TrainzLuvrI was playing with some organic shapes rather than a G, trying to see what else could be put there so here's one of those attempts:
Some thoughts in terms of practicality, easily corrected: - the yard along the back wall is unworkable as an active yard because of the difficulties in accessing it from multiple places. If it’s just for staging/storage, not as big of an issue- Most folks would want 3-4” of benchwork between tracks and the aisle.- The track in the ̶t̶o̶p̶-̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ top-left corner seems to be out of an easy 30” reach.
More importantly from a footprint standpoint, 3 blobs will usually be less desirable than a “G” (two blobs) for a given space because relatively more of the track is curved. This can make it trickier to place towns, yards, etc. (even though the length of run can be greater). If you are interested in an active visible yard, it’s often hard to find a place for it with more blobs.
TrainzLuvrI always liked the size and solid feeling one gets when holding H0 equipment
Then maybe you should go with HO and accept the trade-offs. Fine HO layouts have been built in much less space -- but the key is selectivity and prioritization. As comedian Steven Wright says, "You can't have it all. Where would you put it?"
I'll again suggest that a "chainsaw layout" might be a good investment in time and resources. Build something that's not a space-filler but gives you a chance to run some trains, work a small yard, do some switching, etc. That experience will tell you a lot about what you like and don't like and will help inform the later larger project. Importantly, you’ll gain an appreciation of how long things take – which can be an eye-opener when contemplating a project of this scope.
Alan, thanks for the kind words – but you were well on your way when you got me involved – I just suggested a few enhancements and alternatives.
lifeontheranchIf you nailed the "enjoy" definition then a high "quality of run" will be the outcome whether it be 10' or 1000' feet of track.
Exactly ...
TrainzLuvrI'd really like to get a decent run (as long as possible) in the space I have, but how does one improve its quality?
Ah, glad you asked. That's where Byron and forum members come in. First things first, you must decide why you are building a layout. I know that sounds dumb but I am serious. I like trains is a weak answer. Once you decide exactly why your layout exists in the first place then you move on to how it is laid out and how it operates. Byron and others can then help you optimize the design based on the "why" i.e. creating a better quality run.
Love switching? Fill the layout with industries and logically arranged spurs and leads. Love railfanning? Create long winding track woven through beautiful vistas. Fascinated by a particular railroad? Dedicate your layout to replicating a prototype subdivision or section thereof. Modeling museum quality structures your thing? Build a city that happens to have a railroad passing through it. You get my point.
Using myself as an example, I combined three specific prototype areas (from three different railroads!) into one. For each of the three prototype areas I have cherished memories as a youth. So for me, the "why" and thus "quality of run" is defined as my layout helping me relive my childhood memories. I play with trains for the purpose of enjoying my youth a second time. Byron assisted by making sure my amalgamation of the three rail components would actually create a functional, operable model railroad.
There is "playing with trains" and then there is "enjoying playing with trains". Focus first on the "enjoying" part as it relates to you. It's a soul searching adventure. Once you have that clearly defined then layout design becomes a straightforward engineering excersise at which Byron excels.
If you nailed the "enjoy" definition then a high "quality of run" will be the outcome whether it be 10' or 1000' feet of track.
Thank you all for being patient with me. I reall can't explain why I'm flip-flopping on the decision to go N scale. Somehow I feel I might regret not trying to squeeze H0 in there first, yet N seems to be the most sound choice for the space. :(
Thank you for those H0 donut ideas. In your expert opinion, is what you have shown here really the most I can get in the space (when it comes to donuts)?
I was playing with some organic shapes rather than a G, trying to see what else could be put there so here's one of those attempts:
The way I envisioned this is, the orange track (the outer loop) would be 4" lower than the rest of the layout, all around the islands/blobs. It would climb back up on the left side blob and decend on the right side blob. This would give some scenic separation from the inner loop and double the main line length.
Each island could support any number of LDEs connecting to the inner loop as well.
I love your LK&O railroad build and have been following your writing for months now. Thank you for sharing your experiences with us! :)
Regarding H0 vs N and vision/dexterity, I always liked the size and solid feeling one gets when holding H0 equipment. With N, I always fear I'll break something accidentally. Although I've been issued a prescription for reading glasses, I'm still promptly ignoring it. :D
I'd really like to get a decent run (as long as possible) in the space I have, but how does one improve its quality?
Another vote here for the "G". Byron reviewed my layout before the build. You won't go wrong following his advice.
www.lkorailroad.com
Your vision will deteriorate and your hands will become less steady as you age. Keep this in mind as you decide HO or N.
More is not necessarily better. The quality of the run is just as important, if not more so, as the length of the run.