I’ve read in one of the Model Railroader publications that the look of a layout can be improved by not running the track parallel to the benchwork edges…do others here agree or does it really matter?
I’ve got an 8’X16’ table, and the basic layout involves a double track oval with sidings…and I’m thinking about putting in another oval that would pass over or under the other two to increase operating possibilities but not sure if this will make the layout look too congested.
I agree with the idea of not usign too much track parallel to the benchwork edges. Mine has gentle curves to avoid this.
My take is, adding another loop of track to what you say you have already may well makes this look cramped–but then, I dislike roundy-round, spaghetti-bowl track plans.
You have enough room to make it look great. Have you considered doing an up and over figure 8 to take up some of the room in the middle of the layout. You also have room for a dogbone but this will be a bit more challanging getting it to either cross over the double oval or go over and under it. My last layout was a 9’ x 11’ in a small bedroom and i did a double figure 8 configuration with an oval running around the edge of the layout. the radius was tight which left me running GP units and 40’ cars but it was manageble…chuck
Not running parallel to the benchwork edge is probably more of an issue on a long shelf layout than a stand-alone one like yours. It also may help to not run everything parallel - like have your city streets at an angle to the track and benchwork rather than having all the streets, train lines etc. running either north-south or east-west.
My last layout was about the size of yours. I made it a twice-around; the outside loop was pretty much a pure oval, but the inside one was squeezed a little into a peanut-shape. I found that not having the two lines running parallel (and having the inside one about 1" higher than the outside one via short sections of 2% grade) helped break things up and add visual interest.