Need a vote on which layout plan to use

Classic Toy Trains Forum
1

I need help choosing between 2 designs. There both fastrack on a 6x15 foot table. Layout 1 is a double loop with a figure 8 inside the outer loop is O48 all other curves are O36. Layout 2 is a loop with O60 curves connected to a yard area and a loop to loop with O48 curves a atlas 24 turntable in one loop and a siding in the other which i might put an engine house on.

layout 1layout 1 overheadlayout 1 see throughlayout 2layout 2 runninglayout 2 overhead

2

My [2c],

#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

3

How about a compromise: keep the big outer loop and make a bigger figure 8 inside with the turntable, etc in one side with a spur or two. Use the other loop for scenery, maybe?

4

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 [angel]) 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.

5

Do you mean somthing like this.Layout 3

6

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.

7

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.

8

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.

9

I like 4 - 6 but as KRM said to many switches.

10

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.

11

I vote on #2. Here’s why:

  1. I like reverse loops. It gives the option of running a train through both directions and essentially giving more variety to the trip as the train approaches each area from a different perspective once it turns around. This comes at the expense of not being able to run longer trains. Your #2 layout overcomes this by giving you the option of running along the outer loop only. In fact, a long train can be diverted up through the middle and back down to the bottom for an even longer run. Should you decide to change direction, you can always divert the train through the yard to shorten it, and then proceed through one of the reversing loops.
  2. I like the yard. It allows the operator to keep a lot of trains on the table. I would think about eliminating some of the bumpers on the right side and replacing them with switches that connect to the descending track on the right. That way a car could be dropped off or reconnected from either side.
  3. I’m a big fan of the turntable. It gives you a lot more flexibility in terms of power. If you decide to run longer trains, then you can select a powerful locomotive. If not, then you can call on a smaller engine or even a switcher. Both the yard and the turntable allow you to keep a lot of items on the table without having to resort to constantly having to remove items from the table to make room for other items you want to run around the track.
  4. As with any yard, you can include operating/uncoupling tracks to operate many operating cars and accessories. The stubs on the left (inside the reversing loop) could accomodate an engine house for two locomotives if the need to have more engines on the table ready for action was desired. Switches do add problems. However they add a lot more interest and fun. It takes more skill to navigate a train through switches without deraili
12

I like layout #1, as someone says, more action and it’s neat when the trains disappear into the mountains.

I would also add to that an elevated loop that comes off of the mountain, so most of that would be on the mountain, but then you’d have part of it elevated over the rest of the layout.

13

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.