As Cuyama mentioned, finding another foot of width makes a difference.
The OP indicated that he has spent time doodling and comes back to the two plans he posted.
Personally, I’m not a big fan of designing spaghetti noodle benchwork to fit as much run into a space as possible. I would feel uncomfortable just being in the layout room if all I had was 24 to 36 inch aisles to move around in and center backdrops blocking my view of anything that isn’t directly in front of me…but maybe I’m claustrophobic.
And the G shaped plan does not allow the operator to follow the train, since it ducks into the backdrop at the base of the peninsula and requires a quick run to the other side to catch up, if that matters to Hobbez.
The basic G shaped design is very similar to how parts of my layout are arranged.
I try to maintain 36" if at all possible. The “three blob” arrangement could yield wider aisles for most of the room if benchwork away from the turnback curves could be reduced. It looks to me like there’s plenty of opportunity to squueze more aisle space around the peninsula everywhere but right at the end.
The aisle here narrows to about 22" adjacent to the turnback blob, but is back to 36" within a few feet. There are also some passing areas on the far end of the blob so the narrowest spot doesn’t become a bottleneck.
To get all this to fit (along with the remaining benchwork and two other aisles on either side of this area that aren’t visible in the photos), some locations had to get really shallow. The one above is directly adjacent to the peninsula blob and isn’t much wider than the space required for track. I was willing to live with this compromise because it allowed for a much longer mainline run and more pleasing scenes elsewhere.
Here’s the opposite side of the peninsula. Again note how quickly the benchwork narrows to expand aisle width.
I agree with rob. the sketckes I supplied are very rough designs to show other options that can be done in the space by the origonal poster. If a narrow isle for a short stretch gains you an additional 30 feet of main line it is worth it.
Depends. Many good “G” designs have the train entering hidden staging at that point. That’s what I assumed in my very rough sketch, but didn’t take time to show.
Cuyama: Ah yes, I see that and that does change things and make sense.
Everybody: I’m glad that we can express opinions of choices and personal layout preferences without taking offense.
Just pointing out something the original poster may not observe at first blush. The multi blobbed sketches have many tight radius curves and the OP plans have none, even broader if he wants. Going from broad to tight can change the feel of the layout and the type of railroad he’s trying to represent.
Just pointing that out in case the original poster has a specific vision for what he/she is trying to do.
I wouldn’t typically consider the 28" radius HO curves with easements in my “G” sketch to be “tight”. For the Original Poster’s planned 60’ or less rolling stock and all 4-axle power, that should be more than sufficient. John Armstrong pointed out that too large a minimum radius may limit one in a given space just as much as one that is too small.
One nice thing about the “G” is that it eliminates a duckunder or gate, potentially increases the length of the visible main line, and provides easy ramps down to subterranean staging (if desired). But the “G” does introduce more curved track overall.
Of course, much depends on what the builder wants to accomplish in terms of era, locale, etc.
Another option entirely would be to extend a couple of peninsulas from the long walls. If you want to maintain the 2-foot maximum reach, you can still make a 4-foot wide peninsula since both sides would be accessible. The wider peninsula would let you create a larger scene, or you could use a view-block across it to get a longer apparant run.
I have spent some free time in Anyrail working on some of the ideas that have been suggested here. I worked on a couple basic penninsula blobs like this:
And a G shaped idea:
But, all the variations on these two ideas I came up with lead to narrow isles, limited curve radii, and most of the space taken up by mainline. I even came up with this crazy saw-tooth plan that gives me the isle space and radii that I want, but will require a lot of curved turnouts and tight curves for industries.
I am still thinking about that one. I have taken some of these ideas and modified a single layer plan that gives me 32" curves, 3 foot isles, lots of switching, still a decent mainline, and would be easy to build and for me to operate.
The bonus with this last plan is that I already have all the turnouts, track, and structures to build it. And considering I have over 1000sq. ft of foam sheet that I saved from the old layout, it should go together quick once the room is finished. Not doing a two level HO layout leaves me open to adding a lower level for my On30 equipment eventually. I am still thinking about things though, so who knows when inspiration will strike.
There is another way to do the blobs that no one mentioned. Go with the min radius your equipment needs and use that toward the back with a veiw block and your larger radius toward the front, that way you can have the look of a 30" radius in way less space. You can also hide the track in the blob compleatly.
