I don't think either method works acceptably well in isolation. And, I doubt anybody ever knew all they wish they had known when they started their current layout. Planning something small and finding the unexpected problems by building it is the way that most of us gain the experience to make better plans that lead to more reliable and satisfying layouts the next time when we try something larger. Do you already know know how to make a track plan that (1) allows for the type of operation you really want to do and (2) avoids all the nasty issues that cause derailments, like S curves that creep in because you found that you needed to move the ends of curves or turnouts closer together than you initially planned? Access is another important issue - making sure that you can get to the trains wherever they have problems without causing more problems. If you need to learn more about what not to do and how to do the things you want to do, a lot can be gained by reading books on track planning for operation, track laying for reliability, wiring for convenient installation and operation, etc. And even more can be learned by getting experience with other people's layouts, or participating in a club with a layout, even if it is not in the scale you want to use at home. Planning software is going to give you a better idea than pencil sketches of what will really fit into a restricted space. Trying to plan a layout's curves with easements, is not easy without planning software. And easements are a big part of determining what radius curve will fit where, as well as making trains run well and look good doing it. But, on the other hand, some software programs do not draw their easements the same way you are going to set the track according to the Model Railroader methods for making easements, so there will be some differences between plan and finished product, no matter what. The goal is to make sure they are small enough that you don't get too much track down before you find out that it really doesn't fit. There are things to be learned both by using planning software and by actually laying track. If you are interested in making realistic scenery, learning how much room that requires is another aspect, where there is some written guidance, but experience is the best teacher. In addition to the track-laying software, there is now "operational testing" software that will turn your layout plan into a computer game that allows you to simulate running trains on those tracks, including switching, coupling and uncoupling. If you are really into the idea of running your trains in realistic operations, this type of software has some real advantages for helping you think-through how to do specific operations and how to make the track plan faclitiate those. In particular, planning your staging area to avoid things, like needing to make back-up moves with long trains while still making those trains realistically enter and leave the visible layout areas, can make a big difference in how well an operating session works, and thus how enjoyable it is. And, there is still the question of what appeals to you about this hobby. Some folks like the construction more than the operation, and soon tear-down a layout after it is finished, without doing much train running, because they are eager to start another one. Other folks can't wait to do realistic operations, and are soon running trains along tracks laid on bare plywood, switching cars on sidings with paper pictures of industrial buildings, and never get the scenery done. There are even some that seem to enjoy the planning more than the building or operating. Just remember, it is a hobby, and you want to spend the most time doing the parts that make you the happiest.
You may want to list out the layout elements you want to incorporate in you design, what industries, what railroad maintenance items etc. Once you have those, you can then start to figure out how to connect them. All railroads were based on some sort of business model. Start with that and you will have some of the layout elements and then you can connect the tracks between them as you want. An example, if you want to run passenger trains you need a town and a station. If you have a logging company, you may need a wood cutting facilities and also possibly running wood chip cars and dropping them off at a paper company and the wood to a furniture or building supply company. If you are going to run several railroads the would need to be an interchange yard etc. As you determine these services along you pike, now you can arrange them for operational efficiency. At this point you have the suppliers and the consumers figured out and the road operations, you can pick a starting point and move your layout element there. Figure this section out with the local and through tracks and then move on to the next one. This way you still have a lot of freedom in how you connection the different industries along you pike. I had a really long run of a NTRAK module set that created the mountain line at a 2% grade. I lengthened it a bit and then realized traffic bottleneck. Solution was to turn the long run into a long lap siding and now I can run train up and down without a bottleneck. Again this was coming from a design of an engine maintenance and helper facility, and to hook it up to the mains and look at the operational elements of going up and coming down to the mountain line.
I can't imagine building a layout without a solid plan, but then I can't imagine building a freelance layout anyway, which is what the wing it option limits you to. My most recent layout was planned with the assistance of an architect friend and copies of the plan as it progressed ere sent to several people who modeled the same location for comments. Still, after nearly a year of work, there were problems that appeared. I was in the process of a redesign when that was put aside due to a divorce. I'll have one again, but it too will be carefully planned. VERY carefully.
My current layout is a 4 X 8 and I just built the table and started laying track until it was what I wanted. Granted, the track arrangement is partially based on experience from previous layouts but, there you have it. I don't have the patience to work up a plan on paper (although I have done that and it is not a bad thing) or mess around with applications to simulate operation on any given layout. I want to get track down and be able to actually run trains. Doug
My layout is an around-the-wall design mounted on brackets. If I'm not liking something, it's not that hard to re-engineer one section and redo it. That's my current theory, anyways.
Access is an extremely important aspect and it's one of the primary limiting dimensions in my designs. There's much to be learned from the cartoon below as drawn by Bill McClanahan and appears in his Scenery For Model Railroads (c. 1958) book.
Well, it's a decent sized room (12 x 10?) and the door/entry is in the corner next to the closet, so I have 1/2 wall, 2 full walls, and 3/4 of a wall to run along continuously (accounting for the door and closet). Think I'll take some measurements and look at this like a shelf layout with a bit of bulk at the ends, I like long runs and plan on running "ground level" at 48" so I have may available tricks to make it "seem" bigger while keeping under 12-15" from the wall in most places. Maybe an island with a big mountain, too.... would divide the room a bit.
An island would give all sorts of illusionary activities. If you site things correctly, you can have a destination and supplier sort of in the same place. As an example, you can pull coal cars out and push empties in, a similar thing can be done with the lumber operation and the sawmill. All you need are two tracks with a lot of hiddenness, if that is a word.
