Both plans are N scale and both are folded dog bones to get a good run. Plan 1 has been previously discussed on this board. Ppuin gave a lot of helpful advice at the time. I throw it in again for comparison/discussion Plan 2 is a variation with better scenic possibilities (upper and lower areas) and reversing sections. The low track along the west wall will probably be covered by removable scenery. I'm starting to favour Plan 2. Givens: No particular area of North America. Models I have are UP, SP, Rio Grande and BN The space available is finite I like to run the trains (all will be freight) with some switching Sole operator Standard DC wiring and block control I like to have the trains visibly staged - thus the multi-track sections Min radius is 12" (in the hidden areas) The town scenes for the ends will be removable for track cleaning/clearing It will be open grid construction Please be gentle with me
To me,both plans have their strong points,what I like about plan1 is the yard tracks,and plenty of industries for switching,plan2,less area for the yards but more switching areas,and more areas for scenery.I for one like plan one since I like yards and industrial switching.I can see why you like plan 2 because of the space for scenery,do you plan on having a yard with plan 2? Like may be a staging yard in a lower level or some thing? I like both plans but the choice is your's it's your layout and what ever plan works the best for you go for it,as long as you enjoy running the trains on whatever plan you choose that's what counts,look forward to seeing our choice of which plan you choose and the progress of the construction of the layout.Which ever plan you choose,you have plenty of operational potential and either plan will be fun to run and operate.
Thanks for your thoughts Steve. I guess I'm looking for people to point out any traps or holes in the designs I've missed that could lead to later issues. I hope to make a start in the next couple of months.
I look forward to seeing the progress on your layout,no matter what plan you decide on.From what I could see I see no traps or any thing that might hinder your operations down the line,but may be some one else will.It looks like you have plenty of access with either plan to get the locos in ans out of the spaces.Just make sure the turnouts don't end up making an S curve,I had that problem in the early planning stages of my track plan,and the person who drew the plan for me from my drawings helped to change it.Good luck with your layout,
Plan 1 has more yards, but 2 looks more fluid. From the roadnames, 70s-80s western... how would you scenic each layout? They look a little crowded for western out-in-the-country.
JBT: Both of these plans look like they would be a lot of fun to opperate. Plan 1 has a large city/ heavy industy feel to it whereas Plan 2 does lend itself to more open sceniced areas. The only problem I can see with plan2 is vertical separation, I don't think there is enough room to have track run under your North yard. The two lines you have running under the yard would be better running straight joining up with the East loop? This raises another problem, turnouts hidden from view under the town scene. I do like having reversing loops in both directions, hate having to back trains up to change direction.
I know you said DC, standard wiring, but on a layout with that much track, you are going to have a lot of blocks. and I imagine more than 2 cabs. I would almost bet DCC would end up cheaper, and certainly less time consuming. As far as the layouts, I need to look some more. But my gut reaction, especially whan I looked at #2, was "that's a lot of track", followed by a feeling of looking at a bowl of spaghetti. But, to be fair, I need to look some more to see if I really feel that way.
Do I see correctly in Plan #1 that there are no crossovers, and hence no passing opportunities other then the yards? It is true that a crossover would create a reversing section or two, but no paaing opportunities will be pretty limiting, I think. I'm having a bit of trouble decyphering Plan #2. It feels to me that there are too many alternate routes, but I am having trouble 'cause the drawing is too small for my eyes!
Hey thanks for the thoughts there guys. On scenery: I'm in Australia so I'll be using considerable "modeller's licence" with that. You've got my ideas exactly Cleggie regarding the two styles i.e heavy industry vs open areas. The layouts are generally fairly straightforward in that they are folded dog bones. I sort of prefer plan 2 as it has more potential interest because of the vertical separation. It still allows me to stage (park) the trains/equipment not in use. There are no turnouts in hidden areas. The track descends at max 2% down to zero elevation heading east from the industry B area, looping under the Eastern town scene (top right corner of drawing) and then pops out into view after passing under the Industry A & B areas. So that is the only climbing / descending section of track. Plan 1 has no crossovers but Plan 2 has the reversing sections. Re DC power: I'll probably only run one train at a time, so the initial wiring can be kept fairly simple. It would cost me considerably to convert all my Kato/Atlas models (purchased early 90s) to take DCC decoders.
I think the lack of crossovers in Plan 1 is a pretty serious issue. Eventually, you will want to run more than one train on it, and they'll need a place to pass! I still haven't been able to unravel Plan 2. My gut is saying too much track, not enough scenery. But it depends on what you are after. There's no staging, and no real yard, so I'm not sure where the trains are coming from, or going to. If it was me, I think I would go back to the drawing board, and see if I could combine ideas from the two plans!
Hmmmm. I'll look closely again. However, plan 2 evolved from plan 1. There is far less track in plan 2. As for yards & staging on plan 2: There are two yards and places to stage three trains at the industry A area (top of plan). There is also at least one staging track running north/south in the middle of the drawing.
