Layout help required

[RJS1977]

I'd say dogbone loops are more satisfying than an oval.

 

However you could have both - with most of the passenger services, van trains etc, using the dog bone, and any trains which would be expected to run with full wagons one way and empty the other (coal, minerals, timber, etc) going round an oval - loaded wagons circulating one way, empties the other!

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

3 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

I'd say dogbone loops are more satisfying than an oval.

 

However you could have both - with most of the passenger services, van trains etc, using the dog bone, and any trains which would be expected to run with full wagons one way and empty the other (coal, minerals, timber, etc) going round an oval - loaded wagons circulating one way, empties the other!

 

 

As I pointed out to SpaceD the other day, passenger trains are like mineral trains, difficult to model properly with return loops. The first class does not stay at the same end.

 

But you are right to raise the issue. It is an added factor in designing hidden sidings on a layout.

[Spaced69]

Yea get what you guys are saying....to be honest id have never known or realised..i just assumed coaches are coaches regardless which way they were and always assumed 1st class always at front of train.

Also joseph was wondering on the long straight could the track be doubled up so that 2 track low and two high with wat u were showing me thenother day...4 tracks on that long straight allows more locos to be run then...just a thought

[RJS1977]

TBH I've never worried which way round a train was, and the number of layouts with reversing loops or train turntables in them suggests a lot of other modellers don't either!

 

Of course, not all trains on the prototype have first class at the same end - HSTs the wrong way round weren't uncommon (either through deliberate turning, or due to having to take a diversion that reversed them like Newport- Bristol Parkway - Bath - Swindon, and the Class 800 thread suggests they get reversed even more often. 

 

Some passenger trains didn't/don't have a first class.

 

And in some places (I can think of at least five in SW London, although two are on the Underground), trains go round a reversing loop as part of their regular working.

[Aire Head]

7 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

TBH I've never worried which way round a train was, and the number of layouts with reversing loops or train turntables in them suggests a lot of other modellers don't either!

 

Of course, not all trains on the prototype have first class at the same end - HSTs the wrong way round weren't uncommon (either through deliberate turning, or due to having to take a diversion that reversed them like Newport- Bristol Parkway - Bath - Swindon, and the Class 800 thread suggests they get reversed even more often. 

 

Some passenger trains didn't/don't have a first class.

 

And in some places (I can think of at least five in SW London, although two are on the Underground), trains go round a reversing loop as part of their regular working.

 

Going back to steam days most London-Scotland Express trains using the settle Carlisle had been reversed at least once at Leeds and maybe even more than once because of Nottingham and Leicester!

[Joseph_Pestell]

10 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

 

Going back to steam days most London-Scotland Express trains using the settle Carlisle had been reversed at least once at Leeds and maybe even more than once because of Nottingham and Leicester!

 

Yes, but at any given location, the formation of the train would always be the same way round. The idea of fixed sets goes back much further than people think albeit that in steam days they could add on a few coaches as required.

Of course, you are right that for many passenger trains it does not matter. But for some, particularly HSTs & 225s it does.

[RJS1977]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Yes, but at any given location, the formation of the train would always be the same way round. The idea of fixed sets goes back much further than people think albeit that in steam days they could add on a few coaches as required.

Of course, you are right that for many passenger trains it does not matter. But for some, particularly HSTs & 225s it does.

 

As already mentioned above, far from rare to see an HST the wrong way round.

 

And in certain places with a triangular junction, some trains reversed in the station (with a change of loco in steam days), others didn't. Particularly in West Wales, some trains headed for Pembroke/Neyland/Fishguard reversed at Swansea and/or Carmarthen, others skipped either or both those reversals using either the Swansea District Line or the Carmarthen triangle.

[Spaced69]

I guess the array of coach direction may be something that a dedicated enthusiast would want to have correct but this layout is for myself and im not fussed either way...as said will prob only run 4 coaches max so not going for any realism...maybe one day il get picky....i may operate the odd train now and again...but.my fun will be the automation as im an IT guy and a pure tech head....im just extremely keen to get laying track and maximising the space i have...love idea joseph came up with for split levels lines and cant wait for him to get me started

Ive seem some awesome split level 8x4 layouts with tunnels n bridges...so if i can get something like that both ends and joined by the 20' straight...the layout gonna be awesome

Still really keen to see wat u guys would come up with as i could incoperate something that neither i nor joseph had considered

[Spaced69]

Well downloaded scarm and anyrail

Got as far as putting baseboards...but this track designing thing is beyond me

I see why people get dismayed at the planning stage

guess im too impatient aswell...boards fitted ...loft insulated...plenty of time temporarily...frustrated...

really wish i had creativity...lol

[Dungrange]

8 hours ago, Spaced69 said:

....i may operate the odd train now and again...but.my fun will be the automation as im an IT guy and a pure tech head....im just extremely keen to get laying track

 

I don't think you've mentioned whether this layout will be DC or DCC and how you intend to automate it.  You're going to need some form of detection system, so that your computer software knows where all your trains are at any point in time and if that means relying on current detection (like track circuits on the real railway), then you need to think about where you're going to have various detection sections before you get to track laying, because you need to know where to put insulated rail joiners and track feeds.  Do you want working signals?  If you do, then you'll need to consider how the real railway would signal your plan, so that you can have train detection in appropriate places.  Whilst I can appreciate a desire to get some track laid as soon as possible, you need to think about more than just a track plan before you start laying too much track.  When you come to automate the layout using whatever software you plan to use, you're going to have to define from where to where each train will run and in what order, so I think it makes sense to think through your operating plan before laying the track.

 

That said, I'm not the best person to give advice, because we don't want the same things - my attic layout isn't even going to have one station, let alone stations (plural) and I don't want gradients, because I want to be able to run trains with at least ten or twelve bogie wagons behind them (and long trains tend not to like gradients).  However, this is your railway and needs to match your interests and be tailored to the compromises that you are prepared to make.  It's probably worthwhile writing a proper list of what you really want, what you'd like if you can fit it in and what you don't really care too much about so that you can shape a plan the way you want it.  If you make a start, there are plenty of people on here who can suggest improvements, but it seems too much like a blank canvas at the moment.

[Spaced69]

Yep it literally is a blank canvass...i did mention it will be dcc as ive fitted decoders in my locos and lighting in all my carriages...spent months doing it all...lol

Train detection...good point...i currently have the Hornby elite which i intend to use railmaster....working signals sound like a great idea...il have to look into it.  As mentioned i kinda get impatient and worried that if i take too long to get started...il lose interest...i do lack the patience to sit there and plan something...im more of a doer and just like to get things done...sorry its just me

If i was good at plans i wouldnt be asking for help here..lol

I just want my layout to look good with as much as i can get on it and auto mate as much as possible...so i can sit back n chill and observe but also have the option to operate if the mood takes

 

[Spaced69]

Can see why not many sent track plans...installed scarm and anyrail and it does seem a daunting task to produce a layout

 

[DCB]

Its very formulaic.  Minimum radius, Train length, somewhere for trains to start and somewhere for trains to stop unless you want a train to run continuously round the bottom of the christmas tree.

Try the CJ Freezer 60 plans for small layouts etc, he had a handle on good design

[mdvle]

3 hours ago, Spaced69 said:

Can see why not many sent track plans...installed scarm and anyrail and it does seem a daunting task to produce a layout

 

 

I am saying this somewhat generically, not to specifically pick on you but more as a general explanation.

 

This section of RMweb is not a paid design service, and thus to a certain extent the amount of help that ends up being provided depends on several factors but the most important is that it take the interest of those who end up giving up some of their online time to provide feedback and provide further help.

 

But it is also the proverbial two way street, where those who get the most also are responsive and provide feedback when requested, put in some effort themselves, and tend to be more specific with what they are after.  Take a look at some of the other request for help in this section, and note how the original poster interacts and what information they provide that allows for their particular request to generate enthusiasm from those with the knowledge and capabilities.

 

From a quick reread/glance at the thread so far you seem to want to recreate your childhood, except on a bigger scale.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that - at the end of the day it is your layout and thus is should reflect what you want out of it.

 

With the previous paragraph said, part of the problem is that the philosophy of model railways has changed dramatically in the intervening 30 to 40 years.  Most of us no longer want to stuff as much track as we can possibly fit into every square foot of space we have, and given the problems with gradients we mostly also try to avoid using them.  Again, I am not saying you wanting these things is wrong, but rather pointing out why it is so hard for many/most of us to provide feedback or a layout plan - you are asking for something that most of us have no idea how to design because that isn't how we would design a layout today.  Instead we are attempting to generate layouts that more accurately reflect the real thing, and more often than not that means less track and more scenery and we avoid multiple track levels because of the problems of getting trains up the gradients.

 

The best advice to be given for you at the moment, which has been mentioned previously, is for you to so some research yourself.  There are many track plans available online - there are some websites dedicated to them, as well as searching using Google - try images.google.com.  Don't restrict yourself to track plans, but also try searching using various combinations of words for pictures of layouts (and perhaps even real trains) that interest you and provide a way of showing others what you would like to try and achieve.  And while I am not saying to go out and buy track plan books, if you have access to any try browsing them.  If there is a model railway show near you at some point and the price is reasonable, perhaps consider going and looking at the layouts.  The point of all this is not to find a layout design that fits your space, but rather to find elements that interest you that can perhaps be combined together to create an entire layout.  Thus you can provide others a better idea of what you would like in a layout, and maybe then others can provide more help to allow you to achieve what you want.

 

 

 

[Harlequin]

7 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

Its very formulaic.  Minimum radius, Train length, somewhere for trains to start and somewhere for trains to stop unless you want a train to run continuously round the bottom of the christmas tree.

Try the CJ Freezer 60 plans for small layouts etc, he had a handle on good design

I don’t think layout design is formulaic at all. Yes, there are rules, conventions and practicalities but combining them to create something beautiful that works well is an art form.

 

[DCB]

36 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

I don’t think layout design is formulaic at all. Yes, there are rules, conventions and practicalities but combining them to create something beautiful that works well is an art form.

 

I know you don't. But you need sound engineering, the application of formulas to make a satisfying layout.    If the gradients are too steep, the minimum radius too tight if your platforms are not long enough for the trains, the tracks are too tight together, the approach trackwork is arranged so you can't access the platform when the train leaves the hidden sidings on the right line and you can't operate prototypically or run more than one or two trains at the same time on a huge layout or get to the tracks at the back of the layout then the appeal will soon fade.

Added to which this chap has already built his baseboards out of very solid board. 

[TonyMay]

There is an alternative forum at https://www.newrailwaymodellers.co.uk/Forums/viewforum.php?f=15 which is more focused on train sets, big or small, made with RTR toys rather than scale models of railways.  If you are unhappy with the ideas kindly presented here then they might be able to come up with something closer to your tastes.

 

PS - if it is not formulaic why do we end up with the same solutions, e.g. GWR BLT, Minories or Inglenook?

[Dungrange]

15 hours ago, Spaced69 said:

Can see why not many sent track plans...installed scarm and anyrail and it does seem a daunting task to produce a layout

 

Scarm and Anyrail are not going to provide you with the inspiration or the idea.  These pieces of software are simply to check whether or not you can fit your idea into the space that you have available before you go out and purchase all of the track that you need.  You need to have the idea first (before opening either software package) and since it's your railway, it has to be designed around what you want.  What is essential, what would you really like, what would be nice to include if you have the space and what are you not really interested in including within your plan?  You can do all of these doodles on a piece of paper - you don't need a software package.  What compromises are you willing to accept (eg minimum radius and train length) and what compromises are you not willing to accept?  These are very much personal choices, but are fundamental to you establishing your track plan.

 

One of the problems with building a big layout is that it will take a long time to complete and there is a risk that you run out of enthusiasm.  That is why many people will advise building a smaller layout, simply because it is easier to see it through to completion.  I started off with the idea of following that advice and building a small end to end layout, but the more I thought about it, the more operationally boring I thought it would be and I was never overwhelmed by enthusiasm to progress that idea beyond the planning stage.   I have a track plan, operating sequence and some part built baseboards, but that's it.

 

I then saw Mick Bryan's Newbryford layout and that made me realise that I really want a continuous run style layout (despite my dislike of train set radius curves) because I want to be able to run fairly long freight trains: that is one of my 'absolute must haves' and it's more important to me than anything else.  Running long trains means that gradients are out (my railway will be completely flat) and so are tight curves (I'm working to a minimum radius of 30" in my fiddle yard and preferably more in the scenic section, where I'd like to work to a minimum radius of 48" if possible).  I don't want any 'train set' radius curves, because I don't think they look realistic.

 

One of the features of Newbryford is that it adopts the half station concept (ie only one approach is modelled along with the ends of the platforms).  This approach is adopted because real stations take up quite a bit of space and railway modellers are always short of space.  However, whilst I started off thinking I'd include half a station in my plan, I came to realise that to me a station is actually nothing more than a 'nice to have if I have the space'.  As such, I've abandoned the idea of having a station.  I'd have liked to have added refuge loops on both my up and down lines, but once I got to drawing my initial thoughts up in Anyrail, I came to realise that I couldn't fit a loop in the up direction (my inside circuit) as it would be much shorter than the trains that I plan to run.  Therefore, I had to drop the loop in the up direction and make do with just having one in the down direction (which is still a little shorter than I would have liked).  However, the down loop provides access to oil sidings, which I can shunt and I can fit in a yard on the up side, which is similar to Newbryford, albeit I think I can fit in an extra siding and a head shunt, so that shunting the yard doesn't encroach on my main lines.  That is therefore the layout that I'm currently building baseboards for, albeit my fiddle yard approaches are not yet set in stone: I'm trying to make as many loops as possible bi-directional, whilst not sacrificing length.  My unresolved issues are therefore which loops are accessed off which tracks.

 

Clearly the layout that I want is not the same as the layout that you want, but you need to go through the same thought process.  Looking at books of track plans or layouts at exhibitions is the place to start and decide what you really like.  Maybe track plans 23 and 46 both appeal to you.  Why?  Try to ascertain what they have in common.  Is it because each provides something that you'd really like to have on your dream layout?  If so, what are these elements and can you include both elements, possibly foregoing other elements of these track plans, in your design?

 

Ultimately, it's much easier for you to draw that first plan than it is for anyone else.  However, once you've posted a plan of your initial thoughts, you can maybe get a few suggestions as to how to improve it (eg making one of your loops longer), or people pointing out operating issues (such as you can't access a particular platform or a shunting yard in one direction).

 

From the space that you have available, it seems like some sort of dog bone layout is your starting point.  Perhaps start by drawing out a double track dog bone and then ask yourself, what you want to add to that.  You've previously indicated "stations".  Does that mean that you want to drive a train from one station to another station and perhaps onto a third?  If that's the case, then you need to decide where you can fit these stations into your plan - one either end of the attic and one larger one on the four track section in the middle?  Freight trains don't run between stations but between yards, so do you want the same operational approach - ie a goods yard of some form within each return loop (ie one either end of your attic) and the ability to drive trains between these?  You've said that you want to automate the layout and that means that every movement will have to be programmed by you, which means that it needs to be thought out at the planning stage and by that I mean you need to define the start point for the movement, the points that need to be changed, the length of track that the train will drive along and where it will stop.  What points need to be thrown before the train can be set back into its destination yard.  How is the reverse movement going to be made?  Will the locomotive be at the right end of the train for the return journey, or do you need to add run round facilities?  Once your train is back to the yard from which it started, do you need additional facilities to re-marshal the train ready to repeat the programmed sequence?

 

As you've discovered, designing 'your dream railway' is not a straightforward task.  Most of the work needs to be undertaken by you, but those posting on this thread are probably willing to provide advice and encouragement to help you reach your end goal.

Edited February 9, 2020 by Dungrange

[Chimer]

22 hours ago, Spaced69 said:

Can see why not many sent track plans...installed scarm and anyrail and it does seem a daunting task to produce a layout

 

 

Well it takes a while.  I probably spent about 4-6 hours on the outline idea I posted, and I am reasonably proficient with the software I used (XTrack-cad).  Which was fine because it was interesting trying to work out what could be done with that space .......

 

18 hours ago, mdvle said:

But it is also the proverbial two way street, where those who get the most also are responsive and provide feedback when requested, put in some effort themselves, and tend to be more specific with what they are after.  Take a look at some of the other request for help in this section, and note how the original poster interacts and what information they provide that allows for their particular request to generate enthusiasm from those with the knowledge and capabilities.

 

 

……. but I was expecting some feedback as to whether any of the ideas I incorporated went any way to meeting your requirements.  Without that, no point in spending any more time on it.

[Spaced69]

3 hours ago, Chimer said:

 

Well it takes a while.  I probably spent about 4-6 hours on the outline idea I posted, and I am reasonably proficient with the software I used (XTrack-cad).  Which was fine because it was interesting trying to work out what could be done with that space .......

 

 

……. but I was expecting some feedback as to whether any of the ideas I incorporated went any way to meeting your requirements.  Without that, no point in spending any more time on it.

 

Sorry chimer

I did print out your design as it looked interesting...many thanks....as i did point out ive no idea what would work and what would maximise the space...fortunately i have been lucky with a cpl visits from joeseph...who really has enlightened me.....so far he has shown me that on the long stretch we can have 6 tracks 2 raised from base and 4 raised higher...we have flitted blocks and a curved here and there track beds...he shown me how to utilise kingspan and left me with some jogsaw work that will keep me busy

[BrightHelmStone]

I am presuming as you have insulated yourself that the house belongs to you. But, in the event that you rent the property:

Landlord inspections can include the loft. Especially if your landlord is a housing association.

They have 'issues' with using a loft for anything other than keeping the weather out.

Do all your boards fit through the loft hatch? So when you move . . .

Sorry to post negatives, but best to plan for the future.

Good Luck.

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 09/02/2020 at 00:26, mdvle said:

 

Instead we are attempting to generate layouts that more accurately reflect the real thing, and more often than not that means less track and more scenery and we avoid multiple track levels because of the problems of getting trains up the gradients.

 

 

 

I don't rule out that we might introduce gradients to the layout. With a loft 28' long, there is scope to make them gentle.

 

But where we are at the moment is two separate levels. This enables the creation of bridges, tunnels, etc without any gradients.

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 09/02/2020 at 11:52, Dungrange said:

 

Scarm and Anyrail are not going to provide you with the inspiration or the idea.  These pieces of software are simply to check whether or not you can fit your idea into the space that you have available before you go out and purchase all of the track that you need.  You need to have the idea first (before opening either software package) and since it's your railway, it has to be designed around what you want.  What is essential, what would you really like, what would be nice to include if you have the space and what are you not really interested in including within your plan?  You can do all of these doodles on a piece of paper - you don't need a software package.  What compromises are you willing to accept (eg minimum radius and train length) and what compromises are you not willing to accept?  These are very much personal choices, but are fundamental to you establishing your track plan.

 

One of the problems with building a big layout is that it will take a long time to complete and there is a risk that you run out of enthusiasm.  That is why many people will advise building a smaller layout, simply because it is easier to see it through to completion.  I started off with the idea of following that advice and building a small end to end layout, but the more I thought about it, the more operationally boring I thought it would be and I was never overwhelmed by enthusiasm to progress that idea beyond the planning stage.   I have a track plan, operating sequence and some part built baseboards, but that's it.

 

I then saw Mick Bryan's Newbryford layout and that made me realise that I really want a continuous run style layout (despite my dislike of train set radius curves) because I want to be able to run fairly long freight trains: that is one of my 'absolute must haves' and it's more important to me than anything else.  Running long trains means that gradients are out (my railway will be completely flat) and so are tight curves (I'm working to a minimum radius of 30" in my fiddle yard and preferably more in the scenic section, where I'd like to work to a minimum radius of 48" if possible).  I don't want any 'train set' radius curves, because I don't think they look realistic.

 

One of the features of Newbryford is that it adopts the half station concept (ie only one approach is modelled along with the ends of the platforms).  This approach is adopted because real stations take up quite a bit of space and railway modellers are always short of space.  However, whilst I started off thinking I'd include half a station in my plan, I came to realise that to me a station is actually nothing more than a 'nice to have if I have the space'.  As such, I've abandoned the idea of having a station.  I'd have liked to have added refuge loops on both my up and down lines, but once I got to drawing my initial thoughts up in Anyrail, I came to realise that I couldn't fit a loop in the up direction (my inside circuit) as it would be much shorter than the trains that I plan to run.  Therefore, I had to drop the loop in the up direction and make do with just having one in the down direction (which is still a little shorter than I would have liked).  However, the down loop provides access to oil sidings, which I can shunt and I can fit in a yard on the up side, which is similar to Newbryford, albeit I think I can fit in an extra siding and a head shunt, so that shunting the yard doesn't encroach on my main lines.  That is therefore the layout that I'm currently building baseboards for, albeit my fiddle yard approaches are not yet set in stone: I'm trying to make as many loops as possible bi-directional, whilst not sacrificing length.  My unresolved issues are therefore which loops are accessed off which tracks.

 

Clearly the layout that I want is not the same as the layout that you want, but you need to go through the same thought process.  Looking at books of track plans or layouts at exhibitions is the place to start and decide what you really like.  Maybe track plans 23 and 46 both appeal to you.  Why?  Try to ascertain what they have in common.  Is it because each provides something that you'd really like to have on your dream layout?  If so, what are these elements and can you include both elements, possibly foregoing other elements of these track plans, in your design?

 

Ultimately, it's much easier for you to draw that first plan than it is for anyone else.  However, once you've posted a plan of your initial thoughts, you can maybe get a few suggestions as to how to improve it (eg making one of your loops longer), or people pointing out operating issues (such as you can't access a particular platform or a shunting yard in one direction).

 

From the space that you have available, it seems like some sort of dog bone layout is your starting point.  Perhaps start by drawing out a double track dog bone and then ask yourself, what you want to add to that.  You've previously indicated "stations".  Does that mean that you want to drive a train from one station to another station and perhaps onto a third?  If that's the case, then you need to decide where you can fit these stations into your plan - one either end of the attic and one larger one on the four track section in the middle?  Freight trains don't run between stations but between yards, so do you want the same operational approach - ie a goods yard of some form within each return loop (ie one either end of your attic) and the ability to drive trains between these?  You've said that you want to automate the layout and that means that every movement will have to be programmed by you, which means that it needs to be thought out at the planning stage and by that I mean you need to define the start point for the movement, the points that need to be changed, the length of track that the train will drive along and where it will stop.  What points need to be thrown before the train can be set back into its destination yard.  How is the reverse movement going to be made?  Will the locomotive be at the right end of the train for the return journey, or do you need to add run round facilities?  Once your train is back to the yard from which it started, do you need additional facilities to re-marshal the train ready to repeat the programmed sequence?

 

As you've discovered, designing 'your dream railway' is not a straightforward task.  Most of the work needs to be undertaken by you, but those posting on this thread are probably willing to provide advice and encouragement to help you reach your end goal.

 

That's an excellent post.

 

In this case, for someone coming back into the hobby after many years, it is particularly difficult. Most of us would be constrained by the amount of space available and that would limit the choices. But with a space 28' x 9', the choices are almost endless. And to make choices, you need a lot of knowledge.

 

So what I am trying to achieve here is to build the first stage of a layout - simple circuit (probably double-track roundy but could be single track "dogbone") so that he can get some trains running but, more importantly, we can use that 20' length as a bit of a testbed to experiment with the various scenic techniques. This is at the "lower level" but I have still raised it 3" above the board so that we can have embankments, road underbridges, etc. On Sunday, we cut a couple of small offcuts of Kingspan to give a short length of embankment. It's still yellow but it immediately gives more idea of what it will look like when finished

On 09/02/2020 at 07:47, TonyMay said:

 

.

 

So, to keep it moving at a pace, stage 1 is the low-level track along the 20' length leading to some unscenic track to get trains running. Then lay track on the upper level of that 20' which will include the main double lead junction and get the entire 20' x 20" scenic.

 

There is a plan as to what the whole layout could become (I can post that later now that Carl has got my old laptop (where Trax2 lives) talking to my new wifi. But we can leave that for the moment. In the time that it takes (possibly only weeks) to get Stage 1 completed, his knowledge will have developed to a point where he will be better placed to make final decisions.

[Joseph_Pestell]

 

On 09/02/2020 at 07:47, TonyMay said:

There is an alternative forum at https://www.newrailwaymodellers.co.uk/Forums/viewforum.php?f=15 which is more focused on train sets, big or small, made with RTR toys rather than scale models of railways.  If you are unhappy with the ideas kindly presented here then they might be able to come up with something closer to your tastes.

 

PS - if it is not formulaic why do we end up with the same solutions, e.g. GWR BLT, Minories or Inglenook?

 

We often forget here that there is a big population out there of people who want to recreate their childhood trainset rather than build a model railway. I have encountered quite a few over the last few years and it is difficult, as a modeller, to adjust to their expectations.

[RJS1977]

I don't think either approach is necessarily 'wrong'. At the present time, of course, the majority of layouts in magazines or at shows are highly scenic affairs.

 

But, historically many layouts had an emphasis on operation with multiple levels, and lots of track - West Midland springs readily to mind, as does Sherwood Section , and many others. Such features are far from rare on the prototype, admittedly usually in rural areas.  Indeed Copenhagen Fields and Gresley Beat could be considered to be following in that tradition, albeit with some (excellent) scenery and based on a prototype location.

 

Ultimately, it's down to the preference of the builder. There's room for both in the hobby, and I believe also in RMWeb.