Which Type Of Layout Do You Prefer?

[Mountain Goat]

I have to say that I always go back to an oval, as when I have tried end-to-end, I have been dissapointed. The best end-to end layout I had was a rabbit warren type which had a single track weaving back and fore on two levels and trains running flat out took 45 seconds to go from one end to the other.

I once cur my board to convert it from an oval to an end to end and I then ended up in tears regretting my decision as I could not run trains. They just did not have a chance to exercize themselves! I was so saddened that I managed to squeeze in a loop of 1st radius curves in the end I had cut and I rather have a tight curve (00 gauge) then have an end-to-end.

But everyone is different. 

We all have different ideas and preferences. 

[Roy Langridge]

How about adding Micro-layout to the option? Personally not my favourite, but I know there are good few people that like them. Ok they are sort of end-to-end, but they are normally their own "genre".

Roy

[TheQ]

Definitely Oval For both Showing and Home use.,

 

At a  show, punter want to see something happening, and to do that on an end to end you need 1 operator and two change over artists, unless it's an out and back when you just need 1 change over artist. If it's a shunting layout there is so much concentration needed too much for me on a long day.

Roundy, you can set one train off, and if there is problem set off another on the other track normally leave that to run, while you sort it.

 

For home use my main interest is the modelling, I just want to have the trains run by as I sit there making something..

 

 

[JDW]

Neither. It depends on context. My own layout is end to end, because that's what suited the available space and budget. I find it more satisfying to operate than I think a roundy-roundy would be. But at the same time I enjoy watching trains running past on some of the big exhibition layouts in a way that an end-to-end can't achieve.

[The Johnster]

End to end every time, and if I had the room for a continuous run I'd have to include a terminus.  I like to operate, and watching trains running through scenery has a limited appeal for me; I need to break them down, make them up, distribute traffic, run around, top and tail, transfer,  Continuous run layouts are fine when they are operated as if they were end to end, but are only any use for testing otherwise. They take up far too much room for me to consider them and often require an up and a down operator to get the most out of their facilities, which is no use for me as I am The Cat Who Walks By Himself and have a low tolerance of other humans.  They tend to have different, or as I  call them, wrong, opinions that irritate me and their needs have to be considered, something I can't be *rsed with.

Edited June 11, 2020 by The Johnster

[Pete the Elaner]

11 minutes ago, TheQ said:

 

At a  show, punter want to see something happening, and to do that on an end to end you need 1 operator and two change over artists, unless it's an out and back when you just need 1 change over artist. If it's a shunting layout there is so much concentration needed too much for me on a long day.

Roundy, you can set one train off, and if there is problem set off another on the other track normally leave that to run, while you sort it.

 

 

An end to end could be an end to a fiddle yard, which requires just 1 change over artist, unless it is a small layout which can be run with 1.

A friend's older layout had a fiddle yard a each end & we found ourselves at a show with just the 2 of us. We thought this would be hard work but by moving the control panel closer to 1 end & having the operator also responsible for a fiddle yard, this worked a lot easier than with 3 people.

 

A problem with an oval at a show can be that the same train ends up doing the rounds time & again unless the operators are very disciplined, which is sometimes not the case.

I have seen 1 layout at a show where a DMU which should have been on the branch was running round & round for about 30 minutes without even stopping at the station. This particular layout belonged to the same club as me & I had done some work to allow more interesting operations but was stuck on another stand at the show. For me, this was frustrating & embarrassing.

 

For home use, I prefer an oval. It allows somewhere to run locos in & give them a chance to get warm.

I am far more often in a mood to build things & find that running trains is usually a distraction.

[john new]

If I had the space a combination of both. Current layout small end to end as that is all I have inside the house space for, the previous one was oval but was too big for home use. Exhibition use only eventually got problematic as the layout boards were too big for easy manoeuvrability.

[Sotto]

End to end's seem like the purist option to me somehow, probably because as a child  it never occurred to me that a layout could be anything other than a roundy roundy.

Now, I would love to have room for a roundy roundy, and I really don't see why that should not be combined with some sidings for shunting. I'll just have to dream!

[crompton 33]

My layout is OO end to end.  As i don't have the room for a roundy roundy.  Plus this way i can remove each board as they are 4ft long.  So if they need working on i can just  turn them on there side, This  makes it more easy then crawling under the layout.

Edited June 11, 2020 by crompton 33

[Mountain Goat]

42 minutes ago, Sotto said:

End to end's seem like the purist option to me somehow, probably because as a child  it never occurred to me that a layout could be anything other than a roundy roundy.

Now, I would love to have room for a roundy roundy, and I really don't see why that should not be combined with some sidings for shunting. I'll just have to dream!

 

What scale and gauge do you model in? Would changing gauge or scale or both be the answer? My not yet finished layout is 2ft x 7ft and is an oval with two passing loops and a siding in 7mm scale. (Narrow gauge). Though it is a continous run, I have added the passing loops to also double up as run round loops, so I can run the railway in either form according to how I decide to run it. 

I found that for me it is an ideal scale and gauge but I know everyone is different. I used to be into 00 and also had H0e (009 was not available in ready to run form back then). But I found H0e too small and intricate for scratchbuilding (I reached a season in my life where I had no income). Lovely stuff though. I had four locos though one never worked (Minitrains?) The other three were by Roco and Liliput and those were excellent. But when I tried 7mm narrow gauge it really fit my personal modelling needs from all directions.

Of course there are the smaller scales again like TT, N, Z and even T, so there are space saving possibilities to give you a nice oval if desired. 

I personally used to think that first radius curves were a blessing and it only was an issue when the manufacturers started making things which would not run on them, which I thought was a shame... As to be honest. Well. All our models are a compromize. I once was shown a loco made from a British H0 gauge society kit, and I was told it was an exact scale loco so it really needed a space of 24 ft x 24 ft to turn a circle in. (I think it was 24ft he said it needed). All our models are compromizes so we may as well take advantage and make them useable in the space we have. 

[Mountain Goat]

8 minutes ago, crompton 33 said:

My layout is end to end.  As i don't have the room for a roundy roundy.  Plus this way i can remove each board as they are 4ft long.  So if they need working on i can just  turn them on there side, This  makes it more easy then crawling under the layout.

 

I agree there. It is such a blessing to have something you can tip to get underneath. Many times I have been trying to solder upsidown trying to avoid splats of falling solder heading for my face... (One can tell I was having fun! Haha!)

[TheQ]

2 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

An end to end could be an end to a fiddle yard, which requires just 1 change over artist, unless it is a small layout which can be run with 1.

A friend's older layout had a fiddle yard a each end & we found ourselves at a show with just the 2 of us. We thought this would be hard work but by moving the control panel closer to 1 end & having the operator also responsible for a fiddle yard, this worked a lot easier than with 3 people.

 

A problem with an oval at a show can be that the same train ends up doing the rounds time & again unless the operators are very disciplined, which is sometimes not the case.

I have seen 1 layout at a show where a DMU which should have been on the branch was running round & round for about 30 minutes without even stopping at the station. This particular layout belonged to the same club as me & I had done some work to allow more interesting operations but was stuck on another stand at the show. For me, this was frustrating & embarrassing.

 

My layout I'm rebuilding for show is both a roundy and a end to end in that it has a branch line. 

It's intended that the branch will have two trains,  a short passenger only,  and a mixed passenger and freight ( common on Highland railways).

The main oval will have 8 trains available on the traverser.  4 each way.  Mixed both ways,  freight both ways, passenger both ways.  And a passenger train with a dining carriage on the end, which is shunted onto the passenger train going the other way in the station, as happened on the Kyle line. 

 

Leaving one train doing circles should only be done  in emergencies.. 

 

[Sotto]

2 hours ago, Mountain Goat said:

 

What scale and gauge do you model in? Would changing gauge or scale or both be the answer? My not yet finished layout is 2ft x 7ft and is an oval with two passing loops and a siding in 7mm scale. (Narrow gauge). Though it is a continous run, I have added the passing loops to also double up as run round loops, so I can run the railway in either form according to how I decide to run it. 

I found that for me it is an ideal scale and gauge but I know everyone is different. I used to be into 00 and also had H0e (009 was not available in ready to run form back then). But I found H0e too small and intricate for scratchbuilding (I reached a season in my life where I had no income). Lovely stuff though. I had four locos though one never worked (Minitrains?) The other three were by Roco and Liliput and those were excellent. But when I tried 7mm narrow gauge it really fit my personal modelling needs from all directions.

Of course there are the smaller scales again like TT, N, Z and even T, so there are space saving possibilities to give you a nice oval if desired. 

I personally used to think that first radius curves were a blessing and it only was an issue when the manufacturers started making things which would not run on them, which I thought was a shame... As to be honest. Well. All our models are a compromize. I once was shown a loco made from a British H0 gauge society kit, and I was told it was an exact scale loco so it really needed a space of 24 ft x 24 ft to turn a circle in. (I think it was 24ft he said it needed). All our models are compromizes so we may as well take advantage and make them useable in the space we have. 

 

 

I am with you on o-16.5- my last completed layout was o-16.5, but it was deliberately intended as a minimum cost layout using up bits and pieces I already owned + kits and modified oo stock- with hindsight a little more ambition could have lead to something  like you describe. As it was, it was just an end to end.

 

This lead to a dangerous interest in O gauge- but I really have room only for a shunting plank. It's the buildings etc that really appeal in this scale so I am not out buying £750+ locos! 

 

And I have a fair amount of OO gauge stock currently unused.

 

Realistically I hope to move house next year, at which point i will take stock of available space and decide what to do! If I have room (and funds) my ideal layout would be O gauge with an O-16.5 element. And the obvious thing would be for the )-16.5 to be roundy roundy and the O gauge end to end.

 

But then of course with more space I might just revert to OO and be done with it. I do rather envy those who only want to model in one particular scale!

 

[tomparryharry]

Roundy roundy please. I'd just like to sit back sometimes, and let the trains run by. End-to- end is absolutely fine, and that's just the job if you're having multiple people operating sessions. Of course, If I could build a 1,000-wagon operating yard, I might change my opinion.....

 

There is a 24-wagon shunting puzzle still in abeyance, and as I type this:- Yes, it's still there..... and I will get to finish it off. After all, the stock & locomotives are here, so why not? The roundy is here for me to make scale-length trains, which is something you can't do with an 8' board.....

 

However... Whatever 'floats 'yer boat' and whatever gives you the most satisfaction. This is a hobby after all.  

[Joseph_Pestell]

The choice in the poll is a bit restrictive. There are other options.

 

My favourite is a terminus leading to a continuous run with either another terminus or a loop to change directions and return to the terminus.

 

If push comes to shove, it would be a continuous run. Nice sometimes just to let the trains run.

[Kris]

Oval every time. I enjoy watching trains run past more than shunting. 

[cravensdmufan]

There wasn't an option to vote for "both"!  So I voted for oval.

 

My layout is located in a spare bedroom; it has a lift out section across the doorway.

 

But I usually operate it without the lift out section as an end to end (making sure buffer stops are secured tightly!).

 

Just occasionally I will have the bridge section in position, remove the stops and sit and enjoy watching longer trains trundling past without needing a controller.

 

I'm lucky to have the best of both worlds. 

[F-UnitMad]

A mixture for me. I have two UK-outline O Scale layouts which are really just 'Shunty-planks', 1 is 10ft long in total and the other 5ft, a micro-layout really.

But my main layout is US-outline O Scale. Includes a roundy-roundy oval for lazy days and loco leg-stretching, an Interchange Yard for the exchange of stock berween Class 1 Railroad and Short Line, and an end-to-end Industrial/freight branch for switching (shunting) trains. Sounds very impressive I'm sure, but it's all in a space 17ft x 8ft, and there are just 5 switches (points/turnouts) on the whole layout. It's a very simple track plan that I bet most of you would dismiss as far too boring to operate, but operational potential does not depend on complicated trackplans or multiple trains whizzing in all directions. 

The freight branch, which is just three sidings, can take upwards of an hour to switch, following a computer-generated switchlist. For a home layout that's plenty of time just 'playing trains'. Why have a vast system if you don't have time to run it?

[black and decker boy]

Depends solely on how interesting they are.

 

i have owned & operated end to end shunting layouts where you can get lost in the action and lose your hour operating slot without noticing. Equally I’ve operated ones that you are asleep after 30mins

 

same for round & round. The right mix of stock and ways to vary / play and they are great fun. Monotony in trains and operation and it’s a no from me.

 

its about immersing yourself in the moment and the layout. 

[ColinK]

What interests me are layouts that are interesting and challenging to operate.

 

It also depends on if it is mainly for home use, so just one operator, or requires several people to operate it.

 

The ideal for me us la layout with a continous run, a junction station, two termini and a branch line.

[caradoc]

18 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

However... Whatever 'floats 'yer boat' and whatever gives you the most satisfaction. This is a hobby after all.  

 

I agree absolutely with tomparryharry's sentiment.

 

My personal preference however is end-to-end, for the simple reason that real railways exist to move people and things from one place to another, so my model empire must, on a somewhat smaller scale, do the same !

 

[tubs01]

I prefer an oval. For my layout, I'm planning to have a few sidings and two loops, because I just really like two trains passing eachother. For me, you can still do shunting and stuff with an oval, but obviously you can just run trains.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

3 hours ago, caradoc said:

My personal preference however is end-to-end, for the simple reason that real railways exist to move people and things from one place to another, so my model empire must, on a somewhat smaller scale, do the same.

But this is theatre, and Macbeth or Brutus doesn't actually meet his end every night: it's the illusion that matters. I like the contrast between the elements of end to end operations you can see happening - inner suburban country end terminus and branch line junction station - and the end to end operations you cannot see terminating, some stopping, others belting past between London and multiple points North. But you know they will terminate 'somewhere'.

[HonestTom]

It depends on my mood. I don't have space for anything larger than a micro, and those tend to be terminus-to-fiddle-yard. I do find it a bit frustrating that I never really get to give my engines a longer run than a couple of feet - fine for little shunters, but it feels like a waste with something like a J15.

 

If space was no limit, I'd probably go for an oval with some sidings inside so I could have a bit of slow shunting while commuter trains whizz by. I'm more of an impressionistic modeller than a rivet counter, so I could live with the unrealistic curves.

[Mountain Goat]

50 minutes ago, HonestTom said:

I'm more of an impressionistic modeller than a rivet counter, so I could live with the unrealistic curves.

 

It is an odd thing as really, to be realistic in 4mm scale one needs a board width of around 24ft or more to represent the sharpest of curves, so most of us are compromizing. 

I have to say that looking at coaches go round curves, that somehow it is more noticeable on standard gauge then it is with narrow gauge. 

My curves are unbelievably sharp but somehow they do look better then if I use first or second radius curves in 00 gauge. This is mainly as I tend to be avoiding the use of bogie vehicles on my layout, as if anything, they are the main visual culprits that cause the eye to notice the sharpness of the curve.

The other thing which tends to be visual is that coupling choice does make a difference. The problem with British and some other standard gauge prototypes is that their buffers tend to be in the wrong position to favour sharper then prototype curves, so one has bufferlocking issues. If the vehicles ended with a flat edge with the only protrusion being a central buffer coupling (Tension lock couplings are essentially a form of buffer coupling, as the coupling loops act as buffers on the model, so technically some issues can be solved by deepening the loops contact area or stiffening the coupling itself so one coupling can't over ride the other. The different sizes of coupling joined together give further issues as one hook struggles and conflicts with the other to cause problems).

But going back to the straight edged vehicle, if one uses a central buffer type coupling, the gap between vehicles can be significantly reduced even round very sharp curves, and the visual effect is less of an eyesore.

 

Going back to bogie vehicles, the longer the vehicle, the more noticeable it will be when negotiating sharp curves, which takes me to the thought that shorter representations of coaches actually look visually better then scale length coaches, and have the more useful quality of needing far less platform space to represent a 10 coach express train. (So maybe Hornby's decision back in the late 70's to early 80's to shorten their representations of their Mk3 coaches was pure genius! They did it in such a way that if one modelled a complete HST formation, it not only looked less of an eyesore going round curves (Even 4th radius curves are extremely sharp if one thinks about it), but they allow one to model a representation of a complete set in a much reduced space. (Nothing looks more noticeable then scale length coaches going round sharp corners due to the over and underhang effect they give).

 

Now a good thing about visual perspective as far as our models are concerned, is that if I take the real railway and I sit in the cab of.. Lets say a DMU like a class 150 or something similar. Now when I look at the track it very much gives the illusion that it is narrow gauge... If one scales the strange visual effect down to 4mm scale, one would need around a 14mm gauge width to represent this perspective. (I spent 9 years working on the railways where once I had done other duties I would be resting in the back cab. Now this visual effect was very noticeable, as was the rail height which did look visually higher then it really was). But if one sits on the track with the teain coming towards you (Never really do this!) the visual effect is the opposite. So visually, I found looking directly down on a model then a narrower gauge looks better, but visually looking at railheight to the model the opposite effect is observed.

 

It is actually rather an interesting subject, because when I was into 00 gauge, I seriously considered converting to EM (I felt P4 was too exact to try to work with), but when I joined the railway I found visually, 00 gauge using code 100 track actually looked spot on for the visual effect I had while working them, so I kept to 00. 

Visual perspectives are interesting.

Something that gave a pleasing illusion on a model was on a freelance 00 gauge railway. The modeller (I know he is on another site I am on) was painting his locomotives and rolling stock from a variety of regions and eras all in his own railway livery, and the effect was that it gave the illusion that the models were of a real railway. But what really struck me was that he made old Triang, Hornby and Lima coaches look like they were modern flush glazed models. I was puzzled at first. I said "Isn't that Triang? What have you done to thin out the windows?" He said he hadn't. He just painted a thin matt black inner line on all the insides of the windows. The effect gave a stunning illusion to the eye).