Hi Jeffrey, If this is the entire layout, you are going to need longer extensions out of each end of the run-around, because you need to pull an engine and at least one car beyond the turnouts of the run-around (to the far left and to the far right). If this connects to another part of the layout on both sides, then you'll be OK. Even if this switching part connects to another part of the layout, then variation 1 isn't going to allow for enough track to pull an engine and a car beyond the turnout, because you'll be going off the layout. For the other two designs the run-around can be part of the "main line" running through the layout.
I think variation 2 would be slightly better than 3 because the spurs in the top left and top right corners are going to be longer. In variation 3 you are going to have to give up some space in the top left spur to be able to put a car in the spur on the top right. This adds to the switching puzzle, but variation 2 accomplishes the same thing. That's just my opinion, though. With regard to roadbed, I faced the same dilemma when I built my layout. I finally settled on the cookie-cutter method. I used 1/2" MDF with ceiling tile on top. I didn't like the quality of local 1/2" plywood at the time, and MDF is much flatter and more even then plywood (although heavier). I was able to get smaller sheets to fit in the car, too. Now that the track work is done, I'm very happy with the approach. The ceiling tile absorbs sound really well, and it is cheaper, and easier to get, than homasote, I think. I had no problems hand-laying the track and the spikes went in easily. Enjoy, - Peter. On 08/21/2010 3:43 am, Jeff Ngowe wrote: > All, > My Friday Fun has consisted of continuing benchwork on a switching layout > I've been planning. However I' have run into a roadblock. Since I have not > decided on terrain, and would prefer something that isn't flat. Track will be > handlaid I considered using homasote for a layout base, but I am not certain > if it will be strong enough. I have considered spline roadbed from homasote, > but am not sure with the large number of turnouts involved (8) if this would > be feasible. Another possibility would be a cookie cutter type roadbed made > from homasote. To keep cost down I am trying to do without subroadbed. > Another question is roadbed width? Finally I would appreciate it if judgment > was passed on the 3 variation of the layout. > http://i940.photobucket.com/albums/ad248/jfrydom/SwitchingLayoutvariation3.jpg > http://i940.photobucket.com/albums/ad248/jfrydom/SwitchingLayoutvariation2.jpg > http://i940.photobucket.com/albums/ad248/jfrydom/SwitchingLayoutvariation1.jpg > Also I think I've caught a di"S"ea"S"e I'm starting to put quotation marks > around the letter "S". > Jeffrey Ngowe -- Peter Vanvliet ([email protected], or [email protected]) Houston, Texas "It is easy to give up; anyone can do that..." http://pmrr.org/ (my model railroad) http://fourthray.com/ (my company) http://houstonsgaugers.org/ (model railroad club) -- ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
