All layouts have them. What is the biggest compromise you made to get your layout in your space, or to get your wishlist in your available layout space? Mine is a cliff hanging branch line left over from the days when the layout represented Cajon Pass, and the SP line was right above the ATSF/UP main. Now that I am modeling flat land Chicago, those cliffs 120 scale feet above the main are a bit questionable! But, I turned it into an urban branch line with loads of switching potential, and its the operating heart of the layout. And, I am able to cover up the old desert scenery well enough, but haven't planted enough trees to make it look Chicago-y. Also my grass isn't green enough, but that is easily fixed. What compromises do you have to look past with rose colored goggles to enjoy the layout?
My wife decided we needed some "living space" in our house for doing Lord knows what. I had thought I was buying a giant train room with kitchen and bath. I am working on making my layout mostly out of modules conforming to either NTrak or oNeTrak standards, yet I haven't the largest space anywhere, plus there's the no-go zone where when the toilet backs up - because my kids think that the answer to a clog is to keep flushing - it spills into the room. It's not a huge zone, but it does preclude the layout from going all along that particular wall. BUT... I think I might be able to parlay this into some compromises elsewhere in my favor. "Yeah, but remember that it is only PARTIALLY my train room. It's also the toilet overflow mess room."
I went from 2.0 percent grades to 2.5 to get from deck to deck. In the early days of Accumates, that was a disaster. When I relocate, the grades will go down to 1.5 percent, or less.
Tighter radius curves than I would have liked, I would have liked to model a really big engine service center complete with TT roundhouse Transfer Table etc. When I originally planed and built this layout I included a vertical staging system that unfortunately never panned out. This left me with little room to shoe-horn in a couple of staging tracks.
Yes, I relate to this one. I set my layout in 1962 and decided to use only certain locos and rolling stock so I could tighten up the curves a little and get the layout features I wanted. It might have been cool, though, to be able to use some longer rolling stock or bigger engines--particularly an E8 followed by smooth-side passenger cars. Would have needed a HUGE layout for that. But really, I'm happy. If I had more space--if the layout room were 10' longer and 6' wider, for example--I would keep the layout the way it is, except I'd streeeetch it out and include a lot more empty landscape between stations.
Being in the military my layout must be prepared to move and thus is restricted in size. Right now it is a 36"x80" door with the ability to expand. If I was in a location where I knew I wouldn't be moving for quite a while, well the layout would be much different. I suppose it would also be just as unfinished as the current one.
My section of 3%+ grade. If & when I expand the layout around the rest of the room it'll be fixed, but in the meantime my eastbounds need more power than the westbounds
SELECTIVE COMPRESSION ! Somehow five 65' passenger car lengths between towns pushes credability. Then again, it does force me to run 3-5 car peddler freights which is fun....:tb-cool:
Simplistic wiring. It's ironic that my father was a renown electronics design engineer and while i can design basic circuits I don't have the vision to do the required soldering for advanced block control and associated control panel or DCC.. Instead I have 3 power supplies, 3 unlinked areas of the layout and use power routing turnouts to hold trains in place.
The 2 biggest for me is the curves on the ends of my peninsulas (20", 22") are smaller than I wanted and my isles are a bit on the lean side. I tried to keep most places at 2.5' to 3' but I sure would love to have 4' isles. -Mike
My compromises are: Narrow shelves, 11" deep on about 2/3 of the layout and 17" deep on the rest. The tradeoff was a much longer mainline run. This was well worth it, because I only have about 1/3 of the mainline done on the lower level and it takes several minutes for a train to traverse this stretch. Definitely gives the feel of distance. Double track helix with 2% grades; the ruling (and only) grades on the layout. The tradeoff was having three levels: two scenicked and staging on top. Don't know how this will work out since it is not built yet, but I have seen video of a helix with my same dimensions and the trains operate great when travelling up/down. 30" aisles. The tradeoff was having at least some shelves that are 17" deep. Turns out 30" is plenty wide for how I plan to run my operating sessions. Jamie
I have quite a few, but none trump not having a layout at all. The biggest is small radius curves. But it's a small price to pay to have a relatively small layout that doesn't cost much in terms of space.
I wish all my turnouts were no. 10 or greater on the main and no. 8 or greater on the yard tracks, but I am going more for a no. 8 minimum on the main and a no. 6 minimum on the yard tracks. The main curves are all still 18" radius minimum (for N, so not bad, in my opinion). This impacts the aisle width a little in a few places, which can be difficult sometimes for my access, being, ahem, not one to miss lots of meals and tending toward the larger frames of the German part of my ancestry, the line where even the women were around 5'-10" to 6'-0" tall. I could probably do things a little bit more simply with a duck-under, but I just do not care to put up with a duck-under... not at my height. The train would have to be nearly on the ceiling for that to happen.
As with others, I wish I could have a minimum radius of 12" instead of 9 3/4". In addition to looking better, that would allow me to use body mounted couplers, which (with the use of low-profile wheels) would allow me to lower the cars to a more realistic height, and allow me to use Nn3/Z couplers on the cars. Also, to get in the run length (and avoid a "race-track" oval kind of thing) I could live with, the track goes around the 2 1/2'x5' layout three times. I copied a clever arrangement, so it works well, but this means that I have a bit of a "spaghetti bowl" kind of track arrangement. I'd like to have a situation where track goes through a scene once. But that's a compromise I was willing to make. ---jps
My compromise is the time I spend playing with trains. I spend less time on them now than I did before I became a father. But I gotta say, walking along side her while she is cruising in her Jammin' Jeep Powerwheels is kind of like watching model trains. Eric
Thinking about this overnight, I realize that my biggest compromise was changing from l-o-n-g freights and 10-car 85' streamliners to little branchline operations with Moguls pulling 2-3 50' Overland coaches, or peddler freights of 40' cars. All this caused by tight curves and short distances between towns, but much more fun now....:tb-cool:
