Layout planner John Armstrong didn't use a computer.  All one needs are graph paper, compass, straight edge, pencil, turnout dimensions, and eraser.

My old boss always asked me, "does it pass the pencil & paper test?"  What he was asking was "is it overall easier in the long run to just use a pencil & paper instead of a computer?"  As an example, think about if you need your car painted:  should you invest a great deal of time to overcome the learning curve to learn to properly paint a car?.....or, should you take the "easy" way out and have an expert do it?

I know that the example doesn't exactly fit, but it's close enough.  For my original railroad design I just used a pencil & graph paper.  I did photocopy turnouts and track sections so that I could actually fit them together full scale to make sure everything fit.  I'm getting ready to do an expansion and I purchased 3rd Planet(TM) and I'm stuggling to learn how to use it.  It's not that it's harder (or easier) to learn than any other track planning software, it's just what two other members in our operating group use for planning.

Some of the advantages of using track planning software:

1.) You can share designs with others and they can help you in the design process - this was a BIG plus for me.

2.) You can make changes easier, and even "run" trains around the virtual layout to find problem areas.

3.) You get a very pretty printout of your layout - you can take the file to a print shop that has a large format printer and have it printed on one large piece of paper.

4.) You can add structure, landscape, etc.. to help visualize your layout and plan more than just the track (benchwork, towns, industries, etc...)

For my friend Scott P. he learned 3rd Planet(tm) and is an expert at track planning.  He has created wonderful layouts for others using the software.  I dare say it would be much more difficult for him to do his work using pencil and paper.

I can't really say which is better - the manual or computer method.  It really depends on if you want to tackle the learning curve, pay for the software, and how many layouts you will be designing.

Rick 

Well, i know the old school. Have always used graph paper and pencils and it works fine. I was just wanting to have a visual of my design with buildings and extras on it and try to "run' some trains... ( I have done that many times in my head )  lol

Guess I'll just start laying track and see how it goes.

I've been using 3rd Planit for over a decade now.  I've reached the point where it's easier for me to doodle in it as it would be with paper and pencil. However, that won't be the case when you're starting out.  You'll be facing a bit of a steep learning curve (learning cliff?).

I tried the Atlas program years ago and didn't care much for it -- too rudimentary for me. Not that everyone would find it so.

You said  "I was just wanting to have a visual of my design with buildings and extras on it and try to 'run' some trains". It's possible to spend man months on adding buildings and scenery to a track plan so you can admire it in 3D, or even run trains on it.  What I've found over the years is:

• Putting detailed buildings on a layout and working on scenery contours takes a huge amount of time.
• Once you've poured a 100 hous or more into a complete 3D model of your railroad, the time investment will make you reluctant to make changes (especially significant ones) to the track plan because you don't want to throw away all your work. This is generally a bad thing because plans usually need changing several times before they become 'good'.
• Running trains in a track planning program is exciting for about the 10 minutes. After that it becomes rather ho-hum from an artistic / asthetic viewpoint.
• Attempting to duplicate the action in an op session is something I've had NO success with in a cad program. Actually, I believe you'd be better off with a 2D representation of the track plan rather than 3D for this purpose, but I still have my doubts as to it being worthwhile -- how do you simulate multiple crews making decisions about where their trains are going, which switching moves should be made next, etc.  Also, operations planning on a model RR needs to consider the movements of the crews through (sometimes over) crowded aisles, which is something CAD programs ignore.
• 3rd Planit lets you set the 'camera' to a specific height above the track. I find this useful to help look for places where I have tracks passing over each other that are too close vertically.  With the camera at 4" if I see roadbed passing through my forehead while driving a train I know there's a problem.
• I also use the 3D view to simulate the view angles of a multi-deck layout. This does NOT require beautifully detailed 3D scenery, only that the benchwork, track, and fascias be accurate. With the camera set to 67" off the floor (my eyeball height), can I see all the way to the back edge of the lower deck, peering under the bottom of the upper deck fascia.  This is NOT a total substitute for building the layout (or even a cardboard mockup), but it will show you quickly that a lower deck at 40", with an upper deck a 54", a 4" deck thickness and the lower deck being 2' deep ain't gonna be fun for me to operate - perhaps someone 7" shorter than myself would find it ok (assuming they could successfully reach in through the 'slot' between the decks and uncouple or rerail a boxcar on the rearmost lower deck track).
• I find CAD to be most effective in preventing #2 turnouts or yard ladders, keeping me honest when it comes to which curves fit (with easements), and ensuring there is sufficient room to install a maze of turnouts.  I seldom (almost NEVER) build track on a layout exactly as I designed it.  I usually think of better ways to do things once I'm looking at the actual benchwork... (perhaps because by the time the benchwork is built, I've had more time to think about it...). Read this to mean I don't build exactly the way I planned it. But the plans demonstrate to me there will be sufficient space to build what I have in mind.
• I find CAD EXTREMELY useful for telling me how long to cut each benchwork joist and where to position them. Best is putting dimensions on the plan (in their own layers so they can be turned off). This does mean accurate modeling of the benchwork but this can be done in 3D or in 2D mode (I did model the double deck benchwork of my center peninsula in accurate 3D to convince myself I wasn't making nasty mistakes with where the pieces went).
• If a track or benchwork plan is printed at 1/2" or 3/4" to the foot, I use an Architects Rule (yes, they still make these drafting tools), to measure distances in feet and inches directly off the plans. Having one of the older Epson 13" printers that could print 13" x 24" (actually up to 44") sheets of paper is really handy for this -- taping mutliple 8.5x11" sheets together is laborious and never seems to work quite right.

Final words regarding CAD programs -- if you don't know enough about track planning to draw a workable and satisfying plan with paper and pencil, you won't be able to draw one with even the best of CAD programs.

And, if you get sucked into the world of doing a 'perfect' 3D CAD model of your track plan, you'll likely have changed your hobby from model railroading to simulating model railroads (except the simulations aren't terribly useful - in my experience). Assuming you have finite time to devote to hobbies, you're likely to find all (or most of) your time is going to sitting in front of a computer - it can be almost as bad as participating in an online forum (harumpf!). If this is what you like, then no problems mate. But it's not a good way to get a layout built because it's yet another form of analysis paralysis.

If you find it hard to use a cad program, go ahead and use paper and pencil.  DO read Track Planning for Realistic Operation (at least twice) to pickup on some common layout design pratfalls (unless you're an experienced train man already). John Armstrong presents some design methodoly that will avoid the typical problems - waay too sharp turnouts and kinks where curves meet tangent track.

But if you're willing to tackle a steep learning curve, the CAD programs may work for you and with time it's possible to reach the point where you can doodle as fast on the computer as you could with paper and pencil - except you have the assurance that what you've done can be actually be constructed.

Best regards,

Charlie (yet another long post) Comstock

I tried three times to use the Atlas software and gave it up each time.  Hand drawing is much faster and easier to control.

The biggest snags in hand-drawn track layouts are keeping the radii big enough and allowing enough space(and proper geometry) for turnouts.

The first problem can be avoided by making some cardboard templates (circles) for your minimum radius and checking each radius as you draw it  (include easement while you are at it).

The second problem can be solved by going to Fast Tracks at http://www.handlaidtrack.com/ and printing their turnout diagrams for your scale.  These will give you the proper dimensions and geometry.  Then you can draw  (or scale on a copier) these at the proper scale for your layout draft and use them to help you get the right shapes where you want them.

Art

As someone who is starting out with their own layout I can honestly say listen to Charlie's advice, layout design software is fantastic to use to help design your layout.  But you really need the basic fundamentals of layout design and realistic operations behind you before you put pen to paper or mouse to mouse pad.

I have used 3rd PlanIt and found it has an extremely steep learning curve, I have designed an older simple layout on it and it is fantastic to run a train around it in 3D.  However it is one of those programs that requires you to keep using it all the time to become proficient with it.  I'm currently using "Anyrail" at the moment which is only 2D but very simple to use and has some very good features.  If I was to design another layout again I would get my basic layout elements and design down on paper first till I was 90% satisfied with it then use the CAD/Computer software to produce a final plan.

I spent hours on my first single level shelf layout designing, redesigning, adding, removing, printing, and pouring vast amounts of time over a layout that was "never" going to be any good.  I was shown the switch that turned on the light that has changed my direction, as Charlie has said John Armstrong's book "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" is a must read.  No point designing your super layout when have no idea about the difference between facing point and trailing point turnouts or basic yard design!

And one more thing that is a valuable resource that can be used to help with your design is the vast amount of knowledge located within this forum.  Starting with the forum founder Joe Fugate's DVD series, which include everything from designing, building, scenery, to everything DCC.  And there is also the vast amount of knowledge from fellow model railroaders who are always more than willing to help with advice and ideas, I have taken advantage of this and this has helped immensely with the design phase.

Cheers,

Jason...

The second problem can be solved by going to Fast Tracks at http://www.handlaidtrack.com/ and printing their turnout diagrams for your scale.  These will give you the proper dimensions and geometry. 

Only if you plan to use FastTracks for the final layout. Turnouts from different manufacturers, or even from one manufacturer's different lines, will not be the same in overall size, diverging leg radius (if any), etc. etc.

If you plan to have areas of even mdoerately tight trackwork, use templates for the specific turnouts you will be installing. This can be as simple as buying one sample of each size you will use and then copy or scan and print.

The FastTracks turnout templates are a little better than nothing, but they won't be accurate for many other makes and models.

I've used both XTrkCad, 3rd PlanIT, and Atlas RT and I prefer XTrkCAD over the others. I find it easier to work with than the other two and has libraries for all the major track suppliers (as I think 3rd PlanIT does). I am ready to give 3rd PlanIT another try as I like the 3D renderring, something XTrkCAD can't do. I used to do paper designs but I just find it so much easier to move things around easily and I can also copy designs from file to file. One other aspect of using a CAD program is that you can, in most, add rolling stock to the plan and actually try and operate your plan. I have found this to be most helpful when determining siding or yard lengths, particularly in industrial settings. I can see easily if I have too much yard trackage for a particular industry or not enough, especially if I'm emulating a prototype single job operation. I think pad/paper have their place, and I've usually put my room and walls into the CAD program and printed out the room to sketch (mostly in meetings, but that's another story) the track flow and location of LDEs. My advice would be to download the trials of each of the software packages and then find one that's close to what you are comfortable with and go from there,

Phil
www.conrailharrisburgline.org

I also like using XTrakCAD. Its free. It works. It has a few quirks and there are some things I wish it does differently but over all its become a great tool. Did I mention its free?

http://www.xtrkcad.org/Wikka/HomePage
 

Hand drawing is much faster and easier to control.

I have not found that to be true for me -after- I mastered the techniques of drawing with CAD. I am very comfortable using CAD tools and find that while sitting down with some graph paper is a great way to try out some basic ideas, especially in boring business meetings, I am able to work faster and better with CAD. However.. that is me.. and everyone's mileage in this will be different.

I can't emphasize enough that CAD is only a tool for drawing layouts. It does nothing to help you design good layouts. For that you need time, research, and perhaps experience with other people's layouts through operating sessions and layout visits.

The paradigm of drawing with CAD is completely different then sketching with pen and paper or using a drawing program like illustrator. There is a learning curve. It doesn't start easier.. but it gets easier. Use tutorials and keep an open mind.

Chris

Btw- John Armstrong also used an electric eraser..

We have all doodled trackplans and making track plans can be a hooby in itself. However, for all of the layouts that I had, I sketched out a concept, then used actual track switches to lay out and try to fit my plan. Hence I would not be caught with being over zealous with the size of my yards and towns, etc. I also used flex track pinned to styrofoam to try various radii and tested cars to see what was goign to be practical.  

I knew my latest layout was goign to be a two foot shelf around a 34 X 12 room, and what region and components (LDE) that I wanted. During construction I had to cut back on two elements being over ambitious with the room that I had. I had a general idea what my yard layout was goign to be, and I used full size switches placed loosely on the layout in various configurations to see what would be the best fit. The main point to all of this is that I did not use any detailed drawings, CAD or hand drawn. Beleive it or not I worked with a sketch that was drawn on the back of a pay stub envelope that I ket for years as a reference. And I refered to this plan many times and played out the scenario in my head to make sure it would be feasible before I started the actual layout.

I am now installing all fast track switches and am using the templates to cut and paste the switches into the existing layout. And as stated before they are not a drop in as they are different in size.    

So what is my point? I am not sure myself, maybe don't get caught in analysis paralysis and just start building at some point? I have attached 2 corner pictures of the result. The layout has kept me happy now for several years.     

And this is all strange considering my background of mechanical drafting and quality and manufacturing management. In my professional life I planned and reviewed to the Nth degree. Maybe I needed an escape!  

Steve