The best answer I can give

The best answer I can give is, That it's all up to the guy building the railroad and what kind of railroad your building.

If your whole thing is switching and building yards you only want long spaces to build them but if your building a mountian RR for logging or minning they use very few turnouts and very sharp radus turns on very step grades and lots of what you call blobs which is a new turm that I have only herd here in my 48 years of model railroading.

There are no rules as to how you use the space you have to build your railroad. Mostly just use common sence and your personal prefference as to what you want.

There are no real rules just Guidlines set down to help keep your trains from falling off the tracks every 2 seconds..

Joe is a great model railroader but even he can't make up your mind what you think your layout should be or look like, all he can do is give guidence as to how he does what he does.

The other main things you need to consider is the Era, type like coal, lumber, logging, or industrial and terrian Desert or mountian or coastal  areas your railroad is occuping.

What may work for one railroad may not work for another. The main thing you need to consider when starting out is what Type railroad you want and what Era, then use the rules set down for that particular Railroad.

Dan

in general about peninsulae

In general one gets a longer run by having a single serpentine peninsula.

However, sometimes the placement of doors and layout obstructions makes it difficult.

Lee has a number of steel support posts in his layout room which may have contributed to his selection of peninsula configuration. He also built his peninsulas on engineered floor joists (they're wood by have a cross section similar to an I-beam) - the lengths of these may have contributed to his peninsula configuration.

What ever the reason, Lee has a 1st rate layout that is both good looking and supports great operation.

You can read more about the Utah Colorado Western at  http://www.ucwrr.com

Charlie

UCW

I'm a regular UCW operator and participated in the last major reconstruction of the layout that resulted in the configuration you're seeing in the current trackplan.  Note that the layout has been built and rebuilt in phases, and that the current design was not a "clean sheet of paper" affair - the peninsulas at East Yard/Hamilton and Flanigan/Watercress survived from the previous layout, and the new peninsulas had to fit around them.  Also understand that the current UCW was designed around 15 years ago, and naturally wouldn't reflect any major shifts in layout design in the intervening time.

I think Lee is more concerned with ensuring the presence of certain elements to support operation than in designing sweeping curves or avoiding turnback "blobs."  The layout has evolved to support his priorities.  If you prioritize bigger curves and fewer blobs your design won't look like his.  He also has a separate workshop and adjacent crew lounge so the train room doesn't have to accomodate those functions. 

There's actually only one steel support post in the room that I'm aware of, and it's in the aisle adjacent to East Yard which is one othe oldest surviving parts of the layout.  The newer benchwork wasn't configured around such posts.  The I-beam joist construction resulted from the design of the peninsulas making their use convenient, as they allowed for the elimination of legs except at the very end of the peninsulas.  (In other words, so much for Charlie's theories. Ha!)

Thus, while the UCW may be a great layout for its owner, it may not satisfy you at all.  Both your eventual plan and his can represent equally "correct" answers to the design questions at hand, and yet be totally different.

Misinformation....

Thanks for correcting my misinformation (and her mother, Mrs. Information) Rob.

Charlie

To many curves

When I experimented in my space with different ways to fit things in I found that designs I cam up with involving lots curves robbed me of a lot of useful "operations" space. While the length of run was not impacted as much I ended up with less of the tangent track (or very broadly cosmetically curved..) that provided space I could drop in more prototypical design elements.

Once you factor in the linear length lost to curves and their associated easments you quickly find you are not left with much in between in which to place other elements like industries or sidings. Sure.. you can put them on the curves.. but I found when over-done this looks very model railroady.

I also found it was harder to isolate users which is something i strove for in my designs. I like the idea of breaking areas up visually so you can only see one element at any given time. Easier said then done. Perhaps that was just an artifact of my smaller space.

Just my two cents.

Chris

Isolating Users

Chris brings up a good point.  One thing that can really help with both operation and viewing is to isolate the various scenes from one another so an individual cannot readily see the next town or major scene in either direction.  Each area can seem much bigger in its own right, plus it can feel farther away from the adjacent locations.  I've tried to incorporate this principle as much as possible on my current layout, but it does involve its own set of compromises.  I suppose I'll see how successfully I did it after the first op session or two.