Number 1

In a smaller room, I'd rather have more operations (tracks) than "open" spaces (not guaranteed in a small room). It'll be hard to convince yourself that you're in a larger room than what you are in. I'd focus more on switching and single-person operation than looks, and gear the layout more towards an industrial setting.

Number two

Still has plenty of track for the space. I'd reduce the congestion a bit more , maybe a smaller engine terminal? Seems like too many engines for the size of the area modeled. A smaller engine terminal could free up some addition industriaal space. I'd also broaden the curves at the end of the upper branch line, they seem too contrived. I like the branch line to mine with a wye concept. I'd try to make the staging yard double ended, with maybe less tracks but longer with a connection across the doorway so trains could run both directions around the loop from the yard.... ....DaveB

Sixes

The differences between the two aren't really that much you haven't really thinned out the track density that much between the two, I'd probably go with #1.  At first I thought this is N scale but maybe its HO, I can't really read the scale along the top, I assume the grid is 1 ft.

Personally, I think it needs a lead for the yard unless the sole purpose of the yard is to stage trains.  You can't both switch the yard and run trains on the continuous loop.

If you reversed the positions of the branch and the continuous main on the bottom side, putting the branch on the outside and the the continuous main on the inside, you could use the outer loop as a yard lead/branch and the inner loop for continuous run nd be able to have a train on the branch, run on the main and switch the yard all at the same time.

Dave Husman

Thx, photo No. 1 edited to include info of HO Scale, and 24" grid, etc.

My vote is for #2

At first glance I did like #1, however, when I realized the size of the room my thoughts changed. In my opinion, which doesn't really matter, as it's your empire, I thought it was a bit busy. I was going to make a few comments about the upper branch line and yard and realized after writing them, that I was basically saying the same things DaveB already posted. (delete key) I'm not stepping on Dave's toes. He is much smarter than I am. Glenn

What to remove

First of all, be careful with foam. It must be supported underneath, otherwise it sags.

In terms of design, I like that you're looking at simplifying it, but you're basically just taking out a bunch of sidings, and little of the mainline/branch trackage. I do like removing the extra siding next to the wye. The double slip is more out of place now, however. I like getting rid of the trolley line, but I'd put an industrial siding or two in there. Try to keep switchbacks to a minimum, if at all, they're not really prototypical, and are a classic feature of a model railroad that doesn't really model anything, and tries to make a switching puzzle out of a layout. Long sidings, including multiple industries, are interesting for operations, and keep cost down compared to a bunch of short sidings each requiring a turnout.

Lance Mindheim

I'm basically just attempting to do a lousy job of repeating what Lance Mindheim has written about in terms of track arrangements for switching and operations.

Not Really Much of a Difference

The only really appreciably difference is the little branch line and industrial area on the right side under the bridges.

An individual spur here or there doesn't really make much of a difference to the overall plan, 

Thinner

If you do thin out the tracks, such as plan 2, I would suggest redesigning the remaining tracks to take advantage of the space.  Otherwise you just have tracks crowded into certain areas and certain areas open.  If you thin it out, then use the new found space to improve the design of the rest of the tracks.

For example, to the right of the turntable, you have a very awkward switchback design.  In plan 2 you completely eliminate that track, but you don't use the space to spread out the track on the orange level, an opportunity missed.

Another alternative is not to eliminate ALL the tracks in an area, just eliminate some tracks across the whole vista.  In other words, in the area across from the turntable, eliminate one or two of the industry tracks on the lower level AND eliminate a track or two on the upper orange level.

Do you really need all those tracks breaking off the turntable?

Think about where roads and buildings and unloading docks are going to go.  How does a truck back up to an industry?

Chicken or the Egg?

I was drawn back into model railroading January 2018 while cleaning out a storage room and coming across a broken down Rivarossi Y6b I'd purchased new, with hard-earned savings in 1965 at age 11 for $43.00 including tax.  If you give a mouse a cookie...

After finding a suitable replacement in pristine condition, and with smaller flanges I started collecting a bunch of locomotives for various reasons of interest.  The next step was to have a place to display them - on the wall, then in a typical setting.  I picked up a couple of wall displays and built the roundhouse module. 

This layout serves one purpose:  to give form and function to the roundhouse's livery of fine standard and thoroughbred iron horses. 

I like scenery and details as much as the next modeler and am constantly in awe of the wonderful photography of others.  But for me, where I am today, this level of modeling is not important.  If the layout can serve other purposes, such as operations to provide hours of interesting enjoyment, model building, scenery and landscaping, well then that's great!  In any case I doubt I will be disappointed no matter how I go about this project, really.    

About the TT tracks:  TT radial tracks are proto-typically cut and wedge-butted against each other at the pit edge, forming a point, but you rarely, if ever, see this modeled.  Since roundhouse kits force track spacing of 10° apart, modelers got used to that look of track spacing.  But that's an opportunity missed because the prototype jam just looks so cool.  If they are short and stubby, and not very useful to hold big locos, makes no diff.  The focal point on this side of the TT is the rails around the pit quadrant where they are all bunched up together in prototype fashion, code 83 ties interlaced. 

After reading the invaluable views, reviews and replies, layout design comes down to be a question of perspective more than anything else.  30 modelers have 30 different perspectives on form, function, purpose and build. 

Which is  good thing, why i asked for opinions, and what I was really hoping for because consensus is boring. What's the most agreeable person you can befriend?  One who has the same viewpoints on everything you do.  What's the most boring friend you can have?  One who has the same viewpoints on everything you do.

Numba won

Between the two, Number One.  

Randy

I don't see much

I don't see much difference....   that said, 2 has less track... and will be easier to get started. Build 2, then add the track from 1 once you get it running, if you decide you want more.

One

One

Just a thought, but..................

................that's a lot of track you have there.  Have you given any thought to how scenery and structures will fit into the overall scheme?  

Peter

  "This layout serves one

In that case I'd increase the area devoted to the engine terminal and expand the servicing tracks and other terminal infrastructure. A double ended staging yard with around the room mainline could depict the industrial core of a city with passenger depot and car servicing along with other railroad department such as RIP track, MW shops,etc. A mile or two each way from a large engine facility often contained plenty of stuff to model.Diluting the primary scene with farther out landscapes might not be as effective in capturing the desired feel......DaveB

De-densify

I agree with some of the posts about de-densifying and focusing on what you want to model. If you have a particular scenic goal in mind, some open expanses are fine, but if you're focused on the railroad and related industries, spread things out a bit and leave room for structures, industries, etc instead of cramming everything into some areas, and nothing into others.

Engine terminal

I gather from the responses that the turntable area is an already built "module" and so the options are limited as far as changing it.  That's why I stopped making suggestions regarding the roundhouse peninsula.

It is most likely pretty well set, for better or worse.

  I gather from the

If it can't move it could still be enhanced by adding more railroad infrastructure on the adjoining loop trackage. It could be scenic'd as a mainline running thru a city industrial area with railroad and industrial structures lining the corridor. Maybe passenger train related activities along with engine terminal and local switching? I recall Fresno on the SP back in the 50's when the old roundhouse was still in operation, along with a few miles of concentrated rail activity along the industrial district. Just trying to come up with a plan that would make a large roundhouse logical...DaveB