101 Track Plans is where I got most of my inspiration, but some people suggest it does not use modern design theory. Granted, the designs are from 1956, but I think the only things that have changed much since then are some materials and DCC. DCC negates a bunch of wiring and maybe the need for some dual-mains to run multiple trains, but I don't see where basic design has changed at all.
What has changed is that more people want to model railroads so their scenes look "more realistic", rather than looping back and forth through a scene to create a longer mainline.
The looping back and forth approach (and passing several times through the same scene on different levels was very popular in the 1950s and 1960s, where increasing mainline run length was the main design goal.
Then came the push towards "sincere scenes" - where the trains move once through each scene, and move in the same direction through the scene, instead of doubling back towards the rear of the scene.
It was part of a general desire to make layouts look more like a real railroad, and run more like a real railroad.
It was realized that passing through the same scene multiple times tended to make the scene look more less realistic. Especially if the train changes directions while passing through the scene - first going left, then right, then left again.
It is pretty rare (at least outside a few places in the Swiss alps and such places) to have trains double back to climb up a mountain.
It is also very rare anywhere to have multiple alternative parallel paths between two places on the layout (unless the alternative paths belongs to different railroads).
It was realized that to make
run far longer, it would be possible to introduce operational challenges for the train along it's way instead of just trying to make the
track longer.
Say you have a single track mainline through a small western town and you want to make the run longer, while still maintaining prototype realism.
Operations do not have to include switching, if you hate switching. You can do a simple thing like adding a water tank, and stopping the train to take on water before heading out of town.
Add a passing siding, and have your train go into the siding and wait for another train coming in the opposite direction.
Can be fully automated on DC, if you so desire, using magnetic switches and relays in some form - an entirely hands off approach, where the train starts and stops on it's way through scenes.
Or using a little interaction, cut the engine off, run it around it's train, turning it on a turntable or turning wye, and then coupling to the other end of the train before heading back in the opposite direction.
Anyways - these days the pendulum is way over towards realism, prototype operations and sincere scenes.
Doesn't mean that you
cannot do an old style design.
It just means that the old style no longer is so popular, and you will find fewer people who will have suggestions on how to carry off such a design in a good way.
In theory, the main way of making a spaghetti bowl look good is through the use of scenery. But scenery is apparently low on your list of priorities.
I don't know about you, but for me, while it is possible to
operate on not yet scenicked layouts (focusing on what you do with the trains, and ignoring the missing landscapes), it doesn't make an awful lot of sense to watch a "scenic run" (where the scenery would be the main goal) through more or less nude bench work.
Is sitting or standing next to the layout watching the train take 2 minutes to amble through a bare scene at constant speed, and then having to walk over to the opposite side and stand there for 2 minutes watching the train amble through that bare scene on that side (or wait for two minutes for the train to come back to the first scene) a lot more fun than sitting in a comfy chair, watching a train come into a modeled scene "from down the line" (ie staging, do something in the scene - e.g. automatically stop to take on water on the way into town, then go into the siding by the depot to drop off passengers and wait for another train, and then, when the other train has arrived on track 2, to depart out of town, continuing on it's journey "up the line"?
There are lots of ways of doing display layouts. I guess I just don't see the point of focusing almost exclusively on increasing the quantity of run, when it does not significantly improve the quality of the run.
For you, in which way is increasing the
quantity of track length equivalent to increasing the
quality of the run?
Anyways, for a fairly decent introduction to various aspects of layout planning, have a look at the LDSIG (Layout Design Special Interest Group) layout planning primer:
http://macrodyn.com/ldsig/wiki/index.php?title=Category
rimer
It has a chapter on Spaghetti bowl designs as well - advantages and disadvantages.
A couple of other good sources for track planning advice - Byron Henderson's over of the track planning process from the track planning bootcamp at the NMRA meet in Milwaukee last summer (pdf file):
http://www.layoutvision.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ld_bc.pdf
Here is a discussion of what Byron looks for when he analyzes a track plan:
http://mrsvc.blogspot.com/2008/02/track-plan-analysis-indexed.html
The articles accessed though that last link will also give you a quick overview of things that by many are considered "best practices" these days.
None of this says that you cannot do a 1950s style layout, if that is what you want to do.
It is your layout, you get to decide. And you should decide - instead of letting people talk you into doing weird things like having two spurs for
every industry (apparently some people have never seen the use of the just pulled cars as a handle to shove the inbound cars into the track), or adding random yo-yo factories to a scenic railroad set in the southwest.
A successful layout design is by definition one that
fulfills the goals of the layout owner.
But it still, in my opinion, is smart to make an informed choice. To figure out
why length of run is such an important design consideration to you, and maybe consider alternatives to achieve your primary goal (which I assume is not really length of run, but to be able to kick back and watch some cool trains run through a beautiful landscape).
LOL - might very well be that these thoughts still are not very coherent - I am not always at my best after 5 hours of sleep.
Edit: for instance, I didn't notice that I followed up on Dave's design in Ian's thread. Sorry.
Grin,
Stein
