Jetrock: I always think of lines in pairs because that's how they run over here in the UK. As a result it's either 2 or 4 and 2 just wouldn't have enough going on. It possibly is a lot but it keeps the layout busy which is what I like to see. engineshop: I could honestly sit for hours just watching trains circle a track as long as there a few of them running at varying speeds that throw up random points of encounter across the layout. I don't want the challenge to be the running of the layout, I want the challenge to be building a layout that I can enjoy watching it run. I know some people enjoy the scheduling and the planning and the point switching. I just enjoy watching layouts work. Every now and again, I want to be able to switch carriages or freight wagons and then set them off to do their thing. I have looked at some complex smaller layouts and to be honest, they look like hard work to keep the trains running without disaster striking... and that's the problem, if it's hard work, it's not fun, for me anyway. Eventually I want to rig out the track with digital trickery so I can run automated schedules that I can just sit and watch happening... I did fancy a bit of height in the layout though, so that might prompt a bit of redesigning perhaps. I can fully appreciate the reach issue so I am offering up this problem. To run the steam locos I want, I need the widest radius curves, if you look at my trackplan, that is pretty much 3 feet across for the widest radius. In my mind, that sort of dictates the minimum width of the layout, or am I wrong here? I don't want to go down the flexi-track route. I want to confine the layout to fixed track sections. That may be a bit prohibitive but I would rather stick with them.