I have found that in the construction of my C&SFT RR layout, and previous layouts, that the linear design seems to offer the best use of space and offers the highest operational potential. To compare the 8x6 feet (48 square feet) P&RR RR layout I built a few years ago with a 48 square feet portion of the C&SFT layout, which are both point to point, I found the following:

* The linear (around the wall) type design of the C&SFT offers more operational potential per square foot than the island type layout. There are about 50% more industries on a 48 square portion of the C&SFT compared with the 8x6 feet P&RR RR. This amounts to more operational potential.
* The linear design, maybe surprisingly, seems to offer better scenery options. My wife has commented that the C&SFT looked very uncluttered and natural, the railway actually runs through the scenery, rather than around it.
* Linear design tends to be less obtrusive in the space where the layout is housed. For example, if an 8x6 feet Island layout is in a room, it means the layout, plus access around it, actually equals a solid space of about 10x8 feet, Whereas having a Linear (around the wall) type layout means that the access is not needed on all sides, as the layout width is normally not more than 2 feet wide, and the back of the layout is easily accessible from the front of the layout.
* One possible down side to a Linear layout is that they tend to be much longer than a Island layout. Using the P&RR layout mentioned previously, and the portion of the C&SFT layout equalling 48 square feet, as examples, the 48 square feet portion of the C&SFT is 24 feet long, and 2 feet wide, where as the P&RR RR layout was only 8 feet long. In a Linear layout, operation is greatly enhanced by having a wireless control system, whereas an 8x6 foot layout would probably only need a control panel in 1 place, and a couple of tethered connections.