I am trying to figure too much out at one time …I know.
I am having a mental block. I want two trains to be able to pass each other in opp. directions on what (at least LOOKS like a two rail main line. I am doing an around the room 30’ X 15’ (8’ on one side) room.
I will be running DCC also. So is it best to run one big double loop (or more) with two trains on the same track? OR two separate loops (I want trains to run so no point to point) I will have sidings and a small yard and industries and such, but we (wife and I ) want as stated above foremost. Down the road I will add more interaction and switching.
As I see it, you have two reasonable options. First, would be your idea of a double loop, then you can just set back and let them run in opposite directions, no problems with head ons. Second, would be a single large loop, with at least two long passing sidings. If your sidings are long enough you can meet without stopping and give the appearance of double track. Since you are in DCC it shouldn’t be a problem (I have only run DCC briefly, so am no expert). Have your two trains running in opposite directions, one pulls into the siding, lets the other pass. On the other side have the other train pull into the siding during the meet. As long as you and your wife agree on who goes on which siding when, shouldn’t be a problem.
I would go for an almost double track loop. Having one or two short sections of single track keeps you from falling asleep. To feed your mainline with different trains, you would need an area (the rest of the world) for staging too.
Your 30x15 room is pretty big and it could be wise to design a phase 1, that can be operational soon. It would be a great step if you can make a drawing of your room, with all obstacles drawn in; in 102 Realistic Track Plans Andy Sperandeo is giving a nice exemple.
Or, combine the two ideas with double mainline with multiple long passing sidings. Overlapped siding (one “above” the mainline, one “below” the mainline) would allow for more flexibility. John Armstrong’s concept of a schematic, rather than track plan, would help you visualize how the trains would operate.
With DCC involved, running multiple trains on single track is not a problem (other than head-on collisions).
Are you going to actively run the trains most times or do you plan to sit and watch them orbit - sort of like sitting trackside and watching the 1:1 scale trains go by? If you want to run handsoff, I’d go with a double track mainline with at least two crossovers. Otherwise, I’d base the decision on your operating goals re: single versus double track, number of passing sidings, etc. or if you’re modeling a specific chunk of mainline. The CN (ex-EJE) by me is single track with several long sidings, the BNSF (ex-BN) is triple track with a boatload of crossovers…
Just to make your head spin some more, have you considered double track with several long sections of triple track (kind of a very long cross over)? You could have the two orbiting trains and then have to thread a third through the mix. Or – what about four tracks like the old Horseshoe curve?
Drawing of my space you say? Well LUCKY me! I spent two days drawing the room and the bench work AND an OK layout in RR track software…only to have it crash when I tried to draw a stinking road. I kept saying to my self, “you better save, you better save…” I didn’t save.
Starting over…boo. I think I will go back to graph paper for now.
My advise is yes scrap the computer stuff and use the graph paper unless your dog eats it your safe. I would check out the database of available track plans here as well as some of the books available to at least get a general idea of what your looking for and then add or change things to suit yourself.
You can simply start off with a couple crack main around the room and then cut in turnouts to passing sidings and a branch line etc. I was told many times there is one cardinal rule of never violate the main so if I understand that correctly you can switch form one main to the other but you should not have industries etc. serviced directly on the main or at least I thin thats what they meant.
One thing I partially neglected to do which I am regretting some what now is not planning enough of the peripherals so to speak. Once you decide on a track plan or some what close to deciding you’ll know pretty much where your bench work will sit and how it’s going to be constructed. So now you can plan on lighting for example. Does your room have adequate lighting? do you want to add track lighting to highlight all or parts of your railroad, do you want to add an upper valance to hide the lighting and enhance the lighting effects, do you have enough receptacles in the rooms. Once you’ve answered and addressed all of those issues the first thing you want to do before you start building your bench work is plan your back drop. I don’t necessarily mean paint in every hill and mountain etc. but pick a sky color, paint some clouds etc. thin about weather or not you want to cove your inside corners of the room to hide that sharp 90 degree angle where the two walls meet. In sort don’t be in such a hurry as may of us to start laying track right away. Believe me as soon as you get the plan you want down pat laying track will go a lot faster then you think.
Not sure I totally understand your question - what do you mean by “double loop”, “two trains on the same track” and “pass each other in opposite directions” in the text above ?
Two trains “on the same track” would seem to indicate a single track line. A twice around the room single track configuration obviously could be made to visually look like a double track (by having the tracks next to each other), but would still functionally be a single track.
At least on the face of it, it would seem somewhat suboptimal to have two trains attempt to pass each other while actually heading in opposite directions on the same track of a single track line
You could of course have two trains going in the same direction on the same single track, but where the track goes around a turnback loop somewhere and doubles back parallel to the way it came - it would maybe create (if you cannot see the turnback loop at the same time) the visual appearance of two trains passing each other in “opposite directions”, even though the trains are not actually going in opposite directions, but just following each other in the same direction around the same track.
You could also have a layout that is partially single track and partially double track (or mostly single track plus long passing sidings). Visually it will look like double track where the trains meet, functionally the layout as a whole is single track, and some mechanism would need to be impl
With a double loop and crossovers, one can run it as double track or as a single track with passing sidings by just pretending some of the track isn’t there.
With a single track loop with passing sidings - that is the only way you can run it.
When the main track of my under-construction layout is finished I will have a mostly double-track loop with some single track and a passing siding on the single track. The intent is to duplicate the actual track pattern of a specific JNR secondary main line where the track is visible, and to have thoroughfare tracks to connect the various staging yards (the rest of Japan) to the visible main.
Thanks to my control system, I can get trains to meet at that passing siding simply by setting the points on each end to the appropriate tracks. If not under direct control, they make rather clunky-looking automatic stops. Smooth, silky stops require a hand on the throttle and eyes on the rails.
The only times when trains simply orbit is when I’m running something to entertain mundane visitors. When I operate alone (or with knowledgeable operators) everything is TTTO, 24/30, and NOTHING ever completes a lap around the mainline without pausing in staging - sometimes until the next fast-time day.
