I can use some help here as I’m terrible at planning. I have two versions of the same plan here one is a simple Plan A (loop to loop) and the other is something I was working on to get some operations out of the plan , Plan B.
Here’s how the story goes, a friend told me that Plan B if I removed the second mainline I would have more room to play with for rails for operations and give more room for structures and scenery, my reply to him was ok I’ll remove the second Mainline and make it a Loop to Loop and made a comment that even if I made the plan into a Loop the Loop I would basicly have to add the additional line off the Loop to Loop to gain access to the industries but he disagreed , so I bring the question to you those of the Forum, can Plan A be better made for Operations, scenery and stuctures or would it be the same idea of what I’ve chicken scratched into Plan B. I would like to do mountains all around, rivers , bridges , a wharf and other structures to switch in and out of.
Plan B has only got one return loop. That means you will only be able to change the direction of the locomotive once before it is trapped into running in one direction only, i.e. counter-clockwise. If you want to be able to run in both directions on both mainlines you will need a second, opposite running return loop. Note that the return loop cross over doesn’t have to be on the left side of the layout. You can put in a cross over anywhere to the east of the right side return loop. It has to run from the upper track on the right to the lower track on the left to function as the opposite return loop.
Ultimately however, having return loops really may not matter since you have two main lines so you can run east to west on one line and west to east on the other.
My suggestion would be to set up whatever sidings you want and then see if you have proper access to them without the return loops. If you do need the return loops, you will need two running in opposite directions.
Dave I agree with everything you are saying although it doesn’t address the main question of whether Plan A or Plan B would be have similar results with adding sidings.
Plan B, having a longer mainline run, will offer more realistic operations. You can pick up a car at one industrial siding, rack up mileage with any number of turns around the loop, and drop it off again at another siding. With plan A, all you can do is shuttle back and forth.
There are those who think that your plan A is more realistic, since no prototype railroad would build a loop of track passing through the same area twice, but with a space as small as yours, operational realism is more important than visual realism. Separate the two sides of plan B’s mainline loop with scenery, elevation, and tunnels to make the unrealistic loop appear more realistic.
But regardless of whether A or B is more realistic, both are lacking something very important: staging. Staging tracks, whether hidden behind a backdrop, on another deck below the main layout, under scenery, or behind the wall in your furnace room, connects your modeled railroad to the rest of the unmodeled world. Without it, your trains are stuck shuttling cars from one modeled industry to the other. With it, any kind of train can come in from and depart to staging, exponentially increasing your layout’s operating possibilities.
You realize, of course, that only you can answer these questions. You have to decide which is more important: operations or scenery. Personally, I’m in the ‘less is more’ camp. Less trackage means more room for buildings and structures. For me, the trains are just an excuse and a reason to play with the little doll houses. And for you, I should think that mountains and ports and rivers and industries and whatnot take up a lot of room. Tough choice.
Plan A needs a little more. Plan B gives you room to run and allow trains to stretch their legs without hogging all the real estate, leaving some open areas for scenery and buildings. You might want to add a fairly long parallel passing siding to allow two trains traveling in both directions (and eliminate the need for two reversing sections). The siding can also function as a single visible (and admittedly limited) staging area.
Thanks Steven for the input, first and foremost the reason Plan A Is displayed simply as a Loop to Loop format is just to express my main point which was can Plan A be completed ( added to ) to have a better opportunity for some operations and at the same time continuous run without cluttering the design with unnecessary sidings. Plan B has what I think is the additional Line to have some industry’s have sidings off it but my friend tends to think Plan A has better Bones for a start to a good plan.
I do know what you mean with staging as I have had below level staging in the past , but in the past I was not inter
Plan A needs a passing siding in the middle, it is there that you would add a small freight yard and industrial tracks. You would then put several staging tracks in the loops. That way you can stage a meet in the middle.
On plan B you would want the high line either elevated or hidden behind a view block of some sort.
A two track railroad to my way of thinking would be a two track mane lion.
Robert most excellent points you have made. Apparently my friend is of the same notion of Less is More. Obviously Operations is not on the Top of my list but I only want to allow a small bit off switching if I do choose.
I don’t quite understand what you mean by eliminating the need for two reversing sections.
As things stand right now you have only one reverse loop for Plan B, so it becomes a one-and-done situation. Once you reverse a train, you cannot re-reverse it back to its original direction. To do that you’ll need two matching loops, right-hand and left hand.
Like Dave mentioned above, if you want traffic in both directions you can simply run two individual trains. To avoid the Gomez Adams cornfield meet, you’ll need a passing siding long enough to accommodate your longer train.
Thanks for the chuckle with the reference to Gomez Adams cornfield meet.
Lion and Robert is this what your referring to for the passing siding?
PS I’m not real keen on a staging yard, although if it comes to needing an area to hold say 15 cars I may be able to do something in the lower right loop.
The passing siding only needs to accomodate the shorter train. Just remember that for a meet, one of the two trains needs to be short enough to fit in the passing siding.
You can pass two trains that are both too long for the siding with a “double saw by” movement which might be fun now and then, but not as a steady diet.
Roar simple for you obviously but yes I see what you mean. Now in my case would I enter the industries off the main siding , your sw2 too sw3 and carry on to other industries off that siding?
I would build plan B accept the outer track would go behind a backdrop from the right loop to the middle of the top wall. There I would add a three track thru yard. This would allow 2 staging tracks and 1 continuous run. I did some cad and the staging track could be at least 12" long each. Add a passing siding on the still visible tracks for meets.
You could do both by having a double track mainline most of the way and if you set it back from the front edge some, you can have industries near the isle simulated with just a siding. I undulated my mainline some for industries here and there with most of the mainline track near the front on mine.
