Building a freelance layout with a friend. Thearea we can use is shaped strange…11’ 7" X 12’ 6" with a 4’ 6" part off that an additional 8’. Kind of like an “L” with a real fat bottom. Doing HO and would like to see passings, and tunnels (for the kids). Trains need to orbit for the most part.
So, is it better to run one long main line (with two trains) that comes together in many places (for meets), one long main line that looks like two track, or just run two main lines?
We have been going back and forth trying to figure out a layout plan.
Actually, answering this could get involved, and draw a lot of different ideas. I will start simply. Understand I have been in the HO side of the hobby since 1957 and have built several layouts. The first and most basic question I would ask is “Do you want to just run trains around in a circle, or do you want to eventually do more realistic railroad type operations?” If you just want to watch them run, then, two main lines will result in less action on your part.
However, if you want to try to duplicate real railroad operations, making up and breaking up trains, switching, etc. then a single mainline with passing tracks will provide more interest in the long run and may keep you from becoming “bored” in a short amount of time. My layout is three decks, area is 29ft by 33 ft, and has no loops at all. It is point to point with passing tracks, but then, I enjoy realistic operations, so my layout, which was first started in 1983, still hold my interest. Two mainlines in a loop would have blown me out of the hobby early on.
So determine what you really are trying to do, (1) build a display layout with trains running circles, (2) build a model of a prototype or freelance layout that has all the facets of the real thing, (3) a combination of both. It is all up to you and your friend’s taste.
Not much to add to Bob´s statement - only this one: Kids also get bored after a little while, just watching trains “orbit” in and out of tunnels. If you want to get them started on a hobby, which may last a life time, you need to introduce them to “real” railroad operation.
When I started my Dream layout 5 years ago, a single track logging plan was what I wanted. Since then my “dream” has changed and I wish I had double track and 24 inch curves. I would suggest you put them in. Its easer to not use them that much than to wish you had them. Retrofitting them can be difficult. A couple crossovers will simulate a two times around plan if you want that some day. My grandkids like to see trains meet and that is now almost impossible with what I have.
Yes there is “loops” but then the current layout plan (two track main) has one area for a good size yard, and four small industry/mill/mine ect. areas. So yes, we want both. I think only one siding, but so far 11 switches would be needed.
I like the crossover for twice around idea. Grabing the ereaser…
I am with ARTHILL on this one. I have built three different layouts over the past 7 years, but all three have been based upon a double mainline with several crossovers in a continuous loop. The crossovers are used to reach the freight yard, engine servicing facility, turntable, sidings, etc. So, I can perform a lot of interesting operational activities, but I can also run trains in opposite directions on the double mainline and pass each other.
I also have the advantage of space, so my layout is large, 22’x42’ with relatively broad curves (30’ and 32" radius), so the idea of a continuous loop is not obvious. The layout bends in a P-shape which further reduces the appearance of trains just going round and round in a loop. I am all for operations, but a double mainline adds to the appearance and “excitement” if you will, especially for the grandkids.
If you don’t have a double mainline operating in some form of continuous loop, and if you have never sat back in a swivel chair with a beer in one hand and a throttle in the other other, well, you just cannot imagine what you are missing.
Most of the turnouts on the market now are “DCC-friendly,” so you don’t need to worry about those. Other than that, DCC actually simplifies the wiring considerably. Since the same signal goes to all the track all the time, you only have to worry about weird cases like reverse loops, and even those are a piece of cake with autoreverser modules.
I’ve always thought I’d want a double-tracked main, but I’ve been limited by size, and I think a double-main on a small layout starts to look artificial. I do have a single loop, but now that I’m building Phase 2 of my layout and incorporating some lessons learned, my solution was to add both a second reverse loop (so I can reverse trains without backing, regardless of which direction they’re going) and a second passing siding, which I carefully placed halfway around the new loop from the existing passing siding. This will let me run 2 trains in opposite directions, but I’ll have to actively run them, not just sit back with a beer and let them go. Or, I can park one train while I have that beer.
Maybe you can have a single and double. My layout is kind of a lopsided U from 3 4x8 sheets of plywood, and one of the sheets is single track and the other two have double tracks where my trains pass but also makes it where one has to wait if another train is on the single track section. I also have my rail yard coming off one of the lines and connecting around corner so trains can pull through, disconnect and back in the the repair shop.
A double-track NON-PARALLEL mainline, such as is found out here in the West on lines like the former Southern Pacific Donner Pass route, portions of the Santa Fe mainline in California and Arizona, and Union Pacific’s Weber Canyon and Sherman Hill. The explanation being that a second track on easier gradients was constructed to augment the original trackage.
It involves a ‘dogbone’ type of layout, in which trains can be run from one terminal eastbound and arrive somewhat later at the same terminal westbound without ever having duplicated the same trackage.
My own layout is constructed like this (modeling somewhat on the Southern Pacific non-parallel double track between Rocklin and Colfax, CA), with a relatively easy eastbound ascending grade veering away from the ‘original trackage’ westbound steeper grades and seldom if ever actually paralleling each other. In fact, because of the gradient difference, I have several sections where the eastbound trackage ducks under the higher-elevation westbound trackage. I can run a train from the main terminal around the layout and back to the main terminal and never duplicate the same trackage. Twice the run. About halfway thorugh the run, the ‘eastbound’ turns and becomes the ‘westbound.’
That video makes a strong argument. I was drawing tonight, and I did like the two main lines but not every inch next to each other. I think that is the way to go. Along with some cross overs it would make for a good long run before touching the same track again.
Thanks ! I think I will refine this sketch I have in my hand some more.
If one is to operate trains in opposite directions at the same time, at least two passing sidings are needed on a single-tracked, circular-continuous main line. (Only one would be mandatory for a point-to-point scheme.) Three or more would be much bettah. However, for the size of your layout, the trains would need to be very short if there are multiple passing sidings. If you wish to operate “normal” or long-length trains, a double-tracked layout has great advantage. Industrial trackage and possibly a yard should be included for longer-term interest. Personally, I would avoid toy-like multiple-route schemes as in an oval at one end of the layout and another oval at the other end.
I am building my 3rd layout and while small (due to space constraints) I built double track mainline for a minimum of 2 trains running at the same time. Switching is OK, but most railroaders just enjoying watching their trains run. Don’t get overwhelmed with “realistic operation” just yet. You can always add swithcing industries to a double track main, but it woudl be tough to add another mainline if you only have one.
My last N Scale, under the Christmas Tree, was on a 4’x4’ layout, with a double main track connected by two sets of crossover turnouts, and; was much more interesting than a single track.
If you have the extra 3" (for track width) and a second track, expand your vision for that double main, and you won’t be disappointed when looking back.
As an alternative, you can have the illusion of a double main. For example, if you draw an oval single track on paper, then squeeze the straight sections “almost together” (like a dogbone) – it is still a single track – but can give the perspective of a double main if the total run is long enough.
Of course if one is really simulating railroad operations, one should not be drinking and driving a train… [:D]
I too like the idea of a double-tracked railroad. But, like you, having double tracks eats up a lot of real-estate (depth) in a shelf layout. On the other hand, if you’re modeling a class I railroad, then it was likely at least a double-tracked affair, and perhaps more than that for some roads-- thinking of Pennsy’s four-tracked “broad way”, for instance. But even their lesser track was at least usually doubled.
I have been on the fence myself for my layout. Currently its single-tracked with some passing sidings. I’m thinking that maybe I will represent the Pennsy (proper) in just a short run-through segment of the layout, and then double-track that. But I’m going to try it both ways before I decide. So I can weigh it out both ways.
That’s one of the (likely very few) advantages of having a PINK (foam) layout!
You know, I don’t quite get why some people seem to think that the only two possible options are “running two trains on parallel tracks at the same time” and “only switching, never just watching trains run”.
Here are three small videos from my work-in-slow-progress switching layout with a single track continuous run option, showing a freight train with 12-13 cars or so is just slowly looping around and around on autopilot, while another couple of switching turns are holding, waiting for their turn on the main.
There is no particular problem standing there and watching one train train “just run”, or to watch one train passing another train, if you so pleases (which I occationally do, even though my main form of enjoyment is switching cars).
Everyone is intitled to their opinion, but I still opt for proto operations over running around a circle, no matter how big, how many crossovers, while sitting in a chair drinking ice tea (don’t do beer). But to each his own. I gave up the around the circle wh
