The age old question, which is better, a point to point layout or continuous run? My father-in-law is all for a continuous run layout. He likes the idea that the grandchildren can watch trains run round and round. I am more in favor of a point to point layout. I like the idea of staging yards but may not have enough room (do any of us have enough room?). What are your opinions? Ideas?
Neither is “better”, they serve different purposes. Continuous running is better for display or if you are modeling the middle of a route and need to “recycle” trains to simulate traffic. You operate it like it is point to pont but its actually continuous running. On virtually every layout I’ve ever built I have created a connection someplace that allowed a portion of of the layout to be run continuous while the “normal” operation is point to point.
Craig,
I have always preferred single track point to point layouts with passing sidings over mindless loop running.
Why?
Glad you ask…On a point to point layout you have a feeling of going from point A to point B while making meets with opposing trains as a real train crew would.
However…
A point to point layout isn’t for everybody.You see you would have to follow signal indications and may have to wait on 2 or more trains in a passing siding and many don’t want to be bothered with such details and would rather relax by watching a train run endless loops which of course is all well and good.
Serious point to point operators usually don’t have any means to run loops since every train must be staged between ops except those trains that originate or terminal in a yard…
I was a member of a club that was point to point and every inbound train had to be reclassified into different trains…Passenger trains had to be switch and observations turned.A intermodal train had to be switched from inbound to outbound or placed on a storage track if the outbound track was already occupied.
The only exception was the trains that ran between staging yards.
There was no way to run loops.We have a coal connection where loaded hopper cars and empty hopper cars are ran between yards but,that took the staging yard operators to run that section between their staging yards.
We had prospective members to not join because of that but,that was the club’s way of operating.
I definitely favor continuous because there are times I would just like to run trains without having to go “oh crap”, I have to stop the damn train and run the engines around etc just to run some more?
Both of my previous layouts were designed with a point to point operation in mind but continuous run capability so I could have my cake and eat it too. Why not have both? eh?
My first layout built in a garage (16x19’) was a hollow L with 30-inch curves, yard, single track mainline, 18’ passing siding and tear drop reverse loops at each end with two extra staging tracks in the tear drops. I could continuous run or stage.
My second layout was a 14x25’ dogbone with 32-inch minimum radius and continuous loop. The single track mainline had a decent sized yard, 18’ passing track and then ran underneath the yard for a hidden 10 track staging yard with tracks ranging from 18-24’ in length. I could continuous run if I wanted, or stage trains to be run across the layout.
So my question is, why does it have to be one or the other when you can have both? That was easy!
Hi!
An excellent question, and I suspect you will get a lot of opinions… Here’s mine:
My layouts have always had a continuous run, and all have all had a yard, various sidings, a loco terminal, and recent ones have had staging tracks. I enjoy watching the trains go “in circles”, and often have them plodding around while I’m switching industrial sidings and making/breaking up trains. As I enjoy mainline (ATSF / IC) railroading, my 11x15 room just won’t allow a realistic point to point layout in HO scale.
For me to have a point to point layout, I feel that I would need a lot of space to make it “real”. If I had I had a 20x20 room and modeled N scale, I could weave a RR up and down the room a few times and really feel like I was going somewhere, and transporting goods.
My favorite designs incorporate both scenarios, but again, they need a lot of space to do this right.
Mobilman44
If you have a couple of hundred sq ft or more, I suspect you can do either or both without much trouble. You can also do loop to loop with auto reversing and effectively have both.
It’s the smaller layouts where you really are making either or decisions. And then it really comes down to what you are trying to do. For example, mainline operations in a bedroom probably need a continuous run. An industrial park layout probably works well with point to point. And so forth.
All my layouts so far have been continuous run, because they were all too small for point to point, at least for me. My next one will be a basement size layout and I’m planning point to point, but I can easily add a continuous run connection later if I want one.
Enjoy
Paul
I have a pretty good size layout and it is a continuous loop with a freight yard, passenger car yard, a large city passenger station, a country train station, an engine servicing facility with a turntable and several industrial sidings. So, although some trains may be “running in circles” while I am working the yards and stations, sidings,etc., eventually, even the trains on the continuous loop arrive at their destination, be it a station, a yard, a siding, or the engine servicing facility. I like the responses from dhusman and riogrande who see no reason not to have both.
Rich
There’s no reason for this question to be either/or given the space you describe in the other thread.
Having the option of continuous-run along with point-to-point operation is often easily acheived. This is also a huge benefit when a major part of your traffic is open-top loads (as yours will be, based on the other thread). A continuous-running connection (often in staging) can allow through traffic such as loaded and empty coal trains to circulate in the proper directions, for example.
These ideas and many others that are useful in designing a layout are described in detail in John Armstrong’s Track Planning for Realistic Operation.
Byron
My current 15 X 25 layout is point to point as was its prototype, it diverged from the SP and wondered off into the foothills for 29 miles. Now I have 80 X 40 to work with, no earth shattering revisions to the current theme with the exception of a continous loop with stagging to represent a section of the Coast Route and the inclusion of the modest yard that once existed in Oxnard Ca.
Operations will remain point-to point with the loop used to cycle traffic between the two end points. Technically, I could operate such a loop under the guise of a second carrier, there were serveral independent shortline operators in the area that would fit the bill and all interchange among themselfs and the SP. During the height of packing season 50 plus reefers a day were common outbound traffic on this branch, feeder lines in the immediate area with a similar purpose contributed hundreds more.
So you can have the best of both worlds.
Dave
Roundy roundy
Just wish I had more room for longer straights --I would incorporate passing sidings etc
You can very easily have both concepts.
CR&T’s N Scale layout planning is a multi-level layout with a connecting 3-track helix => and includes two railroads => ‘an ancient’ time-honored tradition surrounding a shorter-radius traction layout with a Class I railroad.
2-track Pennsy originates on the Upper Level, down helix, into the valley on the Lower Level, to surround and interchange (freight & passenger) with the CR&T => as a continuous run and occasional siding and/or yard.
CR&T is the Lower Level focus in the community of Conemaugh, with mild hills, employing point-to-point for box motor short-haul freight, and PCCs for passenger service.
CR&T will have a passenger (traction and/or doodlebug) on one helix track for a run up to the helix top, at the community of Summit, where the Pennsy has no passenger station. Here’s some inspiration for Summit at the prototype Gallitzin Tunnels => helix portals.
So, we can have a PRR continuous run, in fact two of them, one freight & one passenger, while CR&T is freight point-to-pointing, and/or PCC-running, which is a snapshot of the prototype where the PRR represents the busy-feeling of that larger world beyond your local world.
I always read the threads dealing with this subject so that I can get a solid handle on the rationales for either case, or for making provisions for both on one layout.
It seems to me a short line or industrial railroad would do well on a point-to-point layout. I think that has been well understood by most of us, if not found particularly appealing for one reason or another. Obviously, for a very constrained space, a switching layout is almost sure to be ‘it’. And that applies to any scale if the availabel space is sufficiently small.
But that really highlights the reason some of us do whatever it takes to get a loop…passenger trains are best modelled by allowing them to be turned…or else you need room to reconfigure them and turn the engine. It would be extremely rare for a Niagara to steam from Chicago to NYC tender first…yes?
And there would be little pure passenger traffic on most short lines…you would get mixed trains instead.
As has been mentioned, sometimes you just want to walk around your layout lining all the key turnouts for continuous run {in my case, at least, they are all manually switched}, and then let the Limited or Local accelerate out from the station and out onto the main for a few minutes of gee-whiz with all the flying valve gear and sounds.
But, it seems to me that pure modelling, with all the key elements between points A and B depicted, would not be done in a loop unless that was the only way to get the length. You would need a looooooon bench around several walls, or else lots of whorls and helices, or peninsulas, to get the distance to some semblance of acceptable compression.
What it boils down to for me is that if I could only have 20-30 square feet, it would be a simple short line and a point-to-point. Certainly in HO, anyway. Once you find you can have use of 100 sq
With my new layout, I have both. I actually have two continuous loops, as well as working industries or the yard.
In a word - Both. I like to have a continuous run connection for showing off (non railroad people don;t care one whit that real railroads only move cars for a reason, and they don’t care how slow you can make your switcher creep) and for atmosphere while I’m working on something else. Any continuous loop layout can be operated as point to point - use the extra part of the loop as staging, or don’t run past a certain town/station at each end. The opposite is not true. On my new layout the continuous run connection is back in an alcove in the room which doesn’t really accommodate an operator, and the only scenicing will probably be just painting the pink foam an earth brown color.
–Randy
I’ve decided my layout has to be highly flexible for all the interests, so you going to see point to point and yet be able to roundy roundy. I work on eqipment anyway and just to test something I don’t want to have to run it all over the layout and end up in an out of the way location where it mysteriously died on me. If you look at many of the old MR designs in old MR, you will find a lot of roundy designs with a nearby yard and central control panel. You build your train then send it off on its ride. Some concepts have your train doing a few loops before it stops at a switching area for some intricate switching moves, then off you go again. My layout is a combined up of like mini layouts with interchanges of several railroads going on to move coal among them all. Depending how I feel I wanna run, maybe just a tired day from work I wanna crank of a train and let it fly. When you in the better running mood, you hit the serious train setup and everything else. So flexibility is important to me, one design not better worse over the other.
Agreed. Loop-to-loop provides the best of both worlds. It allows for continuous running but trains operate back and forth as on a point-to-point. A loop-to-loop can be a single track layout or a dogbone which provides a double track mainline. With a classification yard in between the loops, some trains can run through while others terminate in the classification yard to be broken up.
When finished, the class 0 (National Monopoly) portion of my double garage filler (100 linear feet of active aisleway fascia) will be a long loop that will be operated, mostly, as a point-to-point. The loop makes it possible to have a single passenger staging yard serve both ends of the railroad and allows ‘asymmetrical’ scheduling of DMU and diesel-powered freights. The ability to orbit a train (or two) for the entertainment of mundane visitors is just a bonus.
OTOH, my private coal hauler is a pure, uncompromised point to point scheme. Any car that starts up the grade from the interchange will eventually have to come back down, barring some catastrophe that will remove it, permanently, from operation. Even then, it will return, even if it’s in the form of a gondola-load of scrap.
So, which do I like better? Both of the above…
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Brakie, I like the idea of running trains from point A to point B, C, etc. I am very interested in signals on the layout. I must admit that “electrical stuff” is not my strong suit. I am building control panels for the turnouts and am using red and green LED’s to indicate turnout position. To date, I have built two such panels. After seeing Great Model Railroad video #62 with Mike Burgett’s C&O, I knew that using signal is THE way to go. I would use the “target” signals that N&W used, but I am not certain how to go about it. I think that I have the ability to wire the signals in conjunction with the turnout position. But that is not what I am looking for. I know that building a CTC panel is WAY BEYOND my limited abilities. However, I like the idea that the signals help control train movement. Any help you can give would be appreciated. Thanks, Craig
My layout is a loop with staging located just under Westport.
Trains run from International Falls via Westport to South Jct. The other session they run from South Jct. via Westport to International Falls. And more…
That’s point to point with a loop.
Wolfgang
Mine was a pure point to point, but my young nephew got exasterated that the train would only run for 5 minutes, then we had to do switching to run it again. I added a section with a reversing loop on one end and one with a siding and a turntable on the other. Now the run is 10 minutes (at scale shay speeds) from the terminal to the loop and back, and when the train reaches the terminal I turn the loco on the turntable (he likes this) and move the caboose to the other end and we’re ready to go again. For me, it keeps some realism and provides adequate interest for non-model railroader visitors.
My reversing loop is inside a long tunnel, so when I operate alone, I hide (stage) a train in there while I do switching or run another train. It really makes things interesting and it seems more realistic for the train to be “gone” for a while.