Exactly. I don’t know why we’re bickering.Given room, any point to point can become a continuous run. If all you have is a wall or L then you might as well call it a diorama. Point to point is your only choice.
As many have said, it comes to what works for your layout. I prefer point to point but a loop is also fine.
If you want a prototype loop you might model CSX in Huntington, WV where they have a loop track connecting to the main line at each end. For many years the CSX Executive Train cars would be brought to town for the opening of the United Way and gave rides in connection with the event. You left the boarding area going one way and then the tran ran a loop arriving back at the boarding area from the other end after looping through the city.
My Santa Fe in Oklahoma (era 1989) is on three decks, layout size 29 by 33ft. There are two mainlines, the north/south main through Oklahoma City to Arkansas City KS. Oklahoma City is a full yard but it also has staging tracks on the south end that hold 10 trains. The north end, Arkansas City is nothing but a staging area, the modeled part ends at Guthrie OK then enters staging. However, in my great wisdom, two of the Arkansas City staging tracks connect to two of the Oklahoma City staging tracks allowing trains to be staged on those tracks caboose to caboose. That gives me the capability to run through trains on the top deck only.
The second main line is from Guthrie down a helix to Enid OK, major yard then down to the bottom deck terminating at Waynoka staging, which is visible, sceniced, it just isn’t switched during sessions normally. there is another staging representing Tulsa on the BN and joining the Santa Fe at Enid. Both roads stage on the west end at Waynoka.
That said, we never use those two through staging tracks during an op session, and I find I seldom ever run through on them by myself unless I am testing some new cars or diesels. As far as operations, the railroad is point to point. Was designed that way in 1982 and has remained that way through today. I just prefer point to point.
My South Pennsylvania Railroad is being designed to run as a “point-to-point”, but to have accommodations for continuous-running if/as desired. My main thought there is for when the in-laws come over and just want to see “some trains running”. Or to amuse my kids. For my own purposes, I’ll run it as point-to-point. Don’t see what the problem is in that-- you can have it both ways just fine.
John
I have a continuous run, folded dogbone, with the track running along the walls on a shelf as much as possible giving the illusion of a double track railroad.
I prefer to open up trains and let 'em run.
John
As mentioned…why not the best of both worlds even if you’re in a tight space? . My layout ( based on Driline’s plan) is “Along-the-wall”, shelf type construction that allows for industrial switching activities while having drop type bridges to permit continuous running when desired (a must for many of us that run passenger trains).
I hope to enjoy
-
Forwarding or receiving freight cars between a yard and the industrial customers on the branch lines.
-
At the same time on the main: a through freight, mail, or passenger train would provide for some realistic, challenging “inteference” for the dispatcher and conductor as the local makes its way back to the yard.
3.With the Walthers 3 stall loco service shop, plenty of activity for motive power alone as units are moved in and out of the fuel & sanding lane and positioned on one of the two “ready tracks” awaiting assignments. One track for road & passenger units (scheduled), the other for units in switching service (moment’s notice).
- Finally, for those days that I’m feeling worn out from my sometimes stressful job, I’d like to be able to sit back and watch a long freight or a gleaming SCL streamliner cruise by without me having to touch the throttle much. Hence the convenience of the continuous running option. [:D][tup]
So for number 1 & 3, the drop bridges could be left off as these activities would be limited to specific areas on the railroad. For number 2 & 4, the drop bridges would be in place.
I may be a bit crazy but to each his own. I am combining prototype and freelance early 1900’s steam logging into a space 10 X 25 with a center aisle down the middle. A 14 inch X 20 ft shelf along one wall is for staging the prototype SP Klamath Falls Branch which, in the early 1900’s ran from MP 350 at Weed where the SP interchanged with It’s mainline and MP 435 at Klamath Falls where the branch ended in 1909. This branch normally ran 5 car freight or mixed trains and smaller passenger trains. The staging yard has 7 tracks. Two are for inbound and run around, At the end of these two tracks is a turntable. Two other tracks represent Klamath Falls at MP 435 and another two represent Weed at MP 350. The 7th track represents the log dump at the Weed lumber Company as it appeared in 1909. Essentially then, this shelf becomes both ends of the point to point Prototype. But, it gets better. The staging yard lead is one leg of a wye. The other leg represents the prototype wye where a Weed woods train delivers log cars to the SP for transport to their log pond at Weed. This leg also becomes the connection to the SP main line that allows me to have continuous operation. At MP 370 on the SP is my freelance saw mill. The logs are delivered to this freelance saw mill by a free lance 30 inch gauge woods RR which is point to point. Freelance dual gauge connects the first woods camp. The prototype SP services the freelance sawmill at MP 370. The separation of freelance and prototype on the layout is maintained according to which side of the mainline tracks the scene is on. Outside the SP mainline is all prototype and is run that way, based on hours of research. Inside the mainline is all freelance based on what would be likely. The biggest scenery problem I have now is modeling the terrain around the prototype tracks which, although it is at the base of 14,162 ft Mt Shasta, is all exposed on a 4,000 ft high plains desert. This makes it almost impossible to use view blocks or tunnels. The challenge is the scenery around the wy
I had originally intended my new railroad to be point to point but then changed to continuous loop operations. My reason was simple with a continuous loops I have the option to run point to point if I choose to do so but when running point to pint there are no options. Some will argue that it’s not the same as a true PTP railroad but I have a major terminus at both ends of the railroad so it can be run either way
Sure it is, its like running a real point-to-point railroad with a loop at each end.
Some people just like to complain about silly stuff for no good reason.
John
My layout “in being” is of the terminus to fiddle yard-type, for reason of space and budget. Train moves are limited to a few feet only each time, but that does not bother me, because that is all I can do.
However, there is nothing wrong in just letting a train run, sit back and watch it. If I had the space, it would be point to point and continuous running!
Brakie is assuming a larger layout with multiple trains running. But most of the points are still valid for a smaller layout.
The answer for you depends on your preferred operating style.
If your preference is for railfan operations - watching a train(s) go through particular scenes - then a continuous run, often combined with generous amounts of staging, might create more of the operations you prefer.
If you preference is performing the varius operations to support and perform the duties of a local freight, then a point-to-point might be more realistic to you. I’m assuming in this that making up and breaking down a train at each end of the run is an enjoyable, not a bothersome process.
In the small layout/single operator space with a point to point scheme, making up and breaking down trains happens fairly frequently because of the short runs between ends. But with typical sequential ops - the trains are run in sequence, not by clock - the yard work time is what it is. On a larger layout with a timetable, y
How do you like the folded dogbone? I’m considering this type of style for my future “Big” layout.
I would have preferred to have built a point-to-point layout for my current layout, but with needing to keep my layout portable, I opted for a continuous run for the main oval of the layout. However, I operate it as a point-to-point. Cars in the yard are grouped by whether they are in Chicago, Mansfield (on layout location), or Pittsburgh with dividers for each city separating the blocks of cars. Cars are then routed eastbound or westbound, depending on their “current location”. While trains are running on the mainline, I can classify cars in the yard and ready another train to send out. When I do that, I bring in one of the trains on the mainline, saying it has reached its destination.
Of course, my Cleveland and Columbus staging yards provide point-to-point operation.
Kevin
In my opinion, a layout has to be quite large for a point to point operation to be of any interest. If a train trip on an HO layout covers only ten feet, that’s not going to cut it.
I agree with the majority in this thread that if the layout is sufficiently large, then doing both is often the best answer. Remember too that balloon tracks, aka reverse looks are perfectly prototypical. Though obviously not for whole trains. At the club I belong to, we’re primarily a loop. we operate for the public and so it makes much more sense. But 2 staging yards easily turn that loop into point to point and without traveling through scenes twice.
When I began building my shelf layout 12 years ago, it was point to point switching. Then more modules were added to the layout extended over to an opposite wall and still doing point to point switching. The final cross over section was put in place several years ago that actually increased operation with a continuous run. That allowed me to park a 25 car train and easily move engines from one end to the other. And there are times that I just want to watch a passenger train run at speed without stopping, backing up and doing it again.
I think it has more to do with what you do in that 10 feet and how fast you go. Not counting the reversing loop, my entire main line fits in a space 10 feet by about 4 feet, but it meanders around a lot and with my little shays and small rod engines, it seems like quite a distance - nothing moves very fast on my layout and the trains are short (mine are all slide valve engines - long on style, short on muscle)
When I was a teen I did two continuous running layouts - the first one because I thought that’s “what you did” and the second one because I was afraid to venture outside the continuous run “box.” After a while I was bored with watching my trains doing laps, so I thought about the point to point option. I looked at dozens of examples in old MR magazines, and finally got up the nerve to let go of the loop. In nearly 40 years, I’ve yet to miss sending my trains out onto the main line to do laps. To me, it’s just more fun if the train goes somewhere - even if it’s just 10 feet away - and it keeps me involved (because if I don’t do something at the end of the line, the train runs off the edge of the world).
Here’s a sketch of my track plan (the gap in the middle is to accomodate a 1:1 furnace - there are narrow bridges in front and behind it). The portion labeled “Planned Expansion” is now reality:
By the way, I’ll be moving soon (into a bigger place) and that will create opportunities to build some new stuff in between these to modules.
My layouts have all been continuous running. The reason goes way, way back to my beginnings with a loop of Lionel 027 track on a 4’ X 8’ piece of plywood and a kindly uncle who gave me my first copy of an Official Guide.
I was fascinated with the Guide and decided I wanted to run trains on the Milwaukee Road and the C&NW, so I would select a line and then run my trains around from station to station based on the number of miles between stations–ten miles, ten laps. I’d do some switching and then proceed to the next town.
Later on, someone told me that this was a “changing stations” operating routine. Whatever it’s called, seven HO layouts later I am still doing it, using up-to-date employee timetables and industry lists that I have developed from sources like Bing and Google aerial photos or visits to the areas my railroad represents–the modern day Union Pacific in the grain belt and Texas.
John Timm
Our club layout is basically a circle with a large yard in “front” and a large yard in “back”. The yard in front is divided almost exactly in half by a highway viaduct. On operating nights the left side is one city with departures westbound (left) only and the right side is another city with departures eastbound (right) only, and no train ever goes under the viaduct - point to point and though the points are next to each other they are as far apart as physically possible for a train run. For open houses or testing, we can just blow on through for continuous runs.
Sorry I overlooked that. With a decent track plan and smaller locos and cars you can squeeze enough operation into a ten foot area in HO. That layout looks like it might be fun to operate.