I did not want to hijack another thread with too much of a reply so I thought I’d start a new one.
Mostly I want my trains to run in both directions on a track because:
-my favorite lines do (or did) in real life.
-I only have soo much track so I wanna see it going both ways!
IRL my railroad experience was centered around mainline traffic. One of the lines which really caught my attention was the old SP Lordsburg Subdivison and line through the poorly placed Anapra siding and up north through Tucumcari. It always seemed the “I” trains would be stopped for stupid reasons, unloaded for free by non-employees, and then continue on their way. The trains had designations something like ILAPR 25 meaning Intermodal from Los Angeles to Proviso (Chicago) with a start date of the 25th.
There was a track project in the works when I quit so more might be double main but I remember trains running each way same track relying on pulling into the siding tracks at Deming and wherever else to avoid the Casey Jones. I know they still do this in Goodwell Oklahoma.
The reverse loop is also attractive to me because I can run it at speed w/o cutting loose railcars or letting the mysterious hand from space come down and detach a locomotive.
I do admit not many small scale circular loops exist for freight service. The big railroads use “Y”'s more often to change the facing of power units if necessary. They are out there though.
Many layouts have some trains run both ways on a track. Nothing new there.
The issue for many is how one can be reasonably creative about it so the trains don’t loop back seconds after they pass a single point – unless that’s specifically what you want. In real life, the train doesn’t return seconds later and then repeat the orbit again and again.
That’s what people are talking about – not whether or not any reversing connection ever makes sense.
Some folks just like trains going around and plausibility or realism doesn’t matter – and that’s fine. But in the exact same space, it’s also almost always possible to have something that appears more like the real thing. Balloon loops aren’t normally used in the real world to send the Fast Mail hurtling back past the station where it just stopped seconds before.
Anyone trying to design their own layout without having spent some time with John Armstrong’s Track Planning for Realistic Operation may be missing some opportunities for long term fun and interest.
Everyone’s layout need not have the same focus or concept. By the same token, there are some best practices in layout design that one may at least know about and consider – whatever final choice one makes.
The following can be ignored if you are running steam. If you plan on modeling one of the larger class 1’s or a regional railroad from about 1980 on, then you would be running at least two engines together so as not having to turn them. On a local you might run with only one engine, but would just run it the other way going back
While the following is not a reason on the 1:1’s, also running two or more together gives a lot of electrical contact with the rails so at least one engine is always getting power to push the other over a dirty spot or over come crud on the wheels until you can clean.
If you’re running diesel road-switchers, you don’t need to turn the engines anyway. I grew on a dead-end branch line with a run around track at the end. The train would come along with a Baldwin DRS 6-6-15 or FM H-10-44 running long-nose forward heading north. They’d do their switching at the end of the line, run around the cars (after moving the caboose to the other end of the train) and roll by going south running short nose forward.
Methinks the subject of the OP has nothing to do with, “Selective compression,” which involves either:
Employing visual arts tricks to make a shallow scene appear deeper, or:
Selectively condensing prototype track layouts in an attempt to squeeze a ton of prototype into a five kilogram bag.
Operations can be, selectively compressed,' by using a scale clock and proportionally shortened scale units of length. By using a 12 minute scale, hour,’ I can compress the distance between kilometer posts on my 1:80 scale empire from 12.5 meters to 2.5 meters. I didn’t find any mention of this in the original post.
So, operation. It can be anything along a spectrum from, `Run in circles, scream and shout,’ to exact TTTO compliance with the (railroad) employee timetable for (modeled month,) with extras as recorded on the daily train sheets. Hopefully, the track schematic and layout will allow the desired form of operation. Enter a couple of facts of prototype life:
Most of the railways in the world started off as single track, and were double (triple, quadruple, quintuple…) tracked as traffic and traffic patterns required.
Trains have been stopped and held in sidings, either to meet opposing trains or to allow faster trains to pass, ever since the first railroad acquired its second team of horses - long before anyone harnessed steam to steel wheels. I have also seen them lined up on the, `Going to the yard,’ track of a double tracked main, waiting for the YM to provide a clear arrival track.
Rule books are far more concerned with getting trains STOPPED (before the two objects/one space aspects of physics take over) than they are with keeping them rolling regardless.
As it happens, my layout is a dogbone-shaped loop, partially single tracked (including one siding) with one reversing connection that isn’t a traditional balloon loop. I operate it to a sligh
I am not a professional railroader or model builder, layout designer, or historian; but I can offer my observations of 30 years being around the hobby. Hopefully, I won’t say anything that’s contrary to reality.
IMO, reverse loops on layouts are just fine. In fact, almost anything on a layout is just fine. But everything should have a purpose and major elements of a trackplan should be consistent with that purpose.
I can see where you can selectively compress a long distance into a 5 x 9 by using reversing loops to change the path of a train so that the train takes each curve and bridge at different angles and directions than before. This can simulate different mile posts, something a larger layout might do in 3 peninsulas and 2 levels. Yes, you would need to use your imagination much more than in a larger layout, in order to tell your mind that the train is going somewhere.
I did that when I got into the hobby. Every time the train passed in front of me while riding its small loop, it was 10 miles later. And, yes, you can have a lot of fun with that. Detail the layout, make interesting scenes within scenes. Yes…fun.
However, real trains do not pass through the same scene twice. It may be the same locomotive(s), but the cut of cars will be at least slightly different, if not totally different. End of the line passenger trains, back in the day, did, and load-in or load-out unit trains that use balloon tracks today, but balloon tracks aren’t exactly synonymous with reversing loops in model railroad terms.
Trains running in both directions on a single track line is totally normal.
However, it is and was rare (apart from some commuter/passenger operations and unit trains going through continuous loading/unloading) that trains go through a balloon loop to return in the opposite direction with exactly the same cars in exactly the same order, with the whole train in effect turned 180 degrees.
Freight trains seldom came back with exactly the same cars as they had gone out with. And even for passenger trains, it was perfectly normal in many cases to remove the engine(s), turn it around (if necessary), and attach the engine at the other end of the train.
Not normally simulated by grabbing the engine, lifting it up, turning it and putting it on the tracks on the other end of the cars, but by uncoupling the engine (using an under track electromagnet if you don’t want to reach in with a skewer), pulling past a switch (turnout), throwing the switch, backing down past it’s cars on the neighboring track, throwing the switch at the other end, backing out on the main behind it’s cars, throwing the switch again, and coupling the engine to what used to be the end of the train.
Another simple way of simulating two way traffic is to have a continuous run loop with one or more double ended staging sidings. Train #67 is an eastbound, so it starts with the engine on the right end of it’s train, while train #12 is a westbound, so it starts with the engine on the left side of it’s train.
You run #12 first, moving west. At some point on your layout #12 takes a siding to wait for #67. #67 then moves out of staging in the opposite direction, moving east. After the meet, one of the trains may drop off cars somewhere on the layout, and head back towards where it came fro
To illustrate what I was suggesting before, here’s an example of how a reversing return connection can be used in a reasonably compact space with a somewhat realistic operating scheme. The secret is to use one of John Armstrong’s favorite concepts for smaller layouts: the out-and-back.
Trains from Yardley enter the layout at Conn Junction in a clockwise direction and may run as many laps as one likes before taking Baxter Switch to reverse to a counter-clockwise direction. After making as many laps as desired, trains return to the yard via Conn Junction once again.
Unlike some other 5X9 HO layouts posted here recently, this plan leaves room for two towns, each with significant switching and scenic opportunities. There’s also room for some wooded hills to help separate the scenes visually. There’s even room for one or two large structures, if one desired.
With two passing sidings, more than one train could also be operated, and two crews could even be switching Weston and Eastridge at the same time without getting into one another’s way. Local crews would need to constantly duck into the clear for orbiting trains, of course, so that’s not the easiest*.
The interchange track at Yardley represents a connection with the outside world and serves as staging for cars arriving on and departing from the layout (cars are swapped by hand between sessions). This adds realism by giving operating trains a purpose. A crossover at the end of two of the yard tracks allows one arriving engine to escape – if the yard is not too full, that is. But nice to have, anyway.
Also in contrast to some plans being shared here that must dip down to 15" minimum radius for an HO 5X9, this version maintains at least 20" minimum radius everywh
I get that with a reversing loop you can feed a couple of trains in from Yardley and easily set one of them to going counterclockwise (without having to either back that train out from Yardley or to run around with the engines before going counterclockwise). Turning a whole train without running around engines is what a reversing loop does.
Also, I have no problem seeing that reversing loops e.g can be a useful tool for turning trains before you back the trains tail first into single ended staging, if you want exactly the same consist to make another run in the opposite direction later.
But what, in your opinion, is the added operational realism for an out-and-back scheme using small diesel engines in entering a loop clockwise, doing e.g 5 loops clockwise, going through a reversing cut-off, doing 3 loops counterclockwise and then leaving the loop counterclockwise, compared to e.g entering a loop clockwise, doing 5 loops clockwise, running the engines around, doing 3 loops counterclockwise and leaving the loop counterclockwise?
To me, it seems like the main difference is what end of the loco(s) are first when returning to Yardley, and what order the cars are in.
As for the argument that wider tables/shelves allow larger radius turnback curves, I don’t think anyone would quarrel with that
I wasn’t saying this is superior to every other possible track arrangement – I was only addressing the Original Poster’s desire to have trains reverse, but doing so in a way that offers more scenic and operating potential than some of the HO 5X9s that have been posted recently. (And I happened to have this plan laying around from an earlier project.) Partially, this is achieved through the out-and-back schematic, which requires only a single reversing connection.
As far as making laps, that’s not the way I’d use it (except for visitors). As you know, personally I can be happy without a continuous run connection, so there wouldn’t be any benefit to me – but not everyone feels the same way, including the OP. Some people apparently like to run up some distance before doing their switching, which is fine.
As far as the radius, this 5X9 benchwork with 20" radius is obviously no wider than the earlier posted 5X9s which used 15" radius – my purpose in posting was to show that it was possible to have a reversing connection, an interesting operating pattern, substantial yard and industry tracks, and room for structures and scenery in the same space and with more accommodating radii.
The client for whom I was sketching this originally decided ultimately to use a different benchwork footprint that made his a better layout, so this HO 5X9 was never finished.
according to what I’ve read so far an “out and back” is the same as a “point to loop” schematic.
I am not sure, though I think Byron was refering to a plan I drew for Mark. The wish to get two reversing loops in, on a pancake flat layout; and to separate the two reversing loops scenically resulted in a very tight radius; a 15" radius just fitted.
IMHO this plan was meant as a starting point for a discussion; to come to grips with the space. Whether go for N-scale, where a 15" radius is great, or accept the 15"radius in HO, but accept the limitations for the equipment that can be used too, or go for an other concept. E.G. forget about the two reversing loops or the wish to build all tracks at the same level.
I do like the large radii in Byron’s plan, though it is rather track-heavy to say the least; but again as a starting point for further thoughts it is great. A different footprint is one of the issues worth a closer look for sure. So is a better understanding of operating possibilities. Reading John Armstrongs book about Track Planning for Realistic Operation is valuable indeed.
I have to disagree there. You start from one point, go out and return back to the same point you started from… That’s an out-and-back scheme, no matter how (reversing loop, running loco around cars or just backing up the whole way back) you reverse the direction of travel for the train before going back.
No. You can return to the same yard in a number of ways (see above), so you dont “need” the reverse loop for that purpose. But it certainly can be used to reverse the direction of travel for the train before heading back to the yard.
Anyways - I don’t question that reverse loops have their place in the toolbox of layout design. I just think that people new to track planning often seem overly concerned with turning entire trains around in balloon loops before returning the train in the opposite direction, especially on relatively small layouts.
