I’ve finally found a model railroad space that needs filling with enough room to make the question about a single track vs double track main worth asking. I can see reasons to go either way in terms of operational enjoyment, but I’m not sure what i think will be best. Please provide input about your preferences for single track or double track, and why you feel that way. By the way, my interests are in big-time mainline operations. When I was young, one of the best things in life was to visit Grandma and Grandpa’s house, which was only a few hundred yards from the UP mainline between Salt Lake City and Las Vegas in the '60s and '70’s.
I like two track mainline too! I grew up along the Hudson river in New York and watched the ‘Water Level Route’ trains run by each other; what a sight. My layout doesn’t have room for this so I made a comprimise and have about 15-18 feet of double track along the ‘Hudson River’ and then it goes back to single track. More like a long passing siding but one of the turnouts is inside the tunnel so you don’t know it isn’t double track all the way. I think it also is very pleasing astheticaly to see two tracks follow graceful curves like I have on my layout.
While it’s still 100% your personal choice, you’re inviting input, so maybe that can help you decide. I grew up in a 80000 population city when it had a single track B&O branch comming into a yard area that serviced a large steam era engine facility, a car shop with a 250 ton Bucyrus-Erie crane train,and a Lake port that brought in ore and shipped coal. It also helped feed a very active integrated steel plant with 6 blast furnaces and a something like 12 or 14 oven Open Heath. This was a North-South run. There was even a junction with an East-West Nickle Plate double track main line.that closed to a gantlet track on a swing bridge across a river. A single spur connected the two for interchange. And a NYC/Conrail branch serviced a large Ford Motor assembly plant. Lots of railroading, not even counting the Steel Plants internal railroad.
The double track is now gone,but the Norfolk Southern which inherited the E-W run sure has a lot of trains in each direction. The old B&O only had a couple long trains in and out a day.
Seems to me, a double track main offers the chance to have at least a couple trains running continuosly at the same time, while injecting some interesting operating situations to serve on-line industries. A single track main can give a different type of operation, trying to run several trains in each direction, scheduling meets at passing sidings., and even making on-line industrial switching really demanding.
Seems on the prototype, thanks to a lot of modern technology in signalling, scheduling, and control, many railroads have converted a lot of double track to single track, both for maintenance cost considerations, and also since in many states, the tax rate on double track is significantly higher than on single track.
Get whatever other peoples opinions you want, make up your own mind, and don’t let anybody tell you you’re wrong.
Gidday, You’ve posed an interesting question. On initial reading of your post, and taking into consideration that my view and knowledge of North American Railroading is done at a distance, my first mental picture of “big time mainline operation” was of the Pennsylvania Railroad “Horseshoe” with its multiple trackage. On second thoughts I then recalled footage taken from a Cab Forward of single track and trains waiting in the passing sidings.
However to answer your actual question in my future “basement empire” I am planning on predominately a single track main, with passing sidings, though, and I guess this is having a “bob” each way, the Helper district will have a double track main. My reasoning is that this set up will be in line with my view on operations though a double track main does allow for more trains.
I could be quite wrong,and I’ve been known to be from time to time, that with the obvious fond memories of the visits to your Grandparents you’ll end up going for what the UP track was like in that area.[:D]
A double main line offers the opportunity to run more trains and to have them pass each other in opposite directions, simulating east-west and north-south routes. A double main line permits the installation of single crossovers and double crossovers, adding to operational interest. A double main line takes up little additional space, since you already have the real estate in place for a single main line.
I have a double main line on my current HO scale DCC-powered layout, I always have at least two trains running and sometimes four trains running on the main lines. On my Dream Layout, which I have yet to build, it will match the prototype, the C&WI in Chicago, and so it will have a 4-track main line.
The more the better, so long as it does not become a spaghetti bowl of track.
There is obviously a big (and important) visual/scenic element - you may want or not want a double track main depending on what look you are trying to create. If your scene visually needs double track, it needs double track.
Operationally, single track with passing sidings will tend to slow down operations, and create more interaction between trains and operators, as one train will have to take a siding to wait for another train to pass. Slowing down things and creating more interaction might be a design goal, since most layouts are fairly small in terms of mainline run length.
If you want to do display running of one (or more) trains on auto pilot, so you can focus on watching trains pass each other going in opposite directions on the two tracks of a double double track main, double track obviously is a must.
One other factor worth considering is that if you want to simulate a busy schedule with trains in both directions on a double track main (high traffic levels is the primary reason why the prototype went double track or more) without looping the same train over and over, you likely will need significantly more staging than for a single track line with passing sidings.
It all boils down to you your main modeling goals are.
LION did build a single track main line (once upon a time). But when you build your timetable (use a string graph for this) you will see for sure what a difference a second track makes. If sidings are 10 miles apart, as they are here in North Dakota, you have to allow 30 minutes for a train to stop align the switch, move into the siding and wait for the other train to arrive, and he could still be ten or more miles away when you stop. Generally they stop eastbound trains in favor of westbound trains (the opposite of how they did it in the old days) because the eastbound trains are usually 112 cars filled with coal, the westbound trains are usually 112 cars filled with nothing, and so it is easier to get those things moving again than a coal train.
Still on a model railroad, you may be after looks, and a sweeping two track main looks better than a single track. And a four track main? LION has local and express tracks northbound and southbound. Actually the LION only dispatches the local trains, the express tracks are two separate loops and those trains just run by themselves. All of the LION’s train are automated, but him controls the tower at 242nd Street, dispatching another local train every five minutes, and directing the returning trains into a vacant slot at the 242nd Street station, or else holding it at Dyckman Street if things at the terminal are jammed up.
Imagine the Horseshoe Curve, and arguably with better railfanning, the nearby Gallitzin Tunnels, with only one mainline track. There are tons of “Train Meets” on these rails.
My vote: If you got the space, do a 2nd mainline, for the reasons mentioned above.
Considering where (NYC) and when (transition era) I grew up, I consider a two-track main to be woefully inadequate. Even the far end of the elevated was three tracks wide!
Considering the prototype I model, the single track UP from Tomikawa is a bottleneck that has train movements choreographed like the Bolshoi Ballet to (hopefully) avoid total chaos. Even light helper movements are on the employee timetable.
OTOH, the Tomikawa Tani Tetsudo is single track, and the schedule has plenty of slack. Downgrade trains are given plenty of time to reach the sidings and get into the clear so uphill trains can run through the stations with nothing more than an on-the-fly exchange of ticket hoops.
According to my fictional history, since the JNR anticipates even more traffic that stretch of single track is being doubled - which means getting up close and personal with some long hard-rock tunnels. There’s a tunnel boring machine in my future…
Looked at as a whole, my JNR main is a long loop of (mostly) double (and some triple) track with a comparatively short stretch of single track. Of course, most of it is hidden in the netherworld. The TTT is a pure point-to-point - the loads out/empties in route is completed via a train elevator to a JNR route under the mountain.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 )
From a strictly “operational enjoyment” perspective, If you build a double track mainline nothing says it could not be operated as a single track mainline. Put crossovers in the appropriate places where the sidings on the single track would have been. For “single track” operation just make sections of the double track off limits, or park cars on them or something.
Another possibility, if you’ve got the space, is a ‘non-parallel’ double-track mainline similar to the Donner Pass crossing of the Sierra by the Southern Pacific, now Union Pacific. The original main was built in the 1860’s, but a second main was added in the early part of the 20th Century with easier grades. This resulted in a newer eastbound main line that is often separated from the original by several miles and at different elevations.
This is what I used on my own MR, and it makes for some very interesting operation.
I would, hands down, run a double track mainline. It gives you the chance to run at least 2 trains in opposite directions at the same time.
I havea very small HO scale layout in a 3.5 foot by 5.1 foot space. I have “2 main lines”- a loop inside a loop so I can run two trains at the same time. The inner loop also connects to a 4 spur yard and a 2 spur engine storage/servicing facility {that requires “fouling the {inside} main” to use}. I consist a train inside, then "highball it out to the outter loop and reconsist another train on the inside loop to run “highball” on the inner “main line”, so essentially I have a “double main”.
To me, running only one train is a bit boring, just like loopy-de-looping is boring to others. I like to have at least 2 trains going, even if the “hand of God” installs RR cars in the yard and de-installs them to make room for more.
If you want operations, you could have one train running while you “operations” the other.
I like to have something running while I “play” at all times, but that is just me.
In my era the CPR only had a single track through the Rockies so that is how I planned mine. I usually have two trains running, sometimes three. My single main runs along side of itself on my 18’ x 6’ section and it looks very cool having trains running along side of each other.
The way I have set it up I can flip four switches and have them running it opposite direction’s on the 18’ x 6’ table. If I am really on my game I can have the trains alternate directions over my mountain pass and can also change things up using the long passing siding at the other end of the pass.
Side by side train action makes good viewing. It sounds like you’ve made your decision and even if everyone thought it was a bad idea, It’s your layout so do what you want.
Here’s a video of my naked layout. It might help explain things better.
My Santa Fe in Oklahoma layout is single track with passing tracks because the portion of the Santa Fe I am modeling is single track with passing tracks. It would look silly to model a single track prototype with double, or to model a prototype double as a single track.
ie. if you are modeling an existing real rail line, or one that used to exist, then your model should use the same track type. If you are freelancing, then who cares anyway.
The single main allows you to have a more challenging layout to operate, but the double track will allow more trains. Remember that the more tracks you have, the more you need to make them count. The UP needed a 3rd track on a main, and the Pennsy found a need for 4 tracks on the mainlines. It really depends on your operating scheme, so you should plan accordingly. If there is enough for a highly traveled single main, go for it. If the traffic is at a high enough level, use the double track.
However, the final decision is up to you. Just pick what makes you happy!
I want to express my thanks to all of those who have replied so far. Several responders have contributed thoughts and ideas that I have found valuable. Over-all, I’m persuaded that my preference for a “mostly” double-tracked main is a good one, but I’m going to make sure that there are some possibilities for operating it as a single-track and using the other main as the passing siding for those times when a more challenging operating session is desired.
If possible, use #6 turnouts (or higher) on your 2-track mainlines to connect them with smoother mainline crossovers. Use of #4 turnouts is a “much sharper” experience that can lend itself to greater coupler tension as a form of an S-curve.
The turnouts connecting mainlines would be, for example, left turnout (connecting) to left turnout, and vice-versa. You can couple on the same main, a left turnout then a right turnout, and; by doing the same on the parallel main – You will provide more opportunities for changing directions with crossovers – Let alone further fostering the “optional passing siding” concept.
