In Lance Mindheim’s “Pick the Right Layout Shape” article in the May MR, he uses the term “twice around” to refer to a W- or E-shaped layout where a train would go through a scene in one direction and later come back on a different track going the other direction (see pg.39 lower right corner).
To my mind, this a variation of a “dogbone” or “waterwings” design. A “twice around” means the train would go through a scene twice - but going in the same direction. For example, John Allen’s original Gorre & Daphetid was an “over-and-under” twice-around.
I’m not sure of some of the terms/names that they use to describe particular layout designs, so please excuse me if the one I post here is not a ‘twice around’.
I’m working on a new layout design that was original inspired by the Tupper Lake & Faust Junction.
One knowledgable gentleman on another forum offered this significant modification suggestion,…
Long Trains
If my goal was to be able to run several long trains, to watch them pass each other and not to emphasize switching or industry work, here’s what I would do.
The layout would be two laps of double track around the room , one on each level. At the bump out one end on each level would go into a balloon loop, and the other end would go into a double track helix. On the top level on two sides I would put a double ended yard with 2-6 train length tracks. Since its high on the upper level, I could hide it behind a very low backdrop (4-6 in high) , row of buildings or row of trees.
Optionally could put a connection track on the one or both mains at the bump out to create a continuous run on each level. Optionally I could put the peninsula in and use it for a little switching or an engine terminal to display or swap out engines.
I would shoot for 4 tracks in the staging yard. I would put a passenger train, a bulk train and a couple freights in the staging yards, all facing the same way, then I could let some or all of the trains out of the staging yard to run. Since its a glorified dogbone, once the trains are speed matched, they can ru
Sure it does. How are we to understand each other unless we agree on a common vocabulary?
BTW, Armstrong’s TPFRO, which was written before Lance was born, defined the “basic continuous plan shapes”. “Twice Around” matches the G&D plan posted above.
The Tupper Lake layout plan isn’t a twice around, as trains reverse direction going through the scenes. It’s really a version of a “stacked loop waterwing (or dogbone…or dumbbell)” design.
Think of it this way: you take an oval of track, and “squeeze” the middle so that the two straight sections are very close to each other…they can even be so close that it looks like a double-track mainline. There are loops or “blobs” at each end that turn the train 180-degrees, so it looks kinda like a weightlifter barbell or dumbbell - narrow in the middle, big on each end. A train going past you right-to-left on one track will later come by on the other track going left-to-right. That is a dumbbell / dogbone / waterwings design.
If you take an oval of track, and build another oval of track inside of it, then connect them up with a level crossing so a train runs on the outer oval going say clockwise, then crosses to the inner oval and goes around it clockwise, and then crosses back to the outer oval and goes around that clockwise, then you have a twice-around layout.
John Armstrong’s “Track Planning for Realistic Operation” explains this very nicely.
I built two of my earlier layouts as copies of John Allen’s first Gorre & Daphetid. My current and last layout is also a “twice around” design idea taken from the original G&D.
I made a must have list for this layout and many of the G&D creations were high on my list.
Mel
Modeling the early to mid 1950s SP in HO scale since 1951
I’m still trying to get a handle on why this causes so much consternation for so many.
My layout has a double mainline throughout (or very nearly throughout). I can run a complete lap on the outer track and then cross over to the inner track for another complete lap. Does this constitute ‘twice around’? And if it does, is that bad? I can also run the two laps described above and then cross through a reversing loop and run two more laps on both tracks in the other direction. Is this "twice more around’ or ‘four around’?
One of my favorite journeys is a thing I call ‘the moebius’: one lap clockwise on the outer track, take the reversing loop to cross to the inner track, and a second lap running counterclockwise on the inner track. I would consider this a single, complete circuit of the layout. No idea what John Allen would call it.
As folks have noted, the traditional use of “twice-around” is as found on the original small G&D and many other layouts. I personally think it’s best to reserve the term for that specific kind of track arrangement.
I agree with you Stix, what ever the arguement is, Mindheim’s plan is an “almost folded” dog bone, like what I have, mine is “L” shaped, loop on each end, nothing “twice around” (as in the true meaning of) about it, as my tracks are seperated with scenery.
I think the original “Twice Around” would add a lot of interest to the good ole’ 4x8.
Robert, for a ‘twice around’, the track has to cross itself, either at grade (an “X” crossing of some type) or go up and over itself on a bridge. A train would have to be able to run on the outer oval of track, then run the inner oval, then the outer oval etc. over and over without any switches being thrown.
It sounds like what you have is two ovals of track, one inside the other, with switches connecting the two ovals so you can run from one oval to the other, with a reverse loop allowing you to reverse direction. If the tracks are close to each other, it could be considered a double-track mainline oval. But it’s not a twice-around - if I am picturing what you’re describing correctly.
A twice-around has the advantages of giving you twice the mainline run in the same space, and that trains run in the same direction on both lines. A problem with a waterwings/dogbone is that if you’re running say a loaded coal train, it appears to be hauling coal both from and to the mines, since the train passes your vantage point running say left to right, and then right to left. With a twice around, it does pass through the scene twice, but both times in the same direction.
Neither one is bad or wrong, or better than another plan. For many years, twice-arounds were common - IIRC John Armstrong even designed some “thrice-arounds” where the mainline
Stix, I had the exact same thought as I read that article. Interesting that Bryon also agrees with us, I think we all three have similar depth of experiance on this.
My new layout will be like a twice around, but the “second” lap is hidden and contains thru staging. It will also have some peninsulas that do not involve the hidden second lap.
