I guess this post is simply to gain other people’s perspective on the issue of running a train through the same scene twice on two separate tracks. I’ve always believed that the linear approach of having a train transverse a scene one time was the best route. But lately I’ve been staring at my layout and pondering laying the track back through the layout. What keeps attracting me is the idea of doubling my main line length. I’d simply have to go to the end of the line and bring the track back around through the two rooms. The layout would no longer be point to point and I could just let trains run, break in new engines, and have longer distances between towns. Plus, I’m at the point in my construction where this move is still feasible.
The downside is that I use semi-permanent modules for my layout. This enables me to move and rearrange the layout as needed to fit my next home, where ever that may be. So far, the layout has survived two moves this way. Doubling the track would nearly lock me into one layout configuration and cut my options for rearranging to fit a new basement.
Another concern about the “twice through” track is that I’d lose my sincere approach to my scenes. One track through looks so much better. On other hand, I model a mountain area, so two tracks would be at differing levels and not such an eyesore. And, did I mention that I’d double my mainline length through two rooms?
I guess my pondering is leading to this question—which would you find more satisfying; doubling the length of your railroad from 40 to 80 feet or maintaining a realistic linear scene?
Items for consideration: I model an HO free lance short line set in the Ozark Mountains during the 1960-70’s.
That’s an ‘iffy’ question, and really one that only YOU can answer. When I planned my Yuba River Sub, I wanted lots of running room, which meant that the same train would be coming back through the same scene. I planned my mainline as non-parallel double-track, similar to the Southern Pacific on their Donner Pass line between Rocklin and Colfax, which meant grade separation and several overpasses. I also knew that overall–with various track levels coming in and out of view, that it would not look realistic, so I decided to make each level a different ‘scene’, which would attract the eye to that particular portion and away from the overall look. The double track is only parallel on the same level in my major yard–Deer Creek–othewise it is separated by grade and scenery.
It works for me, but your concept has to satisfy YOU. One thing–if you want to keep a single track concept, have your layout ‘dog-bone’ at both ends with reverse curves. That way you can still get twice the running without having to lay another track and disturb your single-track concept.
To me the idea of if tracks move through a scene more than once and the realizm imparted in doing so is a function of both good design and execution. There are two places on my layout that I am planning where the tracks pass through more than once. And in each spot, the scenic plan is to make it like it was a “brilliant” solutions to get through the rough terrain wile maintaining a reasonable grade. I guess what I am saying anything is given the right justification, and a good design and a good execution, You can go through a scene just about as many times as you want.
You could make one line different - as you say, put one line higher than another, but also make some differences in tie color and ballast to make it look like two different railroads paralleling each other, rather than the same railroad going thru twice. That’s not that unusual, where I live (SE of St.Paul, along the Mississippi River) the BNSF and CP mainlines run parallel to each other from St. Paul to Hastings. In fact they share tracks, so you northbound trains of both railroads will use one railroads tracks, southbound use the other.
Or take a tip from the Soo Line layout in the current MR and have a high line mainline, and a lower line serving industries.
Maybe there’s a way you could set up the layout so you could run it point-to-point when you wanted to, but be able to use a hidden cut-off to allow for continuous run when you wanted that??
Well, as I freelance also, I like the longer run. I try to go twice around the room on two different scenic levels. (not separate bench work levels) Watch the up-coming layout contest by Space Mouse. It deals with single car garage layouts this time and there is at least one entry that fits my description.
As for using modules because of moving, what I try and do is build each module as a town. Thus each module has most of the switch work on it in one section. A second mainline can be added at the rear on a different level if desired, or just build that part to lift off or be disposable. That way the elevations and grades are not locked in.
Anyway, the point is that if you build town modules, when you go to a new place, you just set your towns (that you have saved) in place on new bench work framing, several feet or more apart, and then link them together with disposable scenery and track. You can adjust each town height on the bench work to fit the space and grades you setup for the new layout.
As for operations, I generally have one yard that will be somewhere in the middle of the run. I treat it as two separate yards at each end of the division. If I have 10 industries in that yard-town, 5 will be designated at one end, and the other 5 at the other end. The other way you can go with that, is to have one large town / city on two levels. The upper level can have an East end and West end, each with a few industries. Each end would / could also have a staging track or two associated with it so trains could come in from off line. The lower level would be the main yard and engine facilities with a few industries and would be in the middle of the run.
Plus, by having two tracks to contend with in each scene, you get to be creative with how to treat them and the scenery.
There was another post about this same thing not too long ago and one of the things that I suggested was, make or build one track with code 100 and make it appear as a heavy main line. The other track running though t
I know a lot of people, including me, backtrack on the layouts to gain running footage. Here’s my thought on the subject…
I don’t know that it’s always half the realism. Often trains, go To somewhere, and then Return. Granted, it’s with a different load of stock but they do pass the same area twice on an out and back scheme.
When the second run through is on a different elevation, I tend to only be looking at the train in it’s current tiny setting. That is, I don’t view the layout as a whole but tend to focus more on current location of the train.
You’ll have to decide for yourself which is more important.
With respect to a semi-modular layout to be moved and rearranged, regardless of how you’ve set it up (unless we’re talking something like N-trak here) it’s a difficult proposition in itself.
First level
Second level
Full plan minus yard and engine terminal
The above plan (HO scale) was built to fit a 9x13 bedroom in a house I was renting (no basement). It is 2 levels complete with a 22" radius helix to get from one to the next. It too was built ‘semi-modular’ to be moved (and was completely freestanding). Also, it was designed to be expanded into that Dream layout space. Then I decided I wanted my own house. Cash was still a little tight so building was out of the question. That meant, I had to find one to fit my layout and that’s what I was looking for. Found one at a price I could manage. As planned, the layout came apart and was moved. It was also reassembled and reworked for two years, while I designed my Next one. Point is, while it can and has been done, I spent more time looking for a new space for the layout than I did a home for myself. Ot
I guess this post is simply to gain other people’s perspective on the issue of running a train through the same scene twice on two separate tracks. I’ve always believed that the linear approach of having a train transverse a scene one time was the best route. But lately I’ve been staring at my layout and pondering laying the track back through the layout. What keeps attracting me is the idea of doubling my main line length. I’d simply have to go to the end of the line and bring the track back around through the two rooms. The layout would no longer be point to point and I could just let trains run, break in new engines, and have longer distances between towns. Plus, I’m at the point in my construction where this move is still feasible.
The downside is that I use semi-permanent modules for my layout. This enables me to move and rearrange the layout as needed to fit my next home, where ever that may be. So far, the layout has survived two moves this way. Doubling the track would nearly lock me into one layout configuration and cut my options for rearranging to fit a new basement.
Another concern about the “twice through” track is that I’d lose my sincere approach to my scenes. One track through looks so much better. On other hand, I model a mountain area, so two tracks would be at differing levels and not such an eyesore. And, did I mention that I’d double my mainline length through two rooms?
I guess my pondering is leading to this question—which would you find more satisfying; doubling the length of your railroad from 40 to 80 feet or maintaining a realistic linear scene?
Items for consideration: I model an HO free lance short line set in the Ozark Mountains during the 1960-70’s.
I think what I’d try to do (I’ll never know for sure because I’ll never have the space) is double the track back but have them run through different scenes. If you had, for example, a detailed scene on “lower level” then have nothing but mountains above it, etc. You might run the train thru a tunnel on the “upper level”. Also, you could interleave the two tracks horizontially and vertically and thus it might look same like same train, same scene. Just my thoughts.
One of the many trade offs of the hobby. And do you stop at twice through, what about three times through? One of the interesting ideas I have seen is to do this on the middle part of your layout perhaps as a place where the railroad climbs a grade through a back and forth 3 times so as to leave the train heading in the original direction. Both ends are just once through. Allen McClelland’s original V&O did this.
I appreciate your dilemma. Most of us (I think) like to watch our trains run through realistic settings while working towards the goal of modeling a real railroad. With very limited exceptions, that usually means only one trip through a scene. Let’s face it, unless we have a million dollars, a quonset hut and a 150 year life span we won’t have the resources, space or time to model anything more than a tiny representaion of our prototype. For me, the solution comes with a relatively short double track mainline that goes into hidden staging. The staging is 2 yards side-by-side in the same physical location representing the east and west destinations. I my case Cumberland, Md and Parkersburg, WV. This allows for continous running when desired or simulates a junction where trains come through one direction and then after being held in staging, return from the other direction.
From the junction is a freelanced coal branch that serves tipples and loaders and interchanges with the mainline. I think if I had it to do over, I might not have two yards side-by-side but rather use a traverser. Same number of staging tracks without the complexity of two double ended 6 track yards.
Personally, I like the once through a scene approach. But I also like continuous running.
That said there are quite a few ways to justify two tracks. There are ways to achieve visual separation. Sometimes you can run in a tunnel.
For the most part, I think it is easiest to do if you have some vertical separation even if it is 3-4 inches. For instance if you have a yard, a train passing behind the yard on a viaduct doesn’t look out of place.
You can alternate scenes, one on the higher level, the next on the lower level. The train on the lower level can tunnel under the higher level scene and the higher level can bridge across the lower level scene.
During the upper level scene you can move the higher level track to the front if you like.
On a lower level scene, the upper level can run behind buildings or trees.
The point is, you can do it and get away with it if you are creative.
By using overpasses, cross-overs, pass through industries, train length tunnels and woodland areas between the two loops, one can maintain the realism on a double loop (expanded) layout. Even if you move to a new location, (eventually), I would personally not restrict a layout to moveable modules. As several other modelers have suggested, I have mounted entire towns and industries on lift outs, (for track access, detailing, and rearrangement). Many of my wooded areas are mounted on stained tapered ceiling tile ovals or rectangles, to allow one to change the foliage from Summer to Fall coloration of deciduous trees. Your new layout will probably be DCC and follow an entirely new plan, which requires that you start from scratch. When I moved, I ditched the entire large HO layout, except for structures, electric turnouts, and rolling stock. Bob
If you look at the track schematic, my double-garage-filler is designed to be a great big loop. Physically, it’s a (well-) folded dogbone. Visually, it’s a once-through.
The key is that the route back to the other end (used by very few trains, and not in continuous operation if not being used to orbit trains to entertain the mundanes) is completely concealed from the casual observer. It’s there to get trains to the appropriate tunnel portal at the daiya-decreed (fast clock) time, part of the fun of running to a timetable.
In your case, consider that more than one railroad paralleled itself. First they built the ‘cheap’ line, along which people settled, built towns, erected grain elevators, feed mills, building supply yards… Later, as trains got longer and heavier, a second track was put through - with easier and more continuous grades (no humps and hollows), heavier and more permanent bridges, wider curves… The first track couldn’t be abandoned, because that was where all the local industries were and that’s where the passenger platforms had been built. The implications for prototypical operation are obvious.
(If I can figure out how, I intend to have that second track ‘under construction’ along the single-track portion of the visible route. My prototype was double-tracking a lot of main lines in the mid-60s, so why not this one? Putting a TBM in a fascia window has a perverse appeal…)
I am planning a sincere design, but as an N-scaler I can get a reasonable run in my limited 13x13 space. More challenging is I am trying to design such that each 15 car train completely leaves the previous scene before entering the next scene. However, I have considered it and studied some layout photos where doubling back seemed less intrusive.
What worked for me, visually, was:
Seperating scenes so while there may be more then one line, there is only one scene in a given area. So, line A passes through Smithville, line B has little distracting scenery and operation as it passes by in the background. Likewise, as line A leaves Smithville, line B enters Jonestown and dominates the next scene as line A sort of slithers by on its way to its next destination. Having the two lines on different heights so each scene is seprated vertically helps too. I would think a side benefit is the train will have left its line’s previous scene before entering the next one.
Avoiding excessive track over track crossing. I think it starts to look more and more toy like when I see trains passing over trains excessively. I have seen this disguised well on some layouts but on others not so much.
Scenic dividers that help to obscure parallel lines… and for that matter avoiding parallel straight lines…
Avoiding what I consider a somewhat trite scene of the canyon with four different bridges passing over it. I find scenes like that very jarring, but then I find a scene of a peach orchard jarring as well. Never mind… anyway… I would be inclined to hide one line behind the back drop for a moment so you can have a more sincere scene of a single line passing over the canyon in the foreground.
Thats just my 2 cents, I have not seen many layouts outside of publication, so take my opinion with a HUGE grain of salt. I am a huge fan of the connected series of scenes appoach visually, so I have a definite bias. Even my little 3x5 is divided into two visually seperated scenes.
Dragon, I am priviledged to operate on a layout that has one such scene in which it traverses the scene three times! From the back of a peninsula the single track line climbs a large radius curve and continues climbing up the front side of the peninsula from left to right where it enters a spiral tunnel and continues a curving climb to exit the tunnel going right to left above on the same mountainside. At the left end it is still climbing around to the right about 200 degrees to level out at the town/station of Summit (3 tracks and 2 spurs)which is also a train order stop with operating signals. After leaving Summit the track is again single and goes around to cross a really high (7’ to 8’ above the floor - no net!) deck girder bridge across the aisle on the back of the peninsula. The most difficult part of maintaining patience is losing a train in the long spiral tunnel on the right side. But the views of the climbing trains are spectacular! Enjoy! jc5729 John Colley, Port Townsend, WA
dragenrider,I perfer the once through a scene approach that can be obtained on a well designed point to point layout…However,in order to get the maximum run on loop layouts we must comprise and go through a scene twice.However and IF space allows we should double through “open” country instead of a crowed scene…
Of course the use of a dog bone design gives the illusion of 2 different trains while passing through the same scene.
Only question: Do the trains run in CP colors? (Kicking Horse Pass, anyone?)
There’s a prototype situation on the Ali-shan Forestry Railway in Taiwan that resembles a track spiraling around a tiered wedding cake, three full turns with a figure-eight on top - all on a 4% grade. Farther up, there are a couple of switchbacks, the ultimate case of three times through the same scene.
Wow! There is a lot of good feedback on this topic. Thanks! [bow]
I especially like the suggestions of going twice through at different levels and de-emphasizing one level or the other for a each successive scene. Didn’t the original Sunset Valley RR from the 1980’s do that?
I had forgotten all about Allen McClelland’s V&O having twice through’s. The V&O is my “hero” railroad. You know, the one you where you visit and fall to floor worshiping and chanting “I’m not worthy, I’m not worthy”. [:D]
