Going twice through at different levels is a great idea. I like to see trains running along a ledge or mountain ridge.
What about turn arounds so that you’re not running through the scene twice in the same direction… you’re making a return trip on a double track main?
Or was that implied in the question?
Best!
I struggled with this too…And I’m still not sure what the final outcome will be, as I only have the upper level trackwork and the helix done at this point, but I am leaning toward having a one pass / one scene scenario. OTOH, I can (will be able someday) run continually too…
What I have going thus far is a mainline point to point with subdivisions (also point to point, but at differing levels and traveling to different locations) in-between. The mainline point to point has “off pike” staging on both ends and will also have reversing loops.
With this idea I can have continues running with a train coming through a scene in opposite directions. I also plan to incorporate an around the walls loop (separate of the main) on the lower level with tighter radii and only connected to the main at a junction.
Would this be “twice through”? Well…Sort of, but also perhaps not. With lower ballast, different grading, different color ballast…It becomes the peddler, off the mainline. Not exactly a longer run, but a continues loop and a lot of switching possibilities!
In certain situations, it’s possible to distract the eye with other scenic elements. In the picture below, there are four main line runs.
Can you find them all?
Here’s some shots that will provide some more clues…
And here’s the actual track plan, shown before the scenery was installed…
The main comes in at the top of the image, then splits into two subdivisions. These then loop around behind the paper mill, one climbing the grade on the left, and the other crosses the river an follows the bank on the right.
The “clutter” of the paper mill complex, along with the location of the junction, river and the elevated embankment at the rear of the scene help mask the multiple main lines. Also, when the tracks leave this scene in the other direction, they continue around opposite sides of a peninsula, one diving down into staging, and the other continuing on as a point to point, which shares scenes with the main, but at a different elevation.
So you can make it work, it just takes a little “stage set design” and some forethought.
Lee
The acceptability of a train passing through the same general scene, or limited portion of a layout with or wthout there being some sort of modest scene separation, is much the same as with the employing of forced perspective. If the viewer is willing to suspend belief in what his eyes clearly indicate to him to be true, than it will likely pass muster. However, if the modeler is striving for the viewer to accept what he sees as a truly accurate representation of the real world…simply put, either situation is clearly in direct conflict with reality and does not look realistic.
Most newer hobbyists are quite willing to see their trains pass through the same scene more than once (sometimes multiple instances) without feeling any discomfort and that’s fine. However, it is a situation far more rarely seen in layouts created by those longer in the hobby, whose desire today seems increasingly to be modeling reality as closely as they can. Just look at the major layouts featured in the magazines. You don’t often see situations resulting in multiple loops (multiple stacked operating levels, isolated from one another, are something quite different). The majority of such layouts are essentially point-to-point in design and execution.
CNJ831
I think that would be the best option. Run through to the end, make a loop around a mountain or city and come back through on the other track heading the other direction.
One thought that I’ve heard elsewhere is that when you are wrapped up in operating your train you forget the other track is even there. This should be especially true if they are at different heights and the scene only accentuates one track.