I have a fairly large layout space (roughly 40 by 45 feet, though not a direct rectangle) and want to keep my layout along the walls, at least at this point in the planning. I can go most of the way around the room to within about 2-1/2 feet to the other end so it will be point-to-point (actually it will have two hidden loops which connect to additional staging in the other room and allow for occasional continuous running). I suppose I could add a lift-out bridge to span the gap but at this point I'm not really inclined to do that. Perhaps I will change my mind later.
So my question is this: I've been reading several books on model rr ops and several mention operating in one direction as a desirable goal (as opposed to loopty-loops and spaghetti bowls). I'm on board with that idea-- I want my operations to be point-to-point. But I'd also like more space between the ends than I have and I'd prefer not to go to a multideck layout. So I've been pondering the pros and cons of doubling the layout by folding the linear plan one time so that "halfway" through the run it will switch directions (fold back on itself) and go the other way.
My thinking it that there will sort of be a "front line" and a "rear line" (the same linear line but the first half versus the second half) and have them intertwine a little so that towns and such are generally toward the front (for convenience) while the space in between is generally toward the rear. And then to separate them visually either by height or distance from the viewer, tunnels, etc as appropriate. Then to blend the front-view and rear-view scenery so that they are visually compatible while working to maintain idea that these places are separated. Operationally I don't want to double-up on the towns, ie. one "physical town" will never be "town A" for one view and "town B" for the other but if they are somewhat proximate they may blend a little together to be more visually harmonious.
Has anybody ever operated on such a layout? Does it get complicated or feel strange to have that sort of fold, or not? Is this a good idea or a bad idea?
With a 40x45 space, the easiest way to increase the length of your run would be to have a few peninsulas. One peninsula that extends out say, 8 feet, will add around 20 feet of run.
Assuming it's a wide open space, you could design them so that you have cabinet space, work bench, computer desk, etc under them or built into the same area.
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
Yes, but while I would get more space, I also get frowning wife. Not the best tradeoff, generally.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
Fairly large is an understatement. That is a huge amount of space for a non-club layout. I would think that a simple around the wall plan would be enough to keep you busy building it for many years. I speak from experience as I have been building an around the walls layout (46X26) for about 5 years and am at least two years away from completion. I think you are going to find that building a layout that size is going to take you much longer than you think. That was the case with me.
Yes, you could get additional mainline by doubling the main line back on itself but I think by doing that you will lose one of the advantages of an around the room layout. In these plans, a train will pass through the same scene only once which with very rare exceptions is the way it is with prototype railroads. My previous layout double backed on itself for much of the way and I just didn't like the effect. My current layout is a very simple, linear, doubletracked mainline and I find it much more realistic. Your layout room is almost double the size of mine and I would be more than happy with a mainline that traveled from one end to the other on a direct route.
Spacemouse:
Yes, that's what I was meaning in my original post-- sorry if I didn't communicate that well. I agree that there needs to be some separation, however, there will also be undeniable physical proximity so that's the reason for the question.
Yes, that's sort of my concern. I would like to have the extra trackage but not at the expense of muddying it up too much or making it confusing. I really dont want to do a multideck. I don't like the look of them (though I wouldn't mind from a pure operational point of view, this layout has to fit aesthetically and functionally into a "family room" space), so I'm taking space from the "top of the [computer] monitors and above", around the walls.
The short answer to your orginal question as posted is YES.
I have built one room size layout that had a twice around the room main line and I was able to separate the scenes as you are talking about. And my new layout is being built the same way.
Also, where the two lines come into the one end, you can have one big yard and engine terminal. I know that you said you didn't want to do that, but the yard tracks could be separated and labeled in your ops plan as two different yards, but use the same engine facilities. The industries could also be labeled for each "end" of the line as well. I think that you would get more operations that way. The basic plan would turn in to an 'out and back' run.
One way that you could provide some difference between the two lines on the same shelf would be to use different code rail. I would use code 100 track for one and code 70 track for the other. That way there is a noticeable visual difference. I would also scenic the code 100 as a heavy main line that is well kept up. The code 70 line I would scenic as a branch line that may be run down a little. Then at the places where you would see both together, they won't appear as the same RR line. The place where each line would enter the yard would be different, as to make it appear that the branch line departed from its own area.
EDIT: I would also make one line higher than the other. At least high enough that one could pass under the other. That would double you scenic possibilities.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
These two John Armstrong track planning books are idea-instigators...
[1] 20 Custom Designed Track Plans (1994)
http://index.mrmag.com/tm.exe?opt=I&MAG=BOOK&MO=3&YR=1994&output=5
[2] 18 Tailor-Made Model Railroad Track Plans (1983)
http://index.mrmag.com/tm.exe?opt=I&MAG=BOOK&MO=5&YR=1983&output=5
Note the size of the trackplans compared to the room size you have to work with...
Since John Armstrong wrote, Track Planning for Realistic Operation, these two books give you an idea of what can be done when John Armstrong follows John Armstrong's advice.
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
"Once through a scene" is really the best way to go. No matter how you try to split a scene into two scenes it will still look strange if the same train comes through that scene again.
Based upon the space you have, you will have at least 160 feet of mainline (40' x 4). That equates to 13920 scale feet of mainline (160 x 12 x 7.25) or 2.6 scale miles (13920/5280).
If you operate at scale speed of 30 MPH (includes reduced speeds through towns, etc), it will take over 5 minutes for a train to get from one end of a layout to another without stopping. Five minutes does not sound like a long time but watch a clock for 5 minutes and you may think differently.
Then if you throw in realistic operations such as switching in towns along the way or stopping at passenger stations, it could take the train an hour to get from one end of a layout to another.
Bottom line: You have lots and lots of space, I would not try to complicate it.
Good luck,-John
Edit: Elmer (above) does have a valid point. You can have two different sets of trackage through the same general space. One track is a mainline and the other is a branch line. That is the way my layout is designed. The mainline is in the rear and higher elevations (in the distance) and the branch line is in the foreground and is where all the local switching takes place.
The difference is that these are two SEPARATE tracks and functions. You would not have the same train running on these two tracks. There would be an interchange somewhere along the way.
Depending on the era and locale you're modeling, you could have the two lines be competing railroads serving the same geography. The Reid Bros' Cumberland Valley System accomplishes that with a great deal of success.
If you want an operations oriented layout, you could include and interchange between the two lines, and as has been suggested, a joint yard and engine terminal. Focus your switching on one line, and just let the other be there as an operating part of the scenery.
If you are looking for more of a railfanning design, you could do something like the Potomac River valley, where the B&O and Western Maryland dodge one another as they vye for space over around and through the mountains. Not much on-line work, but lots of opportunity for scenery and hi-balling freights, and passengers on the B&O side.
I like the mainline/branch line concept also. If you design the main line as a folded dogbone, much of the run will have the appearance of a double track line, then include a live interchange for the branch, which could either be part of the primary railroad, or a short line that feeds traffic to the main. A junction with a small engine house and yard would be a great focal point, and the branch line can support all or most of your industrial trackage. Setting the main up to allow for continuous running will add interest, as you can turn a mainline train loose to run laps while you scratch your switching itch on the branch line.
To have the scenery make sense, you could represent that the branch line is the original alignment of the railroad, hence lighter bridges, stonework for piers and portals, tighter curves etc., and the main is a "new line" built later (poured concrete, more modern structures etc.) to bypass the congestion of the towns switched by the branch. To add more interest, you could have the branch end at a washed out bridge, which would tell the story of why the main was re-routed.
You could also include a switch that could be thrown for open house running that allows a train to run continuously via the branch line, which wouldn't ordinarily happen during your ops sessions, but would add interest when folks are just standing around with cocktails in their hands. It could be disguised as a little used siding, or a segment of abandoned track.
I would also second the motion for a peninsula, and just tell the wife unit about all the wonderful storage space that will be created underneath!
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Hmm-- you must have been looking over my shoulder lately as I've been mulling over the various areas-- have been interested in perhaps doing PRR's Port Road, which would include a competitor-- the B&O had trackage along the same corridor and at a different height. I like that route because it was all electrified and would allow me to run a lot of GG1's and E44's (well, E33's for now that I'm pretending are E44's :) and of course other early diesels. The line was largely single-tracked (with lots of generous sidings) and ran a lot of freight and some passenger. Almost the perfect setup for me given my druthers.
Another scenario I've been considering is the York-Hanover-Frederick branch of the PRR, which interestingly enough WAS abandoned in 1972 when hurricane Agnes wiped out the bridge across the Monacy River. It interchanged with WM (and probably B&O and RF&P too but I haven't figured out exactly where yet-- does anybody know?)
Finally, my third alternative is a freelance-based-on-a-prototype which would feature a short line owned or controlled by the PRR and interchanging with PRR, WM, N&W and RF&P. Which I know wouldn't be entirely prototypical, but it would suit a lot of my desires, and might somewhat suggest portions of the Cumberland Valley RR. The drawback is that it will be harder to run my electrics, though I suppose the idea of the short line in front and mainline in rear could work as PRR electrified main...
I have personally not yet ruled out the idea of a penninsula but am confident that if I attempt it I will have to do some serious honey-dos and put in a lot of face-time to make up for it... not saying it would be all that bad really... but she would get to say "I thought that was going to be MY space" in perpetuity-- not sure if I'm ready to mess with the ever-after yet. :)
I really like your ideas-- they are giving me a lot to consider and are already right inline with what I'm wanting to do. I'd still like to have more running room, mainly so I could do something like you suggest-- had not really considered making it two railroads-- that's a nice suggestion.
Thanks
- Harry
A few minor corrections:
The PRR Port Road runs down the Susquehanna between Columbia, PA (below Harrisburg) and Perryville, MD on the Northeast Corridor. The B&O "Royal Blue Line" crosses the Susquehanna, and parallells the NEC, not the Port Road. There was an interchange at Perryville between the B&O and the Port, but they are not parallel at all. There is an old PRR branch (The Octaroro Branch) that peels off of the Port Road above Port Deposit, but it is long abandoned. This did (more or less) parallel the Beano, but at quite a distance.
The York-Hanover-Frederick line is very familiar to me. It was called the PRR's Frederick Secondary, and actually carried quite a bit of traffic back in the day, including passenger trains. It ended at Frederick with a connection to the B&O's Monocacy branch, not far from where the present day commuter station is on the south side of I-70. After the washout, service ended at Walkersville MD, a few miles north and east of Frederick. There was no connection to the RF&P, which ran from Washington DC to Richmond via Fredericksburg, VA, about 100 miles from Frederick, Maryland. Again, no parallel route, but it did interchange with the Western Maryland at Keymar, Maryland, Hanover, PA, and York, where it joins the Northern Central main stem. The last few miles in York are very interesting, still a significant manufacturing area where the track was shared by the PRR and WM. It's all operated by York Rail, now. There is no longer track between Hanover and Taneytown, MD, and the south end (Taneytown to Keymar) was operated by the Maryland Midland last time I looked. I believe there is another small operation that operates Keymar to Walkersville.
There's some neat scenery along this route, including a couple of nice steel trestles, like this one near Keymar.
The WM interchange at Keymar would also make a very interesting operating point. Back in the day there was a two level passenger station there (The PRR passes under the WM) and there were long sidings on each line where cars would be spotted by each for pick up by the other. This is near the huge Lehigh Cement Plant in Union Bridge, which both lines served.
Here's a map of the junction. You can follow the WM from left to right, and the Frederick Secondary from top to bottom.
If you want to model an area that offers interchanges with all of the roads you're looking for, (except again the RF&P) consider Hagerstown. That's going to be the focal point of my layout, with traffic from the Penn Central, N&W, Reading, B&O and WM. You could always freelance in some RF&P traffic...
Hope I haven't bored you to death!
Nope, not bored at all-- in fact, that's exactly the type of info I'm looking for. I love the details!