Single or double track simply depends on what you like. It a matter of personal (or group) preferences, nothing more.
More isn't written about ops because it doesn't generate that much interest. Joe Fugate talks about this periodically over on the online magazine he produces. Operations articles fall near the bottom of the interest stack. Too bad, because personally one of my favorite MR articles of all time is "The Brakeman on the Yellow Extra" by Bruce Chubb, way back in the 1970's or early 80's. It triggered my interest in operations.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
the march NMRA magazine describes operation on the North Delaware RR club layout. the RR was designed with a double track mainline, but closes off one mainline track to do TT&TO ops which the article say doesn't make sense on a 2 track mainline.
this seems obvious after reading it and i'm surprised i haven't noticed this before.
i'm sure this is obvious to many. perhaps to some, they designed a single track RR with sidings and found TT&TO operations to just work. again, i think explaining the relatioinships between variations in ops and layout design would be helpful.
the NMRA article makes it clear that the RR wasn't designed with TT&TO in mind and why they did what they did to support it. i believe it's probably more educational to see examples of layout design that hinder certain types of ops rather than show layouts designed for specific ops.
in other words discuss features (e.g. 2 track mainline) that hinder a certain type of ops as well as enhance it
it's always been a mystery why Tony Koester rebuilt his layout because he wanted to do TT&TO. now i'm starting to see why.
the article also made a point about having passenger train service which i believe helps make TT&TO more challenging, entertaining (a la Ellison) and realistic
i wonder why more isn't written about operation,
there's a lot to explain
assume there are variations of TT&TO
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading