dknelsonMy layout is double tracked because my prototype was double track<snip>. Passing sidings were few and far between because they just were not needed.
Many double tracked lines had passing tracks in order to sort trains in the same direction. The passing siding allows the drag freight doing 25 mph to get out of the way of the passenger train doing 80 mph, without crossing over to the wrong main. On single track sidings are for meets (trains in opposite directions), on double track sidings are for passes (trains in the same direction). However your prototype may not have had a need for the sidings.
dknelsonIf I was to do the same track plan in single track then of course I'd want passing sidings but ironically that would actually decrease some local switching opportunities because right now industrial spurs come off both main lines, but you don't really want an industrial spur coming off a passing track.
Why? That happens all the time on real railroads.
Plus on double track it was common to have center sidings, which can be used in either direction.
dknelsonBecause there was a fair amount of high speed passenger train activity that I want to replicate, but also mainline freight and lots of local switching, that is another reason why single track with passing sidings would not really work well for me.
If you have a lot of switching, don't have industries off sidings then that pretty much forces you to run wrong main to get around the switchers.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Geoff, thanks for your follow up on the particulars of your layout. Looking forward to the additional details that you plan to discuss this weekend.
Rich
Alton Junction
Thank you maxman, for the timeout call. I REALLY DO appreciate all of the considerations and constructive advice and have taken notes on everyone's suggestions. I am preoccupied at the moment but will respond over the weekend with some additional details for those that asked. i.e. - not an operations person; a DCC guy; previous experience with reverse loops; mostly 40' rolling stock - only two 4 car passenger trains at 85'; ditto 4 axle vs 6; automation motivated - TC software control, etc. Thanks again everyone. Geoff
I thought this thread was about single vs double track main lines.
Why must you characters drag in all the non-related stuff?
For the Walthers cars that have issues on 32-inch curves, what was done to fix the issue? Was it due to how closely they were coupled or was it an issue with trucks and the underbodies?
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
riogrande5761 John-NYBW It's ridiculous that a customer should be expected to fix something that is right out of the box. If it needs fixing, it's a piece of junk. Better to not buy the junk to begin with. While that may be true, if you want to build a passenger train of a certain type and can't afford brass, then you either buy and fix the cars or go without. I can't afford brass, or much of it, so i"ll be using the Walthers cars rather than go without.
John-NYBW It's ridiculous that a customer should be expected to fix something that is right out of the box. If it needs fixing, it's a piece of junk. Better to not buy the junk to begin with.
It's ridiculous that a customer should be expected to fix something that is right out of the box. If it needs fixing, it's a piece of junk. Better to not buy the junk to begin with.
While that may be true, if you want to build a passenger train of a certain type and can't afford brass, then you either buy and fix the cars or go without. I can't afford brass, or much of it, so i"ll be using the Walthers cars rather than go without.
OK, sorry, I only meant to follow up on riogrande's question and your initial response to it.
richhotrain John, you have indicated that Walthers is the culprit in several threads. Rich
John, you have indicated that Walthers is the culprit in several threads.
My comments weren't even directed at the faulty cars. I was speaking of the flaws in the design of my reverse loops. I didn't even mention the quality of the cars involved.
richhotrain John, I totally agree with you. It is ridiculous. But, speaking for myself, I bought a lot of these cars as NOS after their production was discontinued by Walthers. So, the only answer for me was to fix the flaws or do without the cars. And, apparently, that was the most viable option for many other forum members as well as the discussion several threads has proven. The one comment that you made that I take issue with is that the Walthers passenger cars only perform flawlessly on radius curves of 34" or greater. In my experience, these cars perform flawlessly on 30" and 32" radius curves as well. Rich
John, I totally agree with you. It is ridiculous. But, speaking for myself, I bought a lot of these cars as NOS after their production was discontinued by Walthers. So, the only answer for me was to fix the flaws or do without the cars. And, apparently, that was the most viable option for many other forum members as well as the discussion several threads has proven.
The one comment that you made that I take issue with is that the Walthers passenger cars only perform flawlessly on radius curves of 34" or greater. In my experience, these cars perform flawlessly on 30" and 32" radius curves as well.
It speaks volumes that you immediately knew I was speaking about Walthers passenger cars when I didn't even mention the brand in my reply to the OP.
I tried designing a double-track mainline, but eventually went with single track for space reasons. In the end, I realized I really got more out of the single-track layout, railroading-wise. Passing sidings became important, not just decorative, and I was able to design a plan with two opposing reverse loops so I could easily reverse trains in either direction. Yes, I could run two trains going in opposite directions, passing each other every time around. I could do that for a half hour or so before I got tired of throwing turnouts.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
richhotrain We have been down this road before. There is no question that Walthers passenger cars often exhibit issues out of the box. But these issues are fixable and have been well documented in other threads. I have 43 of the Walthers full size passenger cars on my layout, and all perform flawlessly on my 30" and 32" radius curves. Some of these cars required adjustments and modifications to perform flawlessly, but I have never had a car that could not be fixed. Rich
We have been down this road before. There is no question that Walthers passenger cars often exhibit issues out of the box. But these issues are fixable and have been well documented in other threads. I have 43 of the Walthers full size passenger cars on my layout, and all perform flawlessly on my 30" and 32" radius curves. Some of these cars required adjustments and modifications to perform flawlessly, but I have never had a car that could not be fixed.
To the OP's question, I would go double track. But it sound like maybe the OP actually has a space 12 x 24? If so, I would go around the perimeter of that space, and view the layout from inside the loop, using a duck under or lift out, again with double track.
As for passenger cars, I have an idea, if you don't have room for large enough curves, don't run 85' cars. My new layout will have all 36" radius and above(mostly above) and I still prefer the more graceful look of shorter passenger cars nicely close coupled.
So back to the layout idea, if we must run long cars on sharp curves, they look better viewed from inside the curve.....
Sheldon
riogrande5761 So John, those passenger cars that could not handle 32" curves, what was the minimum they could handle?
So John, those passenger cars that could not handle 32" curves, what was the minimum they could handle?
They did better on 34" radius but 36" was better. The problem with a loop is that the outer loop will have the tightest radius at the throat. That is where many of the derailments seem to occur. I probably should have lengthened the loop but I needed it to stop two feet short of the wall to have access to the house electrical panel. One of the options I am looking at is to see if I can take the loop all the way to the wall with an angled bench and see if that allows enough room for access to the panel. I have to work out the geometry on paper to see if that will work.
My layout is an around the walls, double track dogbone that fills a 46' X 26' rectangular basement. The end loops are triple tracked staging yards with each track in the loops able to hold several trains. If you want your trains to run back and forth without having to turn the trains the hard way, a dogbone is the way to go. You will need a reversing section at each end. Make sure your loops have a large enough radius to handle your longest equipment. I made my inner loops with just a 32" radius and I'm finding that some of my full length passenger cars won't negotiate that. If I had it to do over again, I would make the inner loops 36". I might actually be doing them over again. I stacked the loops in one corner to save space but didn't create enough vertical separation to have easy access to the lower loop. Combined with the too frequent derailments with the longer passenger cars, it is a nightmare. I have finally had enough and am considering several options to rebuild one or both loops.
Hello All,
mrnimble...dogbone footprint with 4' x 8' islands, or bumps, at both ends and a 16' x 20" deep shelf along a wall connecting the two.
How you place the 4'x8' islands (wings) relative to the 16'x20" shelf makes a difference.
Without clarification I see many possible footprints:
No matter which edge of the 4'x8' islands you butt up to the shelf, the shelf itself is deep enough (1'8") to run four (4) parallel tracks; two (2) in each direction, with crossovers and sidings, is possible.
Now, how you use the space on the wings for track is a different subject.
An outline of your footprint would help.
Hope this helps.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
My original layout was single tracked with passing sidings and was operations based. The present layout is much simpler and has a double track mainline around the walls shelf style. Great for just running and relaxing. You can't beat 2 trains passing each other in opposite directions. I model the NY Central so a double track mainline is prototypical, more or less depending on the location.
My layout is double tracked because my prototype was double track (and strictly current of traffic so one track was west bound the other east bound, rarely, practically never, would a train operate against the current of traffic). Passing sidings were few and far between because they just were not needed. If I was to do the same track plan in single track then of course I'd want passing sidings but ironically that would actually decrease some local switching opportunities because right now industrial spurs come off both main lines, but you don't really want an industrial spur coming off a passing track. So my lineside industries would be crammed in where the passing sidings ain't, which would change the look and feel of the layout way too much for my taste.
In that sense I am not so sure double track mains are as much of a space waste as some might suspect. They open up more freedom for location of rail served business along the main.
Because there was a fair amount of high speed passenger train activity that I want to replicate, but also mainline freight and lots of local switching, that is another reason why single track with passing sidings would not really work well for me.
Even if I was not following the prototype's track plan, the types of trains and their frequency I want, and the importance to me of local switching versus arranging the intricacy of meets and passes, all mean double track makes sense for me. Having said that I had the room so my curves are 42" and 40" radius so I can maintain the 2" spacing of the tangents. If the curves were really tight maybe I'd think differently, or run the layout differently.
Dave Nelson
I'm a fan of double main lines, but agree with stix and rich, the radius of the inner track on the 4x8 sections would be a controlling factor as to types of locos, and passanger cars, that could be run.
Well the layout I'm building is sorta-kinda like what you're describing. It's primarily built on 16" wide shelfs, but widens out at each end to form 'blobs' to allow the track to bend back on itself for continous running. However in my case, I was able to add the 4' to the 16" so was able to use 28" radius for the curves. If you only have the 4', 22"R is the biggest you can do - which could restrict you from some passenger cars and engines that need larger curves.
My layout is a dogbone, so the part just on the shelves has the track right next to each other simulating a double-track mainline. At each "blob", I worked in a couple of mainline turnouts so that each blob can work as a reverse loop. I don't think the double-track section takes up too much space, but it's pretty much just running through scenery, the layout structures are in the blobs.
What era and type of railroad? With your situation I would go single and double on some of the connecting shelf, maybe with a vering off or two for the look of a single, but then I model the 1930's. If you model modern, you proubly should do double for most of the mainline.
Two of my layouts have been double tracked, Two were single, and One was just a switching layout. The next will be double tracked.
Like everything else, I just don't have a real solid opinion. I think single track looks better in photographs, but I like to watch trains on double tracks.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Over the past 18+ years, I have built 4 different layouts, all with double mainlines. Since double mainlines with crossovers can be constructed with parallel mainlines with 2” on-center alignments, that second mainline takes up very little space, leaving plenty of room for structures and scenery even on a 20” width of subroadbed.
You indicate that the two end loops of the proposed layout will be set on 4’ x 8’ subroadbed. The one issue that I see with these dimensions is that the curves will be limited to 22” radius after leaving a 2” clearance on each side of the curves. While 22” radius curves can handle short wheelbase steam engines and 4-axle diesels fairly well, if you could add one foot to that 4’ width, the resulting 60” width would accommodate 28” radius curves, sufficient to run longer wheelbase steam engines and 6-axle diesels.
Will your layout be DC or DCC? If it will be DCC, you can use auto-reversers to control the end loops so that the 16’ straight portion of double mainline can be wired the same way despite the fact that crossovers will be used.
I went a step further on my current layout by using crossovers and double slips to maintain the double mainline all around the entire layout. That way, the outer mainline always runs trains in one direction and the inner mainline always runs trains in the opposite direct. In effect, that straight portion of track between the two end loops gives an appearance of a 4-track mainline, but with the ability to change tracks and direction at the same time. This configuration easily fits on a 20” wide section of subroadbed. In fact, there would still be room for a passing siding or two.
i made my layout [16' x 20'] a double line ... it was nice to set locos out and just railfan ... no worries about them hitting each other if all the turnouts were set correctly ..
ARe you looking at a double track loop, two tracks that go all the way around, or are you looking at a dogbone, a loop where the middle has the two tracks right next to each other between the ends.
Major difference in complexity. With the true double track loop you can run trains in both directions and they can crossover between the two mains anywhere they want.
With the dogbone, all the trains orbit in the same direction, but in the middle it looks like they are going in both directions. If you cross trains over in the "double track portion", that has to be treated as a reversing section and has to have reversing switches (DC) or an auto reverser (DCC).