Point-to-point vs continuous loop

[Anonymous]

Are there any opinions on point-to-point versus continuous loop layouts?

[Anonymous]

That depends on what kind of model railroading interests you. If you like to watch trains roll and roll and roll through your nice scenery, of course you may lean towward something continuous. If you like a prototypical ending terminal situation, with lots of realistic switching, go for point to point. That's the beauty of the hobby. You're the boss! If you use end loops, and wire in DC and not DCC, you'll have to do some reverse loop wiring and toggle flipping, too. You probably know that, Ralph. Anyway, it's all a matter of your personal railroadin' style. Just have fun!

[bruce22]

continuous running is best if you have non railroader visitors or children visiting. Some plans give u the option of both. Personally I like the ability to run a train cont. as well as work the yard or local as well.

[CP5415]

You could do something really different & have both!
I have planned two identical staging yards to tack onto my existing 9x12 continuous loop.
They're going to be built into a bookshelf with switches coming off the same section of mainline within 5 feet of each other.
This way I have my continuoous loop with point to point operations.

Gordon

[Javern]

I like to have a double track continuous with lots of switching in the middle, i let one train run the loop and play with the other, etc

[Jetrock]

I like shelf layouts, so point-to-point is my personal preference. Eventually my layout might make it all the way around the room, but I'm in no hurry to get there.

[orsonroy]

Go with both or a loop. Unless you're a gung-ho operations type AND have a long mainline (3 or more scale miles), you'll get bored going back & forth on a short stretch of track. Having the option of a continuous loop allows you to run the layout when no one else is around, and watching a train go around in circles is a great stress reliever after a long day's work.

I'm amazed by the modelers who go through the time, expense and effort to build a gigantic layout, who then only have it powered up for operating sessions, and who then don't even run trains on their own layouts! What's the point?

[Anonymous]

That proverbial nemesis: "if you have enough room!" There are more challenges (operational) with a very long "point to point" mainline. There is more running "freedom" with a "roundy-roundy." I like "timetable passenger operations" plus way freight "tight schedules." This enables "hot shot" or "express" runs from locations along the mainline while heeding the constraints of a time table between "priority" runs. Both P. to P. and continuous offers maximum fun in my opinion. I'm not a NASCAR or Indy fan, so "continuous" without "operation" would soon become boring for yours truly. It is all a matter of personal preference, so make yourself happy.

[West Coast S]

I'm partial to the point-to point, branchline operation after, all how many SP branchlines went in a loop?

[dehusman]

It is normally easy to put in some sort of continuous running connection into a point to point layout. I would recommend trying to include one, just to watch the trains go by.

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bruce22

Personally I like the ability to run a train cont. as well as work the yard or local as well.

I really agree. I think that it's nice to have some continuous running (less people taken to operate, and more fun to relax and watch without working), but also a few switching yards add more visual interest and allow for some escape from "THE LOOP" that most of us got into model railroads with. Having both keeps you from getting bored with either one. Additionally, I might add, I always feel nervous about crashing the trains in the yard (sort of a phobia [:(], even thought it is unlikely to be happening frequently) so the continuous loop relieves that. If you have visitors unfamiliar with the complexities of running a yard, not only would it make me more nervous, but it wouldn't be fun for them, so you should have some continuous running. I currently don't have a layout, but I am planning one, which may never get as far as I want to complete the continuous running, and limit the yard space. So I hit upon the idea of having a short turn-back just after the storage yard, which would be after the switching yard. In the end your preference is really what it comes down to... Good luck on your railroad. [:)]

[Anonymous]

Both would be the best. I have a 9x16 N Scale layout with a double track mainline. It has five towns along the line with two sepaerate short runs to dead end lines. If I'm in the mood to just watch trains I can set up two mainline trains and let them run. My personal preference is point to point with lots of switching. I recently purchased a computer software program called "Shipit". this program prefers point to point to run properly. Just as bruce22 & thefox have stated, it is your own preference that counts but relax and just enjoy no matter what you choose.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I model "Rock Mountain Railroad" N Scale

[kevgos]

So many people on here say how "unrealistic a continuous loop is" - I beg to differ; there was in MR (don't remember which issue offhand anymore) an article on what I remember was a BN themed layout, and basically it made the point that to look at the route maps of any major carrier, there will be many "loops" (or what could be construed as loops) in its trackplan. Granted, on my CP layout a loop isn't practical (you can't just turn a corner in Vancouver and end up back in Montreal or Toronto), but those are the cases where a point to point really IS necessary for prototypical ops (if that's what you want). In any case, do things YOUR way - that's what our hobby is really all about.

[Anonymous]

I run both, when our club meets at my layout, we run strictly point to point. I have 3 turn tables, one at each end of my mainline for locomotive turn around and to turn combination cars for their return trip across the layout, and one at the end of my branchline to turn locomotives that run unit coal trains. During the Lone star regional convention last year my layout was on the tour and it was convienent to let a couple of trains run continuously while I visited with guest. My two end points are tied together with a partially hidden mainline. Since I run all steam, the turn tables are a necessity.
Jerry Turner Operator of the standard gauge Florence and Cripple Creek Ralroad. Check out the web site, florenceandcripplecreek.com

[pwoody]

Hey Ralph, seems like you need to have both. I build the first stage of my new layout with continuous run through staging yards. That way I can hold one train in the yards but bring out another, giving the illusion of time passing before I bring back the first train. It's also really handy when the grandson - or visitors - want to run a train. Just let 'em run 'em 'round.
It also means that I have something finished at this stage while I continue with the next stages of my layout - which will be the point end of loop to point.
Have fun - it is a hobby. Whatever you want to do is your decision and your choice!

[Jetrock]

I've got twelve feet of shelf, one foot deep--no way to put a loop in that. And somehow it manages to stay fun even though I have only twelve feet of mainline. It's long enough where I can put my head down at track level and watch the train go by, then hit the brakes and do some switching.

[Anonymous]

You can have the best of both worlds even in the simplest of layouts - an oval with 2 spurs on opposite sides, and a diagonal divider, as shown in several suggested designs in MR track plan supplements. You would be surprised at the switching opportunities possible with just 1 loco, 6 cars and a caboose. , and a few simple rules. The oval is used to simulate time and distance between spurs A & B, and to run round your train to switch the spur. Trains must move clockwise from A to B, and anticlockwise from B to A. At the start and end of your operating session, the oval on one end, at the divider, becomes an interchange. If you do this on both sides of the divider - hey presto ! you have a bridging railroad. To simulate a more realistic operation, your main run could be a folded dogbone ., with a reversing loop added at one end, and a wye at the other, both inside the dogbone. The ends can then be used as passing / run round loops. If you run both sides of the dogbone close together- abracadabra ! you have a double main line. OK, this is all fairly simple stuff, but you will be surprised at the complexity of the switching moves that become possible, with just a few spurs.

[scole100]

I have the best of both worlds. A point to point with a hidden return loop that goes through the staging area. This way it can be operated like a point to point. Still I can show it off to my non-train freinds by letting a train loop along the track.

[FJ and G]

Jetrock writes: "I've got twelve feet of shelf, one foot deep--no way to put a loop in that. And somehow it manages to stay fun even though I have only twelve feet of mainline. It's long enough where I can put my head down at track level and watch the train go by, then hit the brakes and do some switching."

----------

Beg to differ. I'm in same boat (25' long shelf) and am designing some portable, easy-to-take down turnaround loops, mounted on PVC frame that can be folded up so they don't block the hallway.

[Anonymous]

Actually, I just combined an older continuous loop with a separate yard. The loop has a reverse cut-off, so I can run from the yard, run continuously as long as I want, the take the reverse cut-off and return (eventually) to the yard. And the yard can be worked separately while the train is running the main "loop".

Good luck with your plan!

[Anonymous]

kevgos, I would be interested in prototype "route maps" that show evidence of a circle, oval, dog bone or anything else excpet a "Y" or turntables for reversing train direction. New York City's Grand Central Terminal is one of the rare exceptions I am aware of that actually has a "U" shape reversing curve [not a "continous loop")] which extends under Manhattan Burrough. I'm always excited over learning something new. Best regards.

[JimValle]

As some of the guys in the previous replys have said, It's probably best to have both point-to-point and a connector track between the end yards for continuous running. Without continuous running capability your engines never really warm up and get broken in, After too much point-to-point engines become stiff and balky, making operation a chore. Continuous running works in the lubrication and smooths out the gear teeth.

[nobullchitbids]

Prototype ovals? Biggest I know of is on the U.P.: Ogden almost to Green River; Green River to north of Montpelier; Montpelier back to Ogden (via Utah). The smallest was a freight-transfer railroad located in Manhattan, literally an oval running from a dock to a freight warehouse, with no interchange connections and curves sharp enough to put Tyco to shame. Unfortunately, I have forgotten the name but seem to recall it was mentioned in Droege, Freight Terminals and Trains (1916).

The U.P. oval covers a huge amount of territory. The nice thing about it is that there are major terminals spliced into each "corner" of the oval, so one can have his druthers whether to run point-to-point or continually.

[Anonymous]

I have a continuous loop and point to point where my yards are placed

[Anonymous]

Yes to all the above. Get experience operating as many other layouts as possible, and figure out what ideas press your buttons. My 18' by 14' double-deck has both options, utilising a double-ended partially-visible staging yard and a helix connecting this yard up to the top level "end-of-line" with respect to a point-to point theme, but the theory has both ends continuing on to other places. In hindsight, double-tracking would allow more action for solo operation, but could be dangerous with DCC...
Heef

[kevgos]

I don't know personally whether these loops are actually RUN as being such (logic would dictate yes, however, logic doesn't always prevail), but they nonetheless abound - http://www.bnsf.com/about_bnsf/html/division_maps.html is the BNSF routemap with a plethora of ovals, and UP offers mre of the same at http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/maps/sysmap/index.shtml - just 2 examples.

[Anonymous]

kevgos yes, it is true: "what goes up must go down," as well as "what goes East must go West." There surely is a marked difference between a "circle" of many miles (prototype) compared with a few feet on a model Pike, isn't there? Thanks for posting the maps, they are "keepers." Best regards.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevgos

So many people on here say how "unrealistic a continuous loop is" - I beg to differ; there was in MR (don't remember which issue offhand anymore) an article on what I remember was a BN themed layout, and basically it made the point that to look at the route maps of any major carrier, there will be many "loops" (or what could be construed as loops) in its trackplan. Granted, on my CP layout a loop isn't practical (you can't just turn a corner in Vancouver and end up back in Montreal or Toronto), but those are the cases where a point to point really IS necessary for prototypical ops (if that's what you want). In any case, do things YOUR way - that's what our hobby is really all about.

I've been on the VIA Rail train as it pulls into Vancouver. Actually, it pushes into Vancouver. There is not end loop, so they have to back into the station so the train is turned around ready to head back to Toronto. It seems to me that it takes up a lot of space to turn the train around, and freight trains are even longer.

I understand you want to be prototypical, but why can't you just pretend that the train that left Vancouver and is pulling into Montreal is a completely different train (e.g. it was coming from Hallifax)?

[Anonymous]

jdbuss, you are right that it takes a lot of space to turn a train around on a wye. In fact, few layouts can afford such an expanse of area. I [like many others] use a turntable to overcome this conundrum. The "head-in cars" and steam must trundle to the turntable (reverse), then return to the consist (passenger) and "lash-up" front (loco, baggage, r.p.o., etc.) and rear (obs. car) Instead of using the road engine for "shifting" chores, I park that loco on a siding next to the turntable while a "yard goat " does the 'shifting' of cars to and from the consist. You bet, it is time consuming! However, this makes for some pretty interesting yard work. Lots of fun if you have another "through train" looming in the distance. Wow, does all that action impress guests, or what? Best of luck.

[mrunyan]

I'm glad to see some say "look at the prototype" to see what it should be. I'm doing the EJ&E which is P to P. Since it is multiple decks, continuous is tricky but I can add a lift out section at one end to loop back across an aisle for continuous runnning or for reseting after operations. The other end has a balloon track. Have fun planning and building. Sketch it both ways and see what works best for your want list.