Here is the best quote that I have read about track design: "I wish I had done continuous run with staging."
I can't think of anything that sums it up better. Good examples of this are David Barrow's Cat Mountain & Santa Fe, and Eric Brooman's Utah Belt.
A long time ago I tried point to point with hidden staging and it wasn't any fun. Soon I blasted a hole through a mountain and made a continual loop. It wasn't until the next version of my layout I changed the hidden staging into scenic and fixed it so it was self staging instead of having to back a train into a tunnel so it can come out later.
I have to agree. We're simulating PTP, we don't have to force ourselves to emulate it by design. There's nothing wrong with going in circles sometimes. I let the standard gauge (continuous run with staging) roll when working or operating on the narrowgauge (point to loop). So I have both, but if I only had one it would be continuous run with staging.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
I am sure this topic will get a few dissenting views . I agree tho. I changed to a continous loop, about 4 scale miles and it takes quite a while to traverse the whole route. The loop is nice when non railroad people are over, and those types usually just want to see a train. I often run it as a point to point. When I was testing my wireing for DCC it was nice to let the trains just run, and see where the problems are and also to test the endurance of the whole system etc.
Mike
Modeling something, not sure what, but it involves F units.
Agree. Due to space limitations, my current layout is pure PTP, but I miss having that ability when I need it. Thinking of a slight redesign.
One of my favorite layouts, years ago, was a classic twice around, but using hidden staging to connect the two main towns. One thing I did was place a bypass on the inner, lower loop so I could send trains round it while I focused on switching at one town or the other.
jim
I also have a branch line which is strictly point to point because it's a dead end. The locomotives have to do a run around move at the end to switch directions. But once back onto the main, it's back in the loop. Plus I operate the loop like it is PTP. Every time a train pulls into the staging yard it is at the end point, but instead of turning around it becomes a new train with refreshed car card waybills ready to go on another run.
I do think point to point has it's place: Layouts that are too narrow because of space restrictions, Also layouts that are really really big so that the points are a considerable distance apart such as a large club layout, And switching puzzle layouts where the emphasis is on local switching.
I am inclined to agree with y'all that if you have the space, a continuous run with staging is the best idea. Having said that, I'm in the process of building yer another PTP with staging, simply because I want the trainroom (basement) to be open, and I want nothing to do with another duck under. Of course, if I build this correctly, I could have this connection on casters that links the staging on either end....
My JNR mainline is a continuous loop - but the only times something simply runs orbits is when entertaining mundane visitors or running in a unit of motive power after overhaul - while the rest of the world sits with the scale time clock off. The hidden part of the loop (about 65% of its total length) is home to a half-dozen staging arrangements, designed to deliver the appropriate train at the proper tunnel portal at the timetable-mandated moment - well over 100 times a fast-clock 'day.'
The TTT, my coal-hauling short line, is a pure point-to-point, clearly visible from interchange to colliery. JNR locos are embargoed from the TTT's snakewiggle curves, and the TTT's collection of superannuated tank locos are (to put it mildly) unwelcome on JNR tracks. Officially, the TTT has no staging, as such - but there is a rather complex connection that accepts empty coal units and delivers units with identical car numbers loaded. The underground connection that completes the empties in/loads out exchange can hide up to three complete trains at one time.
When I'm in 'serious operation' mode, every train that moves runs from a starting point to a stopping point on timetable authority. It might actually complete a lap (several connected DMU schedules do) but not without stopping for a stay in staging while other trains do their thing where the room lights shine. When it moves again, it will have a new number and a fresh clearance card.
I like operating my way. It would probably drive the 'continuous run' operators right up the wall. One size does not fit all.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - TTTO, 24/30)
Wow! I guess I got my track plan right!
I had planned for continuous running right from the start. It just seemed to me that a PTP layout would get boring really fast, at least for me. No offense to those who enjoy PTP!
I have added several switching opportunities into the plan including a small five track yard which will hold about 40 cars, two passenger stations (one a small urban station and the other a rural whistle stop), a diesel engine service facility, a freight/passenger car repair facility, two caboose service tracks, separate steam engine service facilities, and about seven other destinations that will serve a small coal mine, a feed mill and several factories.
I'm happy with the plan!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
tomikawaTTWhen I'm in 'serious operation' mode, every train that moves runs from a starting point to a stopping point on timetable authority. It might actually complete a lap (several connected DMU schedules do) but not without stopping for a stay in staging while other trains do their thing where the room lights shine. When it moves again, it will have a new number and a fresh clearance card. I like operating my way. It would probably drive the 'continuous run' operators right up the wall. One size does not fit all.
Chuck,
I'm not so sure there really are very many "continuous run operators." There are lots of folks whose layout has continuous run available to support their operations, but those trains are almost always regarded and scheduled as point to point. Unless one is circling an amusement park or is on the transit loop around Tokyo, it's rather hard to imagine a timetable for trains going in circles. Trains that go from Point A to point B, on the other hand, are all I have. As necessary, when a train returns to staging, I can swap engine, caboose and car to turn it into a rather different train when it again emerges onto the visible part of the layout.
Looping back is merely a mechanical convenience that occurs behind the scenes, expecially when hidden staging is involved. Think of it as the track equivalent to all that wiring and electricity that propel your trains instead of actual coal and steam. I don't regard anyone who uses electricity as engaged in a less satisfying endeavor simply because they're not using live steam.
Obviously, we can all choose our compromises in modeling. I don't need paperwork every time a car moves...sometimes it just gets picked up and relocated wholesale when I'm getting ready for an ops session....Shhh, don't tell anyone and it'll be our little secret.
Hi!
Everyone will have their own views on this subject, with some dictated by wanting to follow a prototype (real or imagined) or due to space limitations (i.e. shelf rr).
All my layouts back to 1957 called for continuous running. But the current layout (started in 2009) is the first to have staging tracks. They are on a lower level, and (sadly) stub end.
But the staging has made a huge difference in my enjoyment of the layout, and I recommend it highly.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
One arangement where this doesn't work (most of the time) is double deck layouts. Mine is loop to loop with staging at each end. The two ends that would have to be connected to allow for a continuous connection have an elevation difference of almost 30".
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
My layout is partially double-decked, with five stub-end staging yards (three of which are comprised of only two tracks). I do have a continuous run available, but it's seldom used - entertaining the occasional non-modeller visitor or breaking-in new locomotives.
Wayne
carl425One arangement where this doesn't work (most of the time) is double deck layouts. Mine is loop to loop with staging at each end. The two ends that would have to be connected to allow for a continuous connection have an elevation difference of almost 30".
Yeah, you have to end up on the same elevation. Loops and continuous run connection do tend to work better when they do
As a no-lix, my layout isn't a true double-deck, but does solve the issue rather neatly. All the standard gauge track is on the lower level, basically a giant folded dogbone that hides the return side (including staging) under the scenery and second deck (where applicable). The narrowgauge climbs from there, more or less.
The narrowgauge main consists of a short helix up from a loop under the first deck at Durango (from "Chama" which represents the old NG main to the east), then climbs after passing through there up to the second deck to pass through Silverton. Three branches emanate from there. One deadends; the other two form a loop that is fed by a wye so it can provide continuous running also. There's also the Cascade Branch, which ends in a wye. This upper end doesn't really see trains use the loop past Silverton any more (it was my original continuous run NG test track) except as one end of the point to point schedules.
So I actually have a layout that is operated point to point that physically includes a giant SG continuous run, a NG main that is loop to loop, and four main branches that are various forms of loop to end point and back. That's why I'd argue that it's not so much the physical orientation of the track, but how it's operated that really matters. Sometimes we get hung up on labels and their associated stereotypes, when it's how the trains move that really counts.
Mine is a large dogbone with most of the return hidden so it can be point to point or continuse. It dosn't take much real estate to do the return loop and you can hide it with mountains or a city or?????????????
I had a continual loop, which was great until I purchased a 6-axle loco and had to make the layout a PTP to accomodate the broader curve. Having done both types, I like the PTP because I enjoy staging, etc instead of a loco 'chasing it's tail.' I also can have the layout replicate diferent industries after completing one type of run--a tank car consist leaves and I then put cars in the yard while a coal unit train goes by.
What type of layout you enjoy is driven by multiple factors. Everyone has their enjoyable moments. The only way to truly decide is trying a variety of types before concluding that one is more suitable. I think the type also is based on your personality and interest areas in MR.
kasskabooseWhat type of layout you enjoy is driven by multiple factors. Everyone has their enjoyable moments. The only way to truly decide is trying a variety of types before concluding that one is more suitable.
I agree.
Keep in mind it's a lot easier to just not use a continuous run connection than add one later.
There are good practical reasons why, even if you operate PTP most of the time, for testing and break-in running there is nothing like a continuous run. The sets of rollers that you can get do fine for doing both on the straight and narrow. However, many issues that arise in operation occur on curves, so it's hard to simulate that without actually traversing the line.
Ultimately, it is a matter of personal discipline how a continuous run connection is used. If you think it's a temptation to have one and that you'll find yourself giving into going in circles instead of really operating, then maybe you need to omit a continuous run connection, rather like some folks can't keep ice cream or whiskey around in order to avoid having to say, "The made me do it!"
In the past when most folks went round and round by habit, maybe pure PTP was the sign "serious" modeling, but that distinction largely went away with the rise of modular model RRing and serious attention to track planning. With a connection in hidden staging or otherwise disguised, what's out in the open doesn't tell you anything about what happens behind the scenes -- and to me, what's intended to be seen is the important part. After all, it's a simulation of bolt and rivet heads you see on our models. There's really no need to actually get tiny hardware and use it instead of simply portrayng its apperance. Same thing with track arrangements. YMMV
I have a double deck layout with continuous run loops on both decks.
The main reason for this is layout tours. During my open houses I set a train up to run on the top deck unattended and have a giant reefer block on the lower deck that runs when the gate to enter the layout is closed. On both decks the continuous loops make use of some hidden track and very precise grade manipulation to connect back in a circle.
The layout is designed to support Operations as a point to point with staging. During Ops sessions we just ignore the continuous run routes. My inspiration for including continuous loops is that I have seen several point to point layouts that need operators during open houses to run trains for visitors. I wanted to make it easy for me to host tours without help.
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
Jim Hediger covers some options well in the August 2012 Operators column(page 86). My design has his loop staging (more like a teardrop) at the bottom and top end of a 2 deck layout to set up trains going each way, and for staging at each end of the run.
doctorwayneI do have a continuous run available, but it's seldom used - entertaining the occasional non-modeller visitor or breaking-in new locomotives.
I'm in basically the same boat as Wayne. I also like to use it to simply have a train running while I work on the layout, or have another train running while I operate to make things more interesting.
Lone Wolf and Santa Fe Here is the best quote that I have read about track design: "I wish I had done continuous run with staging." I can't think of anything that sums it up better. Good examples of this are David Barrow's Cat Mountain & Santa Fe, and Eric Brooman's Utah Belt. A long time ago I tried point to point with hidden staging and it wasn't any fun. Soon I blasted a hole through a mountain and made a continual loop. It wasn't until the next version of my layout I changed the hidden staging into scenic and fixed it so it was self staging instead of having to back a train into a tunnel so it can come out later.
While I understand the point of point to point (i.e. to operate prototypically), the problem with many home layouts ist here isn't enough room to run a train long or far enough to be satisfying for many hobbyists. Thus the above is good advise. I've done the same thing after examinine hundreds of track plans over the years and being honest with myself on what I prefer. My current layout has 11 tracks of staging under a yard with a twice around the room plan.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
The conflict for me is that with my space, my layout is either going to be PTP or have a duck under for continuous running. I keep going back and forth about it. The last layout had a duck under and it was always a problem.
NevinW The conflict for me is that with my space, my layout is either going to be PTP or have a duck under for continuous running. I keep going back and forth about it. The last layout had a duck under and it was always a problem.
carl425 One arangement where this doesn't work (most of the time) is double deck layouts. Mine is loop to loop with staging at each end. The two ends that would have to be connected to allow for a continuous connection have an elevation difference of almost 30".
If the layout is a (return) loop to (return) loop with double ended staging tracks inside the return loops and both of the return loop turnouts are automated does this qualify as "continuous run"? If no operator intervention is required then that makes it continuous, right?
Modeling an HO gauge freelance version of the Union Pacific Oregon Short Line and the Utah Railway around 1957 in a world where Pirates from the Great Salt Lake founded Ogden, UT.
- Photo album of layout construction -
I enjoy seeing both point-to-point operations, and watching a train chase its tail around a loop (I would enjoy doing or simulating PTP as well once I retrofit my stock for it), so a continuous run with hidden staging would be quite satisfying because it enables the latter and simulating the former. Here's a link to a layout that was designed around doing this:
http://www.pegnsean.net/~railwayseries/rm-1959-12.htm
Interiors and people figures make such a difference. Especially the people.
Unfortunately in my twice around a 10x18' room the track plan did not lend itself to a liftout with both tracks changing elevation and going their own way so I have a duck-under.
Not ideal, but managable for now. Maybe in a few years things will be different but hopefully I'll be in a different house building a different layout.
Hi all
The best layout design I have seen was for "fine scale O" (Not toy "O" scale).
The layout was for want of a better description point to loop to point with both ends of the line set up.
So you had no choice but to go round the continuos run at least once between terminals it had one intermediate station and open staging on one side.
It all looked very unclutered was a large one man operation layout so track work was not overly complicated single line working and it occupied an attic with stairs up into the middle so no duck under.
All very well thought out and I did turn just a little green at the space this layout had.
The whole thing just well worked and was so well thought out.
regards John
riogrande5761 Unfortunately in my twice around a 10x18' room the track plan did not lend itself to a liftout with both tracks changing elevation and going their own way so I have a duck-under. Not ideal, but managable for now. Maybe in a few years things will be different but hopefully I'll be in a different house building a different layout.
I also have a duck-under on the PTP layout. This arrangment works for me since most don't go under to look at the track. I have no issues going below, agian what works for some is heavily dictated by space, money, and time.
The problem with coninous run, even as an option, is that it requires broad radii turnback loops or a duckunder/gate of some sort. PTP requires neither, so the modeler can have broader curves.
If CR is used as an option only, I would definitiely build a gate/liftout section, thinking that it wasn't going to be used all that much.
If the CR and staging is part of normal operations, its going to require tighter radii turnback curves or a liftout/gate/duckunder if you want to maximize the curve radius, generally speaking.
I think that trade off is why some favor PTP.
- Douglas
DoughlessThe problem with coninous run, even as an option, is that it requires broad radii turnback loops or a duckunder/gate of some sort. PTP requires neither, so the modeler can have broader curves.
This depends on the shape and size of the space you're in. Obviously, more constrained spaces limit your options in either case. I certainly wouldn't frame either as the absolute best choice always. Depends on your goals and the possibilities inherent to where things must fit
Thanks for the correction. If the space is irregularly shaped or the modeler has an entire basement to fill then the radius probably won't be affected very much.
In the cases of more limited space and where a continuous run doesn't have a duckunder, turnback loops are generally required and and they most likely will have a tight radius.