selector I just can't enjoy a steamer running in reverse, whether pushing or having run around and running tender-first, a passenger consist on a point-to-point. It happens in the real world, but it doesn't feel or look right to me. I want my steamers leading. So, either they must be turned or the entire consist must be turned.
I just can't enjoy a steamer running in reverse, whether pushing or having run around and running tender-first, a passenger consist on a point-to-point. It happens in the real world, but it doesn't feel or look right to me. I want my steamers leading. So, either they must be turned or the entire consist must be turned.
Most of us use either a Turn table or a wye to turn equipment around for the trip down the hill. I can even fit my observation car on my small TT to get it headed back in the right orientation. On my layout in OPs mode, most of the equpment going to the end of the line is small shortline steam that will fit on my 65' TT at the end of the line.
Turning Heavy metal always presents a challenge in that most TTs to turn these Beasts must be big and wyes will require big radius curves. I have a reversing loop on one end of the point and secret escape track on the other end to avoid having to turn the big stuff.
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
Lone Wolf and Santa FeHere 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.
This is often a good idea, but is one of those situations where one size does not fit all. As others have pointed out, room size or arrangement may mean that only stub-end staging is possible.
Loop staging has some advantages, as well. Chief among these is that trains with similar make-ups (like passenger trains) may be re-used during an operating session by turning in the loop and returning later as a different train headed in the opposite direction without any manual re-staging required.
Continuous-run is a great goal for many modelers, but it is one of a number of trade-offs designers must consider.
So I’d suggest that one must consider the room configuration, types of traffic, and many other factors before anointing any one arrangement as “best.”
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
HObbyguywhat do you guys mean by "staging"?
Think of the theater. On each side of the stage you have the wings. This is where actors/props "wait in the wings" before their appearance on stage.
In our case, the sceniced portion of the layout is the stage, the trains are the actors and the staging tracks are the wings. They simulate unmodeled destinations off the layout, giving trains someplace to go to or come from.
In my case, I have 7 staging tracks on each end of the layout. A train will come onto one end of the modeled section and exit on the other end - making any stops required to drop off or pick up cars. Some trains will run straight through.
I don't have a yard so trains don't originate or terminate on my layout. Those with division point type yards can bring trains from staging that terminate at the yard and are broken down and assemble new trains in the yard that finish their trip in staging.
The advantage of the arrangement suggested in the OP of this thread is that a continuous run through staging gives you the opportunity to run continuous when desired, but also keeps trains running in the same direction (loads always go east, empties always go west) so open top cars don't have to be re-staged between operating sessions (like mine).
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.
I've been watching this thread closely but haven't contributed since I don't have near the experience everyone posting does. I am about halfway through my layout build now and too late to make major changes but there is always the possibility of improvements.
My layout is designed with continuous run in mind for the same reasons that selector mentions, and I also added a hidden reverse loop to get my steamers turned around. The yard is designed to function more or less as an interchange and of course I have sidings and industries. But keeping the radius at 24" minimum and grades at 2% with a crossover in the design meant a lot of trade-offs given the space I have to work with.
Leading to my "newbie" question... what do you guys mean by "staging"? Its a term thrown around a lot here but never really defined. How do you use "staging" during operations and how does it add to the interest level?
Huntington Junction - Freelance based on the B&O and C&O in coal country before the merger... doing it my way. Now working on phase 3. - Walt
For photos and more: http://www.wkhobbies.com/model-railroad/
selectorThere must come a point in a scale where the room just doesn't permit a reasonable run and being able to turn a train and run it in a loop. At some total area/shape combination the only possible layout will be a switching or point-to-point option.
John Armstrong would probably say...Take a circle based on your min R then add a little to the outside of the curve for clearance. Fit that into a square room. Duckunder required. Done.
Depends on your idea of a reasonable run, of course. Bigger than that is just a luxury, but sometimes a necessary luxury, as you note.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
On railways, there is nothing new under the Sun. However, for me, some things work better aesthetically. I just can't enjoy a steamer running in reverse, whether pushing or having run around and running tender-first, a passenger consist on a point-to-point. It happens in the real world, but it doesn't feel or look right to me. I want my steamers leading. So, either they must be turned or the entire consist must be turned.
This means, for me, in a modest space, and if I want broad curves for the sake of my longer heavyweights and large steamers, that my folded loop layout will afford me the long runs I like in that modest space. It means standing in the middle of the space with the benchwork surrounding me.
I have one other criterion, and it's a given, not a druther; I want to wear my tires and flanges evenly. I don't want my costly-to-fix/replace rolling stock to wear the flanges paper-thin or to scrub the tire metal off with the trains rolling say counterclockwise all the time. So, I have to build in a reverse loop that allows me to turn my trains without picking everything up. This complicates things for me because I have to build a bridge that crosses the central operating pit at some point in such a way that my minimum curve radius criterion is met. Means an auto-reverser, more turnouts, more track, hinges or lift-out...
There must come a point in a scale where the room just doesn't permit a reasonable run and being able to turn a train and run it in a loop. At some total area/shape combination the only possible layout will be a switching or point-to-point option.
Please don't take it so much as a correction as it is just recognizing the nuances of model railroading make absolute statements troublesome. There is what absolutely has to be, like gauge, and then there's everything else that depends on a lot of factors.
I think your point about facing being less flexible in designing layouts for more confined spaces is a good one to point out. Many people have only a shelf or two to work with, but they can still have a great layout and shouldn't feel as if they're missing out because they don't have all the elements that would be ideal, like a continuous run option. Very few layouts are that lucky. I've done pretty well with the generous space I have available, but I sure wish it was a foot taller. There's no shame in making compromises, because almost all of us have to about something.
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.
- 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
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.
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.
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.
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
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
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.
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".
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 -
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.
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.
Mike
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?????????????
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.
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
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
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.