I guess this post is simply to gain other people's perspective on the issue of running a train through the same scene twice on two separate tracks. I've always believed that the linear approach of having a train transverse a scene one time was the best route. But lately I've been staring at my layout and pondering laying the track back through the layout. What keeps attracting me is the idea of doubling my main line length. I'd simply have to go to the end of the line and bring the track back around through the two rooms. The layout would no longer be point to point and I could just let trains run, break in new engines, and have longer distances between towns. Plus, I'm at the point in my construction where this move is still feasible.
The downside is that I use semi-permanent modules for my layout. This enables me to move and rearrange the layout as needed to fit my next home, where ever that may be. So far, the layout has survived two moves this way. Doubling the track would nearly lock me into one layout configuration and cut my options for rearranging to fit a new basement.
Another concern about the "twice through" track is that I'd lose my sincere approach to my scenes. One track through looks so much better. On other hand, I model a mountain area, so two tracks would be at differing levels and not such an eyesore. And, did I mention that I'd double my mainline length through two rooms?
I guess my pondering is leading to this question---which would you find more satisfying; doubling the length of your railroad from 40 to 80 feet or maintaining a realistic linear scene?
Items for consideration: I model an HO free lance short line set in the Ozark Mountains during the 1960-70's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once through on my current layout:
Twice through on a previous layout:
The Cedar Branch & Western--The Hillbilly Line!
dragenrider--
That's an 'iffy' question, and really one that only YOU can answer. When I planned my Yuba River Sub, I wanted lots of running room, which meant that the same train would be coming back through the same scene. I planned my mainline as non-parallel double-track, similar to the Southern Pacific on their Donner Pass line between Rocklin and Colfax, which meant grade separation and several overpasses. I also knew that overall--with various track levels coming in and out of view, that it would not look realistic, so I decided to make each level a different 'scene', which would attract the eye to that particular portion and away from the overall look. The double track is only parallel on the same level in my major yard--Deer Creek--othewise it is separated by grade and scenery.
It works for me, but your concept has to satisfy YOU. One thing--if you want to keep a single track concept, have your layout 'dog-bone' at both ends with reverse curves. That way you can still get twice the running without having to lay another track and disturb your single-track concept.
Just my thoughts.
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
To me the idea of if tracks move through a scene more than once and the realizm imparted in doing so is a function of both good design and execution. There are two places on my layout that I am planning where the tracks pass through more than once. And in each spot, the scenic plan is to make it like it was a "brilliant" solutions to get through the rough terrain wile maintaining a reasonable grade. I guess what I am saying anything is given the right justification, and a good design and a good execution, You can go through a scene just about as many times as you want.
James
You could make one line different - as you say, put one line higher than another, but also make some differences in tie color and ballast to make it look like two different railroads paralleling each other, rather than the same railroad going thru twice. That's not that unusual, where I live (SE of St.Paul, along the Mississippi River) the BNSF and CP mainlines run parallel to each other from St. Paul to Hastings. In fact they share tracks, so you northbound trains of both railroads will use one railroads tracks, southbound use the other.
Or take a tip from the Soo Line layout in the current MR and have a high line mainline, and a lower line serving industries.
Maybe there's a way you could set up the layout so you could run it point-to-point when you wanted to, but be able to use a hidden cut-off to allow for continuous run when you wanted that??
Well, as I freelance also, I like the longer run. I try to go twice around the room on two different scenic levels. (not separate bench work levels) Watch the up-coming layout contest by Space Mouse. It deals with single car garage layouts this time and there is at least one entry that fits my description.
As for using modules because of moving, what I try and do is build each module as a town. Thus each module has most of the switch work on it in one section. A second mainline can be added at the rear on a different level if desired, or just build that part to lift off or be disposable. That way the elevations and grades are not locked in.
Anyway, the point is that if you build town modules, when you go to a new place, you just set your towns (that you have saved) in place on new bench work framing, several feet or more apart, and then link them together with disposable scenery and track. You can adjust each town height on the bench work to fit the space and grades you setup for the new layout.
As for operations, I generally have one yard that will be somewhere in the middle of the run. I treat it as two separate yards at each end of the division. If I have 10 industries in that yard-town, 5 will be designated at one end, and the other 5 at the other end. The other way you can go with that, is to have one large town / city on two levels. The upper level can have an East end and West end, each with a few industries. Each end would / could also have a staging track or two associated with it so trains could come in from off line. The lower level would be the main yard and engine facilities with a few industries and would be in the middle of the run.
Plus, by having two tracks to contend with in each scene, you get to be creative with how to treat them and the scenery.
There was another post about this same thing not too long ago and one of the things that I suggested was, make or build one track with code 100 and make it appear as a heavy main line. The other track running though the same area, build using code 70, and make it appear as a branch line. By using code 100 and code 70, you get a very visual difference in the track work.
As for different scenes, you should only have switching operations in one scene at a time from only one track. The other track is only a straight run-through at that point.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
I know a lot of people, including me, backtrack on the layouts to gain running footage. Here's my thought on the subject..
I don't know that it's always half the realism. Often trains, go To somewhere, and then Return. Granted, it's with a different load of stock but they do pass the same area twice on an out and back scheme.
When the second run through is on a different elevation, I tend to only be looking at the train in it's current tiny setting. That is, I don't view the layout as a whole but tend to focus more on current location of the train.
You'll have to decide for yourself which is more important.
With respect to a semi-modular layout to be moved and rearranged, regardless of how you've set it up (unless we're talking something like N-trak here) it's a difficult proposition in itself.
First level
Second level
Full plan minus yard and engine terminal
The above plan (HO scale) was built to fit a 9x13 bedroom in a house I was renting (no basement). It is 2 levels complete with a 22" radius helix to get from one to the next. It too was built 'semi-modular' to be moved (and was completely freestanding). Also, it was designed to be expanded into that Dream layout space. Then I decided I wanted my own house. Cash was still a little tight so building was out of the question. That meant, I had to find one to fit my layout and that's what I was looking for. Found one at a price I could manage. As planned, the layout came apart and was moved. It was also reassembled and reworked for two years, while I designed my Next one. Point is, while it can and has been done, I spent more time looking for a new space for the layout than I did a home for myself. Other than the experience gained, it turned out to be a waste of time and effort to design and build a movable layout. I put it right up there with trying to save portions of an existing layout in a full rebuild.
dragenrider wrote:I guess this post is simply to gain other people's perspective on the issue of running a train through the same scene twice on two separate tracks. I've always believed that the linear approach of having a train transverse a scene one time was the best route. But lately I've been staring at my layout and pondering laying the track back through the layout. What keeps attracting me is the idea of doubling my main line length. I'd simply have to go to the end of the line and bring the track back around through the two rooms. The layout would no longer be point to point and I could just let trains run, break in new engines, and have longer distances between towns. Plus, I'm at the point in my construction where this move is still feasible.The downside is that I use semi-permanent modules for my layout. This enables me to move and rearrange the layout as needed to fit my next home, where ever that may be. So far, the layout has survived two moves this way. Doubling the track would nearly lock me into one layout configuration and cut my options for rearranging to fit a new basement. Another concern about the "twice through" track is that I'd lose my sincere approach to my scenes. One track through looks so much better. On other hand, I model a mountain area, so two tracks would be at differing levels and not such an eyesore. And, did I mention that I'd double my mainline length through two rooms? I guess my pondering is leading to this question---which would you find more satisfying; doubling the length of your railroad from 40 to 80 feet or maintaining a realistic linear scene?Items for consideration: I model an HO free lance short line set in the Ozark Mountains during the 1960-70's.------------------------------------------------------------------------- Once through on my current layout: Twice through on a previous layout:
I have a similar challenge, it ends up I have a yard that runs a loop curving around but the 2 ends do not interconnect. With restricted space I have to work in all I can operationwise. The modules I am building will have distinct accurate scenes, but that all blows away when filling out all the operating your trying to go for.
If I had Yankee Stadium to build in, sure, but 14x13 or so, naw. Spaghetti Stadium, tho trying to avoid being too buttered up.... 8-D
Dave
Just be glad you don't have to press "2" for English.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ_ALEdDUB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hqFS1GZL4s
http://s73.photobucket.com/user/steemtrayn/media/MovingcoalontheDCM.mp4.html?sort=3&o=27
steemtrayn wrote:Paint your equipment with different colors on each side. When it returns to the scene, it will look like a different train.
I read that before somewhere.
-Morgan
- Harry
One of the many trade offs of the hobby. And do you stop at twice through, what about three times through? One of the interesting ideas I have seen is to do this on the middle part of your layout perhaps as a place where the railroad climbs a grade through a back and forth 3 times so as to leave the train heading in the original direction. Both ends are just once through. Allen McClelland's original V&O did this.
Enjoy
Paul
I appreciate your dilemma. Most of us (I think) like to watch our trains run through realistic settings while working towards the goal of modeling a real railroad. With very limited exceptions, that usually means only one trip through a scene. Let's face it, unless we have a million dollars, a quonset hut and a 150 year life span we won't have the resources, space or time to model anything more than a tiny representaion of our prototype. For me, the solution comes with a relatively short double track mainline that goes into hidden staging. The staging is 2 yards side-by-side in the same physical location representing the east and west destinations. I my case Cumberland, Md and Parkersburg, WV. This allows for continous running when desired or simulates a junction where trains come through one direction and then after being held in staging, return from the other direction.
From the junction is a freelanced coal branch that serves tipples and loaders and interchanges with the mainline. I think if I had it to do over, I might not have two yards side-by-side but rather use a traverser. Same number of staging tracks without the complexity of two double ended 6 track yards.
Personally, I like the once through a scene approach. But I also like continuous running.
That said there are quite a few ways to justify two tracks. There are ways to achieve visual separation. Sometimes you can run in a tunnel.
For the most part, I think it is easiest to do if you have some vertical separation even if it is 3-4 inches. For instance if you have a yard, a train passing behind the yard on a viaduct doesn't look out of place.
You can alternate scenes, one on the higher level, the next on the lower level. The train on the lower level can tunnel under the higher level scene and the higher level can bridge across the lower level scene.
During the upper level scene you can move the higher level track to the front if you like.
On a lower level scene, the upper level can run behind buildings or trees.
The point is, you can do it and get away with it if you are creative.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
If you look at the track schematic, my double-garage-filler is designed to be a great big loop. Physically, it's a (well-) folded dogbone. Visually, it's a once-through.
The key is that the route back to the other end (used by very few trains, and not in continuous operation if not being used to orbit trains to entertain the mundanes) is completely concealed from the casual observer. It's there to get trains to the appropriate tunnel portal at the daiya-decreed (fast clock) time, part of the fun of running to a timetable.
In your case, consider that more than one railroad paralleled itself. First they built the 'cheap' line, along which people settled, built towns, erected grain elevators, feed mills, building supply yards... Later, as trains got longer and heavier, a second track was put through - with easier and more continuous grades (no humps and hollows), heavier and more permanent bridges, wider curves... The first track couldn't be abandoned, because that was where all the local industries were and that's where the passenger platforms had been built. The implications for prototypical operation are obvious.
(If I can figure out how, I intend to have that second track 'under construction' along the single-track portion of the visible route. My prototype was double-tracking a lot of main lines in the mid-60s, so why not this one? Putting a TBM in a fascia window has a perverse appeal...)
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I am planning a sincere design, but as an N-scaler I can get a reasonable run in my limited 13x13 space. More challenging is I am trying to design such that each 15 car train completely leaves the previous scene before entering the next scene. However, I have considered it and studied some layout photos where doubling back seemed less intrusive.
What worked for me, visually, was:
- Seperating scenes so while there may be more then one line, there is only one scene in a given area. So, line A passes through Smithville, line B has little distracting scenery and operation as it passes by in the background. Likewise, as line A leaves Smithville, line B enters Jonestown and dominates the next scene as line A sort of slithers by on its way to its next destination. Having the two lines on different heights so each scene is seprated vertically helps too. I would think a side benefit is the train will have left its line's previous scene before entering the next one.
- Avoiding excessive track over track crossing. I think it starts to look more and more toy like when I see trains passing over trains excessively. I have seen this disguised well on some layouts but on others not so much.
- Scenic dividers that help to obscure parallel lines.. and for that matter avoiding parallel straight lines..
- Avoiding what I consider a somewhat trite scene of the canyon with four different bridges passing over it. I find scenes like that very jarring, but then I find a scene of a peach orchard jarring as well. Never mind.. anyway.. I would be inclined to hide one line behind the back drop for a moment so you can have a more sincere scene of a single line passing over the canyon in the foreground.
Thats just my 2 cents, I have not seen many layouts outside of publication, so take my opinion with a HUGE grain of salt. I am a huge fan of the connected series of scenes appoach visually, so I have a definite bias. Even my little 3x5 is divided into two visually seperated scenes.
Chris
dragenrider,I perfer the once through a scene approach that can be obtained on a well designed point to point layout..However,in order to get the maximum run on loop layouts we must comprise and go through a scene twice.However and IF space allows we should double through "open" country instead of a crowed scene..
Of course the use of a dog bone design gives the illusion of 2 different trains while passing through the same scene.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
johncolley wrote:Dragon, I am priviledged to operate on a layout that has one such scene in which it traverses the scene three times! From the back of a peninsula the single track line climbs a large radius curve and continues climbing up the front side of the peninsula from left to right where it enters a spiral tunnel and continues a curving climb to exit the tunnel going right to left above on the same mountainside. At the left end it is still climbing around to the right about 200 degrees to level out at the town/station of Summit (3 tracks and 2 spurs)which is also a train order stop with operating signals. After leaving Summit the track is again single and goes around to cross a really high (7' to 8' above the floor - no net!) deck girder bridge across the aisle on the back of the peninsula. The most difficult part of maintaining patience is losing a train in the long spiral tunnel on the right side. But the views of the climbing trains are spectacular! Enjoy! jc5729 John Colley, Port Townsend, WA
Only question: Do the trains run in CP colors? (Kicking Horse Pass, anyone?)
There's a prototype situation on the Ali-shan Forestry Railway in Taiwan that resembles a track spiraling around a tiered wedding cake, three full turns with a figure-eight on top - all on a 4% grade. Farther up, there are a couple of switchbacks, the ultimate case of three times through the same scene.
Wow! There is a lot of good feedback on this topic. Thanks!
I especially like the suggestions of going twice through at different levels and de-emphasizing one level or the other for a each successive scene. Didn't the original Sunset Valley RR from the 1980's do that?
I had forgotten all about Allen McClelland's V&O having twice through's. The V&O is my "hero" railroad. You know, the one you where you visit and fall to floor worshiping and chanting "I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy".
Going twice through at different levels is a great idea. I like to see trains running along a ledge or mountain ridge.
What about turn arounds so that you're not running through the scene twice in the same direction... you're making a return trip on a double track main?
Or was that implied in the question?
Best!
I struggled with this too...And I'm still not sure what the final outcome will be, as I only have the upper level trackwork and the helix done at this point, but I am leaning toward having a one pass / one scene scenario. OTOH, I can (will be able someday) run continually too....
What I have going thus far is a mainline point to point with subdivisions (also point to point, but at differing levels and traveling to different locations) in-between. The mainline point to point has "off pike" staging on both ends and will also have reversing loops.
With this idea I can have continues running with a train coming through a scene in opposite directions. I also plan to incorporate an around the walls loop (separate of the main) on the lower level with tighter radii and only connected to the main at a junction.
Would this be "twice through"? Well...Sort of, but also perhaps not. With lower ballast, different grading, different color ballast.....It becomes the peddler, off the mainline. Not exactly a longer run, but a continues loop and a lot of switching possibilities!
In certain situations, it's possible to distract the eye with other scenic elements. In the picture below, there are four main line runs.
Can you find them all?
Here's some shots that will provide some more clues...
And here's the actual track plan, shown before the scenery was installed...
The main comes in at the top of the image, then splits into two subdivisions. These then loop around behind the paper mill, one climbing the grade on the left, and the other crosses the river an follows the bank on the right.
The "clutter" of the paper mill complex, along with the location of the junction, river and the elevated embankment at the rear of the scene help mask the multiple main lines. Also, when the tracks leave this scene in the other direction, they continue around opposite sides of a peninsula, one diving down into staging, and the other continuing on as a point to point, which shares scenes with the main, but at a different elevation.
So you can make it work, it just takes a little "stage set design" and some forethought.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
The acceptability of a train passing through the same general scene, or limited portion of a layout with or wthout there being some sort of modest scene separation, is much the same as with the employing of forced perspective. If the viewer is willing to suspend belief in what his eyes clearly indicate to him to be true, than it will likely pass muster. However, if the modeler is striving for the viewer to accept what he sees as a truly accurate representation of the real world...simply put, either situation is clearly in direct conflict with reality and does not look realistic.
Most newer hobbyists are quite willing to see their trains pass through the same scene more than once (sometimes multiple instances) without feeling any discomfort and that's fine. However, it is a situation far more rarely seen in layouts created by those longer in the hobby, whose desire today seems increasingly to be modeling reality as closely as they can. Just look at the major layouts featured in the magazines. You don't often see situations resulting in multiple loops (multiple stacked operating levels, isolated from one another, are something quite different). The majority of such layouts are essentially point-to-point in design and execution.
CNJ831
Randall_Roberts wrote: Going twice through at different levels is a great idea. I like to see trains running along a ledge or mountain ridge.What about turn arounds so that you're not running through the scene twice in the same direction... you're making a return trip on a double track main?Or was that implied in the question?Best!
I think that would be the best option. Run through to the end, make a loop around a mountain or city and come back through on the other track heading the other direction.
One thought that I've heard elsewhere is that when you are wrapped up in operating your train you forget the other track is even there. This should be especially true if they are at different heights and the scene only accentuates one track.