Double Track - Yes or No?


Is a Double Track Model Railroad Viable?

  • Yes - Double track is more trains, more fun

    Votes: 23 88.5%

  • No - Double track is unprototypical and ugly

    Votes: 3 11.5%
  • Total voters
    26
T

Truckload

New Member
What do you think of a double track layout?

For timetable and train order operation, double track would actually decrease operational fun. And I am sure double track is less prototypical. Only a few of the very busiest mainlines are double tracked.

But for lone wolf operation where the first priority is rail-fan like running (watching long trains run) then why not?

What do you think?
 
I like double track mains. I have double track mains on my layout, all for except one section where the mountain tunnel is, which keep its interesting.

I like running long trains through scenery, and don't particularly like switching industries. I do it on occasion just to mix things up a bit.
 
I have always modeled double track for constant running, the meets and passing. I usually put a couple trains in motion while I'm working on the layout just for the view of them going by every few minutes.
 
Double mains or even four mains is as prototypical as a single rickety track...it depends on what you are modelling. For the first time I have twinned mains and I love it. You gotta also have at least one crossover, though.
 
My last layout (over 20 years ago) was double track DC. This time I'm considering a single track because of DCC and the size (expense) of a larger layput. I'm still undecided but leaning towards double track again, even though the area I plan on modeling is single track and operates under track warrants. Thank goodness for artistic license!:p
 
Truckload:

I'm with Motley here: "I like running long trains through scenery, and don't particularly like switching industries."

So I have triple parallel main lines (plus a separate fourth loop for the ore train, and I can also run a switch engine in the yard at the same time if I feel like it - which 99% of the time I don't.)

I run my major 3 trains s l o w l y* (with 3 MRC Tech 2 power packs - I'm 65 years old and still an analog guy.) I know these slow speeds would drive some folks nuts but it's really relaxing for me. And from time to time I change out some cars and/or locos.

* I even got an "excuse" for this "slow" business: All three mains run inside the edge of the yard limits.

Also, for variety, sometimes I run one, or two, or all three of these mainline trains backwards - each has about 60 to 65 cars.

It's kind of funny, but sometimes I'll start a train by slowly bunching the slack, then going forward a little faster. Why? I like to hear the coupler slack bunching but then especially stretching out. (By the way I'd like to think that this kind of stretching out the coupler slack going forward could throw the conductor and rear brakemen in the caboose off balance, but not so. I used to brake on the Missouri Pacific RR in the Ozarks of Missouri in the 1970s, and you can bet we were prepared for going from zero to 5mph in a nano second - we could easily hear the couplers' racket coming straight to us.)

DougC
 
I like to see 'em go. But if all that's happening is a pair of trains making opposite-direction loops, then I'd end up finding it boring. What livens things up is if the trains interact, as they would do on a single track layout with passing sidings. If I wanted to be in "railfan mode" then I'd endeavor to get the passing process to happen automatically, as technology allows these days. Then I could watch (but not control--railfans don't run the trains) the trains pull into a siding, and the switches operate, and then wait for the other train to appear. Not just trains in the landscape, but railroad operation.
 
Truckload said:
What do you think of a double track layout?

For timetable and train order operation, double track would actually decrease operational fun. And I am sure double track is less prototypical. Only a few of the very busiest mainlines are double tracked.

But for lone wolf operation where the first priority is rail-fan like running (watching long trains run) then why not?

What do you think?
Click to expand...
I agree with you in the idea that a single track mains actually adds interest . Double tracking is more appropriate on larger layouts especially if you run them light-handed and have a lot of switching to keep things interesting.

I didnt answer the poll because I dont think doubletracking is ugly or unprototypical, I just think that single track mains is better for most small/medium Layouts
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My last layout and the one I'm planning now had or will have double track and single track combined.
This allows me to have one or two trains running on their own while I scurry from double track down the single and back to double track between opposing trains.
If I have operators over the single track portion will act as a bottle neck just as the prototype contends with.
 
Truckload said:
What do you think of a double track layout?

For timetable and train order operation, double track would actually decrease operational fun. And I am sure double track is less prototypical. Only a few of the very busiest mainlines are double tracked.

But for lone wolf operation where the first priority is rail-fan like running (watching long trains run) then why not?

What do you think?
Click to expand...
The survey and this post make a lot of assumptions. 1. Double track main is not unprototypical. The BNSF is now double track from Chicago to LA. 2. Even if the whole main line is not double tracked there are many sections that can be double tracked. 3. Time tables can be just as hard to maintain on a double, triple, or quadruple track mainline. Just ask some of the dispatchers on the NJ transit or the Pennsy in the 1920s or early 1940s. It all depends on the volume of trains. 4. I would not equate lone wolf operators with rail-fan like running. That would be an interesting survey but I am guessing there might be more lone-wolfs with small switching layouts than there are with long train running type layouts.

What I think. One needs a layout large enough to have double track. Two loops on a 4x8 is boarder line silly. The trains are continually passing each other, and never not passing. A well planned double track layout with sufficient crossovers can be run just like a single track main, providing the owner with much more operational flexibility. It can be operated as double track or single track depending on the mood. I find very little things as fun as trying to schedule an overtake on a double track main line where none of the three trains involved (overtaking, overtaken, facing traffic) have to stop.

I think having a double track main line is a totally independent variable from having industries, yards, branches and other forms of operations. They can work together or separate. Having a double track main line in conjunction with those other things certainly does not reduce operational fun.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm a fan of double track, like others I too like to railfan my trains as they pass next to each other. The layout is long enough to run 4 trains (about 8 cars each); 2 on the inner loop and 2 on the outer loop. It's the way I enjoy the hobby.

A lot of people seem to like prototypical operation, even with a timetable, waybills, multiple operators, the whole shebang. I think those folks tend towards single track (unless it's a very large layout, club sized), sometimes not even a full loop.

Another group of folks are scenery oriented. They tend to have less track and more scenery, and it seems they are single loop with a fair number of sidings and spurs.

It really comes down to how you want to enjoy your hobby. The only thing that is definite is that there is no right or wrong.

I'm surprised to see so many in favor of double track. I had always been under the impression that double track was considered "toy train", with too much track for their surface area. Probably a valid point, but.... Like I say, it's your money and your time and your satisfaction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I did not check either box on the survey because I don't consider multiple track main lines to be unprototypical, but whether more tracks mean more trains I can't say. The C.B. & Q. had a triple track main line through Aurora, Illinois, known as "the speedway". Fast traffic ran on one track, medium fast ran on track #2, and slow freight and commuter traffic on the third!
When I started my current layout in a 14 x 13' 7" room, I wanted wanted to be able to run continuous trains for those who like to watch trains run. But I also wanted to be able to represent freight traffic between two points. I came up with a folded dogbone design with a lot of yard trackage inside the main line loop and multiple tracks in the yards for trains that can be stopped without tying up the "main". Between these destinations, the single main folds back on itself, so it appears to be a double-track main. As I have over a half-century's worth of locomotives and rolling stock, I run mainly (no pun intended) DC, with the track electrically broken into blocks, including sidings, etc., so that a train can be sidetracked for a "Zephyr", "North Coast Limited", or the "Empire Builder" to come past at a higher speed. I can also switch the main to DCC with DC locos electrically isolated so they won't burn out their motors. I can do switching, but often just bring out a passenger train from one station, run it on the main, bring it into the station on the other side of the layout, wait a minute or so while passengers board or leave the train, then start up for the trip in the opposite direction, without "turning" the train. If there are small kids watching I'll clear the track for continuous running. Having fun one way or the other is the main thing.
 
Thanks for all the answers so far. Apologies to those who did not understand or like the poll, but obviously the subject of double track, yes or no, is of at least some interest to many.

If one considers all the miles of Railroad through all of RR history, the miles of multiple track are far fewer than the miles of single track. If one examines the track plans published in the many magazines and books about Model Railroading, single track with passing sidings is by far the norm, multiple track is rare. Are there some plans with multiple track, yes. Are there plenty of examples of actual prototypes with multiple tracks, yes.

So with all of that said, I posted the poll looking for different viewpoints regarding the relative merits of single or double track for a home layout. The different viewpoints presented so far are enlightening, especially from those who prefer double track.

Will someone out there make the case for staying with single track?
 
Single track requires less track, less roadbed, less ballast, less room, less money and less time. It also gives a better track to scenery ratio. In my case at least, it is what the prototype that I'm basing my modeling on has. It can also make for more interesting multiple train ops as already noted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What is a 'better track to scenery ratio', Bob? If I intend to run trains the way most of the NE Corridor ran them during WW II with all the troop movement and freight going eastward from munitions factories, and then the empties or other materials loads coming the other way, there were often four tracks, not just two, such as on the Pennsy. Using the selective compression and representative densities that we see on the prototype, the chances of encountering a twinned main are rather high for someone like me who has both the space and the choice of era in mind.

If your point is that space is limited, and that too many people make a mistake, by their own admission after some experience, that they crammed too much track into their space, I can buy that. However, it does not follow necessarily that a single main presents a better track-to-scenery ratio unless the area occupied by that double track could demonstrably be put to better use. Even then, wouldn't it be the choice/druthers of the person deciding?
 
It seems like a fallacy to be talking about wartime traffic on the Pennsylvania. That's setting things up so you have the maximum in non-stop action, and if that's what you want, then of course you should build it. But presumably, single-track railroads were also working to capacity at the same time, and it would be the meets and passes that limited the railroad's ability to run trains, so keeping that railroad in operation demands a different kind of hectic activity. You might get the railfan experience if you could figure out automatic operation, but in general, I think for a railroad to watch rather than operate hands-on, you'd want the double track. Just be careful--"There's a guy down at the depot watching trains and taking pictures. Better check him out, could be a Nazi spy".

It's a false concept to talk about single or double track as "better". It's "better" if it suits the owner's desires better, and that's all there is to say.
 
On a small layout, single track looks better. On a larger layout, single track looks better. I prefer single track with many passing sidings and spurs. Really, any layout would benefit from at least two sidings where trains can pass each other, or move by trains performing local and switching work. That's how my home layout is set up. If I want to, I can set a train (usually a passenger train) running "through" while a local freight works industries.
 
John P said:
It seems like a fallacy to be talking about wartime traffic on the Pennsylvania. That's setting things up so you have the maximum in non-stop action, and if that's what you want, then of course you should build it. ..
Click to expand...

Exactly. If it's what you want, it can't be a 'fallacy'. A fallacy is an error in logic, and the error in logic would be to build what you don't want in a pastime. And that was my point...build what suits your interests. Putting a twinned main that allows you to accomplish your intended operational aims is what the prototype did, and so should the modeller if he wants to demonstrate either understanding or fidelity to the prototype's operations. BTW, the Pennsy had four tracks between Gallitzen and Altoona as far back as 1900..loooooong before WW II needs.
 
bnsf971 said:
On a small layout, single track looks better. On a larger layout, single track looks better. I prefer single track with many passing sidings and spurs. Really, any layout would benefit from at least two sidings where trains can pass each other, or move by trains performing local and switching work. That's how my home layout is set up. If I want to, I can set a train (usually a passenger train) running "through" while a local freight works industries.
Click to expand...

Generally, I would agree, but it still depends on what the person intends to model...unless he/she is just 'running trains'. Even on a small layout, a twinned main might show a determined, if stilted, attempt at fidelity to the prototype. Where traffic warrants it, small layout or large, it is always best to twin rails.

I do agree it tests the limits of realism and credibility the more track you shoehorn into a given surface area. There really is such a thing as a bowl of spaghetti in the hobby.

Along the same lines, it could be argued that loops of any description have no place on a model railroad since they don't exist on the prototype. Yet....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top