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
Will someone out there make the case for staying with single track?
The case would be the same reason the real railroads used single track. Less track, fewer turnouts = less cost. Less track, fewer turnouts = less maintenance and fewer things to go wrong.
 
I think it all comes down to the modeler in question and what his/her preferences are. Most railroads started out as single track, adding passing sidings and a second, or third, and maybe 4th track, as needed to keep the traffic flowing safely. In terms of a model railroad, its less dependent on traffic, and more dependent on what the modeler prefers to represent on his/her set up. Double track lends inself to having at least 2 trains running most of the time. As someone else said, today with PCs, its probably possible to run opposing traffic on a single track line with passing sidings, safely. Its also possible to have multiple single track 'display loops,' which allows multiple trains to run, and have the routes they traverse remain single track.
 
I agree 100% with what Otis has said. Given that I'm modeling the SRR in the 1940's at that time it had little double track, mostly located in and around the big cities it served. My mainline is somewhat short but has 3 long passing sidings. The branch is where most traffic is generated and has the most industries. If I wanted to I could turn the mainline into a computer controlled line and set trains running on it with meets and passes, but that doesn't appeal to me at all. My trains have to "pay their way", by delivering & shipping goods both online via spurs to industries and "off line" via staging yards and interchanges.
 
But you see, it all depends on whether you see yourself as a railfan at trackside, or as the person responsible for running the railroad (which is of course ludicrous, because we jump around between jobs, where the engineer becomes the tower operator and the conductor, and finishes up by sweeping the floor). Set up a couple of trains on a double track loop, and you're free to watch them roll. If your railroad is only single track, most likely all you can do is have a single train running at a time, unless you're willing to keep jumping in to throw some switches and start and stop the trains. So we just have to decide what we want.
 
Yes - Double track is more trains, more fun
No - Double track is unprototypical and ugly

I prefer for questions to not include harsh opinions that force me into a rational that I may not agree with.

I prefer single track with passing lanes, but not because it's more prototypical or prettier. Those are in fact both untrue anyway. Double track is just as prototypical, and level of prettiness is entirely an opinion.

I like single track because it provides more operating interaction rather than just turning on the throttle and watching trains go 'round.

For double track I'd want it to be an enormous layout with lots of simultaneous operators.
 
By Selector;

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?
In the previous post Truckload asked for someone to make an argument for single track, so I responded with my opinion. Less track in a given area means more room for scenery, hence a higher scenery to track ratio.

In my earlier post I said that my former small layout had a double track main because of the simplicity that it afforded for operations. I'm planning on modeling the CB&Q between Galesburg and Beardstown, IL which is single track and is operated under track warrants where the CTC controlled main to Quincy splits at Bushnell to run to Beardstown and on to Paducah.

I said earlier that I'm very seriously considering using artistic license and making my mainline double track because of the ease of watching the trains run when that is all I want to do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I tend to agree with you Bob, less track means more scenery in a given amount of space, + may cost less to, depending on how you scenic the space, instead of having more track. I thought your points were valid.
 
Thanks for your answer, Bob. What seems to be the common ground is that the person making the layout must determine for himself what his track plan should allow him to do. An additional consideration, for those who are sticklers for representing the prototype, would be to replicate what is extant in the locale they are modelling. If your prototype has a double main, and you are actually 'modelling', then so should you. If space is at a premium, or if the scenery and setting is more important than the rails, then we can really do what we want, each of us, including fully fudging it...either freelancing or proto-lancing.

Bottom line, the term 'better' is relative to the druthers or needs of the person building the track plan.
 
The question is kind of black & white but the answer is all gray! :D

Depends on the modeler, how the RR will be operated, what you want to portray. Double track if you have the space or prefer to watch them roll. Single track if you're an operator. You can get just as many trains on a single track as you can a double track if your crew knows what they're supposed to do and how to do it. You also get more of a real RR feel IMHO. Our club layout is large but we have both double and single track sections to keep things interesting. We have a 27 scale mile run with about 10 scale miles of single track. Some signalled, some timetable & train order. Double track isn't ugly unless you try to cram too much into too little space, something all of us struggle with at some point.
 
I remember the Illinois Central used to be double track North and South, and supposedly they found it to be cheaper, easier to maintain, and promoted smoother operations if they single tracked it, with numerous passing sidings. So, the single track works better, though there are many areas where it is obvious there were once two tracks. Depending on what you decide, you can add spots where there "used to be" double track, which was removed. This will give a quick and cheap sense of history, while allowing you to have a single track model railroad. All you would need would be a little extra ballast run along next to the remaining track.
 
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.
Had a really good overtake move on a single track main line today on the OC&E. I had the ore train #251 with 80 empty cars. Coming down the mountain going into Bly the engineer noticed green signals on the other side but a high yellow going into Bly proper. This can only mean one thing, the track is set up for a overtake! Knowing this, to keep the ore train moving means getting clear of the siding at just the right speed so the following train will not get a red so they can move on to the siding as quickly as possible. Accordingly I adjusted my speed to as slow as possible, but just fast enough for the caboose to clear the block just as the following train needed to enter it. As soon as the caboose was out of the block I slammed the throttle to the slowest possible speed above stall. While I crept down the main, the following train #281 (reefer & pigs) speed up as soon as they got into the last block behind and onto the siding. They slid by about 30 mph, while I crept at 2mph. Clearing the other side of the siding and hitting the main they accelerated to 40 mph because they had to clear the next block before I got to the red at the end of the siding. I was getting nervous with only about 100 feet of siding left. The dispatcher was really on the ball and gave me a yellow about 5 seconds before I needed to hit the brakes. Instead I was able to hit the throttle to get the train moving again and then dynamic brake it proceeding down the hill.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of successful multiple main track layouts over the history of model railroading, this question was settled somewhere before WW2.
 
Guess it's time to put my 2 cents in. I like both, but each in their own way.

Over the years, in my travels, I have operated on anywhere from a small home layout to large home and club layouts that would cover a basketball court. Some operating sessions were informal, on small layouts, just running trains, and then there were operating sessions that were run on a fast clock, with a dispatcher and the whole works. (Even though I am still a DC operator, I do appreciate DCC for operations on large layouts). It's great to see long trains pass each other, with local trains heading to a passing siding to let through trains pass. It was always interesting to have been assign to a local and try to do your switching and keep the main lne clear, or to have been assigned yard duty and have to make up, or break down trains with trains moving in and out of the yards.

Some of the layouts were in various stages of construction, while some were finished with a high degree of detail. It's great to see numerous trains going about their business at one time. One thing that personally bugged me (I do not want to offend any one) were layouts that had so much track crossing over itself numerous times leaving little or no room for scenery or town and industries.

For me, being a lone operator, I chose to build a switching layout. My railroad is a point to point, short line/branch line that connects to the Northern pacific at one end, and the Milwaukee Road at the other. Using hidden staging tracks, I can run a train continuously, but don't very often. With a grade, and passing sidings, train lengths are limited to about 14 cars. The mainline makes one trip through the layout, leaving plenty of room for towns, industries and scenery. Many of the industries on my layout not only ship to points beyond my layout on the staging tracks, but to other industries on my layout. It can keep a single operator extremely busy.

I guess it up to each modeler to model what they want, after all, it's their railroad. While I do enjoy running on vast layouts, I also enjoy switching, plus being a single operator, I have less track to maintain.
 



Back
Top