Single or double

[Bsklarski]

As some here may or may not know, I have been working on a small N scale layout that will be expanded. It is based on the Conn River Line of the B&M. It is heavily based on the Holyoke Massachusetts area. I model 1972 to 1980 for now, but will not be going any earlier. This will be fine tuned in the future. The B&M single tracked this line in the middle to late 1960s, from springfield all the way to White River Junction. Here is what I have been thinking. Should I just model it as double track? Or should I model it as single track.... OR should I model it as single track and also model the ROW with the space for the 2nd track, and not have it in the layout, but model the open space as a result of its removal. Ugh.

Brian S

[Bremner]

like I like my scotch....SINGLE!

[HuskerN]

I would vote single main.  I don't know how you plan to operate your layout, but using a single main does somewhat force you into an operations mode if you want to run 2 trains, holding one in a siding.  I had the same challenge with my Marias Pass. 

HuskerN
www.nscaleaddiction.blogspot.com

[delamaize]

For operations: SINGLE ALL THE WAY! Nothing more fun than having to arrange meets, and clear the main when trying to switch a local for the Highball go come though.

For roundy-round: Double is the way to go, more trains, less space.

Myself: SINGLE SINGLE SINGLE!!!! 

[MEC_FAN]

Brian, I would go single track but make it look like double track with track removed if you can afford to give up the space.

[NS-CRE]

I have always preferred single-track operations for the layouts I've built.  However, double track has far more potential than the roundy-round and can be quite challenging to operate as well.

I operate on three railroads locally that are primarily double track.  Due to switching requirements for the locals, train priorities, etc., it's not as mindless as you might think.  Setting up meets can be just as challenging or perhaps moreso on a double track railroad when something shuts down that second track. 

Sure, if you're running a steady flow of through freights on a double track railroad, it can be pretty easy to just fleet trains on each track.  Throw in a local though, or a passenger train that needs a specific track, or a yard (or three) where trains need to crossover in order to work, and you end up with bottlenecks just as you would on a single track railroad with passing sidings.

On a double track CTC railroad, having the luxury of two tracks does give the dispatcher some time to breathe, but it can get every bit as hectic arranging meets on a double track railroad as it can on a single track.

It all comes down to preference and how strictly you want to adhere to the prototype you are trying to represent.

Marcus

[central.vermont]

I'm with Mec_Fan on this one Brian. If your gonna model the seventies then to be the most realistic I would detail it with the missing double track. Not many modelers do this and I believe it makes it look the most realistic. Go for it I say!!!

Jon

[lock4244]

I'm with Mec_Fan on this one Brian. If your gonna model the seventies then to be the most realistic I would detail it with the missing double track. Not many modelers do this and I believe it makes it look the most realistic. Go for it I say!!!

Jon

+1

[cv_acr]

I'm with Mec_Fan on this one Brian. If your gonna model the seventies then to be the most realistic I would detail it with the missing double track. Not many modelers do this and I believe it makes it look the most realistic. Go for it I say!!!

Jon

Totally agree. If the double track was removed in the 1960s, and you're modelling the 1970s-80s, then having it removed is the most realistic way to go. But definately model the wide roadbed indicating the former presence of the removed track.

The section of railroad my club is modelling includes a section that used to be double tracked and was single tracked when CTC was installed. We haven't really built any of this part yet, but it will definately be representing the roadbed for the missing track. That's the only way for it to be realistic.

[Bsklarski]

Sounds like the general direction is the single track, model the old second track. I think thats the way I am going. Even to this day the second track is in place, rusting away and clearly seen. So, off to the basement I go!

Brian

[Denver Road Doug]

That's a tough one.  I personally think that if you're just looking at it from a "street cred" standpoint, I wouldn't worry about leaving it doubletracked.   Modeler's License is more than just a a convenient way of explaining compromise.... for most model railroaders, it's a way of life!   

You can always park a work train "torch crew" on the second main to effectively "single track" it if you want to purposefully handicap operations.  AND, if you ultimately decide you want to have ultimate adherance to the prototype, you can simply remove the track and--voila!--your ROW is there already.

[MichaelWinicki]

I'd vote for the look of having the second track removed.  I did that on a section of mine...

[cv_acr]

I'd vote for the look of having the second track removed.  I did that on a section of mine...

Looks a bit pristine for an abandoned second track. Needs more weeds (possibly with some nice tire lanes caused by maintenance vehicles using the old roadbed as a convenient access roadway. The ballast on the removed track should look older and dirtier than the (actually maintained) ballast on the remaining track.

[ljudice]

Lots of interesting stuff to do on a single-tracked double main...   Keep doubletrack bridges, possibly with a simple roadway for MOW vehicles...  Interesting alignments to spurs (if the spur left the abandonned main, I've seen a short stretch of the old main still in use to link to the spur...   Signal and other features which show evidence of the old track... Tunnels  - sometimes realigned down the middle to get clearance, etc...

[cv_acr]

Lots of interesting stuff to do on a single-tracked double main...   Keep doubletrack bridges, possibly with a simple roadway for MOW vehicles...

Or if the bridge has been upgraded or replaced, possibly a single track bridge with double track abutments and roadbed (although I've also seen other examples of bridges on single track lines with double track abutments "just in case" for the future).