There's a hidden feature, by the way, that'll require a rail gap, or a whole insulated block. There's an industry by itself. It's in the middle of the front stretch, about the start/finish line. It is served by one spur. It looks like it's served by two tracks, but the through track is on too steep a grade for spotting cars. That short straight piece of track is a reversing loop.
One of the characteristics of some folded dogbone layouts is that they can be confusing or ambiguous as to which end is the folded shank of the bone, and which end is the two knobs or knuckles. Especially in a twisted folded dogbone. I first looked at this layout and saw the knobs/knuckles in the near end, and the folded shank of the bone at the far end. But I can also see it the other way around, with the folded shank in the near end, and the two knobs/knuckles at the far end. Whatever we have, I think it is unlikely there is enough headroom for two underground tracks to cross over each other. But I don't know that either association of A & B at the far end would require that underground tracks cross over each other. And it is also unlikely that there are switches underground. This is why I'm assuming we have a double-tracked folded dogbone, not a single track bone with double tracked knuckles. But the unlabeled portal at the near end of the far corner mountain has me stumped...
Jake, the double track goes all the way around the layout. Yeah, there's all kinds of folded going on. Twice as much as you think. But there's no twist. Both ends of this layout are folded. No twist. Shaken, not stirred. Because the double track goes, like, 350° around the circumference of the layout, the two knobs don't have to be stacked right on top of each other. They can sit right there looking at each other. They can form a figure 8 when viewed from above with x-ray eyes. The station loop is one knob and the A-B2 line is the other. The B2 goes up the back side, and the A train falls right in beside it. They come out of the tunnel side by side, way, way back under the water tower, next to a brick retaining wall. And either there are two switches underground, or B1 is just a separate trolley line. There just isn't anything to connect to but the B2 line. None of the unlabeled portals are rail tunnels. I still don't see any rail portals on that end at all. I know there should be one, though, and only one (double track), right where the brick retaining wall ends. The first thing passengers see exiting the tunnel is an immense, cathedral-sized antique radio. Follow the double track. It comes out of the station, crosses that triple truss two track bridge going south. It rings the south end going east. It goes all the way north up the east side. All the way from south to north, from one fold to the other. It goes west around the north end, and the double track probably won't separate until it gets through the curve, on the back side, in the northwest corner. Just the perfect place for one track to come down the back to B2, and the other to swing out A.
I see what you are thinking, and you could be right, but I don't think it's the most likely case. It requires either switches underground, or B1 to be some trolley line to who knows where. A trolley line would not have the same weight rails as the mainline, where they are clearly the same coming out of the southernmost tunnel entrance A. More likely, B1 and B2 rejoin as double track underneath, along the back (W, assuming N is the far end of the layout) side. That also removes the need for any switches underground. I think it is most likely that A comes out on the lower level on the NE side (since there would be too much grade to come out on the topside). B1/B2 double track comes out on the north end upstairs, since they have more length to make the climb with a reasonable grade. If much thought was put into the layout design, A-B1 was probably the original prototype route, before double tracking was added to the line. Since there was no room for a second track alongside A-B1, the longer, wider route (A-B2), was added later. The era of the structures appear to be of an age where A-B1 was not that short a radius, especially if it was built first as the single track route, and the broader A-B2 track was added later as part of a capacity expansion project. But, given the incomplete information we have, we could both very well be wrong! And we'll not likely know for sure without more information.
Here are the two options that I came up with: And if I understand his explanation, here's what acptulsa came up with: My first thoughts were that the upper level was a loop like acptulsa's explanation, and that is certainly a possibility, but I couldn't make sense out of the rest of it. Also, something just doesn't look right to me on that upper level, it almost looks like some of it has been photo shopped.
You understand perfectly. Thanks for the diagram. Crossovers on dogbones always do. You'll notice the crossover reverses trains going one direction, and the through track trying to look like a mate to that spur reverses trains going the other. Yeah, he could have used two crossovers instead, or a double crossover. But if you've ever designed a folded dogbone, you know those disguised reversing tracks are hard to resist. I dislike subterranean switches too, and am no fan of trollies on code 100. But I can't assume the guy who built that feels the same way. He also has both roads and a creek that go nowhere, and that's certainly not my style (no wonder there's so much algae in that pond--it's stagnant). He runs trains over curved wooden bridges that aren't trestles. He clearly does things we wouldn't. I guess you'd do things neither he nor I would, too, because you're assuming he used much steeper grades than he did. You assume he requires the passenger trains to go through that tight curve through B1. And yes, it's tight. I can see the entire upper level past the station in that pic, though, give or take a few buildings blocking the view. There is no rail tunnel portal on the upper level. There are no tracks that disappear from the upper level. There's one tunnel portal visible in the area, and the closest tracks curve away from it. Only Main St. lines up on it. Which is good, because double track clearly won't fit through it. I can see where every track that goes past the station either merges into another track, ends, or comes back past downtown. Two tracks go around, two tracks come back. So either someone used a lot of intricate Photoshop on that old pic for some reason, or all the rail tunnels are on the lower level. Two tracks curve right away from the sole visible upper level tunnel portal and go behind the big white building with the red roof. Two tracks go behind the water tower. If that isn't a loop, if two of those tracks enter a tunnel and the other two serve an industry, the portal and the industry are in the same place. The tunnel is the industry. A lot of intricate Photoshop. I don't think that's the most likely case. I think two switches in the tunnel, while a potential pain in the rump, is far more likely. I'm not curious enough to shell out for the guy's book. How about you?
Thanks for taking the time to draw these options, Robert! I think Robert's take #1 is closest to correct, excepting that the backside red trackage extends further to the right than the nearer red trackage. Note that the photo shows the right end of the front tracks exit from under the middle of the topside curve, and the topside curve extends closer to the right end. With this modification, no underground overpasses are needed in #1. The photo is ambiguous, but it appears as if the nearer red trackage may be single-tracked underground. I'm with ACPTulsa, that the un-labeled portal is too narrow for double tracks. It is unclear how far to the left the single trackage would extend before becoming double as it exits from under the bridge at A. The presence of that portal implies that the trackage is above ground somewhere between the bridge and that unlabeled portal. I interpreted the lake as the source, not the sink, for the creek. I presume the lake is spring fed, and such lakes often have high mineral content that supports profuse plant/algae growth. The creek appears to pass under the double track RR bridge, and likely exits the back of the layout, out of sight of the camera. The lake could have have been a quarry or pit mine at one time (for clay, minerals, and/or gravel), which at some point became deep enough to break into a shallow aquifer, flooding the pit. Perhaps the creek was man-made (or -augmented) in an attempt to drain the flooded pit. There is a rather squarish cut in the "wall" of the lake that appears man-made. Early, shallow pit mines were sometimes attempted near mineral springs, with varying degrees of success, battling the water for as long as practical. Of course, selective compression clearly took liberties with how near the tracks are to the edge of what appear to be less than stable, red clay cliffs. I read enough of the vendor's website to pass on the book and/or membership. One minor point about crossovers in dogbones: double-tracked dogbones can have crossovers within the double-track (not between opposite sides of the 'bone), without creating a reversal. But one of the reasons I like dogbone layouts is that they provide the opportunity for reversing direction with a simple crossover.
Thanx to everyone who has chimed in so far. My buddy will have a lot to chew on - although I'll still advise against too much hidden track
Good advice. The dogbone minimizes that, which is part of the reason I believe that layout is one. Who builds a railroad to run trains where no one can see them (besides Manhattan)? Tell him I don't advise underground switches one bit more than Jake does, and if he eliminated track B1, he'd never miss it. The guy who built that layout likes tunnel holes way too much. I shudder to think what Freud would say. It's a big block of Swiss cheese. I like bridges. If I were to make a stream go under that two track triple truss bridge, I'd bring it down the middle, make track B2 cross it on a bridge right outside (now single track) portal A, and have it "drain" out in the front stretch, under a pair of bridges carrying the double track there. No curved bridges. Straight bridges, a couple of them pretty long. Might have to shrink the station parking lot enough to move the retaining wall enough to move that one lone industry enough to clear it. But it would look good.
