Point to point or not

As an owner of a point to point layout I would recommend incorporating a continous run even if you operate it as a point  to point. The ability run continuously is very useful when you have non fan visitors as you can set your trains to circulate while you  talk to your guests without having to concentrate on driving the train. Its also useful when breaking in new locomotives.

My layout is point to point

My layout is point to point during ops sessions but has the ability to run continuous. Also it help turning trains around out of staging when re staging the layout for the next ops session. My staging has a wye so you can enter/depart either from the west or the east.

Plus its nice to have a train just running around when visitors come by or if I operate long wolf.

Both..

I agree, it's nice to have a loop to just let something run while your working on something. But you can always treat the layout as point-to-point operations wise.

Another agree

My layout is a point to point, with a yard at each end, but I also have a hidden staging area that will allow for continuous running. This allows for incoming freight to industries on my layout, as well as out going freight to points beyond my layout. This ads many operating possibilities.

Hidden return track

I plan on having a partially hidden return track for continuous running.  I LIKE to watch trains run.  That will also allow one train to run as I switch elsewhere, if I'm so inclined.

Depends

Like others above, my layout is operated point-to-point, but with the ability to run continuous.  Even though I used to view a continuous run option as being mandatory to any layout plan, in my case, after six years of operating, I've almost never taken advantage of that capability to just let a train circle the room repeatedly.  I tried it a few years ago, having a mainline train circling the basement to make things more interesting for me working a local and having to clear up occasionally.  However, I eventually got nervous about the possibility of the mainline train derailing on the swing gate it crossed at the layout entry 20' or so away, and falling 4'+ to the floor, so I stopped.

The continuous run connection IS handy in that it allows both ends of the layout to share the same staging yard, meaning run-through trains are automatically re-staged.  My prototype saw a fair number of detour trains from a neighboring class 1, so it's really nice being able to operate those with minimal work between sessions.

Put me down for a continuous

Put me down for a continuous running option as well. There's something about getting your train from the quarry to the plant in time to clear for an oncoming train when you're running on your own. I sometimes let two trains "run wild" and operate between sidings with another.

PTP or Roundy Round

I had my first layout as a roundy-round. It looked good but lacked the operation. My smallest (N scale) ran point to point in a roundy- round fashion. That is to deliver materials it ran over a lot of track to get to its destination, covering about half the track on the layout. My newest is a true PTP, double tracked mainline with off the main destinations. As I have been working on the track plan, making changes, I came up with the final plan. Showed it to another modeler and the first thing he said was "Oh it's a point to point", you can make it "continuous running if you add a track from here to.....", at that point my brain shut him off. I've been there, done that, and I'm still sticking to my current plan. There may be changes as I go , but no roundy-round will infect me. No offense roundies, I just wish you all good running and have fun.

"but no roundy-round will infect me"

I don't think you understand the purpose of a continuous run connection. It's not for operations it's for convenience when you want to break in a loco or test run some new cars, or sound system. It lets you run a lot longer than a point to point can so adds not detracts.....DaveB 

Yes

I think continuous run should be included if possible. Even though I have had to drop this option on my layout plan.

My original plan included a double ended staging yard. I say, "do it if you can," if not, don't sweat it.

...Self discipline...

Dear MRHers,

As John Armstrong, doyen of trackplanners was quoted
(as closely as I can recall from the interview in the 1st MRP annual from Kalmbach)

as saying:

"...sure, one can operate a portion of a continuous-run layout as a point-to-point,
it only takes self-discipline to not continue running "thru the tunnel"
(which demarks the start/end point of the circuit),

and end up where you started from..."

For a live-fire example of such "circuit as a PTP" headspace, check the "Cripple Creek Central" article series from back in MR circa mid 90s, or the Kalmbach "HO railroad you can model" book...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Real railroads

Real railroads do not operate point to point for the most part. The train goes from producer to end user or importer,exporter. Trains travel from the yard they originate to another yard where they are broken down and made into new trains until they reach the final destination. A great example is the old alphabet route. A train would start on one railroad run the length of the railroad and be handed off to another who continued to the end of its line and gave it to another. A railroad that did operate point to point for the most part was the Virginian. It took coal from the mines and hauled it to a port on the Atlantic Ocean and then ran the empties back to the mines. Now they did have a bit of other traffic as well that was interchanged but most of their revenue was from coal.

Both of these operating schemes can be depicted very well with a continuous run plan. The alphabet route could consist of a section of the modeled route with each end connected to a common staging yard. Continuous running would involve going through the staging yard and would allow long runs with no interaction (model rail fanning) which on some occasions is nice to be able to do. It also allows one staging yard to serve both ends of the railroad. A similar means can be used to depict the Virginian with the common staging yard and allow loads to orbit in the proper direction.

When one wants to formally operate the staging can depict not modeled destinations and can be the actual origin and termination point for all trains on the layout. If one wished no yards or terminals needed to be modeled only mainline or mainline and industries and interchanges etc. Trains would go from the staging to the modeled part of the railroad and back to staging. The only thing needed to keep from just orbiting the layout is discipline.

The continuous run has the most possibilities and the greatest versatilely and can easily be operated destination to destination should that be desired. I prefer the term destination to destination as nearly all destinations lead to some other destination rather than the end of the line as point to point implies.

Rob in Texas

Modelling Practicalities VS Real-world Emulation

Dear Rob,

Of course, if the "end points" are hidden staging, then a car can head to an unmodelled "destination" at a "point", and need not reappear "onstage" for as long or as short a period as the modeller requires,
(whether driven by whim, proto inspiration, paperwork, "tiddly-wink computer", or whatever routing system may be in play...)

"Point 2 Point" as a term tends to deal with the physical realities of arranging scale model tracks and trains and running a layout...

"Destination to Destination" as a term tends to address the mental game of "boxcar Railbox 12345, waybilled from Blue Herron Papermill, Ore. filled with newsprint paper rolls, to LA Times printer CA, via UPY J-yard

Both concepts and terms are valid, but one is starting from the model-train, and looking out,
whereas the other is starting from the prototype being emulated, and looking in...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS in the above scenario, let's assume I was building a layout which depicted some portion of the UP between Roseville and Stockton. I could quite validly model a portion of Railbox 12345's journey from Ore> CA as it passed thru my modelled portion on the line using a physical "Point to Point" schematic. Of course, neither of the "modelled destinations" are physically evident on the model layout, but are very much "part of the soap opera" that represent the train movements and operations being emulated in model form...

" some portion of the UP between Roseville and Stockton."

you could do it point to point on a loop by modeling Lodi on the on stage side and Sacramento /Stockton yards on the other side.Trains would leave Sac yard counter clockwise and leave stocktown yards clockwise then pass thru Lodi hoping they don't get stuck again then eventually arrive in their sac/stockton yard. The Lodi side could be scenic'd with appropriate on line industries and the sac/stockton yard could be a generic staging yard or could have a few local industries at each end depending on the space available. You could make it the CCT instead of the UP by making the staging yard represent Polk/Mormon BTW.   ....DaveB

Point to point vs. continuous

Round vs P2P

"but no roundy-round will infect me"

If I need to test or break in an engine I think the old Christmas tree oval will do the trick and not be hampered by switches, other engines etc. It provides a much more consistant controlled track. Done on a hunk of plywood it will store easily in a closet or hang on a wall. Like I said I've done the Roundy-round route and it's just not my cup of tea. I don't care for tea either. Sorry Brits!

I'm in the point to point camp

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this.  Most railroads are fundamentally point to point.  Materials are transported from one point to another.  VERY few operations are cyclical - the ones I can think of are primarily unit trains, such as coal, grain, or ethanol.  Most railroads are basically linear.

More to the point, most model railroads (at least, the ones which are intended to model portions of prototype railroads) are best suited to a point to point operation.  If you are modeling a portion of a railroad, it is fair to assume that the railroad continues in at least one and probably both directions.  As such, point to point with staging at one or both ends seems the most realistic option to me.

In my opinion, and excluding a few exceptional examples (such as the Bronx Terminal), continuous running has no place in a prototypical operation.  It does have its benefits if you either like to watch trains run in the background (nice for entertaining, for example), or for breaking in equipment.  For that reason, I am all for including an option for continuous running, but it is not something I consider critical.  I don't entertain non-modelers very often, and a simple loop of track or rolling road work for break-in with less layout compromise.

Have Your Cake and Eat It Too

Double ended staging solves the problem. Linear railroad operates point to point (staging to staging). Continue through staging and it becomes continuous run.

http://www.lkorailroad.com/track-plan/

"Double ended staging solves the problem"

Yep, always my first choice when designing a track plan. One big yard is a lot more flexible than two small yards and it's a big advantage to be able to run never ending loops when desired  instead of running a few yards then having to stop cause you ran out of track.....DaveB