Two locomotives

Consider the possibility of two locomotives operating in the area with one entering the runaround from each end.

The other situation is a long string of cars that covers the turnout on the right end while doing some switching on the left end.  You shouldn't be throwing switches under cars.

That one additional toggle has you covered.

Two

Definitely two.  The only time you really want one switch is a crossover.

A train pulls into the siding and is going to make a set out into the runaround.  The rear of the train fouls the other end of the runaround.   If you have one switch it will throw the switch under the rear of the train, possibly derailing it.

Thanks for the advice

Luckily I have  three units. The third one had been intended for another turnout on the main layout but I'll just order another one when I get to dealing with it. BTW, these are what I use for twin coil control. They are called 751D's and are manufactured by a very nice gent named Ken Stapleton. 

Agree with posters

Agree with posters above.

That is, control each switch of the runaround individually.

Well I'm committed now

I soldered the switch control leads on each harness up to their respective machines. The little control units I use don't coast but about nine bucks a piece and it's not worth giving myself operational headaches later on. Given my short train lengths I really don't see how the issue would ever come up but as I said, I want to consider all eventualities and better safe than sorry. I still have to figure out exactly how I want to make the control panel and schematic but getting this worked out is another step in the right direction.

Switches in groups

Hi,

there are places where it is advisable to switch multiple turnouts in a group. However, I see no such groups in your track plan.

If you had a derail to protect your mainline, you would want that derail coupled to your mainline switch. In my case, I have several places where the turnout to an industry provides protection to my mainline. As such, depending on my mainline-to-siding switch I need to set the industry spur turnout. In this case, grouping the turnouts is quite helpful.

While I agree with "crossovers" being a grouped turnout situation, I would add "interlocking" situations. (Include derails in the "definition" of a turnout).

Have fun.

In the old days we used  a

In the old days we used  a diode matrix to switch whole groups of yard ladder turnouts for various routes. Some still do but I think most people have moved on to Arduino's and such to do those task.

It just seemed to me that the thing to do on such a short passing siding was to gang the switch machines to one panel switch because it's pretty much a given that you are going to want the points set to the same route probably 98% of the time but I wasn't sure about that other 2% so that's why I asked and in the end I opted to take the advice given. I will have a separate toggle at each end of the siding. The little circuits I use don't cost all that much and it will take like half a sec to throw one more toggle so no biggie.

  "it's pretty much a given

Hi Michael,   I think the main reason you want independent turnout control would be if you are switching cuts of cars that overlay the far turnout so when you throw the near one it sets the far one the wrong way under the far cars.   The downside of separate control for me would be having to make sure the far turnout is set to match the near turnout if an engine is approaching it to make a run around move....DaveB

Well luckily with these

Well luckily with these turnout controls I will have LED indication on the panel so it should just take a quick glance to determine if I need to throw the other toggle. I also will orient the toggle switches where they indicate which route is thrown on the track panel schematic. I'm now 100% convinced it was the correct decision to go with two toggles and I appreciate everyone's help in helping me reason it out.