mrmegaminer, yes, the trackwork in the screenshot in your first post is unrealistic, but not because of the complexity of the trackwork. There is little there that I have not seen in real life, s far as complexity is concerned. But what makes it unrealistic is the density of the trackwork. If a prototype railroad had the occasion to build such complex trackwork, what you have built in the space of a few hundred linear yards would almost certainly be built over a distance of a couple of thousand linear yards, and to my eye, the elements of double track, like those on the far left, are not spaced far enough apart.
I should note here that my experience in railroading is in the US. In the UK,there might have been somewhat more complexity in trackwork than in the US. I would also note that in recent years, railroads in the US have vastly simplified their trackwork, as traffic conditions, and densities have changed. I would also disagree a bit with what cascaderailroad wrote about extremely long turnouts. In the US, the length of the turnout depended, at least, in part, on the speed of the trains using it. In switching operations, where speeds were short, and where tracks often were years old, switches were short. In mainline operations, however, where the switches were going to be used by fast trains, with long equipment, switches were much longer, so that priority trains could cross from one track to another without haaving to slow down for the switch. Also, railroads have long tried to keep trackwork as simple as possible, so that the track arrangement in the center of your screenshot, the diverging turnouts for the double track would likely have been moved to the other side of the diamonds, that is, towards (or even beyond) the bottom of the screenshot to avoid the complicated diamonds.
ns
.