Track Plans for North American Layouts

[Regularity]

Just because you have a load of 3-ways, you don’t have to use them!

 

Also, and probably more importantly, you can only run round at the interchange by using the CSX mainline, which I think is unlikely - there are more sidings on the real thing (thanks for the link!) and these operations are probably independent of each other. Taking the interchange between the North Stratford And CNR at North Stratford as a starting point, and simplifying slightly, plus lengthening the loops, I came up with the crude changes in the attached image. To my mind, this looks more like the real thing, but that’s just my opinion. Hope you don’t mind - I have made the (not unreasonable) assumption that you are sharing to elicit comments.

 

Edited May 13, 2018 by Regularity

[DanielB]

Good calls on all. I shall tweak the plan accordingly.

[DanielB]

Plan tweaked. This should make the interchange much more user-friendly. Thanks for the suggestions, Simon.

 

[long island jack]

 

Dan, might be an idea to switch that crossover in the exchange yard, so you can switch using the branch track

[Regularity]

Interchanges usually involve a length of jointly owne track, or the ownership extends mid-way for each company, to avoid trackage rights, etc. Might be worth having it as follows - even better, if you can swing the Gromark Foods factory and track 2 or 3 inches into the operating space, you could also have a spur coming off the interchange loop to provide for extra storage - say CSX drops off cars into the spur (one direction only, clockwise) and picks up in the other direction from the interchange loop.

[DanielB]

Thanks Ray and Simon, I'll tweak it some more and repost.

 

Simon, if you are interested in the prototype location, check out this video from Delay in Block. This was where I discovered the shortline. Some great Alco power in use.

 

[DanielB]

Fixed:

 

[DanielB]

Here's another plan inspired by one Jack/Shortliner just posted in another thread.

 

Imagine this one as a modern industrial switching layout, with scenery akin to Lance Mindheim's LA or Florida based layouts.

 

[shortliner]

Here's another plan inspired by one Jack/Shortliner just posted in another thread.

 

Imagine this one as a modern industrial switching layout, with scenery akin to Lance Mindheim's LA or Florida based layouts.

 

Tenmptation to add a siding track anticlockwise from the outside of the loop into the building/factory at 4 o'clock Edited May 13, 2018 by shortliner

[DanielB]

Another micro layout. The idea for this one is that you take a couple of box files to a train show along with a toolbox, buy some track and some structures from one of the stalls and build the layout as a demonstration for the public whilst you are at the show.

 

 

I might have a crack at this one year. We'll see.

[shortliner]

Another micro layout. The idea for this one is that you take a couple of box files to a train show along with a toolbox, buy some track and some structures from one of the stalls and build the layout as a demonstration for the public whilst you are at the show.

 

 

I might have a crack at this one year. We'll see.

Nasty niggly little s-curve through those points - you may need to trim them back and insert 5-sleepers worth of straights between them

Edited May 13, 2018 by shortliner

[Satan's Goldfish]

Fixed:

 

How about using you 3 way points for the hidden loops if you want to use them up?

[F-UnitMad]

Just because you have a load of 3-ways, you don’t have to use them!

Also, and probably more importantly, you can only run round at the interchange by using the CSX mainline, which I think is unlikely - there are more sidings on the real thing (thanks for the link!) and these operations are probably independent of each other. Taking the interchange between the North Stratford And CNR at North Stratford as a starting point, and simplifying slightly, plus lengthening the loops, I came up with the crude changes in the attached image. To my mind, this looks more like the real thing, but that’s just my opinion. Hope you don’t mind - I have made the (not unreasonable) assumption that you are sharing to elicit comments.

 

Pretty much my thoughts on the initial plan, too. Far too many 3-way points (like, all of them!!) & an almost unworkable Interchange. The later tweaks improve things, but *personally I'd still make the Short Line an end-to-end line, not a continuous loop.* Rather more Prototypical

 

*Edit: I realise it now is end-to-end.

Edited May 13, 2018 by F-UnitMad

[DanielB]

Jordan, it always was.

[F-UnitMad]

Jordan, it always was.

D'oh!! Time for reading glasses

 

Of course, you do realise it's larger than my O Scale 17x8 loft layout?? hint hint

[DanielB]

What, you mean like this, which is going underneath the HO layout?

 

[Mike Boucher]

Fixed:

 

My comments on this layout plan...

 

You seem to have most of the turnouts facing the same direction.  That is, you pull the train into the first switching area, and all the switches are backing moves.  Once you get past the runaround, there's one facing point switch, and then another backing move.  Seems to me that it would be more of a switching challenge if you put another facing point switch in there somewhere.  You would either need to runaround or do the switching for those industries on the return trip.  It'll also make the trackwork look less "symmetrical".

 

 

I'm thinking something like these changes:

 

- the track marked "A" would come off the line at the beginning of the curve (after the river in the "sceniced" diagram), so its a facing point.  This, however, would make a relatively sharp curve to get to the industry, but that might make things interesting by limiting the size of the cars that the industry can take.  I don't recall your minimum radius...

 

- Also if you switched B and C, you would break up the "symmetricalness" of all trailing points in there.

 

- Edit to add: The one siding at the "bottom" of the run around (just below and to the left of B) could also be turned around to a facing point.

 

Second, you don't have a runaround at the end of the line, and that'll mean a LONG backing move to return to your runaround in the larger switching area.  Could make things interesting, but also could be frustrating depending on how long of a train you're running to the end.

 

Just a few other things for you to ponder.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Mike Boucher

[F-UnitMad]

What, you mean like this, which is going underneath the HO layout?

 

Yep, like that one!!

 

Clearly I'm having trouble keeping up, here. you need your own Trackplans Thread now, Dan!!

[Regularity]

My comments on this layout plan...

 

You seem to have most of the turnouts facing the same direction.  That is, you pull the train into the first switching area, and all the switches are backing moves.  Once you get past the runaround, there's one facing point switch, and then another backing move.  Seems to me that it would be more of a switching challenge if you put another facing point switch in there somewhere.  You would either need to runaround or do the switching for those industries on the return trip.  It'll also make the trackwork look less "symmetrical".

Second, you don't have a runaround at the end of the line, and that'll mean a LONG backing move to return to your runaround in the larger switching area.  Could make things interesting, but also could be frustrating depending on how long of a train you're running to the end.

On the first point, real railways try to avoid creating a "switching challenge" as operations are dangerous and time consuming enough as they are. Plus, if you operate properly, at safe speeds, and allowing time to pause for lining the coupler, time for the brakie/conductor to walk from one and to the other, etc, then even simple switching takes up time.

 

On both points, if you check with the googlemaps reference that Dan provided, he has the spurs in pretty much the correct orientation and relative order - he has done a great job of taking the key prototypical elements and putting them into his plan (other than the interchange, which became too rationalised!) There isn't a run round at the end of the line, and there is a long backing move. The line originally went one to somewhere else, and presumably was switched by trains in one direction only.

 

By adapting a prototype location to suit his space, Dan has created a back story to the layout, which explains all the strange and awkward features as well as the more prosaic. Key thing would be to include some overgrown right of way as part of the scenic treatment.

[Zomboid]

I think that plan is great, and I'd personally top & tail the long backing move. Would be a good excuse for multiple locos. Might not be authentic, but would be a good place for gradients, down from the interchange down to A, and then from C towards the end of the line.

 

Might even need a pair of locos if the slope is bad enough...

[Mike Boucher]

On the first point, real railways try to avoid creating a "switching challenge" as operations are dangerous and time consuming enough as they are. Plus, if you operate properly, at safe speeds, and allowing time to pause for lining the coupler, time for the brakie/conductor to walk from one and to the other, etc, then even simple switching takes up time.

 

On both points, if you check with the googlemaps reference that Dan provided, he has the spurs in pretty much the correct orientation and relative order - he has done a great job of taking the key prototypical elements and putting them into his plan (other than the interchange, which became too rationalised!) There isn't a run round at the end of the line, and there is a long backing move. The line originally went one to somewhere else, and presumably was switched by trains in one direction only.

 

By adapting a prototype location to suit his space, Dan has created a back story to the layout, which explains all the strange and awkward features as well as the more prosaic. Key thing would be to include some overgrown right of way as part of the scenic treatment.

Fair enough.  I didn't check out the prototype location.

[Regularity]

Fair enough.  I didn't check out the prototype location.

 

I did - and got very distracted whilst so doing!

[Regularity]

Just spent a pleasant hour or so creating a slide to display one of my favourite prototype locations, North Stratford, on one of my favourite prototype branchlines.

 

The notes present a very abbreviated history, and refer to a blog page I wrote about 5 years ago, and which is due an update, I think.

 

Although this represents a specific location, there are general principles at play here. Although the interchange track appears to be of limited length, only coping with 6 cars, that figure refers to the unencumbered track, clear of any turnouts. In practice, the CNR can drop off more cars (empty 40' box cars and some feed in hoppers for Agway at Coleford), pushing them down the tail end of the former MEC trackage, as long as their own power does not go off its own track. Any local traffic for the short spur near the depot needs to be switched by the NSRC.

 

Similarly, an arriving NSRC train can come in on the main, run round, then push its full loads onto the empties, and pull them clear of the interchange, putting them into the NSRC loop if necessary, before placing its train of full boxcars (and any empty hoppers) onto the interchange road. If necessary, it may need to use the recently acquired train to push the loads clear of the turnout for the CNR to collect, without going onto the track itself (I am sure blind eyes were turned at times!)

 

The NSRC ran once a week, but on two days. I know that sounds odd, but on a Tuesday, the loaded boxcars were switched away from the plant, and replaced with empties that were waiting. On Wednesday, they took the loads down to North Stratford, coming back with empties which were placed ready for the next week.

 

 

In MEC days it was simpler, as the branch train came up the CNR making use of trackage rights.

 

In any era, this presents interesting operating potential, and with the CNR served by storage loops and the NSRC by a couple of storage roads, it would make for an interesting oval layout in its own right, whether for the prototype roads, era and location or for anything else.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Not sure if this should go here, or in the wider US threads...

 

Alphabet Route - Nickel Plate Road Maps and Trackcharts.

 

Fascinating stuff, a class one right at the early diesel era so plenty of iron on the ground to study in order to make your layouts more authentic.

[shortliner]

Just for anybody who only has a minimum space, and is prepared to run "shorty" locos like a Plymouth ML-8 or similar, and 40' or shorter, HO rolling stock - take a look here - there are several possibilities for adaptation with this, allowing sidings in the middle, etc  -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0ML_YAdRDo&t=3s . Oh and before anyone starts with the sarky comments - I know it is a roundy-roundy!!!

Edited May 23, 2018 by shortliner