Track Plans for North American Layouts

[shortliner]

Actually - the great thing about "wotif" threads like this is that it gets brains working and sparking ideas off one another - more to the point, it prevents "Old F**ts" like me suffering from "Brain Stagnation"

Edited October 3, 2013 by shortliner

[Glorious NSE]

I think that was the other good point of the switching being at the front, you can then use the chord track as a headshunt without conflict - they do tend to do moves that block junctions where they need to though, I know it feels wierd from a UK perspective, but in most of the US there isn't the traffic density that it's a problem.

 

 

Cheers guys, i was err-ing towards the left too, or just dropping the switching completely until it felt like it needed it! Keep it simple to start. If it's mostly treated as just a 2 track DC line then 'switching' operations would be changing trains from each controlled line to start with. For watching entertainment value, i've always prefered 'trains through scenery' anyway.

 

I spose the other thing if you were going for an industry behind the silo's would be to pop the point in, then you can develop that area later when you want to?

[Jeff Smith]

I am planning an 0n30/0-16.5 layout with US Bachmann stock on one side and UK narrow gauge on the other. Continuous run onto 'foreign' metals. For inspiration I have based it on a US plan but don't intend to include the middle crossover line. My question is, what are the principle differences between US and UK track plans. Many US one I've seen do not have loops - this one does - in fact this looks fairly British to me. So what features would make it US specific? I have added a couple of kick-back sidings or head shunts - features I've also seen on US plans. Any thoughts please?

[Mike Boucher]

I am planning an 0n30/0-16.5 layout with US Bachmann stock on one side and UK narrow gauge on the other. Continuous run onto 'foreign' metals. For inspiration I have based it on a US plan but don't intend to include the middle crossover line. My question is, what are the principle differences between US and UK track plans. Many US one I've seen do not have loops - this one does - in fact this looks fairly British to me. So what features would make it US specific? I have added a couple of kick-back sidings or head shunts - features I've also seen on US plans. Any thoughts please?

 

That, to my American eyes, looks like a classic "4x8 sheet of plywood" layout design.  Very much a standard "first layout" design over here.

 

To me, to make it look British, it would have an off-scene fiddle yard and/or sector plate, and NOT have the continuous run capability.

[dave1905]

US plans tend to be single track.  There tend to be more private sidings for industries.  Train sizes tend to be larger.There tends to be more freight service than passenger service.  It is only within the last 10 years or so the there has been a move to eliminate "loops", and that's because of the focus on modern industrial leads.  The majority of smaller plans tend to allow continuous running (the classic 4x8).    About the 1970's or 1980's there was a push to more point to point designs in smaller footprints and about 1990 there was more of a push to "Lance Mindhiem" style layout. 

 

If you are doing On30 you probably aren't doing a modern industrial lead, you will be doing more of an old school design.  Smaller industries, sidings/loops, heavily focused on carload industrial switching.  A lot of the modern switching discussion is based on a two or 3 man crew (engineer/conductor or engineer/conductor/brakeman) there is a lot of discussion about people walking to get switches and air tests etc.  An On30 era train will probably have an engineer, fireman, conductor, head brakeman, rear brakeman and wouldn't have air brakes, so much of the stuff modern layouts focus on is moot.

[Jeff Smith]

Mike - Yes this is a standard 8'x4' layout - actually two 8'x2' layouts.  A departure from my normal P4 modelling as, 1) I like the Bachmann On30 RTR stock, 2) I want a fun DCC layout that other members of the family might appreciate too, and 3) I wanted to move to O gauge but didn't want a large layout and have always liked narrow gauge.  Also, as I intend to do some O-16.5 Welsh stock I will have somewhere to test it which I wouldn't be able to on my P4 layout.

 

Dave - Your comments re-On30 steam period versus diesel modern practice make sense and make me feel less guilty about turn of the century track layouts which appear somewhat similar to British practice for the same period.  I have not yet researched US single line signalling and operational practice but as I am not aiming at historical accuracy I'm not too bothered right now.  I am laying On30 track (ME) and have to keep reminding myself that it is 1:48 scale not 1:76 and that everything has got to be that much larger......

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

Edit - my inspiration has largely stemmed from this website http://www.pacificcoastairlinerr.com/on30/beginner/

Edited October 3, 2013 by Jeff Smith

[Glorious NSE]

For that kind of railway any kind of physical lineside signalling is likely a moot point also...

 

I would say your key difference between traditional UK 'steam' trackplans and US plans, is that there are a heckuva lot less rules in the US version. No worries about requiring facing point locks, catch/trap points, expensive/extensive lineside signalling and interlocking - just the basic "we need a track to go over there, so we'll put one in" 

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

I would say there's just as many rules, but a heckuva lot less track....

[Mike Boucher]

Mike - Yes this is a standard 8'x4' layout - actually two 8'x2' layouts.  A departure from my normal P4 modelling as, 1) I like the Bachmann On30 RTR stock, 2) I want a fun DCC layout that other members of the family might appreciate too, and 3) I wanted to move to O gauge but didn't want a large layout and have always liked narrow gauge.  Also, as I intend to do some O-16.5 Welsh stock I will have somewhere to test it which I wouldn't be able to on my P4 layout.

 

Dave - Your comments re-On30 steam period versus diesel modern practice make sense and make me feel less guilty about turn of the century track layouts which appear somewhat similar to British practice for the same period.  I have not yet researched US single line signalling and operational practice but as I am not aiming at historical accuracy I'm not too bothered right now.  I am laying On30 track (ME) and have to keep reminding myself that it is 1:48 scale not 1:76 and that everything has got to be that much larger......

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

Edit - my inspiration has largely stemmed from this website http://www.pacificcoastairlinerr.com/on30/beginner/

 

I also model On3 (not 30), so I understand the affection to narrow gauge!  But I gotta admit I'm really tempted to get that On30 double fairlie kit just produced, even though it wouldn't be able to run on my track...

 

I was just surprised that you thought that layout looked more "British design" than American.  I couldn't disagree more, but that's just my opinion.

 

About single line signaling...  For a narrow gauge line turn of the century, it would almost certainly be by train orders rather than signals.  That is, at station X, the train gets a piece of paper from the dispatcher (via the operator at that station) saying he had rights on the track to station Y, or passing siding Z, where he would meet the train in the opposite direction.  Stations would have a manual signal called a "train order signal" which would notify the engineer that they should stop and pick up a new train order, which may override the one they were given at the previous station, based on info the dispatcher got after he issued the previous train order.

 

This practice would last until the demise of the narrow gauge lines.  Try to find photos of signals on any of the Colorado 3 foot lines...

[Talltim]

I think there's a difference betwwen whether the layout design itself looks American, which I think it does, as mentioned above the '8x4 sheet of ply roundy' and the track layouts of each half looking British or American. I think they are pretty generic, could be either UK or US, especially considering its narrow gauge

[dave1905]

About single line signaling... For a narrow gauge line turn of the century, it would almost certainly be by train orders rather than signals.

 

This practice would last until the demise of the narrow gauge lines. Try to find photos of signals on any of the Colorado 3 foot lines...

I agree that block signals on a narrow guage line would be immprobable (actually for a lightly traveled standard guage line as well.)

For a narrow gauge line turn of the century, it would almost certainly be by train orders rather than signals. That is, at station X, the train gets a piece of paper from the dispatcher (via the operator at that station) saying he had rights on the track to station Y, or passing siding Z, where he would meet the train in the opposite direction.

Sorta, you are more describing track warrants which is a 1980's era thing.

 

With train orders (or more correctly timetable and train orders, TT&TO) trains were authorized to operate on the main track generally by timetable schedule, by train order or by yard limits. Timetable schedule operation could be modified by a train order. Trains that didn't have a timetable schedule (extras) had a running order that authorized them to run from their origin station to their terminating station. If a train was going to run extra from London to Glasgow it would recieve a written order, "Engine 123 run extra London to Glasgow". Since scheduled train are superior to extra, the extra would have to read the time table and keep out of the way of regular trains. For other extras the dispatcher would have to give the extra written instructions to both extras on how they proceed with respect to each other, "Extra 123 North meet Extra 234 South at Birmingham".

 

Having said all that, narrow gauge lines tended to be one off operations and so may have done things a bit different than the standard gauge lines. Or if you line is so small only one train operates at a time, they might not have even used train orders at all and just run the train.

 

Another common 1880's-1900's operation (on standard gauge lines with passenger service) was manual block that had TT&TO overlaid with a manual block signal system that used the train order signals as block signals. Each station would telegraph the station upline that they were running a train into the block and would telegraph the station behind that the train had just cleared the block. That might be overkill for a 30" gauge line.

Edited October 3, 2013 by dave1905

[dave1905]

Actually for the layout plan shown, its so small and a circle so TT&TO really wouldn't make much sense.

[Jeff Smith]

I was just surprised that you thought that layout looked more "British design" than American.  I couldn't disagree more, but that's just my opinion.

 

Mike,

 

Aside from the structures, the actual track plans, ie with one loop and one or two sidings, could be found in many branch lines in Britain.  Possibly with the addition of catch points but many British modellers don't include those anyway....

 

Thanks for the notes about single line operation - train orders sounds a very haphazard system but presumably it did the job.  Presumably all the points on such a layout would have been manually operated at the point, ie no point rodding?

Edited October 3, 2013 by Jeff Smith

[Satan's Goldfish]

Did British narrow gauge even have catch points?

[Jeff Smith]

Did British narrow gauge even have catch points?

Probably not but this was not just about narrow gauge - it was more generalised.

[dave1905]

 

Thanks for the notes about single line operation - train orders sounds a very haphazard system but presumably it did the job.  Presumably all the points on such a layout would have been manually operated at the point, ie no point rodding?

 

It relies on train crews being able to follow written instructions, read a timetable and read a watch.  If a train crew can't do that then they probably don't need to be running a train under any system.

 

On N American lines, outside of CTC and interlockings, all switches and derails would be hand operated by the train crews at the points.  The chances of a line like those On30 typically represents having CTC is less than zero and having an interlocking with remotely controlled switches in miniscule.  An interlocking would most likely have and approach signal ( a post with a yellow blade as a 45 degree angle) and then a gate with a stop sign on it at the diamond.  If the gate was lined against you, the crew would see if any trains were coming, if none, unlock the gate, move it across the other line, lock it in place and then proceed.  It was fairly common to just leave the gate lined for the route that last used it on a very lightly used line.

[highpeak]

Another signalling arrangement for crossings was the ball signal. Ball signals protected the crossing of the Maine Central/Sandy River at Farmington, ME and MEC and Wiscasset, Waterville and Farmington at Wiscasset, ME among plenty of Northern New England examples.

This ball crossing at Whitefield NH is perhaps the most well-known and I think was the last one in use, keeping the MEC and the B&M out of each other's way: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=288071

 

No interlocking at all at this crossing, even in the days of passenger trains. MEC passenger trains had to call at the B&M depot as MEC closed their own depot. This involved a reversal in either direction, the coach had a brake stand rigged up in the vestibule for the conductor to assist in the operation.

[dave1905]

Another signalling arrangement for crossings was the ball signal. Ball signals protected the crossing of the Maine Central/Sandy River at Farmington, ME and MEC and Wiscasset, Waterville and Farmington at Wiscasset, ME among plenty of Northern New England examples.

This ball crossing at Whitefield NH is perhaps the most well-known and I think was the last one in use, keeping the MEC and the B&M out of each other's way: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=288071

 

No interlocking at all at this crossing, even in the days of passenger trains. MEC passenger trains had to call at the B&M depot as MEC closed their own depot. This involved a reversal in either direction, the coach had a brake stand rigged up in the vestibule for the conductor to assist in the operation.

 

Technically the presence of the ball signal makes it an interlocking.

 

The ball signal is just a very old form of signal indication.  In rough order they were "lantern signals, ball signals, Hall (banjo) signals, semaphores, then color light.  They all did about the same thing with different degrees of technology and capability.  A "clear" indication on a ball signal is the ball at the top of the mast.  Hence the N American phrase to go or to go fast, "high ball" or "highball".

[highpeak]

I was trying to point out that the signal is not connected in any way to any of the track components.

[Jeff Smith]

As there are no switching components in a simple diamond like this there cannot be any interlocking.  However there may be provision to prevent both balls being raised at the same time!

[dave1905]

As there are no switching components in a simple diamond like this there cannot be any interlocking.  However there may be provision to prevent both balls being raised at the same time!

 

Sure its an interlocking.  There are no requirements for switches for it to be an interlocking.

 

DL&W 1952 Rules

 

Interlocking :  An arrangement of signals and signal appliances so interconnected that their movements must succeed each other  in the proper sequence, and for which interlocking rules are in effect.  It may be operated manually or automatically.

 

There are thousands of interlockings across the US that are just a diamond, with no switches whatsoever.  Even a gate with a stop sign on it that the crews swing across the tracks to allow there movement is an interlocking.  Its a signal (stop sign) and signal appliance (gate) that causes movements to succeed each other (only one move at a time) and interlocking rules are in effect.

Edited October 5, 2013 by dave1905

[dave1905]

Of course it really doesn't matter since there are no interlockings in the trackplan.

[F-UnitMad]

Re "Interlocking" & "Switches"..... possibly we are getting into the realms of America & Britain being divided by a Common Language...

 

Re the posted 8 x 4 trackplan, what makes it American to my eyes is the "looser" lines of the sidings and spurs (or loops and sidings for the UK!!). In Britain the sidings (loops!) would be parrallel, and the spurs (sidings!) form a Goods Yard. Having said that, it could just as easily be as drawn for UK Narrow Gauge.

[Jeff Smith]

Re "Interlocking" & "Switches"..... possibly we are getting into the realms of America & Britain being divided by a Common Language...

Interesting, yes interlocking to a Brit like me would have to have some physical means of preventing incorrect route setting or permission to proceed such as releasing a single line token.

[dave1905]

Interesting, yes interlocking to a Brit like me would have to have some physical means of preventing incorrect route setting or permission to proceed such as releasing a single line token.

Token systems are extremely rare in N America.  I can't say I know of a single one on a class 1 freight railroad.  I've only known of a staff system being used once in the last 30 years on the railroad I work for (which has roughly the same main track route miles as the UK national system), that was during a blizzard when the ice took down all the signal lines through a portion of Illlinois.