+- (https://bigbluetrains.com)
+-- Forum: Branchline (https://bigbluetrains.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=45)
+--- Forum: Layouts (https://bigbluetrains.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=46)
+--- Thread: TPBO (/showthread.php?tid=3469)
Re: TPBO - Justinmiller171 - 12-07-2010
Ed, I would leave the team track with its own track, but then switch the places of the team track with the Coke-Plant, It would really help the layout feel more open
You have got me thinking about an industrial park theme for my layout, yesterday I layout down some track in a formation similar to yours and not only did the layout look bigger, but It also operates alot better than the modified version of Jack Hill's plan that I was using earlier.
Re: TPBO - Brakie - 12-08-2010
Justinmiller171 Wrote:Ed, I would leave the team track with its own track, but then switch the places of the team track with the Coke-Plant, It would really help the layout feel more open
You have got me thinking about an industrial park theme for my layout, yesterday I layout down some track in a formation similar to yours and not only did the layout look bigger, but It also operates alot better than the modified version of Jack Hill's plan that I was using earlier.
Indeed..I am now rethinking Slate Creek since there's to many good ideas to ignore.
Re: TPBO - FCIN - 12-08-2010
Justinmiller171 Wrote:Ed, I would leave the team track with its own track, but then switch the places of the team track with the Coke-Plant, It would really help the layout feel more open.Good points Justin. Looking things over, putting the team track back adds more variety, since the buildings products outfit can unload there along with an almost endless variety of other off-line customers. I'd also thought about swapping the locations of the team track and the coke spur as it may well fit and look better. Will play around with that some.
Justinmiller171 Wrote:You have got me thinking about an industrial park theme for my layout, yesterday I layout down some track in a formation similar to yours and not only did the layout look bigger, but It also operates alot better than the modified version of Jack Hill's plan that I was using earlier.Other than a couple of short lines that I'd considered modeling (Kendallville Terminal and Lapeer Industrial Railroad) that are actually short industrial spurs, I'd never really thought about basing a layout theme on strictly a industrial spur, until I saw what Lance Mindheim and some of the folks on here have been doing.
It's surprising in some ways just how interesting ISL's can be and how much operation they can provide. I mentioned it in an earlier post, but even a very small ISL like the plan Lance uses to demonstrate his building methods in his newest book, could keep a fellow busy for quite a while!
Industrial spurs can be found every where across the country and in so many different configurations, yet they all share one common feature - simple track arrangements. You can go for the densely packed look, like you find in large urban areas or the more open look like you find in the less densely populated areas.
When you get right down to it - it's not really the track plan as much as it is picking a few interesting industries and just finding the right spot for them on the layout. And as Larry mentions there are so many ideas/features that can be incorporated to add interest.
I always thought your first plan based on Lance's East Rail was a dandy! Will be looking forward to seeing your ideas, as I try and refine mine!
Re: TPBO - FCIN - 12-08-2010
Well fellows; here is the latest incarnation of the plan theme I'm working on:
Yes, it's a very simple track plan with a straight spur and all industry tracks parallel to the spur and with road crossings at 90 degrees to the track. Very prototypical for many industrial spurs, so that's not a concern. You can find prototype examples of industrial spurs like this everywhere.
Ideas I've incorporated in to this version are (from left to right):
** Small piece of the railroad's main line modeled with the switch leading to the spur. A street or highway runs next to the main line and there is a highway overpass going over both. I want to clearly show a transition from the well ballasted main line down to the spur which is slightly lower and lightly maintained. The switch will be one of my old Shinohara turnouts with the points soldered in place. The train will be staged as though it is just entering the spur with the engine sitting on the switch and will be shoving a maximum of 5 cars on to the spur.
** Between that point and the first industry track will be some large structures that are not rail served and one that was formarily rail served, but has had the switch and rail removed, leaving the ties in the ground. I think that using structures in this area on both sides of the track is more visually appealing than just open terrain.
** I have swapped the industry track locations around on this plan and numbers by the track/industry name (N) indicate the maximum number of cars that can spot at that location at any one time, based on 55 ft car lengths.
** I put the trans-load (team track) back into the plan. Much more versatile than the previous version and you can spot a greater variety of cars on that one track. There will be a concrete loading dock and ramp at the end of the track, with gravel roadways on either side.
** Next is Trinidad Bernham Corp. that receives covered hopper loads of beans, rice and popcorn to be packaged for distribution. One car is spotted inside the covered shed and as cars are unloaded, they are moved toward the end of the track. There will be a couple of semi-trailers spotted for loading at the left end of that structure. See my thread on this interesting facility for more details. http://www.the-gauge.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=3731
** Temple-Inland Containers, manufacturer of pulpboard boxes/containers; can spot 4 box cars at the building and a covered hopper or tank car by the small tanks at the end of the track. Will also have semi-trailers spotted at the left end of that structure. See Jack Hill's New Castle Industrial Railroad Blog http://oscalewcor.blogspot.com/2010/10/ops-revisited.html for some details on how this industry would be switched.
** Finally, we have my Coca-Cola bottling plant spur where tank cars of HFCS are unloaded. An alternative industry for this spot could be a simple rail to truck liquid transfer facility (an idea I'm tossing around) similar to this:
That's about it for now. I am working up a slight variation of this plan that would have a separate 8 in x 6 ft staging track at the left hand side and aligned with the front edge of the benchwork. If I can do that, then the industrial spur would make a slight "S" curve from the main line in order to go between the first buildings. Wish I could put the simulated main line as an "L" on the end of the plan so that the industrial spur would make a 90 degree turn from the main line, but just out of the question. As shown, the plan is quite workable in my opinion. Plenty of operation and detailing possibilities.
Any suggestions and/or other ideas?
Re: TPBO - faraway - 12-08-2010
I have had some industry buildings between the front of the layout and the first track.
That was fully functioning and no real technical problem at all (uncoupling etc. worked great). However I did never feel comfortable sitting behind a view blocker. Sounds crazy but I could not stand it after some time and replaced it with a free loading area later. May be wise to start the two front non rail served buildings on the left hand with simple mock up for some time and see how you feel so "separated" from the tracks.
Re: TPBO - FCIN - 12-08-2010
faraway Wrote:I have had some industry buildings between the front of the layout and the first track.I had considered putting a working industry structure between the layout edge and the track, like you mention, but sort of figured it would be a problem in the long run. Not being able to see the cars spotted behind the structure for one thing.
That was fully functioning and no real technical problem at all (uncoupling etc. worked great). However I did never feel comfortable sitting behind a view blocker. Sounds crazy but I could not stand it after some time and replaced it with a free loading area later. May be wise to start the two front non rail served buildings on the left hand with simple mock up for some time and see how you feel so "separated" from the tracks.
Even thought about having a structure where the track ran inside the building and you'd be able to look into the structure with a detailed interior. But that could cause problems coupling/uncoupling cars. For example, if there were four cars in the building and you only needed to pull the first three.
I'm thinking this will work okay, as the area where buildings are on both sides of the track, is really nothing more than a switching lead and I wouldn't be concentrating on that area very much while switching the first two tracks. I also like the "canyon" look it gives as you enter the spur. I think there is enough space on either side of the track between the buildings so it doesn't look too crowed.
I'll certainly have to make mockup's of these structures to see if it does or doesn't look/work right.
Re: TPBO - Brakie - 12-08-2010
Ed,As I mention in the Trinidad Benham Corp topic I have a 12½" x 7" x 5½" building that must be placed on the lower left front of the layout. I'm not sure how this will work out.Construction of Slate Creek will commence in earnest after the holidays since I am tired of not having a layout..
I have a plan in my head.There will be 3 flat background buildings,the municipal power plant,the printing company,a produce distributor and team track.
I am thinking about replacing the plastic buildings with scratchbuilt modern "box" structures made from mat board.
Re: TPBO - FCIN - 12-08-2010
Brakie Wrote:Construction of Slate Creek will commence in earnest after the holidays since I am tired of not having a layout..I heard that! Starting this thread has really motivated me to get started on an actual ISL as soon as I finally tell myself - this is one to work on! Just putting down one variation of this plan temporarily and being able to actually work it is not only allowing me to see where changes might/should be made and got me to operating trains instead of just spending countless hours looking and planning.
Brakie Wrote:I am thinking about replacing the plastic buildings with scratch built modern "box" structures made from mat board.I've been thinking about making structure mockup's from foam or mat board, but will look into the idea of building finished structures with that as a base. Far cheaper than styrene although I love working with that material.
Re: TPBO - P5se Camelback - 12-09-2010
:mrgreen:
Re: TPBO - FCIN - 12-09-2010
Today, I'm doing some serious re-thinking about one of the industries on my proposed ISL - The Trinidad Benham facility specifically. http://www.the-gauge.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=3731 Although I was thrilled to discover this industry as a potential destination for my covered hopper fleet - I'm not so sure now if I want such a "space eating" type industry on the layout.
By "space eating" I mean industries that require track lengths that are double the car capacity of the facility; grain elevators; coal tipples and similar industries that must move their cars to load/unload them, for example. Although I knew this when I found the industry; Trinidad Benham is a "space eater". If my model of this facility is designed to spot 3 covered hoppers, then the track must clear at minimum 5 car lengths (one in the shed unloading - and room for two more on either side) - not very efficient for an ISL. I really like this facility - it's large - not something you see every day and fits in to the modern industrial theme. But is it a good choice for an ISL?
The Temple-Inland industry is what I call an "operational" industry, meaning that several cars can spot on the industry track at specific locations and none of them must be moved for loading/unloading. I love large facilities that actually look like they would be rail served, but not if the number of cars that spot does not use most or all of the track space. IMHO, that's almost as bad as having a single car spotted at a structure that's only slightly larger than the car or a large structure that only has one car spot (they do exist).
So at this point, I'm wondering if I should replace Trinidad Benham with another "operational" type industry that would spot box cars (I love box cars!) or leave well enough alone? BUT if I do replace it with something, then what to do with my rather large fleet of trough hatch/gravity discharge covered hoppers?
I've seen many examples over the years of facilities where these gravity discharge type covered hoppers are spotted and don't require the cars to be moved because the shipper/consignee uses portable conveyors that can be moved as required. Jack Hill has one such example on his web site: http://oscalewcor.blogspot.com/2010/09/stretching-simple-spur.html.
I don't want to turn my plan (or any plan I conceive) in to a "track in every corner" type layout, but I could perhaps add another short spur to the plan where I could spot 2 or 3 covered hoppers without having to use excess track space. Question is what sort of facility would be on this spur?
I suppose if worse comes to worse I could simply spot them on the trans-load (team track) and use portable conveyors to load/unload some commodity. And while I'm thinking about it, does any one make HO scale portable conveyors like what is shown in this photo or would this be a potential scratch building project?
Maybe I'm answering my own questions with this posting, but do any of you have any thoughts or ideas on alternative industries and a new destination for my covered hoppers? Just remember that these type covered hoppers are only suitable for handling agricultural or similar type commodities. Commodities such as flour, sugar, plastic pellets, powdered chemicals, sand; are not suitable for these cars.
So many interesting ideas coming out of this thread
, I thought I'd see what you fellows might come up with on this. Maybe it should have been a separate thread in the Industries Along The Rails section, but for now we'll leave it here.
Re: TPBO - steinjr - 12-10-2010
You are making exactly the same observation as Lance Mindheim made in his book on designing small switching layouts. Industries that take a number of similar cars, and where you need space to shove a cut of cars down and track and pull the cars through a loader/unloader is less efficient use of space on a small layout than industries with a couple of sure spots.
Can't answer for you what you should do on your layout, though. Your call. But I think the idea of spotting hoppers at the team track instead is a good one.
Smile,
Stein
Re: TPBO - Justinmiller171 - 12-10-2010
Ed, The local Team-Track in my area Usually contains Only Hopper cars. There are T-shaped pipes that come out of the ground to unload the hopper cars.
Here is a picture I took of the Team Track:
![[Image: HPIM4078.jpg?t=1291969767]](http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab4/Justinmiller171/Butte%20County%20Railroad/HPIM4078.jpg?t=1291969767)
Re: TPBO - FCIN - 12-10-2010
Stein;
The more I think about this, the more I am inclined to go with putting a second "box car intensive" industry on the plan and go with the covered hoppers being unloaded on the team (trans-load) track. Don't really see any need to add yet another track to the plan - at least not for now.
Having experimented some with switching this configuration on the temporary track this evening - it works very well and once again, adds something "a little different". More variety for the team track and would make an interesting mini-scene in itself, with the portable conveyor and a truck being loaded from the car, as in the photo I posted.
Now I'm on a quest to find a suitable replacement industry for the Trinidad Benham facility. Most likely some sort of distribution/storage warehouse facility.
Re: TPBO - Justinmiller171 - 12-10-2010
Ed, If you are still undecided on a theme for your layout I just remembered something my Grandfather told me about the yard I Posted a picture of earlier, He said that he talked with a person that work for Union Pacific, and he said that Union Pacific Hires a Short-Line to switch the yard for them.
You could do something similar with your layout, Have it be an Industrial Park Owned by a Bigger Railroad such as L&N, But have it be Switched by A Short-LIne.
Re: TPBO - FCIN - 12-10-2010
Justinmiller171 Wrote:... Union Pacific Hires a Short-Line to switch the yard for them.Justin;
You could do something similar with your layout, Have it be an Industrial Park Owned by a Bigger Railroad such as L&N, But have it be Switched by A Short-LIne.
Lot of that sort of thing going on these days...
I've considered something along that line (more than once), short line or contract switching service working an industrial spur using second hand power. I know of a few contract operators on industrial spurs not too far from here. Since my ISL is freelance, might be the way to go!
Another possibility would be an industrial park that has its own small locomotive (GE 45 ton is what I'd use) and you can find operations like that here and there too. In fact, here's a link about a now abandoned operation like that using a GE 25 ton known as Atlas Terminal in New York: http://members.trainweb.com/bedt/indloco/at.html
Once I get going on this layout for real, nothing to stop me from operating it as a different theme from time to time. Heck, with DCC, I could have a 45 tonner on the spur and have one of the industries do their own switching in between times when the "Big Boy's" aren't around.
All sorts of concepts - that's another thing that makes model railroading such a fascinating hobby!