L&N Industrial Rail Spur

[FCIN]

Reinhard;
Let me see if I can break this down without getting too windy in the process... (very doubtful )

I understand a run around is something that is very much avoided rather than a standard.

I wouldn't say that a runaround is something that is very much avoided, just not required if the layout of industry spurs are such that it isn't needed or there is a faster way to get the job done.

An example of avoiding a runaround to save time would be cutting off a car or cars, bleeding off the air and letting them roll into a siding or spur, rather than cut the cars off, and go through a long siding to get to the other end of them, then shove them to the track. The slightest grade will do the job on the prototype. Used to do that sort of thing all the time.

Of course that sort of thing isn't practical on our model railroads and we actually want to increase the time it takes to do a job, just to make our layouts feel larger. Operating in a prototype fashion in and of itself adds time to our operations. Operating at prototype speeds, stopping to flag a crossing, waiting a few seconds before we pull away from a car we just spotted are some examples, but can be taken to the extreme and can actually get aggravating over time. We do this for relaxation, not because we're earning a paycheck and want to get home out of the cold or rain as quick and safely as we can manage.

Options like presorting, engine in the middle, shoving platform, reduced speed are preferred by the prototype over run around.

Not exactly preferred, but rather required due to the nature of the location to be worked. The example I cited in my previous post where we often had to block our cars on both ends of the engine was necessary in order to work that branch. Would have been great if there was a long runaround at the end of the branch, so we could work everything from the "right" direction. The only redeeming factor was there was enough available track space to be able to switch the customers at the end of the branch.

Whether you are operating a local freight along the main line or going to switch an industrial spur, you always want your cars blocked out in the order that you'll be switching the industries when you leave your home terminal or yard. Even picking up cars off an interchange track, I'd block them out as necessary so that the first car I needed to place wouldn't be the last car on the train unless I had no choice.

And yes, operating at reduced, realistic speeds should be the norm, especially when switching. Coupling speeds must be less than 4 mph; with "perfect" coupling, all you hear is the pin drop. I recently watched a video that a young man posted where he was switching a car from an industry in a very prototypical manner with his latest DCC equipped locomotive. He was criticized by someone because it took him 7 minutes to work that industry - about half the time it would have actually taken in the "real" world. I just shock my head in disbelief at that comment. Operating in a prototypical manner, it takes almost as long to switch a model railroad as it does the real thing. Time does not scale!

When I voted for the run around version some days ago it was my assumption a run around would be at least a 50% standard. I am now learning a run around is an exception and not a standard. (...)

I probably gave the wrong impression in so far as you are thinking that a runaround is an exception and not the standard. I'm not that great at keeping my thoughts together when trying to put them into written words.

I know of several short line railroads, some now abandoned, some currently in operation, that have only one runaround track at one end of the line or no runaround tracks at all and must operate in a push-pull fashion. Can't say that I've ever seen anyone model such an operation, other than myself some years ago, but they do and did exist.

Most industrial spurs tend to have all tracks switch from the same direction as far as practical for cost savings and efficiency, but of course there are always exceptions. Several interesting industrial spurs that I have located have at least one track that is oriented in the opposite direction from all the others along the spur, but no runaround track anywhere close. The point I was trying to make is that whether or not to include a runaround track actually depends on what you are modeling, but of course it can also be a personal preference.

If you're modeling or basing your layout on a prototype location and that location has a runaround track, then of course it should be included on your layout. If you feel that having a runaround track adds operating potential to your layout, then include it. But, if the prototype location doesn't have a runaround or it wouldn't really be required to serve your industries, then why include it just to add more moves?

As you and everyone else can tell, I'm still weighing one design over the other - "To Have or Have Not" a runaround. The runaround uses two switches and at least 6 feet of track for the siding and it's only primary purpose is to get the engine on the opposite end of the train, or to switch one industry, depending on the operating scheme and how the train enters the layout.

Eliminating the runaround would allow me to add one more industry without packing in too much track and be more like a "typical" industrial spur. I also think that having all tracks switch from the same direction adds its own operational quirks since you have to hold on to all your cars most of the time thus requiring slow speeds and a lot of planning ahead. Since my layout is actually free-lance, right now it's a toss up for me as to whether or not I really want or need the runaround. I can see some potential in having it (the idea of operating the layout with different themes from time to time), but then again having worked on the railroad and knowing first hand how things are done, I just don't know that I need it for the type of layout I'm building.

I'd like to be able to have the train appear to be coming onto the spur through a switch from the "main line", or at least make it a bit more obvious that the line goes on somewhere else, but just can't make that situation fit my layout space, as I have no room to place the staging area in an "L" configuration. I think that having a highway overpass at the point where the staging meets the main layout will help to give the impression that the line goes on to the rest of the world. We do have to make concessions no matter how much space we have for our layout!

The prototype has much fewer of them than we place on our layouts. Is that the right message?

As previously stated, just depends on what you are modeling. But in today's railroading, I would say there are fewer of them for various reasons. Lose of customers; locations that were once booming rail served towns that now barely require rail service; removal of tracks to keep from paying the outrageous taxes that cities and states impose on the railroad industry; the list goes on. So if you're into the modern era, fewer tracks (and customers) are the norm.

The town where I live is a perfect example of how things have changed in just the past twenty years. Two railroads serving the town (both of which I worked for at one time or another); a small (model railroad size) yard consisting of about 10 tracks with several team tracks; two long industrial spurs and numerous customers. Today, both of the industrial spurs are gone, all the yard and team tracks are gone and the three or four remaining railroad customers are on the outskirts of town at a small industrial park.

Well I still managed to get windy, and have been doing some "self analysis" in the process, but hope I cleared up things a little. I'll quit while I'm ahead.