L&N Industrial Rail Spur

[SSWUPinSA]

Hey Ed,

Just checking in....looks like a load more planning getting done while I was away!! I like the cross dock idea....think it allows for a lot of different rail options. Don't get too bogged down in the detail, I know you want a real rail experience but remember you can always change something once it is built, just look at Kurt and Rienhards layouts, they change like the seasons, which is great!!

Keep up all the posts though, you are a wealth of information that helped me get going when I least felt like it!

[Mike Kieran]

Ed, what if you get rid of the Flexi - Flo Terminal and just lengthen the team track by 2 feet? I would then get rid of the turnout to Flexi - Flo and use that as a spur that could accommodate a wider structure.

[FCIN]

looks like a load more planning getting done while I was away!!

That may be a lot of my current problem with actually doing something with the layout. Too much planning/re-planning and competition from getting out and photographing the prototype! In spite of it being winter here, we've been having some beautiful warm sunny weather. But I'm in a real slump here the past couple of weeks as far as the model railroading goes.

Keep up all the posts though, you are a wealth of information that helped me get going when I least felt like it!

Really appreciate that Cal - try to help out when I can and always happy to provide prototype information to any one that is interested and will listen. Problem is, I need something or someone to get me motivated!

I haven't worked up the nerve to change things around as per the last plan I posted and am still looking at some other possible plans. Probably should just not post anything on here until I settle on something that I'm really happy with. I think that folks get bored with seeing constant track plan changes with no results. The current track plan works out just fine operationally, but feels like something is missing or needs to be adjusted.

Ed, what if you get rid of the Flexi - Flo Terminal and just lengthen the team track by 2 feet? I would then get rid of the turnout to Flexi - Flo and use that as a spur that could accommodate a wider structure.

Mike;
Not sure what you mean here. Are we talking about placing a large structure next to the switching lead in the location of what is shown as TransFlo and increasing the length of the crossdock on a longer team track? Having the 4th dedicated spur on the plan, adds more switching operations and provides destinations for all my car types, assuming I use the team track version of the plan.

What I currently show as TransFlo could just as easily be a small soft drink bottler with a part of the structure modeled between that spur and the front edge of the layout (I've got a good prototype close by to base that on and a structure on the front of the layout in this location is no problem at all). The crossdock structure - if used - would be a model of the prototype that it's based upon so increasing its length is not an option for me.

Maybe you could give me a better idea with a quick sketch of what you mean? Doesn't need to be to scale or fancy looking. In the mean time, I'm still thinking about variations to the track plan and that's dangerous! I might come up with a completely different plan!

[shortliner]

FCIN said "Probably should just not post anything on here until I settle on something that I'm really happy with. I think that folks get bored with seeing constant track plan changes with no results. The current track plan works out just fine operationally, but feels like something is missing or needs to be adjusted."

Not so Ed - It is interesting to see others thought processes and how their ideas can change - just you keep right on posting.
Jack

[FCIN]

Not so Ed - It is interesting to see others thought processes and how their ideas can change - just you keep right on posting.Jack

Appreciate that Jack, but seriously I think the folks on here are far more interested in seeing some actual results rather than some of us constantly changing our minds and track plans.

Looking back over this thread, I've changed or modified my plan at least 14 times and for the most part, the over all plan and theme is pretty much the same. Seems ridiculous when I see other folks on here come up with one really nice plan and then within a few days are actually building it.

I'm doing some serious re-thinking about what all I'd like to include on my layout and try and figure out what it is that is keeping me from picking one plan and going with it. Am I trying to include too much in the limited space? Am I too hung up on certain industries or track arrangements and trying to find suitable destinations for all my equipment? Am I spending too much time looking for that really interesting industrial spur that will fit my bench work? Perhaps I need to re-think the entire theme of the layout? Just can't quite put my finger on what's holding me back. Even the wife is on my case to "stop planning and changing things and build something!".

[Justinmiller171]

I'm doing some serious re-thinking about what all I'd like to include on my layout and try and figure out what it is that is keeping me from picking one plan and going with it. Am I trying to include too much in the limited space? Am I too hung up on certain industries or track arrangements and trying to find suitable destinations for all my equipment? Am I spending too much time looking for that really interesting industrial spur that will fit my bench work? Perhaps I need to re-think the entire theme of the layout? Just can't quite put my finger on what's holding me back.

That has been my problem for a long time. I think what happens is that whenever we see a neat industrial spur or a neat picture, we try to see how that would fit into or space and that leads to a new track-plan, but then a few days later something else captures our imagination and that leads to another track-plan.

I don't know what the solution to our problem is yet, but I would try to build a smaller layout like I am, it would allow you to test your theme without putting in a big investment, it is also very quick to build so procrastination won't be a problem. I would build something small (Less that 8 feet long), but has enough realistic operations to keep your attention, today I set up a small inglenook but I soon realised that I hate puzzle layouts, there is a big difference between operation, and Realistic operation.

I strongly suggest going with something smaller for now. Then you can go for the big layout once you feel comfortable.

[Mike Kieran]

Hey Ed,

I was just suggesting something like this.

[FCIN]

Hey Ed,
I was just suggesting something like this.

Howdy Mike;
Thanks for taking the trouble to draw that up. I was pretty sure that's what you were talking about, but sometimes what I read is not necessarily what the other person meant! Having the crossdock and TransFlo on the extended team track would work and I've considered that too, but felt like having TransFlo (or a soft drink bottler) on a separate track just added some to the operation. I am a big believer in "less is more", so a plan with fewer turnouts and tracks is always something I'm looking for. Having an industry at the end of the spur and on the front edge would work okay for me too, as I can stand at the end of the bench work and see what's on spot there (not to mention that the cars would be shown in order on the switch list), but there is a potential problem, which we'll look at in a moment.

One of the (many!) industrial spurs that I've found and that appeals to me has an arrangement of industries and tracks like this:     I find industrial spurs like this very interesting, but you run in to one big problem; and that is, having enough clear track to work the industries at the end of the spur. On this industrial spur and based on Bing aerial views, you could probably work Industries A and B by using the spur to Industry C which only has 1 car spot at the end of the building or if you never had more than 1 car (perhaps 2) on spot at A and 1 on spot at B. On a prototype spur like this, you might actually have to pull everything from the industries at the end of the spur and use either the main track or a another track further up the spur to line up what must be re-spotted.

But modifying the Owensboro spur as shown, we could have a problem. Using a modified version of your drawing for reference...     Today, we have 3 cars on spot at Sara Lee (blue cars) and 3 on spot at what I'll call the warehouse (red cars) which can spot 4 cars. On our switch list, Sara Lee has 1 empty flour car which will have been moved toward the switch, another being unloaded and a tank car to be left at the end of the spur. We have to pull the empty and then we have 1 car of flour that must be placed behind the one currently being unloaded.

At the warehouse there are cars currently on spot at doors 2, 3 and 4 (numbered from end of track) the car at door 3 is an empty to pull and we have a load that must be spotted at door 1. So do we have enough clear track in order to pull our empties and then line up our cars to be spotted/re-spotted?

In this scenario, we appear to have enough room to work back and forth between the warehouse and Sara Lee to get the work done and it would sure make for some very interesting switching. In fact, I quickly see how I'd do the switching; but what if we had 3 to pull and place at Sara Lee and 3 or 4 to pull/place at the warehouse? And of course that could well happen in some sessions. See the potential problem? What do we do with those 6 or 7 outbound cars so that we can place our 6 or 7 inbound cars?

Of course that large 48in long structure could be reduced to one that only spots a couple of cars as in the diagram I've posted and that might help. So will have to look at that possibility. It could perhaps be TransFlo (or a soft drink bottler) at the end of the spur without having a separate track.

As I mentioned, I find track plans like this very interesting and have even experimented a little with expanded versions of two plans that you drew up for Larry (brakie). It is appealing, but when working up such a plan, you do have to make sure you have enough clear track somewhere to work the industries at the end of the spur, especially if every car spot was occupied.

All that said, something like this could be very interesting and is something that I will experiment with a bit more. I suppose I need to get up from this seat and lay out the Owensboro spur track plan tonight and see what develops!

Appreciate your input!

[FCIN]

I think what happens is that whenever we see a neat industrial spur or a neat picture, we try to see how that would fit into our space and that leads to a new track-plan, but then a few days later something else captures our imagination and that leads to another track-plan.

Very true and a disease that probably effects a lot of us. One thing that I've had to wrestle with is finding suitable industries that would support my freight car fleet and then having the room to include such industries on the plan. Then of course you'll have this or that industry in mind and suddenly you see something else that is even more interesting to you and you're off in another direction. I have come to the realization, that I may well just have to mothball some of my cars if I can't find suitable and believable industries for them. Maybe that will help a little with the planning phase.

I don't know what the solution to our problem is yet, but I would try to build a smaller layout like I am, it would allow you to test your theme without putting in a big investment, it is also very quick to build so procrastination won't be a problem. I would build something small (Less that 8 feet long), but has enough realistic operations to keep your attention

For myself, I see no point in building a much smaller switching layout as I can actually test out and operate full size versions of my various track plans, as I've been doing for a couple of months. A plan 8ft or shorter in HO, wouldn't give me much to work with and sure wouldn't hold my interest very long, although something like Lance's Palmetto Spur with a long removable or permanent staging track would be okay if I had less space. Come to think of it, if the wife would let me build a layout on that long wall in the living room, I'd go with a plan like that. But she'd have me committed if I even suggested such a thing!

today I set up a small inglenook but I soon realised that I hate puzzle layouts, there is a big difference between operation, and Realistic operation.

Absolutely! I must say that when I saw your latest track plan I wondered how a layout based on a switching puzzle would appeal to you, when two or three prototype based plans with realistic operation didn't. Be that as it may, even the simplest prototype based or realistic track arrangements when operated in a realistic manner are far better choices than puzzles or games. You need only look at Mal's (alcanman) version of the Palmetto Spur. http://www.the-gauge.net/forum/viewtopic...=46&t=4317 for a great example of a small plan with prototypical operation. He's done a great job and looking at his photos and videos, it's hard to realize that the entire layout is only 9 feet in length.

Getting back to me settling on a track plan. Mike has given me more food for thought and I really need to test out my latest prototype based plan. The finest switching track plan that I've seen in a long time is Kurt's (cnw1961) new freelance Los Angeles Terminal layout. http://www.the-gauge.net/forum/viewtopic...=46&t=4455. I absolutely feel in love with the way the spur swings back and forth through the length of his plan and when I remembered the Owensboro spur and looked it over, I saw a resemblance in that spur. I'd love to steal Kurt's plan, but without all the street trackage and urban scenery, but I prefer to try and come up with my own plans and especially ones based on prototypes, even if I don't model them tie for tie, industry for industry.

I've also been tossing around the idea of an industrial spur with tracks running off it in both directions and no runaround track like one I used to switch on the L&N, but not really sure if I want to go that route. Can be quite interesting to work such a spur where you must block your train out with the engine in the middle, so I'll keep that in mind too and perhaps work on a plan for something like that. There are just so many prototype based ideas to choose from, it's no wonder some of us can't really get started!

So with that in mind, I'll do a little more messing around with the new plan version and then if I can get my butt out of this chair, I'll relay my track and see how it works for me.

[FCIN]

Okie-dokie... Using Mike's suggestion I've revised the latest track plan as follows (gee whiz, only 3 turnouts!) Left end North - Right End South:     I've lengthened the switching lead a bit to make sure that I'll have ample room to work the Packaging Unlimited warehouse. Rule of Thumb, you always need to have enough track between the end of the layout, or staging and the first turnout to hold double the capacity of the first spur plus your motive power. This also gives me a bit of a run and room for a scenery only area.

Packaging Unlimited is the only actual industry on the prototype spur that I'm modeling on this plan, but I may change it to be a distribution warehouse of some sort for a bit more car variety. It will have doors for 4 car spots and they will be spaced on 70-80 ft centers, to allow ample room for both 50ft and 60ft cars.

As on the prototype spur, the switching lead swings westward from Packaging Unlimited to the next switch and then swings back southward; breaking up an otherwise straight run. Having no room to put that track on a peninsula so it would run due west as on the prototype, I of course had to make that track run parallel to the switching lead and I've made that spur a trans-load track. Although I'm not that wild about having a trans-load or team track, I've decided to go with it as it will allow me to use all my equipment types, and that is a plus for me.

The trans-load track has been lengthened and has ample room for off-loading 1 or 2 covered hoppers, 1 or 2 cars of lumber, building products or miscellaneous commodities and 1 car at the small crossdock structure. As mentioned in a previous posting, the crossdock structure will have open doors so that you can look through the structure and see a fork lift, and some loads on pallets in the structure. There will also be a small shed over the covered hopper unloading spot. That and the crossdock give me a couple of mini-scenes on an otherwise open track.

I've removed the separate track at the end of the spur and have now placed what I'm calling G&J Bottling in that location. G&J spots 1 or 2 corn syrup tank cars at a time and part of the structure would be modeled on the front edge of the layout. Based on the prototype, there is enough room between the structure and track so that cars are easily visible and can be coupled/uncoupled without any problem. The prototype this is based on is one of those precast concrete tilt-up structures, so looks like I need to get one of the Great West Models kits for that one.

Opposite G&J is the spur going to Kern's Bakery. Changed the name since Sara Lee didn't buy out Kern's until 1989 and that's past my modeling era of 1980-1984. There were many Kern's bakeries throughout Kentucky and the southeastern U.S. in my modeling era, so was the logical name for this facility. Kern's can spot two cars of flour and one tank car at a time. The structure will be kit-bashed from the Walther's Magic Pan Bakery kit that I have.

I'm thinking (hoping?) that there shouldn't be any problem switching cars at Kern's and G&J based on the number of possible car spots and the fact that the only cars over 50ft in length would be the tank cars for Kern's. It should provide for some interesting switching moves, as it will require using both the switching lead and the Kern's track to work both industries. Only actual testing will tell the tale. I can of course move the Kern's switch a bit further north if necessary to give me a little more working room on the Kern's spur.

Now I need to lay out the track per this plan and see how it works. I sure can't say that this will be "the plan", but it has some potential and is a bit different from previous designs. But be warned, there are still other ideas floating around in the old brain!

*** UPDATE ***
Just spent a pleasant couple of hours relaying the track to this plan. Looks okay, in spite of the lack of suitable structure mockups; but she runs flawlessly and we're ready for some test operating sessions.

*** UPDATE NUMBER 2 ***
Just spent some time testing out switching operations on the revised track plan. Only working the end of the spur placing and pulling various car combinations for Kern's and G&J as this was my one area of concern with the track plan. Must report that things did not go well
In my testing, I have what I'd call a typical number of cars on spot at each of those industries: Kern's 2 Airslides - 1 tank and 2 corn syrup tanks at G&J. As long as I only place and pull one car from each industry - no problem, but any more than that, there isn't enough room to work unless I take a car or two north and cram it in to the trans-load track. In a scenario where you might well have 3 cars to place and pull at Kern's and 2 to place and pull at G&J, I'm out of luck.

At this point my options would be to: 1) put G&J back in as a separate track per the original plan or 2) lengthen the trans-load track some more; put TransFlo at the end of that track and forget having anything at the end of the spur.

Guess this is a good example of testing out things before committing yourself to a plan that looks good on paper, but doesn't work in reality. Going to have to think this over some more or else it's back to the drawing board!

[Brakie]

Ed wrote:Guess this is a good example of testing out things before committing yourself to a plan that looks good on paper, but doesn't work in reality. Going to have to think this over some more or else it's back to the drawing board!
-------------------------------------------------
Ed,I don't think track planing programs is all that acturate since I know you can have more then 3 switches on a 6' N scale ISL yet that's the most I can do with my current track planing program-its the same one you use-I'm on my daughter laptop and can't recall the name.I'll be glad when my computer is back up on line.

I'm finally moved and now have a 10' long wall to use for Slate Creek.Time I arranged everything it really ate the space and I ended up with excess furniture(this laptop does have spell check )

I've decided to convert back to my old fashion plan as I build method when I build Slate Creek.

[shortliner]

Larry - try XtrkCad - all the dimensions are taken from real life so you know they must be right - and you can run your trains on it to try it out
Jack

[Brakie]

Larry - try XtrkCad - all the dimensions are taken from real life so you know they must be right - and you can run your trains on it to try it out
Jack

I take a look see when my computer is back up.

Here's what can be done in N Scale on a 1x6'3" shelf board.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa332/mcfujiwara/Alameda%20Belt%20Line/PointHendersonatAlameda-30vi11.jpg">http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa3 ... 30vi11.jpg</a><!-- m -->

That's far better then 3 switches I was lmited to according to my track planner for a 1x6' N Scale ISL.

I was using Atlas C55 #5 switches which in real life is around 5" long(matches the C55 section straight).The Peco medium switch is the same size.

I knew something wasn't quite right.

[shortliner]

This is XTrkCad with Peco N scale Code 55small radius turnouts - definitely more than 3 in six feet!

[Steve Williams]

This is XTrkCad with Peco N scale Code 55small radius turnouts - definitely more than 3 in six feet!

Mmmmm. Could be the start of an interesting layout