L&N Industrial Rail Spur

[mountaingoatgreg]

This one has my vote!!!

I would just use the HOG method in the staging area, if you are so inclined you could make cassetts.
The curves really give it that industrial railroad feeling and break up the scenes really well.

[faraway]

Here's my final(?) version....!

That is great. So you started building it about two hours ago, right? When do we get first photos

[ocalicreek]

I like it! The most recent 'curvy' plan has got my vote. Happy building!

Galen

[FCIN]

So you started building it about two hours ago, right? When do we get first photos

LOL, well not actually building it yet, but am laying out my revised track center lines and making sure every fits as drawn. Maybe small changes here and there.

As for photos, we'll see, once I get the track laid and some sort of plain sky blue backdrop in place...

Little Update: Look's like the track laying will begin tonight!!!

[tetters]

That looks great. Now get cracking!

[Brakie]

Ed,I like version 2 far better since it follows prototype practices instead of the much accepted ISL planing where every move must be complicated or some type of puzzle and every layout must have curves mentality...

Maybe I grown beyond the accepted ISL plans due to extensive research on Bing maps while planning Slate Creek Industrial?

As planned all switches will be trailing point and each industry has several spots.I may include a transload track as well but,don't want to over track the layout.

[FCIN]

Ed,I like version 2 far better since it follows prototype practices instead of the much accepted ISL planing where every move must be complicated or some type of puzzle (...)

Larry;

I certainly agree with your views, which was one reason that I did a version 2 of the plan. Having spent many a night working industries or locations with all facing points switches and where each car had to be placed at a specific spot, I know there is plenty of "operation" to be found on such a track arrangements, without the need to add moves. I know that whenever possible, we'd let gravity do the work rather than make a long runaround move to spot a car (not too practical on a model railroad). Anyway, since my layout is/was intended to be an industrial spur, you've got me reconsidering things again .

After temporarily laying out the track as in my "final" version 3 plan, the long runaround track just seems like wasted space that adds additional moves that really wouldn't/shouldn't be necessary on such a short rail spur (less than 1/2 mile in length). Elimination of the siding allows for one more industry, without filling every available space with track while still leaving plenty of scenery areas. Regardless, I will put some very broad curves in the final track plan, to break up the straight line look. Industrial spurs very often tend to wander around some for one reason or another and it does make the "main" look a bit longer.

As far as switching puzzles - I've never liked that concept or the switchback type industries I often see drawn on track plans, that supposedly add operating interest, but actually just add frustration.

Based on both actual experience and spending many (too many?) an hour on Bing or Google Maps looking at industrial spurs around the country - it is very rare to find one of similar length with a runaround track, although there are some. Even spurs that I found that really interested me and that had sidings running off in both directions, usually did not have a runaround.

We switched a 2 mile branch on the L&N that had spurs running off it in both directions and no runaround on it. We had to line up our train with cars on both ends of the engine and then shove out the branch with the caboose in the lead. Needless to say, it was an interesting branch to work, not that I'd want to try and duplicate that branch or type of operation.

I have stated that with the runaround track, the layout could be operated as different themes, but not sure that I'd actually do that in the long run. Since switching and prototype operations are my main interest, the industrial spur theme works for me. Even though you'd have your cars blocked for specific industries when you enter the spur, you have to spot the cars at specific locations based on what the customer wants, and not just shove a cut of cars into the industry and go on your merry way.

Since I realized that I'm getting the cart in front of the horse by wanting to start laying the track, before I put up the much needed backdrop, I'm going to have to think this through a little more and do a little more temporary track positioning, while I see what sort of backdrop I can put up on the bench work. Have to admit that I'm more than a little eager to start laying track, putting in some scenery and scratch building/kit bashing some structures.

Appreciate both your and everyone's input!

By the way Larry, I searched around on here but couldn't find anything showing your Slate Creek industrial spur - got a link or anything?

[faraway]

Ed, your posting is very interesting. I understand a run around is something that that is very much avoided rather than a standard. Beside the cost of installation and maintenance of the extra spur and turnouts the operation time (and therefor cost) are so high they justify a lot of more economic alternatives. Options like presorting, engine in the middle, shoving platform, reduced speed are preferred by the prototype over run around.
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. As an exception it is one more of the curiosity we model railroaders like to and/or have to inject into our layouts. While we have no chance but to dramatical shorten tracks, compress space, run around on US layouts like castles on German layout should be very carefully placed.
The prototype has much fewer of them than we place on our layouts. Is that the right message?

ps. What is "ISL planing"?

[steinjr]

ps. What is "ISL planing"?

ISL is "Industrial Switching Layout", and "planing" is "planning" - ie Brakie is making a track plan for another small switching layout.

Smile,
Stein

[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.

[faraway]

...Let me see if I can ...

Thanks a lot for the explanations. It is very helpful to understand the thoughts of a real railroadman.

[Brakie]

Ed wrote:By the way Larry, I searched around on here but couldn't find anything showing your Slate Creek industrial spur - got a link or anything?
--------------------------------------

Ed,I'm terrible at drawing plans with paint and I don't have any layout design programs.

So,here's a very rough draft for what I have planned my head..

The layout is 12" x 7' and is N Scale.






The buildings along the back edge is flat backdrop buildings like this:




The longest spur is Landstar Grains-I placed the "building" in the wrong spot.It should be center so there is room for cars on both sides.

The building on the bottom left is Walthers Superior Paper main plant.

The build in the center is the Kraft mill-its now a small munciple power plant.

As you can see there is one industry per industrial siding.The background buildings has several spots.

[Gary S]

Ed, loved the commentary. It is definitely helpful to read the thoughts of someone experienced with the subject, and I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate. Hope to hear more of these explanations whenever applicable.

Thanks!

[Brakie]

faraway wrote:
Options like presorting, engine in the middle, shoving platform, reduced speed are preferred by the prototype over run around.
--------------------------
Ed replied :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.
---------------------------

As a note of interest..On the PRR we would simply switch a facing point industry on our return trip rather then making a roll drop-not the same as a flying switch.If it this wasn't possible to do we would make a roll drop after switching out the pickup.

We would avoid shoving cars as much as possible because one of us would need to protect the shove by hanging on the side of the end car and flag crossings.
Picture doing that in the rain,sleet,snow,summer's heat and freezing cold weather.

Another side note.

Ed,I forgot to mention I plan on having at least one crossing that gets blocked during switching moves.

[Brakie]

ps. What is "ISL planing"?

ISL is "Industrial Switching Layout", and "planing" is "planning" - ie Brakie is making a track plan for another small switching layout.

Smile,
Stein

Thank you kind sir!

At least now I know there is somebody that can actually interpret my written thoughts!