Placing Rail Served Industries On Layout Edge

[FCIN]

Then again, if you just model the front wall, canopy, and loading dock, you should be able to reach over the canopy with an uncoupling pick.

Exactly Mike. That was the idea of the drawing I have posted on here. I currently have a mock up structure that is 4 inches deep and varies from 3 inches to 4 inches in height at the front of the bench work. With the rail spur behind it spaced on a 1 1/2 inch center from the structure wall and have had no problems with uncoupling cars using a simple uncoupling pick.

Once I actually model the structure, there may be minor problems because of some roof details at one end of the structure, but it doesn't appear to be that big of an issue; just will have to be a bit more careful (make a slightly longer uncoupling pick if necessary). I've studied several similar facilities (chocolates plant) and noticed that the rail siding was much further from the structure then what we typically see at a warehouse or similar structure and that helps too.

Of course you can't see the cars on spot behind the structure, but there again that hasn't proved to be a big problem either. I can easily look over the top of the structure and see the cars on spot, so it's actually more of a display issue then an operational issue. To me, it just looks more like your typical industrial spur to have structures on each side of the industrial lead.

I may also move this large structure to the end of the spur rather than its current location toward the center as you can stand at the end of the bench work and look down the spur if desired. I still have the fall back option of placing a trans-load track where that facility is right now, but it just doesn't really appeal to me that much. Nothing is set in stone at the moment and this has been an interesting "test" for the track plan/industry arrangement.

Were I going to put some kind of warehouse on the front edge, then I'd most likely go with something like what I show in the drawing. I wouldn't want just an open, uncovered dock.

[Brakie]

To me, it just looks more like your typical industrial spur to have structures on each side of the industrial lead.
----------------------------------
Absolutely.That's why I have 2 planed for Slate Creek..One is rather large and has inside loading/unloading and the other is a meat processor.Both will be on separate sidings and have multiple spots.The larger building will be place on the end of the layout.

[Russ Bellinis]

If your layout is designed with the industrial spurs running toward the layout edge at a 45 degree angle, then you can look down the spurs between the buildings.

[FCIN]

If your layout is designed with the industrial spurs running toward the layout edge at a 45 degree angle, then you can look down the spurs between the buildings.

Problem is, right now three of my industries have spurs that are 5 to 6 feet in length. When the bench work is only 18 inches deep, you can only have very short spurs off the lead running at angles like 12 to 30 degrees. A small industry that spots only one or two cars will fit that track arrangement just fine, but a large one with four or five car spots just won't work unless you could extend the track in to the aisle; which I can't.

For now, things are working pretty well, although like Larry mentioned, I may move the larger industry to the end of the industrial spur and then just have a second smaller one where it was located. Not only can I easily look over the larger structure to spot cars, I'll be able to stand at the end of the bench work and look down the track.

[faraway]

...industries have spurs that are 5 to 6 feet in length. When the bench work is only 18 inches deep, you can only have very short spurs off the lead running at angles like 12 to 30 degrees...

That is one of my layout design problems too. I did never find a perfect solution for it. A bad compromise would be to have only one track either in the very fore- or background and try to get the maximum length on the angled branches. But only one track..? If build two ore three tracks to do some switching on the "main track" the residual space will be far to less for any kind of useful branches.

The prototype situation I am thinking about is this one
http://maps.google.de/maps?q=vernon+cali...18&vpsrc=6
There is a small LAJ yard (strip it down to three tracks only on the layout) parallel to the river. Some tracks (branches) exit to the left, cross the road (District Blvd) and run into the industry area on the left hand. That would be a dream to model but you need much more depth than I expected when I started planning. I did finally drop that option.

ps. Russ is the originator of that idea

[FCIN]

Reinhard;

I sure see what you mean. That would indeed make for a fantastic looking industrial area to model, BUT how would we do it with our limited space for modeling? I've run in to many similar situations on railroads or industrial areas that appealed to me, but it always meant that spurs would have to be straightened out to the point that the whole thing no longer looked like the prototype. Hence, I have always looked for prototype track arrangements that would fit in a narrow shelf design, even if the prototype is perfectly straight (ideal) or at least if you must straighten out a track, it still looks okay.

As modelers, we have to make so many concessions and adjustments - straighten out or run a track in the opposite direction from the prototype - reduce the size and number of car spots at a particular industry, all the while trying to achieve the look of the prototype. Having a series of short tracks that only can spot one or two cars and industries that look far too small to be rail served, just doesn't work for me. True, you can find what I call "model railroad size" structures that are rail served, but they are few and far between. The cold storage facility and food processor that my model will be based on, is 595 feet in length with a spur that is 789 feet long from the switch point. That means that the structure would be 5.83 feet long and the track itself 9.5 feet long! I feel pleased that I could condense it down and still get the look and feel of the prototype.

On my recently revamped track plan, I do have a couple of industries that only can spot one car (or two at the beverage distributor as it turned out), but I know of prototype situations where that is the case. Many typical small town lumber dealers in this area can handle only one car (perhaps two) at a time, but then one or two shipments a month would be high volume business for them.

A real eye opener is to use Google Maps or Earth and start measuring the length of structures and tracks and then realize that the structure and track would be perhaps 10 to 12 feet in length in HO scale! Darn few of us have room to duplicate that sort of situation. I feel lucky that I have room to have industrial tracks that are in the 5 to 6 foot length and be able to at least get the look and feel of the prototype.

All I can say is that the work you're doing on your layout and all the beautiful structures is outstanding! I hope that I can come even slightly close to what you've accomplished, once I can start the actual construction of my layout.

[cthart]

...industries have spurs that are 5 to 6 feet in length. When the bench work is only 18 inches deep, you can only have very short spurs off the lead running at angles like 12 to 30 degrees...

That is one of my layout design problems too. I did never find a perfect solution for it. A bad compromise would be to have only one track either in the very fore- or background and try to get the maximum length on the angled branches. But only one track..? If build two ore three tracks to do some switching on the "main track" the residual space will be far to less for any kind of useful branches.

The prototype situation I am thinking about is this one
http://maps.google.de/maps?q=vernon+cali...18&vpsrc=6
There is a small LAJ yard (strip it down to three tracks only on the layout) parallel to the river. Some tracks (branches) exit to the left, cross the road (District Blvd) and run into the industry area on the left hand. That would be a dream to model but you need much more depth than I expected when I started planning. I did finally drop that option.

ps. Russ is the originator of that idea

Great prototype!

How much depth do you need to get a good feel of this? I think it could be doable on a peninsula where you can reach from both sides. Then you could go up to at least 4 feet (120cm).

Cheers,

Colin

[Russ Bellinis]

That is part of the 9 foot leg of the "L" that I want to model. I planning to model those buildings that are between the yard and the street as "almost' building flats to hide what is behind. The Yard will just be double track with crossovers for run around tracks, and most of my modeling will focus on the rail served industries in front. I'll try it with card board mock ups first. If I can't make it a convincing model, I'll pull it up and model another part of Vernon farther to the West . I'm including General Mills, or at least a freelanced versions of General Mills and Federal Cold Storage on the end of the layout.

[TTRAK_andrew]

G'day All, One of the issues raised in this thread is about modelling the inside of a structure when it is placed on the layout edge. After downloading my own copy of the new modern factory kit form Scalescenes of the U.K. I think this problem is partly resolved. This downloadable (for a fee) printed paper kit has a detailed interior that includes both wall and roof girders and an overhead crane.
While I raised awareness of the kit in the thread:
New Downloadable Factory Kit from Scalescenes
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.the-gauge.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=5013">viewtopic.php?f=22&t=5013</a><!-- l -->
I am raising it here because the kit has the above mentioned relevance and people searching these threads and posting in years to come will not make the connection unless we put it in!
I also want to make it clear that I have no connection with Scalescenes except that I am a happy customer and admire their work. I also enjoy having good ideas getting to the people who could possibly make use of them.
Regards, Andrew G.
My Model Railway blog: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://ttrakandrew.wordpress.com/">http://ttrakandrew.wordpress.com/</a><!-- m -->

[dave_long]

Leaning over scenery isnt as bad as you might think. This is my Miami layout its 20" deep and 5' long, it has a road along the front then several industries, 1 rail served and 2 not, but I lean over them very easily and I use sergent couplers.


For more images see here <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/37732-nw-22nd-st/page__view__findpost__p__422930">http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index. ... _p__422930</a><!-- m -->

Dave

[faraway]

....For more images see here <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/37732-nw-22nd-st/page__view__findpost__p__422930...">http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index. ... _422930...</a><!-- m -->.

I like the clean and structured layout. The overall impression is typical US today.

[FCIN]

Leaning over scenery isnt as bad as you might think. This is my Miami layout its 20" deep and 5' long, it has a road along the front then several industries, 1 rail served and 2 not, but I lean over them very easily and I use sergent couplers.

Dave;

Some experimenting that I've done with having rail served structures at the front of the layout has shown me that it's really no problem as far as operation, unless it bothers you that you can't see the rail cars behind the structure. That's strictly a display issue as far as I'm concerned. I have always manually uncoupled the Kadee couplers and that wasn't any problem either. Just a matter of finding the right structure and height so that I could easily look over the structure to uncouple the cars.

It can certainly make a difference in layout planning and in the case of industrial spurs, it can really add to the look and feel of such a location. I may reconsider having one or more such industries on my own ISL.

By the way... Great looking layout!

[dave_long]

Thanks guys.
One of the reasons I didn't enclose the sides and corners of the layout was so you could have a good view of the entire layout. It also allows future expansion too.

I found that using sergents made things easier as I always had problems opening kadees with a skewer and just having to tap the couplings to open them meant I didn't have to lean in at all.

Dave.

[eje]

Please pardon me for coming to this thread so late. Ed, the magnetic wand that operates the Sergent couplers can be applied to the top of the coupler from the side horizontally, as opposed to being applied from above vertically. So one should be able to uncouple in a structure with an open side parallel to a track adjacent to the layout edge. Ideally, your brakeman would apply the wand and then your engineer would pull. Slack is required. The Sergent couplers are very, very nice, as you know. They are a little fussy to assemble, so I use the pre-built ones on a limited number of cars and one locomotive thus far. HO is not my principal scale now that decent N-scale wheels and body-mount couplers are becoming more the norm.

With the more standard Kadee types, I suppose one could hinge the roof of the structure or make the roof removable to gain access from above. I like your idea of an open-sided structure with the track inside. In N scale, I plan to take the easy way out for the ISL front edge and make an electric utility storage yard for large hardware, line poles, aggregates, and such. Operationally it is not much different than a scrap yard or team track.

Here in South Texas between Ingleside and Aransas Pass in the Mesquite trees and sand there is a construction contracting company that receives some pretty big steel shapes and sheets/plates on flatcars and in gons. The two spurs are maybe fifty yards from their shop buildings and there are two fairly large mobile cranes I presume they use to cart the steel into the shops. That business struck me as one that could be useful as a layout-edge industry. Both the construction company and the utility storage yard require some specialized material-handling machinery, but no obstructing structures on a layout front edge.

There are some great ideas in this thread above. Thank y'all! Ric

[Catt]

Everytime I have built a factory or warehouse on the edge of the layout I have kept one side open with a clear plexiglas or lexan outer wall In the case of unloading cars inside the building you can see what is going on.Detailing does not have to be extreme either.

When the track runs along side the building on the out side of the wall just make sure there are windows and doors you can look through to help spotting the cars.You can always uncouple the car(s) before you get in to or along side the building and just push the cars into place without recoupling.

One of these days I may just start taking pictures of some of my buildings for threads like this one.