Florida ISL - Ocala

[Brakie]

Larry,Here's another "trick" we used on the PRR to avoid time consuming runarounds..

If we was going up a industrial lead that had facing and trailing point industries we would use two cabins and split the train in two with the locomotive in the middle with cabins on each end of the local.

Here's another thought.

With DCC we can emulate the prototype by placing a engine on both ends of the local and eliminate the runaround completely..This method is very popular on today's railroads---including some short lines.

Of course there was times when we had no choice other then to make a runaround move.

As a side note..Unlike model operation where everything is done regardless of operating and safety rules and usually done at break neck speeds every move on the railroad takes time-even a simple run around can eat 20 minutes and remember if that is done on the main you have one unhappy dispatcher and he may make you wait a hour or more while he runs his trains around you.

[Mike Kieran]

I like what you have done with Chris's plan Mike, but rather than an engine house, perhaps have a couple of open air sidings/roads for engine and caboose storage – that’s what i did on a previous layout, Lawley Street:

Hey Jez,
I love the Lawley Street layout. I am absolutely in love with your weathered Rail America engines. The engine house is optional. I just put it in for an option so that maintenance crews aren’t exposed to the elements.


Hey Larry (fastcar),
My design is based on his Florida Highlands design, but as a push/pull operation. I find that a prototypical runaround is at least a quarter of a mile long (15.17241379310345 feet in HO) and that even with selective compression, eats up a lot of real estate. Even a runaround that fits a 4 car train is 5.25 feet (1.6 meters). Trying to squeeze a runaround track with the area that Chris is working in would be tough (but not impossible). I was just trying to go with a clean, uncluttered design.

I wasn’t trying to model the Ocala Line exactly, just use it as a guide. I didn’t get the feeling that Chris was modeling the line track for track, but I may be wrong. I know that he wants to use Pinsley Railroad CF-7s on the layout. I’m using #6 Atlas turnouts in my track plan with a minimum radius of 22 inches. With the drop leaf added at the end of the peninsula by the yard, the switch lead is 48 inches.


Hey Larry (Brakie),
If the railroad had a runaround to serve a customer, then wouldn’t they use the runaround? I’m not arguing with you, I’m just figuring that a railroad’s first priority would be to serve that customer since each freight car is necessary revenue and if other customers hear complaints from one, then they may be more reluctant to use rail service.

I, personally, eschew runarounds in favor of push/pull railroading (mostly because I loves me some cabeese). The B&M had a branch line that they used to service by shoving a caboose up the branch.

If I had the space, I would not have the yard and would instead have a runaround with my engine house right there (even minimal traffic short lines like the M&NJ had engine houses). The runaround would be used for interchange (like the Ballard Terminal does) and sorting out the train. We would then tack the caboose onto the front of the train while the engine goes onto the rear so that it may shove the consist up the branch line.

My runaround would be at the interchange end of the line. One end of the runaround would be a length of track 18 inches long so that the engine has room to maneuver to hook up to the train. The other end of the runaround would be the branch line.

I just wonder how much fuel costs would be annually with an engine on either end and while using DCC, would you have to constantly reassign the throttle to the correct engine.

[Mike Kieran]

I realized that I was using the wrong title for the track plan. Here's another variation of the plan with a Pikestuff Small Engine House for the shops / railroad office / crew locker room.

   

[Brakie]

If the railroad had a runaround to serve a customer, then wouldn’t they use the runaround?
-----------------------------------------------
Depends but,if we was returning later we would switch that industry on the return trip.
As a old PRR conductor once told me(yeah,I asked) "Sonny,there's no need to do the extra work..We gotta come right by this here industry on our way back..We will switch it then.I hated being called "sonny" by the older heads but,that was the way back then.

Now,if that industry was the last work we had to do then yes,we would make the runaround,do the work and head back to the terminal.

Now here's another railroad secrete we can surely use in our model operations..If the conductor was being a bonehead and going for overtime we would do the extra work of making that runaround although we didn't need too..

On another note about service..If we had a heavy local then we may outlaw before we completed the day's work..The local would sit on the urban industrial lead till the next day.

Of course the rail customers that needed their cars was none to please.

[Mike Kieran]

I hear ya! Don't get me wrong, I'm a push/pull guy. If we put in a runaround by the interchange, we have this:

   

or a cleaner version like this:

   

or an even cleaner version like this:

   

[Mike Kieran]

The runaround eats up a lot of space for a 24 foot mainline with 3 curves while compacted into a 7x10 foot shed. The other push pull layout without runarounds is more interesting to me with more possibilities.

[colinw62]

Some interesting points re switching and using runroaunds have come up in this thread and make for interesting reading. Also some interesting takes on the initial design too, the last three though, whilst good designs in their own right, seem to have drifted a way off the original plan by Chris. To me they look more "train set" as opposed to the original plan which said "model railroad" to me.

Colin

[Brakie]

The runaround eats up a lot of space for a 24 foot mainline with 3 curves while compacted into a 7x10 foot shed. The other push pull layout without runarounds is more interesting to me with more possibilities.

IMHO the industries, the three track interchange yard and the engine house (which I now favor) really makes the layout shine and gives a lot of railroading in that 24' main.

Another plus is there's room for lots of industrial scenery,a trailer lot,several street crossings plus those trees you mention.

[Rscott417]

I realized that I was using the wrong title for the track plan. Here's another variation of the plan with a Pikestuff Small Engine House for the shops / railroad office / crew locker room.

[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]

This is probably the redesign I favor the most. It seems like you'd be able to use 3/4 of the longer (bottom left) interchange track all in one shot with the swing/lift out extension. This design makes in pointless for a runaround (and possible addition of a shoving platform) since all the sidings face the same direction and maximize the space available and the amount of industries, if there are other rail served industries in the prototype maybe that long track that curves along the right side wall could be used or switch added. I also like the idea of having a place for locomotives to go when the day is done, it adds another modeling element and structure for viewing interest instead of just an empty track. Just my 2 cents.

I thought the track plan would show up but basically the one I'm talking about is the first one on this page.

[Brakie]

Some interesting points re switching and using runroaunds have come up in this thread and make for interesting reading. Also some interesting takes on the initial design too, the last three though, whilst good designs in their own right, seem to have drifted a way off the original plan by Chris. To me they look more "train set" as opposed to the original plan which said "model railroad" to me.

Colin

If Mike's design is used as a stand alone short line then it's a great design.

If operated by CSX,NS,FEC or fill the blank railroad as a industrial lead then I agree Chris plan would be the better choice.

I'm not to sure which way I would lean for that layout-short line or industrial lead since both designs have their merits.

[Mike Kieran]

Some interesting points re switching and using runroaunds have come up in this thread and make for interesting reading. Also some interesting takes on the initial design too, the last three though, whilst good designs in their own right, seem to have drifted a way off the original plan by Chris. To me they look more "train set" as opposed to the original plan which said "model railroad" to me.

Colin

Hey Colin,
Exactly. The track plans with the runaround eat up too much real estate.

[Mike Kieran]

I realized that I was using the wrong title for the track plan. Here's another variation of the plan with a Pikestuff Small Engine House for the shops / railroad office / crew locker room.

[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]

This is probably the redesign I favor the most. It seems like you'd be able to use 3/4 of the longer (bottom left) interchange track all in one shot with the swing/lift out extension. This design makes in pointless for a runaround (and possible addition of a shoving platform) since all the sidings face the same direction and maximize the space available and the amount of industries, if there are other rail served industries in the prototype maybe that long track that curves along the right side wall could be used or switch added. I also like the idea of having a place for locomotives to go when the day is done, it adds another modeling element and structure for viewing interest instead of just an empty track. Just my 2 cents.

I thought the track plan would show up but basically the one I'm talking about is the first one on this page.

This is why I prefer the earlier track plans. Chris has a great track plan to start this thread, but In my opinion, he was better off in his original incarnation where the interchange was on the bottom so that he could use the extension across the doorway (he's building the layout in a 7x10 foot shed. His original Florida Highland was an exceptional design (as is all of his work ). In the original design, he had a CF7 on both ends to do the opposing sidings. I just prefer the caboose shove.

I intended for the track on the right peninsula to be a spur or for it to extend to connect with the switching lead for the interchange as a complete loop roundy round so that he could just sit down and break in engines or do vegetative railroading.

[Mike Kieran]

Some interesting points re switching and using runroaunds have come up in this thread and make for interesting reading. Also some interesting takes on the initial design too, the last three though, whilst good designs in their own right, seem to have drifted a way off the original plan by Chris. To me they look more "train set" as opposed to the original plan which said "model railroad" to me.

Colin

If Mike's design is used as a stand alone short line then it's a great design.

If operated by CSX,NS,FEC or fill the blank railroad as a industrial lead then I agree Chris plan would be the better choice.

I'm not to sure which way I would lean for that layout-short line or industrial lead since both designs have their merits.

Last that I saw, he wants to run it as a Pinsley short line. Otherwise, there would be no engine and caboose storage.

[shortliner]

If we put a small Pikestuff engine house on the end of the engine storage track, we would have the offices with the engine storage facility.

Could do that or maybe have the crew room there and a stand alone office building much like BLMA yard office.

Small layouts like that can be a ton of fun to plan and operate as a "job".

Example..
Your crew signs in at 6 AM the conductor looks over the day's work while the engineer fires up the (say) Alco S4..

They proceed to the interchange track to pick up the inbound cars and they switch them into setout order.

They proceed to pick up the caboose and off they go..

Upon returning to the interchange they drop the caboose and proceed to place all the outbound cars on the interchange.

They then proceed to the engine house where they fuel and then shut off the S4 turn in their paper work, sign out and go home.

That should help the operational enjoyment and probably take a 1- 1 1/2 hours to do at scale speeds and allowing time for the conductor to do his ground work.

Can I change this slightly, as I think a loco shed for an operation like this is unlikely- loco and shoving platform are parked overnight at one of the industry sidings for security to keep an eye on - in the morning they proceed to the i/c to collect cars dropped there overnight, sort them and proceed about their business - they complete and take outbounds dropping them back at the interchange - loco and shove platform parked back at overnight stop - there is a container there or at the fuelling point (see below)for storage of bagged sand, and any fuelling is done by the local fuel distributor who send one of his drivers down with a tanker truck - at the roadside by one of the road-crossings- it gives reason to change the usual operations - maintainance is done at the nearby yard on an "as required" or monthly schedule when a "loaner" loco is supplied (reason for an alternative loco to appear)- or it could be a weekend job

[Brakie]

Can I change this slightly, as I think a loco shed for an operation like this is unlikely- loco and shoving platform are parked overnight at one of the industry sidings for security to keep an eye on - in the morning they proceed to the i/c to collect cars dropped there overnight, sort them and proceed about their business - they complete and take outbounds deopping them back at the interchange - loco and shove platform parked back at overnight stop - there is a container there or at the fuelling point (see below)for storage of bagged sand, and any fuelling is done by the local fuel distributor who send one of his drivers down with a tanker truck - at the roadside by one of the road-crossings- it gives reason to change the usual operations - maintainance is done at the nearby yard on an "as required" or monthly schedule when a "loaner" loco is supplied (reason for an alternative loco to appear)- or it could be a weekend job
shortliner
-------------------------------------------
Cool! Another great operation idea..

I'm always interested in hearing operation plans for switching layouts..