03-02-2010, 07:45 AM
Thanks for the feedback!
I think I follow, but wouldn't the lead on the left end (on all the plans) be the limiting factor (it holds one 40', possibly two hoppers, with an 0-6-0), assuming that the inbound cars are coming from the right?
One thing I haven't done for plans 2 - 4 is determine what the car capacity is on both sides of the runaround. I might be able to stretch the runaround a couple of inches if it's close to being able to hold an additional car, because I may eventually stretch the left lead (and this end will be the eventual connection to the layout).
On a slight tangent, I've been having a conversation with a friend of mine who is an engineer on the CSX, and who also has an interest in layout design. I thought of this exchange after Brakie's comment about more modern switching plans. He's described some contorted prototype switching situations in older locations, but lamented the following:
Something else worth considering is elevation changes, which I don't recall seeing a lot of in MR switching layout plans. The reacher car comment is also golden.
Brakie, you now have a warehouse on the plan, so you have a legitimate reason to call my railroad and gripe about service!
Russ, I need to get you a property... :oops:
Time to start building! I'm going to go with #4. Thanks to everyone for the planning pointers - more input is always welcome!
Russ Bellinis Wrote:I like #1. Looking at how long your spurs are, that is the only track plan that would allow you to run around more than 1 or 2 cars, and your capacity on your spurs would allow as many cars as you could fit in between the two switches in the top track of #1.
I think I follow, but wouldn't the lead on the left end (on all the plans) be the limiting factor (it holds one 40', possibly two hoppers, with an 0-6-0), assuming that the inbound cars are coming from the right?
One thing I haven't done for plans 2 - 4 is determine what the car capacity is on both sides of the runaround. I might be able to stretch the runaround a couple of inches if it's close to being able to hold an additional car, because I may eventually stretch the left lead (and this end will be the eventual connection to the layout).
On a slight tangent, I've been having a conversation with a friend of mine who is an engineer on the CSX, and who also has an interest in layout design. I thought of this exchange after Brakie's comment about more modern switching plans. He's described some contorted prototype switching situations in older locations, but lamented the following:
CSX Engineer Wrote:After I sent my comments I was thinking of some of the things I have seen out in railroad land. Granted that most of today's railroading looks like Atlas and CAD Rail heavily influences the actual plans.
Something else worth considering is elevation changes, which I don't recall seeing a lot of in MR switching layout plans. The reacher car comment is also golden.
CSX Engineer Wrote:There were at least two customer's I remember servicing on the C&O, when I used to work between Columbus and Toledo. Both of these customers were agriculture products venders working out of line-side structures built on land that was considerably lower than the fill of our right of way. With both of these customer's we had to use reacher cars, going in and down grade to the spotting location. I can recall that at least 8 reacher cars were required at one location. From the cab of my locomotive consist, I could see the top of the ninth car, the one being placed at that location! How is that for a visualization?
Brakie, you now have a warehouse on the plan, so you have a legitimate reason to call my railroad and gripe about service!
Russ, I need to get you a property... :oops:
Time to start building! I'm going to go with #4. Thanks to everyone for the planning pointers - more input is always welcome!
Matt Goodman
Columbus, Ohio
Columbus, Ohio