Alternate Layout - Comments and Opinions Wanted

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
1

OK, last month I pretty much decided to go with the following plan

However, in the interim I’ve come across new info on my prototype. Just as a comparision I started sketching up a new pair of layouts based on that info:

Frankly, I think the new layouts look more realistic and I’m seriously considering using one of them.

The scenario is the same as before: PRR branch in Beaver Falls, PA; 1961; HO; 10’ 6" x 2’ layout space; basically flat.

The two new layouts are essentially the same. On the upper one the PRR connection (and removable staging) will come in from the lower right, on the lower one it will come in from the lower left. The upper is prototypical, FWIW. The main track of the branch is colored in. I can see that on the upper layout that the storage and team tracks and PRR connection need to be adjusted to give a usable switching tail. On the lower layout the PRR connection should be moved right within the runaround, again to give the longest switching tail to the storage track.

The industries going clockwise from the left: Unknown, 2 spots; Unknown, 2 spots; Produce wholesaler & Armour meat wholesaler, 1 reefer each; Steel plant, two or three tracks, 3 or 4 spots; Team track/Public track, 6 spots; Storage track, 4 to 5 cars.

Staging will hold the incoming local with 4 to 5 cars, SW7-class yard switcher, and cabin car. Switched cars, loco, and cabin will exit the same route.

Please take a look at these two new ones as well as my current plan. I guess I’m looking for anything that would make the two new plans obviously unworkable (or un-fun) as well as your idea as to whether the old plan or one of the new ones looks better. (All I have invested so far is planning time, so there’s really no big penalty for changing.)

Tha

2

I like the new paln better than the older ones and of the two, I like the lower one better. However, I wi***hat the PRR branch line at least had the illusion of going somewhere. I like the idea of a train coming through and dropping off cars and continuing on rather than all the switching being done at the end of the line. The first new plan does better than the latter on that point, but still like the second better.

3

Thanks for the comments Mr. Mouse.

I like the through track concept too, but can’t find a likeable scheme to fit my space. The dead end is prototypical, so I’m not too upset. The actual arrangement was sort of “H” shaped: The left leg was the PRR (PFtW & C) mainline between Pittsburgh and Chicago; the crossbar was the branch connection, only about 200 yards long; the upper part of right leg served industries and connected with the P & LE RR at their College yard; and the lower right leg ended-up in a “turkey foot” serving 5 or 6 industries. I’m modeling the lower right leg and a little past the crossbar. According to others the switch jobs (in 1961) would come up from Conway, do their work, and head back. (There are a couple of dead end branches in this area, and several switchback sidings, which would be interesting to model - someday.)

KL

4

I like the second of the two new plans, with the same exception as Chip. Unless you NEED to be prototypical, I think you would be happier with a through track.

You may be able to run a through track near the bottom edge of the layout. A real railroad wouldn’t route their mainline through a lot of switches if they didn’t have to.

Also, I don’t think the RR would have so many turnouts that result in a lot of curves. You have that on the right side for the produce, meat and Stl sidings. I think the RR would have served the produce and meat industries with one turnout. The Stl plant would have been served by a single turnout off of an extension to one of the team tracks or the storage tracks.

Doodle around some more with those ideas and see if you like it better.

Darrell, quiet…for now

5

Thanks for the comments, Darrell.

Regarding the end of the branch, I’ve actually compressed it!!

The branch comes through some people’s back yards on an embankment and splits into two. The lower fork splits into two again, with the left splitting a third time to serve a scrapyard. The right fork goes into Union Drawn Steel and emerges on the other side as a P & LE track (P & LE listed this as an interchange but the PRR didn’t.) Going back to the first split that leg turns into four tracks in a little more than a city block! The two long ones parallel to UDS were loading tracks for the mill where the outer cars were loaded through the inner cars. The short tracks serve a) McHattie Wholesale Grocery and the Cudahy meat packing building while b) serves Armour meats and the boilers of the UDS powerhouse. (Later though only McHattie was served by a) with both Cudahy and Armour working off b), apparently after UDS got public utilities and stopped needing coal for i

6

I like the two new ones. And I agree I like the 2nd one better than the first, as it stands alone. The first would be much better as an addition to a larger layout.

7

OK, so I’ve developed the new ones out a little bit.:

The only differences really are the in the arrangement below the main track (darkened) and where the trains come in and go out. The car capacity is the same on all.

Right now I’m leaning toward the top one but the others aren’t that far behind. All have the same good points (prototypical, adequate industries, plenty of space) I think, so I’ll just list my concerns.

Top - Switching tail coming off PRR staging looks short. Storage track could be used for intended purpose though to solve the problem. Perhaps a bit difficult to get realistic roadways to the team tracks.

Middle - Short tail for entering main track from PRR. Storage track can only be entered via long backing movement(?)

Bottom - Storage track difficult to enter from industries (?)

So, again, please let me know if there are any “Uh-ohs” that I’m missing and your ideas as to why one would be better than the others.

Thanks,
KL

8

design a small yard with a inglenook and a runaround track, then sidings to suit.

9

I like the first and the third because of the way the tracks too and from staging are laid out in a linear fashion. O the two, the third makes more sense to me in that there is a lot of the room to drop cars from a through freight on the “storage track.” I say this not having a clue as to how the prototype does it, but that storage track would be perfect for the switcher to use to spot incoming cars and set out outgoing and empties for the return freight. But I see your point about access from top industries.

But the storage track on number three is so much easier to drop cars onto. Maybe there is another option that combine the accessibility of the industries of plan 1 with the main access of plan 3.

10

Thanks TZ.

Although I’ve developed the ideas beyond what you originally looked at, I’m interested as to why you thought the two layouts would be better for different applications.

Thanks,
KL