I’ve been putting this off too long. This is the original Tupper Lake/Faust Junction peninsula track plan I was using as inspiration.
That plan had a passenger train station in the peninsula area. My new plan is going to be much more ‘industrialized’ , and that station location is now becoming a container terminal zone.
By happenstance I ran across a carfloat model at our local flea market. What if I were to put that out on the end of my peninsula across from my other waterfront scene? …another tug boat barge item…a port facility .
So this discussion of a track plan for the peninsula is going to consider these 2 elements as sub-subjects,…container terminal & port facility.
What I am going to need help with is how to make these two sub-scenes operational…how to move/switch cars around in them?
As I mentioned in the opening here is where I had posted that original peninsula plan over my plans.
My initial thoughts were that I would be ‘feeding’ this central peninsula area with 2 tracks coming in from 2 mainlines,…one from the helix area, and one from a track along the right hand side of the layout. My next thought was it would be nice to have the option that either of these two ‘entering tracks’ could select either of at least 2 tracks into the peninsula area itself… THUS the double slip turnout up at the junction of these 2 entrance tracks.
We will look at this area first, since that is the order I took it in, and it is likely more ‘developed’ in my mind at this time.
Since my container yard is relatively short (only partial length of the peninsula) I figured I needed at minimum 2 tracks of length running under the loading/unloading cranes to get a decent amount of container action in the scene.
Yes, I realize that this is not prototypical, but I was heavily influenced by these 2 images,…
I had used this same 2 track configuration on my upper west coast container yard, but with the 2 tracks spaced apart to the outer edges of the space under the cranes. The truck/trailers up there can run down the central strip of concrete between the 2 outer tracks to gather, or drop off their containers, to be handled by the train loading/unloading cranes.
I was unsure of exactly how I wanted to space those 2 tracks down in this lower deck yard? Then I got to thinking, what if I went ahead and installed 3 tracks, with the option to chose later which combination of 2 tracks I might make use of in the future.?? Wait a minute, aren’t these tracks under the cranes paved flush with concrete so the tires of the cranes can roll over them? …Of course, so why not lay down that 3rd container track under the cranes, such that the op
Locomotive Escape Routes (from the container loading/unloading)
First off, here is an overview of the container yard trackage that I am currently considering very seriously.
Here is the primary problem that keep running thru my mind as I was developing this container zone. The ‘big guys’ would be bringing trains into this container area, and possible be selecting one of the 3 tracks available under the cranes. Once they have done their mainline delivery service, how do I get them disconnected, and then back to their maintenance or storage areas, and then let the switchers go to work. And can this same capability exist 1) on all 3 of those tracks, and 2) for very long engines??
I decided to select a very long steam engine I had, to determine the possibilities. If I can make it work for this loco, I shouldn’t complain about any others. The loco is a Santa Fe 4-8-4 Northern with a very long tender.
At first I thought I was going to be able to utilize the short parallel track plan similar to that of the original TPFJ along with some simple crossings. But I shortly discovered that I would need a (much) longer peninsula to both accommodate the required ‘tailing track’ (don’t know the proper name for this), AND the turnouts to get the loco onto that runaround (escape) track along the edge. Without a much longer peni
I have a Walthers carfloat and apron. The floats are hard to find, but if you want to continue with this you might want to pick up an apron while you still can.
The float holds about 18 40-foot cars. It’s a nice scenic item by itself, but if you want to operate it, unloading and loading cars, you will need space for that number of cars to take off when the float arrives, and the same number to load before it departs. You will want these close to the carfloat. I shoehorned in my carfloat terminal and did not allow enough space for this, but will in the next incarnation.
To be prototypical, the engine should not go onto the carfloat or even the apron. I use a string of Tichy flatcars as idlers, but that means even more trackage required. Realistically, you should pull off only half a string at a time to maintain balance on the floating component. Of course, you probably won’t actually have a floating barge, but it’s something to consider.
The rail supplied with the carfloat kit is plastic. I did replace mine with Code 83 metal rail to reduce rolling friction so I could use small engines to pull the strings of cars.
Just for the fun of it I thought I might play with a couple of structures on that peninsula.
That dbl-slip switch and two dbl-curves at the entrance certain deserve a switching tower. I have a better one than the one shown, but it wasn’t accessible at this time.
It might also be appropriate that those track crews have a bit of an off-duty resting spot.
After mocking up this container area, I suddenly became concerned if I would be able to fit a ‘5-unit set’ of container cars into my terminal?
I went on the forums and discovered that:
a 5-unit set of 40 foot cars is 36.5" overall length
a 5-unit set of 48 foot cars is about 41" long
The shortest length terminal track I have is that one with the 2 container cars sitting on it,…and the distance between those 2 turnouts on either end is about 42",…WOW., looks like I can fit both of those 2 size sets on that track.
Interestingly that is the only container track of the 3 that I could spot such a 5-unit set on, while being able to get it off and back over to the freight yard after unloading.
I finally got to my computer with the pictures on it. Here’s a view looking in from the carfloat.
Here is a newer view, giving some idea of how the turnouts fit in. I powered these with Tortoise machines. They operate well, but were a very non-standard installation with the apron bridge.
I built this with a removeable carfloat that could be used as a casette. The apron end is finished so that it still is a decent model without the carfloat itself. The float itself and the apron have Envirotex “water” for more realism.
Here are a couple of the idler flats, being pushed by the tank engine.
Sorry that these are all end-on shots from the carfloat itself. I shoehorned this whole area in, and there is no good vantage point for photography other than this one. That’s also a suggestion. You really need good access to the apron and carfloat. You are pushing and pulling strings of cars, and may get the occasional derailment, and just installing all this equipment takes some working space.
You really need to eliminate one track under the Mi-Jack. Why? Where do you drop the containers or load the containers to the well car if you don’t have a road for the containers to be loaded or taken off on to a chassis? I know you like my design, so take out one track, have two, add the chassis and the yard tractors to make a nice scene.
If you drop the track closest to the center under the crane, that uses 4 less turnouts, and both tails down at the end are full length without a turnout in the middle of the one.
I agree with Randy. Having one less track certainly helps in many ways.
And if I follow Brian correctly, the tracks on the right side are part of a larger container scene (I’m confused because I thought they were once a logging scene?).
After the whole peninsula container scene is built and scenicked, you won’t miss the loss of one track, IMO.
A good number of participates on this forum and another have encouraged me to reduce the tracks in container terminal to 2 rather than the 3 I was contemplating. So here is my quick mock-up.
I had to choose those 2 tracks that were the furthermost to the left, due to the manner in which they intersected with that diagonal track at the end of the peninsula. This would leave me with longest tail track to utilize in routing the loco(s) back onto that runaround track on the far left.
Even then I can only accommodate the longest steam engines, or double headed diesels, on the tail track if they are coming ONLY from the far left container track. Here are a few photos that show those length accommodations,…
You can see here that the longer length steam engines or dbl-diesels could not successfully use the right most container track to runaround,…they would be confined to using just that one track on the left.
There is a very nice consequence of going to this 2 track arrangement,…it greatly simplifies the number of switches, and eliminates the dbl-slip.
(PS: so please don’t accuse me of never listening to advice from the peanut gallery…ha…ha)
Does using a standard turnout instead of the slip alter it that much? With the original arrangment of 3 tracks, the turnout between the tail track and the center intermodal track had its points above that little tail on the far left, and it looked like if you put the bumper at the very edge of the shelf, that steam loco would JUST squaeak in there. Now with the slip removed and a single turnout there, plus a second single turnout, the points of the second turnout end up well below the little tail, and no room for the steam loco (never mind that that loco would be an anachronism pulling modern contain cars).
Of course, operation in the intermodal yard could be that an older loco, like a 38-2 or 40-2, handles moving the cars around, and the double headed road locos don;t actually run all the way down there to even need to run around.
You are correct there Randy, this change to 2 container tracks certainly limited the use of those tail tracks. When I set back and think about it my first plan with the slip-switch was brought about when I discovered this situation.
But oh well, I think the 2 track plan has gained the upper hand. I will then have a dedicated lane for the truck/trailers, and perhaps a little less cluttered appearance. I will have only one long tail track, but at least I will have one.
Maybe in the end I will reconsider and go back to 3 tracks,…at least I will have that option due to the manner I have changed from 3 to 2 tracks.
I just looked at this situation AGAIN, and perhaps I should return to the use of that dbl-slip switch usage, and the 2 tail tracks,…just leave out the 3rd rail under the container crane for now (include the turnout but don’t put the the 3 track in right now…or ever)??
What if you leave it the way you have it there, except take out the 3rd track under the crane, and thus the turnout right above the green ruler? That would give you two long tails, 2 tracks under the crane, and the open space for the road for the chassis to be lined up for loading/unloading.
I guess I am at a loss as how to swapping out the slip for a single right-hand turnout makes the one remaining tail end up so much shorter. I would think the second turnout up, connecting the slip to the second track, would remain int he same place if the slip was replaced with a plain right hand turnout.
Take it from me who learned the lesson of tyrying to max out the amount of track in an area. Just leave the two tracks under the Mi-Jack, no other switches. Leave space for a road to create the RIGHT scene.
Neal
PS. I ripped up that section you saw in my photos twice as I thought I could manage a third track and still have the space for tractors, chassis and containers.
