I am adding the Valley Cement Plant kit to my layout and I’m trying to decide which track arrangement is the better choice. The cement hoppers (empty) would be coming from the yard located at the far right of this drawing. Here are the 2 options:
Option A:
Option B:
[IMG]http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f35/dkzimm/Escanaba%20and%20UP%20Railroad%20construction/OptionB.jpg[/IMG]
Thanks for any advice you can give....
Don Z.
Both option have a nasty little S-curve in the main line. Option A allows a longer cut of cars to be pulled or pushed into the cement plant yard. Question. Do you have any tracks delivering raw materials in to the plant, unloading them?
Don,
The first thing I noticed in your post was the photo of the GN F’s. From that I assume you are a fellow GN modeler. Yea!
I am unable to read the track labels on your diagrams so let me ask:
My gut says it may not make much difference but a lot depends upon how tracks #3 & 4 (counting from the top down) are to be used. #3 is longer in the first drawing and #4 is longer in the second. If the length of either of these tracks is important that may dictate which is better.
Roger Johnson, Sedro Woolley WA
David,
Regarding the “nasty S-curve”…this is a branchline operation served by 4 axle power. The only cars traveling down this line will be 34’ cement hoppers, 26’ ore hoppers to a mine and 40’ stock cars to a packing plant. The turnouts used are #5’s, so I don’t think I’ll have any trouble with the cars or the track.
This cement plant is loads out only. The main structures for the cement plant will be on an elevated section of benchwork; the conveyor extends out to the silo above the tracks below. Option B seems to make switching at the plant more difficult. If any loads are spotted under the shed, the locos would have to cut the train off on the main, back down to spot the loads out of the way and then back the empties down into the plant, a few cars at a time.
Thanks,
Don Z.
Roger,
I tried to make the text large enough to read on the diagrams, but i guess I goofed!
The two tracks at the top of the diagram serve another industry located in the blank space to the left of those tracks.
Thanks,
Don Z.
Kinda hard to read the text on the tracks.
How about something like this ? Would take relocating the loading shed to the other side of the silos - but that’s not hard to do.
Smile,
Stein
`
Don’t like either of them, 2 is way worse than 1. With 1 you can load maybe 3-4 cars, with #2 you can only load 2, maybe 3 cars.
Why build such a big plant that can only load 3-4 cars at a time?
A plant that size should be able to load 20 cars easy. You need an arrangement that has 40 cars of room, 20 on one side of the loader for empties and 20 on the other side for loads.
What Stein has posted is what I was thinking of, you wouldn’t even need a plant switcher with that design, a car mover or winch would do it. I would move the left crossover right up as close to the right crossover as I could (keeping the right crossover where it is). The branch engine would pull up the main, past both crossovers, then shove the empties into loading track. Then move to the left and couple into the loads and depart to the right.
Another alternative would be to put the crossovers sorta where the conveyor crosses, but put the left hand crossover on the left and the right hand crossover on the right. the loader would go over the side track between the two crossvers. the branch train would arrive, shove empties onto the empty track through the righthand crossover on the right. Then it would come out onto the main to go back through the lefthand crossovers to get the loads to the left. It could then depart to the right. The industry winches or rolls the cars from right to left through the loader to open the empty track again.
Don,
Although the relatively short equipment you will be using can generally negotiate S curves OK, that is still best avoided anyway. I would go with the second plan. Is there any chance you could connect track #2 to #3 about even with the crossover between #4 and #5? If so, you cold avoid having to push either empties or loads through an S curve.When you bring empties in, the locomotive will have to push cars into the loading track. The second plan will permit the locomotive to pull empties through the S curve from the yard lead on to track #3, then push them down the ladder to the loading track. Loaded cars could be pulled from the loading track onto track #3, the locomotive could then run around them using track #2 and then pull them trough the S curve from #3 onto the yard lead.
If you can’t connect #2 to #3 then I don’t think it makes much difference. I would probably still go for the second plan since it leaves a longer clear track on the passing/runaround Track #4.
Roger
Bingo - that would be even better, wouldn’t it ? Something like this:
Smile,
Stein
Some additional information…
I don’t have any space at the right end of the load track to extend the track.
The branchline track (#3 down from the top) starts to climb in elevation to the left of the midpoint of the drawing
Trains will only be about 8-10 cars maximum in length
Thanks,
Don Z.
Hmmm - how about something like this, then ?
You would have to spot cars for loading three at a time, and have a car puller or something pull the cars to be loaded left through the loader into the loaded cars track.
Then an engine would have to go grab three more cars from the empties holding track, and spot them at the loading track.
Smile,
Stein
My first reaction was that the loading track should be on a double-ended track rather than a dead-end spur requiring switchback moves. A double-ended track would be more prototypical and can better handle a larger volume of cars. But Stein has already “beat me to the punch.”
I don’t understand why you eschew in-bound freight. While cement plants are commonly located near limestone, they aren’t necessarily self sufficient. For instance, at the cement plant in Davenport, California (west of Santa Cruz) served by the UP, formerly SP, inbound traffic consists of empty covered hoppers and open hoppers filled with coal. Outbound loads are covered hoppers filled with cement and empty open hoppers. This would provide more interest and variety than merely hauling covered hoppers. You need a spur for the delivery of coal to fuel the plant. (Those Davenport cement trains are even more interesting because they run very slowly through the streets of downtown Santa Cruz, blocking traffic, and pass right by the Boardwalk where there is a huge wooden roller coaster.)
Mark
Mark,
As I stated in an earlier reply, the main structures for the plant are on an elevated section of benchwork. There is no way to get rail service to the plant from the layout. Any ‘inbound freight’ would come from off layout via the backdrop side of the plant.
Don Z.
Stein,
I appreciate your efforts…my benchwork is 28" deep from the top of the drawing. Your version is too deep for my existing benchwork. The spur you added for holding empties won’t work; that are is already occupied by another track leading into the yard area. I’ll see if I can copy that section of my track plan.
Don Z.
Last one before bedtime (it is 11:30 pm over here in Norway and tomorrow is a work day) - here I have tried to restore the two industry tracks you had facing towards the left:
As always - it is just a suggestion - you are free to grab it, modify it or ignore it as you like[:)]
Smile,
Stein
That’s why they invented conveyers. As with most prototypes, the limestone comes by truck or conveyer to the plant from a local source. How does fuel get to the plant? Why deny yourself? You’ll have a more interesting operation if the railroad delivers coal where it can be dumped onto the conveyer and fed to the plant. Most of us are looking for reasons to increase traffic on our layouts, not to decrease it.
Mark
Here is a rough drawing of the area that I’m trying to work in…
By trying to shoehorn this industry onto my layout, I’m adding traffic to increase the customer base. As it was, I only had 5 customers for my railroad to service. I have quite a few cement hoppers and I’m trying to incorporate them into the operation plan.
Thanks,
Don Z.
Okay - I got hooked. How about something like this, then ?
I was forced to reduce train lengths to 6 or 7 cars (although I plan using 40’ cars, and you will be using 34’ hoppers, so you might have a little leeway).
Engine arrives at concrete plant lead with 6-7 empty cars.
Backs some empties into the empties holding track
Backs rest of empties into loading track, with first car spotted under loader and two past
backs up, grabs outbound loads, departs to the right
As cars have been loaded, they are moved over to the loaded car holding track - by trackmobile or front end loader or something.
When all cars on the loading track have been loaded, an engine needs to respot cars from the empties holding track to the loading track.
Main difference relative to your plan A (which is not as bad as plan B):
Stein,
I’m going to print out this design and study on it up at the layout…I think I will leave my loading track out at the edge of the layout (as in Option A) because the loading track will be longer (will hold more cars) in that placement. I’m also going to consider realigning the branchline main so I can eliminate the turnout needed for the branch to continue on to the mine.
Thanks again,
Don Z.