Picked up my copy at my LHS and just wanted to acknowledge what a great issue it is. It contains the types of layouts and articles I appreciate. Recall’s the days when MR used to run articles about Railroad’s You Can Model.
I especially liked the first article about the NS branch line. Modern track planning might consider that layout to have “too much track” or an “unrealistic” switchback and crossing.
Just goes to show how railroads, especially branch lines or short lines, take over an area that was once much more robust and use the track that’s available. They don’t spend money trying to re-lay the track to make it more efficient. Often times, there are abandoned sections in what might be rather odd places too.
So sometimes, when we plan our layouts and trackplans, maybe having some built in inefficiencies or less-than-optimal arrangement is realistic in the sense that a railroad is trying to use what is already there, which may not be the original intent of track laid long ago.
So a track plan that may contain an arrangement that is primarily visual may indeed have a very plausible reason for it to exist.
Ken Layman and you seem to have the very same idea’s about what you like in a trackplan. But putting it as an example of funny track-work by a real railroad company is beside the truth. The map of the area -in the article shows something different. Two main-lines crossing each other, connected by an interchange and all spurs facing in the very same direction.
Seems pretty straight forward and efficient to me…you do not need an excuse for building it in your way.
A major thrust of that article was the modeler selectively compressing two towns into an L shaped space, which is usually going to jumble things when compared with the prototype. A modeler wanting to add spurs to serve more industries because that’s more interesting to do so is going to result in more track in any given area than the prototype had. I think Ken Layman did a plausible job of bashing the two towns.
I’ll have to read the article closer, but I got the impression that the switchback across a crossing was an unusual setup and was influenced by another railroad abandoning its mainline.
Nevertheless, I was citing an article that I think represents how the useable track patterns of a modern shortline or branchline evolve into something that a railroad might not design that way if it was starting from scratch. Unlike railroads in this case, modeler’s do design their track arrangements from scratch. and maybe could enhance realism if they take into account how railroads merge, abandon lines, and evolve over time.
Another example is the article from June 2007 RMC about the Ontario Central. I think there is an industry that is served by the railroad that is accessed off of a switchback that was created by a filling in an unused turntable.
There is a shortline in Southern Indiana that has benefitted from a brand new bean processing facility being contructed on the line. The existing runaround was built long ago to accomodate previous customers, so it is only about 5 car lengths long. The new customer has trains of about 12 car lengths, and must be accessed by a facing turnout. Consequently, the railroad uses 2 locomotives to switch the spur: One to pull the train pass the runaround, then uncouple and move farther up the line, while the other comes off the runaround and pushes the train from behind onto the facing spur. (a perfect move for a DCC system BTW) .
Yes, I agree this is one of the better MRP issues. Like you mentioned, it read much like the old RR you can model plans. The track plans were practical and buildable, unlike some of the super extreme designs recently. I also liked the Southern article you mentioned. The pictures really took me back to growing up in a town much like that in the article.
I have several times expressed the opinion that actual trackwork in small towns and switching areas at least is (or was) often much less efficient than what we are told our track should look like. The town where I grew up for example had two industries served from the two tails of a switchback, with everything in nice parallel lines. The county seat not far away had an even stranger set up where the SR crossed a short line. The connection between the two was a switchback wye with a pair of major industries on the tail of the switchback. In either case, if I modeled this exactly, people would say it was not realistic.
Google/Bing maps of towns in the article lets you make out what once was track wise and yes, the differing roads crossing each other appear to have led to the track arrangement.
I liked this issue because it showcased several smaller layouts. While I enjoy seeing the large layouts not all of us have the time, money, or space to build them. The smaller “L” shaped layouts in this issue gave me some good ideas for a layout I am planning. In the future I hope that MRP will have an issue devoted to the smaller shelf and “L” layouts.