I can try to e mail you some sketches after I’ve grabbed some sleep. Or, if you can receive fax e mail me a number and i’ll fax them (easier for me). All you’ll have to do then is draw them all out so that you can post them here for everyone else to see…[}:)]
Okay… So I woke up thinking about that LH wye leg…
I’m losing it! [banghead]
I hope that you’re ready for this! [}:)]
Right… let’s be conventional and make the top of the page north.
The bottom three tracks are 1-3 from the bottom.
The modules are:-
- A the puzzle… call the puzzle A1 and any alternatives A2 etc
- B the stub end yard
- C the intermodal facility
- D the ship
I HATE the way this loads from a word doc![:(!]
After the 6th attempt I’m afraid you’ll have to struggle through and read it as it is unless someone can tell me how to correct it. [V]
Rats! (or “Pooh” if that’s more PC).
I just realised that with my changes you do not need a tower for much of the system anyway.
The only switches that have to be on a tower are the east and west ends of the wye and maybe the intermodal access. All the rest can be on ground throws.
Now… Phase 3…
Back on Board F…
- After the modified west wye leg switch we are going to put in a diamond
One principle to remember is that railroads will try to limit the number of turnouts, especialy facing point turnouts in their running tracks. They will often put in one siding or spur, then connect the industrial tracks to it rather then the mainline. Each turnout is a possible source of problems. A broken switch rod on a facing point turnout often means a wreck, so a railroad will keep such turnouts to a mininum.
It might be more realistic to provide only two turnouts, one for each direction in the commodities track, The other tracks would then branch off the wye legs.
Have fun
This is correct both sides of the pond… up to a point.
Here the Board of trade (the regulating authority) would simply not pass any new work for use if it had any facing connections that it didn’t accept ask completely necessary… up to recent times (More recently the authority name has moved into the Health and Safety Executive).
I noticed the comments earlier about pipe runs to operate points manually from a tower. The distances quoted look like the extended distances for trailing point (switch) connections in the UK. As far as I recall Facing Points were never permitted beyond 250 yards on manual connections. To be exact the manual Facing Point Lock (FPL) was restricted to 250 yards from the lever. A trailing connection could be further out… I think that 350 yards is correct. (I have it all documented somewhere).
Sometime in the 1930s (IIRC) reliable power (electric) points with either seperate powered FPLs or self locking mechanisms became not only available but accepted in some locations by the BoT. The distance of these from the controlling Signalbox (tower) was only limited by the ability of the operator to see whether the line was occupied. This could be done by track Circuits and both the point and the FPL could be detected electrically.
In the USA similar restrictions
Thanks for the info
[quote user=“Dave-the-Train”]
Broken switch rods are very rare. The rod is steel with a dirty great lump of point/switch blades and connecting rods at one end and a tower man at the other end. If anything breaks it is far more likely to be the tower operator. (I know, I’ve spent a lot of time changing points that have been absolute [censored] to work. If a rod breaks when you pull you will go flying.
Wow, I really appreciate all of the extensive info guys. Thanks so much. Of course, it will take a few times to re-read, and put this plan together.
The wye has been lifted, and we are at a clean slate as of now. I told the guys; “Let’s not get in a hurry to do this, we only want to do this once, and it should be the best way possible, if we are going to model the operations we want to see.” They aren’t too happy with me right now, but I’m doing the legwork for the team, to avoid the problems and downfalls that might occur, from snap decisions and eagerness to play on new track.
I want to extend thanks to Dog for your information about interlocking towers. I personally model modern era, so I never thought about how the purpose they serve and operate. Knowing this information, especially in this circumstance of model railroading, puts a whole new perspective about the aspect of the hobby we all want to achieve. Most of us model what we see, based on basic principles of railroading that we have gathered from our interest, though some of us have never really understood the specific purpose and reasons of the many functions of the railroad.
And Dave, sorry to present this conundrum of a trackplan, to which has caused you sleep deprivation, sorting the pieces of this intricate puzzle! [:)] Thank You! You’re suggestions, based on real life operations are more than anyone could expect. Hey, did you get this stuff out of a book? Did you write the book!?
On behalf of the Yellowstone Valley Model Railroad Club, thank you. I will present our final trackplan, and photos soon.
Jeremy
Old Dog…
Yes, outside an interlocking as well as in it as few connections in the main as possible is the general rule.
Also, where possible, provide sufficient space inside the first switch to get your whole train in out of the way to free up the main and take away the risk of any other train hitting part of the train left out on the main - in the US this was a significant problem with huge long lengths of single line. In the UK the design practices in place and the BoT requirements made it extremely rare - I expect someone will give me a list of when and where now [:)] -
Something else you want to do if you can is to locate the first switch inside far enough away from the connection to the main so that if anything derails on it it will stay clear of the main track. With that arrangement you can cut off the derailed car(s) - sometimes using a torch to cut them off and take the train that would otherwise be stuck blocking the main away. This keeps your main free and you can sort out the mess later.
If you got to “2” above - the FPL bolt withdrawn and the blades in one position but not connected - even the worst signalman should realise that something is wrong because there isn’t a manual set of points on the planet that you don’t have to “throw”. I’m quite happy to make this extreme claim… (a) I’ve been on the motive power end of enough points (b) even a set of blades on a ground throw needs some shifting… and even when it is in 100% good condition… (c) manual points on a box not only have the blades to shift but all the rodding run between the lever and the blades… and this is not often straight - including curves, bell cranks, lost motion devices [compensators] - it also needs all the bearing rollers to be true and at least a little lubricated (if you’re lucky). Then ther’s weeds [V], bits of ballast [V], trash [V] and any movement that might have occured or been put into the line by adjacent work [V][V]. These are a
I got this stuff out of rather a lot of books…
LTC Rolt “Red for Danger” is a basic on UK train smashes… which were the driving force behind most improvements.
Then I have gone through every issue of “The Engineer”, “Engineering”, “Locomotive, Carriage and Wagon Revue” and several others,plus US Journals I don’t recall the names of from their first issues to 1950. (The US Journals had some years missing [:(]).
I grew up with a railfan Dad who modelled O Gauge.
My Mum’s Dad was a tram driver at one stage.
My Maternal Great grandfather was a Guard (Conductor) on the LBSCR,
One of my Great, Great Grandfathers was a Driver on the London and Croydon.
I figure that I never really stood a chance.
I’ve worked 85% of my career on the railway… that’s how I’ve had time to go through all the books. A lot of the work is a matter of being there with your ears open… a bit like an airline pilot but not so well paid… they don’t even land the things! I wonder if they read books about planes? [(-D]
I wouldn’t mind writing a book but it is a lot of work. Also US and UK practice are significantly different and I not only don’t know enough about the US yet but don’t have a natural “feel” for it.
Also, it’s much easier to answer a question than to present the information from cold. Plus it is easier for you to relate to the answer to the question than to tie theory to what you might want to do. Even for other people it will be easier to carry ideas across from your example than to go from principles.
On top of that I have a weirdly wired brain that only learns in 3D but, once it has learnt in 3D can play all the games it wants in abstract theory.
How do you get on understanding Isotopes that don’t have a constant number of electrons? I find that most people boggle at them. To me the isotopes just live in a 3D space doing an extremely random and comples cube dance - which is a squar
The Old Dog finds this to be a interesting but mind bending topic.
Also, the Old Dog sees that it made an bad assumption. the “normal” position for a FPL is open/unlocked, not locked as I had thought.
The Old Dog has always thought that one or more interlocking towers or cabins with minature but working mechanical interlocking logic machines would be a very interesting addition to a layout.
For example, one book I have shows the layout for a small through passenger station, just two main tracks, with two sidings off each side with one platform between each pair of sidings. It also includes a right and left cross over on each end. Putting a “working” interlocking tower at end could provide employment for two lever men. The problem would be to provide enough staging to generate enough traffic to make things “interesting”.
Have fun
Have f
Here is the optimum trackplan I have come up with:
For the space given, and operations sought, this is the best trackplan within minimal variable limits. Having a main yard on the layout, some of the other suggestions to be included (such as a sanding tower, etc.) can be instilled within the main yard.
Note: as previously mentioned, as the club layout is modular, these modules are made for each other, and not intended to inter-change with others. The 1’x8’ main module is the only inter-changeable module in this circumstance, without the wye and yard(s) connection for continuous operation.
Thanks again everyone for your input.
Jeremy
-
To keep initial costs and maintenance as low as possible, a railroad will tend to use the simplest track configuration possible. The yard throat at down 4 over 3 looks to complex. It looks like you are trying to use some sort of compound ladder rather then a simple ladder.If you want to use a compound ladder, the track would be happier coming off the throught track.
-
A railroad would use a compound ladder only if the space available was very limited. They force the switchman to constantly cross the tracks which is a safty hazard.
-
If ths yard is at a division point instead of the end of the line, you might want two caboose tracks, one for each division. Since crew assignments are usually on a first in, first out basis, the caboose track will usually be double ended (as you have drawn). Things should be aranged to allow the caboose to be removed from an arriving train and to be placed on a departing train with as little switching as possible. Also note that there will need to be space for shed/s for the caboose supplies such as coal, lamp oil and so on.
-
The turntable should have an over shoot track opposite the entrance track so the engine will not run onto the ground is the hostler fails to stop in time. As long as you have the turntable, while not run a few tracks off it for storage.
-
The fueling area needs two areas, one for deliver of fuel from tank cars to the plant, one for actually feuling the engines.
Have fun
Great points:
- Due to the fact that this is a club layout, and multiple operation is of interest realistic or not, I chose the compound ladder to provide a few more cars within the yard. Having a simple ladder (such as the one on the right), the last track would have only been just over 3 feet in lenght, vs. the 4 feet achieved.
The playout of operations has been viewed as multi-operational with minimal obstruction, granted it may not follow realistic engineering practices. Obviously, there are many possible solutions for this trackplan, but we have to keep in mind that not everyone is going to operate in a realistic sence, or a concience state for that matter!
-
This layout is a safety hazard! lol Maybe this could teach some members to be more aware.
-
A second caboose track could be installed in the future, and/or a turnout ,lessening the distance from caboose-to-train as drawn. Fortunately, there is some room available for a supply shed. (Thanks for pointing that out!)
-
Yes. good idea. It will be short, but still serve it’s purpose. Oh storage, of course!!
-
This is why I joined the forum! Thanks!!
Jeremy
1st brief response before sleep… serious concern about safety only kicked in more recently with ltigation for injury compensation. while the County, State and RR police could beat the **** out of union members with something like impunity companies didn’t worry too much about safety of this kind. Working men died to get the conditions we enjoy today… and their spouses and kids lost their livelihood.
2nd… the suggestion to kick the yard tracks out of the main contradicts the previous (more correct) suggestion to minimize tracks from the main.
(Reason for answer now… tonights job blew out [:D] Will get back with more).
I was looking at your plan… and started to fiddle around with it in MS paint…
Perhaps something like that will work. By moving the wye to the “right” and shifting the yard slightly that direction you can add 1 more staging/storage/whatever track on the left, and it gives you more options for how to construct your engine servicing/fuel/maintainance areas.
Subject to getting the intermodal roads in I really like that Graniterailroader. [:D][:D][:D] (It would need the ship to be shifted north as I suggested earlier). On first sight it looks very good to me… nice long runs into the ladders. (This alows cars to settle rather than be twisted around).
One option to fix that would be to move the intermodal / shipyard spur towards the “right” and set the intermodal tower in the middle of the wye.
Second option being don’t approach the intermodal yard at a 45* angle from the main line. Using a more shallow approach would allow you to keep the intermodal line closer to the bottom edge.
GR,
As the intermodal module is not shown in the sketch, the lower branch of the wye pictured, sets the tracks 7" from the edge of the module (where the ship will be located), and is a pretty straight approach. As drawn, the tracks crossing at a 90 degree angle over the wye is a budget conscious plan. We had the 90 deg crossing, so we might as well use it.
A few minor adjustments have been made to the latest sketch, and we are beginning to lay track. Though some of the plan is not agreeable by suggestors of this forum, and incorrect, relating to real life railroading, please remember it’s still a model. It doesn’t have to be perfect, nor follow prototypical guidelines, it just has to function, and from a club standpoint; for a number of lamens.
Thanks once again everyone for your informative suggestions. Without your help, this plan would have missed a lot of opportunitistic operation.[:)]
Jeremy
YVMRC
First, the Old Dog has found a couple additional pages on mechanical interlocking
http://www.nymr.demon.co.uk/signals/signalling_1.htm
The above company apparently can provide software to design mechanical interlocking plants and marerials to actually build the interlocking frames.
Second, it is hard to say much about the above desigh without knowing more about the layout it is part of. The single ended classification yard on a wye might make good sense on a model RR. A train could be made of, enter a mainline oval, and make several loops before returning. Each station on the line could represent several different stations depending on which loop the was on. This might make the mainline run appear longer, but would be limited to low traffic densities. Otherwise, things would get confusing fast.
But on a real RR, such a yard might create some problems. For trains that are totally broken up and re-classifed, it would work. But would about freight trains that opnly change crews at this location? And what about freight trains that just drop and/or pick a cut of cars on the end? Are such trains going to need to back in or back out of the yard? Or are such trains to be handled else where?
Third, if a compound ladder is desired, the Old Dog would suggest using the deesign in Custom Line Layouts - HO Scale Railroads from Atlas. Their design would eliminate that gosh awfuil ugle hunp. Although the Old Dog can’t not state it for sure, it would suspect that a real RR might run the rods for the inside turnouts under the outside ladder so the sitchmen would not need to cross the tracks to operate the inside turnouts.
Have fun
First of all, thanks again Dog for the information. I have so much printed out to refer to! An interlocking tower is a part of the layout that helps set the scene for those who run in that era. With the potential expansion of the layout, it’s beneficial to know where one should reside, and exactly how it operates. The inter-locking tower placement, and operation was inquired about, specifically for the wye, and yard lead(s) configuration, to accomodate the era that it would exist in. The intermodal lead, crossing the wye might represent a road accomodated by the tower, though not prototypicaly controlled, as a result of the era exchange. I can’t thank you enough for your contributions.[tup]
As a two-year member, to a 20 year-old club, I have stood up to point the club in the direction of realistic model railroading, vs. “playing with trains” as has been, the casual openess of it’s (the club’s) product. I must heavily consider the aspect in planning, that some don’t care about how it works, as long at it “works”, and those that do, as well as individuals whom might be intrigued. This sets the table for an conflict conference, as everyone wants things a certain way. With that, my intervention in planning, accomodating, and explanation, results in a happy club. I cannot shut down each member’s suggestions, and it’s tough to weigh the variables, with the outlook of future membership of those who may not join because it’s not realistic enough. Obviously, the club exists on membership dues alone.
[quote]
Second, it is hard to say much about the above desigh without knowing more about the layout it is part of. The single ended classification yard on a wye might make good sense on a model RR. A train could be made of, enter a mainline oval, and make several loops before returning. Each station on the line could represent several different stations depending on which loop the was on. This might make the mainline run appear longer, but would be limited to low traffic densities. Otherwise, thin