In order to replicate the traffic flow feeding my two branch lines I will have to incorpoprate some vistage of the 10 track yard located in Oxnard Ca, today the yard is much reduced in size and importance to sucessor Union Paciifc, existing for local use only.
I have 50 X 3 to devote to the project, the prototype trackage as of 1927 breaks down like this
2 sidings served a 12 car private owner/operator emergency ice dock and ice plant
1 siding served a Western Railway Express depot, there were additonal spurs associated with this facality were sensitive perishables were loaded into baggage and express cars. , WRE was absorbed into REA in the 1930’s and the trackage and structures remained virtually unchanged until the operation was phased out
Two tracks each were devoted to outbound traffic generated by the Santa Paula and Ojai branches, Outbound loads could exceed 125 reefers off the Ojai Branch and 140 cars off the Santa Paula during a productive harvest.
Three tracks were reserved for through Coast Line traffic, with the exception of the occasional load of strawberries which were added to passenger trains at this location, set out of empties or pickups of loaded reefers was rare, numerous locals orginating from several locations performed this function , SP as a standard operating practice, forward loaded reefers to Taylor Yard which had the capacity to classify and ice to the customers specifications
There were no significient engine faclities beyond fuel, water and a wye.
Using the above data, it should prove possible to reduce the yard to 7 tracks by elimating the Coast Line through tracks that have no purpose to my operations.
i would keep atleast one thru line. you certainly have width enough and at a 4:1 compression ( 1 real boxcar = 4 prototypical ones ) you should have enough length. there certainly may have been a RIP track and before the deisel era there would have been coaling fascilities and ash pits etc. good luck.
Very astute observation, I suspect there must have been a RIP track, probably contracted like the ice operation. I’ve found no evidence to suggust operation of such by SP or PFE or if one ever existed as dedicated function, none are present on my E-val diagrams . SP did maintain a 500.00 Ga. water tank with several standpipes and a 20.000Ga. oil tank that also fed oil standpipes and several small store houses dedicate to various lubricants and water treatment chemicals, sand was supplied by an independent contractor which employed nothing more state of the art then a bucket and a ladder for delivery!
I think it’s what ever suits your operations best rather then being as true to the prototype as possible. If your building your railroad more for operations then for prototypical modeling you have license to rewrite the history books so to speak. If it were me I would also maintain a through track.
Just doing some quick math I take it your modeling era is around 1930 only because you mention that time period with an typical HO 40’ freight car being 5-1/2" long so a 140 car train would be some 64’ in 1:1 scale length give or take not including locomotive and caboose so right off the bat your compromising 14’ So what your yard will lack in length you will gain in width. Having a 3’ wide space to work with should be more then enough to accommodate the full compliment of 10 tracks using 2" spacing and have a through track for each branch line with room to add a run through track and caboose track as well. I have a yard under construction that is 27’ long and 31" wide at it’s widest point but it’s Achilles heal is that it’s curved 90 degrees. I envy you having that much space to work with, i really don’t think you’ll be compromising too much. One other key factor is what turnout size will you be working with on your yard ladders? If you plan on going with #6 turnouts you should have more then enough room.
Rather than starting with the prototype plan and compressing by an arbitrary ratio, often a more helpful approach is to begin with what work you need to do in the model yard and build up from there. I would suggest that you ask yourself the following questions (or if you have already determined these issues, you’ll know what the yard should be)
Will the two branch locals be originated/terminated in the yard? Will the branch crews make up their own trains, or will a local yard crew do the work? (The former might be more typical of the real thing in some eras, the latter likely would be more efficient in the use of yard tracks)
Is there any through traffic from staging that must set-out and pick-up cars for those locals?
Any through trains from staging that must meet and pass in the yard?
(I think you’ve said in the past that you have decided to forgo off-visible-layout staging, but I may not remember that correctly).
Will a dedicated local work the in-town industries?
Are you representing the connecting Ventura County Railway (VCY) at all?
Will the wye at Montalvo have all legs active?
I don’t know what was the case in 1927, but later the SP served the local Oxnard industries and the VCY interchange with a “turn” (out-and-back local) from the LA area. This was called the Leesdale Local at some times in the past (Leesdale is near Camarillo)
My own N scale track plan for Oxnard had a fairly small SP yard because the focus was on the VCY and a later era. Your Oxnard yard would likely be more substantial. But if you really need it to be just a base for the two branch locals and the crew serving Oxnard proper, I can see how you could get by with 5-6 tracks at a minimum.
But many facts are not yet in evidence, particularly how this yard will relate to the mainline (if, indeed, the mainline is actively modeled at all) and the role (if any) for the VC