This is not the connection point, so "at grade" is probably not a good option. Along one side of my plan, I am runnign a branch (I'll post the full plan so far in a little while). The connection point has a passing siding and a setout track off the main, then continues down the one side to a cement plant (the main willbe in the background, next to the wall). I can then have the brnach go through the wall into the utility room, there is enough space in there for a staging track to represent the rest of the branch. To get there, it either has to go over the main, or under the main. I'm thinking that because of the view angle,t he branch should go over the main, but main over branch could help hide the branch going through the wall - a tunnel on this branch would be odd, although I'm not trying for an exact prototype model here anyway.
Open to suggests, pro/con either way. The grade adjustment woudl likely be mostly ont he main as there won;t be enough room to climb or descend on the branch with a reasonable grade in the space available. The main can either climb or descend with plenty of space to spare.
MY thoughts are, the branch going over would create a viewblock on the main, except there already sort of is a rather long one where the main is somewhat hidden behind the branch and cement plant.
Hmm, I may have answered it for myself - if the main climbs, I can keep it there, it doesn't have to drop again. However, any thoughts would be appreciated.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
If the branch is going to disappear through the wall, it seems like the overhead main would tend to hide the unrealistic hole in the wall. Mainline over the branch would require a heavier-duty bridge because the mainline presumably carries heavier traffic. Since the one line is a branch, it would probably look appropriate for that branch to be in a cut, possibly with overhanging trees that would help to partially hide a branch train that is coming through the wall. The actual answer is probably determined by the topography you're representing and the physical space you have to work with. The angle at which the two lines cross is probably relevant, too.
Tom
While an at-grade crossing is a high maintenance item on the prototype, it's probably a lot cheaper than a grade separation.
However, if an over/under set-up is more advantageous (operationally or scenically), is there a possibility that the branch could be modelled as a line formerly belonging to another road? In that case, the mainline would have belonged to the railroad which arrived in the area first, and the newcomer would have had to figure out a way to cross their line if the original one wouldn't agree to an at-grade crossing. The logical choice then would be for the newcomer to cross over the other, and you may be able to do so within the grade restrictions you mention if you model the surrounding terrain as being higher than that upon which the main is located: in other words, place the main (and any of its associated grade) in a valley and simply build the branch and its surrounding area at a higher elevation.It then wouldn't take much to differentiate the branch slightly from the main: different colour or size of ballast, different style of lineside (railroad-owned) sheds, or even differently-shaped lineside signs for speed limits, whistle posts, or mile markers.
Wayne
The mainline bridge and a bunch of foliage would make a good, "Duck and cover," for the branch line's exit, especially if the underbrush runs through the branch track's hole in the wall and the bridge is complex enough to catch the eye.
If you add a mini-stream to the action under the bridge span you can justify a small stand of trees in an otherwise treeless area. Overhanging branches cover a multitude of sins (pun intended.)
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with strategically placed trees)
What do you want to do?
Make at grade your choice. So what if it is not a connection point. You're not trying for an exact prototype model anyway.
Besides, an at grade crossing would look cool, don't ya think?
Rich
Alton Junction
The prototype would usually have a grade crossing if both lines are at the same elevation, since it would be a lot cheaper than digging long trenches, building up the approaches, and the bridge itself. The prototype would have a bridge going over the other line if there were a difference in elevation.
I would have the main be relatively flat (allowing a higher speed), and the branch be at a lower evelvation, but it may dip slightly to get the nessecary clearence under the bridge.
WHile I am not modeling an exact prototype area, I do want to try to maintain some flavor of the prototype. In reality, the main and branch are nowhere near each other at the point of this bridge/crossing. I don;t have room to run the branch off in a totally different direction so it connects to the main and then wanders off to do its thing, so this is about the best I can do. At-grade is probably the last choice for a few reasons, mainly is is a bit too far from the connection point to say that's just how the interchange of the former independent lines worked out, but it is too close to really say it was just a quirk of the terrain that made one line have to cross the other.
Main on top: Definitely helps hide the exit of the branch, easier way to achieve clearance without crazy grades, excuse for a decent bridge
Branch on top: There's a bridge over the road on the branch that would look equally neat crossing another railroad track instead, but gaining elevation would be tougher. I could lower the main as well as rais the branch.
Or, depending on how I can arrange the terrain, I might be able to have the road bridge on the branch and then the branch go under the main - on the branch there once was a long trestle to cross a valley, this was later filled in leaving a few short bridges where trolley lines and streets ran under it.
Hmm, I think that's the ticket right there. Talking it out with others really helps. The main will gradually rise against the wall on what is clearly a fill. As it turns to pass in front of the wall that the branch will pierce to enter staging, there will be a short bridge over the branch. As the main turns the corner to where there will be a liftout section in case of problems in the mechanical room, the terrain will rise up and the fill will disappear. Sound good?
Now I want to start building this...lol.
Actually, that may be the way to do it.
The main is already there crossing a river or stream over a truss bridge.
The branch crosses under the main along the river bank.
I have seen that exact setup in Jefferson City Missouri.
Either set up is prefectly good. Where I grew up the branch from the Southern dropped down from the main on a switchback of all things to a small yard and from there back under the main and into a cut, so it would hid the branch disappearing very well. If you modeled this, no one would believe it was true to prototype.
On the other hand, the N C & StL had a branch that left the main just south of Cowen TN and crossed back over, just before the main entered a tunnel. Another typical model situation on the prototype.
When I first saw this thread, the situation at Cowan immediately entered my mind - except that the branch remains visible while the main dives into a tunnel.
Looking at Mapquest, the branch (Which once served a University campus, IIRC, has about 250 degrees of total left curvature before it reverse-curves right to continue its twisting way to the notheast. Mapquest Map still shows the branch as a railroad, even though the rails were lifted a long time ago.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with a rail route that resembles that branch out of Cowan)
The OP and a couple of others have touched on the idea of the bridge. That was my first thought. I'm building my first "nice" bridge kit right now, a Pratt truss from Central Valley, and I can see how such a model will turn a couple of feet of track into a real eye-catching scene. So, all other things being equal, I'd go for the eye candy of the best bridge option.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
I fyou are going to have to lower the main, and really raise the branch so the branch crosses above the main, I would go with having the branch crossing under the main. Maybe add some nice scenery to distract attention away from the branch, and have trees overhanging tracks.
It doesn't matter.
Railroads built what they had to based on the topology of the surrounding terrain. In other words, thay matched the tracks to the scenery. So as long as you get the scenery right in the area where the tracks will cross, you can do it either way you want.
So make it easy on yourself.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
Yes, there are still some places where you can make it out, but they're about gone. It once went on up to serve some coal mines up in the mountains. This region once had a lot of interesting railroading. Everything from multiple branch lines going in several different directions, some almost long enough to be a division in their own right; helper districts; several small yards. That 25 mile stretch between Cowen and Shelbyville would make a great prototype for someone.
It depends on who was there first.
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
So, Randy, whatcha gonna do?
Main will go over top - I will upload the rendering I made of sort of how it might look. Amazing - just like in 'real life' I stink at doing the scenery in 3rd Plan It.
The main will rise along the back, behind the branch and cement plant, so it won't be too noticeable. Once it appears from behind the cement plant, it will be on an embankment that I will try to make look like a fill - just like there was a long trestle across a valley that later got filled in. Bridge in the middle, spanning the branch. Possibly figure out some way to put a fairly modern (30's-40's) bridge in place while retaining some signs that there was an earlier, lower capacity bridge in the same spot from 40-50 years earlier. Can't really just put it next to the new bridge, this was a single track long narrow trestle that they just dumped dirt in and around to turn into a fill, so veering the track even slightly to place a new bridge alongside the old one would have been a huge effort - easier to just rip out the old one and put in a new one. No big deal if the signs of the past can;t be included.
Sounds like a plan !
Sounds like you've got it figured out pretty well. Looking forward to the visual. Depending on the amount of separation between lower and upper track, you might want to put in stone bridge abutments and piers that look like they were originally built in the 1800's for a deck truss bridge. Then when the deck truss was replaced with a steel girder, the abutments and piers had concrete additions on top to adjust their height. I know of many locations where this was done in Pennsylvania, Maryland, & surrounding States.
Good idea. I've seen many bridges like that. Gives the sense of history without trying to rig the bridge itself - show it in the piers! Perfect!
Well, here is is. a VERY rough idea of how it will go (also way too wide, compared to the actual space I have here)