Doughless and superbe, thanks, will work on reasons for wiggle. Man is my brain racing. Thanks guys!
Steve
Life is tough, but it's tougher if your'e stupid.
cuyama... wow, this is a great help. This along with Ulrich's lift up and around the room, may get me what I want. Thanks for the great pictures.
Doughless Fouled Anchor This is my latest for my 12x18.5 layout. I took Ulrich's suggestion to put some "wiggle" in it, which may not be enough, but seems the best I could do with the room available. Any and all suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Steve Personally, I've always found a little "wiggle" to be quite attractive.
Fouled Anchor This is my latest for my 12x18.5 layout. I took Ulrich's suggestion to put some "wiggle" in it, which may not be enough, but seems the best I could do with the room available. Any and all suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Steve
This is my latest for my 12x18.5 layout. I took Ulrich's suggestion to put some "wiggle" in it, which may not be enough, but seems the best I could do with the room available. Any and all suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
Personally, I've always found a little "wiggle" to be quite attractive.
Ageed. Of course there would be something scenically that would be the reason for the wiggle
Bob
Don't Ever Give Up
- Douglas
ACY I think Larry and I have no disagreement. When I mentioned a runaround, I was not referring to a turning facility; rather, I was just talking about a means of having the engine "run around" the consist to get to the other end.
I think Larry and I have no disagreement. When I mentioned a runaround, I was not referring to a turning facility; rather, I was just talking about a means of having the engine "run around" the consist to get to the other end.
No disagreement here..
I have no doubts that coal mines in the Keystone state might have had a tad more room for such luxuries but,seeing the Allegheny mountains I don't know....
Even today NS uses cabooses on the Pocahontas Division due to the long reverse moves to several loadouts--Pentrex has a excellent video covering NS's Pocahontas Division coal operation-including uncoupling the pusher(s) on the fly..Oddly the coal cars are flood loaded but,there's no room for a balloon track so,its a push/pull operation.
Trains Magazine has had several articles over the years covering the Eastern coal operation.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIEThe cold facts is there was no run around tracks as these mines
Unless there were
Cloverdale Mine, Pennsylvania
Kaymoor Mine, West Virginia
Edna Mine, Colorado, source of the Walthers New River Mining Company model
There are many other examples. Some coal mines had runarounds, some did not.
What is true in one place and time may not be true everywhere and in any era
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
The lift-out section (not necessarily a bridge) you take out completely, whereas the lift-up bridge is hinged to one side, so you just open it late a gate, only upwards.
ACY and BRAKIE, Yup I need to totally redo the mine area, I don't think it could function as is. Still want to keep the push pull, but make it more functional. I'll try the double-ended passing siding.
Thanks guys, I'll repost when done.
Ulrich, is there a difference between a list out bridge and a lift up? Not sure what you mean?
Regards
ACY Larry's comments about runaround tracks at mines, he may be correct nowadays, especially where the operation uses two locomotives, one at each end of the train. But the OP's roster is all steam, and that means it would be better to follow the practices of the day. I live in Maryland, about 5 miles from the Pennsylvania State line. I've spent many a day traipsing through the backwoods, exploring abandoned coal mining railroads.
The cold facts is there was no run around tracks as these mines since the mines was usually located next to a hill.Steam engines was not turned simply because the mines owned the track and even if the track was railroad owned there would still be no run around,wye or turntable simply because there was no room plus a mine run may serve 4-5 small mines.
If you really want to study mines then go to the coal fields in the Appalachians and see for yourself...I often wondered how in blue blazes did they find the room for the loadout and other support buildings in the narrow space they used.
Did you know some roadbeds crept along creeks,up narrow hollows and had switchbacks just to get to a mine loadout?
BTW.C&Os 2-6-6-2s saw 90% of it life working the coal fields of W.Va and Virginia.
I have worked several mine runs on the Chessie(C&O) and not once was there a runaround or the remains of a turntable to be seen.
Re. Larry's comments about runaround tracks at mines, he may be correct nowadays, especially where the operation uses two locomotives, one at each end of the train. But the OP's roster is all steam, and that means it would be better to follow the practices of the day. I live in Maryland, about 5 miles from the Pennsylvania State line. I've spent many a day traipsing through the backwoods, exploring abandoned coal mining railroads.
In steam days, most mines were set up so that a locomotive would pull its train to the mine, run around the train, push the empties to a tail track above the mine, and then run around the outbound loads to haul them away. Then the empties would be drifted through the loading area by gravity, often one at a time, to be filled. Then they would be drifted down to an outbound assembly area to make room for the next car to be loaded. There were variations from location to location. Sometimes a car puller or a locomotive would be used to move the empties to the loader and move the loads to the assembly area. Some facilities could losad more than one car at a time, and some were large enough to have a grading plant in the tipple so that various grades could be loaded on different tracks.
The O.P.'s space won't allow for a very large mine, so the track arrangement need not be complicated. I would suggest an arrangement that looks like a double-ended passing siding below the mine, with the tipple on the single track, just beyond the upper turnout. The tail track would be a single track extending above the tipple.
Tom
Steve,
don´t dismiss the idea of a lift-out section, enabling you to enter the room without crawling on your knees. Instead of a lift-out section, you can employ a lift-up bridge, which is not that difficult to build, but requires a bit of wiring to avoid trains taking the "Great Fall".
Some fun facts.
Railroads hates "wiggle" in their track where we modelers thinks its a cool idea.
Why?
Each "wiggle" cost money from the wear and tear on the track and wheels of the cars and causes complaints from the public because of the flange squeal.Each "wiggle" is a speed restriction just like curves.
So,looking at your track plan I think your track has the right amount of wiggle.
One more thing..You won't find runaround tracks at mines there's not enough room for such luxuries especially on privately own track and the mining company owns the track not the railroads..Also,I would use that yard for a interchange yard since you're just hauling coal from the mine to the yard.
As a personal observation.Following prototype track arrangements and practices can make a "yawn" layout into a "WOW! layout.
Tom, had to chuckle, as at one time I did consider a full around the room. It sure would make things easier. At my age and my friends ages, a duck under is out of the question (chuckling again). A lift out got dropped simply because of my imagined maintenance on it. As I mentioned earlier, operations are not a high priority with me. I just wanted to use the yard to pick up empties for the mine, and kinda simulate transferring cars to the mainline, just for a change in what is running on the loop. Since it will be DCC, I was thinking it wound be nice to see passenger and ore cars just running around.
I'm sure you are correct in that proto typical operations would never do that, so I think I'll stick with the single push pull.
I really like your operating plan. I gotta mull this over a bit.
Really really appreciate your time and thoughts.
gregc... wow, I did not steal from that track plan... honestly, but they are quite similar. Earlier versions had a switch back, but it started getting gnarley, and taking up too much room. Considered turn tables, but the more I read here about them, the more I became disinterested. I'll give the single track main some thought to see if it fits the mini dioramas I want. Good idea.
Ulrich noticed the tight radii in the reversing loops too. I think I'll stick with the push pull for mining. I am planning for DCC, and want to keep the wiring as simple as possible.
I'm going to have to read your suggestions more than once or twice to appreciate them.
Thanks
Ulrich, glad you said that about the wiggles, wasn't sure about you original suggestion about getting away from the linear look. I'll do something with the mining spur.
I'll see if I can fit 24" radii. Was not planning on using any sectional track. Originally was thinking about handlaying, but then saw that On30 Custom Trax, and liked it a lot. No, no, don't like sectional track, did that 30 years ago.
Someone had mentioned that mining ops used push pull, something about keeping water above the crown sheet (if that is the correct term)? Really didn't want to turn engines on the mining spur.
Always appreciate your suggestions Ulrich. I am still floored how your engine house turned out.
A few more thoughts:
First, I don't know about the single-ended yard at the bottom of the page. As designed, it's usable, but since I don't know how you planned to use it, I didn't address that issue earlier. I also didn't address the dogleg curves in the design because I figured there would be some adjustment during construction anyway.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the suggestion for a second route to the mine, but if I understand it correctly, I think it's unnecessary and sort of implausible. I doubt that a real narrow gauge railroad would build two separate routes to one mine unless they intended to abandon the less favorable one. The original route to the mine is fairly long and roundabout, and presumably fairly steep. That means the new proposed second route to the mine would have an incredibly steep grade. That is, if you intend to operate like a prototype narrow gauge line. On the other hand, if you intend to do the "roundy-round" thing, then it makes sense to connect the mine tail to the yard at the bottom of the page. I guess my way of describing this betrays my own preference for a prototype-inspired operating scheme; but I don't intend any offense to those who just like to watch the trains go 'round. There's room in the hobby for that, too.
That proposed new connection to the mine would cross the entry doorway. Actually, if you're going to cross the entry at all, I think it would be preferable to just make the mainline a big oval and locate your principal yard at Mountain View Flats. This would eliminate both turnback loops, and would get rid of the double-track mainline between those loops. I agree that the double track seems a bit improbable for this kind of RR. A turntable and small roundhouse could be located at the location of the lower loop. A few other industries could be inserted here and there along the line.
For an operating scheme, I think I'd have one of the geared engines serve as the Mountain View switcher. That engine would assemble a daily mixed train at Mountain View, and the freshly-serviced Mogul would take that train clockwise to the branch junction at the bottom of the page. Empties for the mine would be cut out and the Mogul would be turned using the Mountain View turntable (pretending it's not actually located at Mountain View). The Mogul would pick up loads and other outbound freight, and return to Mountain View counterclockwise. A geared engine would take the empties to the mine and pick up loads, then return to the junction.
Just my opinion. YMMV.
Fouled AnchorI am not real big on operations, and more interested in mini dioramas, and of course a loop to just watch em run. I'm gonna think on the mining op though.
there are some other options if you want to avoid the switchbacks and make things more easier to watch running. I have very limited space, realise i'll have to live with tight radius turns and hence small locomotives. You could try for a loop-to-loop
the bottom dark blue needs a little more space for a reversing loop. You can move the siding to the left and put storage tracks inside the loop. There would be no connection from the bottom dark blue to the light blue. (you could try stacking the loops like you did in the mining district).
the mining district would be replaced with a loop, (not reversing) and connect with the light blue track. Obviously the light blue loop is broken.
the existing light blue loop under the mining district would become a reversing loop.
a train might start from the bottom, run around thru the mining district loop, to the lower light blue track, to the lower light blue reversing loop under the mining district. There could be station sidings lower left, mining and your business district station. mining area could be moved or a new industry located at the top, parallel to the main track.
Running trains could be fairly simple, but would have to deal with the reversing loops. If you have DCC, auto reversers could be used. If DC, and if trains are run thru the reversing loops in the same direction, just toggling the mainline direction would be necessary.
the following is a 1939 layout described in a 1975 MR article, "What makes an outstanding Layout"? I think you're close to what they did.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
I hope you don´t mind a few open words on the track plan!
Here we go:
Your "wiggly " track is too wiggly - it looks like badly laid track you may find in a logging operation, and not like the Sweeping curves you should go for
The turnback curve seems rather tight. Anything below 24" should be avoided, even if your geared locos will negotiate sharper curves.
I still question the douple track line in a narrow gauge operation. Your layout is basically a folded dogbone with spurs leading to the mine and the fiddle yard.
I see a lot of sectional track used in the design - try to avoid that.
As you know I am currently building an On30 layout myself. I have invested a lot of work and $$ in getting to where I am right now, only to find out, that there are a number of flaws in the design and the execution taking away the fun I had so far in building and operating it. I will most likely take the layout down and start all over again. It´s a big loss for me, which will be hard to recover, but it´s better to bail out now before sinking more precious $$ into it and still not like it!
You have a fairly large space available for your layout and I think you can do much better than this. Do a search with the key words "On30" "layout" and "track plan" and you will get tons of information.
Hmmmm... thanks guys for the ideas. Originally mining was to be push pull, but I needed more work at the mine. A double mining line is interesting though. I am not real big on operations, and more interested in mini dioramas, and of course a loop to just watch em run. I'm gonna think on the mining op though.
Appreciate the ideas, and it's back to Anyrail.
I'm not a fan of switchbacks as I have found that they become tiring after a time. And you have a double switchback to get from the light blue loop to the yard at the bottom of the plan.
And what is the grade from the blue loop to the first leg of the switchback?
I agree that you need a run-around at the mine.
i'm not sure if you're preferrence is for scenery or operation. If it's not scenery, there are some ways to lengthen the layout.
instead of having a single track to the mine, there can be the existing track from the siding at the bottom to the mine and a 2nd track from the mine back to the 4 spurs at the bottom (dark blue). Another turnout can be added to create a siding (looks like you may have had this in mind.
instead of having a loop (light blue track)why not have the light blue track loop (lower left) be a reversing section by rejoining itself below the light-blue siding?
the layout become a switchback which shouldn't be a big problem if not using steam.
trains originating from the new siding at the bottom reach the mine where the engine swaps end and runs back along the 2nd track to the exising siding at the bottom. The engine again reverses ends and takes the branch to the light blue track. It can either change ends again or take the reverse loop back
... and think vertically as well, each of the 4 possible sidings at a different level
How dod you envision turning locos on the purple track. Right now, it is set up for push / pull operation. Unless you plan to have HOG intervention?
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
ACY, good point. I knew I had to do something with that area, and then totally forgot! Doh.
I'd suggest some kind of runaround provision at the mine. It seems to me that a lot of modelers neglect to put a tail track above the loader on many coal mines, but a tail track was almost always an essential element of the loading process.