I am in track planning stages for a new layout. I am leaning towards a switching layout with two roads each with a yard. there would be an interchange between the two roads. I like the idea of the two local branch lines (i hesitate to call them mainlines) crossing at 90 degrees at the same grade.
Here is my question: Would it be acceptable for one of those branchlines to have a passing siding that the other branchline also crosses? My goal it to have a run a round siding but the problem i see is cars could not be left on the siding that would block the other RR.
Here is another thought, would it be acceptable for the interchange track to have a passing siding to run around a train that each RR could use?
Thanks for any insight.
basementdweller I am in track planning stages for a new layout. I am leaning towards a switching layout with two roads each with a yard. there would be an interchange between the two roads. I like the idea of the two local branch lines (i hesitate to call them mainlines) crossing at 90 degrees at the same grade. Here is my question: Would it be acceptable for one of those branchlines to have a passing siding that the other branchline also crosses? My goal it to have a run a round siding but the problem i see is cars could not be left on the siding that would block the other RR. Here is another thought, would it be acceptable for the interchange track to have a passing siding to run around a train that each RR could use? Thanks for any insight.
A sketch of what you're asking would be a big help...
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
Never say never, but I think it unlikely that a crossing would occur in the middle of a passing siding. I would think that it would be more common to have a passing siding, or runaround on the interchange track.
Ray
As you describe it, a passing track with another railroad crossing it at grade, at 90 degrees doesn't make much sense. Depending on the frequency of traffic on the two lines, it may very well be impossible to use it for passing. The track arrangement you envision used to exist to a degree on the Louisville & Nashville in Gulfport, Mississippi, back in the !970s.
The L&N's east-west Mobile AL-New Orleans LA main line crossed the IC's lead to the port of Gulfport at high degrees at the depot in downtown Gulfport. In addition to the crossing, there was a three track yard used for interchange along the north side of the L&N main, east of the diamond. The IC connection to the L&N came from the north, and intersected the L&N to the east. The L&N took the middle of the three yard tracks and extended it across westward U.S. Highway 49 and added a third track across the IC(G), also westward. These L&N tracks rejoined the main west of town but neither could be used as passing tracks due to the number of at-grade public streets they crossed. The same situation existed with the tracks east of the IC(G) lead.
At one time, there may have been enough interchange traffic to warrant two tracks crossing the IC(G) lead at grade on diamonds but in 1973-1975, this was not the case. The L&N would shove the IC interchange directly into the ICG's lower yard. The ICG would shove into the three tracks east of their port lead with their interchange.
The factor to remember is the L&N ran six to eight 80-130 car road freights a day, each way, over their line while, ICG ran a couple of switch moves to the docks with a car count of 15-20 at most. L&N staged their meets east or west of Gulfport where road crossings would not be a problem. The ICG is now Kansas City Southern and the L&N is CSX. The additional L&N track and diamond are gone, but, they still interchange in Gulfport.
Look at Rochelle IL on the webcam and google maps
http://trn.trains.com/videos/webcams/2014/09/bnsf-and-union-pacific-in-rochelle-il
BNSF runs from the bottom left to the top right, UP is the crossing tracks
Google map is 90 degrees counter clockwise from the webcam view
On the left before the crossing, there is a BNSF siding that takes a hard left and parallels the UP tracks. That siding leads to a yard, and trackwork that connects to the UP line. You could do a trackwork like that with a diagonal crossing, but not a 90 degree because the radius would be too sharp
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
What an interesting arrangement.
If I understand the question (as noted, a drawing would help), I think it would be more likely the two railroads would come together in something like a very small yard - two or three tracks, which could also be able to serve as a run-around.
There are two types of interchanges. One type the railroads’ mainlines cross at an angle and there is a curved track similar to a wye which connects the two. That is the interchange track. On the other type of interchange and railroads are parallel and there is a common siding in between them which is the interchange track. If you are modeling the first type then the crossing would be at a point that is outside of the yard. It could be crossing a double track line which one track might be a siding but trains wouldn’t be able to cross until it was clear. Crossings between two railroads can be a big bottleneck for them. It can lead to arguments and even fights which can escalate into armed disputes. See Colton Crossing Dispute.
A shared runaround is more plausible than a bisected run around.
However, the simplest way two railroads would do it, IMO, is that both lines would come together at the yard and share trackage, but only one railroad would have responsibility for switching the yard and setting out all interchange cars for both railroads.
Maybe the yard area is a "joint venture" enterprise where both railroads supply locos and crews, but there is only going to be one yard master calling the shots for both crews.
Keeps things simpler and lessens the chance for trains running into each other.
- Douglas
Thanks for confirming my thinking.
Lookup Junction City, WI where the CN Superior and Valley subs cross