Change of venue - Revised layout in need of comments

[Anonymous]

Keith,

I moved to BF (White Twp) around 62 at age of 5. Graduated HS in 75. Walked parts of the MRR branch during my time there.

CK...

[Anonymous]

Hi CK:

Thanks for the great info. When abouts was all this? I was born in '61 (in Center Twp) and frankly didn't get up to BF that much. I only remember the grade crossings at the lower end of town and on the dogleg where the MBr crossed over to the College yard.

Your freight mix seems to jive up with what I figured based on the industries at the time. Just to have hoppers, I'm going to include some off-layout staging for other industries north and south. As a side note, I checked some of the old business directories at the BF library and as late as 1964 there were still four coal dealers in BF-NB: Addison Davidson, Debo Coal Yard, Peter Shaffer & Son, and Valley Fuel & Supply. My dad says that we had a coal furnace up until '62 or so. Heck - there's STILL a little coal yard in business just down the hill from me, but it was always served by truck.

I think the MRR gets lost in the whole PRR system (what's 2.5 miles as a percentage of their routes?) Wayne A. Cole has published some books on Beaver and Lawrence county (PA) RRs and is working on new books covering other fallen flags in this area. I think the MRR will be covered, so you might want to search the 'net or keep an eye out.

Thanks again,
Kurt Laughlin

QUOTE: Originally posted by assembler_head

Keith,

I grew up in BF and have memories of PRR Baldwin switchers and GP9s traversing the Marginal Branch.

In terms of hoppers, I recall seeing a PRR 100 ton "yellow dot" hopper loaded with scrap metal on the siding at scrap dealer in the lower end of town. The spur was somewhere near where the double tracks came down the ramp from the PRR main line and joined the branch along Walnut Bottom Run. I thought it unusual at the time to see a hopper loaded with scrap metal instead of coal, but it was there none the less.

There was also a coal trestle located off a spur in the small yard along the connection with with the PRR mainline. I believe your picture of the Sanborn map shows the spur. I never saw any hoppers on the trestle in my days in BF.

Occationally, I would see a fairly "long" train on the branch, headed by a Baldwin switcher and punctuated by a PRR N5 caboose. Presumably, this was interchange traffic for the P&LE connection at College. I remember seeing PRR covered hoppers in the mix, but I can't say that I saw any open hoppers. Of course, with a little modeler's license, you could include hoppers in with the interchange traffic.

Most of the rail cars I ever saw on the branch were box cars and refer cars.

I assume from your picture of the Sanborn map, you have the track map and industry layout from the early 1900s. I've not found much published on the web regarding the PRR Marginal Branch. I've often wondered whether the library in BF might yeld some additional informaation.

CK...

[Anonymous]

Hi CNJ:

I don't know if you saw my final plan:



I've decided to use off-layout staging to represent industries that would use other car types.

The thing with Forgard's plan was that to me it didn't look like like what was seen around here. On the southside of Pittsburgh, or McKees Rocks, maybe, but not Beaver Falls. Oh well. One of the reasons I went with a smaller layout was that I would have less invested if it didn't work out.

BTW, using the ol' wire-measurement method I get that Forgard's plan has 39.5 feet of track in 14 sq ft while I have 53.75 feet in 21 sq ft, which works out to a density of 2.82 ft/sq ft for his and 2.55 ft/sq ft for mine.[8)]

KL

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by aardvark
In looking over my traffic, it seems I really don't have any need for hoppers. That don't seem right for 1961. If I make the upper left industry the brick/clay plant, the center one a steel fabricator, and the upper right a chemical plant, there's no place to realistically run hoppers, unless I want to put a coal trestle somewhere.

Ideas anybody?

Hoping that you don't take offense, I think that you've more than maxxed out on your trackage potential, let alone to be now thinking about where to place a coal trestle. Sometimes less can be (considerably) more...one can't include absolutely everything on such a small shelf layout! To me, your design appears very cluttered with track for the space you have available and, honestly, I find the Kalmbach trackplan by Larry Forgard much more appealing to the eye, less congested and more rational in depicting the real world. Perhaps that's why it was included in "48 Top-Notch Track Plans". [;)]

CNJ831

[Anonymous]

Keith,

I grew up in BF and have memories of PRR Baldwin switchers and GP9s traversing the Marginal Branch.

In terms of hoppers, I recall seeing a PRR 100 ton "yellow dot" hopper loaded with scrap metal on the siding at scrap dealer in the lower end of town. The spur was somewhere near where the double tracks came down the ramp from the PRR main line and joined the branch along Walnut Bottom Run. I thought it unusual at the time to see a hopper loaded with scrap metal instead of coal, but it was there none the less.

There was also a coal trestle located off a spur in the small yard along the connection with with the PRR mainline. I believe your picture of the Sanborn map shows the spur. I never saw any hoppers on the trestle in my days in BF.

Occationally, I would see a fairly "long" train on the branch, headed by a Baldwin switcher and punctuated by a PRR N5 caboose. Presumably, this was interchange traffic for the P&LE connection at College. I remember seeing PRR covered hoppers in the mix, but I can't say that I saw any open hoppers. Of course, with a little modeler's license, you could include hoppers in with the interchange traffic.

Most of the rail cars I ever saw on the branch were box cars and refer cars.

I assume from your picture of the Sanborn map, you have the track map and industry layout from the early 1900s. I've not found much published on the web regarding the PRR Marginal Branch. I've often wondered whether the library in BF might yeld some additional informaation.

CK...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Texas Zepher

QUOTE: I like how the freight platform worked out in the last variant but think keeping the storage tracks parallel and aligned is more prototypical.

You must not have seen a photo I put up in another thread. parallel and aligned are often oxymoronic[sic] with prototype.

Good point TZ. My prototype had both:



The five tracks on top are the MBr (Marginal RR at the time of this map's publication) while those below the "plaform" [sic] are the PRR (PFtW & C).

Now for two more questions:

What are the group's thoughts of putting back a track opposite the freight station to be the real PRR main line interchange so that the connecting track in the center can be kept clear?



In looking over my traffic, it seems I really don't have any need for hoppers. That don't seem right for 1961. If I make the upper left industry the brick/clay plant, the center one a steel fabricator, and the upper right a chemical plant, there's no place to realistically run hoppers, unless I want to put a coal trestle somewhere.

Ideas anybody?

KL

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by aardvark
At first I was hesitant to delete tracks because I feared the loss of capacity, but they do help the look and cost practically nothing. ... Because of the increased clear siding length when the switches were deleted, all the other siding capacities stayed the same.

As Darrell Waltrip says of Martinsville, "sometimes you have to slow down to go faster".

QUOTE: I like how the freight platform worked out in the last variant but think keeping the storage tracks parallel and aligned is more prototypical.

You must not have seen a photo I put up in another thread. parallel and aligned are often oxymoronic[sic] with prototype.

[Anonymous]

OK, I fleshed out the last of the three previous:



http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i301/3373GP4NR/1c59287c.jpg

[A] is pretty much as described before except that the switch to thr spur on the upper right is one track lower so that the spur can be switched without affecting any other spots.

[B] is like [A] except that one of the MBr storage tracks was removed, as suggested by TZ.

[C] is like [B] but with the storage track twisted a little and one of the freight station tracks deleted, also as per TZ's suggestion. I found in that case that I could flip the platform on the other side of the interchange for more "whitespace" on the layout.

At first I was hesitant to delete tracks as TZ suggested because I feared the loss of capacity, but they do help the look and cost practically nothing. As it turns out, the only loss was two 50-foot spots in the MBr storage. Because of the increased clear siding length when the switches were deleted, all the other siding capacities stayed the same. Thanks TZ! (And Byron, too!)

By my measure with a 6-3/4 long switcher and 7-3/4 (representing 50 feet) cars, the tracks have these capacities:

Upper left siding: 2
"Large factory", platform: 1
"Large factory", yard / inside track: 4, but I don't expect to ever use more than 3
Upper right platform(s): 4
Freight station: 5
MBr storage: 8 with two tracks, 6 with one. This does not count the space at the tail of the bypass track.
PRR interchange: 5

I've checked and it looks like I can pull the full number of cars from each siding, save for the "large factory" yard track where I can only pull 3.

So, I have 15 drop off spots and 11 pick-up/storage spots. If keep half the pick-up/storage spots open (say 5) and switch out a like number of cars, I think it will be interesting and not too tedious.

Right now, I'm thinking I'll use the left side of [B] and the right side of [C]. I like how the freight platform worked out in the last variant but think keeping the storage tracks parallel and aligned is more prototypical.

So, again, ANY ideas or uh-ohs would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
KL

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Medina1128

1961... Hmmm.. You could move it back a couple of years and model Beaver Falls High School. Joe Willie Namath would still be there...

Although the high school was adjacent to Keystone Driller (one of the largest industries on the MBr), it was on "the wrong side of the tracks".

KL

[Medina1128]

1961... Hmmm.. You could move it back a couple of years and model Beaver Falls High School. Joe Willie Namath would still be there...

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by aardvark

QUOTE: loose one of the tracks in the lower left.

Did you mean lower right?

Oops, yes I did.

[cuyama]

QUOTE: Originally posted by aardvark
[I started off with Larry Forgard's "Railroading for City Lovers" as published in MR and reprinted in Kalmbach's "48 Top-Notch Track Plans".



http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i301/3373GP4NR/9356de93.jpg

His layout is 2 x 7 and better represents (I think) a junction than part of a branchline like I wanted to model. He may have been inspired by Westcott.
.

That's not a bad plan except for one thing (in a moment) and it may well be inlfuenced by Westcott, although there are only so many ways to arrange a runaround and spurs, so a lot fo these will look alike.

The problem is the two long spurs off to the lower right (longest on the layout) that may only be switched a few cars at a time because the lead is so short.

QUOTE:
Generally, I think most people find the "move cars at one industry to reach another industry" situation you have at G tedious in the long run. It might be better to make one wing of a switchback more of a lead to reach the industry at G ... which would look something like the Westcott plan.

I'm not certain what you are describing here, Byron: Is the problem that (G) holds four spots or is it that (F) has to be clear to switch (G)?
.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Texas Zepher

The last one seems to have just a bit too much track. Perhaps if it lost one track from the set on the left and one from the lower right.

I could see that TZ. (D) tracks are storage for holds, off-spots, and for some preliminary sorting. If I went this way I'd remove the lowest one. (H) is the freight house. I suppose I could pull one of those two. I'll have to see once it's laid out more fully with clearances and structures how stuffed things are.

QUOTE: [
The other two I think work just fine if you could loose one of the tracks in the lower left. The way they are now there is basically an overlaping run around track and very little car spotting room.

Did you mean lower right? As mentioned above I'm planning on dropping the lower crossover. Inasmuch as these are intended to be mainly escape crossovers I would see no problem filling them to the edge with cars most of the time.

Thanks for the help,
KL

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cuyama

I don't see that the doubled crossovers in the lower right hand corner of the first two add anything over just one which would leave more useable track length, but I may just not be seeing what you have in mind.

Nah, that makes sense. My intention was that they would be 99% engine escape tracks (i.e. the tail only needs to handle an engine) with the option to be part of a large runaround if ever needed. Deleting the lower crossover was something I was considering already.

QUOTE:
The third plan is reminiscent of one of the classic small plans, Linn Westcott's "Switchman's Nightmare"

I started off with Larry Forgard's "Railroading for City Lovers" as published in MR and reprinted in Kalmbach's "48 Top-Notch Track Plans".



http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i301/3373GP4NR/9356de93.jpg

His layout is 2 x 7 and better represents (I think) a junction than part of a branchline like I wanted to model. He may have been inspired by Westcott.

QUOTE:
Generally, I think most people find the "move cars at one industry to reach another industry" situation you have at G tedious in the long run. It might be better to make one wing of a switchback more of a lead to reach the industry at G ... which would look something like the Westcott plan.

I'm not certain what you are describing here, Byron: Is the problem that (G) holds four spots or is it that (F) has to be clear to switch (G)?

Here is some further info that might address your concerns:
>There will be one industry on G with one receiving dock (2 cars) and one shipping dock (two cars). Yes, the inner dock will need to be cleared before the outer dock can be pulled, but I have several examples of prototype situations like this (either two spots in line or a spot blocking the lead to a second spur), so I think it would be OK unless you feel it would raise the tedium to an unbearable level.

>I'm going to replace the switch at 4-o-clock to the (F) marker with a crossing and put the switch on the track below. This will obviate needing to clear industry (F) to switch (G).

A switchback siding is prototypical in several places on on the MBr (as are sidings with two industries and no bypass), so I could go either way so long as it would fit.

Now let me take a detour and talk about switchback sidings. . . If I have this straight, the key to a switchback siding is to make each leg long enough such that either leg can be pulled without needing to empty the opposite leg. (I think you show a "negative example" of this on your site, Byron.) If I have my terminology correct, the trailing leg can be as short or long as necessary. The facing leg needs to be long enough to keep in the clear (1) the cars on that leg , plus (2) a little space , plus (3) all the cars in the opposite leg, plus (4) a connected engine. Does that sound about right?

QUOTE:
Of the three, I think the bottom feels more like a real railroad, but the lead at the right end, needed to serve everything on the left-hand side of the layout, might still be a little short. Some people would find the repitition of this move less fun over time.

Yes, a switcher would have to go out onto the main track to switch the left hand spurs, but it would have to venture out to use the runaround in most layouts as well, wouldn't it, so what's the distinction? In any case I can see about making the switching lead longer somehow. Ideally all switches come off a switching lead but my prototype had several spurs directly off the main track so the problem wasn't unknown in real life.

Thanks for the ideas and comments, they're always appreciated,
KL.

[Texas Zepher]

The last one seems to have just a bit too much track. Perhaps if it lost one track from the set on the left and one from the lower right.

The other two I think work just fine if you could loose one of the tracks in the lower left. The way they are now there is basically an overlaping run around track and very little car spotting room.

[cuyama]

I don't see that the doubled crossovers in the lower right hand corner of the first two add anything over just one which would leave more useable track length, but I may just not be seeing what you have in mind.

The third plan is reminiscent of one of the classic small plans, Linn Westcott's "Switchman's Nightmare"


Generally, I think most people find the "move cars at one industry to reach another industry" situation you have at G tedious in the long run. It might be better to make one wing of a switchback more of a lead to reach the industry at G ... which would look something like the Westcott plan.

Of the three, I think the bottom feels more like a real railroad, but the lead at the right end, needed to serve everything on the left-hand side of the layout, might still be a little short. Some people would find the repitition of this move less fun over time.

Good luck in the new location!

[Anonymous]

My original plan was for a shelf layout in the back bedroom, 1-1/2 x 8 feet, which eventually grew to 2 x 12. Along the way it was decided that my stepson would be moving in with us so I lost the back bedroom. My wife proposed an alternative - now get this - "Why don't you put it in the living room?" [:)] Everything has a downside, of course, and in this case my space is limited to 2 x 10-1/2 feet. So, I've adjusted my plans and added another.



http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i301/3373GP4NR/b61eb9c5.jpg

All are based on real industries in Beaver Falls PA in 1961. The PRR branch line is colored green.

The top two layouts are modifications of my last large plan, posted earlier. The changes were to fix a too short switching lead as well as lopping off a foot and a half. I had to sacrifice the second and third spur at Valley Clay Products (A), some platform length at the freight yards, and rearrange the Weatherproof Varnish Co. (B) tracks. In the top plan I really pruned the freight yard down to give more room for structures at Valley Clay. I still can fit three 50-footers at each track though. (C) is still Beaver Crane & Excavator but I'm still playing with the structures. The second track allows for coal hoppers to feed the foundry and forge, replacing lost hopper traffic at Valley Clay. By adding some escape tracks to the P&LE interchange tracks at lower right I've created a mega-runaround to use if needed. The Weatherproof Varnish switch lead is two cars plus a switcher, which is as long as I can make it without dropping the varnish plant altogether. Both tracks are set-up to handle two 50-footers each (solvent unloading on left, drum and can shipping on the right).

While the first two were taken almost verbatim from a published track plan, the bottom plan has been heavily worked to match actual track configurations on the PRR Marginal Branch (MBr) in Beaver Falls. (The former Marginal Railroad that connected the Pittsburgh, Ft Wayne, & Chicago through Beaver Falls to the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie just north of town and served industries in the Walnut Bottom Run valley.) I'm still working on it but I've set out the following: The MBr storage yard at (D), chemical or clay industry at (E), a large steel fabricator with a platform and shipping track at (F), the other chemical or clay plant at (G), a freight station at (H), and the connecting/interchange track with the PRR Main Line at (I). Although the (G) spur is long, my plan is to only have four spots at most. The storage yard, bypass track to allow switching an industry further down a spur without disturbing other spots, crossed spurs, and switching lead/runaround all have prototypes on the MBr.

I'm looking for potential problems (like the too short lead you guys found before) plus any ideas for improvements. I do have a concern that the (G) spur is not switchable without interfering with two other industries, so opinions and solutions are welcome.

Thanks,
Kurt Laughlin