Hi, I am laying track for my layout and I am unsure if I should have a crossover in the location enclosed by the red lines. I want to keep things prototypical but given that I have a tabletop type area, I am making many compromises. I plan to use block signaling and my concern is that a crossover here would make for an awkward signal location on the above siding tracks. Still, I feel that the layout could benefit from the crossover. It would allow a trains to use (at least part) of the siding (block 3) for passing even if there is an engine switching cars in the yard.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thick black lines indicate main track.
Tracks, Switches, Signals, they are all expensive. Railroads will only put them where the actually need them, even if it is only to add flexibility to the system.
NYCT has lots of pockets and sidings where they can hide a work train, or perhaps pull a broken train off of the main line so that the rest of the railroad can continue to operate. LION neglicted to add these pockets to the layout of him, the plan being that the layout depicted normal operations. Him should have added pockets, but him did not do so, and in hind sight probably had no place to put them anyway.
Flexibility is important, but Cost is also important. So what era are you modeling. Since this switch is on the main line, it needs interlocking signals in adition to any block signals that you may choose to use. This crossing would add 6 to 8 levers to a GRS Model-5 interlocking frame.
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
I would definitely put it in. I would also recommend, if at all possible, to move the switch in the mainline in the upper left around more to the right. Another foot or two on the yard lead would be a real convenience. Too. I like the plan a lot, though I would add a couple more industry sidings. But I really like the "bottom" half.
I will disagree with Lion and say that this railroad looks like a pretty small time operation, and wouldn't have any signaling at all.
Ed
I am loosly modelling the modern era. My timeframe is 1990s to present.
I should add that I will be a lone operator and signals are more for asthetics than operational benefit.
7j43k:
That would put the switch in the easement area of the curve, but considering that I am already custom building that switch (so that it will match the curve radius), I guess I could give it a try.
Well the modern era would not be installing a GRS interlocking plant. So switches and signals would be computerized. Ergo, one switch for the crossover would indeed be prototypical.
LION did not expect you to model a GRS plant anyway, but only used the analogy to suggest that such a cross over is a big deal when railroads were built. Even though you model modern, most plants are far older, and while there are few armstrong towers in use, a goodly number of GRS model-5s are still in daily use. They are going fast.
But the LION likes his interlocking machines, and after having built his machine, him learned more about interlocking. It is facinating. Even if you just use SPDT swtiches for your console, it is nice to know how it is *supposed* to be arranged and operated.
LION is working on what may become an article about interlocking.
ROAR
If you are only going to operate one and only one train on the layout then the crossover isn't necessary. If you are going to operate an orbiting train and have a switch engine in the yard, then add the crossover.
I wouldn't worry about signals, the best you will do is switch indicators or pretty lights. You don't have enough space to actually do any kind of actual block signals. That requires absolute minimum of 3 and actually 4 blocks, each a train length long. Unless you will be operating some really short trains (which doesn't work well with modern era since the cars and engines tend to be longer), you won't get working signals in that space.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Building on what Dave said, if'n I just HAD to put signals around that crossover and nearby, I would likely wire the lights to the switch machines. With some thoughtful placement of signals plus wise choosing of contacts, a pretty neat simulation of real signaling will happen.
So, if the crossover was thrown to "cross", the signals protecting the trailing end of each switch would go red. When the crossover switches were thrown to straight-through, green.
It's something to think about, anyway. And it's awfully simple. No occupancy sensing. No signal blocks. No special electronics.
If I HAD to put in some signals, I'd consider putting in a two track signal bridge a bit left of the yard switch, and a three track bridge towards the right end of the lower straights. This is 'cause there doesn't appear to be much room between tracks for single signal masts. BLMA makes some superb ones. I'd consider their silvery "modern" ones. Note that they are head-over-head. In this case, just more colored lights to manipulate.
It's not unusual at all for a railroad to place a crossover at the location you've shown. This placement would allow a loco to pull a short train counterclockwise and stop with the engine at the yard throat. The engine could cut off and run through the "short" crossover, then run to the rear of the train to sort the cars into the yard. This would eliminate the need to run to the far end of the passing track. This may seem like a minor issue on your small model railroad. But if this were a full-sized railroad the distances might be much greater, and there could be significant savings in time, fuel, etc.
As mentioned, the signals might not be necessary, but if you want 'em, who am I to say you can't have 'em?
Tom
ok. Thanks for the suggestions.