markpierceI don't understand why you eschew in-bound freight. While cement plants are commonly located near limestone, they aren't necessarily self sufficient.
As I stated in an earlier reply, the main structures for the plant are on an elevated section of benchwork. There is no way to get rail service to the plant from the layout. Any 'inbound freight' would come from off layout via the backdrop side of the plant.
Don Z.
Research; it's not just for geeks.
My first reaction was that the loading track should be on a double-ended track rather than a dead-end spur requiring switchback moves. A double-ended track would be more prototypical and can better handle a larger volume of cars. But Stein has already "beat me to the punch."
I don't understand why you eschew in-bound freight. While cement plants are commonly located near limestone, they aren't necessarily self sufficient. For instance, at the cement plant in Davenport, California (west of Santa Cruz) served by the UP, formerly SP, inbound traffic consists of empty covered hoppers and open hoppers filled with coal. Outbound loads are covered hoppers filled with cement and empty open hoppers. This would provide more interest and variety than merely hauling covered hoppers. You need a spur for the delivery of coal to fuel the plant. (Those Davenport cement trains are even more interesting because they run very slowly through the streets of downtown Santa Cruz, blocking traffic, and pass right by the Boardwalk where there is a huge wooden roller coaster.)
Mark
Don ZSome additional information.... I don't have any space at the right end of the load track to extend the track. The branchline track (#3 down from the top) starts to climb in elevation to the left of the midpoint of the drawing Trains will only be about 8-10 cars maximum in length Thanks, Don Z.
Some additional information....
Thanks,
Hmmm - how about something like this, then ?
You would have to spot cars for loading three at a time, and have a car puller or something pull the cars to be loaded left through the loader into the loaded cars track.
Then an engine would have to go grab three more cars from the empties holding track, and spot them at the loading track.
Smile, Stein
dehusmanWhat Stein has posted is what I was thinking of, you wouldn't even need a plant switcher with that design, a car mover or winch would do it. I would move the left crossover right up as close to the right crossover as I could (keeping the right crossover where it is). The branch engine would pull up the main, past both crossovers, then shove the empties into loading track. Then move to the left and couple into the loads and depart to the right.
Bingo - that would be even better, wouldn't it ? Something like this:
Don,
Although the relatively short equipment you will be using can generally negotiate S curves OK, that is still best avoided anyway. I would go with the second plan. Is there any chance you could connect track #2 to #3 about even with the crossover between #4 and #5? If so, you cold avoid having to push either empties or loads through an S curve.When you bring empties in, the locomotive will have to push cars into the loading track. The second plan will permit the locomotive to pull empties through the S curve from the yard lead on to track #3, then push them down the ladder to the loading track. Loaded cars could be pulled from the loading track onto track #3, the locomotive could then run around them using track #2 and then pull them trough the S curve from #3 onto the yard lead.
If you can't connect #2 to #3 then I don't think it makes much difference. I would probably still go for the second plan since it leaves a longer clear track on the passing/runaround Track #4.
Roger
What Stein has posted is what I was thinking of, you wouldn't even need a plant switcher with that design, a car mover or winch would do it. I would move the left crossover right up as close to the right crossover as I could (keeping the right crossover where it is). The branch engine would pull up the main, past both crossovers, then shove the empties into loading track. Then move to the left and couple into the loads and depart to the right.
Another alternative would be to put the crossovers sorta where the conveyor crosses, but put the left hand crossover on the left and the right hand crossover on the right. the loader would go over the side track between the two crossvers. the branch train would arrive, shove empties onto the empty track through the righthand crossover on the right. Then it would come out onto the main to go back through the lefthand crossovers to get the loads to the left. It could then depart to the right. The industry winches or rolls the cars from right to left through the loader to open the empty track again.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Don't like either of them, 2 is way worse than 1. With 1 you can load maybe 3-4 cars, with #2 you can only load 2, maybe 3 cars.
Why build such a big plant that can only load 3-4 cars at a time?
A plant that size should be able to load 20 cars easy. You need an arrangement that has 40 cars of room, 20 on one side of the loader for empties and 20 on the other side for loads.
Kinda hard to read the text on the tracks.
How about something like this ? Would take relocating the loading shed to the other side of the silos - but that's not hard to do.
`
skagitrailbird I am unable to read the track labels on your diagrams so let me ask: Where will the full loads go? Back to and through the yard? How are the stub tracks and the passing/runaround siding to be used? Do any of these tracks connect on the left to your mainline? My gut says it may not make much difference but a lot depends upon how tracks #3 & 4 (counting from the top down) are to be used. #3 is longer in the first drawing and #4 is longer in the second. If the length of either of these tracks is important that may dictate which is better.
I am unable to read the track labels on your diagrams so let me ask:
My gut says it may not make much difference but a lot depends upon how tracks #3 & 4 (counting from the top down) are to be used. #3 is longer in the first drawing and #4 is longer in the second. If the length of either of these tracks is important that may dictate which is better.
Roger,
I tried to make the text large enough to read on the diagrams, but i guess I goofed!
The two tracks at the top of the diagram serve another industry located in the blank space to the left of those tracks.
David,
Regarding the "nasty S-curve"...this is a branchline operation served by 4 axle power. The only cars traveling down this line will be 34' cement hoppers, 26' ore hoppers to a mine and 40' stock cars to a packing plant. The turnouts used are #5's, so I don't think I'll have any trouble with the cars or the track.
This cement plant is loads out only. The main structures for the cement plant will be on an elevated section of benchwork; the conveyor extends out to the silo above the tracks below. Option B seems to make switching at the plant more difficult. If any loads are spotted under the shed, the locos would have to cut the train off on the main, back down to spot the loads out of the way and then back the empties down into the plant, a few cars at a time.
The first thing I noticed in your post was the photo of the GN F's. From that I assume you are a fellow GN modeler. Yea!
Roger Johnson, Sedro Woolley WA
Both option have a nasty little S-curve in the main line. Option A allows a longer cut of cars to be pulled or pushed into the cement plant yard. Question. Do you have any tracks delivering raw materials in to the plant, unloading them?
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
I am adding the Valley Cement Plant kit to my layout and I'm trying to decide which track arrangement is the better choice. The cement hoppers (empty) would be coming from the yard located at the far right of this drawing. Here are the 2 options:
Option A:
Option B:
Thanks for any advice you can give....