Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Trackwork Rebuild Help

3528 views
26 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2008
  • From: Miles City, Montana
  • 2,209 posts
Trackwork Rebuild Help
Posted by FRRYKid on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 1:23 AM

Need some help and an opinion from my Forum friends. I have a spot in my railyard that I've always wondered if I should have designed differently.

The existing setup is here: http://photos.app.goo.gl/ytmcPQrTavVMvH59A

As it stands, there isn't a way for a switcher to get onto the shop track other than going to the other end of the yard ladder. When I built the yard originally, I didn't think there was a way to put a double slip in the hole I had. I figured the cross was a better use of the space. I haven't actually operated it yet but the more I think about it that setup probably isn't the best.

Hence this idea: http://photos.app.goo.gl/oRaCfeKtEvdREGM79

This is just a mockup but it is the idea I had.

Any opinions either way would be most welcomed.

"The only stupid question is the unasked question."
Brain waves can power an electric train. RealFact #832 from Snapple.
  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 2,555 posts
Posted by snjroy on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:57 AM

Hi there. It's difficult to judge without having a wider view of the layout. Your idea seems to make sense... Is that the main line that goes through the crossover in the middle? 

Simon

  • Member since
    May 2020
  • 990 posts
Posted by wrench567 on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 11:39 AM

   I think the term is SPAGHETTI BOWL. It's when a layout is congested with track to the point of almost not being able to run. The major problem us modelers have is space. The second problem is unrealistic planning. Putting engine servicing facility in such close proximity to working yards is not really prototypical. But we have to accept the fact we don't have the real estate. Would it be possible to relocate something even just a foot away? Using the mainline to run around the yard is permissible.

   Don't fret. There are solutions. Cramming more track into an already congested area is not one of them. When I built my yard modules I crammed in a service facility on one end and quickly realized it didn't work. I revamped the yard and built a separate engine servicing module with even a dedicated caboose track. The yard got a runaround track and a dedicated RIP siding.

   Just something to ponder.

       Pete.

  • Member since
    May 2008
  • From: Miles City, Montana
  • 2,209 posts
Posted by FRRYKid on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 12:29 PM

The tracks involved are the 6th and 7th tracks of a railyard. (Officially 7 is the passenger siding but the left hand side is an industry area.) The main line is on the bottom of the picture. The line to the left is the car shop track.

This shot I hope clarifies the discussion a little: http://photos.app.goo.gl/DtWVq3CwaMYoWxX1A

"The only stupid question is the unasked question."
Brain waves can power an electric train. RealFact #832 from Snapple.
  • Member since
    May 2020
  • 990 posts
Posted by wrench567 on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 1:59 PM

 I think I understand. How about removing the crossing for a right hand turnout, and the turnout above the caboose track to the right of the crossing run to the left and add a left hand turnout with the frog on the left join the two tracks on the left? In essence your eliminating the crossing for a simple run around.

    Pete.

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,337 posts
Posted by Doughless on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 2:58 PM

FRRYKid

The tracks involved are the 6th and 7th tracks of a railyard. (Officially 7 is the passenger siding but the left hand side is an industry area.) The main line is on the bottom of the picture. The line to the left is the car shop track.

This shot I hope clarifies the discussion a little: http://photos.app.goo.gl/DtWVq3CwaMYoWxX1A

 

The tracks would stay more linear if you had the new track start at the top by a left hand turnout near the green building than having it start with a RH turnout in the ladder as you have it.  I see no reason why it would change ops, but there would be fewer S curves.

 

And why can't you simply have the crossing replaced with a RH turnout?

If you're photo could pull back farther it would be more helpful.

 Edit:  I think I just agreed with Pete.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    May 2008
  • From: Miles City, Montana
  • 2,209 posts
Posted by FRRYKid on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 7:49 PM

The only problem I see with removing the crossing is that, without the crossing, I lose access to the 6th track. That was intended to be a storage track for the cars going in/out of the shop.

This is a shot looking east headed towards the shops if that helps anything. http://photos.app.goo.gl/7ThYHPaS6cNjvAAv6

"The only stupid question is the unasked question."
Brain waves can power an electric train. RealFact #832 from Snapple.
  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,337 posts
Posted by Doughless on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:59 PM

FRRYKid

The only problem I see with removing the crossing is that, without the crossing, I lose access to the 6th track. That was intended to be a storage track for the cars going in/out of the shop.

This is a shot looking east headed towards the shops if that helps anything. http://photos.app.goo.gl/7ThYHPaS6cNjvAAv6

 

We can't tell how the crossover track is accessed from the bottom of this pic, but this view shows me that there is no reason to not have access to the car shop by adding the LH turnout in front of the green building that was described in the previous comment. Then simply replace the crossing with a RH turnout.  I assume that the locos can have the ability to travel along the top track back to the shop area rather than having to use the 6th track and cross over the ladder.

We would need to see a pic of the whole yard to understand why it couldn't work that way.

As you plan track arrangement, you will usually find that the simplist arrangement is the most realistic, because real railroads don't want to waste track or use expensive tracks like crossings or double slips.  We're trying to have fun, I get that, but having the coolest looking pieces or the cleverest combinations don't necessarily work as well as the simple and direct path.  

 

 

- Douglas

  • Member since
    May 2008
  • From: Miles City, Montana
  • 2,209 posts
Posted by FRRYKid on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:45 PM

Doughless

We can't tell how the crossover track is accessed from the bottom of this pic, but this view shows me that there is no reason to not have access to the car shop by adding the LH turnout in front of the green building that was described in the previous comment. Then simply replace the crossing with a RH turnout.  I assume that the locos can have the ability to travel along the top track back to the shop area rather than having to use the 6th track and cross over the ladder.

We would need to see a pic of the whole yard to understand why it couldn't work that way.

As you plan track arrangement, you will usually find that the simplist arrangement is the most realistic, because real railroads don't want to waste track or use expensive tracks like crossings or double slips.  We're trying to have fun, I get that, but having the coolest looking pieces or the cleverest combinations don't necessarily work as well as the simple and direct path.

As it stands right now the only way to access the track is from the other end of the ladder. Let's see if this image helps clarify. http://photos.app.goo.gl/C55ZgPSUYu8x71Pj8/

Edit: What I want to do, if I haven't said it clearly before, is to design a track so that the switcher can "escape" after it has switched cars into the car shop. (No engines at this shop.) The three shop tracks dead end just past the shop to the east. The idea behind the track is somewhere that cars into or out of the shop can be parked out of the EB and WB yard tracks. The passenger/industrial siding doesn't connect to the intermediate west yard ladder which can be partially seen in the latest picture. It only connects to the primary yard ladder further railroad west (actual northwest).

"The only stupid question is the unasked question."
Brain waves can power an electric train. RealFact #832 from Snapple.
  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 2,555 posts
Posted by snjroy on Wednesday, May 18, 2022 5:25 AM

I can't see the image.

Simon

  • Member since
    May 2020
  • 990 posts
Posted by wrench567 on Wednesday, May 18, 2022 9:25 AM

   How about removing the 3way turnout for three straight tracks with crossovers? Stat the first one a little more than a switcher length away from the shop. It just seems that using crossings and three way turnouts, your making things more complicated.

  • Member since
    February 2021
  • 1,057 posts
Posted by crossthedog on Wednesday, May 18, 2022 10:14 AM

snjroy
I can't see the image.

Nor can I, now, but it worked last night.

Returning to model railroading after 40 years and taking unconscionable liberties with the SP&S, Northern Pacific and Great Northern roads in the '40s and '50s.

  • Member since
    May 2008
  • From: Miles City, Montana
  • 2,209 posts
Posted by FRRYKid on Wednesday, May 18, 2022 1:53 PM
"The only stupid question is the unasked question."
Brain waves can power an electric train. RealFact #832 from Snapple.
  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,337 posts
Posted by Doughless on Wednesday, May 18, 2022 2:52 PM

 

 

 

I think your solution is probably the simplest way.  I would still put a LH turnout where the green building is instead of the new switch being a RH turnout where you have it. 

But I don't know if it does what you want it to do because you won't be able to switch the car shop from that track if you have passenger cars parked where they are now.....or that industry track.  The passenger car track acts as the switch lead for those turnouts but it won't function if its occupied.

 BTW, I don't understand why you need to enter the shop from that side anyway.  The loco is going to want to shove the cars to the shop, and the way you have it now works well (from what I can see).  Pull a car off of the train and out of the pic, then shove it to the shop using the crossing.  The ladder is the switch lead, where the new turnout will require the occupied passenger track to be the switch lead for that turnout.

What you might want to try is to have the switches for the shop and the industry to the left of the crossing, so you can use the bottom ladder track as the switch lead to both.  Maybe have to adjust the location of the crossing. 

Its tought to give advice when we don't know your entire vision or track plan.  I don't want to mess you up. 

- Douglas

  • Member since
    May 2008
  • From: Miles City, Montana
  • 2,209 posts
Posted by FRRYKid on Wednesday, May 18, 2022 4:20 PM

The crossing is built into the yard ladder in such a way that it somewhat fllls a turnout hole in the ladder. The new track as I have stated before is an escape for the engine so it doesn't have to go to the intermediate ladder to park after switching the shop tracks. If there are cars to leave they would still use the crossing. What I have decided was put a LH turnout just east of the yard office (green structure) for the escape track as it is basically a straight shot off the shop track.

"The only stupid question is the unasked question."
Brain waves can power an electric train. RealFact #832 from Snapple.
  • Member since
    February 2008
  • 2,223 posts
Posted by kasskaboose on Thursday, May 19, 2022 2:44 PM

How much trouble to make the yard simplier? 

On my layout, I have a single-ended yard and another track (away from the ladder) for the engine shop.  Next to the ship is a RIP track.  The switcher can either go to that area after working the ladder or to the top. 

 

  • Member since
    September 2014
  • From: 10,430’ (3,179 m)
  • 2,196 posts
Posted by jjdamnit on Thursday, May 19, 2022 8:19 PM

Hello All,

Thank you for asking the question that no one wanted to ask...

kasskaboose
How much trouble [would it be- -Ed] to make the yard simpler (SIC)?

What comes to mind is a quote from John Allen; "The Wizzard Of Monterey" on planning:


"A model railroad should probably start with a concept.
Why?
Because much knowledge about railroading, experience in model railroading, and thought are required before a proper concept for a model railroad can be formed.
These requirements are seldom possible on a first pike.
Mine was no exception."

Now that the OP knows/understands what is desired out of this particular section of trackage, perhaps a complete rethink and rebuild is in order.

I've done this several times on my small pike to make operations more dependable and enjoyable.

Without knowing the big picture of the OPs current situation- -and goals- -I hazard a guess as to a potential track plan solution.

I do concur that a hard rethink of the current track arrangement might be a better long-term solution, over a short-term "Band-Aid" fix.

Hope this helps.

 

"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"

  • Member since
    May 2008
  • From: Miles City, Montana
  • 2,209 posts
Posted by FRRYKid on Friday, May 20, 2022 2:51 AM

Doughless

 

But I don't know if it does what you want it to do because you won't be able to switch the car shop from that track if you have passenger cars parked where they are now.....or that industry track.  The passenger car track acts as the switch lead for those turnouts but it won't function if its occupied.

 BTW, I don't understand why you need to enter the shop from that side anyway.  The loco is going to want to shove the cars to the shop, and the way you have it now works well (from what I can see).  Pull a car off of the train and out of the pic, then shove it to the shop using the crossing.  The ladder is the switch lead, where the new turnout will require the occupied passenger track to be the switch lead for that turnout.

kasskaboose

How much trouble to make the yard simplier? 

As this is a one person layout, the passenger track nor the industrial track wouldn't be occupied all the time. The passenger track is also used when switching for the industrial track anyway.

There isn't room on the other side of the three way as the yard lead has turnouts at all the other possible locations and there is a storage track for the SW1200 yard switcher to the north (left in the picture) of the shop as can be seen in this picture which is a repost: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/AM-JKLU2QIqMBQnsWSbpfqM5X1sp74CzoGRWYyLIdBPurby7OeW9Jp5ZKKpz5bM9tPAXa7pguWwa5X9786bBpDpqmbcY7QuR-qgHTHolazv0uXy_aIiK-Uh8A77V3Gf8II4uREEnF7zab2lV0oE8sRuQpLj0=w479-h638-no 

"The only stupid question is the unasked question."
Brain waves can power an electric train. RealFact #832 from Snapple.
  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,337 posts
Posted by Doughless on Friday, May 20, 2022 7:27 AM

FRRYKid

 

 
Doughless

 

But I don't know if it does what you want it to do because you won't be able to switch the car shop from that track if you have passenger cars parked where they are now.....or that industry track.  The passenger car track acts as the switch lead for those turnouts but it won't function if its occupied.

 BTW, I don't understand why you need to enter the shop from that side anyway.  The loco is going to want to shove the cars to the shop, and the way you have it now works well (from what I can see).  Pull a car off of the train and out of the pic, then shove it to the shop using the crossing.  The ladder is the switch lead, where the new turnout will require the occupied passenger track to be the switch lead for that turnout.

 

 

 

 
kasskaboose

How much trouble to make the yard simplier? 

 

 

As this is a one person layout, the passenger track nor the industrial track wouldn't be occupied all the time. The passenger track is also used when switching for the industrial track anyway.

There isn't room on the other side of the three way as the yard lead has turnouts at all the other possible locations and there is a storage track for the SW1200 yard switcher to the north (left in the picture) of the shop as can be seen in this picture which is a repost: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/AM-JKLU2QIqMBQnsWSbpfqM5X1sp74CzoGRWYyLIdBPurby7OeW9Jp5ZKKpz5bM9tPAXa7pguWwa5X9786bBpDpqmbcY7QuR-qgHTHolazv0uXy_aIiK-Uh8A77V3Gf8II4uREEnF7zab2lV0oE8sRuQpLj0=w479-h638-no 

 

I think what you propose to do is the best option without totally redoing the yard. 

You can operate the new shop track and the industry siding only when passenger cars are not present.  If this isn't a problem, then okay.

As you have it, track #6 stays empty most of the time.  Track #7 is occupied some of the time.  Ideally, since 6 is empty, if you can somehow make track #6 the switch lead for the shop switch lead for the industry, tracks #6 and #7 could have dedicated purposes and track #7 won't have to perform a double function.  If you ever get inspired to redesign the yard, think about having track 7 be the dedicated lead and track 6 the passenger station track with a RH turnout in place of the crossing.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    May 2008
  • From: Miles City, Montana
  • 2,209 posts
Posted by FRRYKid on Saturday, May 21, 2022 2:13 AM

Doughless

 

I think what you propose to do is the best option without totally redoing the yard. 

You can operate the new shop track and the industry siding only when passenger cars are not present.  If this isn't a problem, then okay.

As you have it, track #6 stays empty most of the time.  Track #7 is occupied some of the time.  Ideally, since 6 is empty, if you can somehow make track #6 the switch lead for the shop switch lead for the industry, tracks #6 and #7 could have dedicated purposes and track #7 won't have to perform a double function.  If you ever get inspired to redesign the yard, think about having track 7 be the dedicated lead and track 6 the passenger station track with a RH turnout in place of the crossing.

Only problem with that is that track 6 connects to the west intermediate yard ladder and 7 connects to the main west ladder only. When that area was built in my old apartment bedroom, the passenger track was made completely separate from the rest of the yard. The extra area that was created by that arrangement not only has the passenger station and platform but also has a hotel and the sand house. There is also a diesel fuel tank unload track/west end switcher storage track off the west ladder as well for when the crew goes to beans as that is close to the town area. Don't have a handy picture of that however. 

When I completed the yard after I bought my house and put the layout in the garage, I put a constant curve and yard ladder using sectional track and turnoutsfor the passenger train. For connecting tracks 1 and 2 to the ladder I used flex track in a few spots as the freight cars are shorter allowing for a bit tighter radius curves.

"The only stupid question is the unasked question."
Brain waves can power an electric train. RealFact #832 from Snapple.
  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: Louisville
  • 576 posts
Posted by dbduck on Saturday, May 21, 2022 10:07 AM

Why not replace the X-ing with a double slip turnout?

in most instances a long crossing like that & a double-slip of the same manufacturer have the same geometry

  • Member since
    May 2008
  • From: Miles City, Montana
  • 2,209 posts
Posted by FRRYKid on Sunday, May 22, 2022 2:29 AM

dbduck

Why not replace the X-ing with a double slip turnout?

in most instances a long crossing like that & a double-slip of the same manufacturer have the same geometry

Very simply because the crossing is made by Atlas and unless I've missed a major annoucement, Atlas doesn't make double slip turnouts. With the exception of two 3-way turnouts which are Pecos, all the track on the layout is Atlas.

"The only stupid question is the unasked question."
Brain waves can power an electric train. RealFact #832 from Snapple.
  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: Louisville
  • 576 posts
Posted by dbduck on Sunday, May 22, 2022 1:42 PM

Atlas did make a double slip turned out, only thing was it was brass and not nickel silver

I have a few of them

  • Member since
    May 2008
  • From: Miles City, Montana
  • 2,209 posts
Posted by FRRYKid on Monday, May 23, 2022 3:25 AM

dbduck

Atlas did make a double slip turned out, only thing was it was brass and not nickel silver

I have a few of them

OK. That's news to me as I have never seen them before.

"The only stupid question is the unasked question."
Brain waves can power an electric train. RealFact #832 from Snapple.
  • Member since
    September 2014
  • From: 10,430’ (3,179 m)
  • 2,196 posts
Posted by jjdamnit on Monday, May 23, 2022 12:06 PM

Hello All,

FRRYKid
...all the track on the layout is Atlas.

As long as the track code; rail height, is the same I would not be too concerned about mixing track from differing manufacturers.

I have successfully mixed PECO turnouts with Atlas track- -all Code 100.

PECO also makes transition tracks that go from Code 83 to Code 100.

If you can only find a double slip switch in Code 83, with four pieces of PECO transition track, you can match the rail height of Code 100 track for a smooth transition.

Some shimming of the Code 83 track might be necessary due to the difference in overall height between the two (2) track types. Code 83 rails and ties (sleepers) are lower profile.

dbduck
Atlas did make a double slip turned out, only thing was it was brass and not nickel silver(.) I have a few of them(.)

I would be more concerned with the material of the track; brass, rather than the manufacturer.

There are many reasons nickel silver replaced brass track. 

I would stick with nickel silver track and not worry about differing manufacturers.

Hope this helps.

"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"

  • Member since
    May 2008
  • From: Miles City, Montana
  • 2,209 posts
Posted by FRRYKid on Tuesday, May 24, 2022 3:11 AM

jjdamnit

As long as the track code; rail height, is the same I would not be too concerned about mixing track from differing manufacturers.

I have successfully mixed PECO turnouts with Atlas track- -all Code 100.

PECO also makes transition tracks that go from Code 83 to Code 100.

If you can only find a double slip switch in Code 83, with four pieces of PECO transition track, you can match the rail height of Code 100 track for a smooth transition.

Some shimming of the Code 83 track might be necessary due to the difference in overall height between the two (2) track types. Code 83 rails and ties (sleepers) are lower profile.

 

I wasn't complaining about mixing companies. I was just stating what I had as I didn't know that an Atlas double slip even existed.vAlso due to the configuration of the yard, transition tracks wouldn't work as the yard ladder is 4 turnouts then the crossing so there isn't room to put any extra track.
 
jjdamnit
 
dbduck
Atlas did make a double slip turned out, only thing was it was brass and not nickel silver(.) I have a few of them(.)

I would be more concerned with the material of the track; brass, rather than the manufacturer.

There are many reasons nickel silver replaced brass track. 

I would stick with nickel silver track and not worry about differing manufacturers.

I'm aware of that as well. Everything on the layout is nickel silver.

"The only stupid question is the unasked question."
Brain waves can power an electric train. RealFact #832 from Snapple.

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!