My MR club has constructed a new addition to the layout, incorportating a reversing wye, a stub yard, A John Allen switching puzzle, and Intermodal yard. Not knowing off hand knowledge of real life rail ops, where should an interlocking tower (or towers) be placed in conjunction of the scemetic below? We are also open to suggestions about the proposed trackplan. Drawing not completely to scale... And, the upper portion of the drawing is only 1/3 of the module layout.
Thanks in advance.
Jeremy
YVMRC
I'd think it'd look the best between the two tracks that lead to the lower right, above the track that leads to the upper right. If you ignore tracks one and two (gotta love Ntrak and their goofy three track main) that seems to be the most realistic place to add one.
And are you sure you really want to add a Timesaver to a layout? John himself called it a neat game, but something that was completely unrealistic; something that real railroads would avoid like the plague.
Ray Breyer
Modeling the NKP's Peoria Division, circa 1943
I would put the tower at one of the diamonds formed by the wye.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
If you are modeling an intermodal yard, the interlocking tower can be installed between the intermodal lead and the stub yard (at top,) completely outside the Y tracks. Then, board it up and cover the accessible areas with tags. The gangstas mark their territories, while reserving their artistic talent for rolling stock.
The placement logic is that the designers would want to keep the action in front of the tower op, while keeping the mechanical linkages to switch points as short and straightforward as possible. Many towers had one windowless wall, making that side of the tower effectively blind.
The logic for boarding it up is time-based. Intermodal operations came in after the demise of mechanical interlocking. Nowadays, the mainline switches are controlled by a CTC operator, possibly several states away. The yard switches, if powered, are controlled by somebody with a pocket protector sitting in front of a console in the back room of the yard office. (Ain't modern electronics wonderful?) OTOH, if the yard is small, the switches are probably manually operated by the yardfolks handling the remote controls for the crewless (and possibly cabless) switchers.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with electrical interlocking simulating mechanical interlocking)
orsonroy wrote: And are you sure you really want to add a Timesaver to a layout? John himself called it a neat game, but something that was completely unrealistic; something that real railroads would avoid like the plague.
Well, the puzzle was laid by one member many years ago, and he loves it. We suggested doing away with it, especially since he is the only one interested in operating on it, but he fussed and fussed, so we let him have his game...
The turnout controls will be using machines only on the Wye module. The stubyard module will be manual throws. As for the placement of the interlocking tower, I think we'll put it at the right of the wye track, between the two yard leads.
Thanks everyone for your input!
The question boils down to what type of track the yards are connected to. There is no access shown for the lower two tracks, so they don't enter the picture here, assuming that is intentional and not an oversite.
If track connected to the yards is viewed as a yard lead track within yard limits, no interlocking tower would be needed.
If the track is a main track, it would probably require four signal masks (distant and home) with three arms on each, one for sgraight, and one for each branching route. In addition, you would have four sets on switches and switch locks. Track leaving the wye (assuming it is a slow speed track) would need two home signals, plus a switch and swith lock. The other yard lead would need just a home signal. (I am ignoring any possible derails you might want to add.)
Since most signals and switches are on the main track, the tower would probably inside the wye center on that track. That would allow most of the levers and cable to run along that track. The tower would probably need to be wide enough so the operator could view the other tracks through a window beside the locking beds.
Have fun
exPalaceDog wrote: The question boils down to what type of track the yards are connected to. There is no access shown for the lower two tracks, so they don't enter the picture here, assuming that is intentional and not an oversite. If track connected to the yards is viewed as a yard lead track within yard limits, no interlocking tower would be needed. If the track is a main track, it would probably require four signal masks (distant and home) with three arms on each, one for sgraight, and one for each branching route. In addition, you would have four sets on switches and switch locks. Track leaving the wye (assuming it is a slow speed track) would need two home signals, plus a switch and swith lock. The other yard lead would need just a home signal. (I am ignoring any possible derails you might want to add.) Since most signals and switches are on the main track, the tower would probably inside the wye center on that track. That would allow most of the levers and cable to run along that track. The tower would probably need to be wide enough so the operator could view the other tracks through a window beside the locking beds. Have fun
The lower two tracks are east and west mains, and the upper main track is considered the "commodities" track, which acts as every branch, spur, junction whatever. The idea the club placed on the operation, was that whether it be an eastbound or westbound train, the train would make a lap around the layout toward it's destination, and enter the commodities track via crossovers (three locations on the layout) to reach it's destination. The commodities track is the only bi-directional track on the layout. Signals are to be included with the proposed operations above, and the actual location of the interlocking tower is the biggest concern, in a prototypical aspect.
I am interested in your POV. Would it be possible to edit my diagram, and propose, prototypical placement of tower and/or signals? Of course, I am open for further suggestion from everyone.
Thanks!
Hi mtrails
Logic dictates the stub yard came first then the switch puzzle.
So I would place a yard tower between the stub yard and puzzle.
Its a big yard so the tower though older style is still probably operating and large with a modern ish mimic pannel and computers for the area signal man, and offices for the yardmaster and area manager and their respective staff
I do have a problem with the inter-modal yard not being connected to the rest of the yards and having to foul the main line to move between the three and not having easy access to Loco.
It doesn't make sense as drawn because of the lack of logical yard and main line connections.
It is possible that there may have been a "B" cabin facing across the main lines to the yard at the yard entrance given the re signaling for the new inter-modal yard this is likely to be a fairly modern structure.
Your signals will also reflect the moving with the times aspect as well with older signals in the main yard area and more modern types at the yard entrance due to the re signaling for the inter-modal yard.
They won't just pull the older ones out if they still work well
regards John
mtrails wrote: exPalaceDog wrote: The question boils down to what type of track the yards are connected to. There is no access shown for the lower two tracks, so they don't enter the picture here, assuming that is intentional and not an oversite. If track connected to the yards is viewed as a yard lead track within yard limits, no interlocking tower would be needed. If the track is a main track, it would probably require four signal masks (distant and home) with three arms on each, one for sgraight, and one for each branching route. In addition, you would have four sets on switches and switch locks. Track leaving the wye (assuming it is a slow speed track) would need two home signals, plus a switch and swith lock. The other yard lead would need just a home signal. (I am ignoring any possible derails you might want to add.) Since most signals and switches are on the main track, the tower would probably inside the wye center on that track. That would allow most of the levers and cable to run along that track. The tower would probably need to be wide enough so the operator could view the other tracks through a window beside the locking beds. Have fun The lower two tracks are east and west mains, and the upper main track is considered the "commodities" track, which acts as every branch, spur, junction whatever. The idea the club placed on the operation, was that whether it be an eastbound or westbound train, the train would make a lap around the layout toward it's destination, and enter the commodities track via crossovers (three locations on the layout) to reach it's destination. The commodities track is the only bi-directional track on the layout. Signals are to be included with the proposed operations above, and the actual location of the interlocking tower is the biggest concern, in a prototypical aspect. I am interested in your POV. Would it be possible to edit my diagram, and propose, prototypical placement of tower and/or signals? Of course, I am open for further suggestion from everyone. Thanks!
Since I am NOT a professional signal engineer, I would suggest you might consult one to insure that everthing is totally correct. For example, I forgot the dwarf signals for reverse movements and the possible use of detection bars. Also, I am unsure about how the train order signals might be placed in your example or any other interlocking tower. While the tower does not control any functions for the "mainline: tracks, it might still function to deliver train orders to trains on those tracks. That leads to an interesting question, where does the operator stand while delivering train orders on the fly (by hoop) to trains on the center track? In addition, my interest is in mechanical interlocking whicl would be obsolete for your purposes.
You might check the following links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking
http://www.du.edu/~etuttle/rail/lock.htm#Intr
"A switch can be operated with 1" ID gas pipe (the usual operating rod) at distances up to about 400 yards. The limit in Britain was set at 350 yards in 1925. A signal can be wire-operated at distances up to perhaps 1500 yards, but 900 yards is a more A switch can be operated with 1" ID gas pipe (the usual operating rod) at distances up to about 400 yards. The limit in Britain was set at 350 yards in 1925. A signal can be wire-operated at distances up to perhaps 1500 yards, but 900 yards is a more "
Hence, it looks like one tower could do the job. A N scale mile is about 33 feet, 350 yards is about .2 mile, and hence the switches could be up to 6.5 feet from the tower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_tower
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/9.58.html#subj2
http://www.brs.org/
These are the people who really know!
http://www.semaphores.com/MillerT/MillerT.html
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/railway/prr/prrsig.htm#lock
If the Old Dog remembers right, RMC did a series of articles on building your own working interlocking machine back in the 1960's.
First, let me clear just a couple things up:
The layout is HO scale...
As determined by the Club, the commodities track, isn't supposed to be percieved, as being located right next to the mainlines. Such as a destination off of a mainline, many yards, or a few miles apart. This can be confusing because we are looking at sets of tracks right next to each other, and have to remember, it is a track by itself. (Hey if I would have designed the layout, it would have been a single or double mainline, with prototypical spurs and branchlines!)
John Busby wrote: Hi mtrails Logic dictates the stub yard came first then the switch puzzle. So I would place a yard tower between the stub yard and puzzle. Its a big yard so the tower though older style is still probably operating and large with a modern ish mimic pannel and computers for the area signal man, and offices for the yardmaster and area manager and their respective staff I do have a problem with the inter-modal yard not being connected to the rest of the yards and having to foul the main line to move between the three and not having easy access to Loco. It doesn't make sense as drawn because of the lack of logical yard and main line connections. It is possible that there may have been a "B" cabin facing across the main lines to the yard at the yard entrance given the re signaling for the new inter-modal yard this is likely to be a fairly modern structure. Your signals will also reflect the moving with the times aspect as well with older signals in the main yard area and more modern types at the yard entrance due to the re signaling for the inter-modal yard. They won't just pull the older ones out if they still work well regards John
I agree with you John, and to make things even more difficult in this plan; is that we share all time periods on the layout, so unfortunately, a steam train will be seen passing an inter-modal facility, and Dash-9's will be approaching semaphores! We have limited space (and budget), so we wanted to include as much operation as possible in a condensed area. We are trying to include loco accesible trackage or operation, as you mentioned. The separate operations in this small area are either very condensed, or really drawn out. The stub yard, lead track, and engine shop are really the only realistic interacting operations within the plan, though quite limited. The yard might only facilitate a train of 5-7 cars and caboose. The inter-modal yard was an after-thought. We realized the possibility of an additional penninsula that could facilitate the model, since there were no other opportunistic areas around the layout.
Regarding the switch puzzle and stub yard, the puzzle was just off of the mainline(s) originaly, but now the mainlined tracks are to be converted into a stub yard. This would now act as another destination on the layout. The original location of the game was a module just after the layout's main yard, which tied into the Drill track. Unfortunately, the game is now limited to one side of the Wye for operation rather than using a drill track, or lead track. The introduction of the Wye, was that an eastbound train arriving at the yard, could then continue east, or make it's way back west, or if an operator was playing the game, a train could still reach it's destined yard. I prefer to completely exclude the existence of the game in this modeling endeavor!
SO what it comes down to, is any possible solution to model an array of operations, incorrect in many ways (maybe unheard of), operational, and represented in a realistic manor. Believe me, if the locations of the tracks and facilities could have been laid out to be modeled correctly, they would have.
Now, the above trackplan is still only a plan and I very much appreciate everyone's input (Thanks again, Dog for your plethura of information!) In some ways an interlocking tower woudln't be needed, but in other ways it would. If anyone has any further suggestions, given the above stated, it will be welcomed and much appreciated. I've got a pretty good idea now, how to make this disaster somehow work! (pics of derailment's and head-on's coming...)
Thanks again,
Just so you know where I am coming from I have used in my mind the puzzle as an industrial area with a direct connection to the yard.
I still have trouble with the concept that it is not a 3 track main line
If it keeps some one in the club happy the puzzle has too stay maybe nominate him as the yard master he can then carry out shunting operations to his hearts content without bothering any one
7 bogie wagons per train where did you get that kind of room( I am happy if I can get room for 8 UK 4 wheeled wagons and an 0-6-0T for a train )
The era problem is not the real issue all clubs have that problem can get very interesting when it becomes multinational problem as well like it often does in AUS.
Seeing your last comment better find room for a permanent siding for the disaster container, crew coach and crane with loco on stand by, and one of those big tools that looks like an old fashioned can opener
Just to confuse things further I work for the 12"=1' railways as a signal maintainer which may or may not colour my thoughts I leave you to judge that one.
Those yard connections really do need looking at there must be a way of sorting at least that bit out without loosing too much room and making the thing work right
The Old Dog has often thought that a layout should be a series of sections or modulars that can be taken about easily and re-assembled in different orders. Note that not all available sections would need to ne included in every version. For example, in some versions the intermodal yard might be replaced with a freight station and a set of team tracks. By the same token, the structures can be build on small pieces of plywood. The propane dealer could easily be replaced with say a coal yard when you desire to change the era. One might also need to go through and change out the motor vehicles.
As for the third track problem, it is more a problem with the drawing then the layout. When you build the scene, use heavy rail and clean ballest for the mainlines. Then use lighter rail, dirty ballest, and a lower ROW for the commmodities track. That should make the difference clear to everyone.
The Old Dog would also suggest that "working" interlocking plants could be used to provide additional operator (tower man) positions when you have more operators then cab positions (engineers).
Have fun.
Well fellas, the plan has taken a turn as of today, and now advice is sought another step further. The "game guy", being enthused about the inter-modal yard addition, decided to remove the game from the table! SO, now we have 8 feet to work with after the wye. Take a look at the updated trackplan: The blue lines represent rails that have been laid, or intend to be laid, and the red are still to be considered. This is where I need your help. Everyone knows what operations are included in this plan, I on behalf of the club, would like the optimum track layout in the space given for the proposed operations. I have numbered the yard tracks, and indicated possible Container (C) and Piggyback (P) tracks. I now ask the forums to offer advice for placement of tracks, turnouts etc. for a realistic, and efficient trackplan.
Yellowstone Valley Model Railroad Club
I liked the old plan... gave you variety... if you can i would suggest that you arrange your board coonections so that (while you may have to dead-end some routes) you can plug in either the old arrangement or the new. Then you can have the best of both worlds.
That said.
Personally, as the layout is shown, you have an awful lot of blind sidings/spurs and this (to me) is even less interesting than a puzzle... all you can do is drill cars in and haul them out.
There's no such thing as optimum track. There is traffic and what needs to be done with it. this can be arranged in a sickeningly boring way or with (puzzle) interest... just keep the puzzle element small and the interest element high.
If you stack in loads of parralel tracks you will have a great scene of lots of car roofs and little else.
Back at the original Q...
Can you figure out the historical development of the tracks (and therefore the signalling) here? If the bit that had the puzzle is the original lines it will have had a signalling. i would work out the tower position against this. Then someone bought the real estate that was available and put in the intemodal... this has to be connected to the existing track and either added to the original interlocking probably not directly/mechanically but certainly electrically interlocked or the old tower goes out of use and we have something new... possible miles away. You might figure out a halfway house in which a modern facility at the location or miles away hands off ops to the old tower for stuff that is entirely on its own track and under its own control. this could be interesting as you would have two towers, possible two dispatchers, having to inter-react whenever anything changed territory.
If you can arrange to plug in either module you might go all modern (remote) replacement tower controlled track development on the new idea (development has swept the old puzzle away) and a combination of two towers (without Tolkein - but they must keep talking - Sorry!) on the old idea. The old tower controls the way into and at least some of the puzzle (allowing for ground throws in the puzzle) and the new tower controls the main tracks and the new tracks/intermodal. Either way the old tower would stay standing... so locate it where the dozers wouldn't have to shift it for the new tracks.
What other interests might you put into that newly available space? Could you arrange to use the same lead tracks?
You might put in a tank farm, a loco depot, an MoW yard... Factory feed tracks... an autorack loading facility... there may be away to find room for several of these... What traffic does the rest of the system have? What are peoples' interests? What traisn do they have/want to have that could be run.
If you can split bthe baseboards in this area you can do more than one of these providing all the boards will mate correctly.
If you are going to optimise anything, optimise the alternatives and their range/variety.
You could even fit in a car float lead...
Making the connection always go in through the same leads... and why... buildings that can't be torn down... should be a challenge.
[I like the image of you going into the club tonight and saying "Hey! good news! Fred, you can keep your puzzle. Joe, you can have you MoW yard..." and all the rest. then you give them the challenge... "You gotta get in and outa there through these fixed track positions"].
Then you can sit back and let them work it out.
Added interest... have a competition for who comes up with the best solution... that everyone is still interested in operating in a few years time.
Hope that this helps.
In looking at the "new" yard, the Old Dog doesn't see any provision for a "run around track" to allow a engine to get to the other end of the trains. If an engine pulls a train into the yard, how is it going to escape? For one of the yards, it might use the wye, but that would foul the branch.
Before I continue my posts, I would like to wish everyone a happy Thankgsiving Day.
Next step...
On the module with the diamonds... give the tracks different age indicators... like the oldest bit gets old well weathered ties, the intermodal gets concrete ties and the puzzle/whatever area gets a lead that has just been renewed... so that it fits any time scale.
Just a thought.
Enjoy your party everyone
Thanks again everyone for your input! As a result of the back-and-fourth from forum input, to club planning, here is the most likely result. The game guy can still have his game, and the fluidity of operations can be achieved with minimal bottlenecks, though the "mainline" plays a part in operations, unintentionally. Please review the latest trackplan, and let me know anything else that could be changed, added, etc. Would it seem likely that an interlocking tower would be located at the 90 degree crossover where the intermodal lead track crosses the wye?
A/R (Arrival/Departure track)
RA (Run-around)
Unless you are willing to allow your switch crew to foul the commodities track while switching, you need a longer lead. If the E1 track is full, the engine would have to foul the commodities to empty it.
My guess is that the interlocking plant would be inside the wye centered on the commodities track. You have four turnouts on that line, the rod lines would probably run along that track. By contrast you have one crossing and one turnout behind it.The track to the intermodal yard would require one linje for a move signal. The turnout at the top of the wye would require three lines, one for the home signal,one for the swithc, and one for the switch lock. The commodities track includes four switches, that is eight lines for the switches and locks. On the west bound approach, you have two routes, hence two hjome and two distant signals. On the east bound approach, you have four routes, hence eight lines, for the home and distant signals. That might be rerduced by using one set of signals for the straight route and using one set for the three divengining routes.
Note also that the tracks to the intermodal yard are not square to the section edge, that might make things difficult if you want to have interchangable modules for that location.
Note that the S6 track cannot be filled without blocking access to the engine shed. In addition you might need a short spur at the fueling station to place a tank car for unloading. Also, what about the sanding tower?
I guess that it's always best to push plenty of ideas around on paper...
Okay... it seems to me that most of the signalling suggested so far has been based on older patterns. An intermodal yard is almost always more likely to have had modern signalling with at least power operated switches. This removes all need to worry about either how rod runs are located or how long they are. I would also expect the signals themselves to be designed according to speed signalling principles and operated from a CTC or more advanced control board. This does not mean that some signals cannot indicate an absolute stop aspect (Stop and stay).
Okay again... Why have you near enough centred the arrival at the joins from the board with the wye to the top and RH boards? In my opinion this is causing a lot of the problems of clearance / obstruction of route that people are on about.
I would look at shifting the LH leg of the wye to where the latest drawing shows the red track leading to the possible industry and heading it straight into the ladder track so that the switch into the pink track is LH not RH as shown.
DO NOT take the engine facility off of S6! If any one switch fails you've lost your facility. RR do not do this to themselves. A route at S6 might provide an escape route. I would want to get into/out of the loco facility from both legs of the wye. (Yes this will probably mean another diamond... you might be able to achieve it with carefully located switches toe to toe - one at least might be a Y).
Back at the Y the top end of the Y wants to be as close to the top of the board as possible and I would angle it in line with the ladder as suggested. There is no reason why the switch shouldn't be a LH, RH, or Y. Which it is will obviously swing the roads around. Coming out of the ladder onto a RH switch and taking the curved route you would probably need to swing left to at least parallel the route that the straight leg would take if you didn't curve it to the left - which is what you are going to do to curve it round to make the triangle. You do not have to swing the curved route straight immediately though... it can make a long smooth wiggle... just so long as it connects back to the red track before it reaches the switch.
Clearly a change like this will do all sorts of things to where the tracks are and where they can be made to provide access to.
I would look to access the puzzle above the “poss” of "possible industry". I'm assuming that this track is already built on a board of its own. If this can be modified to take an access here it will increase the possibilities in the puzzle (and give you another run round facility through the puzzle). If it can't be altered (or you don't want to alter it) you can build the lead but provide some sort of building for it to appear to dead end into when the puzzle is there. Then if you create alternates to the puzzle as I suggested last time you can remove the building and have the access to use for whatever you want.
I realise that shuffling the left hand leg of the wye like this may make life interesting to fit the curve in for the RH leg of the wye. There are several ways round this. The easy one (that I'm going to suggest, you can figure out others) is to shift the top of the LH leg right up to the first switch of the ladder and have the run round track connect only to the LH leg - it is "convenient" to have it access both legs but not necessary and not doing so isn't unusual in RR practice - where things have to be fitted into real estate constraints - and it makes for more interesting moves to get things where you want. In fact, awkward limitations like this put a natural "puzzle" element into real layouts without making a puzzle. Where I have been working overnight has exactly these sorts of limitations so that to get from A to H you may have to go via D and J. There are often other routes available in these situations that you wouldn't normally use but that can get you out of trouble.
If you wanted to you could extend the run round loop all the way to the LH switch of the red track on the inside of the curve. This would give you a nice long track. Near the start of the ladder track you might then put in a LH switch and a diamond across the existing LH wye track to access the RH wye track... if there is space you might do this as a lader of crossovers... Run round track to pink track extension to RH leg of the wye. This is just a possibility I would NOT be inclined to install a double slip here.
All this shuffling about alters the shape and possible access points to the area of the loco facility. It should at least widen it. You can make it longer by switching the boat to the top side of the board and dropping all the tracks downward - getting rid of that centre access.
Shuffling the wye leftwards should have increased you lead between the RH leg of the wye and the board joint. While it might still need to cross this leg you could put in a blind spur on the top side of this lead to give you somewhere else to switch backwards and forwards from the intermodal roads. That is just a remote option... but you could go right across and connect this lead to the red track position of the LH wye leg... either with the present lead or with a track above it... the existing lead could then become blind OR it could go down and connect into either of the bottom two straight tracks... OR it could go into the middle of the three and then via a crossover into the bottom track. This would give made-up trains direct access out onto all three main tracks.
The position of the intermodal yard makes access effectively left handed. At the moment the top yard is ambidextrous... there is no reason that it has to be. In order to shuffle the LH wye leg as suggested and swing the RH wye leg as needed you might make this access left handed as well... this would allow using a severe curve on the RH leg of the Y which would permit 6axle locos but not 89' cars. this also wouldn’t be unusual in the real thing. The wye is a loco facility in this case rather than an extra access for a relatively small yard. This gives the whole set up a distinct twist and influences operation - hopefully in a way you would find interesting. --- trains accessing from the right would have to go past -as they would for the intermodal yard - and work back. This can be reversed by shuffling the Y the other way... I’ll leave it to you to work that out.
You might move the bottom ends of the wye legs as far apart as possible...
You might also use some of the space inside the wye for various roads... like a RIP track, a caboose road... maybe barely used... an MoW track.
The tower position can shuffle around this arrangement to anywhere the operator and/or Dispatcher can get a good view of what is going on. With switch motors and colour light (or even position light) signals everything is on cables not mechanical linkages so you can put the tower in the best place... this also means the best place for access to/from the tower for staff. Don't forget to give them a secure parking lot.
With the suggestions I'm making tracks will run across the module joins at odd places and angles... this will mean that any subsequent alternate/additional modules have to adopt the same patterns... I don't see this as any particular problem... it will just make people stretch their imaginations
Hope that this gives you a whole bunch of alternate ideas and drives you only slightly crazy.
Okay... So I woke up thinking about that LH wye leg...
I'm losing it!
I hope that you're ready for this!
Right... let's be conventional and make the top of the page north.
The bottom three tracks are 1-3 from the bottom.
The modules are:-
Things I would do...
I HATE the way this loads from a word doc!
After the 6th attempt I'm afraid you'll have to struggle through and read it as it is unless someone can tell me how to correct it.
Rats! (or “Pooh” if that’s more PC).
I just realised that with my changes you do not need a tower for much of the system anyway.
The only switches that have to be on a tower are the east and west ends of the wye and maybe the intermodal access. All the rest can be on ground throws.
Now… Phase 3…
Back on Board F…
i. Then you would have to decide whether to take the access off of Track 3 still or off of the intermodal lead…
ii. This would push the division of the intermodal lead east.
i. As I have said there is little or no need for switching on this route as intermodal trains are largely unit. Trains.
ii. Another advantage to an early split is that pushing long cars into the roads becomes less of an issue.
iii. You could use nice long switches on these new/modern” roads. #8 or even, if appropriate curved switches. These could not only work well and look good but contrast to switches elsewhere.
iv. You do still need to avoid eating into the space for the loco facility.
a. So here you might really make life hard work for the moment and look at putting the loco back where it was originally but with the ideas developed so far built in.
b. OR you might shift the loco facility inside the triangle…
v. I would tend to keep the progress from 2 to 4 intermodal roads to the east side of the east wye leg. A line of four diamonds in the leg might look very pretty but it would be very difficult to get the needed curve into the wye leg and electrical wiring would be murder in DC or DCC.
One principle to remember is that railroads will try to limit the number of turnouts, especialy facing point turnouts in their running tracks. They will often put in one siding or spur, then connect the industrial tracks to it rather then the mainline. Each turnout is a possible source of problems. A broken switch rod on a facing point turnout often means a wreck, so a railroad will keep such turnouts to a mininum.
It might be more realistic to provide only two turnouts, one for each direction in the commodities track, The other tracks would then branch off the wye legs.
exPalaceDog wrote: One principle to remember is that railroads will try to limit the number of turnouts, especialy facing point turnouts in their running tracks. They will often put in one siding or spur, then connect the industrial tracks to it rather then the mainline. Each turnout is a possible source of problems. A broken switch rod on a facing point turnout often means a wreck, so a railroad will keep such turnouts to a mininum. It might be more realistic to provide only two turnouts, one for each direction in the commodities track, The other tracks would then branch off the wye legs. Have fun
This is correct both sides of the pond... up to a point.
Here the Board of trade (the regulating authority) would simply not pass any new work for use if it had any facing connections that it didn't accept ask completely necessary... up to recent times (More recently the authority name has moved into the Health and Safety Executive).
I noticed the comments earlier about pipe runs to operate points manually from a tower. The distances quoted look like the extended distances for trailing point (switch) connections in the UK. As far as I recall Facing Points were never permitted beyond 250 yards on manual connections. To be exact the manual Facing Point Lock (FPL) was restricted to 250 yards from the lever. A trailing connection could be further out... I think that 350 yards is correct. (I have it all documented somewhere).
Sometime in the 1930s (IIRC) reliable power (electric) points with either seperate powered FPLs or self locking mechanisms became not only available but accepted in some locations by the BoT. The distance of these from the controlling Signalbox (tower) was only limited by the ability of the operator to see whether the line was occupied. This could be done by track Circuits and both the point and the FPL could be detected electrically.
In the USA similar restrictions applied with the addition that a train working in a section of line could take a key with it to release a switch and thus gain access to a spur. (The UK equivalent was an Annettes Key). Specific Rules applied to workings while this key was away from its authorised keeping place.
The practical problem of a physical key was resolved when electric locks and reliable telephones could be provided. With these train crews could arrive at a spur, contact the tower for a release, work the spur amd give the connection control back to the tower. They can then either move on or remain in the spur out of the way.
Again, as things developed, switches can be operated remotely by electric motors with detection in the USA.
Modern equipment has largely shifted from motor driven points to electro-hydraulic machines. They can be used where they can be communicated with... this can be done by satelite and/or fibre optics.
US practice (and the rest of the world outside the UK) has always been to accept far more connections in main tracks than has been usual in the UK.
The fact that US practice is to both have much more single track and to operate lines in either direction (as distinct from both directions - which produces a collision) means that while facing connections are prefered to be avoided they are far more common. (When running west bound on an eastbound track all the switches that would be trailing when running eastbound will automatically be facing).
In current practice the norm has become to use self locking power switches/points and to not bother whether the switch/point is facing or trailing. This means that where track used to be double with trailing connections and double junctions the same routeing can now be achieved with more single track and/or ladders of switches/crossovers.
Put another way... in modern practice you install track as much where you want it as possible and install power operated self locking switches which give you access in the direction you want without worrying about whether it is facing or trailing.
Broken switch rods are very rare. The rod is steel with a dirty great lump of point/switch blades and connecting rods at one end and a tower man at the other end. If anything breaks it is far more likely to be the tower operator. (I know, I've spent a lot of time changing points that have been absolute to work. If a rod breaks when you pull you will go flying. A signal wire (on a manual signal) is bad enough if it breaks - far more common but still rare... and the signal will automatically fail to danger.
If a rod were to break the blades of a Facing Point/Switch would not prove and so the FPL would be unable to lock the switch and the interlocking would prevent the protecting signal from being cleared. For a Trailing point one of two things would happen... either any wheel moving through the switch would force the blade shut and "trail" through the switch OR the mechanical detection between the switch and the protecting signal would not "make" and the signal would not be capable of being cleared.
I have had to deal with trailing points not making their detection far more often than I've had to deal with problems with Facing Points. The solution is usually to re swing the blades with more energy. if that doesn't work you go out and check the gear on the ground. This is possible because these switches are within the restricted distances from the Signal Box. When remote power worked self locking switches don't make someone has to go out to them and sort the problem out. this can leave a train standing waiting for the switch for some time. This can be hours in some cases.
Derailments have been relatively more common where the connecting bars between the blades of a switch have either broken or been tampered with. When these fail to hold the blades the blades are obviously free to flap around in the breeze and cause an accident.
It nevertheless remains that where connections can be put in a non main track rather than a main track that is where they will be put... which is one of the things my suggestions achieve.
Dave-the-Train wrote: exPalaceDog wrote: One principle to remember is that railroads will try to limit the number of turnouts, especialy facing point turnouts in their running tracks. They will often put in one siding or spur, then connect the industrial tracks to it rather then the mainline. Each turnout is a possible source of problems. A broken switch rod on a facing point turnout often means a wreck, so a railroad will keep such turnouts to a mininum. It might be more realistic to provide only two turnouts, one for each direction in the commodities track, The other tracks would then branch off the wye legs. Have fun This is correct both sides of the pond... up to a point. In the above post the Old Dog was thinking of industrial tracks connected to the mainline outside of yard limits, but the prictice would apply to a degree within an interlocking.
In the above post the Old Dog was thinking of industrial tracks connected to the mainline outside of yard limits, but the prictice would apply to a degree within an interlocking.
Dave-the-Train wrote: I noticed the comments earlier about pipe runs to operate points manually from a tower. The distances quoted look like the extended distances for trailing point (switch) connections in the UK. As far as I recall Facing Points were never permitted beyond 250 yards on manual connections. To be exact the manual Facing Point Lock (FPL) was restricted to 250 yards from the lever. A trailing connection could be further out... I think that 350 yards is correct. (I have it all documented somewhere).
Thanks for the info
Dave-the-Train wrote: Broken switch rods are very rare. The rod is steel with a dirty great lump of point/switch blades and connecting rods at one end and a tower man at the other end. If anything breaks it is far more likely to be the tower operator. (I know, I've spent a lot of time changing points that have been absolute to work. If a rod breaks when you pull you will go flying. A signal wire (on a manual signal) is bad enough if it breaks - far more common but still rare... and the signal will automatically fail to danger.
The old joke is that is why the call them ARMstrong machines
Dave-the-Train wrote: If a rod were to break the blades of a Facing Point/Switch would not prove and so the FPL would be unable to lock the switch and the interlocking would prevent the protecting signal from being cleared. For a Trailing point one of two things would happen... either any wheel moving through the switch would force the blade shut and "trail" through the switch OR the mechanical detection between the switch and the protecting signal would not "make" and the signal would not be capable of being cleared.
The FPL is basically a device which inserts a rod into one of two holes in a plate betreen the points, one hole for the straight route, one for the diverging route, if the rod line between the interlock and the turnout should break;
1) The operator still could reverse the lock lever, the rod would withdraw from one of the holes.
2) That would unlock the turnout lever, so the operator could chnage it's position. However, since line is broken, the turn out would NOT change position. The operator might notice that the lever is easier to operate then normal, but would move. Of course, the signal on the switch stand beside the turnout would not change.
3) The operator could then set the lock lever back to normal. Since the points hve NOT moved, this would lock the turnout back in it's original position
4) The home signal other route for the UN/changed turnout could be then cleared since the turnout level is in the correct position, even thought the turnout is NOT.
To prevent that, there would have to be a feed back from the turnout to the tower indicting the actual position of the turnout.
Dave-the-Train wrote: Derailments have been relatively more common where the connecting bars between the blades of a switch have either broken or been tampered with. When these fail to hold the blades the blades are obviously free to flap around in the breeze and cause an accident.
Thjis is the situation that Old Dog had in mind when it wrote the above post. Here the operator might NOT be able to rerlock the turnout, but it depend on where the break was in relationship to the locking holes.
Wow, I really appreciate all of the extensive info guys. Thanks so much. Of course, it will take a few times to re-read, and put this plan together.
The wye has been lifted, and we are at a clean slate as of now. I told the guys; "Let's not get in a hurry to do this, we only want to do this once, and it should be the best way possible, if we are going to model the operations we want to see." They aren't too happy with me right now, but I'm doing the legwork for the team, to avoid the problems and downfalls that might occur, from snap decisions and eagerness to play on new track.
I want to extend thanks to Dog for your information about interlocking towers. I personally model modern era, so I never thought about how the purpose they serve and operate. Knowing this information, especially in this circumstance of model railroading, puts a whole new perspective about the aspect of the hobby we all want to achieve. Most of us model what we see, based on basic principles of railroading that we have gathered from our interest, though some of us have never really understood the specific purpose and reasons of the many functions of the railroad.
And Dave, sorry to present this conundrum of a trackplan, to which has caused you sleep deprivation, sorting the pieces of this intricate puzzle! Thank You! You're suggestions, based on real life operations are more than anyone could expect. Hey, did you get this stuff out of a book? Did you write the book!?
On behalf of the Yellowstone Valley Model Railroad Club, thank you. I will present our final trackplan, and photos soon.
Old Dog...
Yes, outside an interlocking as well as in it as few connections in the main as possible is the general rule.
Also, where possible, provide sufficient space inside the first switch to get your whole train in out of the way to free up the main and take away the risk of any other train hitting part of the train left out on the main - in the US this was a significant problem with huge long lengths of single line. In the UK the design practices in place and the BoT requirements made it extremely rare - I expect someone will give me a list of when and where now -
Something else you want to do if you can is to locate the first switch inside far enough away from the connection to the main so that if anything derails on it it will stay clear of the main track. With that arrangement you can cut off the derailed car(s) - sometimes using a torch to cut them off and take the train that would otherwise be stuck blocking the main away. This keeps your main free and you can sort out the mess later.
If you got to "2" above - the FPL bolt withdrawn and the blades in one position but not connected - even the worst signalman should realise that something is wrong because there isn't a manual set of points on the planet that you don't have to "throw". I'm quite happy to make this extreme claim... (a) I've been on the motive power end of enough points (b) even a set of blades on a ground throw needs some shifting... and even when it is in 100% good condition... (c) manual points on a box not only have the blades to shift but all the rodding run between the lever and the blades... and this is not often straight - including curves, bell cranks, lost motion devices [compensators] - it also needs all the bearing rollers to be true and at least a little lubricated (if you're lucky). Then ther's weeds , bits of ballast , trash and any movement that might have occured or been put into the line by adjacent work . These are all reasons why the BoT made and enforced its restrictions on distance.
In some UK boxes you would find that the lever next to a point lever had a footplate part way up it. (Lever to the left 90% of the time) . This was for the signalman to put his foot on and shove while he swung the lever. You always, but always, kept one foot behind you. Also, if the pull began to stick or didn't make you dropped the pull and/or threw it back. You did not struggle with it. Some points had to be rammed back into the frame. These were not always the ones that had to be shifted out with weight. (There's nearly 18 stone of me - 250lbs - Imperial). If any points were going to have rod breaks these would be the ones... and you'd feel it... you'd almost certainly "nut" the block [instrument] shelf. You wouldn't have had to call the management... they'd have heard you at the other end of the patch. That is always assuming that you weren't unconscious or busy spitting out teeth.
I knew of one incident of a broken rod. At Sutton in Surrey in cold weather the rods for a switch just outside the Box broke. The signalman came back with so much force that he smashed the manager stood behind him clean through the Box window and only the walkway railings outside stopped him falling onto the track in the shower of wood and glass. The manager had several ribs broken.
Okay, so some switches were a light pull... an already broken rod would just come out (or go back) way too easily.
If that isn't enough points where there could be any doubt or the signalman couldn't see how they lay from the Box were increasingly detected in one way or another.
Apart from that...
If the route should be straight on a loco may lose the road if it goes into the diverging route too fast. It would tend to do this rather than proceed on the wrong road and hit something. If he didn't go into the dirt the engineer would be turning the air very dark blue (with little lightning flashes in it) and pulling up hard.
Moving on...
The FPL bar between the blades is not the same bar as the drive bar(s) that shift the blades. The FPL bar is a different shape and "passive" in its action... that is the drive bars shift the blades when pushed or pulled by the rodding from the Signalman's efforts in the Box (active action). The Locking bar is carried from one position to the other by the movement of the blades. The tolerance permitted for the bolt to be able to close is measured in a very few thousandths of an inch. (In "Clamp Lock" power points anything more than 5th" either side of dead centre is a failure and the switch will not detect and therefore will not allow the interlocking to let anything else happen... which is pretty sensible when a train may pass over it in excess of 100mph). The FPL does nothing but detect the position of the blades and then hold them in that position. It does have size and strength because of that holding action.
Back in the Box the Signalman can't move the switch lever while the FPL is locked. This is not because of the FPL bolt being "In"/locked but because the interlocking in the leverframe will physically block the wrong action.
I hope that all this makes you all feel a lot safer on trains... and more aware of the rubbish they put in the movies.
I got this stuff out of rather a lot of books...
LTC Rolt "Red for Danger" is a basic on UK train smashes... which were the driving force behind most improvements.
Then I have gone through every issue of "The Engineer", "Engineering", "Locomotive, Carriage and Wagon Revue" and several others,plus US Journals I don't recall the names of from their first issues to 1950. (The US Journals had some years missing ).
I grew up with a railfan Dad who modelled O Gauge.
My Mum's Dad was a tram driver at one stage.
My Maternal Great grandfather was a Guard (Conductor) on the LBSCR,
One of my Great, Great Grandfathers was a Driver on the London and Croydon.
I figure that I never really stood a chance.
I've worked 85% of my career on the railway... that's how I've had time to go through all the books. A lot of the work is a matter of being there with your ears open... a bit like an airline pilot but not so well paid... they don't even land the things! I wonder if they read books about planes?
I wouldn't mind writing a book but it is a lot of work. Also US and UK practice are significantly different and I not only don't know enough about the US yet but don't have a natural "feel" for it.
Also, it's much easier to answer a question than to present the information from cold. Plus it is easier for you to relate to the answer to the question than to tie theory to what you might want to do. Even for other people it will be easier to carry ideas across from your example than to go from principles.
On top of that I have a weirdly wired brain that only learns in 3D but, once it has learnt in 3D can play all the games it wants in abstract theory.
How do you get on understanding Isotopes that don't have a constant number of electrons? I find that most people boggle at them. To me the isotopes just live in a 3D space doing an extremely random and comples cube dance - which is a square dance in 3D.
One thing I've now learnt to do (since discovering that not everyone thinks in 3D) is to translate between my 3D and "flatworld".
One thing that will hopefully make my notes above easier is for you to
I would lay odds that you will come out with something similar to but different from what I have drawn out for you. (I've e mailed this). It would be interesting to show them side-by-side on here for others to see.
From you e mail... one thing you could do is to use my Board H approach as a location to plug on cassettes that people can move their trains around on from home to the club.
I hope that you're having fun
The Old Dog finds this to be a interesting but mind bending topic.
Also, the Old Dog sees that it made an bad assumption. the "normal" position for a FPL is open/unlocked, not locked as I had thought.
The Old Dog has always thought that one or more interlocking towers or cabins with minature but working mechanical interlocking logic machines would be a very interesting addition to a layout.
For example, one book I have shows the layout for a small through passenger station, just two main tracks, with two sidings off each side with one platform between each pair of sidings. It also includes a right and left cross over on each end. Putting a "working" interlocking tower at end could provide employment for two lever men. The problem would be to provide enough staging to generate enough traffic to make things "interesting".
Have f