Analyze My Layout, Please!

[pnolan48]

In response to another thread here on Railwire, I'm asking for your responses to a post I originally made on Trainboard, where I'm an admin. I totally agree with the responses made in that other Railwire thread. There are certainly different flavors of forums, and less overlap than many readers expect. Each forum that I participate in has its own strengths and weaknesses. I participate in other forums because of the members that I've gotten to know and respect immensely. There are only a few for me--Trainboard, Railwire, Atlas and N-Scale Talk--although I scan others to stay abreast of the forum world. This, I think, is totally good. We really don't compete for content, as there is certainly enough to go around, and it is growing.

So I repost this because I'd like to hear from the members of Railwire who perhaps didn't respond elsewhere. Here goes:

've been posting the track plan of the Portsmouth Branch of the PRR for about five years now, but have never gotten a critical analysis from others, except that it was great. That doesn't help me improve! It was built exactly by these images. I realize that a 640 x 480 jpg image is hard to follow, so I will provide full resolution drawings to anyone who would need them for a better analysis.

It basically a big loop on multiple levels. If you start at Milepost 0, the small type left of the roundhouse, on the outer track closest to the edge, and trace it all the way around, through the levels, you should come back to Milepost 0, after traveling about 20 scale miles.

I think that no one but me has ever done this. I haven't had time to do a John Armstrong-style analysis of track and switching directions. All I know is that it runs good. There are plenty of switching opportunities. But there are some big flaws, especially where the long branch line comes into Boston with only a very short switching lead.

Here's the first level. Again, you start at Milepost 0 on the line closest to the edge, then climb past the yard.



Where it says, in the upper left hand corner that you are going "TO SECOND LEVEL" you are still on the topmost track,

When you get to the second level, you see this:



Due to the magic of geometry, you are now on the inside track, where there is the "Greenfield Yard". The problem here, that I see, is that trains coming out are headed in the wrong direction. No big deal: once on the mainline, they switch directions. But is there a better solution here? Perhaps the switching should be reversed?

By the blurb at the Plutonium reactor, the train is back on the outermost track, again by the magic of geometry. It cannot access the yard for the reactor without a cross-over. That might be a good place to install a cross-over, as the yard is not otherwise accessible until the train goes all the way to the top, and then back down on the inner track, which makes access a "backing-in" movement"--which is prone to derailments.

Up to the third level:



This seems to work pretty well. You're on the top side when entering, and the switches are facing in the leading orientation through the summit, or Westover. It's not hard to park a train on the inner passing siding and forget about it for six months!

From Westover, you go back down, this time on the parallel track that you didn't use going up. As mentioned earlier, the only way to get to the yard at the Plutonium plant is to back in--not a great operational method, and very prone to derailments.

When you get down to the second level, Greenfield, you have no access to the track on which you came up. Another crossover? But where?

It'll take some study and analysis, but I'd welcome comments and criticisms. This isn't your table-top layout. My questions are based on five years of running on this beast.

[Mark5]

oops, will try to view from home.

[3rdrail]

Pete, you in essence are running "left-handed". AFAIK, only the C&NW of major railroads did that. My 2 ft. by. 4 ft. layout is essentially the same type as yours, a folded dogbone, and I ended up having to operate "left-handed" as well. I can see NO crossovers in you plan now. Is this right? If so, adding even one will add two very long reversing loops.

What would happen you you simply reversed your running direction and went up the "down" track and down the "up" track??

[John]

I would use the third level as staging .. you can still run em in circles, but there should be a to/from

[asciibaron]

i need a larger picture to make out what is going on - i do see a lack of cross-overs, but i can't see much else

-steve

[wm3798]

I suppose you have to think in terms of how you want the traffic to flow.  It looks like while your trains have a nice long run, there's no provision for them to "enter" or "leave" the layout.  Some staging, as John mentions, might be more useful operationally than the long upper level loop.

Thinking about operations will make any deficiencies in the track plan a lot more obvious.  If you plan to run a local train out from West Harbor to Allston, do you have the crossovers or run around siding you need to switch the industries and stay out of the way of your passenger trains and priority thru freights?

Greenfield Jct. must be an interchange point... how does that work?  Is there a turn that comes from the interchange railroad that runs across your railroad to the yard?  Or do you schedule a train that does pick ups and set outs, and you never see the train that comes from "the other side".  Depending on how you work that interchange, there may be some modifications possible to make it work better.

I don't know if you're running DCC, but if you are, I would wire the double track to be parallel, with reversers at the end loops.  That greatly simplifies installing and wiring your crossovers.

Other than that, you've got a great looking, well executed layout.  Working out the track plan kinks usually is best determined by actually running the layout...  We'll all be over at 7:30... better make a pot of coffee!
Lee

[pnolan48]

Yes, I'm running left-handed, for now. Stupid mistake on my part. I just read somewhere that most railroads ran left-handed, and believe it! Going to right-handed running is no big deal--the long arrival track on the west side, under the train sheds, becomes a departure track. That makes Greenfield Junction and the plutonium yard much more accessible. It was designed for right-hand running in the first place.

There are no crossovers on the main line. I've been trying to determine where to put them. With trains ten minutes apart, I haven't seen a need--yet.

I'll have to analyze other suggestions a bit later.

I truly appreciate all your comments!

[tom mann]

Pete...Looks great! ;D

Maybe I've been looking at HO plans for too long, but you have 2 and 3 track curves in Boston in an area that looks like 30" square.  I think that is too tight, maybe not in operation but in looks.  I think that in real life, it would look like a little circle.

[DKS]

Maybe I've been looking at HO plans for too long, but you have 2 and 3 track curves in Boston in an area that looks like 30" square.  I think that is too tight, maybe not in operation but in looks.  I think that in real life, it would look like a little circle.

I am quite envious, Pete, of your space... Re: the curves in Boston, as Tom mentioned, you might think about having the two lines at the narrow point between Boston and Allston criss-cross. This would not only add interest, but allow at least some of the curves to relax a bit. And it would reduce the multiple S-turns starting at East Harbor. I also agree that the third level is a natural place to have staging; I can see tracks front to back running the length of the space through West Hampton.

[Ryan87]

Pete, you in essence are running "left-handed". AFAIK, only the C&NW of major railroads did that.

As an aside, Canadian Pacific, Santa Fe & Duluth Missabe & Iron Range all have segments of left handed running (CP & DMIR were quite extensive).

[pnolan48]

By going both directions on the second level at Harrington Farms, I create an electrified division for Kato's GG-1 and Broadway Limited. This division could easily run all the way down to Boston. I'm designing my catenary now.

[pnolan48]

Pete...Looks great! ;D

Maybe I've been looking at HO plans for too long, but you have 2 and 3 track curves in Boston in an area that looks like 30" square.  I think that is too tight, maybe not in operation but in looks.  I think that in real life, it would look like a little circle.

Actually, the smallest radius for mainlines is 18" around Boston, and the S-curves up from the bridge to Boston are on the order of 24" radius.

[nscalesteve]

I'm designing my catenary now.

hmmmmm ? please share what you are designing, thank you... 

[pnolan48]

For those of you looking for larger images (3000 pixels wide, about 300K) they are here.

First level

http://www.trainboard.com/petenolan/LAYOUTFirst.jpg

Second level

http://www.trainboard.com/petenolan/LAYOUTSecondLevel2.jpg

Third level

http://www.trainboard.com/petenolan/LAYOUTThirdLevel.jpg

[bsoplinger]

At the risk of asking a truly dumb question...

What do you mean by running left-handed?