PRR/Conrail Juniata Division Engineering Report

[eric220]

If you wanted reversing capabilities, the simplest thing to do would be to complete the four track crossover at Duncannon.

[Philip H]

If you wanted reversing capabilities, the simplest thing to do would be to complete the four track crossover at Duncannon.

Only an SPF would call a 4 track cross over a simple solution.

[crrcoal]

Mr Smith---Disregard my request sir. After studying the plan all night I don't think it's gonna work with the loop.

Dave---Ultimately you have to build it the way that gives you the most fun and satisfaction. I just wanted to show you that Enola as you have it could be a great little switching layout.

[eric220]

Only an SPF would call a 4 track cross over a simple solution.

Well, when you've already got 8 of the 12 switches in the plan...

Even adding a single crossover in there could give the flavor and reversing capability.

[John]

Honestly?  The real Enola wasn't a stub-ended yard.  Neither should mine be...

Put a mirror on the end .. and it won't be 

[packers#1]

I completely +1 what eric220 said; FWIW, all the versions with the big enola yard just seemed cramped and not as fun; the Huntingdon layout extension, however, looks great and is definitely great for railfanning and local ops, while the big yard is going to be yard work instead of local work; plus, it isn't as functional of a staging yard as the one on the Huntingdon extension

[DKS]

You did mention possibly entertaining the idea of using Enola as a bridge section. Doing so does mean some trade-offs: for instance, it would be very hard to preserve the four-track Juniata bridge scene; at the same time, there could be an opportunity to improve the functionality of Enola. Indeed, you could almost "have it all." It all depends on how much effort you're willing to invest in the project, as it would not be simple by any means.

Here's a proposal that features Enola with a decent yard lead and a mainline configuration that eases the backing-through-a-sharp curve problem. You also get a staging yard (which could be hidden behind a low backdrop) and a Huntington extension with loads more room for town/industries/scenery. I tend to agree with the others that shoehorning Enola into the Huntington extension is far from ideal, so this is another option to chew on.

Put a mirror on the end .. and it won't be 

Actually, if the road bridge was relocated, this might be doable...

[Dave V]

Holy crapsnacks!  I went to the gym and missed a bunch!

SO...  Let's take a deep collective breath.  First of all, I can't thank DKS enough for providing real-time visualizations of my every hair-brained idea.

Secondly, it's worth considering how my Enola Yard came to be.

In 2007, I built a little 5' long by 6" wide staging yard:



As my collection grew I found that this little yard fell very short, both operationally and capacity-wise.  Nevertheless, it was 100% staging, nothing else.

Then in 2008 I was invited to an open house at Todd Treaster's house, and I fell in love with his version of Enola Yard:



By 2009 I had two trips to the real Enola Yard under my belt (my first visits since the pure Conrail days of the 1990s).



So when I went about designing an expanded staging yard, I wanted to scenic it too.  I noticed as I was building it, it really began subconsciously to look like Enola.  I included an engine facility mostly to display locomotives not running.  Again, it "mysteriously" started to take on the look of Enola's diesel shops.

In fact, in my original thinking, I had it in mind to store one era's equipment in the yard while the "real" JD hosted the other era's trains.  Crazy, huh?

Third, let's look critically at what Enola became.  It's a very nice photo prop if I can hide those heinous ground throws.  It serves now as a 3 track staging yard with a very elaborate set of display tracks for locos and cars.

What are the problems?  Well, besides the operational interests (no pull-out track, no ladder track, too-short switchback to the engine house, etc.), the craptacular Woodland Scenics track bed I used actually led to vertical deflections and dips in rails so not all tracks are perfectly level (which works well when I'm running Penn Central).  I've had issues with the curved turnouts at the throat as well.

So if I kept Enola, it would be mostly for "cowardly" reasons...either to avoid having to dismantle existing layout real estate or invoking the ire of the JD's fan club.

The Huntingdon option just flows so much better.  It has a significant lack of car and locomotive storage, which is an obvious disadvantage over keeping Enola, but in every other way it fits my style...  It's scenery-intensive over track density, it supports railfanning, and frankly, it really gives a sense of the Middle Division I'm trying to capture.

I don't see keeping Enola just because it looks nice.  I can cannibalize nearly all of it and make it into something even better.

[wm3798]

Extreme diggage.  My favorite iteration by far.  But then, I'm a total yard nerd.

[Dave V]

Some inspiration...

https://picasaweb.google.com/108798159233854075737/CRHSRailBQDay3#

[chicken45]

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I will admit, none of the plans that reuse Enola look as graceful the trackplan immediately above.

Amen.

My only recommendation would be moving H&BT bridge further down, closer to the curve, to match the real geography of the area, but extending the siding along the mains so you have somewhere to set out cars.

[MichaelWinicki]

Extreme diggage.  My favorite iteration by far.  But then, I'm a total yard nerd.

I agree with you Lee... Operationally that plan rules. 

But there's some merit to the simpler version without a yard.

And no, I wouldn't include the present Enola section in any of it.  Too much of an odd fit.  If a yard was added to the new section I would go with a new design, like what Dave drew up.

[davefoxx]

I have to add that I much prefer something along the lines of the following plan.  I do not see the value of attempting to save Enola in its current form.  Its parts can be much more useful in another form, and the plan is becoming way too spaghetti-bowlish when Enola is squeezed in.  Simpler is better.



DFF

[DKS]

I have to add that I much prefer something along the lines of the following plan.  I do not see the value of attempting to save Enola in its current form.  Its parts can be much more useful in another form, and the plan is becoming way too spaghetti-bowlish when Enola is squeezed in.  Simpler is better.

I agree. But then again, it's Dave's layout. If there's still interest in the version with the engine facilities and new smaller yard, I must note there were some serious flaws in the plan (such as the need for locos to use the mainline to access the yard ). So here's a version with the major gaffes corrected. As a minor bonus, in the process of making the revisions, some acreage was gained for the town and industries. (For giggles I also included the connection to the yard lead that allows turning locos and cars--highlighted in red.)