PRR/Conrail Juniata Division Engineering Report

[DKS]

I have a bigger question about this expansion: What does it give you that you're looking for and that the existing JD doesn't?

More than anything else, I want to lengthen the mainline run... I have some nice long consists that could really use a longer run (like my Broadway Limited).

[Dave V]

Damn, miss a day or two and I miss all the action.

I have a bigger question about this expansion: What does it give you that you're looking for and that the existing JD doesn't?

1.  Longer mainline run.
2.  Run-through staging.
3.  More operations.
4.  More scenic opportunities.

[Rich_S]

I'm going to go against the grain. It seems others like the first plan, but I like this one because it has less hidden trackage. I can also see the four track yard section subbing for Tyrone with the highway overpass being route 220. All that would be needed is a single track heading for the back wall. The single track would be your interchange track to the Bald Eagle secondary. You know what they say, a interchange is the universal industry.

 

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Ok, cool. So lets analyze how this plan provides answers to those things.

1.  Longer mainline run.

Ok, this is does, but if the reason is to give you better viewing of longer consists (like the Broadway), make sure this actually does that. In order to do that, you want to make sure that the mains are long enough so that it never seems like it's chasing its tail. I'm not familiar with the length of the Broadway, but double check that you achieve that here.

2.  Run-through staging.

Sounds good. Are those tracks long enough for what you want? If not, extend em.

3.  More operations.

This one... hmm. Are you talking more "drag a local around and do some switching" or "get out the typewrite, time to copy down an order" ops? I'm guessing the former. If so, I'm sure you want to do it in a way where you can have something orbiting on the other track, right? In that case, your new industrial sidings are backwards and will require run arounds (tying up the other main or long reverse moves) to serve.

4.  More scenic opportunities.

I think you're achieving this with the bridge, but I feel like the new town is just more of the same from the existing. If you don't want something different, you're set, but if you do, well, you might want to think about how to spice that up a bit.


Oh, and I've got to say, I'm glad you're jazzed on doing more with your Great Model Railroad that doesn't involve Mexicans in sombreros and ponchos on donkeys.

[Dave V]

Dammit Ed, quit making me think!!!   

[wazzou]

Oh, and I've got to say, I'm glad you're jazzed on doing more with your Great Model Railroad that doesn't involve Mexicans in sombreros and ponchos on donkeys.

That sounds like a Verne Niner reference?

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Lol, sorry hombre.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

That sounds like a Verne Niner reference?

Actually, it's a dig at Dave's narrow guage daliances and a reference to Malcolm Furlow's impressionist wild west layout.

http://trainweb.org/lfnwfan/html/images/bandito.jpg

[Dave V]

Malcolm Furlow is to narrow gauge as Salvador Dali is to reality.

His SJC trackplan is a good start but I would have made it look like actual narrow gauge railroading, not a Disney ride mixed with borderline racism...  Joking, of course.

He did an indoor G scale layout that had a nice little trackplan too, even if he made all the rolling stock look like it was completely unusable for railroad purposes...!

[Dave V]

Ok, cool. So lets analyze how this plan provides answers to those things.
Ok, this is does, but if the reason is to give you better viewing of longer consists (like the Broadway), make sure this actually does that. In order to do that, you want to make sure that the mains are long enough so that it never seems like it's chasing its tail. I'm not familiar with the length of the Broadway, but double check that you achieve that here.

Sounds good. Are those tracks long enough for what you want? If not, extend em.

This one... hmm. Are you talking more "drag a local around and do some switching" or "get out the typewrite, time to copy down an order" ops? I'm guessing the former. If so, I'm sure you want to do it in a way where you can have something orbiting on the other track, right? In that case, your new industrial sidings are backwards and will require run arounds (tying up the other main or long reverse moves) to serve.
I think you're achieving this with the bridge, but I feel like the new town is just more of the same from the existing. If you don't want something different, you're set, but if you do, well, you might want to think about how to spice that up a bit.


Oh, and I've got to say, I'm glad you're jazzed on doing more with your Great Model Railroad that doesn't involve Mexicans in sombreros and ponchos on donkeys.

I guess I want more roundy-round?  I don't even know exactly.  I want a sense that the trains go somewhere.  It would be nice to do a local that hits all the industries while staying out of the way of the big boys.

The problem I have with ops is that I love the big PRR mainline but have no hope of actually operating like it.  Instead I would probably run it much like an NTrak layout.

As boring as I know you find narrow gauge ops, they are at least graspable and reproducible. 

[GaryHinshaw]

I guess I want more roundy-round?  I don't even know exactly.  I want a sense that the trains go somewhere.  It would be nice to do a local that hits all the industries while staying out of the way of the big boys.

Do you ever switch the JD?  If not, I doubt this plan would change that inclination much, so you could mostly think of the industries as scenery.

I think all these plans will give you a much better sense of the trains going somewhere, but I would be tempted to break it up into vignettes a little more than DKS has.  I think the very cool 4-track section would look better if you couldn't see the pairs of tracks splitting off on either end (is there an example of a 4-track junction like that on the PRR?).  For example, on the left, I would be tempted to extend the 4-track section a bit, and move the road bridge so it crosses the 4-track section. Then you don't see the split looking from the middle.  On the right, I would be tempted to introduce a ridge (or maybe a complex industry) to hide the split.  These changes would also more naturally divide the pike into 3 distinct scenes, which might help to introduce a sense of distance.

Also, I have to ask: how committed are you to doors?    It's not obvious to me that their advantages outweigh their disadvantages when you start getting into something of this scope.  In particular, if you were willing to build your own open frame boxes, you could make them any size you want, and (especially) minimize the number of track joints.  No loss of portability, or sturdiness either.

-gfh

[Dave V]

Gary (and DKS)...  Good point.  I'm committed to boxes, not necessarily doors.

Does this change the dynamic?

[John]

Oh, and I've got to say, I'm glad you're jazzed on doing more with your Great Model Railroad that doesn't involve Mexicans in sombreros and ponchos on donkeys.

Is this a swipe at Malcom Furlow 

[John]

Malcolm Furlow is to narrow gauge as Salvador Dali is to reality.

His SJC trackplan is a good start but I would have made it look like actual narrow gauge railroading, not a Disney ride mixed with borderline racism...  Joking, of course.

Ed's law 

[DKS]

Malcolm Furlow = John Allen on steroids...

I think the very cool 4-track section would look better if you couldn't see the pairs of tracks splitting off on either end (is there an example of a 4-track junction like that on the PRR?).

As a matter of fact, there is a place where the PRR main does indeed split up.



As for separating the layout into vignettes, I agree. I could have broken things up better--I was just quickly tossing the plans together for evaluation. Careful scenery design would also help break things up.

I'm committed to boxes, not necessarily doors.

Does this change the dynamic?

I'm not sure it does, really; space utilization would likely best remain about the same. So it's down to where one invests the time and effort, and box frames are somewhat more labor-intensive. Plus, I think you'd wind up with the same number of parts, and probably the same number of track joints.