PRR/Conrail Juniata Division Engineering Report

[Dave V]

I might be willing to keep it if I could fit a return loop on the other end somehow.

I have barely 3 extra feet to work with, though, so that seems like a bridge too far.

I wonder if elements of Enola (the shops and such) could be integrated into this new expansion plan in place of Huntingdon.  Hmmm...

[davefoxx]

Dave,

When I drafted this up for you a few months ago to help spark the brainstorming, I had planned that you would lift the elements of the engine facility from the existing Enola Yard and transplant them into the new extension at bottom left.  Maybe DKS can work something up along a similar vein.  "Hey, DKS, got a minute?"



DFF

P.S.  Oh, and ignore the rest of the plan.  DKS' is much better.

[DKS]

I wonder if elements of Enola (the shops and such) could be integrated into this new expansion plan in place of Huntingdon.  Hmmm...

Might look something like this...



Note that the engine shops and such are traced over the existing Enola yard image, so if you could lift them off the layout intact (I know you can't, but...) it would drop into place. Also note that I didn't do a thorough job of checking on all of the operations options-- if there are enough runarounds of sufficient length, if the lead is long enough, etc. It's just a quickie sketch to see if it was even feasible. It is admittedly very track-dense, but interestingly you don't lose any of the switching options you had on the original version (you only had JC Blair and the interchange).

One final note, in the event you may ever want to be able to turn engines/trains, the yard lead near the Juniata bridge could be connected into the second track from the back easily enough. It would not, however, form a reverse loop such that a whole train can be turned in one continuous pass; it would simply allow you to pull a train into the yard from the opposite direction.

[Dave V]

Holy jeebus you guys are fast!!! 

Funny, DKS, I drew almost exactly the same plan on graph paper over lunch.  Great Daves think alike!

I do kinda feel like I need to choose between Huntingdon & Enola though...  Huntingdon has its own vibe that Enola kinda steps on.

[packers#1]

I dunno, I like the plan without the huge yard; if you're not that big into freight ops, then I would think having all the scenery to build without that huge yard would be better; I do like the idea of stick shops in the bottom left corner, like how DFF drew it. The shops could reside behind some of the main street buildings in that curve

[crrcoal]

Might look something like this...



Note that the engine shops and such are traced over the existing Enola yard image, so if you could lift them off the layout intact (I know you can't, but...) it would drop into place. Also note that I didn't do a thorough job of checking on all of the operations options-- if there are enough runarounds of sufficient length, if the lead is long enough, etc. It's just a quickie sketch to see if it was even feasible. It is admittedly very track-dense, but interestingly you don't lose any of the switching options you had on the original version (you only had JC Blair and the interchange).

One final note, in the event you may ever want to be able to turn engines/trains, the yard lead near the Juniata bridge could be connected into the second track from the back easily enough. It would not, however, form a reverse loop such that a whole train can be turned in one continuous pass; it would simply allow you to pull a train into the yard from the opposite direction.

That's pure sex right there.....

[Dave V]

It's pretty track dense, that's for sure.

Dunno.  I also like how my current Enola looks...

It would be mega-sweet if I could somehow use Enola and the Huntingdon plan.  I have about 10x14 to work with, but there are some door constraints.

[DKS]

It's pretty track dense, that's for sure.

Dunno.  I also like how my current Enola looks...

It would be mega-sweet if I could somehow use Enola and the Huntingdon plan.  I have about 10x14 to work with, but there are some door constraints.

Up for some carpentry? I could see "padding" the Enola door out to roughly the dimensions of the proposed Huntington expansion, and wrapping the whole thing with a double-track loop...

[Dave V]

...or somehow use Enola as the bridge section (with some mods of course) between Huntingdon and Lewistown.  I'd be sad to lose that sexy 4-track interlocking, but if I could do this (plus install a decent pull-out track) Enola would live and so would Hunt.

The sacrifice would be the choke point at Enola's two run-trough tracks.  I would lose running two independent trains on the whole main unattended.  That's probably okay though.  One could keep drilling the JD while the other wandered through Enola and Huntingdon.

EDIT:  I have actually considered the "padding" idea...  I shouldn't be confined to the geometry of the door.  It may make moving somewhat more complicated, but in the end what I really need is just a wider moving crate.

EDIT 2:  Or, like you said, flesh out Enola so it's surrounded by the main and put Hunt on the bridge.

[DKS]

I was thinking of something along these lines--

[delamaize]

I was thinking of something along these lines--

this, I like.

[MichaelWinicki]

I like incorporating the yard AND the staging.  Certainly amps up the operational aspect of the pike.  But I can also understand the desire to limit the track density on the new section.

[DKS]

Alternatively, this may be easier to build:

[Dave V]

Dave, I do like that last one!  Putting old Enola at the back makes reaching an asspain.  I still don't think I can do this and keep my "miniHunt."  Enola just crowds the Hunt vibe.

Alternative...  Geographically and visually, making the back section Steelton might work much better.  I can use my Vulcan kits to kinda hide the looping main back there.

EDIT:  That curve into the bridge looks kinda painful..

[DKS]

That curve into the bridge looks kinda painful..

Only looks it. Still ~15" min.