PRR/Conrail Juniata Division Engineering Report

[OldEastRR]

Will you be able to salvage chunks of the old layout and re-use them? The straight section of the "front" half could probably be converted to a 4-track main. Be nice to keep that town scene.

[chicken45]

I still hate to see it all go, but you have stated in the past you'll reuse everything so, maybe it'll work out okay. I mean, if course it will work out. I'll just miss all the old haunts from the photos.

[jmarley76]

There must be a thing going around, like a bug or something. First, @LIRR Eastern Kentucky, then the JD, followed by @R L Smith's EL Southern Tier. 

This is turning into some kind of Conrail conspiracy thing. @Ed, are you involved in this? Seems shady... 

[casmmr]

Remember, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it just might be a duck.  You may be onto something.

[Dave V]

Even if it ended up as another HCD layout I really want to do the track better.  I *think* I can do it better with Atlas code 55 flex and ME turnouts.  It could be made to operate better, although "ops" has never been my thing no matter how much I want it to be.

The number one complain I have about the current JD is insufficient staging followed in a close second by trackwork that is showing its age (bot appearance and electrically).  The BLI wide-tread wheels on the M1s and the PAs have made the Peco insulfrogs (which have never been perfect) even more of an issue.

For now I'm picking away at the Colorado Midland as I really want to have one "finished" layout in the train room at a time.

[mu26aeh]

There must be a thing going around, like a bug or something. First, @LIRR Eastern Kentucky, then the JD, followed by @R L Smith's EL Southern Tier. 

This is turning into some kind of Conrail conspiracy thing. @Ed, are you involved in this? Seems shady... 

The CSX Hanover Sub will be dismantled and expanded in the (hopefully) near future if my wife gets settled into new job and we can get some financing in place to build out our garage and I take over old garage space.  The expansion will probably have Ed K all over it 

Wonder if I could start a GoFund me page to help with garage relocation ????

[MVW]

It could be made to operate better, although "ops" has never been my thing no matter how much I want it to be.

I don't want to sidetrack the discussion, but would you elaborate on this, Dave? I remember you mentioning previously that operation doesn't interest you, but it sounds like you wish it would. Have you encountered stumbling blocks, or tried it and found it wasn't all you thought it would be, or what?

Jim

[Dave V]

After the new year we'll start talking redesign.  I'll post the space I'm working with and my givens/druthers along with a few of my own ideas.  Thinking a new thread for that one.

I don't want to sidetrack the discussion, but would you elaborate on this, Dave? I remember you mentioning previously that operation doesn't interest you, but it sounds like you wish it would. Have you encountered stumbling blocks, or tried it and found it wasn't all you thought it would be, or what?

Jim

I followed the original plan that Lou Sassi put together in '93 without any thought to how it would operate.  For example, if you want to do a runaround move at Lewistown, it blocks both mains:



I bought car cards, waybills, and card boxes and came up with a timetable.  But of course it was like a completely different railroad than the Pennsy's Middle Division whose parade of 100 trains a day in the 50s are in a different world entirely.

But in the end I just like to sit back and let them run.  I'm a proud roundy-rounder.  So from an "operations" perspective the biggest improvement I could possibly make would be run through staging.  It would need to be roughly 6-7 feet long to accommodate my longest trains.

[MichaelWinicki]

Hey Dave are you going to want to have to do the "duck-under" thing with an "cock-pit" style layout?

I had one layout with a duck-under and figured out quickly that I didn't every want to do that again.

[Dave V]

Hey Dave are you going to want to have to do the "duck-under" thing with an "cock-pit" style layout?

I had one layout with a duck-under and figured out quickly that I didn't every want to do that again.

That is a concern.

Another option is an L shaped layout with staging against the walls.

[Missaberoad]

Another option is an L shaped layout with staging against the walls.

That would be my suggestion... Would be easier to create a more convincing "railfan" vignette aswell... 

[wcfn100]

Don't forget, if this is your final move, you can start going through walls and stuff. 

Jason

[MVW]

But in the end I just like to sit back and let them run.  I'm a proud roundy-rounder.  So from an "operations" perspective the biggest improvement I could possibly make would be run through staging.  It would need to be roughly 6-7 feet long to accommodate my longest trains.

Nothing wrong with just watching them run. Personally, I'm on the other end of the spectrum. I enjoy switching. But there are plenty of times when I'd like to just fire up an engine and let it haul a train around the room a few dozen times. And of course I'm a long ways from having a loop that will allow me to do so. 

Actually, I think it would be very cool to design the ultimate railfan's layout. Mostly rural scenery. Maybe just one small city with a passenger station and a couple yard tracks, and an industry or two for looks. Run-through staging on both ends, double-track main. High volume of traffic. I can see it. Big challenge would be balancing the need for run-through staging with an adequate mainline run. As always, I'll be watching with interest.

And as far as access goes, consider a gate. Much better than a duck-under, and it would give you the option of stacking return loops, which is a big space-saver.

Jim

[Dave V]

Nothing wrong with just watching them run. Personally, I'm on the other end of the spectrum. I enjoy switching. But there are plenty of times when I'd like to just fire up an engine and let it haul a train around the room a few dozen times. And of course I'm a long ways from having a loop that will allow me to do so. 

Actually, I think it would be very cool to design the ultimate railfan's layout. Mostly rural scenery. Maybe just one small city with a passenger station and a couple yard tracks, and an industry or two for looks. Run-through staging on both ends, double-track main. High volume of traffic. I can see it. Big challenge would be balancing the need for run-through staging with an adequate mainline run. As always, I'll be watching with interest.

And as far as access goes, consider a gate. Much better than a duck-under, and it would give you the option of stacking return loops, which is a big space-saver.

Jim

The gate, while an excellent idea, sounds entirely too easy for me to screw up.  I'd be worried that over time or through temperature/moisture changes that the track alignment at the gate ends would change.

I'm thinking L or U shaped if I don't do a no-kidding duck-under.

[Chris333]

On one of my false starts in the basement I had a drop gate:
https://goo.gl/photos/CRwWH2r7mfUjibHw7
https://goo.gl/photos/kJ4fY3Ko9QjcFssV9
https://goo.gl/photos/dyHx9VDs2qbQ86h39
https://goo.gl/photos/xkaDbcrCPqhLQqhG8
Still have it leaning against the wall 

Before moving I had another one that was just a 1x4 three feet long at a door. It work perfect for many years. Just make sure both ends are solid into the wall studs. And I built guides on the layout so the gate swung up into the guides. There was also a stop so it would go up any higher and kept the track straight and level over the small gap.

I slide lock like this held it up:
https://www.menards.com/main/doors-windows-millwork/door-window-cabinet-hardware/cabinet-decor-hardware/home-security-hardware/first-watch-security-solid-brass-slide-bolt-door-lock/p-1444425010336.htm

Main reason for the gate was because I didn't want turn back loops. Also didn't want hidden track behind the whole layout, but I guess in your case a 2 track turn back loop could end up looking like a 4 track mainline in the middle.