PRR Track Plan

[eric220]

OK, I think I see part of the problem. I'm not talking about having all operators seated, just the ones working the yard and Newark. That's what I meant by "static". People working specific jobs that don't require much movement.

[conrail98]

The layout I operate on has seated/static operators at 4 different locations and it's not a problem. And like Eric is planning to do, they use push-buttons on the fascia to throw turnouts. The do stand when doing lots of switching, but that's usually after they've gotten a large drop off of cars. Otherwise, they can perform most of the switching duties while seated,

Phil

[eric220]

A couple of quick questions. First, I'm planning on putting the two decks at 36" and 60". Does that sound workable?  Second, would there be any interest in me maintaining a build thread here?

[John]

A couple of quick questions. First, I'm planning on putting the two decks at 36" and 60". Does that sound workable?  Second, would there be any interest in me maintaining a build thread here?

1. 36 is too low IMHO .. 40-42 is better ..  60 may be too high ..   my layout lower level is 40-44 .. upper level is around 55 or so ..

2. Yes .. put it into the layout engineering reports section

[MichaelWinicki]

I like the 60, but I'm 6'3",  I think that height will make it difficult for some to work the upper level.  My upper deck is at 60" and it's difficult for those much shorter than myself to get a good workable view of the upper deck.

However, the 36 is way too low in my opinion.  My lower deck is at 44" and in many ways it's a better height than the upper deck at 60.   You're 6' tall, so John's thought of 40-42" is probably spot on.

[eric220]

I have to ask, and I'm going to be showing my noob colors here, why is 36" too low?

[conrail98]

I have to ask, and I'm going to be showing my noob colors here, why is 36" too low?

Eric,

The easiest thing to do is look around your home at stuff you use every day. Typically, your vanities in the bathrooms are at 30" off the ground, your Kitchen counters are at 36" with another 18" to 24" to the wall hanging cabinets. I would feel operating on a layout at 36" that is walk around would be too low. I noticed my miter saw stand was 39" high and I felt it was a pretty good working height which then led me to do some experimentation with the slotted standards and brackets to get to the heights I went with. My selected heights are 40" and 56", although both of these will mostly only be at staging and the transition loop (56" anyways),

Phil

[eric220]

So, just because construction has started doesn't mean I've stopped designing.  I've never really been happy with the coach yard.  The biggest problem is that the coach yard was stacked right above Paradise Yard, meaning operators would be competing for space.  I kept looking for a way to move the yard to the wall over Altoona.  Last week, I got my evil idea.  I took a cue from the PRR's Sunnyside Yard and designed this:



With this design, the terminal at River City is divided in half.  There are now three track for arriving (westbound) trains, and three tracks for departing (eastbound) trains. The coach yard lies in between inside the return loop.  The yard has capacity for 30 85-foot coaches with a runaround. That's a lot smaller than the old yard design, but I think it's plenty big enough.

This modification has the side effect of converting the layout to point-to-point with a continuous running option, at least as far as freight is concerned.  I used some of the space from the old coach yard for a small freight yard.  My idea here is that locals for the upper level will be assembled in Paradise, then run through to the yard in River City and dropped off.  From there, they will be operated as locals on the upper level.  The pickups from the local will be dropped off in River City and run through to Paradise for classification.  Trains running to the return loop can either run through for roundy-round operation, or stored in a small staging yard for simulation of beyond-the-basement railroading.

Finally, this modification leaves room for a second, smaller engine terminal.  With two engine terminals, freight trains can originate or terminate at either end of the layout.  The engine terminal near River City also gives a place to store passenger locomotives.

[DKS]

Question: are those 12-inch squares on the plan? If so, I'm not quite sure how you're going to build that passenger yard throat in a 2.5-foot long space. The double-crossover alone would be well over a foot.

[eric220]

Question: are those 12-inch squares on the plan? If so, I'm not quite sure how you're going to build that passenger yard throat in a 2.5-foot long space. The double-crossover alone would be well over a foot.

That's a 24" grid.

[DKS]

That's a 24" grid.

OK, thanks, that makes more sense. It still looks like a lot of track crammed in a small space, though. What size switches will you be using there?

[eric220]

OK, thanks, that makes more sense. It still looks like a lot of track crammed in a small space, though. What size switches will you be using there?

There's a mix of 10's, 7's, and 5's.  As a rule, I'm trying to use 7's wherever possible, and 10's wherever space will allow on the mains.  Unfortunately, use of slip switches in the passenger throat necessitated 5's there, as much as I would have liked to have used something broader.

[DKS]

There's a mix of 10's, 7's, and 5's.  As a rule, I'm trying to use 7's wherever possible, and 10's wherever space will allow on the mains.  Unfortunately, use of slip switches in the passenger throat necessitated 5's there, as much as I would have liked to have used something broader.

All handlaid, then? Because I tossed the design into Anyrail, and the throat as drawn is six feet long from end to end using all #5s.

[eric220]

All handlaid, then? Because I tossed the design into Anyrail, and the throat as drawn is six feet long from end to end using all #5s.

Could you post what you came up with?  With mine at 4.5 feet, one of us is clearly way off.

[DKS]