The Canal Line

[coosvalley]

First up, thanks for your comments guys!

I'm not seeing a lot of love for the extra track so far, which is a mixed blessing...I don't have a switch machine for it , and I really didn't want to "pave" another turnout anyway..but it looked naked to me...........

So, may I present a third option?....Model the siding, disconnected from the rest of the trackage, no turnout, but fresher pavement where the turnout was removed? What do you think?

[wazzou]

In my experience, it's been pretty hit and miss if a turnout was buried in asphalt, that it would have been removed.  Many times, it was just paved over.

[OldEastRR]

Since you're modeling the declining years of the area, merely a ghost of the vanished spur ROW and an abandoned/ partially-collapsed or semi-demolished building overgrown with shrubbery in that space wouldn't look out of place.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Leave it empty. Or, like @OldEastRR says, make it a "used to be" siding.

Part of the character of what you're modeling is that it's in decline, and that would help establish that.

Also, modelers, so frequently, try to cram too much stuff in. Space lets things breathe and look much more realistic.

W/O
I don't like that you'd have to pull a siding in order to spot the trailing point spur.

It happens, but having to run the locomotive into the building makes this ALSO an ugly move.

[coosvalley]

It happens, but having to run the locomotive into the building makes this ALSO an ugly move.

That building is not part of the plan, just a place holder, and there is enough room to move either car without moving the other.

I figured that if I did add the track, it would add some operational diversity, due to the fact that it would require a switchback type move, the only one on the layout..Since I won't be able to expand this layout unless I get a bigger place to live, this is it as far as what I'm going to have to work with.

But I do think I am going to model the siding disconnected, make it a "used to be" siding, without the turnout. Not only will it add some scenic interest, but also give a sense of history,or times past. I may park a truck or a dumpster on it too, but I will model the concrete loading dock as a raised area, where cars used to be unloaded, and this will avoid the "flat plane" look too..It will basically be the only area not track level.

This is good news, as now I don't have to get another switch machine, and don't have to pave over another turnout, and I think all of the other turnouts I can get away with placing in such a way so as not to have to pave the point area of the turnouts, a huge plus...

Again, thanks for the comments guys, and more are always welcome!

[coosvalley]

Since pictures can tell the story...Here it is again with the turnout, and again without, but with the siding, the horizontal white paper loosely represents the loading dock I envision, and the vertical white paper would be more brick building. As you can see, plenty of space for a loco and car, without going to disturb any car on that spur.When I see the turnout in place, I like it..So I guess I'm still on the fence..

With turnout:





And I had resisted the urge to place any locomotives on the layout until now, so it was nice to see one, even if it is a workbench shop queen...And I know, the boxcar seems to missing something

[Cajonpassfan]

W/O
I don't like that you'd have to pull a siding in order to spot the trailing point spur.

This.

[coosvalley]

This.

But, as the pics show, I don't have to do that!!!

there is enough room to move either car without moving the other.

[Cajonpassfan]

True that, if you're only switching one car at a time, and there is only one spotted inside the building on the right. So yes, that would work. You do need to put trucks under the car though 
Seriously, do what you feel is right and it will be a nice railroady scene; either way works and both have pluses and minuses.
Otto K.

[garethashenden]

And I had resisted the urge to place any locomotives on the layout until now, so it was nice to see one, even if it is a workbench shop queen...And I know, the boxcar seems to missing something

You know you're in a bad neighborhood when the boxcars end up on blocks!

[LIRR]

I'd say without....I don't like the switchback into the other building. I'd use the area for non-railroad builds: bar, diner, auto body shop, small junk yard.....

[coosvalley]

You know you're in a bad neighborhood when the boxcars end up on blocks!

 

I'd say without....I don't like the switchback into the other building. I'd use the area for non-railroad builds: bar, diner, auto body shop, small junk yard.....

IF I was modeling a different area, I would say you're right, but these canals were built to harness the waters power, and the only things on these plots of land is factories and more factories. In fact, I would bet there was a "no wood structures" rule within the city as well.

Still not feeling the love for the extra siding, and that's okay.

I do appreciate the comments!!!!! Even if I don't listen to everyone's advice, I am thankful for the input! 

[OldEastRR]

Looking at it from a railroad's point of view, they knowing their operating capabilities and the freight schedules of all the neighboring industries -- how would they lay in a spur to where that customer wants the cars to go?
Probably not the switchback -- too much car shuffling, not much working space, chances to annoy the in-building customer -- plus "oops" moments of the crew could be very damaging. My conclusion is the RR would run the switch off the other, longer spur (the Atlas building) and put a crossover through the short spur and a sharp curve to get to the other loading dock.
The RR wouldn't want a Timesaver switching puzzle, so even tho the crossing would be expensive (tho the company wanting the spur would probably have to pay for some of the cost) the alternatives of so many things that could go wrong with a switchback would outweigh any cost consideration. And the maintenance would be nothing like that needed where two busy mains cross and the hammering that diamond takes daily.
So .... having this as an abandoned spur would look pretty interesting with a partial diamond still in place -- with the frogs etc still there but only the cross rails left that are still used. And since it's a dummy there's no need to buy an expensive RTR crossing track. You can glue in bits and sections of rail that a diamond would have, but only 2 live rails need to be powered through it. All the rest, the missing spur and switch, paved over sections, etc can still be included. Or you could leave continuous track from the diamond to the end of the defunct spur, as long as the switch beyond the diamond was removed.
It's not hard to make a dummy diamond -- there's no trickiy electrical connections to figure out, which is the hardest part of building one. You could even build a curved leg through the diamond for that spur. No trains will ever run on it.
Look at all the other configurations of track this RR used in real life to get to all its spurs. This solution would not look out of place.

[Lemosteam]

I say add it.  Ed's law provides for such oddities.  As long as you have a way to pull or push a car onto either spur (you do) go for it.

[Guilford Guy]

nightmare from a professional railroader perspective, but can be a fun timesaver-esque addition to operations.