Vancouver port layout ideas

[GaryHinshaw]

One way to sort out the staging needs is to list the trains.  Some are generic enough to pull off with CN or CP power, while others are specific to CN.

This is a very important exercise.  So you have identified ~10 trains you'd like to have on the layout, but I'm still a bit unclear about how long you'd like them to be: your first staging plan had 78" tracks, but later you mention 8'-9' trains, and Mark's reverted loop plan has 12' tracks.  It's good to nail down typical train length early on so you can optimize the length of the staging tracks and ensure that your terminal facilities can accommodate them!

I think the next planning exercise is to sketch out how each of these trains would operate.  For example,  a sulphur or coal train would come out of staging, traverse the layout clockwise and enter the load-out*.  The load-out loop appears to be about 7' long, so that probably sets the length for that train.   Repeat for the other trains on your list.  To keep things simple, first assume that each train operates in isolation and has a task.  How long a train could your terminal accommodate for that task?  Next, if you plan two or three operators, you could start to worry about train interactions: does an unloading sulphur train foul the intermodal lead?  etc.  The planning can get complicated, but that is exactly the feature that makes operations interesting!

I am firmly in the "you can never have too much staging" camp.  (I worked out the following stats for my layout: the un-sceniced staging has 514' of track and 45 turnouts, while the (to-be) sceniced portion has 392' of track and 43 turnouts.  Less than half the total infrastructure is sceniced. It's no wonder I'm still constructing my staging...)  I'd be curious to see Mark's reverted loop sketch.  Five 12' tracks could be plenty if you have 6' trains, but otherwise it might be too skimpy.

As long as I have the floor, I'll make another plug for a pit-style plan (I know it's not your preference, but hear me out.).  You could then have a full loop of staging tracks down below with a scheme that doesn't require any turnaround.  In effect, the helix and staging would just comprise part of a closed loop that includes the upper deck tracks.  Your last plan has the helix oriented clockwise down: if you use right-hand running in the helix, the inner track would be "downbound" and it would exit the helix at the bottom heading towards the right in your plan.  This would lead to a staging loop that traversed the pit counterclockwise and then re-entered the helix on the outer "upbound" track.  My guess is that you could easily get 5-6 16' tracks in this configuration, which could accommodate ~10 8' trains (2 per track).  Of course the down-side is access: you would want to make the main deck ~60" to keep the duck-under reasonable.   I think you could make the pit ~2.5' x 5' which is decent for two people, but probably not three.  It would also alleviate some of the reach issues your current plan has.

Just some more food for thought,
-gfh

*P.S. Your plan has a right-hand crossover at the top of the helix, but there is no left-hand crossover in the plan.  I think you might want to add one for flexibility.  For example, if a sulphur train comes up the outer track of the helix, it would have to back into the load-out.  These are the kind of scenarios you should work through, train by train.

[Scottl]

Thanks for your thoughts Gary.  I will work on a revision of the plans and draw up the reverted loop idea Mark sent me.  The latter may have some issues as the dimensions are not identical, but his solution is clever and might work nicely.  I want to consider reversing direction of the helix too as that gives me better options for staging and brings the petroleum switching tracks to the front side of the layout where they will be easier to reach. 

The train length has been a bit of a moving target.  I started with 7' trains which is a pair of locomotives and about 15-18 cars.  The staging yard is actually longer at around 8', and Mark was able to come up with 12' staging leads.  I don't want to go with trains that long, but it would be nice to have longer trains and they might add interest by clogging things up. 

In terms of the crossover, I placed one to facilitate moving cuts of cars over to the A/D yard from intermodal and phosphate, but note that the dual track converges near the phosphate so the opposite maneuver is possible too. 

I agree I need to think through the movements now.  I have been doing this informally and in isolation of other traffic, but formalizing it will help identify any issues and limitations.

[Scottl]

Oh, I forgot to mention that I'm still brewing about the pit concept.  I really don't like idea of ducking under to get to operate and I don't think it will be amenable to multiple people, but it does solve many of the space problems.

My train budget is blown anyway, so there is no risk I will do anything rash 

[djconway]

Having operated duck unders in my teens, twenties, thirties, forties, fifties, and sixties I found it doesn't get easier as you get older.  There is a reason why they fell out of favor over time.  Liftouts are a better choice but your construction has to be very precise.

[C855B]

Oh, I forgot to mention that I'm still brewing about the pit concept. ...

You can always do what they did at the Greeley, CO layout - they cut step pits into the concrete, down and up. I never really looked to see if there was any accommodation for groundwater seepage such as drains in the pits.

My layout is a huge undertaking, yes, but I'm not that crazy.

[Scottl]

LOL, there won't be any concrete cutting for the layout.  I'll buy an acreage and build a shed to rival yours before I do any digging in the floor

[Scottl]

I came back to this layout concept and tried to work out staging.  I prefer double ended staging so I don' t have long backing moves, especially as I have mostly truck-mounted couplers. 

The dimensions of the upper deck are a major constraint on how many tracks I can do for the bottom staging if I want to keep it double ended for convenience and with a reasonable minimum radius.  Here is a version with four tracks in staging and a re-jig of the upper deck.  I like this version as it adds the prototypical potash off-load, gives the opportunity for storing some trains in A/D on the upper deck, and gives me four very long (178") staging tracks with 13.8" minimum radius.  These would be long enough for two trains so it is effectively 8 trains of storage, and all of the turnouts are at the front of the staging level for access.  SCARM would not let me duplicate the benchwork outline, so you have to take my word for it that it fits.

Compared to the Ashcroft Terminal concept, this layout would offer a lot of operational value for 1-3 people, avoid duck-unders, take less space in the room, and I think be relatively simple to build.  The helix would be unavoidable, but I can live with that, I think.  Some of the turnouts on the back of the A/D are 36" reach which is a lot, but I expect only needing to access them occasionally.  I could shorten the A/D tracks and move them closer to the front by about 6". 

Thoughts?

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I like it. Especially the "easy to build" aspect.

[OldEastRR]

If this plan is still undergoing revisions:

How about a slip right next to the phosphate loading? No need to actually put a waterway, pier and ship there, but leaving the notched-out space for that would give you better access to the corner. I don't know how the unloading equipment looks, but maybe having the ship right next to the facility might let that footprint be slimmer and/or more compact.

This cuts into the intermodal area but if you curve the in-pavement IM unloading tracks (possibly the main yard too) off the edge of the layout in the direction of the coal/sulphur unloading, and extend the pavement off the edge too, then you give the illusion of a much large facility. That lets  you say the access road is at the end of that part (the part off the layout).  Even with the slip, you get a "back corner" of the intermodal yard where all the surplus, damaged and stock-piled containers and chassis can be stored. Making a nice visual, but not in the way of anything.

You must love sulphur. That is a huge chunk of layout dedicated to a non-operating piece of scenery. Just the overhead conveyor going off the edge of the layout to a mythical mountain of sulpher would keep the operation, AND give you more room to shift the unloading tracks closer to the edge, even increase their radii.

And oil tanks. Possibly you like building the complete industrial structures of your rail industries. But I'd say switching the tank unloading tracks with the mainline/yards means you can paint oil tanks on the backdrop and free up more layout space, and eliminate that weebly-wobbly s-curve of the main/yards. The area where the tanks are now can be shifted to make a large open spot between potash loading and the re-aligned ROW.  If the sulphur tracks also shift, you might have quite a bit of open real estate there. I don't know if there are any large office/corporate buildings in the port area, but a moderately tall, long one in that space would also serve as a mini-divider between scenes. Or giant grain elevators! Or the barge loading area!

The last idea works best if the lower edge of your plan is accessible on that side.

[Scottl]

Thanks for the feedback.  I'm not really very sure what the phosphate loading is all about, but it comes from ships and I expect will have some conveyors to storage silos and then loading for the covered hoppers.  As much as a slip or ship in the scene would be neat, I decided it was packing in too much.

The sulphur-coal loop is a neat scene that requires trains pass through the unloads, so it is operations of sorts.  This version is a mangle of two unloading sites on the Vancouver waterfront, one that does just sulphur and the other that does coal and potash.  I do have a strange affinity for sulphur though, something to do with going down to the CP mainline as a kid in Banff and picking up bags of the sulphur that had blown out of the gondolas.  It amused us as kids, but my mother was appalled.  Still, handling the unit trains is a big part of modern railroading so I want to think about incorporating it, even if it is just moving a train through at a crawl and tying up the yard in the process a bit.

I would like to build some kind of petroleum industry, probably storage tanks and some minor distillation towers.   I'm using the tanks to hide the start of the helix, so I need something there.

I like your thinking about the intermodal yard- that was pretty much the sort of arrangement I was contemplating so I'll think more about that aspect.   

[C855B]

You cited the 36" reach on the A/D tracks. That concerns me a little, because the worst reach issue I see are the throats, and if there's ever a place to bite with running into points against you, it's a yard throat.

Not being Mr. Negativity, mind you, just relating recent issues with my own layout construction and having to redesign after about the 20th time I had to reach for the stepladder to clear an "oopsie", and it was only 30".

[Scottl]

I can move the yard throat forward a few inches, say to about 30" reach.  I have long arms, but I agree it is not great.  Of course, I'm going to hand lay turnouts and they will be flawless 

[C855B]

... I'm going to hand lay turnouts and they will be flawless 

It's not the trackwork I'm concerned about.

[Scottl]

I fiddled with it and that throat is now 29" away.  But yes, I see your point. 

[Cajonpassfan]

I liked the yard throat better closer to front edge, when it entered the helix the other way, clockwise. If you do an oval helix, or just one oval turn, you can still do it that way AND have your hidden yard throat close to the front edge...
Otto K.