PRR/Conrail Juniata Division Engineering Report

[Dave V]

Something to consider...  Doing this conserves enough code 55 track that I probably have enough on hand to do the expansion and relay the existing JD to match.

That fact, plus the fact that no existing piece of layout is lost plus the fact that there's not as much requirement for new structures makes this perhaps the most attractive alternative thus far.

I don't think I'd try to violate Hunt by cramming it where it won't fit, but this also gives me a chance to include a little catenary and some Harrisburg hotness.

[Chris333]

The "look" of that curve is why I like this one better:
http://davidksmith.com/images/juniata_5.jpg

Keep in mind you probably wont be reaching to those last 3 tracks often. And your layout is pretty low so the reach shouldn't be that bad. You can put the steel mill in the back corner where the house it now.

[Dave V]

I dunno...  Even at the current height it's not easy to reach the 3' from one side of the JD to the other.  It's worth noting that the left edge here goes against a wall.

I agree, the curve is not as pretty...  But what if I curve them in toward the yard a bit in a slight S before swinging around to the bridge?

[crrcoal]

I was thinking of something along these lines--

Mr Smith- OMG this just might be the answer to my prayers; Looking at just the enola section, if you have a moment, could you show what it would be like with the loop connected behind the engine house? I have 9.5 feet to play with so there should be no loss of real estate and maybe it would add the ladder runaround Dave talked about? I doubt a switching lead would fit though. The area behind the yard would be hidden staging. Strictly yard ops!     What is the radius?

[Dave V]

Argh, well the other downside to the Enola-in-front plan is that the entire yard ends up as a facing point. 

Maybe reaching is better, who knows.  I may be able to pull away from the wall and access both sides if I move Jacob's layout out of the room.

This plan ends up 9'8" wide in a 14'10" room.  I get ~2.5' aisles on either side that way.  I guess that's acceptable.  It's not ideal, though.  Would prefer 3'+.

[DKS]

Well, it's tough keeping up with the discussion; I'm still back at the Steelton suggestion. I do think the yard up front not only offers better access and overall visual appearance, but it's far easier to build. As for fixing the nasty curve, as much as I dislike running tracks parallel to the edges, moving the 4-track bridge parallel to the back--and also moving the crossovers elsewhere--solves this and other issues. So, FWIW:

Argh, well the other downside to the Enola-in-front plan is that the entire yard ends up as a facing point.

How do you figure this? The orientation of the yard tracks to the mainline is the same no matter how Enola is positioned. For right-hand running, they're trailing.

[Dave V]

You're absolutely right, DKS...  Total brain fart on my part.  In between iPhone visits to TRW I'm building my lesson plan for Monday's lecture on conservation of potential vorticity and its impact on vertical motion and vortex spin-up.  Sort of the fluid analog to angular momentum, but also including thermodynamic arguments.

Yes, that most recent plan looks the most doable.  In fact, here's an idea...  I can buy a 30" door and rip it into a. 12 and an 18!  I just need to insert a piece of wood on each cut edge to seal it up and restore the strength.

Using doors ensures consistent thickness.

[DKS]

I can buy a 30" door and rip it into a. 12 and an 18!  I just need to insert a piece of wood on each cut edge to seal it up and restore the strength.

I was going to suggest doing precisely that.

...I'm building my lesson plan for Monday's lecture on conservation of potential vorticity and its impact on vertical motion and vortex spin-up.  Sort of the fluid analog to angular momentum, but also including thermodynamic arguments.

Ouch. My brain (what there's left of it) hurts just trying to read that.

[Chris333]

What about angling the whole yard 2 or 3 inches to help the look of that curve?

[wazzou]

I like this one.

[eric220]

I don't like it.

 

That's not in any way intended to knock DKS's wonderful plans. His creative outlook is nothing short of inspirational. With that said, what I don't like is reusing Enola. Dave, you spent quite a bit of time talking to me about its shortcomings and how you would have designed it differently. You also talked about how harrowing backup moves into Enola are around a 90-degree turn. These plans either put that turn way in the back or expand it to a 180! You really didn't seem happy with Enola, and it really surprises me to see you trying to shoehorn it into a new plan. Those new plans look like spaghetti bowls that don't do much of anything to resolve Enola's shortcomings, and they make it very hard to hide the model-railroadiness of the layout. You're also talking about compromising your aisle width and moving Apex out to accommodate it. In the long run, I think you will be much happier with this:



It's much more suited to supporting roundy-round railfanning ops, and its five track yard probably has better capacity than even the expanded Enola's seven.

Edit: Wazzou beat me to it. 

[Dave V]

I will admit, none of the plans that reuse Enola look as graceful the trackplan immediately above.

[eric220]

You know, if you don't reuse Enola, you could always store it for use at larger venues like shows. There's nothing in the new plan that would prevent you from attaching it with a sky board between it and Duncannon.

[CodyO]

Have to agree with eric and wazzou on the plan.
I would think adding a reversing track would be the only thing the plan could use.
Personal perference, but since you`ll have staging why not add a track to reverse your trains, so the 0-5-0 is never called on?

[Bob Bufkin]

Gotta agree with the reversing track.  Some type of wye or turntable or crossover to change directions for your locomotives, etc without using the 5 finger switch move.