Author Topic: The Transcontinental PRR  (Read 124613 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

conrail98

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1456
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +41
Re: The Transcontinental PRR
« Reply #60 on: August 27, 2011, 07:41:11 PM »
0
Eric, what about moving the branch to the aisle and moving the main slightly back. You might be able to gain enough in elevation with the branch, give a "look-down" feel from the branch to the main and be better able to stack the 3 lines (main, helix, mine) better? Just a thought,

Phil
- Phil

eric220

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3714
  • Gender: Male
  • Continuing my abomination unto history
  • Respect: +623
    • The Modern PRR
Re: The Transcontinental PRR
« Reply #61 on: August 27, 2011, 08:26:36 PM »
0
I actually thought about doing that.  Within the scene, it works.  (Railroad) East of the scene, it causes a problem.  The branch joins the main east of the universal crossover.  There is no way to get from the westbound main (the track closest to the aisle) to the eastbound secondary (the track furthest from the aisle), which is what connects to the coal yard at Paradise.



A potential solution would be to move the coal yard to the front, closest to the operator.  It would mean repurposing the tracks in the Curve (basically moving the outside track to the inside).  In making that graphic, I realized that it's actually not as complicated a proposition as I initially thought.  The main disadvantage is that it would move the coal yard (which is functionally an A/D yard) in front of one of the classification tracks' ladders.  Not sure how I feel about that.
-Eric

Modeling a transcontinental PRR
http://www.pennsylvania-railroad.com

eric220

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3714
  • Gender: Male
  • Continuing my abomination unto history
  • Respect: +623
    • The Modern PRR
Re: The Transcontinental PRR
« Reply #62 on: August 28, 2011, 04:51:51 PM »
0
Here's a first draft of what that would look like:



Access to the loader would be via the switchback at the top of the image.  Interestingly, this arrangement removes the need for a reversing section.  It also means that the loader can be worked entirely from one end, meaning I can make its yard a stub.



One thing that I overlooked was the need for a runaround/engine escape for the locomotive leading the train from the mine to the yard.  That's an awful long way to push the train.

The more I look at this, the more I see possibilities.... Stand by.


-Eric

Modeling a transcontinental PRR
http://www.pennsylvania-railroad.com

eric220

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3714
  • Gender: Male
  • Continuing my abomination unto history
  • Respect: +623
    • The Modern PRR
Re: The Transcontinental PRR
« Reply #63 on: August 28, 2011, 07:58:09 PM »
0
I've never really liked the Panther Creek Branch splitting off before or in the middle of the universal crossover.  Didn't seem very "Pennsy" (or prototypical at all).  After I switched the Panther Creek Branch to the track closest to the aisle, I saw a new possibility: Continue the branch up the helix with the mains.  That also gave me the inspiration to tweak Newark around a little, and the result is this:



A little closer in on the Panther Creek area.



One of the major stumbling blocks of this whole redesign was the fact that the Panther Creek mine could not move due to its relationship with the power plant in Newark.  With the tweaks in Newark, I realized that I did have room for the transition to occur in one other place.  After I swung the mains a few more degrees coming through Panther Creek, I had room to move the whole branch and mine scene down to the end of the peninsula.  Now it's not competing for space with the universal crossovers, and it is visually its own scene.  Here's what it looks like with all of the hidden track... well, hidden.



All of the yards and switchbacks involved with the mine are designed for a 30" train (one piece of flex track).  Just for giggles, I decided to see what a 30" train would look like.



Substituting the shorter cars for the Laurel Valley cars allows one more car, as does swapping the locomotive for a 44-tonner.  Even so, that looks like a decent mine run.

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 08:13:23 AM by eric220 »
-Eric

Modeling a transcontinental PRR
http://www.pennsylvania-railroad.com

wm3798

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 16126
  • Gender: Male
  • I like models. She likes antiques. Perfect!
  • Respect: +6468
    • Western Maryland Railway Western Lines
Re: The Transcontinental PRR
« Reply #64 on: August 28, 2011, 09:55:06 PM »
0
Them's is some sharp lookin' hoppers you got there...

Lee
Rockin' It Old School

Lee Weldon www.wmrywesternlines.net

eric220

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3714
  • Gender: Male
  • Continuing my abomination unto history
  • Respect: +623
    • The Modern PRR
Re: The Transcontinental PRR
« Reply #65 on: August 31, 2011, 05:57:07 PM »
0
Got a little more construction time in last night.  I was hoping to finish wiring up the lower staging yard so that I could test run it, but apparently one of the Gandy Dancers made off with my solder.  So, back to track laying.  I got the east ladder and another track of the upper staging yard down.



I might have been able to get another track down, but I ran out of rerailers.  Looks like a trip to the LTS is on the agenda!
-Eric

Modeling a transcontinental PRR
http://www.pennsylvania-railroad.com

eric220

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3714
  • Gender: Male
  • Continuing my abomination unto history
  • Respect: +623
    • The Modern PRR
Re: The Transcontinental PRR
« Reply #66 on: September 02, 2011, 08:34:05 PM »
0
I've been messing around with the arrangement for the power plant in Newark, and I decided to just pull the buildings out and arrange them.  One thing lead to another, and I wound up mocking up all of one of the more densely clustered parts of Newark:



Here it is:



I'm liking the way it's shaping up!
-Eric

Modeling a transcontinental PRR
http://www.pennsylvania-railroad.com

S Class

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 300
  • Respect: +5
Re: The Transcontinental PRR
« Reply #67 on: September 09, 2011, 06:14:32 AM »
0
At the risk of invoking groans of "there he goes again," I popped this chunk of layout into AnyRail and found a few options--as well as a few problems.

You can angle the station tracks a few degrees without adding any significant depth to the benchwork; actually, it's wider on the left end by only an inch or so, and slims down at the right end by a few inches.
 


One problem I found is that the staging yard throat at the left end was impossible to render with Atlas switches as it was drawn. By rearranging the switches and using #5s, I could squash it in, but I think that area needs a lot more tinkering to smooth it out. Also, the geometry of the left end of the station throat is pretty hairy. #5s and a couple of curved TOs was the only way I could get things to fit, so that probably warrants more work as well. Not to mention some of the minimum radii are down in the 12-14 inch range in that area.

Gents Sorry to bring this up but there was a long back and forth between Eric and David K about the right hand throat to  the passenger station, I've tried finding it again but I thought it was in this thread - it isn't and I thought it could have been in one of the weekend updates but I'm not having any luck. So I was wondering David if you still have the plan could you let me know what track work you used? I thought it was atlas c55 but I can't get  get a throat of a *ahem* "Borrowed" and "similar" design line up properly on a plan I'm doing.
Regards
Tony A

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 13424
  • Respect: +7026
Re: The Transcontinental PRR
« Reply #68 on: September 09, 2011, 08:48:38 AM »
0
Gents Sorry to bring this up but there was a long back and forth between Eric and David K about the right hand throat to  the passenger station, I've tried finding it again but I thought it was in this thread - it isn't and I thought it could have been in one of the weekend updates but I'm not having any luck. So I was wondering David if you still have the plan could you let me know what track work you used? I thought it was atlas c55 but I can't get  get a throat of a *ahem* "Borrowed" and "similar" design line up properly on a plan I'm doing.

I think this is the thread you want: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=22316.0

S Class

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 300
  • Respect: +5
Re: The Transcontinental PRR
« Reply #69 on: September 10, 2011, 02:56:54 AM »
0
General Discussion! Ugh I'm such a spaz why didn't I think to look there  :facepalm:

Thank you Mr smith, you are both a gentleman and a scholar.
Regards
Tony A

eric220

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3714
  • Gender: Male
  • Continuing my abomination unto history
  • Respect: +623
    • The Modern PRR
Re: The Transcontinental PRR
« Reply #70 on: September 11, 2011, 12:34:16 AM »
0
I finished up the upper staging yard tonight.  I didn't use the CSX contractors this time.   :D



There's going to be a bit of a hiatus in construction for a couple of weeks, so it felt good to get to this milestone.
-Eric

Modeling a transcontinental PRR
http://www.pennsylvania-railroad.com

eric220

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3714
  • Gender: Male
  • Continuing my abomination unto history
  • Respect: +623
    • The Modern PRR
Re: The Transcontinental PRR
« Reply #71 on: September 22, 2011, 02:42:35 PM »
0
When Davefoxx and I met last week, we talked about the plans that I posted regarding the helix and redesigned coal mine.  The idea that we discussed was removing one of the spurs into Newark and connecting the mine yard directly to the power plant yard.  Something like this:



Obviously, if I go this route, I'm going to have to do some major redesign in Newark.  Not the least of which is a power plant built out of either Walthers or DPM modulars.  Thoughts?
-Eric

Modeling a transcontinental PRR
http://www.pennsylvania-railroad.com

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 13424
  • Respect: +7026
Re: The Transcontinental PRR
« Reply #72 on: September 22, 2011, 04:28:12 PM »
0
Looks like a lot of power plant traffic would wind up twisting through and around an industrial area and, worst of all, a double-slip switch smack in the middle. That looks like a recipe for Trouble, with a big fat T.

Consider giving the power plant its own trackage, something along these lines...



This would avoid the trouble-spot, and allow the power plant and the industries to be worked independently.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 05:19:07 PM by David K. Smith »

davefoxx

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11675
  • Gender: Male
  • TRW Plaid Member
  • Respect: +6802
Re: The Transcontinental PRR
« Reply #73 on: September 22, 2011, 06:01:24 PM »
0
I like DKS' suggestion.  One problem that remains, though, how to deal with the disappearance of the double-track mainline.  It really can't disappear under the highway bridge as in your last plan, Eric (or is there a tunnel portal under there?).  So, that's another hole (or tunnel) through the backdrop.  What are the elevations of the track in this area?

By the way, keep in mind that the backdrop probably doesn't have to be perfectly straight.  You might decide to shift the end towards the mine to gain a little more real estate on the power plant side.

DFF

Member: ACL/SAL Historical Society
Member: Wilmington & Western RR
A Proud HOer
BUY ALL THE TRAINS!

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 13424
  • Respect: +7026
Re: The Transcontinental PRR
« Reply #74 on: September 22, 2011, 07:42:02 PM »
0
By the way, keep in mind that the backdrop probably doesn't have to be perfectly straight.  You might decide to shift the end towards the mine to gain a little more real estate on the power plant side.

+1