Vancouver port layout ideas

[coldriver]

Those barge operations are really interesting.  I had not initially thought about this as an element, but it gives me food for thought.

I was involved with loading the Alaska-bound barges in Seattle in the late 90's as an Industrial Yardmaster and it was quite often an adventure (like the time the switch crew shoved so fast onto the barge that the force of the cars hitting the wheel stops at the back of the barge broke the barge away from the slip leaving a railcar spanning the barge and the slip with nothing but Puget Sound underneath...).  Operationally we would get a very specific loading plan from Crowley Marine and every car had to be in a specific spot on the barge to balance the load (both side to side and front to back).  The loading sequence was also carefully followed - as I recall we started loading on the middle tracks and then alternated sides loading tracks outward.  It would be hard to imagine a more switching intensive model railroad industry!   Today's Vancouver barge operations are mostly inbound pulp production chemicals with some outbound paper, although Vancouver Island does (or did up until recently) get some LPG and animal feed loads.  Mr. Dance will not be happy to know that some by-product chemicals from the Trail,BC smelter are transloaded to BNSF at Waneta,BC (rather than shipped directly on CP via Nelson) and eventually find their way to coastal BC pulp mills via the Annacis barge slip...

[Scottl]

I've had a lot of input- thanks everyone. 

Here is another version with more thought to staging and managing more trains.  I have replaced the oval continuous running with a helix and lower level staging yard and made the top level a large return loop.  The back yard is a 3-4 track A/D yard with a few industries on the back for challenge.  I've moved the lumber yard (unloading shipments from the interior) and rearranged the phosphate load (phosphate is imported by ship from Morocco).  I've tried to make the front tracks more fluid.   I've marked out some real estate for a barge operation (which sounds both interesting and fitting for the modern theme).  The sulphur/coal unload loop would need to shift or the radius would have to decrease. 

I have some other possibilities that have been suggested, including a warehouse district and smaller yards.  I'm not sure what to do with those ideas but I am intrigued.  It would mean less emphasis on big unit trains and more on carload freight.  I would probably need a 4-axle loco for the job. 

Comments and criticism welcome.

[mmagliaro]

Not from an operations standpoint, but from a "usability" standpoint, I think the two far L-shaped corners are too far from the reach of an operator.    It could be a real pain to manipulate, uncouple, or rerail trains in those areas, not to mention working on the
layout itself (repairs or even initial construction).  Those curved areas out behind the phosphate loading area and the petroleum unload look like they are about a 4 foot reach!

I don't know what your space constraints are around this benchwork, but could you cut out some of the benchwork in the "armpits" of those L-shapes, so you can stand in closer and reach those far corners better?   To gain back the real estate you would give up, you might have to extend the legs of your "U" a foot or two.  Do have any room to do that?

This reachability thing is just a pet peeve of mine.  That loose rule of "no further reach than 30 inches" we read about is a good one, and even 30 inches is tough.

[chuck geiger]

Nice reminds me of the plan years ago for Richmond RR in the Bay Area.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I think planning in the non-rail elements is going to be absolutely key to making this look good and not like a spaghetti bowl layout of yore.

I'd highly recommend adding structures and scenery to the plan to make sure that you can achieve what you want. Given the beauty of your current project, I don't think you'll be happy with something that has operational potential, but looks "dumb".

Making something this busy look good and realistic is possible, but it's gonna take some work. Do the groundwork for it now.

A good example: how to trucks and people get to the grain transload? Is there a private crossing across the "main"?

[Scottl]

Max:  yes, the reach is a problem in a few spots.  Behind the phosphate terminal the tracks are about 36" from the edge and much of the back trackage is 30" or so. That is not going to be viable to operate.  That is a concern to add to deal with in the next revision, especially those industries along the back side.

Ed:  I appreciate the point, I have been thinking about this all along but I have not managed to incorporate those details into the track plan.  Part of the reason is I am still getting used to SCARM and part of it is due to pure expedience at this stage in planning.  One aspect I want to develop is truck access for the intermodal terminal.  I envision this (following the prototype) as an overpass from back to front with tight clearances.  Much of the prototype is built into a narrow area along the shore hemmed in by the city and landscape so road access is often quite contrived. 

I'm not known for fitting a lot of track in but even I have reservations about how much I have on the top deck.  I'm just not sure what is a good balance between trackage and the space I have.

[basementcalling]

I like the cocept, but concur with drawbacks others have raised.

In addition, I would visually separate the lumber and grain loading areas. Maybe move the lumber throat trackage to the other yard throat against the layout edge?

ARE you going to be able to do loads in empties out on the coal and sulphur area? IF not the realism will suffer. 

Do you want ANY hidden staging given how complex it would need to be to service this many industries? What about visible staging representing a harbor sorting yard on one side, and then your must have industries on the other, just fewer of them? 

Seems a port would be a good place to use a photo realistic backdrop too, and all this looks to be one scene with no dividers.

I'm very interested to see what Bernie K. has to offer in his new waterfront/harbor modeling book coming out early next year. That might interest you and d impact planning.

Don't rush it, as this idea deserves time to gel properly.

[mmagliaro]

I will say that when I saw the first plan, I was excited about the look and feel of it, so something about it is "right".
Don't give up on.  Keep pecking away.

Staging is always a problem.  Even for a continuous-run "roundy rounder" like me, having enough room to store and make up trains
is hard to do with packing too much track into the scene or adding a second level. 

[Scottl]

This is some further refinement.  I took up the challenge to envision the scenic context a bit and also reduced the maximum reach of track.  Now the track in the back behind the phosphate loading is 36" at most, and I moved the paperboard to a more accessible location.  I've simplified the track a bit in places and I have kept to a 16" radius on main lines and the sulphur loop, and mostly 13" radius on spurs. 

I have staked out space for the main industry elements and it is definitely tight.  The intermodal yard is accessed by an overpass with a tight spiral down loop which is prototypical, although I think my version here needs to be loosened up and will need to take more space.  It is all on pillars so there is open space below it.  The intermodal yard is far too small but hopefully with careful placement of elements it can be made to appear as a portion of a larger facility that extends into the foreground off-layout.

There is a decent grain-container transload on the CP line near the PNE that is a very compact facility, much like the one I have seen several times in Montreal while riding VIA trains.  My rendition is generous with track access and should probably be simplified.

There is now a cluster of industries to switch on one end and decent access and lead space to work. There is a through mainline loop that allows (in principle) a train to move at all times, but to get the local spots back to a manifest train build will require some time on the main.  The petroleum terminal extends beyond reach but the trackwork is accessible.   It should also provide a diversion for the helix track disappearing. 

I have sketched in elements of the sulphur and coal unload, although it is not clear to me if coal can remain in the mix. I would like to for operational reasons, but the two are separated in reality.  The track loop, conveyors and sulphur pile are all based on a prototype on the north shore and use rotary unloads

[davefoxx]

Scott,

That loop to the highway bridge is not going to work. The curve and grade would be ridiculous.  I think the loading/unloading areas for most of the industries are too small, too.  Ask a trucker.

I'm really sorry to seem to be overly-criticizing your plan, but I still think you're trying to cram too much in.  That's the risk with planning on paper or even using software.  You need to see it in 3D.

DFF

[mark dance]

Hi Scott...I might suggest you look at the lower level staging before too long.

The reason I suggest this is that when I was messing around with the designs I sent you I had a lot of difficulty getting decent storage capacity close to the front edge of the lower level especially with access at the front edge for switch maintenance.  And adding more and more helix turns to get vertical clearance isn't a great idea if it can be avoided I don't think...the time spent going in circles during a session can be quite annoying. 

To get the switches at the front and a decent storage capacity given your layout's footprint your helix may need to turn in the other direction - if you leave it in the same spot - in which case this influences things on the visible deck a lot.

just a suggestion

md

[Scottl]

Yeah, that loop is crazy tight.  As presented, some of the roads are off-site, such as the intermodal yard where much more space is needed for trucks.  But I'm interested in trains and not especially with trucks, so I want to realistically give them space but not at expense of the main subject.  Your points are good and welcome for sure.  That bridge loop has to change no matter what.

Here is the problem as I see it:  how to make it interesting to operate and resemble the modern setting, which is basically dealing with big blocks of cars (or entire unit trains) in a modest space.  It is a lot of track in one space, but no more than I routinely see on these pages in yards and certainly it is consistent with the prototype.  The comments about too little staging have given way to too much track.   

Mark, you are right about the lower staging issue. The layout perimeter is not ideal for staging but represents the best use of the room space, unless I go to the operator pit style that Gary suggested (which I'm reluctant to do).  I've tried a few approaches (including the one you sent me) and they all suffer from some challenges.  The added complexity of construction is not attractive either, which leads me to wonder if I could just close the loop on the A/D tracks and the top of the helix and eliminate the entire lower level.

For laughs, here is another layout that has graced my screen in the past two months 

[mark dance]

Well here is another contrary idea...I am an operator first rather than a modeller and for me I would, and do, sacrifice believably for operating potential.  Each to his/her own but given layouts are such a large investment I want one that will do the most to hold my and my guests interest.

So the too tight spaces for buildings and roads don't bother me...I would be happy to use flats and under sized roads!  And careful cropping of photographs won't expose this...

Complex benchwork is a one time investment...if the staging added makes it worth it in ops then I would happily invest.  Not having adequate capacity to bring additional trains in during an operating session could kill the operating potential...  If one empty and one loaded sulfur train fills staging: end of ops/end of interest in the layout.

I wouldn't want the track curve radii to be too tight for modern equipment however.  That would bug me...but each to his own!  You need to understand where you sit on the "operations to scenic beliavability" spectrum.

md

[Scottl]

I was firmly on the scenic side of that equation in the past but I've been exposed to the dark side of the force.  I want to move more to the middle or even to the operation side to some extent. 

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.  These are the trains I have now more or less:

1.  CN international intermodal (40' cans)
2.  CN or CP coal unit train
3.  CN grain-phosphate
4.  CN or CP unit oil tanks
5.  CN mixed (boxcars, lumber, other misc.)
6.  CN sulphur unit train

Trains I can see ultimately generating based on interest and equipment availability:

7.  CN domestic intermodal (53' and 40' cans- thanks Scale Trains)
8.  CN or CP potash (although I would need a mortgage for this  )
9.  CN or CP international intermodal #2
10.  TBD, because who can resist
11. TBD, because it is the golden era of n scale!

Not every train needs to be on the layout at once, but it would be nice to have capacity for something approaching ten trains.  If I accept no more than 2 in my A/D tracks for fluidity and 1 in the sulphur loop at all times, that means I should have 6-7 trains in staging below deck plus 1 empty for fluidity.

[mark dance]

Maybe design the staging to feed the layout first? I actually think the visible portion of the layout is the simpler design problem. The bigger risks are in staging (capacity, acess, construction, clearance) so I would derisk this first.

Md