adds a whole bunch of operational potential in a small/busy area

Pretty hard to turn down operational potential if you can swing it. Perhaps you could make provision for adding this later.

Dick

Go for it

If it's on the prototype, and you can model it without too much trouble, I'd go for it.  Worst case, you don't use the new staging tracks much.  Better that than to have to go back and add them later.  What if, tomorrow, you saw BNSF-CP movements pick up on the prototype?

To me it sounds like you have

To me it sounds like you have answered your own question, difficult ,hard to reach and hidden .You just know where the probs are gunna be.two cents.

Les

I would put the tracks in

The staging will be nice to have. The turn outs are accessible and their should not be an issue with backing up trains of 20 cars or less on straight or curved track with out turn outs.  If the track is installed properly and the rolling stock is up to standards you should have no issue at all. I routinely test run equipment backwards at speed to be sure it will function reliably. Real railroads would often be required to run in reverse for miles to get from a branch to the main and our models should also be capable of doing so as well.

Rob in Texas.

Got the rubber stamp...

from the war department. er... Land Titles Office... in fact she wondered why I was even considering not cutting those holes. Silly me !

.

Hi Bill

I think option number 2 will give you more variety.

However I am strong believer in keeping things simple, so I would choose option 1 . It's fine to have a cut of cars siting there looking pretty and there is nothing to stop you from "rotating" other freight cars in their place from time to time. You do not required hidden staging for doing so.

My $0.01

Syl

How much improvement?

It looks interesting - live interchange operations usually do.

But I'd suggest taking a look at it numerically. Lets call the ops potential of your layout without the live interchange 100%. If the interchange is added, will the ops potential become 101% of the previous track plan because there is so much going on already? 110%? 120% because these area is a significant portion of the layout?

Balancing the added ops potential...

I find that driving a train in or out of a place where it can't be seen is not particularly pleasant. What do you do if a train fails to appear?

Is it due to incorrect DCC address? Lack of track power? Direction set wrong (is fwd into or out of the hidden yard)? Loco derailed? DCC decoder lost it's mind and address?

If you can't see the train it's much harder to deal with these things. If you'll be running op sessions where the throttle jockey will be someone besides yourself, the DCC address and wrong direction problems may be likely situations (how many times when you've just selected a different engine and the headlights aren't on to give you a clue have you gotten the direction wrong?

Driving a train in a helix where there's no viability makes me tense up. I think, the hidden staging would be the same. Of course your mileage may vary.

I'd suggest going for it if the additional operation will make a significant difference in the overall scheme of things.

But worst case, if it proves unpopular to run in and out of invisible staging, you're no worse off then you were before.

Cheers,

Charlie

Well...

I'm with Charlie on the hidden track thing, but I do like the additional variety in operation. My next helix will have cutouts half way with scenery to alleviate any concerns. Maybe in your case a camera showing the hidden trackage?

On a somewhat related topic, do you know of any track that at one time ran East from Emerson towards the Vita and Piney area Bill?? There seems to be an abandoned ROW here and there all thru the area, and looks as tho it may have hooked up with the Sprague line. Maybe I can find something in the archives...

Operational improvement

Of course, you are correct Charlie, Hidden trackage is a pain. I should note that this trackage will be accessible from the eve crawl spaces. So it's not the end of the world to get at it. Just less than ideal.

The layout is designed to be operated by TWO 2 man crews at most. But usually just me.

Operationally, my railroad, without this trackage will see 3 to 4 trains max. Usually only TWO. Never all 5 in one session.

1. Occasional CP train at Morris to switch the CP traffic at the Paterson Elevator
2. Regular CN/BNML Emerson Turn - traverses from Winnipeg (staging) thru Morris to Emerson and back, switching along the way and interchanging with the BNSF in Noyes.
3. Occasional CN/BNML Train from Winnipeg (staging) to serve only the Paterson Elevator at Morris.
4. Regular BNSF train at Noyes - switches Noyes and interchanges with the CN/BNML Emerson Turn.
5. Possible BNSF traffic from Noyes to Winnipeg (or vice versa) via Morris - as started this year on the BNML.

What could the hidden CP trackage add?

1. Regular CP Train from Noyes to Winnipeg or vice versa.
   This is operationally interesting because it would have to interact with the VACIS scanner when coming from Canada, into the USA.
2. Possible BNSF Grain traffic from Noyes to Winnipeg via CP - as started this year also when the BNLM is too busy for the traffic.

IF I made the Canadian side of the CP staging TWO tracks, then I could double the CP traffic or combine it with BNSF movements - ie: CP train travels north from Noyes into staging, Another CP train travels south thru the scanner from 2nd staging track, then a BNSF train travels north on the CP into the empty 2nd track.

It could be busy in Noyes!  (Noisy?)

In reality, CP passes multiple trains per day thru the Noyes crossing and it would feel silly to have the same train (even if it was swapped around from session to session) just sitting there and never have any southbound movements.

Vita

Wikipedia indicates that the railroad arrived in Vita in 1910, but it does not give any other detail.

I have often wondered if the CN Y tail east of the CP crossing continued further.

If you follow it on Google Maps, it goes straight to Ridgeville and then over to Tolstoi, up to Gardenton and then on to Vita... So I guess that's the one!

Camera

I have been considering this option. It would be easy enough to do, and not very expensive anymore.

A simple usb or wireless cam connected to my ALPS PC would do it!

aha!!

Just playing around with Google Maps and now I know how South Junction MB got it's name! You can actually follow the "scars" left from the ROW leading away from that tail track you spoke of and it does head thru all those little towns, even a nudist colony named after a bear. (Muskau... get it?)

For anyone following Bill's build Emerson and Noyes has some very interesting track work and bridges, past and present!

If you end up using the

If you end up using the camera, what about having two (more if you choose?) tracks in there with a second switch off the end with a small tail track that you can use to run around the train once the other train departs?

Colony?

nope. I don't get it.

Additonal Tracks in CP Staging

2 tracks max here. There is not room for any more given the clearance of the roof. I think for simplicity, I'll just keep it to two stub tracks.

Sad discovery

Well this was an exercise on futility.

I made up some cardboard mock ups of the sub-roadbed to test the fit in the small cubby behind Noyes and discovered that there is no way I can get a train to fit in there. The corner is blocked by the interior of the roof valley at this location.

There area behind Emerson would work fine, but behind Noyes? No way.

So with this discovery, I will be cancelling the plans for both sections of CP staging and going back to the original plan.

Oh well .

On the plus side, I discovered this before making any holes that would affect the backdrop!

WELL THERE GOES ANOTHER GOOD

WELL THERE GOES ANOTHER GOOD ARGUMENT RIGHT DOWN THE DRAIN. We could have likely gotten at least another good ten pages of debate and dead horse beating out of this topic, with numerous technical advise covering everything from train orders to computers.

All kidding aside it is too bad you lost the chance for an extra train for your layout.

Rob in Texas

THERE GOES ANOTHER GOOD ARGUMENT RIGHT DOWN THE DRAIN.

We can always discuss putting "surround" staging in in front of the backdrop  :> ) ...........DaveB

I think ...

... that in the long run, you will be happier that you don't have tracks behind the wall there.  Just my thoughts.