Why do you need and "inbound"

Why do you need and "inbound" and "outbound' service track?  Make one track the service track and the other the supply track.

You can't use both tracks anyway if you are receiving coal and sand, so just make one track the through track.

AC&Y Brittain Yard

FWIW...

The AC&Y at Brittain had 1 inbound track to the turntable. The facilities were in sequence: coal, sand, ash pit, finally turntable. A single outbound track off of the turntable quickly split into two - outbound road power and outbound to the yard.

The ash pit?

  The SP roundhouse in my town was torn down before I was old enough to play in the railyard ,all I recall was a turntable pit full of scrap wood which eventually got filled. It seems to me they'd put the ash pit farther away so they wouldn't have to deal with the mess up close? Maybe on the outskirts of the service yard where a gondola could be spotted to empty the pit occasionally? Was there some functional reason an ash pit would be located close to the turntable/roundhouse? .....DaveB

Don't know

Steam was long gone from the AC&Y by the time I was hanging around so I never saw it in action. The turntable and roundhouse were used for diesel servicing in my time. So, I can't definitively answer the question of why the ash pit was placed where it was. My guess is a gondola would be spotted at the very end of the coal dock track.

The drawing I made from actual AC&Y Historical Society original blueprints. The blueprints were scanned and then section at a time placed on an Illustrator art board and line art created. The drawing is 100% accurate to the original plans.

A lot has changed over the years. The AC&Y facility today (now W&LE):

Coal and Ash

Rob, coaling was most commonly done on the inbound track.  However in your case you need to consider where to spot the hoppers or gons of coal to feed the coaling operation.  Are you building a coaling tower with separate coal delivery track?  If the tower serviced the outbound track, you could place it next to the sand house, add a turnout to the track to the industry on the left and use that track to supply both coal and sand.  There also needs to be a way to remove and haul away the ashes from the pit.

DaveB, ash pits were located on inbound tracks to the roundhouse for a very good reason.  If the loco was headed to the house for service, the whole fire would be dumped into the pit prior to spotting the loco in the house.  Service would be performed after it cooled down.  It was desirable to have the ash pit in close proximity to the turntable and roundhouse.

Bob Bartizek

Lebanon, OH

http://www.pennwestrr.com

Espee used oil and not coal

I would not expect to find an ash pit near a Espee roundhouse unless you were in Northern New Mexico. Oil doesn't produce ash.  The residue from oil burning was cleaned out by throwing sand into the firebox and then it produced great black smoke normally loved by the railfans on the run bys.

As a general rule

in a steam era terminal like yours - 

typically (and that's a giant leap here...I can point out exceptions to all of this):

- water, ash pit, inspection pit on the inbound segment (if there's no room for the inspection pit on the inbound track, you can have one stall at the turntable designated as the inspection track. 

- sand/fuel water outbound. 

- Very often water/fuel (coal) would be accessed both inbound and outbound. 

Note per Dave's note above there's no reason that these functions need to have two separate tracks. If there's only room for two tracks one would be the "supply" track (coal/oil/sand delivered to the facility), the other would be the "inbound/outbound track" for accessing the house and table. 

Marty

I can recall an old layout

I can recall an old layout article In MR in maybe the 1950s about a Wisconsin, Milwaukee Road branch which had minimal engine facilities. Only a single track led onto the air powered turntable which fed a three stall roundhouse. The engine was coaled using a bucket hoist coaling shed, a water tank or standpipe provided the water and cinders were dumped on top of a piece of sheet iron covering the ties. After the engine was serviced it was moved away from the dumped cinders/ash and they were shoveled into a track side pile or more likely onto the track for yard ballast. 

Railroading is not complicated unless you make it so.

Barry

There are some great photos

There are some great photos of engine facilities on this website. It depends on what type of an operation you are modeling. The facilities can be small like the fore mentioned bucket loader or extensive like the ones in Walthers Catalog. I believe one of the blogs on here shows some very good branch type engine terminals in the comments. They are worth a read.

Modeling Sturgis MI in HO-scale NYC/PRR

Freight Car Standards - Jim Six

I would not want to be the guy putting 25 or 30 tons of coal into a tender with one of those bucket or wheel barrow operations. Think of a terminal that coaled through trains that were powered by articulated or Texas types or Berkshire locomotives. Now imagine if you were going to be seeing one of those every thirty minutes. Now you would understand the need for more than one track, it depends on the work that was needed to be done. Also as was mentioned the engine may be coaled and watered on the way in or the way out depending on the work that was needed. For example if the stoker needed repair it would be silly to cover it with coal. If the tender was leaking and needed work you would not want to re fill it with water. There are lots more reasons to do something or not to and there lies the interesting thing about maintaining the steam locomotive.

Rob in Texas

Ideas and Decisions

Lots of ideas here – clearly there is no hard and fast rule, which is good for me, because it gives me some flexibility.

I installed the ash pit close to the turntable after thinking about the process. A loco has to get into a roundhouse under its own steam and assuming that you drop the fire into the ash pit, you’re on borrowed time.

I just don’t have enough room to put all services on the same track. But I’m leaning towards water, coal and ash (in that sequence) on the inbound track and sand on the outbound.

Logic is that the first 3 are 'must haves' (unless some engineering work is planned), but sand could be an option depending on the weather conditions and load that the loco has just been through.  

Coaling is the problem area because i think terminal traffic will be at a size ‘cusp’, where a bucket operation will be stretched and a coaling tower is potentially overkill - also space is an issue again.

At the moment I’m scratch building a simple bucket operation and I think I’ll complete that and install it while considering a kit bash or scratch built small coaling tower, or alternatively a hopper and loader combo as shown in the Jim Six blog. Basically, start small and upgrade as appropriate as my operational plan increases traffic.

Many thanks to all for you input – much appreciated (looking through Jim's material was a real treat).

Rob
Cornhill & Atherton RR

Why not a third track?

What your really need is 3 tracks.

If you put a switch right behind the sand house in the track going to the freight house/industry you could extend a track to the turntable and then, based on how much room you had between tracks, choose 1 for the supply and the other two for inbound and outbound.

you drop the fire into the ash pit, you’re on borrowed time.

I didn't realize they could only run a short distance on residual steam. I've see "fireless" steam locos so I assumed regular locos could run a while without a fire....daveB

Rob

One other thing you might consider using the tracks you already have. A small coal tower could be built with the supply track being the one by your sand house. Sand pipes were often attached to coal towers so that one operation could be performed right after the other in some instances with out the need to respot the locomotive. By design your terminal will be handling smaller forms of motive power likely Consolidations or smaller and not more than 6 to 10 in a day. With that type of load your one track could handle all activities and the other be the supply track for sand and coal. On the other track the ash pit, space for the small tower discharge chute, a water crane, and the sand pipe can be added to the coal tower. If additional parking spaces are needed for engines ready to go a couple of open stall tracks could be added around the table or an engine pocket could be added in your yard. If you figure an hour to coal sand and water a locomotive you should have plenty of time to clear the track for your next loco.

When the sand is unloaded a gon can be parked to clean out the ash pit on the next track. Coal and sand could easily be delivered at the same time as there are spaces for two cars. In an emergency if designed properly locomotives could travel down the supply track if adequate clearances were maintained.

The term turning a locomotive means more than just swapping ends it means getting it ready for the road. That could mean 2 hours to maybe eight for ordinary things. So as you see you could be at capacity of your facilities with 6 locomotives, 2 stalls at 8 hours per stall in 24 hours is six locos.

Rob in Texas

3rd Track and Fire Drop

Dave (H) - 3rd track, it's a possibility although things are very tight.  I would have to move the sand house to get clearance (no big issue) and check the general geometry to see that everything fits. I had wanted to avoid too much track clutter, but the benefits might be worth it - I'll investigate - thanks....

Dave (B) -  you may well be right about running for a while on residual steam - it was just a guess on my part.

I don't know how long it takes to drop a fire and do a "rake out", or for that matter how long a loco will run without heat. There must however be a huge difference in volume between a big empty tank that a fireless has, versus the water volume in boiler tubes and firebox casing?
Maybe someone out there has the definitive answer?

Thanks again to all for assistance......

Rob

Other Options

Hi Rob in Texas – missed your post yesterday but it looks like you and I were typing at the same time !
Thanks for the very comprehensive and interesting information giving me another option / variation.

There isn’t a lot of room for extra track work, so utilizing what I already have is an attractive option but I’m keeping my mind open to all suggestions at the moment.

I think 6 locos a day sounds about right and like you say they will mostly be small. 4-4-0, 2-6-0 and 4-6-0 are the mainstream with a rare 2-8-0 and small decapod getting turned.

Thanks for your advice

Rob (not in Texas)

Rob, I just wanted to add

Rob,

I just wanted to add that I really admire your layout. You are modeling an era and equipment much different than mine but it is executed in an excellent fashion. Your craftsman ship is outstanding.

I am not aware of any one track coaling towers that would be worthy of putting on your layout so you would likely have to build it. If you choose to build one you could have the delivery pit under the coal tower and the enclosed lift mechanism to the left of the track (using the overhead view with your turntable in the bottom of the photo). I would size the bin so that it would hold about 100 tons of coal (make it the equivalent volume of two hopper cars). Your ash pit could be emptied with a small clam shell crane that is also part of your mow equipment, by wheel barrow, or by putting some type of swinging hoist on the side of your coal tower to take containers up and into a gondola.

Parts for your coal tower could likely be obtained from tichy, chutes, chains, pulleys etc, that would go well with a wood structure. One thing, that would be very important if you wanted to try and use the track under your coal tower to allow locomotives to pass through it would be to make sure the vertical clearance is great enough for locomotives and to install a 'blast plate" on the underside of the bin. The blast plate would be a piece of iron sheet. Prototype railroads placed steel plate on the underside of structures that steam locomotives passed under to keep cinders and the occasional hard clinkers from damaging the structures. The velocity of stack gases and any solid objects carried is truly amazing.

Great job on your layout, I am really enjoying watching you build it.

Rob in Texas

Enjoyment is the Key

Rob   - I really appreciate your kind words.

A lot of credit has to go to the many people (like you) who provide information and photos on the MRH forum.

There's no way I could have begun (and continue) this project without the inspiration of what I see here.

The other element has to be enjoyment - I get the biggest kick imaginable from trying to create this stuff and sharing the journey with others.

Lots more to do - I'm only just over a year into a 5 year plan

Rob

SP and coal

Well, if you go far enough back in time you will find a pair of coal stops on the SP. They had so much traffic they needed two, one labeled Coaling A and the second one Coaling B! Today only one remains as a town, and the space was removed and the last letter capital was changed to lower case, The town, Coalinga! That is history! John Colley, Sonoma, CA

Palmer, Mass.

on the Central Vermont had the supply track running under the storage bin, with only one track for coaling the engines. 

Paul Dolkos had a model of one on his old B&M layout, and Lou Sassi had one on his B&M as well. 

I believe there is a photo of it in my Locomotive Servicing book, but the book isn't in front of me at the moment so I'm relying on memory here, which is always a dangerous thing. 

Marty, I happened to have a

Marty, I happened to have a copy of your book close at hand and the only reference to a one track coal tower that I was able to find was on page 19, one track under the tower for delivery and one beside it for loading tenders.

There is a prototype photo on an installation on the Pennsylvania Railroad at South Amboy, New Jersey. Tower is very similar to the walthers kit that you used as an example in your book, and the notes indicate that it would be easy to modify the model to represent this prototype set up.

Rob if you were looking for a book that is full of info The Model Railroader's Guide to Locomotive Servicing Terminals by Marty McGuirk, lots of questions can be answered and it has lots of good photos of both model and prototype.

Rob in Texas

Model Railroader's Guide to Locomotive Servicing Terminals

Hi Guys

Marty - just ordered your book, hope to get it in a few days

In the mean time I have almost completed a bucket loading facility (thanks to dreesthomas for his blog about a similar facility back  in 2012-03-06). I have also sourced an old Gloor Craft coaling tower kit which I can re-design/build to a smaller size.
Hopefully I can engineer it to fit, probably by using Spock's spur as a supply track.

 This is the temporary coaling facility - about 80% complete.

Should get it finished and installed this weekend. The Coaling Tower build will be progressed as a background project - too many more pressing things to be getting on with right now.

Thanks for all continued input......

Rob
Cornhill & Atherton

Coal Facility in Place

This will do for now - Small coaling tower in the planning phase.

 Rob
Cornhill & Atherton RR

PS - Marty's Loco Servicing Terminal book arrived - great read, highly recommended 

Intentional Error ?

Beautiful work on the scene ! As to the 'error', the 'A'-frame misplacement was not apparent to me, in the photo. More noticeable (and I may be mistaken - was wrong kinda engineer!) are the mis-applied reinforcing stay-rods on the sand pocket. As they are, longitudinal on the side posts, they serve no purpose - there is no significant tension/stress in that vector on those vertical posts. The rods should go across the pocket to counter the outward weight/thrust of the heavy wet sand - perhaps at two or more levels on the posts. Longitudinal support rods would need to run from the building to the end posts, but likely would be eliminated by angle bracing posts (compression stress) on the end posts. The wood members side-to-side, across the top, are ineffective (wood is not strong in tension) no matter how well secured to the posts, for the forces incurred.  Likely though, no one will notice.  I wasn't 'around' steam service, so am learning a lot and admiring your modeling skills. Thanks.   Bob C.

Intentional Error

Hi Bob

Very astute observation about the bracing rods; here’s the story..….

The longitudinal rods were absent on the initial build.

I was comfortable that the twin cross braces on each side post should be strong enough, based on the example of trestle bent type cross bracing (I knew wood was good in compression and I thought OK in tension – perhaps I was wrong).

However when finished, things looked a little ‘bare’ in the sand bin area and I added the rods.

In my heart I knew they weren’t doing anything useful but went ahead anyway (somewhere for the guys to hang their coats?)..... That’ll teach me

Rob
Cornhill & Atherton RR