Nice

I like it.  Can you describe a little how you plan to operate it?  Does the main conceptually continue off to other places on the right, or is this a small industrial railroad who’s only connection is via the interchange track in front of the runaround?

Thanks, Ken.  Good questions.

Thanks, Ken. 

Good questions.  This is  a proto-freelanced line in western Pennsylvania.  2000ish. CSX with “it’s my railroad” trackage rights for an occasional Union Railroad. 

The main on the left leg will double as on layout staging. I may add a removable cassette at that end, though. The main would continue off of both ends of the railroad as if one of the Pittsburgh river valleys. Typical trains are 4 car lengths. 

The food plant has 6 spots for tank cars, hoppers, or boxcars.  The runaround will help switch this area and cars can be picked up or left on the interchange track. 

There is one long spur intended to serve a 2-spot plastics industry, team spot area and a lumber yard. 

I like it and I especially

I like it and I especially like that you include a water feature. I'm more of a scenery guy so I would put a lot of work in there if it were me but I also like all the car spots and the switching.

Team Track

I would suggest moving the team track.  The spot you have indicated is pretty small,  The whole idea of a team track is to get a truck up next to the tracks and the spot you show doesn't appear to allow very much room for that if you give any clearance to the adjacent roads.  For example, putting it opposite 84 Lumber off the main would allow a larger (or appearance of a larger) footprint.  If you put it on the aisle side of the main you could run the "truck" portion off the front edge of the layout and then the truck portion could be any size.

Just an observation, the clearance point for the plastics plant track is right behind the row houses, so operators will be reach over/around the houses to couple/uncouple/adjust couplers.  For example having the access road cross through the area where the row homes are and pushing the row homes to the right, closer to the river, would uncover the reach area.  Of course, depending on the height, the size of the homes, coupling/uncoupling methods, etc., it may not be an issue.

Like It

This reminds me a little of my FEC layout, see my blog. I don't have off layout staging, works great for me. A minor point, those row houses will end up hitting the deck from a flying elbow.  Spoken from experience from my last layout. Go with a single story low rise building.

Clearance point and the houses

Actually if you look at it the clearance point may be shadowed behind the row houses however dropping a car at that point blocks the drive into the parking lot.  So they have to go farther left and thus out from behind the row houses.  Or they are going to be yelled at.

-Doug M

Great points. Dave, I think

Great points. 

Dave, I think you’re onto something with the team track. 

I also didn’t considerate road placement totally with the logistics of switching the plastics plant. 

Oh that’s probably true about the houses too   

Track height is 54  I’m 6 feet   I had to go a little higher since the right section where the food plant is is actually a shadow box I’ve built into coat storage lockers for the family  so, I bet an elbow could go through there  I’ll do some testing on my mock up  

This is where experience counts and I appreciate it  

Thanks!

I would swap the run around

I would swap the run around for a second interchange track with a crossover, essentially a two track yard.  In general you don’t see many spurs off run arounds.  With the interchange right there the railroad would just run around on that.

If you go two track interchange you would could pull into the first track below the main with outbound cars, use a crossover to get back on the main, run around the train and pull inbound cars and sort your train on the main.

For layout ascetics and to reduce scenicing time I would reduce the depth of the one portion of the upper leg.

Interchange tracks

There are all kinds of weird setups for interchange tracks and runarounds, especially in situations where ownership has changed around over time.  I can think of a number of local prototype examples of spurs off runarounds.

The tradeoff with two interchange tracks, one double ended for use as a runaround, vs. a separate runaround and single interchange track is an interesting one.  Both configurations would work nicely, which would be better probably depends more on the sort of operation you’re trying to model.  If I understand Rob’s second post on this thread, I think the single interchange track might work out better, but it’s worth a little thought.

How you operate it can change

How you operate it can change the dynamics of the interchange.  If you’re starting from the lower leg (with cars from the rest of the world) I envision hitting the the three trailing point switches, swapping cars at the interchange, running around the train, switching the food plant and heading back to staging.

If you start at the interchange, the run around will be used more to run around the train when switching off the three switches on the top leg with a little less attention to order.

I will challenge the need for an interchange if you’re representing CSX as the local line and the interchange line.  In reality there would probably be a local that comes from an area yard (in the SWPA area it might be Glenwood or McKees Rocks or Connellsville) rather than having cars dropped off from a single interchange track, especially if you’re only moving 4 cars .  However there might be a few tracks to sort or store cars (i.e. a small yard).

The other thought is density of operations.  I have a similar setup in a design I’m working on with a 11.5 ft and 6.5 ft leg.  I had the interchange located near most of my industries and I felt the train never really left the interchange as it was pulling cars for all the industries, as the switches came all off the same spot.  You have kind of the same issue with all the switches concentrated at the top.  I moved the interchange to the short leg and located the run at the end of the long leg, which balanced the action around the layout better.  It also created a bit more visual space and sense of distance between where you’re swapping cars and where you’re serving industries. 

I also within you should run longer trains (maybe 6 cars) if you’re representing coming from staging and adjust the run around accordingly.

All interesting

All interesting thoughts:

SCARM makes for easy editing.  I do like the less cluttered feel of the crossover/interchange look.  As for operations, yes, I intend to start at the short leg and work towards the food plant.  It doesn't have to be that way every time.  I have not had a working and operating railroad.  At some point I will have to dig into this and learn the pros and cons of various things.  Essentially, we are at the point things stay on paper or I get past the analysis by paralysis affliction.  The bench work is done, track is in hand, switches to be ordered once I finalize a plan.  So, I am committed to getting something to run on and something to learn from.

As for realistic CSX operations in Pittsburgh vis a vis an interchange, I spent a good deal of time studying the Union Raliroad and CSX in the area.  I live just north of Pittsburgh and my grandfather was an engineer on the URR.  Given the space I have, I settled on proto-freelancing an area which captures the flavor and allows for some switching.  For example, I know of know food plant in the Mon Valley, but it seems like a good industry for car variety and has multiple spots.  We'll see how I do.  At one point, this was going to be more prototypical of the Union's Mifflin Branch with Continental Can dominating the short leg.  It never worked on paper to my satisfaction.

Thanks all.  Keep em coming if you'd like!

The first version

looks better to me. I like the separate interchange track. I might move the creek and left runaround turnout as far left as possible to increase the length of the runaround siding, otherwise I'd be good to go. I can't see the two row houses being that hard to work around,and it looks like there's room for the team track between the road and the lumber company on  that left spur......DaveB

Alternative to either version

Add a switch on the left end of either version interchange track and curve a track across the creek and off the front edge/aisle edge of the layout to simulate the connection to the interchange.

I’ll second the first version

I have to agree with Dave B, I like the original plan you posted better than the modified one.

The second plan has an effectively shorter interchange track (since it must double as a runaround), and the runaround isn’t any longer than the first plan.  It’s more operationally limited (you can’t have cars sitting on the interchange track and also use it for a runaround at the same time).  It does free up 2” of depth on the shelf, but that doesn’t seem worth it to me.

The team spot relocation is more of a tradeoff - you solve the scenic problem and make it a little more clearly a team track in the second plan, but in the first plan it may have a bit more operational interest, since it shares a spur with the lumber company, necessitating a bit more planning and shuffling to get everything pulled and spotted.

Perhaps it’s time to take a few days and ponder.  You started with a carefully thought out over time plan.  When you ask for feedback on it you get a bunch of ideas from people with different biases.  It can take time to realize all the implications of the changes, and make sure they all make sense together and fit in with your vision for the layout.

Thanks Ken I agree.  I’m

Thanks Ken

I agree.  I’m definitely back to the first plan for a variety of reasons. I’ve moved the spur and main on the lower 6 foot leg a little farther out. This makes for a better team spot and also for a larger paved section where center beams would be realistic in the lumber yard. More of the lumber building will be a flat behind the sheds as opposed to the side of them.  There’s a ton of room now for a team spot.  I did extend the run around a little farther left by moving the stream a bit. I think I’m there.  I’ll think on it, but I like it. 

An off the wall thought

Hi Rob,

Consider this as an "off the wall" thought from someone who has no idea of specific US railroading rules, but has seen industrial switching up close and personal in confined spaces in steel mills with some more unusual types of rolling stock

Just because you have a runaround that has space for 4 cars, doesn't mean that you can't handle a train of 6 cars. You just keep 2 cars on the loco when you do the run around move. When you push the 4 out, drop the 2 on the loco just in clear of the turnout if you need to run around those 2 cars later, after you made your moves with the 4 cars. 

There are ways and means of moving more stuff on rails than you "technically" have space enough for. But it may involve doing things "differently" than is the more usual "accepted" standard practice for most railroads.  

Maybe the better way to look

Maybe the better way to look at the interchange is outbound cars to the Union RR instead of inbound from CSX.  However, if you go that way it is a reason to run longer trains - maybe 3 cars for local industries and 3 for the Union RR.

In that case the main could act more as the end of the line for CSX and cars could be interchanged on the main, with a run around to head back to staging on the left.

Oh, I may have misunderstood

Oh, I may have misunderstood you’re earlier posts, Lars. The interchange is not from CSX. It’s from and to the URR which does act as a bit of a bridge route in rl and carries more than the steel making stuff. 

If I had more room, I’d probably try to model this all more accurately near the JET Works.