Irrelevant details

The benchwork is already built, it's sectional and built out of 5/8" and 1/2" birch plywood, the frames are from Model Railroad BenchWork. The building process with Model Railroad BenchWork was very easy, it's well made, and convenient, I'm not sure if I'll use it for everything in the future, as it is fairly expensive, but I'm definitely happy with the product. I may use it for curves, as he's got some incredible curve jigs to bend plywood. I also like to tinker and experiment, so I'll probably build every section/ project layout totally differently.

Other irrelevant or redundant specs:

Scale - HO

Size - 12x4 (will be part of larger layout)

Height - 51" shelf-style

Minimum radius (main) - 24"

Minimum radius (siding) - 18"

Minimum turnout - #6

Turnouts and track - Micro Engineering 83 flex with Fast Tracks turnouts, Tortoise motors powering frog

Control - Digitrax DCS240 with Simplex Radio and WiThrottle, PSX-1

Design

Scale?

One both ends you have a switch abutting the end of the layout with no way to run around.  Will there be additional modules/sections attached to either end?

Your switches are not drawn to scale.  Some of the arrangements won't physically fit in the space you have drawn.  The #6 and #8 back to back below Tas-T-Foods won't fit as drawn, the points will be overlapping.  The net result is its going to push the "8 switch to the left about a car length, shortening your runaround.

For example the points of a switch are several inches beyond the point of intersection of the track centers.  Based on the drawing the switches on either end of the layout will have the head blocks hanging 2-3 inches, at least, off the end of the layout.  Moving the #8 on the left end will move the siding switch to the right 6" or so, cutting another car out of the runaround length.  

A 24/18 curved switch is probably going to be way tighter than a #6, probably closer to a #4.

Personally I would suggest going to all #6's instead of #8's for a switching area.

If you are going to add a yard, I wouldn't add an engine track in this section, I would put the engine facilities at the yard.

Also if this layout is the middle of another layout, then I would put the interchange at the end by the junction.  Its not going to be in the middle where the CSX has to run across the CTN to get to the interchange.

Being a modern layout the spots will be 1/2 to 1/3 full.  While you might have 35 spots, if your railroad is going great guns, it might have 12-18 cars on spot and only 6-10 of those will be moved during a day.  About half your spots are for private cars on private sidings so there is no financial incentive for the industries to unload them quickly.  They aren't going to be paying demurrage.

Check the switches to see what will actually fit, should be a fun layout to switch.

Great feedback

Dave,

Thanks for the great feedback!

HO scale.

Eventually, yes, it may have a temporary tail track like Free-Mo does for some period of time, although that would make things trickier if there is only enough room for the locomotive. I am going to end up with a mish-mash of Free-Mo, NMRA-like modules, this layout, another layout, possibly a fully operational yard, and at least one staging yard. Operationally, the yard, this layout, and a Free-Mo module will operate at one, and a 1950's New Haven switching layout will operate totally separately. I'm hoping to form a loop for fun running, which requires 24" minimum radius for the UP Heritage fleet. The goal is to have two fun to operate switching layouts along with learning a lot of new modeling skills.

Yup, you're right on that switch combo.

Hmmmm, I did say minimum #6, I guess I meant minimum #6 except for that curved one. I won't need to spot 85' cars on the transload facility, but I would like to be able to get 72' centerbeams in there, I think they would go around that tight turnout? This layout is going to cost half a fortune in Fast Track jigs, so maybe I should compromise on a few inches of track, and get the 30/21 or 36/24 jig, the latter of which would be much more useful elsewhere for other modeling projects than the very tight 24/18.

You're probably right. I should save the #8s for somewhere else, even though they are gorgeous. If I'm doing the math out right, the 14* crossing works with the #8 turnouts, which have about a 7* frog angle, whereas the 19* crossing works with the #6 turnouts, which have about a 9* frog angle. Am I doing that right in my head? The #6/19* jig combo would probably be more useful in more places anyway.

So originally I was thinking of basing the job out of the yard and having it come over, switch out the CTN, and then go back, which still makes sense, but it would create some more interest on a small model railroad to have CSX drop a cut of cars, and then the CTN be contained to this ~15' of layout, with the CTN power stored locally. I get what you're saying about CSX running over the CTN, but we have some really weird arrangements for interchange between railroads in the Northeast, due to a bunch of different Conrail lines sold off to various entities, the need for Amtrak PTC for some routes starting 20 years ago, and a variety of other factors.

That's a good point about not paying demurrage fees and the amount of turnover, which could create more work to re-spot cars that are staying put for a while as opposed to turning and burning and keeping the sidings relatively clear. Considering 6-10 cars being switched during one op session, is there value to adding that third track in there? Between the transload and the propane dealer, the siding has a lot of stuff coming off of it, requiring the cars on the siding to be moved over to the main to switch them out, which would be fun to a point, unless the whole thing becomes a logjam. I'm also considering whether to get rid of that second track behind the building supply yard. In the plan I based mine off of, it was an interchange, but I would just have it to connect to the next section, or as a dead end siding to sort out cars or store cars on or something. We have a lot of weird tracks that seemingly go nowhere in the Northeast, so it's not unprototypical, but it also seems to have no clear purpose.

I may not be able to resist the temptation to cram in one more siding. If I angle the propane dealer and drop down to 2 car spots there, I could probably get two car spots in on another angled siding for loading construction debris- which is a surprisingly large share of freight rail service in CT. That would provide for something that's open and doesn't require a building on the layout, which work better up against the backdrop. Although it would net add a car spot to the layout, it would be an argument against the third track in order to have more space to model the surrounding operations, although the angled sidings could fit in with 3 tracks if necessary. Or maybe I should just leave the basic tracks and industries as they are and just fix the track geometry issues.

I thought that design

I thought that design looked familiar.

I know the one I did has enough tail for a 4 axle loco to clear the run around.

This has the same issue I kept debating over. To switch the transload you will have to sort the train for the trans load cars to be at the back of the train (layout right).  The loco will run around the train, pulling outbounds on the way out.  Then you will couple the outs to the ins at the right side of the run around and push back through the run around to the transload.  What I didn’t like is that you’re getting pretty long there with in your case up to 12 cars which puts your loco back to or beyond the edge on the bottom right.  That really long pull just bugged me and I tweaked things for the second design.

I would shorten the propane dealer.  Small dealers that get only 1-2 cars are very plausible.

Design tweaks

I set up the design to require tail tracks off layout, either with tails like Free-Mo uses, or the rest of a larger layout. That way, I have plenty of room to pull back off-layout. The layout concept is that I'm building two small layouts, a yard or two, and a couple of modules, which will form a loop, possibly with a peninsula or two in the middle. Some of the corners and connecting pieces may just be plywood to make it fit together and operate coherently.

I won't have that issue, as I will have plenty of room to shove the train past the left side of the layout, since I will  have a lot more layout over there. The issue that any of the design variants has is that you have to switch the train from one track to the other in order to switch out the different industries, but that's part of the operations.

I'm torn as to whether to keep that second "interchange" track in your design. I may not need it, but if I did make it double-ended with the rest of the layout, it could actually function as a CSX interchange track without CSX having to run over the top of the CTN. I'd have to allow CTN enough lead to switch out the reefer track at Tas-T Foods, but otherwise it would allow for interchange while constraining CTN operations. I suppose I could model a different shortline to switch out Free-Mo modules, which is rather prototypical for CT, where was have a bunch of different shortlines criss-crossing and overlapping. The downside is that it does eat into the space for modeling the building supplies company by about 2".

I actually enjoy the long pulls, of course it's hard when you don't have enough lead to work with. I set my variant of your design to have the longest runaround that's reasonably possible, and switching to #6 turnouts only will get me a bit more length. I could go either way on the propane dealer. If I figured what month it is, they'd get 1 car at a time in the summer, and 3 cars in the winter. There's a propane dealer in RI that appears to have 6 car spots, there's one in CT that has at least that many, if not more. If I put another car spot anywhere, it would be the building supplies company, but there just isn't room for more than 3, 1 boxcar and 2 centerbeams, but there's a building supplies distributor near me and they appear to have 2 boxcar and 1 centerbeam, so I'm on the right track there. I could flip that mix as I have a ton of boxcars and don't own any centerbeams yet. Either way, I'll have a roadway in the middle for the forklifts to access the rear side of the cars that has to be kept clear.

For the curved switch into the transload, that will probably be the last place to get built out, so what I might do is start construction with the #6 turnouts and 19* crossing, and then use the print-out templates to see how it fits in full scale, and what size jig I want to get for that curved turnout.

1st vs 2nd design

I do like the overall look of the design of the one with the longer runaround better, and while I responding last night I realized the way I suggested switching the transload (feed mill on mine) was different.  Initially I thought about having cars for the feedmill at the front of the train (left side of runaround), making you pull the entire train past the runaround to switch the mill.  But with the cars at the back (right end), it's much more manageable   I was thinking of doing two cars in - two out.

Regarding the interchange, my vision was to start with a locomotive on the main and interchange traffic on the siding.  I would then use the main to spot cars as I order them for the rest of rest of the run.

Walthers centerbeams are cheap and readily available.  Definitely pick up a few.  If you're picky, propane tanks will be hard to find, as there's so many nuances in with the COTS, conspicuity striping, placard and safety table.  Of all the Genesis offerings, only a couple met my modeling era and I searched far and wide to find the one I have and it wasn't cheap when I bought it.  That may be the only propane tank I will own and the same car may perpetually heading to, or returning from my propane dealer.

Sidings and interchanges

I think the forum ate one of my posts (more likely my browser) so I'll try to remember what I was thinking earlier today....

I flipped the runaround siding around a bit, and also got some more length out of it, although I am dependent on having another section of something, whether layout or tail track to connect to.

I didn't realize that the propane cars would be that hard to find. I could always start with having one at the dealer, and as the dealer grows their business, get some more cars.

It's down to deciding whether to have that second track behind the building supply company, and whether to put another track inbetween the main and the siding.

Update

So I made a few changes, like moving to all #6 turnouts except for that curved one (although that technically will have a #6 frog angle too), and eliminating that second track behind the building supply company, and expanding the footprint of it, as I think it will be a fun one to model. I may be able to cram 4 car spots in there, 2 centerbeams and 2 boxes.

I am still up in the air about adding a third track or not. It could offer some additional operating potential, but it also would take up more space, and add quite a bit of complexity to the track setup, both for construction, and operations. With my modular/sectional layout design, I could just shove a cut off the end of the layout into another section while working this area, although it would be fouling the main if other traffic wants to get through. I doubt that it will really make things "too easy", but it might reduce the challenge a little bit in dealing with a congested siding and how to sequence the moves.

Under construction

The CTN is currently under very, very slow construction after getting backlogged behind some workbenches and Free-Mo modules. The third track lost, its going to have two. Something was a little out of scale with the propane dealer siding and those two back-to-back turnouts, so it got a bit shorter. I didn't want a siding in front of the back-to-back turnouts on the right end of the siding and for the building supply company. I'm already cramming quite a bit of action into a small space. Here's some work from yesterday:

reporting marks

Hi Alex. Your switching layout should keep a fellow or two busy; looks like fun.

In your fictional model world it may make no difference, but  reporting marks CTN is already taken by the Canton Railroad on Baltimore's east side. It's been around since 1906. I don't have current rosters, but Canton has had some cars going to interchange in the past.

CTN is the Canton

My most recent ORER, July 2012, shows CTN is still the Canton.  So how about CTNO?  I don't recommend CTNR because that would easily be confused with CTRN, a UP mark.

Reporting marks aren't always chosen logically.  The short-lived regional Chicago Missouri & Western chose CMNW and found lots of its cars and money going to the CNW, the Chicago & North Western.  CMAW would've been a better choice.

The Georgia Northeastern, Tom Klimoski's prototype, chose GNRR.  It could've picked GANE, and been a gain rather than a goner.  It has survived though.

I created my original proto-freelanced line, the Cascade & Sierra, when I was a teenager.  I used the marks CS on my early paint jobs.  That belonged to the Colorado & Southern, even though I think they always used C&S on equipment.  When I went to work for the Southern Railway I realized that wasn't going to fly, and quickly relettered all of my cars CAS.

Oh yeah, the Southern.  Reporting marks were beneath it.  If you look in pre-1973 ORERs you'll see the Southern didn't have an assigned reporting mark.  Cars were marked "Southern" and that was that.  With the ORER's format change the mark SOU appeared but the fine print still said that the cars were marked "Southern".  It wasn't until after 1983 that the reporting mark SOU started appearing on freight cars.

Ah, the fun parts of proto-freelancing....

Scott Chatfield

And Nice To See

Pen-and-paper employed. CAD in the hobby is in some form easily doable, but the manual method has a 'feel' that can be more expressive. Sort of like vinyl. Digital doesn't always beat analog. 

Reporting marks

I could use something other than CTN for reporting marks, but I don't plan on painting anything for it. In reality, it's just an excuse to run P&W, NECR, and if they ever make any, CSOR locomotives, along with Guilford/Pan-Am, CSX, and leaser units. I'm going to try and pick up a pair of the California Northern GP15-1's as well, as they are "CN" with the G&W paint scheme as well. 

I'm a big fan of switching

I'm a big fan of switching layouts, so kudos to you for undertaking the planning & construction of this type of model railroad. Right now I'm working on a 'L' shaped switching layout of similar size, so we have probably thought about some of the same operational aspects. Good move to forsake the #8 turnouts and go entirely with #6s. Are you planning on buying the FT #6 crossover jig? Given it's flexibility and relatively minor additional upfront cost (compared with a #6 jig), that's the one I'm considering purchasing for a project down the road.  

I like your plan. You have definitely squeezed in a lot of customers and switching possibilities in a relatively small space. There are both trailing point and facing point spurs, regardless of which end the interconnection is made. So an operating session will require solid planning. That being said, is it possible the 2 tracks for transloading could end up making things easier than you might have intended? Perhaps that depends upon how many cars are already spotted on those tracks. FWIW, I liked the siding for the propane dealer at its original length, with the transload "facility" using the additional track at the end. That way you might have to move a propane car or 2 in order to service the transload customer. In addition, it would free up the 2' x 2' module (I believe that's the size). You could then use those 2 spur tracks for a small coal burning power plant or chemical plant (or nothing at all). Perhaps that 2' x 2' module could even be moved to the left of Specialty Metals. So many options.

Dedicated LPG track

Once an LPG/propane tank is spotted and hooked up, it is unlikely to be moved until it's empty.  So putting a transloading facility that would probably require daily switching past it on the same track would not go over well with the LPG dealer.

Just sayin'

A transload facility is a good choice for any modern-day layout.  And easy to scenic.  Flat pavement.

Scott Chatfield

I found the articles linked

I found the articles linked below to be very interesting. Unloading times are affected by available storage capacity, compressor size, unload pressures and process. Seems it can be done quite efficiently at some facilities. 

Plant Engineering | Propane storage capacity increased through rail-supplied terminalskOil & Gas Engineering| Rail-supplied midstream propane terminal maximized for safety (oilandgaseng.com)

OP could place the transload before the propane dealer on that track. But being forced to move (or wait for) an already spotted freight car on occasion could be part of the challenge. I don't know how much transload traffic AlexW is planning for on his layout. I think it's great to model and should definitely be kept; but at the same time will there be enough transload business to support 2 tracks?  

If memory serves, someone mentioned demurrage charges don't accrue if a private car is sitting on a private track. Well, that might be the case, but raw materials and other items sitting in (on) railcars aren't generating revenue for the business that placed the order. As a long-time corporate finance person, it pains me to say this but at the end of the day revenue is king. Ugh, I feel so dirty, lol. A business can't cover fixed costs without revenue generated from selling goods & services. So there is definitely incentive to unload rail cars in a timely manner even in the absence of incurred demurrage charges. 

Turnouts and layout

Sorry I didn't see these earlier, I haven't checked in on this forum in a while.

No, I do not plan to get any crossover jigs. It was definitely the right choice to can the #8s, not really sure what I was thinking. I don't plan on doing any double track construction. I am going to get the 19* crossing, and not for this layout, but I eventually want to build a 3-way turnout for a 1950's era switching layout, along with possibly wye turnouts or some other configurations.

In the meantime, I've been laying track, I ran into a bit of a snafu on the main line and passing siding, I think I'm going to have to rip some of it out because something got way out of alignment, and the two tracks aren't even close to parallel. I made the mistake of laying the siding first, I should have laid the mainline and used the 2" Sweep Sticks spacer to make them parallel.

I'm probably going to lose the turnout on the transload siding, it ends up giving me 4 car spots, but without the turnout, I get.... 4 car spots. I love the entire design except for that transload track, so I'm considering what I want to do with it. My logic is that it usually only has 1-2 cars on it, or a cut of several of the same type, on the occasion that 4 different cars are on it, the railroad is willing to do some more switching to save the cost of installing and maintaining another switch.

I don't follow that line of thought. The propane siding is independent of the transload facility, and it's length doesn't affect anything else except the reach to the two point-to-point turnouts (even though they are electrically controlled).

Yeah, I've thought about just not doing anything with it for now and making the Transload parallel to the main line with 3 car spots, eliminating that 2' section altogether, and allowing it to be used for something else.

Mine is an actual dealer. There is a transload site around here with 2 tracks, each of which have 4 car spots, but others are dealers, and they have a single siding. They unload the car and then it's ready to be switched out the next day or whenever the railroad runs. They aren't going to be getting rail service for a while, as I can't find any LPG cars to service them. I got the coil cars and corn syrup cars, and I already had covered hoppers for grain and plastics as well as a plethora of box cars, so the lumber company is getting all their lumber via boxcar for the foreseeable future.

The local yokel dealers take a car or two at a time, and unload the whole car into storage. It's very seasonal, so presumably they get frequent service in the winter, not so much in the summer.

So I'm thinking of going to a single track with 4 car spots. Adding a ramp for boxcars could complicate the spotting and re-spotting, which is the goal of the operations. I see it as plausible, as this is a relatively low-volume line, so usually there will only be one or two cars, and the capital cost to make it more efficient isn't worth avoiding a re-spot once every week or two. I decided not to handle cement traffic, even though I saw 7 cement hoppers spotting on the prototype the other day, as the cars are expensive, and don't have much operational value to switch in 7 at a time.

The reefers are also really expensive, so for now, Tas-T-Foods is going to ship out Tas-T-Drank and Savory Suds via boxcar. They may get reefer service in the future if the plant grows enough to justify it over using reefer trailers shipped via intermodal as they do now. Tas-T-Foods will have 3 corn syrup spots, as well as one vegetable oil spot on the tank track, and 4 grain spots, I'm not sure how they will be divided up, or if they will be flexible depending on what is in season between wheat, oats, corn, and soy.

Handlaid track

I ended up ripping up part of the siding, now I'm handlaying part of it. Time consuming, but enjoyable, at least for a small portion of it. I'm going to go with a single transload track with 4 car spots for simplicity and some more operational interest.

It's alive!

The Connecticut Northern is alive, at least most of it. I still have to debug from frogs, they are currently dead, and I haven't gotten the jig for the 19* crossover, so the plastics manufacturer and metal distributor sidings are not currently in.

I should do a blog for it or something, but I am happy to report that so far, the trackwork has been flawless, and after some initial bumps in the road debugging wiring, I have gotten the DCC up and running, as well as the DC power for the Tortoise motors.

I have used some of the principles of TOMA, although building the whole layout at once. Having things in sections has certainly made troubleshooting easier, although I didn't quite realize how large of a project I was tackling when I started, so I think future modules and layouts will actually be a bit smaller, or will be done in true TOMA style- at least up until everything is operational, since I can fill scenery and structures in slowly over time as I gain the requisite skills.

I also used Joe's wiring techniques with the T-taps and Wago blocks, which made things MUCH easier both for wiring and troubleshooting. However, I did all the wiring under the layout, and that's the last time I ever do THAT. All future layouts will either be done at the bench, or with wiring behind the fascia. The wires to the turnout controls will be neatened up when I build and attach the fascia and mount the controls.

The frogs have been debugged

In every case, I wired the contacts wrong, connecting the common to one of the rails. Next time, I will use a different color wire for the common for sure so that I don't get them mixed up! They have been fixed and tested. Now on to building the legs, it's been temporarily on half-2x4 pieces.