While the double slip makes

While the double slip makes the work more complicated, I would say either option 4 or 6 will work best depending on how much you want to keep the extra crossover from option 6. As far as seeing the points you could maybe number the knobs and make a cheat sheet as to what combinations give what route to help with that issue.

#5, conditionally

Dave,

I am partial to option #5, with a couple reservations.  First is the double slip, which (if not built properly with points in the frogs) can be a derailment magnet.  You mentioned hand laying your track, so I would assume you can deal with that properly.  The second issue is the loss of the runaround.  Is it needed for the passenger trains?  Since you mentioned that this arrangement is close to the prototype, how did the prototype handle operations in the area?

Overall, I think this option has the best mix of prototype fidelity, function, and practicality.  Provided you are willing and able to make a decent double slip, and that you can live without the runaround, I would say go for it.

Modified option #3?

Hi Dave,

I'm kind of leaning toward a modified version of Option 3, where the double slip is replaced with a diamond.  The reason I'm suggesting this over #5 is that I think it'd be tough for a yard crew to be forced to work through a double slip - especially one that's difficult to see - as their only way out on that end of the yard.  Coming out of the yard and onto the runner first, a​nd then potentially crossing over, would make for fewer operational issues there, and the lack of double slips would simplify your rebuilding.  If you needed a short runaround there, then you could add one further to the right as you have in #6.

If you wanted to make things even simpler, you could reverse the right-most crossover you currently have so that trains traveling from left to right could cross from the main to the runner there, then build a switch for your 2 Track off the existing 1 Track.  Basically, like option #2, but with the crossover reversed and the yard ladder further to the right.  You'd lose some capacity on the two yard tracks, but I think this would be the most straightforward way to both add the 2 Track switch and provide direct access to/from the interchanges/branches.  Come to think of it, that'd be my first choice, as long as the yard capacity losses were negligible.

One more thought

If you wanted to add even more flexibility here, in addition to the above changes, you could add a switch off the runner to the right of the engine terminal switch, double-ending yard tracks 3 and 4.  That would gain back the yard capacity you lost with my second suggestion above.

Run around

The actual prototype station was on what is labeled the King St Lead.  I haven't found any good track diagrams for it, just Sanborn maps and they aren't consistent.  The depot is completely gone.  I have found two pictures of the "Wilmington" depot but they are obviously two different buildings.   The depot was located near the current PRR/PC/CR/AMTK depot, just to the south (there was a B&O depot in that area too).  On my layout, putting the depot on the King St lead would put it back in a staging yard which would make it inaccessible for the crews.  To get it to daylight I moved it to the location shown, which in the greater scheme of things, taking compression and its relationship to the rest of the layout into account, is not really that far off. 

The net-net is that I don't know what the actual prototype track arrangement was.  There are only remanants of the track in the area (passenger service ceased back before WW2). Since it was the end of the line, pretty much somewhere the inbound engines had to be able to escape.  That means either I have a runaround or every arriving passenger train has to have the switcher pull the cars off to allow the engine to get back to the roundhouse.  If the Beech St crossover is removed/reversed it means that no passenger train can be longer than 3 60 ft cars or 2 80 ft cars or it will foul the other depot track.  With the current arrangement a longer train could foul the depot crossover on the main and a train could use the runner and crossover at Beech St (the crossover in the area where changes are proposed) to arrive or depart on the other depot track.  All of the proposals that eliminate or reverse the Beech St crossover impact that capability.

Not making any choices yet, all good comments.  Tonight I'll have to post a picture of the layout in that area.

How much distance is there

How much distance is there between the yard exit and the entrance switch for the interchange tracks? Would there be room to 'flip' the Beech St XO and place it between those two so that it can be used to serve both purposes? Is there any need to go out the back of the yard except for heading to the interchange?

Distances

The picture I will post should clarify the distances (which are very tight).  In addition to getting to the interchange tracks, terminating trains have to be able to yard their trains and cut off their power.  Currently they can yard on the main, runner or yard 1.  I am trying to add yard 2 to that list.

I generally use #5 and #6 switches, #6 on the main and #5 in yards/industries with a few #4's in industry applications.  The switches are generally laid from photocopies of actual P&R switch plans (which covered switches from #14 to #3, yes that's 3, three).  A 40 ft freight car or 75 ft passenger car will be about the biggest through any route, engines will all be 0-4-0, 0-6-0, 2-8-0, 4-4-0, 4-6-0 or maybe a 4-4-2. 

Here's a question to consider.  By adding the diamond or the double slip (s) to the design it allows a straight away move out of the yard to the interchange, King St or Dela River Ext.(sorta).  Is that a good idea?  Or is it better to not have that ability and force a more cumbersome move to consume more time so the shifter (what i call the City job) has more to do?  In this case, is inefficiency the better option?

Efficiency

Hi Dave,

I sort of put prototype accuracy on hold for my first replies and was just looking at things from a modeling standpoint, but when you get into questions of efficiency and such, I'd suggest just making things as close to the prototype as possible based on what you know.  It sounds like there may be some big gaps there due to your era, so my plan B would be to avoid making things more complicated for the sake of operational interest.  You've seen from operating at my place that it doesn't take complex moves or complicated track work to keep a crew busy for an op session.  When you're talking about pulling or delivering large, possibly frequent cuts like I'm guessing you see with your interchanges, that might get old pretty quickly.

Just my two cents.

Pix

A lot of the compromises are due to the space available.  Joe, consider squeezing your entire Council Bluffs yards into a space 18" wide and half as long.

Here are pictures of the area in question.  First looking South towards the Depot.  The Maryland Ave tracks and engine facilities on the left, the interchanges, etc. on the right, the depot tracks straight ahead.  The yard tracks and the existing switch into the runner at the very bottom.  The crossing under the engine on the runner is Beech St. and it did run across the leads to the turntable.

Here is the view looking north.  The switch on the left at he bottom is the switch in the main to the interchange tracks, You can see the yard in the distance and the mockup shows where the roundhouse will be.  At some point the Atlas turntable will be replaced with a better one, but it works until then. 

Prototype

Here is the yard area, looking North in June 2011.  The viaduct on the left is the PRR double track main.  It was built during my era, so for 1900 it wasn't there and for 1905 it was, but I don't have room for it in any case.

Here is looking south from the yard.  The diamond in the foreground is where the track I call the runner crosses the track I call the main and two tracks head to the east side of the PRR and continue down the the east side of the PRR to King St.  The Engine house was on the other side of the trees in the distance.

This single track is all that is left of the King St lead, this was taken at Orange St, King St is 3 blocks behind me.

It's hard to judge from the

It's hard to judge from the pictures but it really looks like you could flip that crossover and move it between the yard and interchange switches so you could snake across. Once in the yard you could tie in the second track and add that, but you would obviously loose some track. I must add, that is some superb looking track!

Agree with slow.track

I was thinking the same thing Dave.  Looks to me like you've got the room, and if you need to add another crossover further to the right in your diagrams, I think it'd still be easier to build, maintain, and operate than the double-slips.  Looks like you'd have room to double-end yard tracks 3 & 4 into the runner too, if that was desirable.

Agree with Joe and slow.track

I agree with Joe and slow.track, to reverse the crossover.  I think you can use yard track 1 and as needed runner track for arrival/departure (double ended).

If after doing reversing the crossover, you still want yard track 2 to be double ended connect it to yard track 1 or to runner.  But I think savvy yard crews can use the single ended yard track 2 for departure track of trains to the right....

If you really want yard track 1 and yard track 2 to be longer and double ended to keep the runner track open.  You could reconnect them beyond the reversed crossover, then push all cuts up the runner track over the crossover to the  interchange tracks and industries...

The photos are great...I hope you share more....

David Keith

http://www.sn2modeler.com

Dble ended yard

Double ending 3 and 4 would cut out about 20-25% of the yard's capacity.

3 Track

Maybe I'm just looking at things wrong, Dave, but from the photos, it seems as though you could actually add capacity by extending 3 Track so it tied into the runner near the turntable.  My earlier suggestion involved doing that and then having 4 Track diverge from 3, but I can see now where double-ending 4 might limit capacity.

Suggestions Visualized

I have laid some switch templates over the existing track to illustrate some of the options discussed.  The switches would be #5's.  Extending the ladder to double end the tracks would severely cut the capacity, why I am only planning on double ending #2.

Here is just reversing the existing crossover and moving the #1 switch in the runner.  There would not be room for another crossover between the Betts Machine industry switch.

This is what making the existing interchange lead switch in the main either a crossing or a double slip would look like.  The leftmost switch template could be either a double slip or a crossing.  By doing that, it moves the #1 switch to the left, lengthening tracks #1 and 2 and allowing room for a left hand crossover between the Betts Machine switch and the #1 switch.

PS: The different piles of ballast in the yard are just loose, I was testing ballast colors on the layout to find which ballast I should use.

Here's what I was suggesting Dave

I'm not doing a very good job of describing it, so I hope you don't mind me using one of your pics to illustrate it.  What I had in mind involved the changes you've shown with your switch templates below, plus those I've shown in red.

You wouldn't have to double-end 4 Track, but even if you did, this option would allow a fair amount of additional capacity on #3 if operators fouled the 4 Track switch.

I'm probably missing something regarding the Betts switch and why the crossover couldn't go to the right of it, but  if it has to be to the left, here's another option.  I hope you'll forgive the scribbles. 

It'd limit your capacity on 1 & 2, but double-end 3-5, and the capacity on 3 would appear to grow by several cars if you fouled the switch to 4 & 5.  I'm guessing the capacity impacts on 4-5 would be negligible.

You've probably thought of and dismissed these alternatives long ago, but I thought I'd throw them out there just in case.

Visualizations oppinions...

Dave, in your second image is close to what I was thinking.  You wrote "There would not be room for another crossover between the Betts Machine industry switch."  What purpose would the second crossover achieve?

One option for the second image, would be to let leave the Yard Track 1 as is, and connect the Yard Track 2 directly to the runner.  This would make the Yard Track 2 longer, possibly more useful.

Dave, if the second crossover if desired - or having a crossover in that direction is more useful than reversed direction, then I think your 3rd image makes lots of sense.  For operational simplicity, I'd make it a crossing.  The crossing makes a simple way for the shifter to move freight across the main (what I perceive to be your primary objective).

Joe's options to double end more tracks are interesting.  What benefits are obtained from double ending more tracks?  More tracks could be used for arrival of freight trains and pass through of locomotives/cabooses.  Would the yard be drilled from the left?  Seldom as drilling from the left would clog the approach to the passenger terminal and engine house?  To me, the yard is drilled/worked from the right as most yard tracks, industries, interchanges accessible with locomotive on the right.  That said, my observation is that more than not, yard tracks are double ended when possible.  But thinking more about it...The CL&N had a stub ended yard in Cincinnati until it's demise (in the 1980's I think).  The CL&N became part of the PRR in the 1920-30's and was used by the N&W too. This yard ended at the City and featured a depot at the end of the yard.  To think about it, most of the tracks fanned out in one direction (industries and such), so that the yard be worked from the approach.  IT seems the CL&N yard is similar to your yard in usage.

David Keith

http://www.sn2modeler.com

Left Ladder

Currently there is no need to drill on the left.  Unless the Beech St crossover is revised, any cut going to the interchanges, King St or Dela River Ext  has to be sawn out of the yard on the north/right end.  So the double ended tracks don't help that.  The major benefit would be to allow any track to be used for an arriving train or let any arriving train double over into any other track.

The downside is that it loses about 8 cars of capacity (2 cars off tracks 2,3,4,5) which is the equivalent of losing one class track.

This is exactly what I was

This is exactly what I was visualizing. I feel like this gives you the simplest approach toward the greatest number of options for operating

-You maintain the x/o to run around your passenger trains

-You now have a direct route to and from interchange

-Two tracks now have direct escape to the turning facility

Having the other three yard tracks stub ended is honestly no big deal because you can use those to switch or depart trains from while you now have a track to arrive a train and depart a train to interchange without mucking up the whole terminal if you have passenger moves and interchange moves at the same time.

Clarification

To clarify, I was only suggesting the double-ending of Tracks 3-5 because Dave brought up in his original post that he was going about this exercise in order to increase flexibility.  Double-ended yard tracks are obviously more flexible than single-ended, so I was just throwing the idea out there as a "bonus" that Dave could possibly take advantage of as part of this exercise, unrelated to the interchange access issues.  If the benefits don't outweigh the losses to Dave, then that obviously isn't a good option for him.

Dave, one last note on this and then I'll shut up.  Even if you don't drill this yard from the left, with the ladder on the left side of the yard, the ladder itself, down to the clearance point where it joins the runner, could be used for additional capacity for arriving trains.  Also, the way you laid out your paper switch templates assumed that the crossover above the turntable remained as it is today.  If you reversed that crossover as in my earlier submission, then the ladder could diverge from the runner quite a bit further to the left, limiting or eliminating any capacity losses in the yard.

Input

I don't want anybody to shut up, its all been very thoughtful input.

Actually Joe, your suggestion is very interesting.  I don't think I can move the switch in the runner too much further to the left because the lead would then impinge on the the corner of the roundhouse.  The reduction in room might not be that important, especially if it allows the City Job to pull cuts out of yard with out fouling the other end of the yard.  If the crossover was moved to the other side of the switch out of the yard, the city job could pull about 9 cars out of the yard onto the runner, run around them on the main, pull them through the crossover to the main and then shove the interchanges.  The entire process could be done from the south end.

Slow.track, I also like the one you have shown, it is simple and can be done in two phases, first the yard switches and second, reversing the crossover.  And it doesn't include any double slip switches.

No matter what you end up

No matter what you end up doing, post some pictures and let us know how it works out. Really nice looking layout you have started over there.

Interesting thread. As a

Interesting thread. As a fellow P&R guy,  I tracked down the location on satelite pics. The Sanborn maps are a bit subjective as far as trackage goes, but I'd love to see one of this area from 1900. Your research is very enjoyable Dave. Looking forward to updates.