MKT

Being a recovering MP Southern District guy, I've had to interact with this portion of the MKT lots of times.  The last Chief Dispatcher for the MKT was my relief on a couple positions post UP merger.

I wouldn't say this was a sleepy part of the MKT, it was their N-S main line between Texas and Kansas City.

It had two 2nd class trains each way (No 103-105 SWD and No 104-106 NWD) between Ft Worth and Houston and No 183-184  between Ft Worth and San Antonio plus at least 3-4 MP/UP manifest trains each way between Waco and Bellmead (Houston-Ft Worth trains) and 2-3 MP/UP manifest trains Bellmead to Taylor (San Antonio-Ft Worth trains).  Plus grain trains and coal trains to both the Gulf Coast and Mexico.

In addition AMTK 21-22 operated between Taylor, TX and Temple on the MKT.

Here is the timetable page for the area you are modeling from ETT #8 10/1/ 1979.

There are also some branches you could model, the Denton Sub (its now a light rail line so you can actually ride over it, up through Lake Dallas), the Lockhart Sub, the "shortcut" from Smithville to Ajax towards San Antonio.  The Georgetown Sub from Granger to Georgetown (pretty much nothing but rock trains), the Oklahoma Sub from McAlester to Oklahoma City and the Tulsa Sub from Chase to Tulsa and Sand Springs (it actually had a 2nd class train each way).

Any way you go, the MKT is a fun line.  Lots of opportunity for odd power and patched engines.  I always called a "Katy repaint" a GP38 in whatever colors were the former owner and a black or green square under the cab with MKT on it.

Thanks for the scan of the

Thanks for the scan of the timetable!  My biggest issue is space (as always) so I am trying to "cherry pick" some of the features of the Texas Sub, without getting buried in minutiae.  I grew up in Hewitt, TX (a suburb of Waco), and wanted to recreate some of those trains I saw running.  The Hewitt portion will be just past Waco on the bend.  The problem is I run out of room fast, and don't want to cram too much on the layout.  If I add in Smithville, there will be zero space for running trains or any sort of industry service.  

I guess my question is, based on the photo of the track plan, does this look like something I could have decent operations on?  

David

Plan

I would put a runaround at Bellmead.

I would make a siding at Granger and make the GRR a track that runs along the backdrop and is partially hidden by a line of trees.  The interchange with the GRR would be cuts of Ortner rock cars.  You could even have a dedicated rock train.

For an industry that gets tank cars and covered hoppers, there could be a fertilizer plant.

Drilling mud or a pipe yard would also be a good early 80's industry.  The pipe yard would allow you to use east coast mill gons.

I personally wouldn't have the Fayette power plant.  Too big an operation to compress.  I would choose a smaller facility.

I would be tempted to add the ATSF diamond at Temple.   If you put the ATSF from the upper RH corner crossing near the "depot" and putting the interchange along the front edge of the layout.  That would save the real estate behind the MKT main where the interchange is now for an industry that needs a building.  The interchange is just a track and can be in the foreground. 

You could put just a runaround at Granger and not have one at Temple.  A local runs Bellmead to Granger working trailing point industries, then runs around the train and works back to Bellmead working trailing point industries.  Having "double track" from Temple to the end of the layout might affect the single track feel you were describing.

Excellent!     Ill add and

Excellent!  

Ill add and subtract some of these suggestions. I really appreciate the feedback, especially since you are VERY familiar with that part of the Katy!

i do have some of those Ortner cars which is why I want to get the GRR on there. I also have the FPPX coal cars, but will just have them passing through.....

FPPX

FPPX

Excellent Idea to get those FPPX cars on the layout!

I am going to post the updated track plan next.

David 

Facing and Trailing Turnouts

Hi David,

Looks like a pretty good plan so far! Post the revision when you get a chance and take some of the advice above, it's solid! 

My recommendations would include the following:

Consider facing and trailing points and how they will be worked, whether that is all on the way out from the yard, on the way back, or a mix of both. 

The run around at the end is what you want with the out and back operation. Keep it. 

Consider different industries, maybe a multi door/spot warehouse or manufacturer at the current elevator location and add an elevator at the power plant location with storage and spot tracks.  Depends how many liberties you are willing to take with accuracy.

Narrow your shelves where you can.

Consider a team track for additional operation without adding much visual layout clutter.

Lastly, I would consider a much shorter section of railroad, but it is totally my own opinion. I think modelers try to add too many locations and model too much distance on their layouts when they would be better off modeling a five mile or less section of track with a lot less compression and a lot more realism. More nuanced switching problems, reduced speeds, and other obstacles can really add to operation. Lance Mindheim, Tom Johnson, and other modelers are really on the right track with their slow operations mindset, but that's just my two cents. Feel free to ignore it. 

New Track Plan. Better or Worse?

Yard is the toughest

Is that the best way to put a runaround in the yard?  I have tried to read up on prototypical yard operations, but I am very much space constrained at that part of the layout.  There is a sliding barn door that takes up the last 4 inches or so behind the yard.

Much better design

If you move the first yard switch right up against the bridge you'll be able to pick up one more car length on your train.  The run around at Granger should hold the same number of cars.  The new yard looks good to me.  The overall plan is very believable and I'm sure you'll have fun operating on it.  We all expect pictures when you get started with the build.

Step back

Somehow all the industries have morphed into having one spot sidings.  I doubt a 65 ft covered hopper will fit in the fertilizer plant.

The industry on the ATSF isn't really switchable because you would have to foul the ATSF to switch it.

I'm going to see if I have the ZTS maps or profiles for this sub.

Grain elevators

That’s a nice plan overall.

The way hopper car loading/unloading works at things like grain elevators, feed mills, etc. is that the track is long enough to fit twice as many cars as they can load/unload, with the dump pit / loading spout (often in a short shed over the track) in the middle.  The railroad spots the inbound cars one on side of that with the end car over the pit / under the spout.  Wether inbounds are spotted at the switch end or at the far end depends on what the industry wants, which is sometimes governed by a slight grade on the track to assist car movement.  As each car is loaded/unloaded, the industry uses gravity, a car puller, a track mobile, a truck, or something to shift the car along and move the next one into place.  If they’ve got a gutsy car puller or track mobile they may be able to move the whole string at once, but often it’s just a single car at a time.  A large industry may have a small old switcher like an SW8 - something purchased from a class 1 that no longer wanted it.

That’s a long winded way of saying a single longer track at your grain elevator might work out better than 2 short tracks.

Thanks for all the comments and encouragement

Thanks for all the comments!  Dave, I would love to see those maps if you have them!

I took the ATSF interchange and moved it to after the Temple Depot as per the real life order of things.  I added the iron works at Hewitt, as there was a company called Davis Iron Works there and they had a track leading into their property. I also went on google maps and looked at the town of Granger and tried to roughly replicate the old track there at the grain silos.  I moved the GRR Track farther down after Granger, also per the real life order of things.

The issue with the industry at the top of the track plan is that just to the right of the industry is about a 4"x24" area that will not be useable as there is a door there that has framing that sticks out into the room just a bit.  If you are looking at the plan, its the upper right corner basically.  Im going to remove this industry.

Something I didn't include in the original post: The track plan has 32" minimum radius curves.  Also, I used all #6 turnouts, 1 wye and one #4 turnout up at the fertilizer/car repair shop.  I know that the use of the big radius curves and longer turnouts make it more difficult to fit a lot in, but I wanted it to look as prototypical as possible in the space I have available.  

I'm going to take these suggestions to heart and refine the plan again. 

Updated plan here.

Scope

David, I think it's admirable that you're reaching out and asking questions in an attempt to come to a solution that'll give you long-term enjoyment.  You've made some great changes already.

I was thinking that as well.  While your new plan is a great improvement, given your space, I wonder if opting for a single town with multiple switching districts - and perhaps focusing more on a small number of large, multi-spot industries - might be more satisfying to operate.  As things stand, given the length of the passing siding at Granger, it appears as though the power for a train leaving there will be almost back to Bellmead before the caboose has cleared the siding, so the feeling of mainline running between towns may suffer.

One example of a larger industry might be that grain elevator.  At least in this area, elevators often receive fertilizer, or are located adjacent to fertilizer dealers, so you could have those extra car types without trying to squeeze in the small spur/structure for your fertilizer plant.  Elevators also provide for interesting switching opportunities.  As Ken mentioned, there's the whole idea of cars being moved by a private switcher or Trackmobile during loading, but you also have:

1. Off-spot storage, where the railroad might tie down empties on a siding somewhere pending the elevator's next order.  This could actually be true of any larger industry.
2. Rejected car operations, where the elevator refuses an empty (e.g. for bad gates).  The railroad has to switch that car out and route it back to a RIP track for repairs, then spot it back to the elevator again when complete.  Meanwhile, the rest of the hoppers follow their normal path to their destination.  It looks like one of your spurs around the yard could be perfect for your RIP track.  Perhaps repurposing one of the engine service tracks for that use?  Your RIP would also come in handy for routing cars that failed inspection upon receipt at one of your interchanges.
3. Buggy car operations, where a car has been loaded, but the grain fails purity tests.  Those cars either stay behind when the other loads are pulled so the bad grain can be dumped, or they're sold to a different buyer (e.g. as cattle or turkey feed) and routed differently than the other loads.  (Dave may be able to tell us whether this testing was in force in the 1980s.)

Going with a single larger town/city also means that speeds could be lower, extending the "play value" of your operations.

If you'd prefer to stick with the current arrangement - and you should absolutely do so if that's what you'd enjoy more - I'd suggest shortening the Granger siding to allow more clearance/"headroom" to switch from the bottom end, and also to provide more visual separation between each location.

Finally, whether you stayed with the current arrangement or moved to more of a single town setup, would it be feasible to add a small staging yard across the bottom so road trains could originate there, make setouts and pickups at Bellmead, then continue around the room back to staging?  I know you mentioned needing to leave the garage door useable, but could you spin the plan 180° so the staging would be across the top, then make the Temple leg a lift-out or flip-up to allow you to park the car between sessions and retain access to the breaker box?

Alternative

Along the lines of what Joe suggested (and I alluded to in an earlier post), with the space you have, its worth considering an alternative.

I haven't found the San Antonio ZTS maps (Bellmead south) but I did find the ZTS for the Ft Worth side, Bellmead north.  Just north of Bellmead (its considered part of Bellmead) is an industrial park/lead that might be a candidate.  There are remnants of the tracks and industries still there.  I can see gons, flats, boxcars, tank cars, covered hoppers all going in there.

I have included a scan of the map and the listing of tracks as of 12/1988.  The coolest thing in the yard is track 122, whose official name is "Track behind the Yard Office".

The industrial park has a pair of switchbacks in it, I would simplify it a bit and a runaround to make it easier. 

Updated plan here

 Looks like it would work to me. I think it's more important to make a decision then start building than to spend lots of time designing the "perfect" plan.  As you build you'll see things you want to change which is more  efficient way time wise to get what you want. Real railroads are not perfectly designed either, they evolve over time so they have less than ideal spots too. Embrace the good enough concept and get to cutting wood :> ) .....DaveB

Designing on the fly

I've been following this thread because it interest me. Even though I'm neither much of a  prototype nor track planning guy I do enjoy seeing projects evolve. I've left it to those more in the know to comment but I have to chime in and second the notion of doing some design and/or redesign as you build. That's how my current plan evolved. I started with something much smaller and simpler than what you have and then got a lot of good input here. I then added to and redesigned as I built and I would say my current pike is the most fully realized and satisfying one I've ever built. There are many reasons for that but the eventual track layout I arrived at is one of them. Some things you can't just work out on paper or planning software.

Modular Approach vs. Perfect Design

To piggyback on some other comments and to add to them:

I think that the design is much improved and could be successful as is.

Second, I would reiterate that a smaller section of railroad would probably be better. What is the essential element that you want to capture? For my modules it was a grain elevator and depot that I wanted as a centerpiece, but something that would fit into future layouts when I have the space.

The Free Mo or at least modular concept allows for trial and error on that first module. You can finish a section without issue or expense, while changing your mind as you operate/add modules. This can be done within a plan like yours by starting with something simple that would fit with any design (A module of Budweiser and the river?) ( The Iron Works corner?) Then with the big picture in mind, you can operate it and develop the plan as you go in a bite-sized manner.

Regardless, think hard about what you want but not too hard. Eventually you just need to get going! 

Off spot storage

To pick up on what Joe said about off spot storage, here are a couple examples of real industries using off spot storage written up in detail by a guy who's an engineer on the railroad that serves those industries:

A bottling company:  http://oscalewcor.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-corn-syrup-flows.html

A container company:  http://oscalewcor.blogspot.com/2011/01/inland-container-layout-design-element.html

Even if you're not interested in those specific industries, reading and thinking about how they use their off spot storage helps you realize how it can work in other situations.

My personal experience is adding in off spot storage with some of the aspects he mentions in those blog entries gets a lot more operating interest out of not much if any more track.

V3 vs. Ind park

I like v3 more compared to the previous versions.

Having said that, I think the industrial park concept fits better in your space.

Ultimately its up to you.

I will say that without any staging on either end of the layout, the through freight operation is pretty much out of the question due to the physical limitations of the space.  Essentially, either way you go you will really be building and operating the "industrial park" option, since it will essentially be one local switching a half dozen industries.  You can say they are 40 miles from Bellmead or you can say they are on the same industrial lead, it doesn't matter, they will actually be on the other side of the garage in either case.  It's just how you want to conceive of the operation.

Either way, what you have looks like fun.  Even if you don't use the industrial lead, you (or another modeler) could get some ideas on potential industries from looking at a satellite view.

Off-spots

Ken brings up a good point.  The off-spots I was referring to in my earlier reply were empty covered hoppers awaiting an elevator order.  I also saw examples of this on my prototype with empty gons being stored until the scrap metal recycler had enough capacity to take them.  However, as Ken points out, industries taking in loads can store them off-spot in a very similar manner and for similar reasons. 

I think the primary difference can be that, for the loads, the cars are routed on paper directly to that particular customer.  For empties - or at least for covered hoppers on my prototype - they're just a pool of cars, with no assigned destination elevator.  Once orders came in, the IAIS Trainmaster would just direct crews to take X number of empties from Y Siding, delivering the stated number of cars to each elevator needing them.  To me, that adds a fun wrinkle to grain elevator ops, one that's likely similar for eastern coal mines.

Shrinking the plan

Ok guys, thank you all for the comments and suggestions.  I really appreciate it! 

My main goal of the railroad is to have friends over to operate on, and keep us busy for a couple hours.  Running trains in circles gets boring, so I want to keep it interesting and fun.

My benchwork is going up soon, so either way, we will have progress!  I have 3 kids, and my oldest daughter is very interested in helping with the scenery (she is very much an artist).  Since we live in Texas, we have no basements, so most of us model railroaders are limited to a bedroom, or a game room if we are lucky.  Our house is full of kids right now, so the garage is the place to do it. Space is definitely limited. At some point, I would like to engineer a way to go around the entire room, but right now, I am focused on just getting some trains running.  I think the lift-out would work, but its above my pay grade as far as engineering is concerned.   I am also a member of a large club here in town, so I can get my long FPPX coal trains or GRR Ortner hoppers on the club layout lashed to 5 or 6 Katy Geeps.  Perhaps the most fulfilling part of this hobby is that it allows you to be creative. It is something I crave constantly.

Dave, if you happen to find the ZTS maps for Waco-South, boy would I love to see them.  That kind of stuff is so rare to find, and there is very little information out there on the Katy.  I have a lot of books, including standard plans, etc; but track plans are hard to come by.  So much of the track has been taken up on that portion of the Katy around Waco that its hard to find what was there in the 1980's.  Maybe I need to take a trip to Denison soon and see if they have any. 

I know that my model railroading is kinda like my appetite: My eyes are bigger than my stomach!  I want to have something that is loaded with stuff to switch, but at the same time, I want the layout to feel like there is a bit of "wide open space" that we all feel when we are out railfanning or when we are driving out in the middle of the country.  Pelle Soeborg was good at doing that with his limited space in Europe.

The consensus I am getting is to shrink the amount of towns on the layout.  I am going to do that and re-submit to you guys.  

Thanks again,

David

One more question

One more question:

Do you guys think I should reduce the radius on the curves? Currently it’s at 32”.