the Western Maryland Flavor-Aid

[asciibaron]

with the help of Lee and Mr. David K. Smith, i have a new prototype, a new track plan, and a curved turnout shopping list.  

i'm modeling the Western Maryland around Connellsville, PA in 1967.  the prototype had two yards in the area.  the larger was called Bowest - it was off to the left of the WM westbound main near Dunbar, PA across the river from the B&O's east end of their yard.  Bowest had engine servicing facilities, a wye, and an interchange with the B&O.  the WM had trackage rights on the B&O for 70 miles to the Ida May mine deep in WV.  

the Greenwood yard was simply a four track staging yard along the main about 1000 yards from the end of the line and the connection with the P&LE.  the N&W(P&WV) connected to the WM via a short run on the P&LE (less than 1/4 mile).  the staging yard was used to setout cars for the P&LE, N&W, and the mighty PRR who had a connection with the 4th track.  

i have combined the two yards into a single location for ease of operations.  i have also taken an a la carte approach to the operations between 1966 and 1974 and call it 1967.  this enables me to model the P&LE's operations after their yard at Dickerson Run closed in 1971 and operations were moved to the much smaller West Connellsville yard.  the West Connellsville yard was about 1/4 mile from the WM/P&LE connection along the river and next to the P&WV bridge.

traffic will be an Alpha Jet in each direction with work in the yard, a PRR transfer run, a P&LE transfer run, a B&O branch job, a WM yard job, and a coal extra that drops MTY's and pickup's loads to haul east.  the B&O and WM yard jobs originate out of the yard and the other trains will come from staging.  i am hoping to find places to add some switching as i build.  a typical operating session should take about an hour.  

here is the plan David and I have hashed out.  it has a nice long mainline run, staging blocked by a ridge, and very little completely hidden trackage.  


the blue is the B&O, the red the PRR.

the PRR transfer and the MTY coal will be staged on the PRR staging.  the PRR transfer job enters from the obscured tunnel and the MTY coal makes the trip to Connellsville via the long run.  the two Alpha Jets and the P&LE transfer job will be staged in the other staging area.

[Philip H]

Sweet looking!  And it has a striking resemblence to the last plan you worked out and liked - which just confirms for me that in your space, and with your interests, this is a good layout type for you.

Looking forward to progress updates!

[asciibaron]

Sweet looking!  And it has a striking resemblence to the last plan you worked out and liked - which just confirms for me that in your space, and with your interests, this is a good layout type for you.

it is full of compromises, but it is easier to build and maintain than a layout full of hidden staging.  my goal is to capture the feel of operations on the line while also capturing the character of the prototypes.  did the prototypes operate this way - kinda - it's as close as i'm going to get in my limited space.  the layout allows for a continuous run which is important - my sons will really like running trains and watching them as they disappear and reappear.  me too

what i really like is that in a limited space i can model the operations of 5 railroads and maintain a nearly true to prototype operation.

[Philip H]

what i really like is that in a limited space i can model the operations of 5 railroads and maintain a nearly true to prototype operation.

SCORE!

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Kick a$$!

I know it's been a struggle to find something that you feel you can do justice to, and enjoy at the same time. I'm hoping this is it. It seems to have good promise.

[MichaelWinicki]

I think it's a darn good looking concept.

I hope you can plow ahead as a little "layout remorse" kicks in... Which is something that probably affects all of us to one extent or another as we finally decide on a plan and get past the planning stage.

[asciibaron]

ok, voting time... which one do you like better?



or



the top one is a tweak to get the staging to connect directly with the yard.

[Philip H]

I like the longer staging tracks on the top one - do you have any idea if they would exceed the capacity of your main for running purposes?

[Dave Schneider]

The bottom one because it lets you switch the yard without pulling the train into the tunnel. However, you then have a difficult scenery problem where the single tunnel, adjacent track, and the 4 inch elevation track are all in close proximity.

Best wishes, Dave

[asciibaron]

I like the longer staging tracks on the top one - do you have any idea if they would exceed the capacity of your main for running purposes?

not sure what you mean

[Philip H]

Perhaps its my lack of visual accuity, but the longer staging track in that plan look like they have more capacity thenthe longest stretch of you track before it turns in one direction or another.  Sometimes that adds to operational challenge, others it become a PITA.  Just wondering if you've been able to do any capacity assessments.

[David K. Smith]

Well, since this topic has gone public, I may as well toss in a third variation (well, third for this series). This one places the staging tracks right beside the main yard to minimize the run between them. The sidings that were behind the yard are now on the other side of the layout. Note that this one also provides separate PC staging (red lines).

In addition to a (perhaps) better arrangement of staging, it also places the rear-most line along the left side of the layout above the foreground track. This enhances the scenic opportunities on this side by raising the height of the "tall bridge" and lowering the "long bridge", which I think is a better arrangement than before. All of the grades are a little gentler, too, especially since the main staging yard occupies a level in between two others.
 


This has been an evolutionary process, as I become more familiar with what Steve is looking for in the way of ops versus scenic elements versus other aspects. It's not always easy since it's a moving target (not being critical; this is just a natural part of the process). Hopefully the two of us can converge on something that hits most of the targets. And now that it's out for group discussion, others can chime in.

[asciibaron]

Perhaps its my lack of visual accuity, but the longer staging track in that plan look like they have more capacity thenthe longest stretch of you track before it turns in one direction or another.  Sometimes that adds to operational challenge, others it become a PITA.  Just wondering if you've been able to do any capacity assessments.

David made them longer in the plan than i would have on the layout - i'm figuring about 12-15 forty foot car trains which comes in at around 4 feet with power and cabin.

[Bob Bufkin]

CABIN!  Your letter your PRR bias slip which is O.K. with me.

[asciibaron]

the 3rd option is interesting. somewhere there is the right mix and it's very close.  at this point it's just a matter of sorting out the staging.  what is going to allow the easiest flow of trains, allow for some amount of switching, and be easy to build and maintain.

i'm more inclined to go with the 2nd option - the quality of the main line run just seems better.  i think it has to do with the train going into an out of hidden areas more times on the 3rd option.  the train just seems to play hide and seek a little too much.  over by the big bridge, i don't think that the 2" separation will look good - i'd never be able to switch the industry up either.  having that big bridge with a solid ridge background i think would make it that much more compelling a scene.

my vote is for the 2nd option with mods to be determined as construction progresses.