Improving the door layout...

[Dave V]

I've been debating with myself and others for week now about what I should do with my current hollow-core door layout.  The plan I used from MR was obviously geared toward showcase running and not toward real operations.  I added two extra sidings to the orginial plan at construction, and I made sure that the sidings on the front were arranged som the main did not take the diverging route.  I've done some limited operations with the layout but have found it to be less than easy.  Major problems include blocking both mains between two towns for run-arounds, and difficult access to the inside track from staging.  Here's the current plan approximated in RTS:



Staging comes in from the lower right siding.  I'm pretty well set on the idea of replacing all this track with Atlas code 55 (I currently use Atlas and Peco code 80).

Now, I never use the crossovers on the top unless doing a run-around move, which is terribly unrealistic (i.e., traveling to the NEXT TOWN to get around the train).  So, let's move that crossover to town.  Ed K mentioned that I should move the crossovers together to make a true PRR interlocking.  OK, good.  Now, what if I add a passing siding on the inside track to improve the run-around needs for the local?  Cool!  It means the depot has to move across the tracks, but...  so what?  DONE!



So, here's what I've gained with a total of only two additional turnouts:

1.  Better access to inside track from staging.  To return, only a short backup move is necessary.

2.  Better switching opportunities using the passing siding.  Can store a short local without blocking either main.  Can run-around blocking only one main now.

3.  True full-interlocking looks better and reeks of PRR.

4.  More flexible staging access...  Having the crossovers in the middle means EITHER END could be staging (or both!).

Thanks Ed K and Steve Hanlon for hearing me out on this.  I'm pumped.  Think I have a plan here that salvages the best parts about my layout while addressing at least some of the shortcomings.

Time to order some track!

[asciibaron]

i would switch the turnouts for the staging crossovers to reduce the S curve.

[Dave V]

Hmm...  That's a good point.  Unfortunately, I wanted to put the depot there and will need room for the ground throws.  Hmmm...

Since the track components are the same, I'll play around with that when they get here.  How problematic is the S-curve business?  I hear people warn against it as if it were mortal sin, but does it really cause so much trouble?

[asciibaron]

use this trick to route the ground throws away from the station...

http://asciibaron.dyndns.org/nscale/module/images/1967_3.jpg

the S curve is visually unappealing more than problematic for short cars - you aren't planning on running any 86' cars are you?

[3rdrail]

Will that passing track be long enough to run around anything longer than a few cars (less than 6)?

[Dave V]

Short passing siding sure, but better than what I have now.  My locals tend to be longer now for visual purposes, but rarely do I switch more than 3 or 4 cars out of it at a time.  So I could live with 6 and a cabin.

Steve, I may or may not run 89' TOFCs some day...  For now my longest cars are my Broadway Limited cars.  Visually unappealing, perhaps, but every shot I have of a train crossing over an interlocking on the PRR has that S-curve look.

You'll have to tell me more about how you did that "remoting" of your ground throws.  I'm intrigued.  If they can be run under the eastbound platform that will sit between the main and passing siding, they may be a hit.  Or, I can run them to the layout edge under the depot.

[asciibaron]

i used some cheap tubing and ran it from the turnout to be switched to the area where i wanted the ground throw.  i used some brass wire and used that as a remote linkage between the points and the ground throw.

-steve

[DKS]

How problematic is the S-curve business?  I hear people warn against it as if it were mortal sin, but does it really cause so much trouble?

They can cause some problems with long cars, but the biggest greif comes with mixing different-length cars that have body-mount couplers. Short turnouts will exacerbate the problem. If your cars are about the same length and all have truck-mounts, there's not really much to worry about, and if you use longer turnouts, you should be good to go.

[davefoxx]

Dave,

If for some reason you choose not to rearrange the turnouts in the crossovers, one trick to ease an S-curve is to get the points of the point-to-point turnouts on the outer loop as close together as possible.  This will mean cutting the turnouts to make this possible but will practically eliminate one S-curve, pretty much leaving just the S-curve in the crossover.  However, depending on the size of the turnouts that you're using, that S-curve may not be a problem.  Just so you know, I have a crossover on my layout that is two Atlas code 55 #5 turnouts, and I can run a train through it at track speed with no problems.  Normally, a train wouldn't roll through my crossover that fast, because it's purely for runarounds.  If, however, you can get #7s or even #10s for higher speed crossovers, a la Pennsy-style, do it.

Also, I wonder if you should add crossovers on the far side of the layout.  That way a train running clockwise on the inner loop, for instance, could jump to the outside track to stay clear of the local working the passing siding and inner loop, without the local having to clear the main before the other train's arrival.

Dave Foxx

[Dave V]

Yes, I meant to mention that all the turnouts are #7s...  I may sneak #5s for the coal branch.  I may also be able to use them for the town trackage.

I don't anticipate my M1 4-8-2 or my GG1 creeping into the spurs...  but then my L1s 2-8-2 doesn't like anything less than about 13", and she's a good local and branch engine.

[Dave V]

OK, I addressed the S curve issue.  I also put #5s on the sidings in town (the two on the switchback) and at the mine branch.  They'll probably fit better.

I'm wondering if I can get more passing siding by making them #5s too...

Then the mainline turnouts are #7s.

Can anybody tell me what Peco's medium and large radius turnouts roughly equate to in c55?

[wm3798]

Wouldn't a fairly significant rework like this constitute the right time to install Atlas c-55?  You've already demonstrated in the RTS that it will work...

Lee

[davefoxx]

I believe that's exactly what the good doctor has in mind: converting to Atlas code 55.

Dave

[Dave V]

Wouldn't a fairly significant rework like this constitute the right time to install Atlas c-55?  You've already demonstrated in the RTS that it will work...

Lee

Reading is a lost art.

[wm3798]

Duh... When you were asking about the comparison between Peco and c55, I thought you had laid it out in c-55, but were looking to do Peco track...  I confess, I was "skimming"...

Lee