A Little Design Help

[Hyperion]

Plus, in terms of efficiency, is it more efficient to have 7,000 tons of freight sitting still while you pump your own gas?  Or is it better to cut off power and bring in fresh horses and keep those cars moving?

Lee

You can mainline fuel a full set of power in 15-20 minutes max -- which also happens to be about the same amount of time it takes a good group of carmen to do a 1000-mile inspection, so it works out nicely.  

But you'd be hard-pressed to fully replace that same set and do an air test in under 45 and that's provided there are no problems and there quite often is.  You never, ever mess with good power if you can help it.

An extra 30min might not seem like much, and at most terminals it's not.  But at major terminals or fueling locations like Lincoln, Argentine, Belen, and to a lesser extent Hauser (to list some BNSF-ones as I'm familiar with them) where trains can be coming every 10 minutes or so, 20m vs 45m is a massive difference in the throughput of your facility, not to mention the load on the Mechanical forces at SFS who can now spend more time actually doing proper inspections on those that are due rather than having a constant stream of locomotive being thrown at them needing fuel and slowing down the whole terminal; which leads to another big benefit -- greater-utilization of your expensive locomotives and the need for fewer locomotives since they're (almost) all coupled to trains rather than sitting on SFS or Power Ready tracks waiting around to be used.

[conrail98]

Based off of Mark's timeline then I can definitely tell which ones went into the A/D tracks and swapped power and which ones sat on the mainline at the fuel rack off of the freight schedules. I also created a map so you can see the facilities that I'm looking at. I do like Dave's alterations but I guess it's going to boil down for me to how much compression I can get while keeping prototype fidelity and arrive at something i'll be happy with,

Phil

[Hyperion]

I know this is an operational thing that you're a long way from needing, but if you are going to model mainline fueling operations which almost always coincide with FRA-mandated 1000-mile inspections, you definitely should throw in some BO cars.

Many of the found repairs can be fixed in-train and we're always trying to find ways to do even more in-train (hence the ability to now even change wheels in-train while still aired and coupled).  All this means is that you're now going to be tying up a fuel rack for anywhere from 10m to maybe even an hour if the carman is having some real problems.  

But, sometimes, you get something that you just can't fix in-train or is going to take longer than the Trainmaster wants to tie up a spot on the pads for. This really mucks things up.  The train has to be cut at the car, pulled forward (inevitably blocking the entire throat of the fueling facility), the car shoved into a RIP track, train goes forward again blocking everything, then back to recouple and air up the train, then leave -- the whole process easily takes more than an hour and seize up the pads from all inbound/outbound for 30-45m of that time.  If it's nearer the rear, often a yard job will pull it off to speed things up, but still blocking an entrance to the facility.

Some trains almost never have bad orders and little more is done than replacing some brake shoes.  But about every location has what we sometimes call "dirty trains" -- trains that have a disproportionate number of bad orders.  You just know that when that train shows up it's going to have problems.  It might be from a given yard that does really shoddy outbounds or it might simply be the cars used on the train -- dirty trains are most often general merchandise trains full of cars that aren't turned all that often.  So you may have it so that your Chicago-origined Merchandise trains are always giving you problems, while your intermodal trains rarely do.

[John]

Many of the found repairs can be fixed in-train and we're always trying to find ways to do even more in-train (hence the ability to now even change wheels in-train while still aired and coupled).  All this means is that you're now going to be tying up a fuel rack for anywhere from 10m to maybe even an hour if the carman is having some real problems.  

One of the videos I have shows just that ... UP carmen jack the car up in train, drop the axle and slide in a new one .. quite impressive ..

[conrail98]

The Model Railcast has had some great discussions recently on this type of thing and adding it to the operations of one's layout so while yes it is in the future, there is some great discussion going on in the model railroading world around it. But, you did bring up a point, I didn't have RIP track or at least a BO set-off track. I thought about more of the "blocks" switched out at Harrisburg and they really boil down to the following for manifests:

- Allentown
- Conway
- Buffalo

with points between for Harrisburg. For intermodals, they really boiled down to
- New Jersey ports (like Kearny)
- Chicago and TV terminals between like Toledo and Pittsburgh
- St. Louis and TV terminals between like Indianapolis and Pittsburgh
- Philadelphia, 1 train each way
- Baltimore, 1 train each way
- Morrisville, 2 trains each way

Thanks for all the thoughts so far,

Phil

[MichaelWinicki]

I'm big on flexing the benchwork to fit things in.  Those 32" aisles look very operator-friendly, and that's something that I think a lot of people look past when they design their layouts.  Don't be afraid to flex the benchwork to help keep the aisles usable.

Also, look at what is on the opposite side of the aisle.  If you have the ability to alternate towns, and thus the places where operators are going to stand, you will have a layout that is comfortable and fun to operate.  I've been to several op sessions where aisles are narrow and operator areas are stacked in the same spot.  It's hard to concentrate on your local when you're butt cheek to butt cheek!

Bruce

Brilliant advice there Bruce.

Aisle width seems to be an underrated consideration for many layout designs.

[Bruce Bird]

That's what is great about N scale.  You can add some 'run time' between towns in order to alternate space between operator spaces.  Since HO takes up twice as much room for a typical town, it is much harder to design this space into a layout intended for operation!  Making operators more comfortable when operating is much more than cup holders and the right kind of beer!

Bruce

[conrail98]

That's what is great about N scale.  You can add some 'run time' between towns in order to alternate space between operator spaces.  Since HO takes up twice as much room for a typical town, it is much harder to design this space into a layout intended for operation!  Making operators more comfortable when operating is much more than cup holders and the right kind of beer!

Bruce

That's why I'm hesitant to have the yard bridge the aisle, I'd like for some running room between Hershey and Harrisburg. I've thought about everything some more and I'm going to play around with some different things tonight and hopefully have something viewable,

Phil

[wm3798]

Making operators more comfortable when operating is much more than cup holders and the right kind of beer!

Yes, you also need to have cool tunes.  Preferably on vinyl.

[conrail98]

So I was in my thinking room this morning and I realized a major flaw in any design I've come up with to this point on the yard itself. If an EB is at the fuel pad on its main, then it blocks any and all entrance for any other EB's coming down the helix out of staging unless they do left-side running down the helix to gain access to the yard. That isn't a great option because the helix will be taking trains from the 3rd level staging to the first level (it also will do 2nd to 3rd level as well) and could add more of a bottle neck for WBs as they await clearance to go to staging. Another option is to have a crossover somewhere in the helix or even, once past the 2nd level, ballooning the helix out to four tracks to mimic the many holding zones west of Harrisburg. Thoughts?

Phil

[Hyperion]

The same problem happened at some real-life fuel pads actually, and still does on occasion as train-lengths are increased.  Putting a single set of pads in the middle was the most flexible because you can fuel any train facing any direction with equal ability, however that required a LOT of real-estate -- upwards of 2 miles on each side of the pads.

The prototype solution is to double-end their fueling pads (I've attached an image of the Belen facility as an example).  So that westbound trains are filled at one "end" of the yard and eastbound trains are filled at the other "end" of the yard.  The trains are parallel to one another while filling up, they've just got the front ends on opposite sides of the yard.

So, looking at your plan, I'm guessing that your eastbound problem shows up on the rightmost pad.  Stop that and your tail is hanging back onto the helix.  My suggestion would be to have another fueling area up near that crossing closer to the other end of Harrisburg.  My other suggestion would be, and I think this applies both to how you've got it now and if you put another pad in as well, is that it appears that any fueling activity at all completely fouls the mainline.  Usually, in real-life, there's more than a single fueling track so that it would take multiple stopped trains to actually foul the main.  You appear to only have 1 track in each direction with no means of going around.  Perhaps that was prototypical at Harrisburg, I don't know.

[wm3798]

Crossover + Helix = Impending Disaster.  I'd find another work around.

Lee

[conrail98]

Mark, I don't see the image, but on WB, if they are at the fuel pad in my design, they shouldn't be fouling the main for the WB main and trains should be able to get into the AD yard behind it. It's the EBs that post the problem (and actually do on the prototype as well). Yes, Harrisburg has two mains through that are kinda separate, but do have 2 or 3 holding tracks or "runners" to go around that you access through CP Rockville which is what I was thinking of with the expansion from 2 to 4 tracks in the helix. I thought I was slick with the crossovers at the bottom of the helix in the current post, but as I said above then realized there would be no way to get to them if an EB is at the fuel pad. I think the compromise is going to be the secondary fuel pad on the east (top) side of the yard as you talked about. Anyone know if Amtrak every used the pad (I know some E8s did)?

Phil

[DKS]

If the station got swung around to the right, and if the whole yard was pushed toward that end of the layout, such that the throat started  to curve around the corner, you might be able to fit in crossovers at the helix end...
 

[conrail98]

The prototype solution is to double-end their fueling pads (I've attached an image of the Belen facility as an example).  So that westbound trains are filled at one "end" of the yard and eastbound trains are filled at the other "end" of the yard.  The trains are parallel to one another while filling up, they've just got the front ends on opposite sides of the yard.

I took a look at that facility. Am I to assume that this is one side, and this is the other?

Phil