The LIRR Industrial Service, Inc. shelf layout

[Lemosteam]

David I can't express how grateful I am you did this as you have done for so many others.  I know you are nocturnal from your condition; if there's anything I can do in return...

  I'm hoping to leave two cars on each side of the PRR to LIRR connection and use a switcher to move one car at a time to its destination and replace it with an empty on the PRR main to the right of the PRR crossover for pickup.  I'm thinking of working with 8-10 cars max at one time. 

  Do you think I need a runaround on the left side of the channel like the one on the right?

[DKS]

Do you think I need a runaround on the left side of the channel like the one on the right?

I think another runaround would crowd out sidings; the one should be enough. That said, I hope others will comment, since I really didn't do much in the way of analysis of the plan; I more or less replicated your original, with just a couple of tweaks. One more little thing I might do is make the PRR crossover a double. I have no idea if this would offer any advantages, but it just feels like it might, even if it was only cosmetic.



Finally, I think I'd use a through plate girder bridge instead of a truss, as I think the latter is too long for the plan--it will push the switches at each end apart, making everything else shorter. This might be a case where you need to settle for a stream instead of a channel.

[eric220]

Just a thought. Might you want to add a siding to the PRR mains so that the cars that are being picked up or set out don't foul the mains? I know that it would be entirely cosmetic, but I think it makes sense.

[conrail98]

Just a thought. Might you want to add a siding to the PRR mains so that the cars that are being picked up or set out don't foul the mains? I know that it would be entirely cosmetic, but I think it makes sense.

I was going to suggest this. Would the LIRR bring the train from the nearest yard, Pennsy or otherwise, or would the Pennsy drop cars on a long siding, like Strasburg, and have them pick it up to distribute? Your answer would depend on the need for a siding along the PRR,

Phil

[DKS]

Easy enough to accommodate the siding, and I think it does make for an improvement.

[eric220]

Quick'n dirty 'shop.  I was thinking something along these lines.



With the implication that the siding is double-ended and rejoins the mains off the right side of the layout.

[Lemosteam]

  Great suggestions gents but you are forgetting that my LIRR I.S. Inc. is 2 inches below the PRR mains...  The extra siding would have to be at the PRR height and take up another 2" of usable space down below (which I may consent to have to do, but just on the right hand end of the PRR main).  Since this is not a broadway, (2 track main one EB and one WB).  Wouldn't it be OK for the PRR to route around  the set out cars via the crossovers (why I thought of adding them)?  This assumes there is a crossover off layout to the right so the PRR could pass...  Would I need an interlocking tower? 

Here is an unscaled hand drawn sketch of my vision:

[eric220]

You can always move the junction with the siding further to the right.  Vis:



(Like I said, mine's a quick'n dirty 'shop.)  Whether it's mains or siding, you're going to need enough space to hold however many cars you want to be able to set out for pickup by the PRR.  I just think the siding looks better as an interchange.

Edit: Quick math.  2% grade requires 100 inches linear travel to move 2 inches down.  You've only got 96 inches end to end.  Unless the switchback is partway up the grade (an even then) I don't see how a 2% or less grade is going to be possible with 2 inches separation.

[GaryHinshaw]

I like the concept a lot, especially the elevated PRR main in your sketch.  That said, this looks like a very challenging district to switch as laid out, with only one runaround and very little usable space to spot outbound cars on the main (or siding if you go that route).   Given the geography, I also think the prototype would have come off the main from the left side since most of the industries are on the right side of the channel.  This would eliminate the initial capacity-limiting switchback and one of two bridges over the channel.  That might be hard to arrange with your somewhat limited length though.  If you're interested in ops, can you mock up the track and run it a bit before you commit to the plan?

I'm looking forward to seeing this progress!

[Lemosteam]

Edit: Quick math.  2% grade requires 100 inches linear travel to move 2 inches down.  You've only got 96 inches end to end.  Unless the switchback is partway up the grade (an even then, with the sketches presented), I don't see how a 2% or less grade is going to be possible.

   Eric, crap you're right!  It will have to be more like a 5-6% using your math I'll need about 40" at 5% or 33" at 6%.  Thanks for correcting!  Since I'll only be pulling one car or two, I shouldn't have a problem getting up that grade but I can test that and i may have to add my magnets under the loco and wire under the track concept.

   Going to redo it in anyrail and I'll look to add a siding on that end.  Then I can get rid of the other crossover- it will be easier on the electrification somewhat.  I could also add 31/2" of space behind the headboard with a 1X4x8.  Hmmm.  I like the idea of having some light come in behind the elevated trusses....

   Thanks Gary!  I may reduce the amount of tracks on the LIRR but I think I'll need to model the PRR mains first anyway.  I'm worried about how much it's going to cost to make the elevated trusses...  see  http://www.imaginethatlaserart.com N Scale New York style elevated trusses.  Yikes!  Maybe a job for (shhh, Shapeways!!)  LOL!

    I have a really old version of 3rd plan it so I could visualize it, BUT, I lost the doggone serial number and the software won't let me save any files...

[Chris333]

I love the "drawing" 

Using that last posted trackplan you could split the grade into 2 steps.

I drew them in blue. The first leg down is about 42" and would drop 1.5" that would be a 3.5% grade. Then you can drop down the other 1/2" with just about the same grade.

[central.vermont]

I'm not good at drawing things out but why not have it continue down all over the place. Such as the dual road track bridge could keep going down and beyond to the second switch. The double track could be level and the siding behind could even drop a little. Also the switch back on the left to the two industries could as well go down a little. All you need to do is be sure the sidings where you spot cars is level. This way you elevation changes all over the layout just like the real world. 

Jon

[DKS]

You can always move the junction with the siding further to the right...

Except that now you can't access the siding from the mainline. (I'm assuming that's desirable, as it would seem to be.)

The first leg down is about 42" and would drop 1.5" that would be a 3.5% grade. Then you can drop down the other 1/2" with just about the same grade.

Great minds...

...You could step it down in two stages, using the second leg of the switchback to make the rest lower...

I'm not good at drawing things out but why not have it continue down all over the place. Such as the dual road track bridge could keep going down and beyond to the second switch. The double track could be level and the siding behind could even drop a little. Also the switch back on the left to the two industries could as well go down a little. All you need to do is be sure the sidings where you spot cars is level. This way you elevation changes all over the layout just like the real world.

This might be cool-looking, but I think it might be more of a challenge--both to build and to operate--than would be desired.

So... something like this, now?

[conrail98]

Here's a question though, in most elevated mainline areas, the PRR would generally have a relatively long siding coming along the main that would top down. It wouldn't be direct like you have it. One can see vestiges of this along the NEC as well as others (old industry buildings in Camden next to PATCO come to mind). I would have the siding running along the main line about an inch below and leave the rest of the area at that height and not connect it to the mainline. The mainline would be for display purposes only at this point. Just a thought,

Phil

[davefoxx]

With the implication that the siding is double-ended and rejoins the mains off the right side of the layout.

I was thinking that the crossover between the passing siding and mainline could be removed from DKS' plan, with the implication that both ends of the double-ended passing siding are "off layout."  This would save the cost of two turnouts.  Heck, for that matter, you might not even need the crossovers between the mains.

Hope this helps (save some cash),
DFF

EDIT: I see that Phil beat me to it (guess I took too long to get back to finish my post after a distraction), but, as you can see above, I agree entirely with him.