Proto-lanced Pennsy: The West Slope

[chicken45]

Where do you intend the scenic divider to be in this version?

MH

I would say the same place as previous versions. I'd like to move the coke ovens a little further north away from the depots and main line.

[chicken45]

Ok. I decided I'm going to go with this for sure. I let it gel for a while and the more I think about it, the more I fall in love.

I'm kinda stalled right now due to the turnout shortage we are experiencing (ends next month, right?)

I do have one issue that I would like some input from the  braintrust.
It's about the placement of the turnouts on the north side of this plan, where I plan to place MG tower. Should I move the turnouts to the center or keep them far apart like they are currently illustrated above?

So far this was what I could come up with
Pros to moving them together:
Prototype fidelity of MG Interlocking

Pros to keeping them at the ends near the curves:
Passenger trains passing freight trains up the grade.

I am currently leaning towards moving them together unless I can gain considerable more operational potential by keeping them far apart.

[Hornwrecker]

The two crossovers at the top?  Where they sit now, the space in between them is too close for any use as a passing siding, and getting them farther away from the curves will help when The Broadway has to use them.  What number switch are you going to use?

[chicken45]

The two crossovers at the top?  Where they sit now, the space in between them is too close for any use as a passing siding, and getting them farther away from the curves will help when The Broadway has to use them.  What number switch are you going to use?

Yes, the two crossovers at the top. You are casting your vote to move them to the center away from the curves?
I was planning on #7s, but maybe I can bump it up to a #10.  Can't be any harm in that, right?

[Lemosteam]

How about flipping the upper right crossover and removing the second one on the left.  The outer track comes back to the inner in the lower left anyway...

[chicken45]

I guess we should define which is my east bound and west bound tracks. As I understand it, Pennsy ran 4 tracks, two east, two west. Two passenger, two freight each way. Since I'm only using 2 tracks, It will be simplified to east and west with passenger and freight sharing the same track. I guess I think it works with the inner loop being westbound (clockwise), and the outer loop eastbound (anticlockwise).

Is that how you planned it, DKS?

[DKS]

Is that how you planned it, DKS?

That wasn't on my mind when I drew it--it's entirely up to you.

[Bsklarski]

You can get rid of those cross overs all together up top, you have the same ones on the bottom. You can always use that space for a shot siding with another stub off that with a customer or some sort. Up to you. But if you are going to want the MG tower there and the crossovers, like it was posted a few posts ago, get rid of the one on the upper left and move the one on the upper right further toward the center and you will at least have something close to MG. 

[eric220]

I would say keep the crossovers and move them together. The full crossover is a part of the scene that you're trying to recreate.



You've already had to sacrifice two of the four mains. I think that if you do anything else to water down the track plan, you'll lose the flavor of the scene.

Edit: Here's a wild idea that might or might not work and wouldn't be cheap. Is there room to do the full four-track crossover there? You could either use the tails of tracks 1 and 4 (assuming you're showing 2 and 3 on the current plan) as sidings/industries, or terminate them inside a tunnel.

[Lemosteam]

Yup Eric's right- now that I see the interlocking drawing. I'd simulate the crossovers for tracks 2 & 3...  JMHO

[kelticsylk]

I guess we should define which is my east bound and west bound tracks. As I understand it, Pennsy ran 4 tracks, two east, two west. Two passenger, two freight each way. Since I'm only using 2 tracks, It will be simplified to east and west with passenger and freight sharing the same track. I guess I think it works with the inner loop being westbound (clockwise), and the outer loop eastbound (anticlockwise).

Is that how you planned it, DKS?

Josh,
First, way too much info for what you're trying to accomplish, but thought you might like to know...

With only two tracks you are correct, though it wasn't gospel. As a general rule yes. I originally thought this was written in stone, but track charts show otherwise. Between Altoona and Gallitzin the 2 east 2 west was the general rule but there may have been times when traffic demanded otherwise (like periods during WWII) when three tracks may have been assigned to either direction. Notice that Conrail did something similar in a permanent fashion.

I also thought that outer tracks were freight and inner tracks were passenger. Track charts show other wise...



You can see the speed limits and track assignments on the bottom of the chart.

I believe the charts are from the late 60's so. These are the only set I have with these notes, so I can't say for certain if this was always the case, but I'm betting it was.

Second, No 10 switches probably aren't necessary, and take a lot of room, but if you are spacing them on either side of the layout I would use them for "Pennsyesque" effect.  Mainlines required gently flowing  crossovers. While climbing the hill all trains were limited to 30-35 mph, but consider the inertia of a train suddenly changing direction at any speed above a crawl. Making a sharp transition between tracks at speed was asking for trouble.

Once they they topped the summit traffic really started moving. Passenger trains jumped to 60-70 once they cleared UN. Beyond Cresson freights rolled at 50.

[chicken45]

Edit: Here's a wild idea that might or might not work and wouldn't be cheap. Is there room to do the full four-track crossover there? You could either use the tails of tracks 1 and 4 (assuming you're showing 2 and 3 on the current plan) as sidings/industries, or terminate them inside a tunnel.

Eric,
That actually occurred to me. I even mocked it out and did a full 4 track interlocking to the plan using 2 sets of curved turnouts on each end to take the mainline from 2 tracks, to 4, and back to 2, but I couldn't make it work.
DKS, any tricks up your golden sleeve?
It would be a great victory to say "yeah, I have America's Broadway of Commerce" on half a door."   

Frank,
Never too much information! The bit on the speed limits is what I needed to see! Basically, MG interlocking IS THE ENTIRE SCENE on that side of the layout. While I may not need a full interlocking for operations, it will look more like an interlocking than a set of 2 turnouts.

[DKS]

DKS, any tricks up your golden sleeve?

Good question. That's if I had a golden sleeve...

It is do-able, but it looks utterly absurd.



The right end of the outer track cannot be reconnected (at least not without a very tight radius) because of the total length of the crossover switches. The layout would have to be lengthened 4-5 inches.

Alternatively, you could use #5s and shorten them, but that would be quite a mess.

[NARmike]

Good question. That's if I had a golden sleeve...

It is do-able, but it looks utterly absurd.

I, for one, really like it! (said the guy modeling single mains)... Looks like some awesome photo ops. Done well, it could actually give you the look and feel of the real thing... from some angles, anyway.

[eric220]

I finally broke down and not only got a copy of AnyRail, but also a Wine emulator so that I can run it.  Here's my version of the four-track full crossover.



Although it looks like a very minor riff on DKS's, I'd like to point out that I started with the previous version and built out what I had in mind.  The only real difference is that I didn't reconnect track 1 on the left.  My thought was to use that spur as an industry siding if you wanted more operation possibility.  There are at least three runarounds in the spaghetti bowl of MG's interlocking, including one created by tracks 1 and 2.  If 2 is the main and 1 functions as a spur, that could be worked as a facing point move.  I know it's completely wrong if you're trying to replicate the operations at MG, but given the size of the layout, that's pretty much a given.  If you're willing to disconnect the ops aspect from the cosmetic aspect, you can derive some ops potential from what is cosmetically a completely different scene.  I think it can work, especially if you can conceal or visually downplay the left side where the tracks go from two to four.