Author Topic: Modeling the P&WV in N Scale  (Read 7332 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rich_S

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1117
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +70
Re: Modeling the P&WV in N Scale
« Reply #30 on: January 24, 2015, 06:49:34 PM »
+1
Just in, the P&WV Long Valley branch has been purchased by the P&LE.

I haven't posted any updates in awhile, since the only changes on the layout have been era and railroad. For the time being I'm operating the layout as a fictitious branch of the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie railroad.

The long valley switchers working with the new P&LE transfer caboose


 
« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 04:23:00 PM by Rich_S »
Rich S.

glakedylan

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +41
Re: Modeling the P&WV in N Scale
« Reply #31 on: January 24, 2015, 09:53:13 PM »
0
Rich S

some very fine work you have done
looking really great
I like what you are doing
will be following along

I lived some years in the concrete belt of PA
the Medusa kit actually does a pretty good job of representing what I recall of my years there
if you wish, take some time with google maps and the various views of places around Nazareth PA

thanks for sharing
sincerely...

"...that each may live for all,
and all may care for each..."

Rich_S

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1117
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +70
Re: Modeling the P&WV in N Scale
« Reply #32 on: January 25, 2015, 08:02:40 PM »
0
Rich S

some very fine work you have done
looking really great
I like what you are doing
will be following along

I lived some years in the concrete belt of PA
the Medusa kit actually does a pretty good job of representing what I recall of my years there
if you wish, take some time with google maps and the various views of places around Nazareth PA

thanks for sharing
sincerely...

Gary,  Thanks for the compliments on the layout. Being a fan of the L&HR and L&NE I've somewhat familiar with the cement belt in the Eastern part of Pennsylvania. We have a former Medusa cement plant here in Western Pennsylvania, the town name is Wampum.

The plant is currently being operated by Cemex USA. Even though this plant is located along the former Conrail now NS Youngstown high line, I've used a little modelers license and placed another loading facility in the town of Long Valley on my layout.

Since the time period is now 1980 and the branch is being operated by the P&LE, you'll now find Conrail hoppers being loaded at the plant.

I know the B model Macks are a little out dated for 1980, R model Macks are on my to-do list. :D   
« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 04:23:36 PM by Rich_S »
Rich S.

Ed Kapuscinski

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 16836
  • Respect: +1625
    • Conrail 1285
Re: Modeling the P&WV in N Scale
« Reply #33 on: January 26, 2015, 10:53:37 AM »
0
I dig it!

Rich_S

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1117
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +70
Re: Modeling the P&WV in N Scale
« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2015, 09:26:57 AM »
0
I've been kicking around the idea of a redo on the Long Valley Branch. First order of business is replacing the Atlas code 80 track with Atlas code 55. The next idea on the wish list is a short steep branch to a mine.
Keep in mind I only have space for a 24" by 80" hollow core door in my apartment.
Here is my proposed new layout:

This is a very basic plan, but the curve on the branch to the mine is 10" radius and the mainline curves are 11.25" radius. The three tracks at the top of the plan represent hidden staging and each track represents a different town / railroad interchange.

Operationally, the switchers would go to the mine first, collect loaded cars then travel counter clockwise to hidden staging, pulling into one of the empty tracks. They would then collect the empty hoppers in the hidden staging and travel clockwise back to the mine. Next operating sequence, the switcher would collect all outbound cars in Long valley and travel clockwise to hidden staging, pulling into one of the empty tracks. Then collect all freight designed to Long Valley and travel counter clockwise back to Long Valley spotting all cars at the appropriate industries.     
« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 04:23:53 PM by Rich_S »
Rich S.

davefoxx

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 7588
  • Gender: Male
  • "I like trains!"
  • Respect: +1336
Re: Modeling the P&WV in N Scale
« Reply #35 on: January 29, 2015, 10:54:21 PM »
0
Rich,

I like the plan, but you need to reduce that grade.  It's going to be crazy steep.

DFF

General Counsel to the Laurel Valley Ry.
Member: ACL/SAL and Conrail Historical Societies
A Proud HOer

Rich_S

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1117
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +70
Re: Modeling the P&WV in N Scale
« Reply #36 on: January 30, 2015, 01:01:25 PM »
0
Rich,

I like the plan, but you need to reduce that grade.  It's going to be crazy steep.

DFF

Dave,
    Yes that grade is the fly in the ointment to some extend, but might work in my crazy way of thinking  :o Right Track Software reports the grade to be 7%  :-X :scared: :facepalm:  The problem is I'd like to keep the short run around track and mine spurs level and on the same elevation. If I shorten both the run around track and mine spurs or just the mine spurs so they do not extend over the main line track, I can reduce the grade. But part of the madness behind the grade, is to keep train lengths short. My reasoning behind the sharp curve and steep grade is the line was a former narrow gauge line that was converted to standard gauge. Just a couple of examples of branch lines with steep grades that come to mind are Conrail's 5.9% Madison Hill branch in Cincinnati, OH and another one is the Montour's 3% library branch. I believe both lines were operated exactly the same, the engines were always kept on the downhill side of the grade to try and prevent a break-a-way or run-away. For the Montour, that meant shoving loads up that 3% grade. 
Rich S.

conrail98

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1438
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +29
    • Maryland Midland in N Scale
Re: Modeling the P&WV in N Scale
« Reply #37 on: January 30, 2015, 01:37:36 PM »
0
Rich,

What if where the mine branch comes down to the loop main, that was at 1" and the curves to staging on that main drop down to 0"? They're both covered by tunnels so that shouldn't be too bad visually,

Phil

Ed Kapuscinski

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 16836
  • Respect: +1625
    • Conrail 1285
Re: Modeling the P&WV in N Scale
« Reply #38 on: January 30, 2015, 02:46:22 PM »
0
I'm not a huge fan of the branch idea. I think it's trying to fit too much in.

If you want to do a coal thing, why not just focus on it? Have staging on one side, maybe make it look like a real marshaling yard, and the "ops" become "run from the yard, get some coal cars".

If you add in another loader on the one side, and make the big facility a prep plant, you can actually have three-way moves: empty (in yard) => truck dump => prep plant, prep plant=> off layout (yard).

If you want to still include an industry, you might be able to do it co-located with the mine scene.

davefoxx

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 7588
  • Gender: Male
  • "I like trains!"
  • Respect: +1336
Re: Modeling the P&WV in N Scale
« Reply #39 on: January 30, 2015, 03:51:18 PM »
0
Dave,
    Yes that grade is the fly in the ointment to some extend, but might work in my crazy way of thinking  :o Right Track Software reports the grade to be 7%  :-X :scared: :facepalm:  The problem is I'd like to keep the short run around track and mine spurs level and on the same elevation. If I shorten both the run around track and mine spurs or just the mine spurs so they do not extend over the main line track, I can reduce the grade. But part of the madness behind the grade, is to keep train lengths short. My reasoning behind the sharp curve and steep grade is the line was a former narrow gauge line that was converted to standard gauge. Just a couple of examples of branch lines with steep grades that come to mind are Conrail's 5.9% Madison Hill branch in Cincinnati, OH and another one is the Montour's 3% library branch. I believe both lines were operated exactly the same, the engines were always kept on the downhill side of the grade to try and prevent a break-a-way or run-away. For the Montour, that meant shoving loads up that 3% grade.

Yeah, that confirms my thoughts.  The grade on my A&R line is at or just under 3%, but, since I've estimated that I have about twice the amount of run as your branch, I guessed that your grade would be about 6%.  But, to make it worse, there's no allowance for any vertical easements, so the actual grade will be worse.  When you build it, those easements will seriously eat into what little run you have

 So, does your rise have to be 3"?  Maybe 2" would suffice.  Can you add some grades to the roundy-round to "split some of the difference"?  If you raise the junction by even 1/2" and lower the mine to 2" in elevation, you may have cut your grade in half.

Hope this helps,
DFF

General Counsel to the Laurel Valley Ry.
Member: ACL/SAL and Conrail Historical Societies
A Proud HOer

Rich_S

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1117
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +70
Re: Modeling the P&WV in N Scale
« Reply #40 on: January 30, 2015, 06:15:50 PM »
0
Rich,

What if where the mine branch comes down to the loop main, that was at 1" and the curves to staging on that main drop down to 0"? They're both covered by tunnels so that shouldn't be too bad visually,

Phil

Phil, That is a great idea I didn't think of, staging yard at 0" elevation, Long Valley at 1" elevation and the mine site at 3" elevation. If I cut the overhead clearance down 2.5" at the mine site, that will reduce the grade to 4%. I'm still in the early planning stages on this one, but this is a great suggestion.   
Rich S.

crrcoal

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 377
  • Respect: +23
Re: Modeling the P&WV in N Scale
« Reply #41 on: January 30, 2015, 06:25:47 PM »
0
You mention runaround; you could also get rid of it and just shove the coal hoppers up the branch with a caboose on the end. Just like NS and CSX still do to this day on some of their coal branches.

Rich_S

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1117
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +70
Re: Modeling the P&WV in N Scale
« Reply #42 on: January 30, 2015, 06:41:56 PM »
0
I'm not a huge fan of the branch idea. I think it's trying to fit too much in.

If you want to do a coal thing, why not just focus on it? Have staging on one side, maybe make it look like a real marshaling yard, and the "ops" become "run from the yard, get some coal cars".

If you add in another loader on the one side, and make the big facility a prep plant, you can actually have three-way moves: empty (in yard) => truck dump => prep plant, prep plant=> off layout (yard).

If you want to still include an industry, you might be able to do it co-located with the mine scene.

Ed, I understand what you mean about trying to shoe horn too much in, that is why I'm trying to use scenery to hid the over abundance of track. I guess I should blame it all on the Rosston, Joelburg & Holly RR, a 4 x 8 HO railroad that was featured in MR several years ago, plus the current CB&Q Red Oak Project railroad . I was looking through some of my back issues of MR and I liked the coal branch idea of the Rosston, Joelburg & Holly railroad and I like the hidden staging idea of the CB&Q Red Oak Project. The thing I don't like about my current layout is the Midland Coal loader and branch. I like the idea of have an online coal mine, but because of the location of my layout the coal loader and interchange track just don't fit my current operational ideas. That got me to thinking, I'd turn the back of the layout into hidden staging representing two different off line towns. Which works best for this layout as currently the back of the layout spends most of it's time up against the wall. Then add a scenic divider just in front of the staging tracks that can be reached over and move all operations to the front of the layout. 

I don't really want to go all coal, if I did I could just do a prep plant like Avella or McDonald. I want a little of both, industry and a coal loader. Before I start removing track from my current layout, I'll have to build a 3D model with some scenery to see if my ideas are even feasible.  Of course I just might scrub the whole idea and just build the CB&Q Red Oak Project, then again probably not... :D   
Rich S.

Rich_S

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1117
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +70
Re: Modeling the P&WV in N Scale
« Reply #43 on: January 30, 2015, 06:46:11 PM »
0
You mention runaround; you could also get rid of it and just shove the coal hoppers up the branch with a caboose on the end. Just like NS and CSX still do to this day on some of their coal branches.

I had though about that, as the Montour use to do the same thing on the Library branch. But I figured the run around could also be used to store empty cars waiting to be placed at the mine, which could really make things interesting.
Rich S.

Rich_S

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1117
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +70
Re: Modeling the P&WV in N Scale
« Reply #44 on: January 30, 2015, 06:51:53 PM »
0
Yeah, that confirms my thoughts.  The grade on my A&R line is at or just under 3%, but, since I've estimated that I have about twice the amount of run as your branch, I guessed that your grade would be about 6%.  But, to make it worse, there's no allowance for any vertical easements, so the actual grade will be worse.  When you build it, those easements will seriously eat into what little run you have

 So, does your rise have to be 3"?  Maybe 2" would suffice.  Can you add some grades to the roundy-round to "split some of the difference"?  If you raise the junction by even 1/2" and lower the mine to 2" in elevation, you may have cut your grade in half.

Hope this helps,
DFF

Dave, Just going by my NMRA gauge, 2" would be cutting it close for my big fat hands. I think Phil has a good starting point by moving Long Valley up 1". Another idea would be to get rid of the mine spurs and just put the loader on the runaround track, that way I could really reduce the grade. Since I have the layout saved in RTS, I can now make copies and try and few different ideas. I guess I'm off to the drawing board  :D  :facepalm:
Rich S.