I am considering either a mining theme or a logging one, set in the Blue Ridge Mtns. I suppose either would work, but I wonder which would be the most workable.
The turnout to this industry is off my layout's mainline. The turnout occurs at a flat section of a 3% incline and is 4" off the board. It is a Bachmann 44130, which has an 18"r divergent leg (I know that's not the best idea, but that's what I have). The "mine" would sit at a flat section at 4" above the table..
The picture shows a small yard at the end of the incline.
The left half of the layout extends the main line into a big loop. There is also a turnout to a connecting line to the bigger world (construed as a Norfolk-Southern line). In this other part of the layout is another turnout to an industry and another to an engine repair/storage shed.
The two loops are complete. The sidings are in various states of completion and a station for scenic rides.
Right side of layout:
http://s1381.photobucket.com/user/kdgrant6/media/May%208%20-%20considering%20trestle%20to%20Mining%20Spur%203_zpsz48dxeat.jpg.html?sort=3&o=1
Left side:
http://s1381.photobucket.com/user/kdgrant6/media/1%20-%20May%2010%20-%20Left%20Side%20for%20Posting%202_zpschervjn5.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
I would sincerely appreciate any suggestions.
Ken,
Photobucket suggestion: If you use the "Direct" Photobucket link, with the "i" in front of the "1381", between [i m g] [/i m g] tags (without the spaces) your pictures will show up directly in the post. Just click on the link in Photobuck and it will copy to your clipboard for pasting into the post.
Like this:
[i m g]http://i1381.photobucket.com/albums/ah209/kdgrant6/May%208%20-%20considering%20trestle%20to%20Mining%20Spur%203_zpsz48dxeat.jpg[/i m g]
Without the spaces in the tags:
(http://i1381.photobucket.com/albums/ah209/kdgrant6/May%208%20-%20considering%20trestle%20to%20Mining%20Spur%203_zpsz48dxeat.jpg)
(http://i1381.photobucket.com/albums/ah209/kdgrant6/1%20-%20May%2010%20-%20Left%20Side%20for%20Posting%202_zpschervjn5.jpg)
Len
I like the idea of the mining theme considering you are operating the Norfolk era. Logging would be a different era with different loco's I believe.
I am doing if I ever get going on it a mining theme where I am doing an abandoned old mine and an updated operational coal mine. It will serve my fueling industry. It's not going to be modeled off of any particular operation just imaginary.
Nice layout design by the way.
If you want something a bit different than a coal mine:
Granite and limestone are two of South Carolina's most valuable mined products. South Carolina is a leading state in the production of kaolin, mica, and vermiculite.
North Carolina has crushed stone, mostly granite, is the state's most valuable mined product followed by traprock and limestone.
Other important mined products are phosphate rock (for fertilizer), sand and gravel and lithium (for making aluminum, glass).
A leading producer of feldspar, mica and pyrophyllite, North Carolina also produces some quantities of clay, granite, marble, olivine and talc.
Over in Georgia there's granite is its most important quarried stone. Limestone and marble are also quarried in Georgia. Other important products include sand and gravel. Barite, bauxite, feldspar, kyanite, mica, and talc are also mined.
Some of these would be quarry's rather than mines, but could still work in the area you have since it's elevated enough to allow some excavation.
Len
Thanks for the layout compliment Jerry, but much of it should go to Len for his recommendations.
I'm always open for improvements, such as yours about avoiding logging as requiring different locos, etc.
I will follow up on Len's excellent suggestion of switching from coal to another material.
One thing I'm wondering is just from an operational standpoint, how many tracks do I need in that industry area?
Or is that question one that can be answered only when the material mined or quarried is determined?
Space available, as well as the type of operation, would determine the number of tracks the industry needs. Types of cars would depend on the material, e.g., blocks/slabs of granite for construction would more likely go in a gondola, while crushed granite would use a hopper.
Len
Ken,
I noticed a few "Ess" curves in your design.
One that is unavoidable is just south of your lettering "Scenic Ride Stub".
Another one, just off the south-west corner of the "office" building, if you need to take the western-most stub.
There are others in your turnouts, but they can be avoided by careful route selection.
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Joe Satnik
Joe, you're right about the S curves. One of the first things I heard when I posted on this forum in February was the problems caused by them.
In developing this layout, I kept that in mind, but it evolved to the point that the sweeping S beneath the Scenic Station was necessary. I used flex track to lay it out, so it's actually straight for about a piece and a half of EZ track before it turns back.
I've used EZ track for all the inner loop, as well as for most of the outer. The curves are all 18" ones. Flex track and Pecos turnouts comprise the new parts. The industry turnouts and the yard don't use EZ track except for a left turnout to get in the mine and the yard.
I've run trains at varying speeds through the S curve in question and have had no problems. So I think that will work. I haven't laid the turnouts, industry, etc. track yet.
As for the other western leg beneath the Office, I could sub a Peco left hand turnout instead of the Wye, if you think that would help.
That could be a solution for the other very slight S curves within the mine and the small yard.
I'm interested in what others think about these S curves. I can make necessary changes before locking things down.
Thanks.
Ken,
A straight (at least as long as your longest car or loco) between opposing curves will fix an "S" curve, according to John Armstrong.
Hope this helps.
Joe Satnik
Thanks, Joe. That helps.
Is the problem with S curves also speed-related? If so, slight S curves in yards and industries would seem to be okay.
Just wondering.
I've heard it said that rules of thumb are fine--until fingers come into play. :)
Backing through an "S" curve is an almost certain derailment.
the big problem with s curves is not speed related, but one of overhang on the cars. with cars that have body mounted couplers, the couplers must swing extra to compensate for the curve. this is because the couplers do not swivel on the same points as the trucks, rather they are on the car ends which swing towards the outside of any curve.
on an s curve, you have the ends of adjacent cars swinging in different directions. the problem is much greater with longer cars. if the offset between the car ends is greater than the couplers are capable of pivoting, you have a derailment as one ar pulls the other off the track. adding straight track between the curves lessens this offset to a manageable level.
regarding the mine area....keep in mind that often the rails do not go all the way to the quarry. the mica mines around spruce pine, nc are a classic example of this. material quarried is trucked to a tipple or rock crusher for loading into rail cars. in your case, the track arrangement you have drawn is a condensed version of a typical arrangement. the third siding you have at the mine could also be used to load pulpwood for transport to a paper mill. thus, you have both industries in the track you have. in the modern (1970s) era, is was not uncommon to find wood products being loaded in the vicinity of mining operations. this also added an operating problem in that the wood was handled at the front of the train so that it wouldn't be contaminated by dust from the hopper cars from the mine. on a train which stopped at several mines for pickups, the locomotives would hang onto the wood cars during their switching moves so that they would always be at the front of the train.
I guess I'm thinking these S curves aren't really S curves in the sense that I'm not having an 18"r curve followed by another one curving in the opposite way.
I don't have all the layout completed, but the outer and inner loops are done, as is part of the mine spur (now becoming a granite quarry due to new managerial ideas). I've run and backed 4 locos with varying number of cars through the questionable parts. I've run them very fast and very slowly, with various speeds in between.
And I have not had a derailment yet.
So I'm figuring the S curve problem in what I have already completed is not really a problem. However, I plan to watch them as I completion the rest of the layout.
I do appreciate the input that has been deposited on this topic. Thanks very much.
Here's a shot of the big curve connecting the EZ track portions of the outer loop of my layout. It's done with cork (painted gray) and flex so that I could better stretch out the straight section in the curve.
I took it just after finishing the connection. I've done some work with it since. I may post another shot later if anyone is interested.
The turnouts and the yard are yet to be completed. I'm still trying to incorporate ideas that I've received in this post.
(http://i1381.photobucket.com/albums/ah209/kdgrant6/20150504_124314_zpsvg9cjvth.jpg)
Thanks for the help.
Looking good. Hope we see more pics as it progresses.
Len
Overall the plan looks good.
No problems on the s curves Joe asks about, even better.
What I would maybe have a second look at, is the grade at the point end of the turnout at the bottom of the grade on the left side of the layout. I don't like that.
I would put at least 5-6 in of straight between the turnout and the beginning of the vertical grade and also add vertical easements at both ends.
From dead flat to 3% is going to be a big vertical kink if you have no easement to transition.
Just somethings you may/may not wish to consider.
Good luck and yes...keep posting progress pics.
James, thanks. I know what you mean.
I was concerned about that, too. I wanted to get the full incline for the Woodland Scenics 3% set, but that takes 12 ft. As a way to fit it in, I leveled off on the left hand side of the layout at 1" for the turn outs.
I shimmed both sides of the 1" flat section and have run 4 different locomotives with different loads through them--both ways and then backed them through to make sure that the section would work. Initially, there were some glitches--thus, the shims--but no more problems. Still, if anything arises, I can adjust the incline to the section and away from it.
I appreciate your concern. Thanks for replying.