Minneapolis Fork. Part 2. Developing a track plan

Moving on from the previous post. He are some thoughts that have been going through my head as I develop the concept.

Starting at the top with number three and counting down. 

3. Using no turnouts/switches. The set up was inspired by Pidley Sidings in the Spring 2022 Micro Model Railway Dispatch. If you were to stand at the grade crossing at the location that inspired this micro. This would be the most faithful reproduction of what you’d see. (See below). You would not see any turnouts. They are out of sight behind the building that forms a view block at right. I have drawn all the sidings on this plan at maximum length. All would hold the same amount of stock. Though you could adjust them to suit your needs. For example, you could shorten one of them to add an end loading dock or similar.

The location (x marks the viewing spot)

This presentation doesn’t particularly excite me. I like to see trains navigate pointwork. It helps to tell the story of the action. 

There are many, scenically outstanding micro layouts out there that don’t have pointwork on them. You watch a loco shove a wagon to the end of a siding. Leave it there, and go and collect another wagon from another siding, and so on. How does that loco get from one siding to the other? We know that it does so by a turnout. But where is it? Is it just beyond the scenic break or a quarter of a mile away? That missing detail makes the scene incomplete for me. It’s a missing part of the story. That’s just my personal opinion. 

Layouts where the tracks that exit scene parallel are the worst in this regard. In that instance, the turnout for the siding has to be a short distance away in reality. Yet at a show an operator will run a loco off stage on one road and have it appear almost immediately on the other. Like a Whack-a-mole. 

There certainly has to be operational compromises at a show, where a lack of action on a layout will cause viewers to walk away. But you also need to create the illusion that the loco has had to go somewhere to move to the other track. You can see in the top plan I have shown the tracks diverging, so even though there is no pointwork on the layout, it helps to create the illusion that the turnout is off stage. Just out of view.

In version number 2, I dropped in a three way point, a great space saver. That way you will be able to see the loco and cars access all tracks. With clever measuring of siding lengths and positioning of view blocks, you might even be able to have something in view at all times. The end of a piece of stock would come to a halt as it clears the toe of the point and still be in view on the scene. This would be entirely prototypical. The conductor often rides on the walkways of the locomotive and freight cars, hopping on and off to set couplers, couple up air hoses, and even operate switches. If you're jumping off a train and running around doing all these tasks, you'll want to be as close to the job as possible. For example, as soon as the toe of the point is cleared, the conductor would jump down and switch the turnout. The train would stop, and then reverse direction, remaining in view the whole time. 

If you’re considering  modelling this 0 scale, like I am. I’m not entirely sure that a three way point is available. Neither Atlas or PECO seem to make one. I could get one from English track manufacturer Marcway but at $220, that's more than any of my locomotives cost. Add shipping and that idea is probably a non-starter. Build your own someone will say. Let’s just say I’m not interested in that avenue. 

Version 1 is a combination, a best of both worlds. A copy of the original "Chicago Fork" plan. With one switch in view and the other switch suggested by the diverging spur. 

For the person considering this as an 0 scale 3-2-2 inglenook micro layout, the length of the centre track may have to be fudged a bit to fit in with the inglenook concept as it is now the “main”. This presents itself as a 3-3-2 inglenook. Using 40’ cars you may get away with three cars on the centre spur. However, if you were to add longer cars into the switching operations, you would likely have to add an off stage extra length of track to make things fit. Which is not a problem, hidden track doesn't count to the four square foot limit of course.

Judging siding lengths

Hopefully this drawing should explain the thoughts behind the siding lengths. The short cars are 40’ cars. The longer ones 55 feet. As you can see, a set of three forty footers fits on the main perfectly. Two fifty fives and a forty is very tight, and would depend on the position of the switch on the layout, as to if it would fit or not. Three 55 footers? You’d have to add a drop down hidden section to the left. 

Being a 3-3-2 inglenook it does present you with an extra spot for a car during switching operations though.

Just some more thoughts to be going on with.