If I move the elevator to the bottom as shown above I can replace it with a rock crusher kit like this one and either keep it in operation or finish it out like it's abandoned and let the railroad use the tracks to store cars for whatever reason.
I'm really not sure why you want two tracks for a grain elevator with only one tipple. If a loco has to come back and swap the two cuts of grain cars at the elevator, it could just as easily (and therefore more likely) deliver one shorter cut at a time to a single track under the tipple, twice as often. Then, if you eliminate the road to/from nowhere (running from the front edge of the layout, under the tracks and into a tunnel at top) you can extend the hopper car parking space all the way back to the main on the right, and around the corner to the New River on the left. Slide the elevator around so it's about midway, with ~equal siding capacity before & after the elevator. If you really want a highway to elsewhere, try following alongside the New River from the inside edge to the outside edge. Such a road would meet other streets/highways in an imaginary town in the middle of your layout. Lots of highways follow alongside rivers, which themselves were the original highways.
Another space for an abandoned (or active) gravel mine & crusher would be up in the hills in the upper left corner, off the mine spur. Whose to say the gravel mine wasn't built on an old, played-out coal mine?
My original thought was one track would be used for loading/unloading and the other track would be used for empty/full cars that are waiting to be picked up. Admittedly, I don't have working knowledge of grain elevators but it seems like I often see them with two tracks so that's what I was copying. What you're saying makes sense though. If I move it to the "south" end of the layout as shown below then it gives it one run-through track and leaves the two stub tracks on the north end to be used for another industry (perhaps the rock crusher kit above or something else). Doing this, the interchange tracks could also be used to set out full or empty grain cars for another railroad.
Meanwhile, my proposed budget to get the layout started has been submitted to the wife for review (we don't spend large chunks of money without discussing first). Along those lines, I'm still a bit torn between Atlas and Peco for my code 55 track. Atlas is $166 cheaper and in my opinion looks better. Peco is known for having the best turnouts though and their flex track is very robust. Do I want to go for aesthetics and save a little money or spend a little more for reliable operations and track that will stand up to more abuse? THAT is the question.
I glue all my flex down so don't see why it isn't robust also. It isn't moving . If one is using snap-together track I'd be looking for 'more robust/trouble free' but if you are fixing the track in place I don't see the same needs but there again I haven't used a number of different brands so defer to those who have. I'd never let a couple hundred sway me one way or another for something I'm going to be using and looking at for a long time even if I had to wait on some of it. Both track systems (and others) have their pros and cons. As Andy said, lucky we have a lot of choices to choose from. You don't have to buy it all at once. It is going to take you time building bench-work and so forth. I bought a ton at once at the beginning of COVID as I could see supplies drying up, specifically ME with also the ownership change. Not sure where they are now as they are trying to put a lot of products back into the supply chain. After using and seeing it and also since I can run older equipment on it without it hitting the spikes I'd be spending more for it and to stay with it. Might have to down the line at some point. Whatever you end up with will probably be what you think is best a couple years from now , has happened to most of us . What time period are you looking at? I'm not interested in concrete ties at all for my time period but that also opens other options if one is in a later time period as far as looks. Sumner
I follow most of Joe's method's of.... ... installing road bed and track. He is using ME55 and I believe Atlas turnouts. https://1fatgmc.com/RailRoad/UP%20Canyon%20Division/page-157.html I started with the cans for the track but now use .... https://1fatgmc.com/RailRoad/UP%20Canyon%20Division/page-167.html https://1fatgmc.com/RailRoad/UP%20Canyon%20Division/page-178.html .... the pins for the roadbed and the track. He is fast and using his methods I'm maybe close to the same speed and with a large layout and advanced age that is important to me. I enjoy putting the roadbed and track down. Pretty much enjoy all aspects of the hobby. Sumner
@Sumner - I'm not really sweating the cost difference between Peco and Atlas. It's more just trying to decide which one I WANT to use. I've heard the Atlas turnouts can be hit or miss and that the rail easily snaps off the ties on their code 55 track. I have no experience with it. That's just what I've heard. But it looks really good. Peco code 55 doesn't look as good but it's known for being robust and reliable. Especially their turnouts. ME flex and turnouts, if I can find them, will cost about $1,815 for my layout compared to $1,275 for Peco and $1,109 for Atlas. As good as it looks I'm not sure it's worth another $550-$700 over Peco or Atlas. At least not to me. I'd rather spend that on structures, scenery, rolling stock, or locos. It looks great though!
That's basically the same method I used when I started into this hobby twenty something years ago, but then my first child came along and I abandoned the effort and sold everything. It's pretty much what I plan to do this time except that I like to draw the track centerlines directly on the plywood instead of on paper and then cut the plywood in place with a jig saw or reciprocating saw.
An interchange implies another railroad that intersects (Tee or crossing) your primary railroad. The interchange tracks would typically be near that intersection of tracks. But it could be another railroad that shares (leases) some of the primary's trackage for it's customers, in which case the interchange tracks may not be near the intersection, but nearer the secondary's customer(s). But a secondary railroad would not normally be wholly contained on a primary railroad's trackage, indicating there would still be some tracks to off-layout destinations. Or an interchange could just be a good reason to run some other road's locomotives* that you like! Not everything on a model railroad has to make perfect sense... But the best reason for running what/how you want is because "It's your railroad!" Not everything has to make sense to anyone else. *There are other reasons for running another railroad's locomotives on your layout's road: Railroads sometimes lease locomotives to/from other railroads. But the best reason for running what/how you want is because "It's your railroad!" Not everything has to make sense.
Yes I draw them directly also. I think some of what he did was because he was cutting small sections of plywood that went on risers instead of a large area that was all the same height. I'm using 1' foam over the plywood and would strongly think about that also. Easy to layout on and you lay track on it easy since it is so flat and carve features into it. Also figure out what you are doing for turnout control. If you are going with below layout turnout machines think about how you layout the bench-work so that it isn't in the way later. I used risers.... https://1fatgmc.com/RailRoad/UP%20Canyon%20Division/page-114.html https://1fatgmc.com/RailRoad/UP%20Canyon%20Division/page-115.html ... on top of the bench-work and it has worked out very well. None attach to the layout from the top so it is very easy to move them if one is in the way of wiring or switch machines. Also too much foam and you will have to deal with the overall thickness with switch machines. I use servos and I found that 1 1/2" of total thickness under the turnout is no problem and up to 2 to 2 1/2 probably isn't. Thicker than that you can still use servos but not as easily. I'd definitely do the foam and the risers if I was ever to build another layout, doubtful. On you cost estimates how much more was it if you used ME track and Atals turnouts? Just curious. Sumner
@BigJake - Interchange, connection, track to nowhere...whatever we want to call it, in my case it's just meant to be a track to far away places and a reason to run both UP and BNSF locos and whatever else seems fun. And maybe I'll park grain hoppers or other cars there just because. @Sumner - I'm envisioning some combination of both plywood and foam. The lowest level will likely just be plywood. The middle and uppermost tracks will be plywood on risers with foam or some other means used to make up the terrain I want. At this point I'm planning to control the turnouts manually, but since all track will be on plywood it'll be easy to add electronic controls later if I want. I didn't price a ME/Atlas combo, but the ME turnouts are around $36 each and Atlas turnouts are around $18 each. For 29 turnouts that would take $522 off the ME price if my math is correct. But for either ME or Atlas turnouts I'd probably install Red Caboose ground throws at $3 each ($87), which takes that savings down to about $435. That gets it to about $1,380, which is only about $100 more than the all Peco price. It's really the Atlas turnouts that make me kind of nervous though. If I had more confidence in them I'd probably go all Atlas.
Not trying to sell you one way or another but wonder if some of the bumping going through the Atlas turnouts I read about is the result of running older pizza-cutter oversize wheels through them? Buying new equipment if that is the case it probably wouldn't be a problem for you. On the ME track I've laid quite a bit and have never had a rail break off the ties and have been down to about a 12 inch radius in some places. Also due to the smaller rivet detail I haven't had older locos or cars hitting the ties (maybe one 70's loco). I think I remember reading that larger wheels might not be a problem on Peco either (might check). Again though with newer equipment not something you probably need to consider. If I was where you are at this point I'd think about getting a couple turnouts of both brands and a little track of both and have a firsthand look. I'd think you could still use whatever you didn't like someplace where noone would ever notice. I will try to sell you on using the foam on all of the layout thought. Where the river is you might be able to cut away enough to give you the detail you want and if not would only have to cut the river bet out and put another layer or two under the layout... https://1fatgmc.com/RailRoad/UP%20Canyon%20Division/page-159.html .... like I did above. Other places you can easily cut in .... https://1fatgmc.com/RailRoad/UP%20Canyon%20Division/page-207.html ... culverts and ditches where as you can't with plywood right under the track. With the foam giving me a perfectly flat surface to work on and lay track on I went with 1/2" CDX plywood that costs less at arouind $30 a 4x8 sheet helping to offset the price of the foam. It is strong and flat but some knot holes (not all the way through) so works fine under the foam. Last, keep in mind (can't see if you are using them) that using curved turnouts going into or out of curves or in them can make the track work look like it is flowing better and also extend the length of the track past them as those tracks can start sooner (like coming off a curve and having a track enter a yard. Sumner
Now that you have your head around a nice plan all that's left is to commit and start building. A nice problem to have.
The truckers aren't gonna be happy while a long string of railcars cuts off the driveway to/from the elevator, and their access in & out of it. If that's the Walthers elevator kit, I believe you can swap sides between rail and truck access when you assemble it. You'd have to run the rail line around behind/below the elevator though.
@BigJake - Are truckers ever really happy about anything? I could make the road go out the back side of the layout across the interchange track. Or do both. I'll sort that out when I actually start building.
Yep. I'm still a few months away from being able to build anything. My room doesn't clear out until May. But the plan is done and I know the things I need to starting buying to prepare.
Good for you Shane. A few months wait will be worth it for the prefered space, and in the house to boot. I was almost there until a boomerang kid hit me and hasn't left yet. I had two fair sized rooms to build in, but ended up in the garage. I wasn't waiting any longer. It took be 9 years of dilly daddling with removing an old layout, space prep, and settling on a plan. I still miss my old layout, but this one will allow for more operators. I do wish I could park at least one of our cars in the garage, but I took up all the space. Keep it light and fun.
Happy or not, a cool scene at the elevator would be a long line of tractor-trailer rigs in queue, waiting at the elevator, and it would be more visible in front of the elevator rather than behind it, which puts the RR tracks behind the elevator...