Reverse Loop Dilemma

you need a reverse loop.  Even if real engines ran in reverse, toy consists do not do well in reverse and derailments are likely.

Bill

Sometimes when you are short on space, adding a wye can be a good way to reverse the engine.

An 072 wye will take up a lot of space.

This is all Ross- 072 Y and turnouts, plus 36" of run out track after the switch.

You would need 72"x120" to fit the full wye.

A full 072 reverse loop would need even more space (approx 144") but could be worked into the plan possibly as part of the main line.

If you just need to turn engines, then even a 36" turntable would use the least space. It would be prototypical in my opinion too. Would be a nice scene to model and could include a small engine maintenance facility with coaling and water facilities for the engines.

Bob

I would think any large turntable would also be part of an engine terminal. Not sure a RR would invest in the construction costs of a turntable that saw limited use for a particular job. In Bob Bartizek’s OGR video on operations. He ran the local back to town running backwards. I see nothing wrong running in reverse as long as the steamer is at the head end of the consist. So maybe a runaround track.

You mentioned an off layout town. Which I’m guessing is an un modeled town but is there in your imagination. Could you do sort of an off layout turn of your engine. Just out of sight during operations. High end turntables aren’t cheap and most layouts use them as centerpieces. I’ve seen what I guess would be a half turntable right at the layouts edge. Doesn’t take up a lot of real estate. The bridge runs almost parallel with the layouts edge as you drive onto it.  Nothing fancy.  Just a way to turn your train manually with maybe a hand crank or just spin the bridge by hand.  With a 30” bridge. You only cut into the layout a 15” half circle. Half of the bridge when turning is out in the aisle space. The other half in the circle you cut. Just a good size pivot point and no ring rail. Rugged and over engineered is the way to build it because it would be out of view. The only one that sees it is the engineer making the move. The engine can go out of view using scenic elements or structures and reappear going the opposite direction. How it turned is just left to the imagination.

I would only be reversing the engine. The consist itself isn't an issue because I'll be able to run around to the newly assigned front of the consist to trade places with the caboose. But would the Big Boy, an Allegheny, EM1, Y6b, etc be ran in reverse if they were too big to be spun around in real life?

The off layout town is on the top level. I have a reversing loop on the top level but I love the idea of putting a utility turn table on the lower level, inside a tunnel portal, and then leaving "the how" up to the imagination of the viewers. I used that trick elsewhere on the layout but it was more to eliminate scenery that couldn't be animated. I think this might be the trick.

Articulated locos in helper service backed down the hill in reverse routinely.

It was normal practice for railroads to use different size locos for different parts of the run based on grades. The same train on B&O led by a high drivered Pacific on the flat East End Cumberland Division would get a 4-8-2 Mountain for the climb up Sand Patch to Connellsville. Once over the mountains, Pacifics would take over for the run west to Chicago.

You could mimic this by starting out with a smaller loco, switching to the articulated to haul the train up the hill, then swap it for another loco at the top, backing the articulated down for the next train. Not exactly helper service, but the operation will be quite realistic.

The Eola Yard in Aurora Illinois had a turntable for the purpose of turning equipment. It's been gone since 2007. In my opinion, this seems like a good & prototypical option for you.

I have a "hidden" mine and the town that provides the workers has a scissors wye.  This was designed from the very start of track planning and takes very little extra space.

Just a thought.

Ed

In most normal practice, running an engine the equivalent of a full round trip just to spin it around would not be done - more likely is the engine would be pulling the train backwards in one direction. Common in local freight service in the steam era (at least on the New Haven, which I'm most familiar with). Probably less common with large articulated engines because of the limited services they were used in.

From your operations, the articulated engine is on a mine run (bringing loaded coal to the steel mill). I believe the C&O / N&W used articulateds on mine runs, so maybe research what their practices were. One example I do know the practices of is the Bingham & Garfield, which served Bingham Canyon Mine in Utah, the largest copper mine in the country. They had a fleet of articulated engines, 0-8-8-0's and 2-8-8-2's, and commonly ran them backwards with large trains between the mine and smelter. There are some great photos digitized by the Library of Congress at the link below.

#373 – Library of congress images – Bingham copper mine – Mechanical Landscapes

In short, if you're not adding a turning facility to the lower level, run the engine backwards with the train. If the engine must be facing forwards while pulling its train, some sort of turning facility is needed to be realistic.

~Chris

Bill, I had to jump in with my nickle’s worth! It looks like some way to turn at least the engine, is essential for your operation. The idea of backing a consist of empty hoppers up to the upper level is bound to cause all sorts of trouble.

I am a big fan of reversing loops and/or wyes, built into the track plan and scenery so its not too obvious what the prime purpose is. For your purpose though Dave C’s suggestion of a half turntable concealed by scenery, and accessible to hand flip, makes a lot of sense. Especially if you are running command. So you would drive on, stop, flip the TT 180 degrees, and drive off again, then do the runaround and re-connect. That should work quite well!

Rod

I had to look up the scissor wye because I hadn't heard of such a thing. Pretty clever way to save a bit of space! It won't fit on my layout but that would be such a cool bit of track to include.

I appreciate the answers. It sounds like I may be running in reverse for a bit until I get a turntable installed in a tunnel. Pushing hoppers (with a live coal load) up a helix is a nonstarter, without a doubt. I'm strictly talking about having a 2-10-10-2, EM1, Big Boy, etc pull hoppers up a helix. I really like the idea of using a locomotive to get up the helix and then handing off to a different locomotive to finish the job. That add a lot of interest to operating in my opinion.

@C.Vigs thanks for sharing the pictures! Some of those are absolutely jaw dropping. I have a new rabbit hole I have to go down now haha

Thank you all for your help.

Long term: I'll stuff a turntable in a tunnel to spin locomotives.

Short term: I'll pull trains up the helix or arrange for helper service.

Bill

I think your idea of a turntable is the most practical solution to your problem as a loop or Wye will take much space.  You will not need the whisker tracks that most TT have associated with them.

Since it will be a "not for show TT"  you might consider building a TT.  44 Years ago I built a my own TT for $10 and it was a fun project and still working great.  Details below to consider.  It can be powered if located for from control panel if you have one.

https://ogrforum.com/...7#185283654748812757

Charlie

@C.Vigs posted:

In most normal practice, running an engine the equivalent of a full round trip just to spin it around would not be done - more likely is the engine would be pulling the train backwards in one direction. Common in local freight service in the steam era (at least on the New Haven, which I'm most familiar with). Probably less common with large articulated engines because of the limited services they were used in.

From your operations, the articulated engine is on a mine run (bringing loaded coal to the steel mill). I believe the C&O / N&W used articulateds on mine runs, so maybe research what their practices were. One example I do know the practices of is the Bingham & Garfield, which served Bingham Canyon Mine in Utah, the largest copper mine in the country. They had a fleet of articulated engines, 0-8-8-0's and 2-8-8-2's, and commonly ran them backwards with large trains between the mine and smelter. There are some great photos digitized by the Library of Congress at the link below.

#373 – Library of congress images – Bingham copper mine – Mechanical Landscapes

In short, if you're not adding a turning facility to the lower level, run the engine backwards with the train. If the engine must be facing forwards while pulling its train, some sort of turning facility is needed to be realistic.

~Chris

Thank you for the link to the Bingham Mine photos! That is one of the coolest sets of industrial/railroad photos I've ever seen, and the modeling possibilities are endless! Articulated steam AND those little boxcab electrics with the offset swingout pantographs AND a one street mining town in the bottom of a winding canyon with track and bridges galore. The LOC photo collections are pretty amazing.

Depending on the design of your helix and track plan, have you considered hiding the turn table in the middle of the helix?