NC&StL Pikeville Branch, TN track plan HO

• Size: 12′ x 12′
• Scale: HO
• Minimum Radius: 24″ 
• Minimum Aisle Width: 30″ 
• Designed by Dan Bourque

This track plan was a personal challenge to see whether a double-deck plan for a long branch line could be modeled in HO scale in a tight space of less than 12 x 12 feet. The subject is an area I hadn’t known much about before. I discovered it on an L&N coal mine map from 1966, and thanks to the great site historicaerials.com, I was able to explore topo maps and aerial photos from the late 1950s about a year after the branch transitioned from the Nashville, Chattanooga, and St. Louis (NC&StL) Railroad to the Louisville & Nashville. What I found was a line set in a scenic rural valley with small towns and little clusters of tiny coal loaders, mostly open truck ramps. The branch extends northeastward from a connection with the old NC&StL mainline at Bridgeport, AL. While it’s nearly 60 miles long, most (not all) of the coal loaders lived on the last 20 miles of the branch between Dunlap and Pikeville, TN which is the subject of this track plan.

The Layout

Due to the tight space, this layout focuses on a few key scenes rather than the space between them. There are five areas of coal loaders between Dunlap and Pikeville, so I chose the three most interesting areas (Dunlap,  Brush  Creek  Siding,  and  Pikeville). The other two areas, Lees Station and College Station, were both single sidings with two truck dumps, so I chose to include just one. To give the feeling of distance between scenes, there is a good bit of hidden trackage between them which should give operations the distinct feel of stopping in a town, working, and then taking some time to move to the next town. Starting from a three-track staging yard at the base level, trains run through Dunlap and hide behind the backdrop before emerging at Brush Creek Siding where the line enters a 3-turn helix to the upper deck. After popping out and running through Lees Station, the tracks disappear around the wall and re-emerge at Pikeville, the end of the line. In all scenes, “right” is “up the branch” toward Pikeville, and “left” is “down the branch” toward Dunlap and Bridgeport. While not all staging is shown, there is plenty of space to route it under Brush Siding and even make it into a reversing loop for easy re-staging.

Track arrangements are very similar to what I could make out in topographical maps and aerial photos, though I changed the track arrangement at Brush Creek Siding to place the switches to the empty and load tracks in the middle instead of at the ends so that I could get a good length for these tracks in a tight and curvy space. Additionally, I added a track alongside the wye at Dunlap for the loader that sat further down the tail track so that both the loader and shorter modeled tail track could be used simultaneously. I also added two overpasses that weren’t present on the prototype at Dunlap and Brush Creek to hide transitions through the backdrop. In all, this plan captures 10 of the 12 loaders that can be seen in 1950s aerial photos with the only exceptions being the two at the unmodeled College Station siding. Additionally, there are a couple non-coal industries including a lumber yard at Pikeville and Dunlap to add a little variety.

Because of all the hidden trackage, all switches are in the visible areas except the two switches for staging. There should be sufficient space within the helix and within the turn-back curves to access most of the hidden track via crawl under if needed. Benchwork would be pretty simple using open grid as there are plenty of places behind the scenery and backdrops to build supports between levels and plenty of walls to anchor to. The helix is shown as an octagon to facilitate easy construction (see the “double pinwheel helix” article). Compared to most Appalachian layouts, the scenery for this one would be relatively flat and pastoral with fields and farms and some interspersed trees. The backdrop, however, would show a high, wooded ridgeline to put the scene in a valley context.

This layout is small enough to really focus on the details, so even though DC would work, I would recommend DCC to enable sound locomotives (either steam or diesel), and walk-around throttles would be a must. Despite the small room dimensions and a brief 30″ aisle at the entry, the main operating aisle is generous at nearly 4×7 feet–plenty for a pair of operators.

Operations

This layout is designed for 1-2 operators working as a crew (engineer and conductor). While details of prototype operations are unknown, it makes sense that this branch was worked by a single local crew. The crew would come in from Bridgeport staging and work its way up the branch, dropping empties on the way up and harvesting loads on the way back. While track arrangements are simple, many tracks served more than one loader, so there could be extra sorting required if some loads are interspersed with empties to get all the loads and empties to the right spots which would add time and interest. Add the travel time between scenes, and it would probably take at least two hours to work the entire layout.

For variety, this layout could be operated in multiple eras. In a 10-year span between 1950 and 1960, there would be NC&StL steam power from 1950-52 (probably a 2-8-2 for the local), NC&StL diesels from 1952-57 (guessing 1-2 GP7s), and L&N diesels from 1957 on (probably black and cream RS3s). The wyes at either end of the layout make it practical to run steam for the local. Additionally, a 1952 timetable shows passenger train 189 arriving in Dunlap at 7:58A and making stops at every town reaching Pikeville at 9:00A. After turning at Pikeville, train 188 would leave at 9:30A and reach Dunlap at 10:35, again stopping at every town along the way before heading on to Bridgeport. A “busy time” could also be modeled with two locals out of Bridgeport, perhaps one working the lower deck and one working the upper.

Aerial photos from 1981 show industries still active on this line. Coal is still clearly seen on the ground near some loaders, though hoppers are no longer present indicating some spots loaded into at least the late ’70s, albeit with different tipples (Brush Siding looks the same).

Things I Like About This Plan

• Long branch modeled in a bedroom-sized space
• Lots of running room between scenes
• Allows major variety of motive power and railroads in a short timespan
• Potential for passenger trains

Things I Don’t Like About This Plan

• Tight curve radii
• Lots of hidden track
• Some contrived overpasses to hide backdrop transitions