Hi!
I'm in the middle of designing the rebuild of my 11x15 HO "around the room" layout. The existing layout and all of my previous layouts had stub end yards. The existing one has a 6 track compound yard with the storage of 5 ft plus/minus for each track.
For the rebuild, one of my designs incorporates a double ended yard that wraps around the inside perimeter of the corner (room) curved main. I scaled in 4 tracks, with a range of 6 to 8 ft storage on the 4 tracks. So the capacity of the existing and proposed are pretty much the same.
My question to you all is: What downsides are there to the double ended yard? I realize it takes twice the turnouts (I already have them) and may be more difficult to build and may take up more space, but the access to the cars would be greatly improved. What say you????
Thanks!
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
'Real' railroads like to use double ended yards! Must be that access from both ends! A stub yard is used for 'storage' many times. I have seen 'stub' ened yards in small terminals where there just is not any room, but if there is access to both endes of the yars, the prototype will build it as a doulbe ended yard.
What you have to consider is what are you using that yard for? If it is a 'classification' yard on the main line, then a double ended yard makes sense. If you are using the yard to store your collection of freight cars, then a stub yard may be fine.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
BNSF has a storage yard north of Houston that is stub ended. Their main yard here isn't. UP's Lloyd Yard north of Houston is a classification yard in front with a large SIT yard in the rear. None of it is stub ended. They always work switching and classification from one direction. The main classification area's ladder on the south side actually doubles as the yard lead for switching in a different part of the yard. For the most part the main area of the yard may as well be stub ended. Obviously the A/D tracks can not be stub ended. Every once in a while you will see a train depart straight from one of the classification tracks rather than the A/D tracks. Sometimes the road engines will have to do a small amount of switching as their train may be in 2 parts on 2 yard tracks. In this case they may depart in either direction straight off of the classification tracks which would be impossible with a stub end. This is rarely done though as there is usually ample room on the A/D tracks to place a built train.
On a model railroad I have yet too see a situation that needed a classification yard that wasn't stub ended. I build trains from one end. I only need run through A/D tracks. However I do think the conventional run though yard is much neater looking though. If you've got the room go for it. If it makes compromises elsewhere however you may want to rethink it a little bit.
On my personal layout, the netherworld (hidden staging yards and run-through tracks) is quite extensive, and has six (count 'em) separate staging yards. Half, designed for both passenger and freight staging, are double-ended. The others are single-ended. One of the single-ended yards is meant for staging bi-directional trains of EMU cars, where a double-ended yard wouldn't make much sense. The other two are back in - head out single ended freight staging yards, that having been dictated by the profile of the main tracks in the area. I have learned not to park anything on a 2% grade!
The visible station is designed to have a rather complex track plan, with numerous tracks. Five of them will be thoroughfares, switched to the main line at both ends. Three others, interchange tracks, are meant to be fed by the JNR switcher at one end and worked by the private railway's locos at the other. There will also be a dozen or so stub-end tracks for various purposes. Note that all of the heavily-traveled tracks will be double ended. This is directly in line with the practices of the prototype I am following.
On a model railroad, double-ended yards are space-eaters. The best compromise is usually to have two (or, better yet, three) double ended tracks, with the rest single ended, and design your leads and place your yard office to switch those tracks most efficiently.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
mobilman44My question to you all is: What downsides are there to the double ended yard? I realize it takes twice the turnouts (I already have them) and may be more difficult to build and may take up more space, but the access to the cars would be greatly improved. What say you????
The key question is what is the purpose of the yard?
If it is a staging yard you have one set of needs, if it is a classification yard you have another.
For staging the benefit of double ending is it allows trains to be reused during a session (assuming the yard is on a loop or is connected to a return loop. The cost is the space for the second ladder (both in physical space and track length) and the doubling of cost and complexity for switches, turnout control and indicators.
For a classification yard there are a couple questions that have to be answered. One is will I have two jobs working the yard at the same time? If you won't have two switch engines going simultaneously, then having two leads isn't as critical. Then you have to ask yourself, how much sorting capability do I need? While 6 tracks 4 feet long is the same space as 4 tracks 6 feet long, it is not the same in terms of capability. For a classification yard, I have found that a mix of double and single ended tracks works best. A start would be a 2:1 ratio, single to double ended. So if the yard can have 6 tracks, make 2 double ended and 4 single ended.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
As you will see,(on my 24'x24' around the room , DCC HO layout), I have one 7 track stub end yard and one 7 track double ended yard. To make the 7 tracks on the stub ended yard about equal in length, I used two rather lengthy, curved drill tracks and used Y's and double slip switches,(rather than ladders) to enable the switcher to have access to all the 7 tracks wthout tying up the 2 mainlines. Note the overpass of one main line that enables a train to drop off or pick up cars by backing into the two drill tracks. The pass through yard is used mostly for trains waiting to be split or added to other trains. I would go for the compound yard set up as you described, for your layout. Bob Hahn
Hi, and Thank You for the comments and advice....
Most of you asked a question that I did not really consider, that being "what is the purpose of the yard?". My answer is sort of fudged in that I would probably use it as both. However, the main storage will be on the lower level staging area tracks. Some of you suggested a stub end with a run around track or two and I think I will give that a try. It will take up less space and probably be easier to build too!
Thanks again, your opinions are valued!
Having seen your layout drawing I think you have some major problems lurking. Drawing freehand always allows one to plan far more railroad than can be fit in a given space. My personal thought is you couldn't fit in what you are planning in a space double what you have. You can buy a track template that will alow you to draw ever0rthing in scale including curves or you should consider one of the software programs before starting. That is a lot of railroad for the space available.
That layout drawing is not mine - it is that of the poster giving an example of the different type yards.
My layout drawings are all scale, using drafting equipment and track templates for turnout angles, etc. Ha, while other folks would draw airplanes and boats, I would draw trackplans - and still do at age 64. I have to say that taking two years of drafting at Lane Tech HS (Chicago) in the late '50s was one of the smartest things I did as a teen (the dumbest -for me- was taking Russian instead of Spanish).
I'm still experimenting with the type/location of the yard, and again thank you all for the advice!
ndbprr Let's first consider the purpose of a yard. It is to sort cars not store cars. Now a large prototype yard receiving traffic from both east and west and having adequate real estate available benfits from double ending as trains can depart in both directions once they are made up and resorted. On a model railroad we tend to model the smaller yards used to sort cars for a branch or local shipping and receiving. Even on the prototype this type of yard may have had one run around track but the rest would be stub ended. A stub ended yard on a model railroad will handle a larger capacity of cars and that second ladder is a real space eater. The only time I would reccomend a double ended yard would be a division point on a model railroad where power would be exchnaged and the train continuing on it's journey.
Let's first consider the purpose of a yard. It is to sort cars not store cars. Now a large prototype yard receiving traffic from both east and west and having adequate real estate available benfits from double ending as trains can depart in both directions once they are made up and resorted. On a model railroad we tend to model the smaller yards used to sort cars for a branch or local shipping and receiving. Even on the prototype this type of yard may have had one run around track but the rest would be stub ended. A stub ended yard on a model railroad will handle a larger capacity of cars and that second ladder is a real space eater. The only time I would reccomend a double ended yard would be a division point on a model railroad where power would be exchnaged and the train continuing on it's journey.
That's one of the best answers I've read within this thread.
I think it's better to start with "What is the purpose of the yard (in question)?" and then work backwards on what size of yard (without even getting into the whole "stub" vs "double-ended" question) one actually needs to satisfy the "needs" of the layout.
Heck many of us aren't breaking down each and every train that travels our mains. Many of the trains are going from one staging area to another. That in itself should take some of the pressure off of needing a large, double-ended yard.
In my particular circumstance I figured out how many cars would be switched from all industries and interchanges during a normal operating session, then I figured out the number of locals needed to service that number of cars/locations and then I was able to figure out what size/type of yard I needed.
In the end I came up with a relatively simple 7-track stub-yard with a maximum car capacity of 56 cars.
That yard will comfortably handle 20 trains over a given operating session, with each train averaging between 5 and 15 cars.
While at the same time there are 4 through-freights that are 20-30 cars in length that will travel from staging yard to staging yard.
I think our eyes are sometimes too big for our stomachs when it comes to yard design. In the whole hierarchy of importance when it comes to layout design I think the "yard" comes in 4th after staging, industrial track placement and the mainline run.
There is no downside to a double-ended yard. There is considerable upside to it. I was considering a stib-ended yard, but unless it's the smallest of the small shortlines, it's not very realistic from what research has shown me. Even having a track or two double-ended within the yard make a big difference.
Mobilman,
You might want to check out show #39 discussing yard design on the podcast http://www.modelrailcast.com/
Mark