Ok Forum Friends, got another query for you.
I was "gifted" a pair of 28" W x 80" T hollow-core doors from my parents. They're the closet doors from my parents' bedroom closet. The doors quit sliding and Mom wanted them out. They had been throw under a carport. I decided to ask if I could snag them. The plan is to eventually (whenever that might be) build a railroad yard with them.
My question is this: For an HO scale yard, would it be a better idea to use the pieces to make a yard 2'4" D x 13'4" L or 4'8" W x 6'8"? For the area in question either arrangement would work. The trains that would be run are planned use mostly 4-axle diesels (F7A,GP18s,20s,30s,35s) and a few 6-axle diesels (couple u25Cs, an SD45, and an SD40-2), 5 freight cars (some 40', a lot of 50' and a few longer 60-65') and a variety of caboose.
One end of this section will be the completion of a three track car shop yard with its own ladder. It would feed into the regular yard ladder probably on the top track of the yard if it is 2'4" D while with the 4'8" D it would probably end up in the middle.
As usual, any ideas would be most welcomed.
I suspect you would be happier with the 13’ long option. Putting the doors side by side will require you to operate from both sides. Additionally, when you start building yard ladders, they can take a LOT of length, leaving very little storage on the side by side.
End to end, you can make tracks longer. You will be happier.
Srwill2 I suspect you would be happier with the 13’ long option. Putting the doors side by side will require you to operate from both sides. Additionally, when you start building yard ladders, they can take a LOT of length, leaving very little storage on the side by side. End to end, you can make tracks longer. You will be happier.
I agree, end to end to get the longest run. Or if that is too long for your space then use them 'L' shaped. I have used old doors in the past and the width of one by itself is perfect. Two next to each other is too wide.
Srwill2I suspect you would be happier with the 13’ long option. Putting the doors side by side will require you to operate from both sides. Additionally, when you start building yard ladders, they can take a LOT of length, leaving very little storage on the side by side.
I'll 'third' that suggestion! If you try to build a yard that is only 7' long you will have all ladders and no storage. Even a 13' yard will have a lot of space taken up by ladders, although there are ways to reduce your ladder lengths.
I'm going to strongly recommend that you read John Armstrong's 'Track Planning for Realistic Operation' if you haven't already. If you want your yard to be functional you have to understand how yards work and what components are required. Armstrong's book clearly explains what's involved. I thought my first yard design was fantastic (newbie enthusiasm eh!), that is until I read Armstrong's book. Then I realized that my 'perfect' yard design was quite disfunctional. Lesson learned! The book also has a wealth of information about other railroading functions.
https://kalmbachhobbystore.com/product/book/12148
You can probably get it cheaper on eBay or Amazon.
Cheers!!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
More support for going long. The reach is just too far across the doubled up doors. Even if you have access from both sides, you have to walk around to use it.
There other reason is that yard throats, or ladders as Dave calls them when he points this out in slightly different words, take up a lot of space as they spread the tracks out. The fewer tracks served by the throat, the longer the actual yard tracks can be, relatively speeaking. This maximizes the overall capacity of the yard.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
ABsolutely the long way. Going the short way and making it wide, you won;t even get to the width of one door with the ladder before running out of length.
Even going the long way, you're not going to get yard tracks the full width of a door (and still have some meaningful length to them) and still have facilities at the other end. I'm assuming a single-ended yard, you could get a small double ended yard in that space but there's be no leads on either end.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Go long.
http://www.housatonicrr.com/yard_des.html
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
This is a rough idea of what I have so far for the existing yard area and this is the direction that the yard sits. (Alignment isn't exact but you get the idea.) The area in the southeast corner has the local control panel and a large backgroung building (Railroad HQ) to hide the surface mounted controls. The shop tracks would need to end in a ladder of some sort to connect to the main yard to allow the cars to depart. The south lead is long enough to add a turnout to make access from the main yard easier. The original idea is that this was to be the end of a yard with the rest of the yard unmodeled to the south. The idea to expand the shop tracks has been an off and on idea.
I will have to put the suggested book on my list to get to help.
For a long thin turntable scene, and particularly one for diesels you should have a look thru these photos of an great example by Doctorwayne,...http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/3012923/reply.aspx
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/266328.aspx?page=2
Brian
My Layout Plan
Interesting new Plan Consideration
For size considerations, the turntable is one of Atlas' newer turntables with the 15 degree spacing. (The yard was originally built with one of the older 30 degree spacing tables. When the 15 degree one came out I upgraded the yard.) It has a 304 electric drive. I also upgraded the area with a couple of pieces of the sound deadening tile that you can get at auto stereo stores. (The vibrations of drive on the plywood just got way too noisy for my lliking. Didn't kill all of it but it reduced it by quite a bit.)
Long.
And do read the 10 commandments!
NP
hon30critter I'm going to strongly recommend that you read John Armstrong's 'Track Planning for Realistic Operation' if you haven't already.
I'm going to strongly recommend that you read John Armstrong's 'Track Planning for Realistic Operation' if you haven't already.
I took advantage of the half price sale for the first day of the 12 Days of Discounts and ordered the book.
Got the book today and based on the idea mentioned in the book I've come up with this idea:
For those that want to look at a bigger picture (what is here is 1/4 the size of the actual image), click on the image.
I would suggest that when you click this link to hit the magifying glass to be able to see the image a little better.
As usual any additional ideas would be welcomed.
Not a bad design, only problem is you do not have space on your main line to actually switch the yard. You would need at least 3 more feet on each end to do any switching and that would only allow 4 or 5 cars plus engine on the lead. with You space, you might want to consider a stub end yard.
Steve
Just a couple of initial observations:
You have neither a yard lead nor a run around track. That means that you will be constantly having to go onto (fowling) the main line when you want to spot cars. The yard will work as storage track as is, but any mainline traffic will bring most yard operations to a halt in order to clear the mainline. That could make for some interesting ops sessions but it's not exactly prototypical.
I think there is a better way to arrange your track at the top of the yard. You have a double 'S' curve coming off of the uppermost turnout on the left side of the yard. It shouldn't be too difficult to adjust the track and turnout positions to eliminate the 'S'.
Srwill2 would only allow 4 or 5 cars plus engine on the lead. ...you might want to consider a stub end yard.
would only allow 4 or 5 cars plus engine on the lead. ...you might want to consider a stub end yard.
I am only planning to have trains of 5 cars plus caboose anyway. However, would something like this be a better idea: