Thats all good. I am looking for opinions, good, bad or indifferent. To answer a couple of them, no I haven't built any handlaid turnouts yet, so there is to be a steep learning curve, but I am quite capable in these issues. I'm not saying the first will be pretty, but the second will be operable, and looks will be close behind. I've been hooking up cars to get an average to max length train and came to 12' with a mixed consist of 20 cars. Currently the inbound track is 10' 6 without any fouling. The only track that fouls the passenger is a crossing for the REA stubs. I did not see any issues there as any switching could be pulled across the crossing and done. The Passenger tracks are on the front and should be readily accessible at all times. I had not planned for 3" oc tracks but that is doable. I see the problem with the long stub tracks being accesable when a train is in the outbound track. My plans for those were unit type trains. I might have to push the outbound track up a bit to get the lead across the top and keep the available yard there. Someone talked about the tracks being too short. I guess that depends on how you look at it. I am figuring on X% of the cars being a certain load/type. Saying that a triple track yard with a length of 24" clear each will be able to hold X amount of cars is what I'm doing. On that particular area, one would only have to move 2 cars to get to any "one" car, and there is more than enough lead to accomplish that. There is no reason a whole track cannot be pulled and put on the outbound track either. (except pulling multiple tracks from the long stubs) I think an analogy would be comparing a dresser to a big box. In the dresser you open this drawer to grab socks, then another to grab shorts, and yet another for a shirt. In the box, you have to move all the shirts to get to the socks, and then put them back because you need the shorts. I would think this is a more efficient way to sort, with a sacrifice to land usage. Sure I could put in a dozen 18ft straight tracks, but where's the fun in that? The loco servicing is off to the immediate left, as well as the turntable and roundhouse. Off to the right is a rip track and emptys yard, I then have to go around a corner and have the passenger yard, MOW building and tracks, an industry or two. (Not done planning there). There will be buildings as I can place them throughout, with Otis's coal co and maybe a competitor further down. That XtrkCad drawing is only a representation, not actual sizes and lengths. It does look close to my drawings tho. XtrkCad is fine for straight forward stuff, but getting some of the turnouts turned and connected to the right spot is irritating to say the least.
By the way, this is in HO scale, DC, no I didn't forget a C, and a lone wolf railroad. So yes, there will be 2 trains available for round the world running while the yard is yet a third control.
Addressing ONLY the question of hand-laying turnouts:
I hand-lay in place, using the longest lengths of rail the need for electrical gaps will allow, BUT, my yard throats are all built on removeable 'dominos' of benchwork. Future need for troubleshooting, switch machine replacement and such will be dealt with by unbolting the entire domino and adjourning to a nice, comfortable workbench - no standing on my head under the layout, thank you!
I don't use any kind of jig, simply laying out the desired track geometry full size on poster board and bending flex track to prove that my rolling stock can handle the curves. When a route proves out, I run a sharp pencil along the tie ends of the flex. Where the traces overlap, I install switch ties and assemble a turnout (or three-way, or double slip, or...) Where they don't overlap I just use flex, sliding the ties as necessary to fill the spaces between specialwork. The posterboard template is a permanent part of my tracklaying scheme, cut along those tie lines. It's a lot easier to align tie ends with the edge of cut poster board than it is to try to work with a centerline and track nails on 4.5 inch centers.
Not the only possible method, but the one that works for me.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
DeadheadGreg if he wants to build an insanely huge model yard, then more power to him for even attempting it! haha
if he wants to build an insanely huge model yard, then more power to him for even attempting it! haha
So you think it's funny to have someone spend months or years building something that doesn't work well when finished. Odd.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Hmmm, the passing tracks interfere with the outbound track. Put it between the two main tracks of the double-track mainline and it can serve both..
The yard tracks are terribly short, and the longest ones aren't accessible without fouling the outbound track. Breaking the yard into such small parts is a bad idea. I'd suggest one large freight yard as well as a coach yard. Make sure the coach yard is close to the operator because uncoupling is hard with most passenger-car models. Also, coach yard tracks should be at least 3 inches apart in HO scale since room for their servicing is required as well as making uncoupling of passenger cars easier. Those diaphrams are in the way, so you need sideways access.
I'm curious as to how any locomotive servicing is accomplished.
Yard leads, multiple yet, foul the passenger track. Quite dangerous. Got interlocking? Got plenty of money for overtime pay for idle yard crews and an uncrowded train schedule?
I believe you've got a monster, or is it the other way around? The thing is, if you're going to model a large prototype yard, anything less than a scale 1-by-2 miles require a lot of selective compression, and miniaturizing each of its many parts into a workable model is beyond my belief.
Mark
and with Fast Tracks, you don't really need any handlaying experience whatsoever... its just soldering. thats it really... and using a file. lol.
There are certainly more efficient ways of using 27' of layout length for a model yard, speaking of efficiency both in handling traffic and in terms of number of turnouts.
Not meaning to throw a damper on your enthusiasm, but a question I must ask that I didn't see addressed above: Have you ever built and handlaid a turnout before? If no, starting with an area that needs a LOT of turnouts may not be a good idea.
Hope this makes it easier to see.
The outbound track is directly under the siding, and if you go to the right is directly above the text EMPTYs. As for the inbound track, it comes from the upper left corner and curves down the left side of the yard and ultimately is the lowest of the tracks. The very bottom track is for passenger service, while the track immediately above is for freight. I suppose my thoughts were to build trains in the outbound track, and since each section of the yard is accesible from either end there should be no reason any part is blocked off. The lead track goes down each ladder, oh heck, I will try to color the tracks in MSpaint before I confuse even myself. I can say that this is not exact as far as the plan goes. On my graph paper (which I spent days on and many many changes) there is a roundhouse to the left, the inbound tracks are connected to the main, the pass station tracks are in, and there is a little more consistency between track spacing. Some more of the tracks have curves in the drawing too. I just wanted to give some idea what I'm looking at doing so I might get some suggestions for the big picture. Some of my ideas were to have a roundhouse that is 2/3s a circle, for the massive impression of the building and not that I can fill it up yet. Problem with that is , well, it's huge! The pass station is similar, as I would like to have a train shed but cannot come up with the territory for a full train shed, let alone several to justify the shed. The REA building has been trimmed in size as well, and I would like to keep it big enough for 2 tracks. Anyhow, let me paint the tracks...
While it certainly captures the feeling of a pre WW2 designed yard, I assume you were reading Droege, I can't see how you get a train from the yard/yards to either the siding or outbound track. There is no inbound track and if a train is in the outbound track a large part of the yard appears to be completely blocked off. It is a very interesting yard but I can't see it working very efficiently at all.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I gave XtrkCad a shot and it's much easier when you are not trying to be precise. This is the general layout of the yard tracks, less the emptys tracks. There will be an oil terminal around the corner in the same area as the passenger car yard (10 car). It will be 2 tracks with a capacity of 12 cars. This image is not particularly accurate, but a good likeness. The rails for passenger service have 28"r curves and no6 turnouts. Same for departure/arrival tracks. There is only 1 slip switch and a couple crossings, but another slip may be needed for the empties area. This is only 1 of hopefully 3 yard areas, but it is the largest. The others will be a more typical 3 or 4 track ladder. The supporting industry will be scattered throughout the layout
I think most will be able to follow the lead and have some other suggestions
I just checked and I see you cannot make out the text. A quick overview
Top 2 tracks are mains
a siding is under the main
outbound track under the siding
the track curving downward from the top left is arrival, freight takes the upper and passenger on lower
2 tracks exiting on left middle go to turntable
bottom right- 2 stub ended tracks from lead are REA, 2 tracks curving towards right are pass station and the other track curving down goes to the pass yard. There will be 3 actual tracks for the station holding 9 cars total.
tinman1I think hand laying is going to be the most economical and easiest way to ensure I can get to where I need with reliability. In a typical ladder (6 track), would you build all 6 turnouts seperate or would you build it as a unit (in place)and eliminate several joints? I am looking at 40ish switches for this yard area alone so buying them is not what I want to do.
I make up components on the bench (frogs, points, guardrails) and assemble the switches in place. So I use continuous rails through as many of the switches as the piece of rail is long. I think I have one rail that spans all or part of 5 switches on my yard lead. If you are planning to use the Fast Tracks system the answer is easy, you have to build the switches individually.
Second, with switcher locos, (steam) what is the typical problems associated with running them on no4 turnouts. Are the problems associated with cheap track switches or cheap locos? Or both?
The sharpness of the curve.The tighter the curve the closer you get to lower bound of reliability. Yes you can switch through a #4, but the quality of the track and equipment has to be better because if there is any exception in track, engines or cars you are more likely to have a derailment.
Personally I would suggest # 5 switches, you get almost the same space savings and a more forgiving track geometry.
Dave H.
tinman1 The "type" yards are designed to hold 12-30 cars of the appropriate lengths dependant on which area you are looking at.
The "type" yards are designed to hold 12-30 cars of the appropriate lengths dependant on which area you are looking at.
A good rule of thumb in operating is to keep the yards typically less than half full of cars to keep the yard fluid, so you'll want to consider your car capacities in that light.
A few responses for your questions. Actual length of this area, which is a major yard in a city type setting is 36" x 27' at this point. A prototype yard in the city has similar problems, trying to fit alot in a confined space. I want to somewhat capture this without going too far. I'm making up paper scale models to try and move a couple things, such as the roundhouse which I would like to be in the order of 15-20 stalls if I can do it comfortably and the passenger station and REA building. The switch engines right now consist of 2-6-0's and a couple shays (want them for other spots), but I have many that could be used in the 8 driver wheel configuration. Mainline engines are 4-6-2's, 4-8-2's , 4-8-4, 2-10-2, and a challenger at this time. Of course this is subject to change as I come across more deals. The areas on this yard sound complicated but really are simple. There is a longer ladder of long double ended track for unit type consists and then a lead that can access all the areas from either end. The "type" yards are designed to hold 12-30 cars of the appropriate lengths dependant on which area you are looking at. Someone said it could be difficult to put this on XtrkCad and you HIT IT ON THE NAIL. I think my better bet is to try and scan the graph paper and post.
Okay... a couple things to talk about here...
First, in regards to track laying. Yes, handlaying would definitely be the best way to go. I HAVE seen many people create long yard ladders as one solid unit. Shinohara used to even sell them. However, they are not absolutely necessary... and in fact, can even become a headache if things change in the future. If worse comes to worse, you can just solder them together later, once you know their final location.
Because trust me, even if you have everything planned out and have worked over every nuance of your trackplan, once you start laying track on the layout, things more than likely WILL change, once you get an actual idea of what it will look like physically.
Now, since you need so many turnouts, I would recommend going with Fast Tracks' turnout building fixtures. Also, Fast Tracks offers the option of having a #4.5 turnout. If you're worried about having problems with engines going through #4 turnouts, I would suggest going to the 4.5 or even a #5. Because remember, turnouts are not fixed things, and by this i mean that you can start a new turnout immediately right after the frog; you don't have to be restricted to the length of rail that manufacturers put past the frog. What engines, specifically, are going to be your switching engines? Knowing this will help make an informed decision.
But anyway, with the Fast Tracks jig, you solder your turnouts together using a few PCB ties, and then simply glue the skeleton of your turnout onto a tie strip. If you buy the turnout building kits from Fast Tracks, you get the soldering jig, point forming tool, solder, rail and tie-strips for 5 turnouts, pliobond glue, and PCB ties for just over $200.
And then, the only thing you need to ever spend money on is rail and tiestrips. You can save A LOT of money. A LOT. Theres a somewhat significant start-up cost, but in the long run, especially if you need 40 of the same # turnout, then this is definitely the way to go.
www.handlaidtrack.com
http://www.handlaidtrack.com/ho-5-turnout-kit-for-me-code-70-rail-includes-rail-p-88.php This link is for the whole kit... just so you can see whats in them. You can get them for any rail size.
oh yeah... and the only real drawback is that they're specifically made for one rail size. BUT you can use smaller rail sizes with them. ME's code 83 and code 70 rail have the same base width, but their code 55 rail is narrower, so you may run into some guage problems if you use code 55 in a code 70 jig... i encountered this problem when building my code 55 turnouts on Central Valley's tie-strips, because they are guaged for code 70 and 83, and the code 55 rail is narrower than the guage slot, so you need to use track guages with it. I'm not sure if you're able to use track guages when you put rail in the Fast Tracks jigs....
but my recommendation would be, if you need 40 turnouts ONLY FOR YARD TRACKAGE, then it would be worthwhile to buy it for the code 55 if thats what you're going to use in your yard (which you should... hehe). You can always sell it on ebay or something when you're done... you'll definitely have no problem getting your money back that way.
what are some other layout details you've got set up? I mean... is your mainline going to be code 83, with sidings/passing tracks code 70 and yard/spurs code 55? Or is your mainline going to be code 70, and everything else code 55? and what kind of engines will be your switching engines? an 0-8-0? or a 2-6-0? knowing this stuff will help us give you a better answer.
hope this stuff helps
There are different styles/methods of handlaid track. Some build turnouts at the bench, some handlay their track in place on the layout. Some use templates with specific frog #s, others just ensure the turnout meets their minimum radius, and free-hand the layout of the turnout from there. Some use Fast Tracks jigs, others make their own jigs or do without. Your personal preferences are going to have a lot to do with which direction you choose.
Obviously, fewer joints are better. But if you build at the bench, you are limited by the effective size you can build at the bench, carry to the layout, and install in the layout without everything coming apart. To me, as long as the location is readily accessible, I prefer laying directly on the layout. But then my workbench area is small, and not much better than the layout itself.
If you notch your stock rails for the points (some do, some don't), the notches must be preplanned before using 3ft continuous stock rails. Other areas of required preplanning is the location of throwbars, header blocks, and locations of various size switch ties. One method to lay out where the ties, rails, points, and frog are going to go is to use flex track at the site. Curve the flex track to the desired path and mark the rail locations - shading paper laid over the top of the rail heads works well for this. Then curve the flex track to the other path, and mark the other rail locations on the same paper. You now have a template for a custom turnout, which can be taped in place on the layout, or taken to the workbench.
The use of a #4 turnout is totally up to you. Handlaid track gives you the freedom to choose what you want. An NMRA #4 turnout has a closure rail radius of 16" in HO. It is a very short curved segment, so it doesn't have quite the negative impact on operations one would expect. Nevertheless, Atlas actually has a #4.5 frog on their #4 turnouts, giving a closure rail radius of 22". Shinohara lengthens their #4 turnouts to increase the closure rail radius. With my handlaid turnouts on a layout with 18" minimum radius, I simply ensured the closure rail radius was at least 18", and didn't worry about the frog angle. Some of the frogs were curved, some weren't. Many turnouts had the curved path laid to a curved batten easement from the 18" radius curves preceding the turnout.
Because I obviously prefer the flowing trackwork that results from building on the layout using curves and easements that continue through the turnouts, I am prejudiced against the Fast Tracks paradigm of building sectional turnouts at the bench for later mounting in the layout, just like a commercial turnout. My preferences yield continuous stock rails through several turnouts, which can be smoother trackwork and makes it difficult to spot where one turnout starts and the track or another turnout ends.
Handlaying the yard will also let you easily curve the track beyond the frog to compact the yard ladder by increasing the effective ladder angle. Putting this freedom and variability in XtrkCad isn't easy. If your yard minimum radius is in the 18"-24" range, I would lay it out in XtrkCad with Atlas #4 turnouts, knowing that you can easily build the real thing more compactly. If you are in the 24"-28" minimum radius, use Walters #5 turnouts for the planning, again knowing you can build it more compactly by handlaying. If you use NMRA #4 turnouts for planning, it will be more difficult to build more compact than the plan, and you may end up with undesirably tight curve radii. Just realize that the XtrkCad plan is only an approximation to check if things will fit, not a totally scale and precise track location on the real layout. IMHO, it is better to assume less will fit in the planning stage, and be pleasantly surprised during construction than the other way around.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Unless you know for sure that you will have much more room than the typical model railroad, many small yards will require a lot of turnouts and will likely be very inflexible in actual use compared to fewer (or one), longer yards. Plus there is the matter of the extra overhead in moving cars from yard to yard. In the model situation where train densities are higher, that can become a bottleneck.
So many yard designs I see posted on the Internet opt for too many short tracks. The extra ladder turnouts eat up length and a track that will hold only 4-5 cars is often not very useful in actual practice.
But if these are theoretical musings for a space that is not yet defined, then you're not bound by the constraints of practicality for now.
ByronModel RR Blog
I've been planning out the largest yard on my future (hopefully not too future) layout. I have gone away from the standard long double ended tracks and went with several smaller designated yards. I got the idea from an old yard planning and freight operations book (prototype). There are 2 things I'm looking for input on, before I go much further. First, there are alot (I mean ALOT) of turnouts. I'm looking at using no4 throughout the yard area, where the traffic is switchers and 40/50' cars. I think hand laying is going to be the most economical and easiest way to ensure I can get to where I need with reliability. In a typical ladder (6 track), would you build all 6 turnouts seperate or would you build it as a unit (in place)and eliminate several joints? I am looking at 40ish switches for this yard area alone so buying them is not what I want to do. Second, with switcher locos, (steam) what is the typical problems associated with running them on no4 turnouts. Are the problems associated with cheap track switches or cheap locos? Or both? I really don't want to have to keep poking a loco as it works (or not) the yard area, and going to no6 turnouts will make this undoable due to size (as is). I do have no6 and larger planned for tracks that will see bigger locos and passenger cars. I have been replacing wheelsets on my cars as I can to metal wheelsets to help prevent problems and checking guage as well.
Right now the plan is on graph paper and I'm taking a shot on putting it in XtrkCad. As soon as I get it done I will post it for some input on the arraingement