Paulus,
Calm down... I forgot to post the other drawing... Reading John Armstrong has sent me back to the drawing board... Literally and figuratively... Its been a busy couple of days, I started scratchbuilding some shotgun houses and cut a two stall engine house out of foam core poster board so I could set it in place when I snapped together the yard from my second plan...
I've been working on adding steam facilities to my plan and playing with an Armstrong design... He did these shelf switching things that look like a lot of fun, But I don't know if the novelty would wear off of it in a hurry...
I don't think this is perfect, I'd say I need to reduce the size of the yard and engine facility... but ths all there, staging, long yard lead, inbond and out bound tracks, loco service, rip, and lots of industry to serve...
In truth, as I sit here reading John Armstrong, I don't like either plan very much, so changes are coming, but I'm going to call it quits on this thread for a while until I work it out.
PB&J RR The center section however, needs something... for me this is a lesson worth learning, but if you are weary of it I understand
Yeah, I feel it's time for me to move on to other designs, since I can't really offer you much advice I haven't already offered - and you now have Armstrong's book to learn more about both real railroads and model layouts.
It is now up to you how you apply what you learn from Amstrong's book (which is very nice - my copy is falling apart from having been read a lot of times :-) and possibly from those of us who have offered you advice.
Grin, Stein
Dear Walt,
I am happy you are not tired at all. I spoke about using a different language; I'll give you four exemples.
PB&J RRI have quite a bit of steam equipment and I like turntables and roundhouses-
So i expect them both in your plan, but also the service area next to them. Those steamers needed lots of coal, even more water and some sand also. Where is your coalpark with all the other goodies?
PB&J RRAbove I need to add staging along the top,
You did add some staging. But on the CCC&stL and the PPR staging tracks you can't park a whole train, just some cars. Why didn't you plan them both at the top and why so short?
PB&J RRI added the switcher pockets one to the right and one to the left....
I don't see any, but it is the language again I guess. (Or do you mean you connected two spurs to get a run-around?)
PB&J RRif I decide to keep the switchback paradise
One switchback is a bit meager for being a switchback paradise.
It is not about right or wrong; but try to explain what you are up too. This is the reason I numbered all the tracks. Real railroads did it too: so they could specificaly tell the purpose of every track in town. "Money can be spend only once" is a line every CEO understands very well; laying down tracks never comes cheap.
I am curious to know what you think about Armstrong's bible. I read the book maybe 30 years ago for the first time, recently i did some reading again. I once read an interview with him, he stated it was just so logical, no genius needed. You just have to start thinking as real railroads (or their CEO's) did.
Have fun , good luckPaul
Hey Stein,
I'm not getting tired of you guys telling me what's wrong with my design... I don't really take that stuff seriously.... Its hard to express in this medium, but I really do have a good sense of humor, sober but humorous...
I added the switcher pockets one to the right and one to the left.... And I'm taking another look at the old plan, I have quite a bit of steam equipment and I like turntables and roundhouses-
Above I need to add staging along the top, as lee suggests 3 tracks mean one east and one west and one pass through, probably do away with the inner loop entirely and just add a couple of train length passing sidings... On the left, if I decide to keep the switchback paradise, I'll do it as a logging operation,, which will no doubt endear the idea to an uncle of mine, a lifelong timber man...
The center section however, needs something... for me this is a lesson worth learning, but if you are weary of it I understand, it has been labor intensive for both you and Paulus...
I've heen inside the mind of a genius for the last day or so... I've been reading John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation... I ordered it the day you suggested it, and I have to say I am learning some thin
PB&J RRYou are right it is quite a reach to that corner... my solution to that problem, (which I discovered all on my own, with only a little help from my chubby little gut) was to move the table out from the corner diagonally 18 inches, which gives me ample walkway along the rear side of both legs...
You are right it is quite a reach to that corner... my solution to that problem, (which I discovered all on my own, with only a little help from my chubby little gut) was to move the table out from the corner diagonally 18 inches, which gives me ample walkway along the rear side of both legs...
Well, if it is worth it to you spend 35% or so of your dedicated layout space on two narrow 15" or so wide aisles along the back sides of your layout, then so be it.
Btw, such issues is why designers like Byron Henderson is often saying "see the space, not the table", and is insisting that it is a good idea to draw up the entire room, showing where things like door, windows and stuff that need to be accessible (like electrical panels, closets, heaters etc) are located.
It could be that a different layout foot print would have given you a more railroading for your space, and at the same time better access. Hard to say without knowing what your space really looks like.
But your layout, your decisions.
And I sense that you are getting a little tired of people nitpicking about your every move :-)
Just go ahead and build it and see how it works out for you, instead of spending a lot of time on planning and designing. If it works, great. If not, just change things and try again.
PB&J RRAs far as a switcher pocket, you probably mean below the classification tracks on the right side at the first turnout... That way the F unit can bring the train into the yard and uncouple before going straight to the engine house, well out of the way of the switcher, who can start breaking down the train from either end...
As far as a switcher pocket, you probably mean below the classification tracks on the right side at the first turnout... That way the F unit can bring the train into the yard and uncouple before going straight to the engine house, well out of the way of the switcher, who can start breaking down the train from either end...
Mmm - I suppose a pocket on the right end of the A/D track might save a little time in getting to the caboose of a train with the engine on the left and the caboose on the right. But what I was thinking about was whether it would have been smart with a little switcher pocket on the left end of the engine lead, to allow a switcher to get out of the way of a train coming into the yard from the left towards the right.
Not necessary if all your trains will be short enough to clear the turnout to the yard ladder when pulling into the A/D track - then the switcher could just pull it's vanishing act by ducking into the yard ladder to get out of the way.
But it would maybe allow you to run trains longer than your A/D track occasionally, letting the switcher first pick off the rearmost part of the train and store it in a body track, so the rest would fit into your A/D track.
Then again, I tend to think too complicated about yards sometimes, you could always do such stuff just using a part of the main if desired, so I guess it doesn't matter.
Walt,
you have found out someting very important, and even more then one. Being able to reach in is an asset, as well as being able to have your table on another place in your room. That's why the old hats always ask to draw in the footprint of your room as well. Finding a good footprint (and some alternatives) is among the cornerstones of good design.
David Barrow went a long way to make his layout changeble. Not because he is making newbe errors, but because he is the kind of person with a wandering mind, TMHO; before he finds the time to finish his current pike, he allready knows a better(different) way to go. He seem to love switchbacks too (on smaller pikes only?). And you have to find out what you like. How can you know from a book only? Lance Mindheim is purposely building a "small" layout because 5 years is his max. time span.
Have a happy birthday, have fun
Good luck to your all
Paul
Paul,
As I posted above, I'm going to lengthen that yard lead down below briarwood, make it longer than current train length for when I have enough rolling stock for long trains...
When I do that I will also number the yard tracks... I'm taking the night off from the railroad office, it is my wife's birthday, I'm only on long enough to check email while she puts the children to bed. (I have 3 girls)...
I am researching all I can about this David Barrow you keep refering to... My thought on the Switchback Paradise. (for some reason just the sound of that makes it sound like an exotic place) is to stap the track together and just set out some cars and try it out for a while. If I don't llike it I can always change it...
Reaching the back of the layout isn't a problem I moved out the tables a while ago, when I was trying to sketch on the foamand founfd that while I'm not short, I can't lean that far over and work effectively.
I'm off to share a glass of Rhein Wine with my wife and watch Alaska by Rail
Stein,
The four tracks you asked about are engine service with a two stall engine house, at the top and on the left are caboose and R.I.P. tracks...
I will also lengthen the yard lead and stick in a crossover... I agree with Paulus, that yard lead needs to come down below Briarwood... As far as a switcher pocket, you probably mean below the classification tracks on the right side at the first turnout... That way the F unit can bring the train into the yard and uncouple before going straight to the engine house, well out of the way of the switcher, who can start breaking down the train from either end...
walt
i took the freedom to play a bit with the yardlead of Stein
You can do all the switching on track 3 without interfering the main
odaveI really liked Stein's bottom figure-8 idea. One question on it - would the staging in the back be on a grade, or could you get up high enough for the crossover bridge using only the right end curve, this being N scale?
It really depends on how much clearance you need in N scale. If I assume that heights also can be divided by 1.8 (160/87.1), the it looks like minimum clearance would be around 1.6".
Doing 1.6" rise exclusively on the curve on the right (from left end turnout of A/D track to first turnout on staging) is pretty smack right at 4%. With a 13" radius curve.
Could maybe let both the main and the yard lead rise 1/2" from the bridge to where the yard ladder starts (2.6% rise), and then go flat until the crossover between the main and the A/D track - doing 1.1" more rise on the left turnout curve (2.7%).
Doodled a little more on that plan, btw, since I was checking the grades anyways.
Should be room for two fairly diverse scenes, since the over/underpass makes a good scenic divider.
I'm guessing Walt put the swichback area in to incorporate Lee's switching branch idea. If that's the case, Walt, I think it might be better to originate that branch at the left end of Penneburgh, either from the existing siding or from a new third, shorter siding. Then the branch main would go to the left and curve around to run down the left leg of your L all the way to Briarwood, where it terminates with a runaround. If there's room, and the era fits (can't remember what it was) you could even add a small turntable there to only turn engines (no roundhouse). Industry spurs could come off that branch main anywhere there's room and it makes sense.
I really liked Stein's bottom figure-8 idea. One question on it - would the staging in the back be on a grade, or could you get up high enough for the crossover bridge using only the right end curve, this being N scale?
Walt, now you're not too far removed from what I've got as the basis of my layout. Here's the current track plan (more or less) that I'm working with. The scale's a little off, but all the elements are there.
It's basically a folded figure 8 with an oval intertwined. When the switches are set right, it works as a twice-around route, and when I'm operating, it becomes a point (the yard) to two points lineal job, via the junction at MY.
Now, I've got my yard off to the side, connected by a wye at Williamsport Jct., which you might consider by adding a shelf beyond the main layout for your yard.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Walt
Nice first draft. Maybe you could also draw a plan with the bridge as Stein did. Just save them both, work on them, do fine tuning on both, sleep some nights and finally take the decision. I assume you still have your doubletrack plan available, so you'll have three to chose from.
You still can't work the yard without fouling the main; track #2 should become the yardlead and could be lengthend till under Briarwood. Track #1 is the thoroughfare; for the connection between t#1 and t#2 you'll need a crossover where that beautifull curved piece of flextrack is.
The upper two tracks in the yard could be connected directly to the lead, leaves the short runaround for cabooses. It would help if you gave more information how you intend to use your yardtracks. Numbering the tracks and telling what they are up too makes it possible to get a better idea about how you see yard operation.
Your switchback paradise even has a double switchback. I really do like the David Barrow approach; just put the track in, don't do scenery or ballasting on this part of the build at first. Use it for some time and if you don't like it: change it.
The upper right corner, the most, is hard to reach in. Keep thinking how to handle a derailment or doing maintenance in your staging area.
Have fun, good luck
PB&J RRHere's the new Design <...> bear with me I know the leads in the second sketch probably need to be longer, and the Industrial district is sort of an experiment, I may make it a logging branch (give me a chance to do some dense forestry...(not so dense as me...LOL, Opinions welcome.
<...>
bear with me I know the leads in the second sketch probably need to be longer, and the Industrial district is sort of an experiment, I may make it a logging branch (give me a chance to do some dense forestry...(not so dense as me...LOL,
Opinions welcome.
Getting rid of that double track mainline and turntable helps in reclaiming some space for buildings and scenery.
Distance from the layout edge to the track in the upper left hand corner would be something roughly like 3 x 1.4 feet, or around 4 feet.
For my taste, the tangle of switchback tracks on the left is not at all tempting, for reasons already discussed.
Yard - I assume those four tracks topmost tracks (two on the right and two on the left) is intended for something like caboose and engine service tracks, and that the purpose of the track track parallel to the yard ladder is to be an access route to these four tracks, not a place to leave cars ?
I would probably at least have made the yard switching lead longer (extending it further down along the left table) and moved the yard ladder leftwards, thus making the A/D track longer. Maybe provided a pocket for the switcher.
Up to you if you want to game out switching moves and train lengths on paper/screen, or if you prefer to build first, and then make changes later if changes are warranted.
Your layout, your decisions.
I've been reading this over and over and I actually drew out Lee's example lesson on operations, and then I compared my plan with his plan and your plan and I first started to change my original and then got a wild hair and thought I would try to apply the concepts... bear with me I know the leads in the second sketch probably need to be longer, and the Industrial district is sort of an experiment, I may make it a logging branch (give me a chance to do some dense forestry...(not so dense as me...LOL,
Here I started changing my original
Here's the new Design
wm3798 Here ya go Walt...A couple of notes:I made it a single track main with passing sidings. This will greatly reduce the clutter, and spice up the ops a bit. I moved the engine house to the right, to consolidate all of the terminal stuff on the right side. Note that the yard may be much larger than you need it to be. I would cut back on the length and keep the number of storage tracks. Frankly, unless you're running steam, I'd ditch the turntable in favor of a small 2 track diesel house. Much more space efficient, and would free up that real estate for some town scenery.The switching areas are just sketched in. Another option for the branch would be to have it leave the main at the same location, but in the opposite direction, climbing a grade to cross over in front of the scenery divider in the rear, and perhaps to a shelf over the staging area.The scenery block I'm proposing would be low enough that you could see the trains in staging, but high enough that it's not overly obvious under regular viewing conditions.See if that doesn't jive with what you were thinking...Lee
Here ya go Walt...
A couple of notes:
I made it a single track main with passing sidings. This will greatly reduce the clutter, and spice up the ops a bit. I moved the engine house to the right, to consolidate all of the terminal stuff on the right side. Note that the yard may be much larger than you need it to be. I would cut back on the length and keep the number of storage tracks. Frankly, unless you're running steam, I'd ditch the turntable in favor of a small 2 track diesel house. Much more space efficient, and would free up that real estate for some town scenery.
The switching areas are just sketched in. Another option for the branch would be to have it leave the main at the same location, but in the opposite direction, climbing a grade to cross over in front of the scenery divider in the rear, and perhaps to a shelf over the staging area.
The scenery block I'm proposing would be low enough that you could see the trains in staging, but high enough that it's not overly obvious under regular viewing conditions.
See if that doesn't jive with what you were thinking...
Not bad. But he is going to have reach issues in that innermost corner (which I assume will be up against a room corner ?).
How about if he had done a figure 8 type of layout, with an over/under in the corner. Gives him some room for a yard and for industries too.
Very rough sketch of concept - not optimized in any way - two staging tracks for up to engine and ten 60 foot cars along back walls.
Hmmm - yard should have been along other leg (the ten foot leg), and it would need a yard ladder lead (maybe - depending on where this was supposed to be, how busy the mainline would be) - but main point was to illustrate getting better access in the upper left corner using a figure 8 style mainline and using the lobes for yard and switching.
Edit: Couldn't leave well enough alone. Something more along these lines:
Anyways, I agree with Lee about the single track mainline. This layout will be too small for a lot of traffic, and will be operated by one operator - no point in double track mains that will look empty most of the time, and actually takes away operational challenges.
Scenically, I had a look at various places in Ohio using Google maps & street view and Microsoft bing and bird's eye view. Maybe something similar to the look and feel of a place like East Liverpool would fit the bill for Penneburgh. Or maybe not.
Smile, Stein
Dear Walt (and Lee)
Lee, you did a great job. I like your use of colours; makes it very clear how you see Walt's layout operating.
It would be very easy to doubletrack the plan after all. But for discussion the single track version is great. I still have concerns about the yard design, the overall concept however is outstanding. I like the industrial zone upfront. Walt, you will have reaching-in problems, your layout is becoming pretty wide. I still remember your first draft; I thought your layout even had a third leg. Am I wrong?
Walt, excuse me, but i will use the track by track counting in the yard again.
track #1: thoroughfare or main (should remain free of yardwork)
track #2&3: arrival and departure
track #4: rather short runaroud with the yardlead attached.
track #5/7: three bodytracks for classification. When one of your "long main"trains has left a cut of cars in the yard, the yardswitcher will go and get them. His job is to regroup these cars into switchjobs. On track #5 the cars for the industrial zone on the bottom of your layout, on track #6 the cars for the new station on the very right of your plan, on track 7 ...................... You'll get the idea; this is meant to explain classification, not to tell you how to do it. When that's done the next job is to serve all the spurs in the different zones.
The basic problem with the yarddesign is the yardlead. It should have access to both a&d tracks, not to track #4 only. I suggested it before: lengthen track #1 around the turntable (you will need another crossover from tr #2 into tr #1 in your yard); it will become the new main into staging. The inner track, the old main, would become a beautifull yard lead, with access to track #2, 3 and 4. The new main is freed from all yard work as it should be. However you'll have to flip the classification yard, will be looking great i think. You'll have the turntable at the right and the bodytracks on the left.
Walt, you discussed storage a couple of times, I do not know the kind of cars you want to put away temporarely. In California reefers were stored along the line till harvest time. I feel your yard needs all the track drawn, you could add another (stub) staging track and put a string of reefers on it. If the first two cars can still been seen, getting them out of storage won't be a burden. We talked about reaching in problems in case of maintenance or even worse a derailment. Think about it now, even if you have to rethink your whole trackplan, it is worth the extra consideration. Staging can be done completely hidden or concealed.(I prefer the last option when reaching in is difficult or almost impossible)
Walt, pick the things you like, just trying to give you MHO.
hi Walt, Stein and Lee
I am lightend up again. Not meant to belittle someone, just to express my frustration. And it's not that Walt goes his own way, it is his layout, he should have the fun; it's what I was feeling about the way he responded to some questions or remarks.
I have asked Walt if his two foot long a&d track shouldn't be made a little longer, His response: a great idea, so i gave an option how to do it. I asked him about staging. He started another thread and the two foot track remained beside changing the other half of his plan. It'is not about who is right or wrong, it is about the feeling we are not talking with each other, but over each other's head.
It takes two to tango, must be fun for every one. I'll be gentler and still honest at the same time. If you don't like what i say, just tell me. Thx Stein and Lee.
Thanks, Stein. Now please, let's drop a few coins in the farebox!
And yeah, Paulus... lighten up, buddy. We've all been where Walt is, and back then we lacked the interwebs to help each other so quickly... or to belittle each other so quickly...
Walt, let us know if you have any more questions.
Paulus JasAll was explained <...> allready many times
There is a difference between explaining what someone "should" do (and grump at them for not doing what you think they should have done), and making them see for themselves why doing things that way probably would make the layout more fun to run.
I think Lee did a magnificent job of introducing the concepts of staging, meets, interchange, classification and routing in a way that probably was both easy to understand, and highly motivating for a new model railroader.
wm3798Hope this is useful...
Lee --
That was one of the best (and most concise, too) introductions to operations I have read, and I have read quite a few books and magazine articles on model railroading by now.
I think I will bookmark this thread to be able to quote that one next time the question comes up.
Bravo!
wm3798We're going to add a third train, Extra 100, which is going to be our local. It will originate and terminate in our yard. (Now you'll need to account for a small engine terminal and a few yard tracks).
I like to start with basic train movements I want to simulate, then work out the operations scheme, then start designing the track plan around those requirements. (bass ackwards, probably, but it works for me!)
To way over-simplify it, I can see you looking for the following elements:
A yard to shift cars
An industrial area to switch
A main line for through movements (a euphemism for roundy roundy!)
I look for the same things in the plans I design. If you consider your main line loop as the first step in the process, that makes it easier to visualize the rest. So, mainline train AB-1 has to come from somewhere. Is there a staging track somewhere? This can simply be a longish siding on the back side of the layout.
Train AB-1 is pointed in a westbound direction, and maybe the other siding is occupied by eastbound BA-2. This sets you up for the most basic operation possible. AB-1 moves out of the siding, circles the layout, then ties up back in its original siding, perhaps after a couple of laps. Next, throw the switches, and let train BA-2 out for a spin. Same deal. You've simulated eastbound and westbound trains.
To add the first level of complexity, add a similar siding on the front side of the loop. Now, AB-1 can come around and hold, since BA-2 may be an express train with higher priority. With AB-1 in the "hole," BA-2 can streak by. This would be a meet.
Next element to add some interest... Add some yard tracks. Now, AB-1 has a block of cars destined for points east, so it arrives at our front siding, drops off its cut of 3 cars, and moves on back to staging. Now BA-2 arrives, and picks up those cars to continue eastward. You've simulated a simple interchange. (In this case, AB-1 and BA-2 might be two separate railroads)
Okay, buy a few more switches and some more track... It starts to get fun.
We're going to add a third train, Extra 100, which is going to be our local. It will originate and terminate in our yard. (Now you'll need to account for a small engine terminal and a few yard tracks). Train AB-1 arrives with a cut of cars destined for local industries. (these may or may not be located on the actual layout) Like the previous move, it also has cars destined for pick up by BA-2. So, AB-1 sets out those cars and moves on down the track. Now our local switcher picks up those cars and sorts them on the yard tracks. Track 1 gets the cars that BA-2 will pick up, Track 2 gets the cars bound for Town A, Track 3 gets the cars for Town B.
At this point, maybe BA-2 arrives, and has cars for the local as well. He'll pick up the cut that's on track 1, and leave behind whatever cars have local destinations, or will be picked up by AB-1 next time it rolls around. Now, our local train is set up and ready to head out. It has combined cars from both main line trains, blocked them by the town they're headed to, and gets ready to head down the line.
If your local is headed to industries "in the fifth dimension" just run it around to the staging siding, turn your car cards to the next position, and get it ready to bring back to the yard. In the mean time, run BA-2 around in loops and get a beer.
Okay, ready for the next level?
Industrial sidings... It's not unusual to have sidings right off the main line, but I find it to be more fun to have a branch line that serves a number of customers. That gives me more flexibity to keep a mainline train running roundy roundy (sooths the nerves) while I run up the branch with a local to bump cars. Either way, you now have on-the-layout destinations for your local to work.
As others have noted, switchbacks can become a frustration if you don't plan them well, but I think they help elevate the layout from a checkers game to a chess match. But I'll agree that they're best used in moderation... Anyway, you'll want to pay attention to how you're blocking the cars in the yard so you don't create headaches when you get to your destination.
If the layout's big enough, the branch line is a neat way to go, because it gives you the opportunity to have a "live interchange" on the layout. Your yard can become a junction point, with the branch originating from the yard, or the branch can diverge somewhere down the line, giving your local a route not used by the main line trains.
Now, if you REALLY want to have fun, you can regard your branch line as a secondary main, and put a few staging tracks at the end of it. This gives you the opportunity to bring trains in from an additional point of origin. F'rinstance, If your main line is representing an East-West route, maybe the branch line is coming in from the south, where it connects with another railroad. This opens up the possibility of adding some "bridge" traffic, trains that might arrive with foreign road power, which would be swapped at your engine terminal, then sent back with any traffic heading for the new junction.
I'll stop there, but you can see how quickly the volume of trains can mushroom based on the decisions you make about what operations you want to simulate. But by putting some thoughts into what movements you want to model, you'll be able to more effectively plan your track layout.
Hope this is useful...
Yes and no is about what I figured... workable but not great... but its a step...
Found that book on ebay for cheap, its on its way...
I've been reading these things all afternoo and I have to agree, Designing for realistic ops is the next level, I have an inner and outer loop that I can run on for a while and start landscaping... I'll keep cooking this yard and operations thing and come up with a good design...
Thanks for the help.
Can I make a totaly offbeat suggestion which may assist you testing your layout for operations? It comes from the Hints and Tips which I edit for the British Model Railway Express Magazine (www.mremag.com)
Rather than rewrite it, here it is in full as printed
Virtual Planning
by Trevor Gibbs
To try and see how a track plan may or may not work, I have used Auran's Trainz program to draw up the layout and test run the layout using virtual trains before committing to the carpentry. While I have not seen it, I am led to believe that Hornby's Virtual Railway can do the same using Hornby's track system. Trainz does not take long to learn the basic steps... sharp inclines on ridges still defeat me a bit but track layout, building placement, and even signalling becomes easier to visualise
The advantages of this is that you can set up the operating scenarios to run your trains and see if those scenarios work and workout your scenery at the same time. Rather than taking your model time away, it could save you time at the drawing board and even more time from making mistakes in the translation of what you visualise compared to what you finish building. The alterations are a lot easier to manage in the virtual world.
The learning curve is not all that high for this program and I have used it on a couple of occasions for others... You do not need a "Rolls Royce" latest version, anything from the first version will do.
Good luck and hope this helps
Regards
Trevor www.xdford.digitalzones.com for your interest
PB&J RROK, so I ran the yard ladder in the wrong direction... I spotted the problem and fixed it... But.... is this workable?
OK, so I ran the yard ladder in the wrong direction... I spotted the problem and fixed it... But.... is this workable?
Mmmm - both yes and no (how is that for a clarifying answer ? :-)
But first - good catch on the yard ladder in the wrong direction. You are starting to see what will work and what won't work, functionally.
Okay, back to the plan above. There is still a few somewhat rough spots functionally - like the way the yard ladder (I assume) hooks into the main in the same direction as exit from the A/D track (I assume) on the far right end of the yard. Ideally, yard approaches should tie into the main so the yard on one end ties in to the main going clockwise and on the other end ties in counterclockwise, if you want trains to be able to head into or out of the yard from and towards both directions without backing up.
Also, I am not sure what the function is of the short double ended track below the yard at the far right. Or whether it is smart to do a double switchback to get from the yard ladder to the two tracks above the yard (perhaps having to use the turntable as part of the lead to switch those tracks).
But those are relatively minor points functionally. You can live with backing out on the main from the yard and with a double switchback to get to rarely used tracks. So yes, technically the layout is fairly workable.
Does it look like a realistic railroad scene ? No. Too many track hooked up in too many directions. Layout has no feel of "personality" yet - it doesn't tell me say "Midwestern granger". Or "Appalachian coal hauler". Or "Maine two footer". Or "Kansas City stockyards". Or "Brooklyn Waterfront". Or any such thing.
No sign of how your railroad will interact with the rest of the world. No obvious crossings or junction with another railroad or interchange tracks. No staging.
It doesn't seem balanced between staging, yard and industries, with room for you to run both manifest freight trains, passenger trains, local freight trains etc.
But you know what ?
That is the next level - learning more about how real railroads work, and how to design layouts for realistic looking operations.E.g. why it is not necessarily a good idea to have complementary pairs of industries (like a coal mine and a fuel dealer) on the modeled part of your layout for a small or medium sized layout.
Or why it is a good idea to focus on a severely limited number of scenes instead of sticking in way too many cool features on the layout.
Why staging is pretty much a must for realistic operations.
And quite a few more things.
If you want to go that way, next step is to get and read (or re-read, if you have already read it) John Armstrong's "Track Planning for Realistic Operations", and then Byron's clinic on Designing layouts for realistic operations (http://home.earthlink.net/~bhender730/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ops_dsgn.pdf)
You could also try to read my comments in the forum thread "Track plan v 1.0" (http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/157790.aspx) where I try to discuss going in the opposite direction - first figuring out what your operational goals are, and then designing a basic track plan to support those operations, instead of first designing a basic track plan and then trying to find a way to graft operations onto your track plan.
You still have a long journey ahead of you. But you seem to be heading roughly in the right direction, if your goal is to get a layout for realistic operations.
Blut I can handle, you make good points, I really am trying to learn.
I've taken all of the info from various posts (I will keep in mind to keep a topic on one thread and stop with the starting a new thread every time I need help, sorry for that...) The more I worked on my yard, the more I didn't like what I was coming up with.
So I went hunting-
Byron Henderson had some great stuff on his site, I found an old track map from the big four here in town, I looked through a couple of layout books and once again put something else together... I want the swtiching, I want the yard, and I don'twant either to be a mess...
I took the plan Byron designed for a very small spacehttp://www.layoutvision.com/gallery/id27.html and tried to apply its technical points to improving what I had put together...
I transposed the Rip and facility track and dropped in my turntable, connected one of the leads on both ends to create escapes to the main... I think I may be getting there, your thoughts are greatly appreciated.