jecorbett Unfortunately, the layout had other design flaws which made it less than satisfying to operate. I've learned from those mistakes and applied the lessons to the current layout.
hi
could you share those issues
paul
JTG Some excellent points and suggestions so far. One that I don't think has come up yet is the option of using a single return loop/staging yard for both "ends" of the layout. That's what I'm working toward on my current layout. Saves space, money and time (in descending order of importance!). Personally, I wouldn't have much interest in a plan without return loops. Both of my previous layouts had return loops and staging at both ends. But as it's already been pointed out, it really depends on what kind of traffic flow you're trying to create on your layout. Depending on what you're trying to do, a case can be made for many different approaches.
Some excellent points and suggestions so far. One that I don't think has come up yet is the option of using a single return loop/staging yard for both "ends" of the layout. That's what I'm working toward on my current layout. Saves space, money and time (in descending order of importance!).
Personally, I wouldn't have much interest in a plan without return loops. Both of my previous layouts had return loops and staging at both ends. But as it's already been pointed out, it really depends on what kind of traffic flow you're trying to create on your layout. Depending on what you're trying to do, a case can be made for many different approaches.
I did this on my previous layout, which had a single track mainline. Both ends of the mainline enter the same reverse loop. The two mains entered a hidden double slip turnout from the same end and on the other end was a multi-track reverse loop. Schematically, it was like a figure 8 with the double slip switch at the point where the tracks would cross. This gave me lots of flexibility. Trains could enter the staging yard from either direction and depart in either direction. With a division point yard in between, I had lots of flexibility. I could run point to loop from the yard in either direction. I could run through trains loop-to-loop. I could also run in a continuous oval if I chose to do that. Unfortunately, the layout had other design flaws which made it less than satisfying to operate. I've learned from those mistakes and applied the lessons to the current layout.
Check out Joe Fugate's use of a double ended staging yard. If you are planning for Operations this is an ideal arrangement providing you can stage enough trains in both directions to provide enough substance to last a session. Don't forget that if you have intermediate yards you can also be making/breaking trains in them, as long as you keep on mind an open "destination" track. John
To address the, "If it left Westbound, how come it's returning from the East?" question first:
With my operating scheme, a train that departs the visible world will almost always reappear through the same tunnel portal (or the one right next to it on double track.) The reason is simple - from Tomikawa DOWN, the track is under catenary and the trains are usually powered by juice jacks. In the opposite direction, catenary is spoken of in future tense and the locomotives travel under visible trails of combustion products. The only exceptions are a FEW diesel-powered trains, either locomotive hauled or DMU, which don't change engines at Tomikawa.
Down in the netherworld, there is one place where a train can reverse from UP to DOWN. It's not a reverse loop, as such. It's a crossover between the double main tracks at a point where they briefly run in opposite directions - trains running UP on the UP main track are running in the same direction as trains running DOWN on the DOWN main track. Steam power can run forward through the crossover and return the way it came. Juice motors have to back from their stub-end staging yards about a scale kilometer to get in position to head UP to Tomikawa (Literally up, as well - up a 2% grade.) For this to work, there's a section of the UP main track extending something over a train length back from that crossover that's set up as a reversing section.
Since the schematic of my main line is a big loop, I can, theoretically, run roundy-round. This will only be done if I'm making wheels roll for mundane visitors or running in a newly-reactivated locomotive. 'Mundane trains' will always be diesel powered - usually DMU. Run-ins will happen 'off the clock,' while the timetable and scale time clock are held at a pause point. In normal operation, anything that enters the underworld stays there until the timetable calls for it to reappear. I can hold seven steam-powered freights and nine freights with motors. Each of the seven passenger consists has its own dedicated staging track. The unit trains involved in my empties in/loads out at my top-of-the-mountain colliery have their own dedicated netherworld branch, so that exchange can be made with an appropriate degree of subtlety.
Fairly obviously, this isn't a design that 'just happened.' The schematic had been thought out for years, while the underlying plan goes back almost half a century. Layout design was more in the nature of figuring out exactly how to position the same old spaghetti in the newly-available bowl.
As in most such things, the final configuration was a compromise. I don't really LIKE backing trains on (to be) hidden track - but that's what I have to do to get the results I want.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Texas Zepher ....Who says any operating sessions have to do anything with prior or future sessions.
....Who says any operating sessions have to do anything with prior or future sessions.
This also depends on your operating system. With car cards and waybills, cars going to staging tracks are usually considered to be "leaving the layout". Exceptions could be cars in captive service that leave as loads and return as empties (or vice versa), always moving between the same two points.
All of my staging yards will be single-ended, and in most cases, cars arriving there will be considered as having reached their destination and will be physically removed from the layout. Using car cards and waybills, new cars will replace them, with the power from the previously arrived trains being re-assigned appropriately. This not only ensures that the same cars will seldom re-appear before several operating sessions have passed, but it also helps to vary the traffic patterns. Additionally, it provides a rationale for buying more freight cars in order to maintain the flow of goods.
With the railroad operated as a point-to-point-to-point, there'll be four staging areas stacked one above another, with spare rolling stock storage below. There'll also be another interchange, separate from this area, and also dead-ended.
In the photo below, the lowest track (along the aisle) represents an interchange on the west end of the modelled railroad (across the aisle). Two tracks above that (some reefers are parked near the far end) represent an industrial switching district at the south end of the railroad, with the larger yard above that acting as a south-end interchange. Both of these yards enter the layout by passing through the backdrop in the distance. Yet to be built above this is a six track staging area representing a north-end interchange - it will enter the layout by crossing the aisle similar to and above the single track on the bottom-most level.
When "delivered" cars finally re-appear on the layout, it could be from any of these staging tracks, but the time lapsed between "leaving" and "returning" should be sufficiently long that no one will recall the car's previous trip.
Wayne
onebiglizard Most of the layouts I've seen in the press or on line do not have staging return loops. But, what goes east (or west) must at some point come back, right?
Most of the layouts I've seen in the press or on line do not have staging return loops. But, what goes east (or west) must at some point come back, right?
Not necessarily. Depends on what you are modeling.
The consist (engines and rolling stock) of a given train does not necessarily stay together to return in the opposite direction three hours later, or the next day or whatever. The next time you see the same engine it may be pulling an entirely different train, either eastbound or westbound.
And it would be pretty rare to see the same load (on cars where you can see the load - like open hoppers or flatcars) first being sent eastwards and then being sent back westwards a few hours later.
2. If you currently have staging without return loops, how do you justify operationally that a train that departed to the east makes it's next appearance coming again from the west?
On the second pass the same train would be simulating another train of a similar type as the first train, following the same route as the first train.
As I said - what makes sense depends on what you are modeling.
For passenger trains it may make sense to have the same train go back and forth - either simulating a return journey later in the day, or simulating a different train of a similar type heading in the opposite direction.
For a freight train with visibly loaded cars, it probably would make more sense having two trains - one loaded (e.g. eastbound) and one empty (e.g westbound).
Then these two train consists can simulate three or five or whatever eastbound trains and three or five or whatever westbound train in any traffic combination you want - e.g first two westbounds, then one one eastboun, then one westbound, then two more eastbounds, or whatever you want.
Grin, Stein, whose layout is way too small for me to worry about simulating a lot of traffic :-)
JTGSome excellent points and suggestions so far. One that I don't think has come up yet is the option of using a single return loop/staging yard for both "ends" of the layout. That's what I'm working toward on my current layout. Saves space, money and time (in descending order of importance!).
onebiglizard2. If you currently have staging without return loops, how do you justify operationally that a train that departed to the east makes it's next appearance coming again from the west?
My prior layout had return loops and I found myself not changing consists, just sending them back from whence they came. It got boring. The current Santa Fe, started in 1984, is three decks, connected, so that most trains from from Oklahoma City (top deck with staging) to Enid, second deck and to the bottom deck, Waynoka and Kiowa Ks and staging. In other words you would have to pick up each car and loco in a train arriving to send it back the way it came. So I have more switching opportunities, I see different consists on trains from the last time they ran, and I like it that way. You can give me all the reasons why I am wrong, but I will smile and continue to enjoy the operation where every train gets redone before the next session.
Bob
If one has enough space, it's not necessary for this to be an either/or issue. Staging can be both "loop" and "through", if well-designed (and again, with enough space!). Stacked loops can also save space.
Many model railroads have loop staging yards and they work fine.
Real-life passenger trains often had the same consist in each direction, so an "eastbound" reappearing as a "westbound" later in the day (or vice-versa) is completely reasonable and re-uses expensive equipment.
As John Armstrong noted, some of the key questions to determine layout schematic (and thus, staging schematic) are era, traffic flow, and traffic type. For example, open-top loads (such as coal trains) typically flow empty in one direction and loaded in another. That situation usually suggests "through" staging, so unit trains can orbit or be reused and look "right".
There is no single correct answer for every situation.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
onebiglizard 1. If you had the opportunity, would you put in return loops and utilize the "what left must eventually come back" approach to operations?
1. If you had the opportunity, would you put in return loops and utilize the "what left must eventually come back" approach to operations?
I have used both. It depends on what the operation you are modeling is. If you are modeling flows where the trains are out and back, then a loop is more appropriate. If you are model through flows or purely directional flows then end to end it more appropriate. For example I modeled the top end of a branch line. The portions that connected to teh rest of the railroad had stub ended staging. The staging that represented the far end of the branch was loop staging. For the traffic flows on the area I modeled they represented the operation most closely.
You can have two different types of staging, without loops, stub end staging and end to end staging. With stub end staging the train that exited EWD, makes its reappearance WWD so that's perfectly logical (it just akes more handling of the equipment).
If you are using end to end staging then each train set is understood to represent multiple copies of that TYPE of train. So if you run 5 loaded and 5 empty coal trains over your territory a day, you have one loaded set and one empty set and they each make 5 orbits a "day" representing the 10 trains operated.
3. If you have experienced both scenarios, which do you you prefer, and why?
I would appreciate views of more experienced modelers on the pros and cons of operation with these two staging alternatives. I'm getting close to the point where I have to decide on one or the other.
What are your train flows? You might need both.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Here's the control panel for the main staging yard at my club layout, which shows pretty good the schematic layout. A train entering on any track can turn around and head out on a different track. It also connects to a fiddle yard to break down trains for restaging. (No train ever comes back the other direction exactly identical to what went before; although some specific examples (unit trains) can be simulated that way on the model.
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
onebiglizard Just to clarify - My staging return loops would not be to create continuous running (although I guess I could do that too),
Just to clarify - My staging return loops would not be to create continuous running (although I guess I could do that too),
Without having your trackplan and room layout in front of me I'm not sure I can fully answer your question. Having been there done that, my preference would the continuous running type of staging.
Here's a sample of what I mean: http://www.shelflayouts.com/modern_double_track.htm
I think some of David Barrow's designs used this idea also if you can find his old articles in MR and MRP.
On a previous layout the stub staging got old in a hurry. Turnback loops are nice in theory (automatically turn the train) but can take a lot of room. The continuous run method won't turn your train but frankly I'm not sure anybody would notice.
Lance
Visit Miami's Downtown Spur at www.lancemindheim.com
Just to clarify - My staging return loops would not be to create continuous running (although I guess I could do that too), rather the intent is to turn the train around so that when it next appears, either later in the same operating session or the next session, it would be coming back from where it went earlier. This would apply mainly to passenger trains, however could also be used for any freight in closed cars, such as a string of reefers coming loaded from west to east and later returning empty.
Just made the link clickable
Hmmh, that issue makes me think
The purpose of staging yards is to have a starting point or a destination for your trains. If you add a return loop to introduce continuous running, you sort of make the staging obsolete.
Don´t know which way I would go in this case - I guess letting trains just run has also something to it, at least now and then
Bill, I had both.
My previous layout had one return loop with four tracks. The loop was on a lower level. When trains left the loop, they ran up to the main level on a single track. Then that track joined the mainline at a wye. Trains always entered the staging loops in the same direction. By doing it that way, I only needed to build one staging loop set, and when the train entered the mainline, it could go in either direction. I really liked that way.
My present layout has three run-through staging tracks. These tracks complete the mainline oval. My mainline runs twice around the room before returing to the same point. I justify this type of operation because my RR is modeling a secondary bridge route where trains from other RR's pass through it on occasion. They go in the same direction, say running West, and return to their home road via another route. They use my RR to have access to a port. They drop off and pick up blocks of cars at the main yard and then keep on going. My through staging can act either as a through connecting point for another RR's as just explained, or can act as an interchange. Currently I am using one track for a through train, and one track as an interchange track. The third is left open so I can run trains continuously around the layout.
I would prefer to use the staging loop setup like I had on the older layout. However on my new layout (in a different space) there was no room for it.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
I built my layout with loop staging at both ends and it was one of the best decisions I made. To save space, the loops are stacked over each other and the mainline rises in eleveation from one loop to the other. I am very much a believer in the back and forth approach and didn't want to be bothered with having to turn the trains at the end of each run. The loops do that for me. Each of my loops has three tracks and I find I can get 2-4 trains parked on each track depending on the length. That is enough for my operating schedule although it does take some thought scheduling since on each track, the first train in must me the first train out. For added flexibility, I have cutoff tracks that bypass the loops which allows me to operate as a double track oval. I do this so that empty and loaded hopper cars can always run in the same direction instead of hauling loads back and forth. In addition, I do some through commuter operations and this allows me to run the same commuter trains multiple times in the same direction depending on whether it is the morning or evening rush hour.
One of several reasons for the planned tear up & redo of my circa 1960 St. Louis area layout is that the first iteration didn't have nearly enough staging (plus curves too tight and other newbie mistakes). I now plan to have four to six double ended staging tracks at each end of my east to west layout. At this point my operating strategy is to have several run through passenger and freight trains, interspersed with local and branch line operations.
I am toying with two staging scenarios, one with return loops at each end and the other with a single shared staging area for east and west and no return loops. The latter would be easier and not require breaking through the layout room wall to put the return loops in the utility room.
Most of the layouts I've seen in the press or on line do not have staging return loops. But, what goes east (or west) must at some point come back, right? So the questions I have for the forum are:
Thanks, Bill