Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Staging - to loop or not to loop - that is the question

13539 views
22 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2006
  • From: huizen, 15 miles from Amsterdam
  • 1,484 posts
Posted by Paulus Jas on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 4:14 PM

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

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Utica, OH
  • 4,000 posts
Posted by jecorbett on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 3:32 PM

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.

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.

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: PtTownsendWA
  • 1,445 posts
Posted by johncolley on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:08 PM

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

jc5729
  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Southwest US
  • 12,914 posts
Posted by tomikawaTT on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 10:24 PM

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)

  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: Canada, eh?
  • 13,375 posts
Posted by doctorwayne on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 5:32 PM

Texas Zepher

 

....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.  Smile, Wink & Grin

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

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Sorumsand, Norway
  • 3,417 posts
Posted by steinjr on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 1:58 PM

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? 

 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 :-)

 

 

 

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Colorful Colorado
  • 8,639 posts
Posted by Texas Zepher on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 1:38 PM

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!).

This is what our club has.  The staging yard is on a loop that one can pass straight through or turn on the loop.  Departing the yard is a set of crossovers that allows all trains to depart east or westbound onto the visible part of the layout.

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Colorful Colorado
  • 8,639 posts
Posted by Texas Zepher on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 1:35 PM

onebiglizard
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? 

What is to justify?  That would be the next operating session.   Who says any operating sessions have to do anything with prior or future sessions.

JTG
  • Member since
    February 2009
  • From: Southern Minnesota
  • 151 posts
Posted by JTG on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 1:24 PM

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.

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • 1,511 posts
Posted by pastorbob on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 1:11 PM

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

Bob Miller http://www.atsfmodelrailroads.com/
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 4,387 posts
Posted by cuyama on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 11:43 AM

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

Tags: staging
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,621 posts
Posted by dehusman on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 11:38 AM

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?

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.

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?

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 prefer which ever one meets the operational flow required. If I am modeling an area that is an intermediate section of a railroad, then end to end makes the most sense in most cases. If I am modeling the erminus or approaching the terminus of a railroad then I might prefer loop staging. If you are modeling an east-west line coming into St Louis, where it terminates and doesn't go far beyond the Mississippi then loop staging might be best. If you are modeling a north-south line where St Louis is an intermediate stop between Memphis or New Orleans and Chicago then end to end staging might make more sense.

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

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: Canada
  • 1,820 posts
Posted by cv_acr on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 11:32 AM

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.

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • 947 posts
Posted by HHPATH56 on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 11:11 AM
The following photos of my two staging yards may give you some ideas of possible configuration. Note that I have used Y switches, and double-slip crossovers to allow the two drill tracks to have access to each of the 7 tracks in this stub ended yard.
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 157 posts
Posted by HoosierLine on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 10:56 AM

onebiglizard

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

 

 

 

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • 947 posts
Posted by HHPATH56 on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 10:52 AM
Sorry Madog, somehow my photo got placed on your thread Reply. . . How does one Delete a misplaced photo? How could I Edit your Post, in the first place? The following photos of my two staging yards you some ideas of possible configuration. Note that I have used Y switches, and double-slip crossovers to allow two lead tracks to have access to each of the 7 tracks in this stub ended yard. The second photo show the rest of the 7 track yard with an overhead main line loop. The right end of the sloping loop is attached to the right drill track of the yard, by a switch, so that it can pick-up freight consists arranged within the yard by a switcher.
  • Member since
    February 2007
  • From: Holland Michigan
  • 108 posts
Posted by onebiglizard on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 10:39 AM

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. 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 10:33 AM

Just made the link clickable

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • 947 posts
Posted by HHPATH56 on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 10:26 AM
A photo of a section of my 7 track pass-through staging yard, which contains a unique double-slip switch with one control rod.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 10:14 AM

Hmmh, that issue makes me think Whistling

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 Wink

  • Member since
    January 2007
  • From: Eastern Shore Virginia
  • 3,290 posts
Posted by gandydancer19 on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 10:02 AM

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.

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Utica, OH
  • 4,000 posts
Posted by jecorbett on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 8:48 AM

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.  

  • Member since
    February 2007
  • From: Holland Michigan
  • 108 posts
Staging - to loop or not to loop - that is the question
Posted by onebiglizard on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 8:24 AM

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: 

1. If you had the opportunity, would you put in return loops and utilize the "what left must eventually come back" approach to operations? 

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?    

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.

Thanks,  Bill

 

 

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!