Both of the OP's threads are a product of a mish-mash of conflicting ideas and statements. I have followed both threads and can still not figure out....
1. Does the OP want to switch cars from the mainline with the yardgoat and the mainline locomotive parked?
2. Does he want the mainline locomotive to orbit while the the yardgoat shuffles the cars?
The OP uses the term Yard Lead early in the thread, so most would assume the second scenario is the goal. Yet he lays out a multipoint operating plan that shows number 1 is his goal, and is quite-uncordial when Paulus, naturally, assumes number 2 is the goal.
Strange threads indeed.
- Douglas
richhotrain Tad upset? Larry, it is all about civility.
Tad upset?
Larry, it is all about civility.
Sigh..Once again I was trying to be nice but,once again I come up a dime short and a day late.
Rich,I can't fault what you said either.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIE Sux is not to blame and I can understand why he may be a tad upset..
Sux is not to blame and I can understand why he may be a tad upset..
I have followed this thread from the start, and it is really nothing more than an extension of another thread that the OP posted called Help Free a Trapped Locomotive in which he clearly asked for help and advice. While it is true that he did not initially ask for help and advice in this thread, the very first reply offered help and advice and the OP replied by expressing interest in the advice.
Then, suddenly, after several additional replies, the OP seemed to turn on those who had replied like a stern father admonishing his children to be quiet at the dinner table unless and until they have been spoken to.
Speaking for myself, I will follow the OPs admonition and offer him no help or advice in the future. I just don't need the verbal abuse.
Rich
Alton Junction
If I look at the breadcrumbs across the top of the page, I notice that that it says "Discussion Forums".
That's what these are. Forums for people to dicuss things. Pretty much if I post on these forums, my expectation is that people will discuss what I have posted. Since its a public forum open to pretty much anybody, it also means I have no control over where the thread I start goes.
I also am under no obligation to take any advice offered. Its all virtual. Its just a discussion. It never hurts to blue sky. Its my layout, I can do whatever I want (emphasis on DO, meaning physical construction). But what harm is there in just talking about other options?
Rather than getting all upset, if I started a discussion that ended up running to 3 pages of comments I would feel flattered that I sparked that much interest.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I find it funny (in a perverse sort of way) reading this thread...........
One of the parts of the hobby I enjoy a lot is the design phase. While I have looked at layout books and maps and whatever for ideas, the layouts I built over the years came from my own doodlings - which ultimately translated to scale drawings.
If you are unable to design your own layout, then get one of the many layout books and pull one from there.
That being said, if you won't try to design your own layout, maybe you are in the wrong hobby...............
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
NorthCoast RRIf I was as disgusted as you seem.....I would find some place else to share my progress....that is just me though. If I went through all the trouble of posting pictures, describing them, etc.....and the responses bothered me as much as they seem to you, why do it?What are you seeking here? Anyway.....best of luck. Good night
He posted photos of his layout to share and many of us jumped the gun giving advice he was not seeking-he even stated as much..
Why should he leave?
SUX V R40 RiderHow's that for functionality?
This seems to be a question, so a reply.
SUX V R40 Rider Move the yard loco. from one siding to another. Connect to the cars on that siding. Uncouple the cars I do not want on the mainline, or not. Uncouple the mainline loco from the cars it is hauling. Park the mainline loco. on the spur connected to the passing siding and cut the power to it. With the yard loco. pull the cars onto the mainline. If there are cars that need to be returned to the yard, uncouple those cars. If there are cars that need to be moved to the yard from the mainline, uncouple them. Using the yard loco. cut the cars needed from the yard in with the cars still needed on the mainline. Return the cars to the yard with the yard loco. Turn on the power to the parking spur. Pull the mainline loco out and couple to the consist and haul them around the oval.
Pretty good, however as Brakie stated; for those you do not need the yardgoat at all.
You have two engines on your layout, both having their own duties to perform. But this is not having two engines working at the very same time. The latter being the reason behind my comments. (Please read the short dispute in this threat between Brakie and me again.)
Yes indeed, answering questions without really knowing your wishes is difficult. If I had known the above I would never had commented on your postings.
Paul
SUX:
The only additional suggestion that I could add is to try to not be so sensitive to others' comments. I think you have taken some peoples' suggestions and interpreted them as criticism. Absolutely no one here has set out to offend you, but as Brakie said, we apparently have muddled things up pretty good. We were simply too eager to help, and help is all we wanted to do.
Once again, carry on and show us what you come up with.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
My whole point to my one reply is what Dave pretty much hit right on the nose. Not asking for help or advice, just sharing progress but receiving overwhelming advice got annoying. That is why I made it clear unless I ask I don't want help or advice.
I am guessing that forums like this did not exist when NorthCoast built his first 5x9 layout. But I wonder if a model railroad club did. I am also thinking online forums like this have replaced the model railroad clubs. I bet in an model railroad club unless it is asked for, help and advice is not given, even if a model railroader is just sharing his progress. I bet the rest of the guys just simply say nice job, cool, great layout, etc. But unless a question is or was asked they more or less leave it to the individual to do his own thing.
So why can't the same be true here?
I would rather try something without asking, fail at it, try it again, fail again then ask the question here for advice. Which in fact is what I have done, especially with the wiring. But it has almost got to the point where the advice, when I have not asked for help has become so overwhelming I don't want to ask anymore, even when I do need help.
I remember when I first started out and I first started posting here in Nov. of 2011. I was stating and sharing my progress on how I was building my modular deck. Someone actually got into an argument with me and I feel brow beat and berated me because he thought the framing for each of my 4 modules that make up my layout is way over built. You know what I do when people do that to me? Out of pure stubbornness and spite I dig in and do it my way no matter the consequences. Especially when I know my way will work.
However I thought it was very cool when advised me of this being my layout and therefore only my rules apply with I am running trains on it when I asked about the length of a train because my layout is not very large. People here advised me of what they do and then stated it is my layout so therefore my rules and I should run it how I see fit.
So I don't understand the hypocritical nature here. One moment I am being brow beat for the way I framed my layout deck, then told it is my layout and therefore my rules when I asked about something else, then overwhelmed with help and advice not asked for when sharing my progress.
Guys:
I think we have missed the OP's point all along because we tend to think in terms of operational possibilities. He wants to watch trains. The fact that to us his plan would become boring very quickly is irrelevent.
He has also said that this is a first layout, with clearly stated intentions of building a more prototypical layout in the future. How many times have people advised newcomers to start with something simple and get trains running? That is exactly what he is doing.
Personally I apologize to SUX for not listening carefully enough. Given his stated goals I think the number of suggestions became a bit overwhelming, and rather annoying from his point of view.
So SUX V R40 RIDER: Please carry on and continue to keep us informed.
dehusman SUX V R40 Rider I have stated time and again this very first layout will NOT be prototypical. Doesn't matter whether you are trying to be prototypical, whether its a fantasy or whatever. The stated goal is to have one engine doing something in the two tracks and still let a train run around the loop, then get the (for lack of a better word) switch engine out of the way to let the road engine do something with the cars in the yard. From a PURELY FUNCTIONAL standpoint, adding the track that was suggested for the switching lead, even if the tail track is only 1 engine length long, will accomplish the goals and provide all the flexibility the user might want. This isn't a PROTOTYPE solution, its a functional solution. It solves the problem, allowing one train to fiddle around in the yard while another train orbits, then lets the engine in the yard get out of the way to let a train off the main access the yard tracks. Doesn't matter what color the engines are or what lettering is on them. The fact that it looks like a prototype solution and is similar to prototype solutions is purely coincidental because prototype railroads have a similar problem and similar objectives.
SUX V R40 Rider I have stated time and again this very first layout will NOT be prototypical.
I have stated time and again this very first layout will NOT be prototypical.
Doesn't matter whether you are trying to be prototypical, whether its a fantasy or whatever.
The stated goal is to have one engine doing something in the two tracks and still let a train run around the loop, then get the (for lack of a better word) switch engine out of the way to let the road engine do something with the cars in the yard.
From a PURELY FUNCTIONAL standpoint, adding the track that was suggested for the switching lead, even if the tail track is only 1 engine length long, will accomplish the goals and provide all the flexibility the user might want.
This isn't a PROTOTYPE solution, its a functional solution. It solves the problem, allowing one train to fiddle around in the yard while another train orbits, then lets the engine in the yard get out of the way to let a train off the main access the yard tracks. Doesn't matter what color the engines are or what lettering is on them. The fact that it looks like a prototype solution and is similar to prototype solutions is purely coincidental because prototype railroads have a similar problem and similar objectives.
OK then I guess unless and until I determine if I will need any part of this:
especially the section that will allow the yard loco. to pull far enough ahead with a car attached and back it on a different yard siding, for now I will simply just:
In other words use the mainline to pull the cars out of the yard and cut the cars in and out that will be hauled around the oval with the yard loco, while the mainline loco. is parked.
As such to move the yard loco. from siding to siding, I still need the long lead as part of the entrance to the yard to prevent fouling the mainline or the one switch. Once the yard loco. is parked and coupled to the cars it is going to pull onto the main the mainline consist will still be running. After which it will be stopped and its loco. parked on the spur.
How's that for functionality?
Paulus Jas Sux, it is about what you want your engines and trains to do. Tony Koester wrote a book about it, just like John Armstrong. To me it means a train, lead by a road engine, coming from a big yard further down the road, bringing in "fresh" cars. Those cars have to be set out at places where they can be loaded or unloaded by a local switcher. The switcher also picks up cars loaded or unloaded the previous day and brings them to a small relief or support yard. This is where they are picked up by the road engine; the start of their journey to far away destinations. When operating a layout with the above in mind every move has a purpose. With two engines involved it is important to know if they both can perform their duties without hindering each other to much. How much is acceptable to you is the question, to much can easily become tedious. Anyway to me, not necessarily to you, a couple of industries or transloading facilities (a team track) are a must, just as a connection with the remainder of he world: an interchange or a staging track. The latter is where my road-engine starts his work on my layout. The control system has nothing to do with it; whether its DCC or DC with cab-control wiring. The following plan is NOT meant to force you into anything, just an illustration of the moves I would like my engines to do. If they are to much in each others way I will have to change the design. Probably to much tricky switching is needed near the run-around. Maybe there are to many (un)loading spots. BTW "for door F1" should be "before door F1". Since almost all moves are made with a couple of cars you will have to allow enough space for them. The main difference between us is maybe I am always thinking in terms of feasable and functional train-moves. Some folks find the above to serious, they prefer more moves done at random, just what they like at that moment. Those layouts are sometimes called fun-pikes. A plan suited for more prototypical operation can always be operated ""funwise". The opposite is not true. Indeed it is hard to "advise" someone right, without knowing exactly what he wants to achieve. SmilePaul
Sux,
it is about what you want your engines and trains to do. Tony Koester wrote a book about it, just like John Armstrong.
To me it means a train, lead by a road engine, coming from a big yard further down the road, bringing in "fresh" cars. Those cars have to be set out at places where they can be loaded or unloaded by a local switcher. The switcher also picks up cars loaded or unloaded the previous day and brings them to a small relief or support yard. This is where they are picked up by the road engine; the start of their journey to far away destinations.
When operating a layout with the above in mind every move has a purpose. With two engines involved it is important to know if they both can perform their duties without hindering each other to much. How much is acceptable to you is the question, to much can easily become tedious.
Anyway to me, not necessarily to you, a couple of industries or transloading facilities (a team track) are a must, just as a connection with the remainder of he world: an interchange or a staging track. The latter is where my road-engine starts his work on my layout.
The control system has nothing to do with it; whether its DCC or DC with cab-control wiring.
The following plan is NOT meant to force you into anything, just an illustration of the moves I would like my engines to do. If they are to much in each others way I will have to change the design. Probably to much tricky switching is needed near the run-around. Maybe there are to many (un)loading spots.
BTW "for door F1" should be "before door F1".
Since almost all moves are made with a couple of cars you will have to allow enough space for them. The main difference between us is maybe I am always thinking in terms of feasable and functional train-moves. Some folks find the above to serious, they prefer more moves done at random, just what they like at that moment. Those layouts are sometimes called fun-pikes. A plan suited for more prototypical operation can always be operated ""funwise". The opposite is not true. Indeed it is hard to "advise" someone right, without knowing exactly what he wants to achieve.
SmilePaul
I have stated time and again this very first layout will NOT be prototypical. The main reason is because there are no full size rolling stock with Kraft products labeled on the sides or other types of advertisment. There is no such thing as an SD40-2 locomotive that is blue with big red letters that say HYVEE on each side. I am strictly building this because I like how the colors on the cars pop and hot the train looks while rolling around the oval.
The only remotley prototypcal part of this is the loco. I am using as a yard engine. It is a scale model of the full size number 2512 DAIR railroad company. I am using it because they are a local company, just as HYVEE is.
My next build, after this initial one is done will be with more protoypical rolling stock. For example I can get cars tanker cars and open gondola cars that I know the DAIR hauls. Even though it will not be exactly prototypical, because I am running it on a 4' x 8' layout. I can at least add industry buildings where the tankers would go along with the gondola cars.
For now this is strictly a fantasy layout because of the advertisement on the cars.
Paul,Food for thought.
First I like your plan..Its a ideal small layout plan with several operating scenarios.
My thoughts.
1.Dump the local switch crew and have the branch local to do the work.
2.A shortline with a GP7/ 9 or maybe a RS1/3.
3.I would loose the engine service fuel point-a shortline could use a local fuel contractor.The branchline job would simply return to its home terminal.
4.I would add another industry where the engine fueling was.
-------------------------------
I might even have the branch local to reverse move to the last customers-the ones by the yard..I might even add another industry and just kill the yard all together..
SUX
My suggestion at this point is to do it exactly the way you want to and try operating the layout for a while to see if it works for you.
You are correct in that with your current plan you will be able to move the yard switcher from one yard lead to the other without fouling the main. The problem some of us are seeing is that you won't be able to move any cars from one yard lead to the other without having to back onto the main line. If it is your intention to leave your freight consists always in the same arrangement and simply switch from one whole train to the other then your plan works, but it gives the yard switcher very little to do. In fact the yard switcher could be eliminated entirely if you do not intend to break up your trains.
If you study the operational possibilities of Paul's design with a yard lead I think you will realize that his design offers a whole lot of opportunites to make for more interesting and prototypical switching operations. My concern is that you will get bored with your layout as planned because ultimately the switcher will have very little to do.
Just remember that rule#1 here is that it is your railroad and you can do as you darn well please.
Curving the yard tracks would cause coupling issues and make it more difficult for the switcher to perform its duties.
---------------------------
You are correct with your observation-I been there/done that.
However..
Experience taught me not to uncouple or couple on the curves just use the curves and the short track beyond for car storage and use a magnet and and just push the cars around the curve but,keep the first car of the cut on the straight section of track before the curve a 1/4 or 1/2 a car will suffice just as long as the coupler is on straight track.
Curving the yard tracks would cause coupling issues and make it more difficult for the switcher to perform its duties. Angling the yard takes up space, but you gain in track length. In addition, you can add an indistry (a short industry) in front of the yard. If you angle the yard towards the back left corner, you'll have plenty of room.
Just something to consider.
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
with the mainline as yard lead, orbiting around by a second train is impossible. This was the original question: how to make operation by two trains possible! One road engine doing laps on the main, at the very same time the switcher performing its duties.
-------------------------
I must have missed that part..
In that case there is 3 things I would do.
1.Swing the yard track closer to the main to gain room.I would also consider 2 of the yard tracks curving along the main tracks.
2.Add another yard switch to gain car capacity.
3.Add the switch lead as suggested.
----------------------------
Seeing I've only built a small handful of small HO loop layouts I would follow my policy of a two track yard that serves a industrial branch or model a small shortline which I might fore go the yard for 2 industries-I favor 2 industries on each side.I would add a interchange track..
Hi Brakie:
BRAKIECan you prove that track plan won't work as designed?
easily done:
BRAKIEA small two track yard would not warrant a lead in fact the main line would be the lead
Getting back to the focus of the thread, which is SUX's LAYOUT, I think that SUX has made some great progress since he started the layout.
SUX, since you expressed a desire to switch the yard, it's no wonder that RetGM suggested adding a switch to create a true yard lead. in addition, his suggestion to use left-hand tornouts would not necessarily make the tracks parallel to the mains. He was suggesting having the turnout of the main, a slight right-hand curve, the switch for the lead, and then a right-hand turnout followed by several left-hand turnouts to give you plenty of yard capacity. Even if you want the yard configuration to remain the same, I would (tenetively) suggest that you angle the yard tracks more (remove the 1/3 turn after the mainline switch) to increase your yard track length. If you were to remove the short stright section as well, the gap could be filled with an Atlas left-hand switch to make your switching lead. From looking at the pictures, I can tell that the total length would be about the same. The diagram posted by Paulus Jas is close, but the yard would end up further to the back. If it does turn out to be too far forwards, just add a curved section to swing it towards the back.
In addition, that "industrial track" along the back could just be another yard track and give you another 3 or 4 cars in your yard.
Please understand that everyone is trying to show you possible ways in which you could make the layout more fun for you to operate. Your layout is greatly improving and I can't wait to see how your larger one progresses once you start construction.
He wil be able to run just his switcher from one yardtrack to the other, but is this really performing feasable switching moves? You are the expert, being a brakeman for many years; are you the muddler as well?
-----------------------
Paul,A small two track yard would not warrant a lead in fact the main line would be the lead..What many layout planers fail to understand not every yard is used for classification since there is several types of yards.That 2 track yard would be classified as a storage yard for local industry.My few HO loop layouts had a 2-3 track yard and was operated as a branch.My N Scale 36" x80" HCD layout had a 8 track yard and was used for classification.
-------------------------------------------
but encouraging bad behavior is not a good thing.
---------------------------------------------
Paul,I would hardly call 55 years of doing things my way "bad experience" especially since the things I did worked and worked quite well..
Can you prove that track plan won't work as designed?
My experience building small HO loop layouts taught me it will.
BTW.The biggest HO loop layout I ever built was a 4x8 footer..I used a combination of snap(sectional) and flex track with zero problems..The smallest was a 4x4 footer with a 2 track yard-all sectional track.
Paulus Jas Brakie, (not for SUX) You seem to hijack a thread again. My concern was about a wish from SUX. I might be wrong of course, but I thought Sux wanted to be able to have one train orbiting around over his oval and at the very same time doing some switching moves with a second engine. IMHO SUX's plan is not up to that. He wil be able to run just his switcher from one yardtrack to the other, but is this really performing feasable switching moves? You are the expert, being a brakeman for many years; are you the muddler as well? Paul
Brakie,
(not for SUX)
You seem to hijack a thread again. My concern was about a wish from SUX. I might be wrong of course, but I thought Sux wanted to be able to have one train orbiting around over his oval and at the very same time doing some switching moves with a second engine. IMHO SUX's plan is not up to that. He wil be able to run just his switcher from one yardtrack to the other, but is this really performing feasable switching moves? You are the expert, being a brakeman for many years; are you the muddler as well?
Paul, I agree with you. Brakie is a respected member of the forum, but encouraging bad behavior is not a good thing.
Sux,Since I been doing things my way for 55 years I see no problem with your track as it is now nor was I all that concerned about the "S" curved you had since you will be running at slow switching speeds.
Of course if you start buying long freight cars and long 6 axle locomotives then you will run into problems with such tight radius switches.
Know and understand a lot of so called "experts" has come forth over the years and has muddled the water with their "expert advice"and the very basics of the hobby has been long forgotten especially how forgiving our models truly are.