Lastspikemike Now that's a compact yard.
Now that's a compact yard.
And expensive to build and maintain.
Sheldon
A couple pieces of rail, some solder, maybe a file or two?
Ladder_lapped by Edmund, on Flickr
Have fun!
Cheers, Ed
rrinker It's a yard. The tracks are supposed to be parallel to one another. The way the yard in that plan is as drawn is a huge space waster, to what end? Keeping the ayrd tracks from being parallel to the benchwork? How about making the yard parallel, and not having the main lines arrow straight down each side. There's no reason to have the main line parallel to the benchwork, even on narrow shelves. It can easily vary to avoid that perfectly straight line appearance. But a yard, unless it is being wrapped around a curve, in which case some pretty generous radii are needed for reliably coupling and uncoupling, is already one of the if not the widest part of the layout and angling it id goign to make one end have some reach issues. Or just randomly bumping out the fascia so the fascia in front of the yard isn;t straight - same issue. Extra width means a problem reaching to the back, unless it's all on a penninsula accessible from both sides. And then there are two choices - main between the fascia and yard, making it harder to reach the yard, or yard in front of the main, making it easier to reach in to couple and uncouple in the yard, but harder to reach the main - which at that point is probably also just straight, with no turnouts, so low risk of derailment. --Randy
It's a yard. The tracks are supposed to be parallel to one another. The way the yard in that plan is as drawn is a huge space waster, to what end? Keeping the ayrd tracks from being parallel to the benchwork? How about making the yard parallel, and not having the main lines arrow straight down each side.
There's no reason to have the main line parallel to the benchwork, even on narrow shelves. It can easily vary to avoid that perfectly straight line appearance. But a yard, unless it is being wrapped around a curve, in which case some pretty generous radii are needed for reliably coupling and uncoupling, is already one of the if not the widest part of the layout and angling it id goign to make one end have some reach issues. Or just randomly bumping out the fascia so the fascia in front of the yard isn;t straight - same issue. Extra width means a problem reaching to the back, unless it's all on a penninsula accessible from both sides. And then there are two choices - main between the fascia and yard, making it harder to reach the yard, or yard in front of the main, making it easier to reach in to couple and uncouple in the yard, but harder to reach the main - which at that point is probably also just straight, with no turnouts, so low risk of derailment.
--Randy
Agreed, the only prototype yard like that I ever saw was a 1970's piggyback yard.
I have found that with my 1950's equipment, and regular Kadee couplers, coupling on curves above 36" radius is not much of a problem.
I built a yard like my new design once before, it worked fine. The curves are not actually constant radius, the are two sprial easements back to back with the apex of the sharpest one reaching 36" radius. Everything is larger from there.
In fact that is how I layout all curves that change direction less than 45 degrees. It only takes the smallest amount of additional space.
And yes, in my case, all manual ground throws in the yard, so it must be "reachable".
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
SeeYou190 ATLANTIC CENTRAL But in real life there are those times when you perspective is nearly perfectly perpendicular to the tracks, so "some" trackage parallel to the benchwork seems to work for me. Sure, and the fact you run longer trains probably adds to the realism as well. My short 8 car trains running parallel to the layout edge would look terrible. -Kevin
ATLANTIC CENTRAL But in real life there are those times when you perspective is nearly perfectly perpendicular to the tracks, so "some" trackage parallel to the benchwork seems to work for me.
Sure, and the fact you run longer trains probably adds to the realism as well.
My short 8 car trains running parallel to the layout edge would look terrible.
-Kevin
I understand completely.
ATLANTIC CENTRALBut in real life there are those times when you perspective is nearly perfectly perpendicular to the tracks, so "some" trackage parallel to the benchwork seems to work for me.
Living the dream.
SeeYou190 rrinker You'd have to flip the yard - make the left most yard track the ladder, and then run the yard tracks parallel to the benchwork. I have never been a fan of placing any track parallel to the benchwork edge. I just don't like the way it looks. If you have a free-flowing fascia, it would be fine. However, straight tracks running along a straight layout edge looks harsh to my eye. Even 1or 2 degrees to the edge means the train either gets closer to or further away from the layout edge. This makes the trains look more like they are going somewhere. My "yard" on my next layout, just four tracks, will be on a very large radius, about 200 inches. I saw a curved yard like that recently, and I loved the way it looked. -Kevin
rrinker You'd have to flip the yard - make the left most yard track the ladder, and then run the yard tracks parallel to the benchwork.
I have never been a fan of placing any track parallel to the benchwork edge. I just don't like the way it looks.
If you have a free-flowing fascia, it would be fine. However, straight tracks running along a straight layout edge looks harsh to my eye.
Even 1or 2 degrees to the edge means the train either gets closer to or further away from the layout edge. This makes the trains look more like they are going somewhere.
My "yard" on my next layout, just four tracks, will be on a very large radius, about 200 inches. I saw a curved yard like that recently, and I loved the way it looked.
I agree, to a point.
On my new layout most trackage will not run parallel to the benchwork, and I am considering some degree of curved and/or free flowing fascia for only the second time.
But in real life there are those times when your perspective is nearly perfectly perpendicular to the tracks, so "some" trackage parallel to the benchwork seems to work for me.
Maybe this is aided by the fact that almost all my scenes will be three feet deep or deeper. Only a few places with be "shelf like" at 1-2 feet deep.
My yard will be curved as well, with three straight sections joined by two curved sections of very large radius, 36" is the smallest. The yard will be parallel to the benchwork to allow easy access to the seven or eight yard tracks, caboose tracks, engine terminal, etc. The yard tracks will average about 23' length to support 35-40 car trains. Counting the ladder tracks, the yard will be nearly 30' long.
The turntable will be behind the middle section of the yard, so compactness and function takes priority over aesthetics.
In other areas, short sections of track may be parrallel to the benchwork, but because it is not near the benchwork edge, scenery elements hid that fact.
In the part of the country I model, more track is curved than straight. My layout will reflect that, so along the mainline there is little opportunity for track to be parrallel to the benchwork anyway.
The track plan is complete, but I have yet to complete a larger scale version of it that would allow a good digital copy for publication.
rrinkerYou'd have to flip the yard - make the left most yard track the ladder, and then run the yard tracks parallel to the benchwork.
Sure. I would call that redesigning the yard.
As you know, that's not the same thing as replacing an existing ladder with the ME ladder tracks, which seems to be the academic discussion that has emerged in various threads about yard ladders.
In plan 56, the yard is short to accomodate the location of the crossover immediately left of the yard. My guess is that the curved yard drill track also serves as a departure track, and the designer wants to get the train over to the outside track ASAP (love 1950's layout design!).
As it stands, the drill track is much much longer than the longest yard track. You generally want the drill track to be no longer than your longest cut of cars plus your locomotive(s).
The plan appears to want the operator to build a longer train right on the departure track by accumulating cuts of shorter cars from thr short yard tracks, then get the train to the outside. Certainly saves space (but the whole layout is nothing but components of a yard anyway, so the departure track could/should be along the north side of the layout).
I don't know if they handlayed double curved turnouts in the 50s when this plan was designed, but if the plan built a crossover with Walthers #8 or #7.5 curved turnouts at the end of that curve (like MRs VIRGINIAN plan does), the plan could start the yard about a foot to the left and allow for an additional track, or longer yard tracks if it flipped the ladder and used the ME system.
Without getting out my micrometer, it looks like that would result in a better balance between the length of the drill track and yard tracks. But it would make the longest possible train shorter by a car or two.
I would put the A/D track on the north side of the layout where it belongs, IMO. If it was on the north side, there is a strong chance that the crossover in question could be eliminated all together.
- Douglas
You'd have to flip the yard - make the left most yard track the ladder, and then run the yard tracks parallel to the benchwork.
1arfarf3 Before spending money, I need to determine cost effectiveness. In 101 Track Plans, Plan 56, Dayton and Northern has a yard at Dayton. Question is, would it be worth going with the ladder track system of ME or staying with plan as is? Any significant gain in yard capacity as related to cost, etc? Thanks.
Before spending money, I need to determine cost effectiveness.
In 101 Track Plans, Plan 56, Dayton and Northern has a yard at Dayton. Question is, would it be worth going with the ladder track system of ME or staying with plan as is? Any significant gain in yard capacity as related to cost, etc?
Thanks.
Answering your question, NO, likely no gain in capacity. The ME system might even make things worse.
Assuming this is the plan 56 you're refering to (Byron thumbnailed it above), if the yard tracks came off the ladder at a steeper angle, 16 degrees instead of 11, they would run into the edge of the benchwork sooner, making each one of the existing tracks shorter, thereby reducing capacity.
So while a shorter ladder might provide an extra track at the end, that track will be pretty short.
And the extra STORAGE CAPACITY you gain with the extra short track might be offset by the diminished storage capacity of each of the previous but now shorter tracks.
So to answer your question, no. the ME system will likely not benefit this specific plan.
Afterall, the point of a yard is to maximize storage capacity, not to maximize the number of storage tracks (which takes more turnouts and is generally more expensive)
Edit: I see that Paul said basically the same thing.
First, the turnouts in this yard as it appears in "101 Track Plans" are #6's not #5's.
Using standard #5's will result in a sharper angle of the yard tracks towards the open center and roundhouse. This will result in some if not all the yard tracks being shorter. Using the ME ladder system, the angle will be even sharper resulting in all the yard tracks being even shorter.
I strongly recommend using #6's. In the event you wish to try the ME ladder track system, you will need (left to right) one #5c, two #5d, and one #5e. Because of the unusual orientation of the yard ladder you will not need a #5b. Note that #5a is not part of the ladder system, it is a standard #5.
As the above discussion has shown, it is very difficult to describe the system with words alone. Even ME's documentation could use diagrams and more explanation.
The benefit of the system (for a normal yard) is directly dependent on the number of yard tracks. The first track in the yard (closest to the mainline/drill track) has the least benefit, each subsequent track has a greater benefit and the last track has the most benefit. All of the benefit is in the ladder part of the yard, length of the yard beyond the ladder area makes no difference in the amount of benefit.
ME claims "up to a 30% increase in usable yard area for a given layout space". But they provide no particulars in how they arrived at this figure.
Because their system uses a slighted wider track spacing then the minimum recommended by the NMRA, you may have to have one less yard track depending on your space and number of yard tracks.
Again, I would stick with #6's.
Good luck
Paul
rrinker There is a 'trick' which is in Track Planning for Realistic Operation and possibly repeated in one of the yard design books, possibly Andy Sperandeo's, of using #6 turnouts on a steeper #5 angle to get more yard int he same space while using the larger turnouts. My yard will have a mix - I'm not sure what's objectionable about a #5 in 1950's era yard, other than Atlas doesn;t make any . Everything in the freight yard that's appropriate will easily run reliably over a #5, given that the same equipment has run reliably over the Atlas 4 1/2. The A/D tracks and turnouts intot he loco service area will be #6 to handle the larger locos, but I will not be using a 4-8-4 as a yard switcher where it would have to negotiate a #5. Right or wrong on the gepmetry of the ME ladder system, this thread was about the application in a specific plan, a plan dating from the days where the plans were drawn with no regard for a specific track brand or geometry, because it was expected that the track would be handlaid to fit. As such, any perceived benefit of the ME system is not going to apply without a redesign of the plan. You can't just drop Atlas, or Peco 83 numbered or Peco 100 small, medium, or large turnouts in there, either. --Randy
There is a 'trick' which is in Track Planning for Realistic Operation and possibly repeated in one of the yard design books, possibly Andy Sperandeo's, of using #6 turnouts on a steeper #5 angle to get more yard int he same space while using the larger turnouts.
My yard will have a mix - I'm not sure what's objectionable about a #5 in 1950's era yard, other than Atlas doesn;t make any . Everything in the freight yard that's appropriate will easily run reliably over a #5, given that the same equipment has run reliably over the Atlas 4 1/2. The A/D tracks and turnouts intot he loco service area will be #6 to handle the larger locos, but I will not be using a 4-8-4 as a yard switcher where it would have to negotiate a #5.
Right or wrong on the gepmetry of the ME ladder system, this thread was about the application in a specific plan, a plan dating from the days where the plans were drawn with no regard for a specific track brand or geometry, because it was expected that the track would be handlaid to fit. As such, any perceived benefit of the ME system is not going to apply without a redesign of the plan. You can't just drop Atlas, or Peco 83 numbered or Peco 100 small, medium, or large turnouts in there, either.
In my particular case, I want the flexibility of using any open track as an arrival or departure track.
My yard ladders will be pinwheel compound ladders which done correctly are compact even with #6's.
Several locos in the existing fleet have shown to be unreliable on #4.5 or #5 turnouts. My large fleet of Spectrum USRA heavy Mountains in particular. Others simply don't look good on those smaller turnouts.
My very large freelanced Mikes (kitbashed from LIMA Berks), and Reading T-1's are pretty awkward looking on turnouts that tight.
The Mountains and the Mikes represent a large precentage of the steam freight road power on the ACR with 8 Mountains, 5 of the big LIMA Mikes, and 2 USRA Heavy Mikes.
The yard will be about 22 feet long and I hope to fit in 7 tracks.
The ME yard ladder saves space increasing the angle of the ladder relative to the body tracks.
Examples:
Atlas #4 (#4.5) - 12.5 degrees
ME, Walthers or PECO 83 #5 - 11 degrees
Atlas/Walthers/PECO 83 #6 - 9.5 degrees
ME #5 ladder system - 16.2 degrees
So this allows a #5 ladder that is shorter in length when measured parallel to the body tracks.
If the ladder is parallel to the mainline and the body tracks all shoot of at the frog angle, the ME system will make them shoot off more dramaticly, which may require more space (more width parallel to the main) to get the same lenght yard tracks.
Given a long enough ladder, even in that situation, the ME system would eventually save enough length for an additional body track, assuming that body track had room to extend out.
The ME system would change the proportions of the yard, which may or may not add capacity depending on the shape of the space. It is possible that the result might be more tracks, but shorter tracks.
Without trying to sort out the conversation above.....
And without an analysis of the track plan in question, a few facts about the geometry of the ME ladder track system.
All the frog angles are #5, 11.421 degrees. The frog is a straight frog.
BUT, the diverging routes of the "b" and "e", and the prior turnout diverging route extension on the "e" and "d" are curved AFTER the frog for a total diverging angle of 16.2 degrees.
The special turnouts allow the turnouts to have the points very close to the previous frog, keeping the 2-1/16" spacing of the resulting diverging tracks.
Many prototype yards are actually built this way. It is easy to hand lay model yard with this kind of geometry. It is not easy to do with standard mass produced turnouts because it is hard to trim them that close to the points and frog, that is why ME developed this system.
The closure rail radius is slightly less than NMRA Recommended Practice, which sugests that the overall length from points to frog has been compressed ever so slightly as well to squeeze them into this geometry.
This is still a much better turnout geometry than the Atlas 22" radius snap switch or the PECO code 100 streamline small turnout.
I repeat, the actual frog area of the ME ladder system is straight. They are straight frogs with all the curving happening before and after the frog for a total diverging angle of 16.2 degrees. That is different from a continious curve turnout.
If you stack up ME #5d turnouts, you will get a diverging route spacing of 2-1/16", the #5e is intended to be the end of that chain.
If you stack up #5c turnouts, the diverging routes will be closer, not the planned use. The #5c is intended to only be used as the second turnout in the ladder on the end of a #5b that starts the ladder.
There are those who will say curved frog turnouts work just fine, I will not contest that view.
I prefer not to have them on my layout, with the possible exception of industrial street trackage, or trolley trackage.
If ME made a #6 version of their ladder system, I might be interested. I have found #5's to not be acceptable for yards.
I somehow managed to stumble on what I think Byroin meant to post. Then I lost it. Now I found it again:
http://www.trainplayer.com/Site3/FeaturePages/101_gallery.html
It was this, or a similar looking one, I wanted to build back in the day. If I had my copy of the book handy I'd know for sure which one. I was still in the phase where any layout had to be a big oval, the concept of switching hadn't caught on with me yet. I was still used to the 4x8 + a little extra we set up for the holidays, though this was after my Dad passed away and I was tryuing to do it myself. If not this plan, then it was another, that was 6x10, as this was what I measured to be the biggest island type layout I could fit in my toom with access on all 4 sides (I WAS thinking about how I would get to the side along the wall, at least). My Mom nixed the idea though, not sure why - after the dormer was added on the back of the house, my room was HUGE and putting up a 6x10 layout wouldn't have impacted room for my bed, desk, dresser, etc. in the least. I ended up settling for a 4x8 and made up my own plan instead of using one from 101 Track Plans. I probably wouldn;t have been able to pull off my idea for the 6x10 - which had 2 concentric ovals. At one end, I was going to have the two tracks at different elevations, with two mountins in each corner and a river pass between them. One line would be in a tunnel the whole length, the other would have had 2 short tunnels and a bridge spanning the deep river gorge between them. Not sure I can pull off such scenery today, 45 years later.
cuyamaFor those who don't have the book handy, here's a thumbnail from the Trainplayer site.
Byron, I don't think the link took me to the correct page.
riogrande5761Maybe your above assertion should be put on your grave stone it is so important to you to be "right".
Or just get it tattooed on a very conspicuous body area, the forehead or chin will do. If it is added it to the forum signature line there is no need to keep typing it over and over.
LastspikemikeI am absolutely, incontrovertibly right. You may reliably infer that you are wrong. Completely wrong.
This seems to be very important you and some others here.
Maybe your above assertion should be put on your grave stone it is so important to you to be "right".
This reminds me my late uncle Mac used to have big fishing boat with a framed plaque with the follow statement:
"I once thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken"
Anyway, say your piece and be done. No need to make claims about correctness like a narssicist. There are plenty here who have their own opinions and will decide for themselves and defensive statement will make little difference. Common sense.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
There's a reason I keep talking about the specific unusual arrangement of the yard in this track plan versus the typical yard ladder you are describing in (seemingly) endless repetition. If/when you understand that, you'll comprehend what I am saying.
Original Poster, contact me by private message or through my website if you need additional information.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
--Assuming I correctly understand what "feather" means (and now I notice the diagram I am sure I do) the same space saving is available using the ME ladder track.
Since the yard tracks must be 2" apart anyway, the space-saving features of the ME Ladder System don't come into play. PECO Code 83 #5s (as well as Code 75/100 Mediums) work exactly the same in this specific instance. Even notoriously space-inefficient Walthers C83 #5s work the same with a slight trim at the points end – same for the Atlas "#4" (actually a #4½ frog).
I believe that 5c turnouts work fine by themselves. As do the 5a and 5b. The other two have the extraneous bit of track attached.
--I had thought the issue was whether that specific yard layout could benefit from using the ME yard ladder.
Exactly. And for the specific yard on the OP's desired track plan, they don't help.
According to the MicroEngineering documents and visual appearance, I believe that only the 5b has a truly curved diverging leg.
When considering the specific yard layout that the Original Poster is asking about, none of the MicroEngineering Ladder System features add value.
For those who don't have the book handy, here's a thumbnail from the Trainplayer site.
www.trainplayer.com
That particular yard is laid out a bit unusually, like the feather on an arrow, so you wouldn't get any benefit from most of the components of the ME system. The "Lead Ladder" 5c is especially compact, so that could be helpful in some spots elsewhere on the layout. But in general, most turnouts will work fine in that yard arrangement since you’ll need to space the yard tracks at least 2” track-center-to-track-center anyway. The ME system is intended for a more traditional yard ladder.
On the plus side, that is one of the more "buildable" designs in 101 Track Plans, with no unreasonable grades and less reliance on handlaid-to-fit turnouts. I’d increase the spacing on the outer curves to at least 2¼” rather than 2” to avoid side-swiping of longer equipment.
Edit: Oops, I typed too soon. Note that the spurs to Newcastle in the upper right (especially) and the coal yard at upper left would require handlaid-to-fit turnouts as drawn to fit into the circular curves. With a re-layout, you could use commercial curved turnouts there, but you’d need a little larger space or to reduce the curve radii of the end curves a bit to make the commercial parts fit.
Byron