Dave-the-Train wrote: SteinjrHow's the plans going?
Steinjr
How's the plans going?
Hi Dave - just call me Stein - old Norwegian personal name - just means "Rock". Still working on the layout - I think I have the basic structure now, but I am still working on yard lead location, elevation changes and industrial sidings.
Dave-the-Train wrote: If it's okay with you I'm thining of hijacking the front (yard) half of your plan as the basis of my layout scheme... so I can try to practice what I preach
If it's okay with you I'm thining of hijacking the front (yard) half of your plan as the basis of my layout scheme... so I can try to practice what I preach
By all means - if you see anything you can use in "my" layout plans, feel free to use it. I say "my" because a lot of it comes from good ideas I have gotten from other people on these forums.
Smile,Stein
At the back/door side I'm thinking of putting in storage loops... so the other storage will not be needed increasing the space available on the front.
PHEW! That is some change!
Mostly I'm going to leave you to work out the pile of ideas you have to play with.
All I'm going to suggest at present is that you think about re-instating the north stot=rage yard... somewhere... to give you somewhere for trains to go to in the clockwise direction without having to use a cassette. Which wall it goes on or corner is up to you.
Other than that I would tend to go about halfway between this layout and the last.
The thing I really liked with the last one was all that messing about switching across the main to the flour mill etc.
I'm delighted that you're both trying out my ideas and, even more, that you're doing it at this paper planning stage.
Have fun
Hi Dave --
I finally ripped most of the track up (figuratively - it is still saved in its own file :-), and started a major redesign, using several of the ideas you have given me.
How about this - does this seem like a more promising start ?
Some notes:
But I think I am going to rip out the east side staging too. What I can do instead is make an extra shelf above or below the layout, where I hang the cassette on the end of the shelf and drive or back trains off onto staging tracks on the shelf. Perhaps make the tracks on the shelf with "steps", like a movie theatre or auditorium - with the rearmost tracks (along the back of the shelf) being at a higher plateau than the tracks in front of them - so it would be easier to do changeouts of cars for the tracks towards the back.
We'll see. Now I have a bunch of new ideas to test :-)
steinjr wrote: Dave-the-Train wrote: You've suddenly gained a whole bunch of tracks south of the Main.I would get rid of the crossover at the flour mill end.The other crossover I would take the West end off of MY1 after (east of) the switch into the ladder rather than from the Main. I would take it across the Main with a plain diamond. This way these roads get switched from MYL and require occupancy of the Main for a moment as the movement goes across in either direction. This would, however, be less main track occupation time than with the crossover as shown. It would make the work a purely switching move.You have a choice - Put a gate across the line west of the flour mill leaving enough track between the gate and the switch for the other facility... or not. In the first case every switch into the other facility is a draw the cars past the switch and shove them back in. In the second case you always have to make a double move... the choice is yours. The last point above is the only part of your suggestions I don't understand - ie what you suggest doing to the flour mill facility. Could you elaborate a little more on that part ? I'm not surprised I made the comment extremely brief. Okay, assuming that you've done what I suggested and got rid of the East end crossover access to the south tracks all together... AND your lead into these tracks comes from MYL via a diamond across the main.Operation of the two sidings here. To put cars into the flour mill drag them out of MY2-4 into MYL and shove them across the Main and all the way East - lets assume that these are RR owned tracks to just short of the switch before the mill.Stop short of the gates, get permission to push the cars into the mill.Push the crs in and spot them as required.trundle back to MYL.Clearly collecting cars is the reverse move..To put cars into the ther facility you clearly need to get the loco on the East end of them for a start.Having done that you drag them across the Main onto the RR's access track.This is where things get variable..What it depends on is the length of track between the flour mill gate and the switch to the other facility {I'll call this bit of track X-Z}... PLUS the length of spurs in the other facility and the number of cars you are taking over at one time.What I'm getting at may now be obvious.If the length of the cut of cars and loco is no more than X-Z the loco can drag them to X-Z past the switch, change the switch and shove them back in with just a shuffle to split them between the roads in the facility.If the cut of cars and loco is greater than X-Z you have to do one of the following... (1) get permission to work onto flour mill property if that will give you enough space. (2) drag the cars over the Main and cut off sufficient cars to allow the loco and cars that will fit into X-Z to draw past the switch and then push back in... and then go back for at least a second cut of cars and (possibly) a third. You can do this bringing all of the cars over clear of the Main (2a), leave the second (& thrird) cut(s) standing across the main (2b) -NOT good practice OR you leave the 2nd (&/or3rd) cut(s) on MYL and go back for them - as many times as necessary (2c)... OR You leave cut 3 on MYL and take cuts 1 and 2 over together... then you only have to recross the Main to get the last cut (2d) OR you leave cuts 2 and 3 on MYL and sort out cut 1 before going back for both 2 and 3 (2e). The difference in these shuffles depends on the track spaces available and when you need to be sure to be clear of the main for traffic to pass safely.Something else that goes into this is not just that you may want to work out a pattern for getting cars out of the facility - basically the reverse of the above ... at least shifting cars over to MYL at various stages... BUT you may want to combine the moves in/out with the moves out/in ... not least to achieve it all with the least moves across the Main. This is a "real RR" kind of " switching puzzle. It did happen... because of the obvious issues things like this have been increasingly not just avoided but cut out of the working needs.To cut out the shuffle you could just come out of the facility straight across the access to the flour mill and the Main and into MY1. this was also done.Someone will say "Why not have the flour mill access direct off the East end of MY1 and the access to the other facility west of it... both of them using diamonds to cross the main. You could do that. Not so interesting though. You would also tend to have the switch moves hanging about on the diamond in the Main which isn't such a great idea.You could stick with your initial connections... but does the traffic justify the cost of the extra crossover? AND - it's not so interesting to operate. Dave-the-Train wrote:You don't need a specific caboose track. A lot of the time you could shove them across the diamond into the access track on the south side of the Main. You could even refuel your locos over there... or send them round to that long switch back track that gives access to the textile plant.GASP! My brain is cooking... I've given you loads of ideas to think about so I'll leave it there for the moment.Hope this doesn't send you too mad.No, on the contrary - it opens up a lot quite a few possibilities I had failed to consider thoroughly enough, despite having heard of these concepts before. Three key really useful things you have reminded me of are:I can use the diverting leg of a regular straight #6 or #8 turnout to continue a curve while using the straight leg to branch off a siding - makes it possible to have sidings (or yard ladders or whatever) branch off in curves. Not all diamonds are formed by tracks crossing each other at right angles (90 degrees). Using a diamond with one set of tracks crossing the other at a lower angle makes it practical to use the combination of a #6 turnout and a diamond to cross a parallell track without having an excessive distance between the Reply steinjr Member sinceJuly 2006 From: Sorumsand, Norway 3,417 posts Posted by steinjr on Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:02 AM Dave-the-Train wrote: You've suddenly gained a whole bunch of tracks south of the Main.I would get rid of the crossover at the flour mill end.The other crossover I would take the West end off of MY1 after (east of) the switch into the ladder rather than from the Main. I would take it across the Main with a plain diamond. This way these roads get switched from MYL and require occupancy of the Main for a moment as the movement goes across in either direction. This would, however, be less main track occupation time than with the crossover as shown. It would make the work a purely switching move.You have a choice - Put a gate across the line west of the flour mill leaving enough track between the gate and the switch for the other facility... or not. In the first case every switch into the other facility is a draw the cars past the switch and shove them back in. In the second case you always have to make a double move... the choice is yours. The last point above is the only part of your suggestions I don't understand - ie what you suggest doing to the flour mill facility. Could you elaborate a little more on that part ? Dave-the-Train wrote:You don't need a specific caboose track. A lot of the time you could shove them across the diamond into the access track on the south side of the Main. You could even refuel your locos over there... or send them round to that long switch back track that gives access to the textile plant.GASP! My brain is cooking... I've given you loads of ideas to think about so I'll leave it there for the moment.Hope this doesn't send you too mad.No, on the contrary - it opens up a lot quite a few possibilities I had failed to consider thoroughly enough, despite having heard of these concepts before. Three key really useful things you have reminded me of are:I can use the diverting leg of a regular straight #6 or #8 turnout to continue a curve while using the straight leg to branch off a siding - makes it possible to have sidings (or yard ladders or whatever) branch off in curves. Not all diamonds are formed by tracks crossing each other at right angles (90 degrees). Using a diamond with one set of tracks crossing the other at a lower angle makes it practical to use the combination of a #6 turnout and a diamond to cross a parallell track without having an excessive distance between the parallell tracks.A track is a track is a track. It can be used for different purposes at different times - most tracks does not need to dedicated to a specific purpose in a small yard.I've also discovered a few more things. One other thing that caused me to not have turnouts on curves on the mainline was a "given" that was never listed in my list of givens or really thought all the way through - but it had become an inflexible rule inside my head - "all mainline curves will be 18 inch radius with easements".Why easements ? I have been (probably overly) concerned with making the mainline fit for max speed. Why ? Because I expect the kids to be running trains on the mainline, round and round. And small kids will go full throttle, totally ignoring any speed restrictions due to tight curves or turnouts But I will be running freight trains with short (40') cars on the mainline. Easements is probably overkill, as long as I maintain the 18" radius. Turning off "calculate easements for sharp curves" in my layout drawing program opened up the possibility of following your advice on curving the mainline through the divering turnout path.I might instead put up some low plexiglass "fences" around the edge of the layout instead - to catch any trains that derail at speed before they make the expensive plunge to the floor Dave-the-Train wrote:One practical issue... what centres are you spacing your tracks at?Another... what height do you intend the baseboard to be at? (You will have to be able to reach over to those storage tracks without killing yourself and/or falling on the front tracks). Track centers are now two inches apart on straight tracks, and I would like to keep them three inches apart on curves, even though I will be running engines and train cars that won't have much overhang even on 18" curves. I will be using body mounted Kadee magnetic couplers and a Rix magnetic uncoupling "pick", so hopefully I won't have to stick my fingers in between two occupied yard tracks too often. But yes - it is one of the reasons for why I have had straight tracks in the yard - I do realize you can fit in more parallell tracks and expect less coupling/uncoupling trouble with straight tracks. Which is also why I am not totally certain that I in the final design will take your advice on curving the MY and T yard tracks, even though I agree that it would look nicer.Height for basebord - I am shooting for about 115 centimeters (45"). It is a comprimize height - I would have liked to have the tracks at over 50", but I am going with a lower heigh for several reasons:I have kids. Kids are short people :-)I need to be able to reach across to the back tracks without crushing things in the foreground. Max depth is about 24 inches, and the two (or three) rearmost hidden tracks will be behind a low (removable in sections) scenic divider. So I plan to run trains while seated, and stand up to couple/uncouple or to reach things on the rearmost tracks. Smile, Stein Reply Dave-the-Train Member sinceJuly 2006 2,299 posts Posted by Dave-the-Train on Thursday, March 15, 2007 1:16 AM steinjr wrote: Dave -- Is this roughly what you were suggesting ? SmileStein Some solutions to the storage track issues (This is all Model RR not real RR)At the dead end of each staging yard put in a sector plate - like half a turntable - When each train arrives the loco cuts off short of the plate (or partly in it if you have to squeeze it in) [the plate length controls/limits your loco length] Loco runs onto plate, plate rotates through angle to other track... when other track clear loco can go and get cabose off back of train and bring it back to sit on sector plate. Rotate plate back to original road. Loco goes to outer end of train and shoves back to collect caboose. train then draws off of sector plate and sits in storage track until wanted. {I would arrnage wiring so that moves can only be made toward sector plate when plate is lined to the track move is to be made on}.It's rather a lot of work BUT you can fit an insulated material (wood or plastic) in a shallow inverted V between the rails and as slopes downward in toward the rails on the outside of the track - overall effect is a shallow letter W - This will mean that any wheels derailing tend to get tipped back into the flangeways you have left rather than wandering off/bouncing along the ties. I've seen this done inN and it worked.With the North yard shift the switch as far round toward the entry behind the scene break as you can that allows you to move the loco and caboose and stay out of sight. This will mean that to reach the switch (the most likely place for anything to derail -other than the sector plate {and you can fit that with a W} - ) you will only have to reach over the narrower baseboard at the West end rather than over the whole main yard. This will save you a whole lot of hassle.Don't worry about having unequal sized yards... this happens on the real thing and makes you figure out your ops more. So... do add the extra track in the East yard.You might add a loco spur (or two) into each corner (NE & SE corners)... somewhere to park extra locos (even cabooses) neither on trains not on the scenic layout.If you can pull the North yard West enough yu might be able to get your concrete sils back in between the East end of it and the chimney... taking a spur off to feed them a long way down T4... which will mean that operationally you will have to think ahead to get cars in/out through the non-occupied road - at the ime the cars arrive or want to depart - this is also quite normal real RR practice... there isn't always space to leave a completely clear access run to a facility.While you might like to do the last (You might even run the track back nto the vacated area at an angle)... you also want to make the staorage tracks as long as possible and not just you maximum MY yard length. What you might do is give both East and North starge yards one very long track - this might even be longer than your passing track facility so that occasionally you have to do a saw-by - or just the same length so that you can at least run some nice long trains that make it look like the whole world isn't built to fit into your main yard.Then again - if you do this you will have to work a dodge to also allow your sector plates. One way will be to end the standard length storage tracks at the sector plate but arrange for one road to run straight across the plate to a further length of track . You can then sit some extra cars there. when you want to run them you push the train in the standard storage track over the plate to fish them out. changing the loco out from this extended end and geting a caboose into it to go out on the back of a train is an operational challenge I will let you work out for yourself. It can be done In fact on one or both yards you could have as many extra lengths beyond the plate as you like... one way is to pivot the plate in the middle like a turnable but without the ability to swing right round. The pivot point can in fact be anywhere along the length of the table... it just changes the angles of approach.OOPS! Almost forgot... use all one type (kadee) of coupler and fit electro magnet uncouplers... and fit plenty ... as they only work when you tell them to you shouldn't start uncoupling all over the place.Hope this is useful.PS... Why'd the bullets go wonky? Ayone tell me how to correct them? they look right before I post... Reply Dave-the-Train Member sinceJuly 2006 2,299 posts Posted by Dave-the-Train on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:02 AM steinjr wrote: Dave -- Is this roughly what you were suggesting ? SmileStein Wow! that is so crowded!It looks like the answer would basically be 'yes'.Try pulling the switch to the diagonal ladder right back west so that you have to use a RH switch and the curved track of the switch is the end of the curve in the lead track (MYL). [The straight track then becomes the start of the diagonal ladder]. This will shorten the T tracks and lengthen the MY tracks. I would drop at least one more T track... probably the one nearest the main... and angle the tracks to lengthen them. This will do something to break up the parallel lines.Bring the crossover that is smack in the middle on the Main to west of the switch you've just moved - putting it on the curve. Use a RH in the Main and a LH in the yard to get the curve.Off to work.EDIT... Back from work.Moving the crossover between the Main and MYL/MY1 will shorten MYL and, with the previous change, lengthen MY1-4. You shouldn't restrict your track lengths to only the train length... this would be extremely limitig for operations. Whether MLY should be train length is a moot point. With the run-round facility you now have between MY1 and the Main and the (moved) location of the switch from the Main to to ladder you have length to run round on either the Main or MY1 and you can switch the ladder from either MLY or the Main.From the quick look I've taken at the link it doesn't look like the traffic on these lines would be so heavy that occupying the main for switch moves would be a great problem. From a purely modelling point of view you don't have the length of line or staging resources to produce/maintain that much traffic anyway.You've suddenly gained a whole bunch of tracks south of the Main.I would get rid of the crossover at the flour mill end.The other crossover I would take the West end off of MY1 after (east of) the switch into the ladder rather than from the Main. I would take it across the Main with a plain diamond. This way these roads get switched from MYL and require occupancy of the Main for a moment as the movement goes across in either direction. This would, however, be less main track occupation time than with the crossover as shown. It would make the work a purely switching move.You have a choice - Put a gate across the line west of the flour mill leaving enough track between the gate and the switch for the other facility... or not. In the first case every switch into the other facility is a draw the cars past the switch and shove them back in. In the second case you always have to make a double move... the choice is yours.If the curves at the East end allow I would like to see what would happen if MY5's east end is moved to where MY4's east end is at present - in other words all these tracks are angled slightlyaway from the north wall. This will push everything at the chimney end slighlty south. MY2 might in fact strech around the curve a bit ending with a straight to close to the scenic block protecting the staging sidings. I would like you to re-arrange things to make this (East) set of staging tracks three tracks. You should never keep anything on the lift out section at the door (asking for an accident) so adding another switch on the lift out board doesn't lose you any length in the storage. There is nothing to stop the access switch (that you've shown as a 3 way (which is okay)) from moving right to the west end of the lift out section.From a purely model RR ops point of view... When a train is hauled into your staging tracks... how do you release... or at least cut off the loco? Each of the roads need to be long enough for the train, plus caboose and (I suspect) two locos -- one at each end. ---- The only way I can see to get round the caboose issue is for a train that has come in to cut off its caboose as it arrives and then the next train out to aquire the caboose. The more I look at this the more I feel that you will have practical problems with this arrangement. It wouldn't be so bad in a cabooseless era. Is there any chance of using the length available to drop the staging approach roads down under the scenic layout so thet you can bring the storage to the front at a lower level? You might even get a through yard. You could have a lot more storage.If you have to stick with the present arrangement I would try to put at least 2" (50mm) between the scenic break and the nearest track and 3" (75mm) between the tracks. This is a purely practical situation. You not only have to be able to get at things but to be able to see them reasonably well without a periscope. okay... they are "hidden storage" but you also have to be practical.Being practical I would get rid of the concrete silos.If you do, do that I would also get rid of MY5 and T4.This may seem completely mad to you but you really are sqieezing in too many tracks. This is a situation in which if you fill the pint pot to capacity you end up unable to move around. As another comparrison - it's like having too many people at a party... there's no room to dance... everyone can only bounce up and down on the spot (okay if you're into punk and like pogoeing I suppose). Having that bit less will enable you to at least do a steady waltz. On the real RR heavy traffic/not having enough room actually generates moves and operational variety. You want to avoid being restricted to shuffling blocks of cars from A to B to G to D to A... it gets boring.The only way I could prove this to you would be to let you get it wrong... which is a huge waste of effort and very frustrating.You are still looking at roads for very specific purposes. You would be better to try to break away from this.You don't need a specific caboose track. A lot of the time you could shove them across the diamond into the access track on the south side of the Main. You could even refuel your locos over there... or send them round to that long switch back track that gives access to the textile plant.GASP! My brain is cooking... I've given you loads of ideas to think about so I'll leave it there for the moment.Hope this doesn't send you too mad.One practical issue... what centres are you spacing your tracks at?Another... what height do you intend the baseboard to be at? (You will have to be able to reach over to those storage tracks without killing yourself and/or falling on the front tracks).Have a nice day Reply steinjr Member sinceJuly 2006 From: Sorumsand, Norway 3,417 posts Posted by steinjr on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:57 PM Dave -- Some notes on track lengths in the yard area with this configuration:MYL - 152 cm yard lead (engine + 8 cars + caboose)MY1 - Arrival/Departure - 61 cm between yard ladder and crossover, siding (A/D) length 165 cm (need 147 cm for 1 engine, 8 cars and a caboose - ie about 1 engine length left over)MY2 - 189 cm - 13 carsMY3 - 164 cm - 11 carsMY4 - 139 cm - 9 cars MC - 114 cm (minus 35 cm for engine+1car moving to T4) - 79 cm - 5 cars (industry)T1 - 90 cm - 6 cars/cabooses, or 4 enginesT2 - 117 cm - 8 cars/cabooses or 5 enginesT3 - 140 cm - 10 cars/cabooses or 7 enginesT4 - 157 cm - 11 cars (industry ?)T5/T6 droppedIs this roughly what you were suggesting ? Gotta go crash into bed - I have a full day tomorrow.SmileStein Reply Dave-the-Train Member sinceJuly 2006 2,299 posts Posted by Dave-the-Train on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:44 PM steinjr wrote: Hi Dave -- I have to take a moment to digest the stuff you wrote and see if I understand exactly what you propose. In the meantime - you had a few questions I can answer right off the bat. What I have is a design proposal for a H0 model railroad, not something that has been built yet. 1960s, widwestern USA - 40 foot cars, short diesel switchers and road switchers. Freelanced, but vaguely based on Minnesota Transfer railway, which operated a terminal and interchange railroad in the Twin Cities Minneapolis/Saint Paul in Minnesota. Does this mean your road can be in a heavily built up area? If so you can get away with double slips and other actual RR methods to get a quart into an expensive pint pot... you will want your scenery to reflect confined space (due to high land values). Squash things up... but sideways... to make length appear to stretch out.... you can still get weird angles... they result from the RR having to twist between properties... which may be shaped by waterways...Another thing... the earlier the area was built up the more confined it would tend to be (even by US standards). early buildings and tracks fitted early stock and vice versa... later stuff has to fit in.I don't know Minneapolis/St Paul but I would picture it as similar to Chicago...? You might take a look at some of the Chicago web sites for squeezed in tracks and street running.How about taking a street track off of T5 to serve an industry? (worked by the switcher). So the design certainly _can_ be changed. You can see a description of it which shows how the rest of the layout is, what lengths of spurs and tracks etc at the Layout Design SIG wiki web page for layout critiques at URL: http://ldsig.org/wiki/index.php/Minnesota_Transfer_Railway_-_HO_-_Stein_RypernI will take a look [I've looked... The question there is about layout design and not operation... as operating staff much of my career I look at a "form first" approach to layout design as empty/flawed. To me you have to have some idea what you want to do with track and then to work on some knowledge of how it is supposed to be done and how it really is done. --- I have known situations in which the layout and rule book would have ended in a complete tie up... but railway men who knew what they were doing got the job done safely and fast. _____ incidentlay somewhere among my pile of stuff I have C19 Norwegian bits... i'll see if I can find them]. As for your specific comments on switches & tracks etc - I will have to print them out and try to draw them in to see how they would work for the model.that's the way to go Would you mind if I use some of your comments on the LDSIG web page ? You are free to use it there so long as it remains my copyright and you credit the source :-) Smile, Stein who is not a professional railroader, but comes from a family that has had close family members on the railroad since my great grandpa signed on Norwegian Railroads back in 1885 :-)I love this bit of information...'cos I can boast :-) My Great Great Grandfather was a Driver on the London and Croydon... circa 1840s!While you do need to look at the track plan to get good ops you really must take the whole wider context of lines and where trains are running to/from. You also need those steps of thinking of what the RR would provide... including what would be there from earlier periods... which might not always best suite what today's use wants.Again... kick out some things to get fractions of space that open up the whole and let you look at a railway scene rather than a stack of model trains. Part of what you must think is "theatre"... not cinema or even TV... you have a small stage...Let me know what you work outPS You don't have to get an exact understanding of what I'm up to... what i would like you to find is what makes a good RR picture for you thatb you can work in what feels like a good RR way for you. PPS toe to toe Y points of very low numbers can be a good replacement for double slips. also, in some places, you already appear to be using 3 way switches. In a Main track these would tend to be in speed restricted areas but off Main they are useful. Reply steinjr Member sinceJuly 2006 From: Sorumsand, Norway 3,417 posts Posted by steinjr on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:43 PM Hi Dave -- I have to take a moment to digest the stuff you wrote and see if I understand exactly what you propose. In the meantime - you had a few questions I can answer right off the bat. What I have is a design proposal for a H0 model railroad, not something that has been built yet. 1960s, widwestern USA - 40 foot cars, short diesel switchers and road switchers. Freelanced, but vaguely based on Minnesota Transfer railway, which operated a terminal and interchange railroad in the Twin Cities Minneapolis/Saint Paul in Minnesota. So the design certainly _can_ be changed. You can see a description of it which shows how the rest of the layout is, what lengths of spurs and tracks etc at the Layout Design SIG wiki web page for layout critiques at URL: http://ldsig.org/wiki/index.php/Minnesota_Transfer_Railway_-_HO_-_Stein_Rypern As for your specific comments on switches & tracks etc - I will have to print them out and try to draw them in to see how they would work for the model. Would you mind if I use some of your comments on the LDSIG web page ? Smile, Stein who is not a professional railroader, but comes from a family that has had close family members on the railroad since my great grandpa signed on Norwegian Railroads back in 1885 :-) Reply Dave-the-Train Member sinceJuly 2006 2,299 posts Posted by Dave-the-Train on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 11:40 AM steinjr wrote: How would you handle the engine and caboose on a train arriving from the right? Just pull the train into the yard lead, letting the yard switcher pick off the caboose and then having the road engine back the cars into MY1, before cutting the road engine off and sending it to get refueled ? Or some other way ? Why pay for a switcher and crew and then have the train engine and crew do the work?Draw the WestBound in from the East to just short of the connection to the diagonalladder tracks.Cut off the caboose.Cut off the train engine and run it clear of the connection PLUS the switcher and train minus caboose length PLUS "twenty yards".Bring out the switcher onto the cars.Zig-zag the switcher and cars via MYL to any of MY1-4.At some point while this is going on the train loco can go and get the caboose and sneak it into the yard - making a run-round move at some stage if you want to park the cab in T5.This assumes leaving your layout as drawn.If I may rip the plan to bits and rebuild it? ...some of these ideas may work.You should note that I'm not working this out with any specific knowledge of what scale you are in, how long your cars are etc. It's up to you to see what you like and what will give you something you are happy with.Also note that I'm making no effort to come up with an equivalent of MY1-4 that has equal length roads. Real yards commonly have both equal length roads and different length roads... sometimes both in different areas of the same facility.I'm going to scrap T1 and at least one of the crossovers between T4 and T5/6. T1 you haven't a job for and it's probably too short to be useful. the 2nd crossover isn't functional and takes away usable track length. To run round you currently have the parallel ladders.Okay, next thing to get rid of is one of the ladders. We've already saved a switch by getting rid of T1. Next thing to look at is maybe using one double slip - where you figure it will be most useful - OR NOT and stick with plain RH an LH switches... BUT you might consider at least one Y and/or at some point use a LH instead of an RH switch or vice versa. This will trhow everything out of the straight line... which will help imensely by destroying the geometric boredom of the present design (as sketched). Operationally you will need to take more care propelling round wiggles. I've already suggested how to combine the two ladders. This will gain you some space for the MY and T tracks.With T1 gone you could angle T2 and T3 south and gain a bit of length and more visual variation... in fact T4 and T5 could also turn south if you chose.If you can shove the West end of the complex back around the approach curve.Assuming that you have managed to do that, even if only for a foot or so...Do as I suggested and move the crossovers between the Main and MYL/ML1 at least a full train length (loco, 8 cars and caboose) apart... preferably a bit more... at least one car... the loop will then not always look like a stuffed turkey.You now have a passing loop for overtakes and meets.There is no reason that this has to be on the North Side of the Main. You also have a triangular area in the NW corner in which T2 to T5 can fan out - and possible become a bit longer... even if only by 1/2 a car ... again so that everything gains an illusion of "space" and doesn't look stuffed full.ORYou could look at pushing the main at least Northwards to track T3 (if not T5) BUT keep the east end wher it is. The Main will now angle across the whole layout. This will probably lose you some car length in MY1-4 and MC but I'm not at all bothered about that. A good looking layout in which you ca see your cars will keep it's appeal and interest far longer than a toast rack of parralel tracks in which all you see most of the time is the roofs of cars.In fact MC could go and T6 could be extended to provide the access. If you combine this with swinging MY1-4 northwards at their (or some of their) east ends you may regain some length... and it will open out and look much better.Okay... so now we have gained some space at the west end between the facia and either the Main or the loop depending on which you choose to put to the south.You can use this space for scenery or put the loco facility in there.I would dump the RIP track idea... hard to model convincingly, cars stand on RIP tracks (possibly jacked up to switch out a truck) and , to be honest... it's being greedy and wanting jam on both sides of your bread. It will just squeeze in too much... DUMP IT! It's probably time to let you look at that and then we might look at ops later if you come back with a modified track plan. Hope that this is useful.Have fun!PS Don't forget that earlier I suggested thatb you leave a spur at at least one end of the loop to put caboses in - if not do other things as well as the cabooses - This applies whether the loop is north or south of the main... if it is south of the main it just adds operational moves to get cabooses on'off trains going into/out of the yard.From an Ops point of view always recall that track time can be booked to do the moves that have to be done more cheaply than extra switches can be installed and maintained to allow cutting out moves.For you another Peco switch is a few $ for the RR another switch is a few THOUSAND $ ... and the thing weighs TONS... I know we were shifting bits of a new one around a couple of weeks ago... because of the reach needed we had to use a 90 ton crane (think of the cost of that)... and even then it was working right on the limit of its reach.In fact doing it the RR way instead of the modellers way of thinking "It would be great if i could get through that way" makes life much more interesting.Something else you might do (if you can/haven't already) is use No6 (or equivalent) switches into the MY tracks and No4 switches into the short T tracks. You wa Reply Dave-the-Train Member sinceJuly 2006 2,299 posts Posted by Dave-the-Train on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:12 AM steinjr wrote: el-capitan wrote: if MY1 and MY2 could be changed to have a turnout on the far right side and both were able to handle an entire train this design would work much better.I know what you mean. I've tried quite a few configurations to make that happen. The curse is that I have a fairly small room (6 1/2 x 11 1/2 feet), and all designs I have been able to come up with yet for a double ended yard (or at least one or two double ended A/D-track) makes the yard too overpowering for the rest of the layout if I try to make the A/D track double ended.Some other designs I've tried:Looks like you're still planning and haven't built.Glad that you are aware that you have an awful lot of track packed in and very little room for scenery to set the trains against.If you pack in parallel roads all you will see of most cars is their roofs.If you wrap around the end - or half wrap around the end... try to ensure that where most coupling/uncoupling occurs will be straight track... this will save you a lot of distress later.Do take a look at my posts Reply Dave-the-Train Member sinceJuly 2006 2,299 posts Posted by Dave-the-Train on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:04 AM Phase 4Reasons for a switcher...There are other small yards nearby that require a switcher so the several yards share... it lives at this one if you want it to.There is some sort of long spur nearby (maybe off of MYL, MY1, T3, T4, T5 or MC) - this is "off scene" but generates traffic - and means that the switcher either has to wander off with a drag or keep working in and out - as you prefer. This spur could be off the Main on either side. Again, this spur may serve just one facility or a number. In the latter case it may be necessary to order the way cars are worked down the spur... possibly fetching cars out from industries A,B,C to get access to put cars into D and E and pull cars out before putting new cars back into ABC... bearing in mind that once any car load has been "unstrapped" and isn't secured it will normally be fully unloaded/loaded before it is moved again - or it will have to be re-secured and unstrapped again. this applies to boxcars,gons and flats more than hoppers and covered hoppers (that "only" need the doors closing).There is an interchange track nearby for the switcher to work cars to/from... occasionally you might get a foriegn road train working through in one piece... possibly with the switcher as pilot engine. A variation is for the foriegn train move to be a back-up move from the interchange so that it keeps it's train engine on the back while the switcher hauls it to the yard. (This would tend to run switcher, caboose, train, foreign loco if a cab is required). Once at your yard the foriegn cab and loco could run round (swap ends) and the foriegn train run on using trackage rights.Hope this helps.More later when I've had a sleep. Reply steinjr Member sinceJuly 2006 From: Sorumsand, Norway 3,417 posts Posted by steinjr on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:02 AM el-capitan wrote: if MY1 and MY2 could be changed to have a turnout on the far right side and both were able to handle an entire train this design would work much better.I know what you mean. I've tried quite a few configurations to make that happen. The curse is that I have a fairly small room (6 1/2 x 11 1/2 feet), and all designs I have been able to come up with yet for a double ended yard (or at least one or two double ended A/D-track) makes the yard too overpowering for the rest of the layout if I try to make the A/D track double ended.Some other designs I've tried:Moving the turnouts from the mainline to the A/D tracks as far apart as possibleProblem is that I can't get the A/D tracks long enough for it to make more than a cosmetic difference.My original concept for the yard was something like this:Alas, when I use real Peco turnouts and acceptable curve radii instead of something roughly sketched out with a pencil on a piece of paper, you might end up with something like: While the layout immediately above could be tightened up quite a bit, the main drawback is that the yard does seem to get a wee bit overwhelming relative to the rest of the layout :-)Double ended yardTrack lengths get too short too have a double ended yard along the long wall and still being able to curve in an acceptable way to join the rest of the layout at either endWrapping around the left wall (avoids having too many switches in front of door, avoids chimney in upper right corner) Long A/D track:And so on and so forth - you could say that I have considered a few options. But I want to have a somewhat balanced layout in terms of what the yard would fit, the industries would fit and staging would fit.With the comprimize I've landed on, I have a pretty crowded layout - a lot of tracks, very little place for scenery, but I also have:Four staging tracks (two on each end of the layout) that will fit four trains of engine, 8 cars and caboose (ie room for 32 cars), A small classification yard with 29 car spots on three tracks (11 cars, 10 cars, 8 cars) Industry sidings with a total capacity of about 30 spotsAn A/D track and yard lead, both with room for a full length train (eng+8 cars + caboose)Space for 3-5 cabooses, which can be put in order first in-first outSpace for 4-5 engines on the fueling/ready track, plus two RIP spots in the yard areaA couple of off spot tracks, sidings and runarounds for the industry areas.Anyways - I do understand what you are saying - your main problems with the single ended type of A/D track is that you don't like backing up trains in the yard, and you don't like tying up the yard lead with arriving/departing trains.I am with you on that one. I agree. I do understand (I hope) how it _ought_ to have been. I just don't have the space to do it in the best possible way, so I will just have to make do with doing the best I can with what I have :-) Reply Dave-the-Train Member sinceJuly 2006 2,299 posts Posted by Dave-the-Train on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:48 AM steinjr wrote: Phase 3...Still dealing with an EB...If you keep your switches from the Main as you've drawn them you do not need to trap your train engine by running a facing move into MY1-4. You just run past the connections (dropping the cab before them if you want)... then the switcher comes out, hooks on the back and drags everything (except maybe the train engine) back into MYL. You can then dispose of the train engine as you require and the switcher can get on with sorting the train out. It would be normal for a switcher to drag rather than the train engine to shove as drags derail less often than shoves.Something else you might do is the same basic move to get the train back into MYL to allow a following train to pass or an oppsoing train to meet and pass. This would tend to not use the switcher. You might also achieve the same end by running the train facing straight into MY1-4.[Incidentally - in case you don't know - when you approach a switch and you are faced with a desicion about which way to go the switch is said to be "Facing" and the move is a "facing move". The other way round, where you can only get to one place, the switch is said to be "Trailing" and the move a "trailing move". Whether a switch is facing or trailing depend entirely on the direction from which you are approaching it. Where lines have an identified normal direction of travel a switch will be either facing or trailing to the NORMAL direction of travel...BUT it will still be either trailing or facing for movements AGAINST the NORMAL direction of travel].If you spread the crossovers as I've suggested you don't need the switcher. The train engine can run facing into the loop MYL-MY1, run round, drag the train back clear of the diagonal(s) and start to work the train into the roads as appropriate. If MYL retains a dead end spur this may be used for the drill moves. Otherwise you will need to use the Main. Whether you use the main or provide space on MYL depends on the (past or present) frequency of traffic on the Main. The dead end (DE) (extended) MYL does not have to be all on the modelled layout. If it is planned as a dead end it can run into you storage alongsde the main with no connections to the storage tracks... or it could have some sort of connection(s) if you want. The same applies at the other end with MY1. Out of sight you could even split either or both roads - to give a seperate caboose spur clear of the drill track. (You could also say that MY1 has another industry spur off the far end out-of-sight...)It could be that in busier days MYL had the long DE spur but that due to track deterioration this is now embargoed (except for a short length kept up for cabs) and switching is now done from the Main.If this is just a plan and not something you have already built I can suggest some more ways of adjusting the layout.Just becasue you don't need a switcher doesn't mean that you mustn't have one... licence could allow you this expensive (for such a small yard) luxury.Hope this helps. Reply Dave-the-Train Member sinceJuly 2006 2,299 posts Posted by Dave-the-Train on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:12 AM steinjr wrote: say you have a small classification yard where all the tracks (including the A/D track) are single ended (not at all uncommon in a small model railroad where space is limited),... Here is what my classification yard and engine terminal looks like. I've been wondering whether this is a theoretical layout or the layout you have?In the first case my answers may be useful to you, in the second they may be useful for some modificatons or to others.As far as the questions of "How would you...? go... the answer is "I wouldn't" - because I wouldn't set out a layout like this and I don't think the RR would either... there are too many ways of getting trapped in a high cost layout -- high cost because of those paralel ladders that don't really achieve much in RR terms. -- In a cramped city environment a RR might have one diagonal track with double slips (puzzle swiches). Elsewhere they would spread things out -- relocate some of the roads (as I'm about to suggest) or use a single diagonal road and feed MY2 from MY1 - leaving space for the switch to T1. Then the switch for MY3 would also feed MY4 while T3 switch would feed T2 as well. Hopefully you can see that this will merge the two ladders while retaining the same number of roads.I don't see the point of the two crossovers between T5 and T6... there does not appear to be sufficient length for them to achieve anything. One element of this plan is that it makes the common modellers mistake of providing switches to get everywhere/do everything in one step. Switches are expensive bits of track and require maintenance. RR frequently do without some and double the use/moves through the ones they do put in. (Switches are also the places things tend to fall off more often -unless the track is really bad). Switches need constantly lining and relining for moves and the Engineer has to constantly watch that they are set right - mostly in both directions of travel. They also tend to need indicators -which are more cost and more maintenance... so by cutting out several switches in one diagonal the engineer has fewer to look at overall (although the same number on each run through the diagonal) and you can cut out the indicators for the switches no longer in the diagonal... which,again, gives him less to look at and makes life easier.First off (to keep things simple) let's assume that MYL is at the West end and MY1 at the East end.Let's also assume that you have shoved the crossovers between the main and MYL-MY1 as far apart as space will allow OR as far apart as your longest NORMAL train requires - whichever is shorter.MY1 does not need to be an arrival track... keeping it exclusively to this purpose would be a waste of track space.Eastbound trains can run into any road MY1 to MC inclusive provided there is space and a switcher or other loco available to do things with the train... bearing in mind that if it has a caboose the train EITHER needs to shove back and dump it at MYL or the other loco has to get rid of it somewhere appropriate.That reminds me... assuming that those crossovers have moved... they need not be crossovers... they could be just switches out of the main... BUT... if you keep them as crossovers you retain the (probably) dead end spurs at the East and West ends of the layout... somewhere for cabooses to be shoved out of the way and picked up with least moves for any out-going train. There is no need for T5... and the RR would not want either all the messing about to get cabs in there or to have them potentially trapped in the depths of the yard --n so that is one road we can get rid of or use for other things.If you are bringing an EB train in and shoving the loco into the dead end so that you need a switcher to sort the train out you have a choice... The switcher can sit at MYL while the train arrives and then switch the cab out to MY1 OR it can sit toward MY1 (maybe right down in the dead end). The incoming EB then drops its cab between the crossovers before moving into any of the roads MY2-4 and the switcher shoves it into MYL before beginning work on the train. Which you do will probably depend on whether the cab is next due out on an EB or a WB... This is part of planning ahead.I'm going to post this and start over so as not to lose this... Reply Dave-the-Train Member sinceJuly 2006 2,299 posts Posted by Dave-the-Train on Monday, March 12, 2007 5:48 PM steinjr wrote: Fast answer before I go out to play with the big trains for the night.I am not an "expert" even in the UK... although it would be a lot easier to answer this whole thread in the UK where our sgnalling has a much larger mpact on all layouts.You appear to have a means of releasing train locos with the two dagonal tracks in the middle of the layout... which will depend of the length of this track.The first thing that I would look at doing would be to move the crossovers between the Main Track (heavy line at the bottom) and MYL and MY1 outwards as far as possible to create a long loop that could be used for run-rounds, passing moves and meets. This would make a huge improvement to the whole layout... in my view.I will try to come back with more later. Reply el-capitan Member sinceFebruary 2007 From: Warren, MI O scaler 553 posts Posted by el-capitan on Monday, March 12, 2007 3:24 PM steinjr wrote: El Capitan wrote: "Your track plan as well as the procedures that you described for incoming trains is almost exactly like mine. I really see no other way to bring in a train with this yard designed how it is.""When I first planned for this yard, operation wasn't even a consideration. Now that I am thinking operation, truth be told, I will never build a yard like this again."Why not ? I mean - obviously it is not even close to being a _great_ yard for flat classification of a lot of traffic. If I had had the space to spare, I obviously would have gone for a double ended yard with more tracks and longer tracks.But what makes it so bad that you would never build one again ? The need to back up for some moves ? Something else ?Smile,Stein While the overall plan is just like mine, the legths may me different. Keep that in mind as I explain.Train arriving from left:The switch from the main line to MYL is at the far left on my layout so right off the bat an incoming train ties up the yard lead. Whatever the yard switcher is doing when a train comes in he must stop and attend to the arriving train. When the train pulls into MY1 the engine is stuck until the yard switcher attends to the train. Ideally, I would want the incoming train to stop on an arrival track, engine disconnects and immediately goes for service. The train can then be broken down whenever the yard switcher gets to it. MY1 should be a runthrough track with a switch at the far right. I realize that this is not always possible as it was not in my yard.Trains arriving from right:I don't beleive that backing a long train into MY1 with road power is prototypical (please don't argue this, just my oppinion and will not change). This is solved the same way as above.I also need separate arrival and departure tracks that are run-through tracks on both ends. What I really hate about this yard layout is trains departing to the right. Currently I make up the train in MY3. When it is ready I move the engine from the refueling to the far end of MY1 then use the switcher to place the train on the end of the loco. The train then needs to back up before it can get onto the main. Throw in a well timed arriving train and the whole layout is F***ed for 30 minutes.if MY1 and MY2 could be changed to have a turnout on the far right side and both were able to handle an entire train this design would work much better. Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics: Reply steinjr Member sinceJuly 2006 From: Sorumsand, Norway 3,417 posts Posted by steinjr on Monday, March 12, 2007 2:46 PM El Capitan wrote: "Your track plan as well as the procedures that you described for incoming trains is almost exactly like mine. I really see no other way to bring in a train with this yard designed how it is.""When I first planned for this yard, operation wasn't even a consideration. Now that I am thinking operation, truth be told, I will never build a yard like this again."Why not ? I mean - obviously it is not even close to being a _great_ yard for flat classification of a lot of traffic. If I had had the space to spare, I obviously would have gone for a double ended yard with more tracks and longer tracks.But what makes it so bad that you would never build one again ? The need to back up for some moves ? Something else ?Smile,Stein Reply el-capitan Member sinceFebruary 2007 From: Warren, MI O scaler 553 posts Posted by el-capitan on Monday, March 12, 2007 1:42 PM steinjr wrote: Thank you for your advice. Now, if we can get back to my question about how to use a yard - say you have a small classification yard where all the tracks (including the A/D track) are single ended (not at all uncommon in a small model railroad where space is limited), how would you handle an arriving train ? Someone mentioned leaving an escape track to cut off an arriving engine. Here is what my classification yard and engine terminal looks like. The mainline is the heavy line on bottow of drawing, MY1 is the arrival track and MYL is the yard lead. There isn't enough space to add an escape from MY1 down to the mainline again - ie to make the A/D track a double ended siding branching off the mainline.Tracks MY2-MY4 are classification tracks, MYC is an industry track - which also have enough space at the left end to allow an engine and a single car (e.g a caboose). Tracks T2 and T3 are refueling/engine ready tracks. T4 has a couple of RIP spots at the left end. T5 is for cabooses. T6 (rightmost end of T5) is 4 spots for car storage.How would you handle the engine and caboose on a train arriving from the left ? Just pull the train into MY1, and letting the road engine stay trapped until first the caboose and then the cars have been removed by a yard switcher ? Or some other way ? How would you handle the engine and caboose on a train arriving from the right? Just pull the train into the yard lead, letting the yard switcher pick off the caboose and then having the road engine back the cars into MY1, before cutting the road engine off and sending it to get refueled ? Or some other way ? Your track plan as well as the procedures that you described for incoming trains is almost exactly like mine. I really see no other way to bring in a train with this yard designed how it is.When I first planned for this yard, operation wasn't even a consideration. Now that I am thinking operation, truth be told, I will never build a yard like this again. Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics: Reply steinjr Member sinceJuly 2006 From: Sorumsand, Norway 3,417 posts Posted by steinjr on Monday, March 12, 2007 1:31 PM Thank you for your advice. Now, if we can get back to my question about how to use a yard - say you have a small classification yard where all the tracks (including the A/D track) are single ended (not at all uncommon in a small model railroad where space is limited), how would you handle an arriving train ? Someone mentioned leaving an escape track to cut off an arriving engine. Here is what my classification yard and engine terminal looks like. The mainline is the heavy line on bottow of drawing, MY1 is the arrival track and MYL is the yard lead. There isn't enough space to add an escape from MY1 down to the mainline again - ie to make the A/D track a double ended siding branching off the mainline.Tracks MY2-MY4 are classification tracks, MYC is an industry track - which also have enough space at the left end to allow an engine and a single car (e.g a caboose). Tracks T2 and T3 are refueling/engine ready tracks. T4 has a couple of RIP spots at the left end. T5 is for cabooses. T6 (rightmost end of T5) is 4 spots for car storage.How would you handle the engine and caboose on a train arriving from the left ? Just pull the train into MY1, and letting the road engine stay trapped until first the caboose and then the cars have been removed by a yard switcher ? Or some other way ? How would you handle the engine and caboose on a train arriving from the right? Just pull the train into the yard lead, letting the yard switcher pick off the caboose and then having the road engine back the cars into MY1, before cutting the road engine off and sending it to get refueled ? Or some other way ? Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 12, 2007 5:24 AM Stein, I like your transfer RR concept and Am familiar with the road you have chosen (to see a similar road that operates on a smaller scale check out the LST&T RR(Lake Superior Terminal & Transfer RR)I agree with Dave Husmann its quite busy and while it appears functional for the space you have, youve gone a bit overboard on function considering the # of operatos you will have. 1 operator can get by with Much less and still run a prototypical operation (perhaps not that particular road & yard but in your space you will not make that anyways)I believe you can have your minitaure transportation system and still find more balance in making this aesteticly pleasing and by doing so gain Far more overall enjoyment from your project.Had you said ...I will have 4 operators and be running using a fast clock I would have said your going to have some Pretty hairy nailbiting sessionsWith just you operating and only 1 slow circling train to avoid on the mainline i see the possibility of this getting old fairly quickly (and the far more dangerous item) your young son losing interest almost overnight.I know it is difficult with a small area to strike the right balance between form & function.......Perhaps looking at a couple of smaller operations that have a similar type of operation may give you a few more idea's.Consider a second lower level with through trackage for your backstage trains rather than the 2 stub end as a more practical setup with the ability to Fiddle from the inside of your Pit for changing cars................For modeling purposes one of those corners would be nice to see some in street trackage with those nice tight radius's (remember the trackage down around TheBookman ?? ) Old cobblestone street sections can still be seen (at least the last time I was down there)Visual appeal, variety of industry and a workable compromise of prototypical practices will make this a more interesting RR in the end and may help to keep your sons interest, and If that is not a big factor in your decision making perhaps it should be!! :)My Opinion, worth Price Charged ;) Reply Edit steinjr Member sinceJuly 2006 From: Sorumsand, Norway 3,417 posts Posted by steinjr on Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:52 PM Tileguy asked (primarily to Larry, Dave and Nick): "So using your expertise and the consideration that we can only afford the space for 1 functional operations Yard, How would YOU set up your's (keeping things Generic) for satisfying operation and Why?"How about taking one concrete example and seeing how you would operate it ? I am not a professional railroader, but this is how I have designed the yards on my very small layout in a tiny room (6 1/2 foot by 11 1/2 foot): http://ldsig.org/wiki/index.php/Minnesota_Transfer_Railway_-_HO_-_Stein_Rypern I have a _small_ classification yard along the upper wall - four tracks (MY1-MY4 in the track schematic), of which the one closest to the mainline (MY1) is intended primarily as an A/D track. The A/D track has a capacity of 11 40' cars (or engine, caboose and 8 40' cars, which is the max train length I have designed the layout for). The other three tracks (MY2 - MY4) have capacities of 11, 10 and 8 40' cars. And I have a _tiny_ industrial/outlying "yard" along the lower wall, basically one storage track (R2) next to the industry track (R3/R4) and a little room for a "yard lead" that doesn't foul the mainline. I can also use R1 for temporary storage for a caboose or a few cars while pulling cars from the industries down there - at the cost of blocking traffic from south staging. And I have a few service/support tracks (labelled T1-T6 on the track schematic) near the main yard - T1 is a track for deliveries to the engine terminal (oil, sand etc), T2 and T3 is refueling/ready track, T4 has a few RIP spots at the left end, T5 is for cabooses and T6 is for temporary storage. I've tried to keep things as flexible as possible, given the tiny room I have available. My plan is to operate this layout with one person (me :-), max two - letting one of my small kids run round and round on the main line while I do some switching.And yes - I do know it is horribly overloaded with tracks, leaving very little room for scenery - it is a reasonably conscious tradeoff between tracks and scenery. This is all the space I have available now and is likely to have available in the foreseeable future.I plan to run transfer runs from the yard along the upper wall to/from northern staging and to/from southern staging - where north staging and south staging representing yards belonging to interchanging railroads. Train lengths for transfer runs one engine, 8 40' cars and caboose.I also plan to run two local switching jobs - one to the north (R1, R2, R3/4 and X1/X2) and one to the south (W1/W2 and F1/F2). Transfer jobs would be maximum size one engine, 8 40' cars and caboose, and locals switching jobs would be one engine, 5 40' cars and caboose. Try to disregard the very short trains and cramped space - just imagine that each car represents maybe 5 cars in the real world - say 20-25 car local switching jobs and 40-car transfer jobs to other yards belonging to other railroads.I am curious about whether this layout workable in a at least _somewhat_ prototypical manner.For instance - if I have a local with one diesel switcher engine, 5 cars and a caboose coming out of the yard along the upper wall bound for the industries in the lower left corner, runing counterclockwise along the mainline - how would the professionals here handle pickups and setouts in the industrial area down in the lower lefthand corner - say picking up two cars from R3, one from X1, and setting out two new cars for R3, one for X1 and two for R4 ? How would you handle an inbound transfer job of 1 engine, 8 cars and a caboose from North Staging track 1 (NS1) to the yard along the upper wall - running clockwise around the mainline to pull off the main into the yard ladder, with 4 cars destined for SS1, 3 cars destined for local industries to the north and 1 car destined for local industries to the south, plus an engine and a caboose ? Smile,Stein Reply snagletooth Member sinceJanuary 2007 724 posts Posted by snagletooth on Sunday, March 11, 2007 3:59 PM Do you really need a drill track the length of a train? unless your doing hump operations most flat yards that I've witnessed break a train up in sections to switch. What I've been told is because of kicking cars. Getting a 70-100 car cut up to speed than trying to get the slack to kick is very hard to do, with most flat yard crews prefering cuts of 20-30 cars at a time. Snagletooth Reply nbrodar Member sinceJune 2005 From: Phoenixville, PA 3,495 posts Posted by nbrodar on Sunday, March 11, 2007 3:35 PM Dang it, Larry beat me to the post.Anyway, Dave...if the spur is equipped with a derail, the derail is usually the division of responsibility. If there is no derail, I think the clearance point with the main is the commonly accepted point. Perhaps S. Hadid could offer some clarification here.Having said that, the railroad will use any place in a pinch to stick a car. Especially, if you have to set a Bad Order out line of road.As for track maintenance, the customer may contract with the railroad or an outside firm like Hulcher or Herzog. The same if the customer needs a temporary spur.Nick Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/ Reply Dave-the-Train Member sinceJuly 2006 2,299 posts Posted by Dave-the-Train on Sunday, March 11, 2007 1:16 PM Hey! I can agree with Larry! A lot of the time RR can use the main as the drill track. they will also simply shove a cabooose out of the way or park it on the main. If they don't have other traffic running through to get "In the Clear" from they have no need to build a track/spend the money for extra switches and track.REMEMBER! Every extra track is cost... of the track and the switch... and all the maintenance.This applied far more in the earlier periods when relative cost was higher, track occupancy was lower, train speeds were lower and the competiotion wa a covered wagon hauled by horses or oxen or a mule train... so it mattered less if a train was delayed.You need to be able to get everything in clear when you have high intensity traffic. this applies on busy lines and more so where you have passenger, especially commute services, sharing the track.When high density and commute combine - maybe plus express services - it becomes worth the RR's while to go beyond 2 track and put in a third track... either with all the switching connections off the third track OR the connections on an originl track and the mains moved over to utilise the new track. Reply nbrodar Member sinceJune 2005 From: Phoenixville, PA 3,495 posts Posted by nbrodar on Sunday, March 11, 2007 1:15 PM Larry and I are probably referring to similar facilities (Storage in Transit/Outlaying). They preform similar functions. Basically, road trains drop and pick up cars handled by a local crew.Reading the posts, it seems that community has become restricted in its views of a proper "yard" by focusing on the elements that make up a classic classification yard. I've worked at plenty of SIT/Outlaying yards that have no separate switching lead, no dedicated arrival/departure tracks, and service facilities.The road trains set off on whatever track is clear, and pick up from where ever the local crew put the pick up. The locomotives are either taken to the area service center once a week, or serviced at the SIT by the mobile service truck. Often the industrial running track, that links the customers together, is used as the switching lead. Sometimes, a passing siding doubles as the lead. I worked one place that used the main - remember rule 93, Yard Limits - as the lead.Once you stop thinking every "proper" yard needs elements A, B and C; the possiblities in yard design greatly increase.Nick Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/ Reply BRAKIE Member sinceOctober 2001 From: OH 17,574 posts Posted by BRAKIE on Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:45 PM Guys,A lot of yards would use the main line as the switch lead aka yard lead,drill track.The Benson yard here in Bucyrus is one such yard..The Marion switch lead is also the CSX/NS interchange track.The CSX uses the main as needed while switching the former Erie yard. No offense Guys,but there is tons of BS floating around on small yard designs and using a main line as a switch lead..I suppose volumes could be written on what modelers don't know about railroads,operation and why a given yard is design the way it is.. As far as caboose tracks that would depend on the type of yard..In a small city yard a caboose could be spotted on any out of the way track..Maybe the freight house lead,maybe a old icing platform lead,on the team track lead etc.. Larry Conductor. Summerset Ry. "Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!" Reply 123 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! Login Register 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! Sign up
Dave-the-Train wrote: You've suddenly gained a whole bunch of tracks south of the Main.I would get rid of the crossover at the flour mill end.The other crossover I would take the West end off of MY1 after (east of) the switch into the ladder rather than from the Main. I would take it across the Main with a plain diamond. This way these roads get switched from MYL and require occupancy of the Main for a moment as the movement goes across in either direction. This would, however, be less main track occupation time than with the crossover as shown. It would make the work a purely switching move.You have a choice - Put a gate across the line west of the flour mill leaving enough track between the gate and the switch for the other facility... or not. In the first case every switch into the other facility is a draw the cars past the switch and shove them back in. In the second case you always have to make a double move... the choice is yours.
You've suddenly gained a whole bunch of tracks south of the Main.
The last point above is the only part of your suggestions I don't understand - ie what you suggest doing to the flour mill facility. Could you elaborate a little more on that part ?
I'm not surprised I made the comment extremely brief.
Okay, assuming that you've done what I suggested and got rid of the East end crossover access to the south tracks all together... AND your lead into these tracks comes from MYL via a diamond across the main.
Operation of the two sidings here.
Dave-the-Train wrote:You don't need a specific caboose track. A lot of the time you could shove them across the diamond into the access track on the south side of the Main. You could even refuel your locos over there... or send them round to that long switch back track that gives access to the textile plant.GASP! My brain is cooking... I've given you loads of ideas to think about so I'll leave it there for the moment.Hope this doesn't send you too mad.
You don't need a specific caboose track. A lot of the time you could shove them across the diamond into the access track on the south side of the Main. You could even refuel your locos over there... or send them round to that long switch back track that gives access to the textile plant.
GASP! My brain is cooking... I've given you loads of ideas to think about so I'll leave it there for the moment.
Hope this doesn't send you too mad.
No, on the contrary - it opens up a lot quite a few possibilities I had failed to consider thoroughly enough, despite having heard of these concepts before
. Three key really useful things you have reminded me of are:
I've also discovered a few more things. One other thing that caused me to not have turnouts on curves on the mainline was a "given" that was never listed in my list of givens or really thought all the way through - but it had become an inflexible rule inside my head - "all mainline curves will be 18 inch radius with easements".
But I will be running freight trains with short (40') cars on the mainline. Easements is probably overkill, as long as I maintain the 18" radius. Turning off "calculate easements for sharp curves" in my layout drawing program opened up the possibility of following your advice on curving the mainline through the divering turnout path.
I might instead put up some low plexiglass "fences" around the edge of the layout instead - to catch any trains that derail at speed before they make the expensive plunge to the floor
Dave-the-Train wrote:One practical issue... what centres are you spacing your tracks at?Another... what height do you intend the baseboard to be at? (You will have to be able to reach over to those storage tracks without killing yourself and/or falling on the front tracks).
One practical issue... what centres are you spacing your tracks at?
Another... what height do you intend the baseboard to be at? (You will have to be able to reach over to those storage tracks without killing yourself and/or falling on the front tracks).
Track centers are now two inches apart on straight tracks, and I would like to keep them three inches apart on curves, even though I will be running engines and train cars that won't have much overhang even on 18" curves. I will be using body mounted Kadee magnetic couplers and a Rix magnetic uncoupling "pick", so hopefully I won't have to stick my fingers in between two occupied yard tracks too often.
But yes - it is one of the reasons for why I have had straight tracks in the yard - I do realize you can fit in more parallell tracks and expect less coupling/uncoupling trouble with straight tracks.
Which is also why I am not totally certain that I in the final design will take your advice on curving the MY and T yard tracks, even though I agree that it would look nicer.
Height for basebord - I am shooting for about 115 centimeters (45"). It is a comprimize height - I would have liked to have the tracks at over 50", but I am going with a lower heigh for several reasons:
So I plan to run trains while seated, and stand up to couple/uncouple or to reach things on the rearmost tracks.
Smile, Stein
steinjr wrote: Dave -- Is this roughly what you were suggesting ? SmileStein
Dave --
Is this roughly what you were suggesting ?
SmileStein
Some solutions to the storage track issues
(This is all Model RR not real RR)
Hope this is useful.
PS... Why'd the bullets go wonky? Ayone tell me how to correct them? they look right before I post...
Wow! that is so crowded!
It looks like the answer would basically be 'yes'.
Try pulling the switch to the diagonal ladder right back west so that you have to use a RH switch and the curved track of the switch is the end of the curve in the lead track (MYL). [The straight track then becomes the start of the diagonal ladder]. This will shorten the T tracks and lengthen the MY tracks. I would drop at least one more T track... probably the one nearest the main... and angle the tracks to lengthen them. This will do something to break up the parallel lines.
Bring the crossover that is smack in the middle on the Main to west of the switch you've just moved - putting it on the curve. Use a RH in the Main and a LH in the yard to get the curve.
Off to work.
EDIT... Back from work.
Moving the crossover between the Main and MYL/MY1 will shorten MYL and, with the previous change, lengthen MY1-4. You shouldn't restrict your track lengths to only the train length... this would be extremely limitig for operations. Whether MLY should be train length is a moot point. With the run-round facility you now have between MY1 and the Main and the (moved) location of the switch from the Main to to ladder you have length to run round on either the Main or MY1 and you can switch the ladder from either MLY or the Main.
From the quick look I've taken at the link it doesn't look like the traffic on these lines would be so heavy that occupying the main for switch moves would be a great problem. From a purely modelling point of view you don't have the length of line or staging resources to produce/maintain that much traffic anyway.
If the curves at the East end allow I would like to see what would happen if MY5's east end is moved to where MY4's east end is at present - in other words all these tracks are angled slightlyaway from the north wall. This will push everything at the chimney end slighlty south. MY2 might in fact strech around the curve a bit ending with a straight to close to the scenic block protecting the staging sidings.
I would like you to re-arrange things to make this (East) set of staging tracks three tracks. You should never keep anything on the lift out section at the door (asking for an accident) so adding another switch on the lift out board doesn't lose you any length in the storage. There is nothing to stop the access switch (that you've shown as a 3 way (which is okay)) from moving right to the west end of the lift out section.
From a purely model RR ops point of view...
When a train is hauled into your staging tracks... how do you release... or at least cut off the loco? Each of the roads need to be long enough for the train, plus caboose and (I suspect) two locos -- one at each end. ---- The only way I can see to get round the caboose issue is for a train that has come in to cut off its caboose as it arrives and then the next train out to aquire the caboose.
The more I look at this the more I feel that you will have practical problems with this arrangement. It wouldn't be so bad in a cabooseless era. Is there any chance of using the length available to drop the staging approach roads down under the scenic layout so thet you can bring the storage to the front at a lower level? You might even get a through yard. You could have a lot more storage.
If you have to stick with the present arrangement I would try to put at least 2" (50mm) between the scenic break and the nearest track and 3" (75mm) between the tracks. This is a purely practical situation. You not only have to be able to get at things but to be able to see them reasonably well without a periscope. okay... they are "hidden storage" but you also have to be practical.
Being practical I would get rid of the concrete silos.
If you do, do that I would also get rid of MY5 and T4.
This may seem completely mad to you but you really are sqieezing in too many tracks. This is a situation in which if you fill the pint pot to capacity you end up unable to move around. As another comparrison - it's like having too many people at a party... there's no room to dance... everyone can only bounce up and down on the spot (okay if you're into punk and like pogoeing I suppose). Having that bit less will enable you to at least do a steady waltz. On the real RR heavy traffic/not having enough room actually generates moves and operational variety. You want to avoid being restricted to shuffling blocks of cars from A to B to G to D to A... it gets boring.
The only way I could prove this to you would be to let you get it wrong... which is a huge waste of effort and very frustrating.
You are still looking at roads for very specific purposes. You would be better to try to break away from this.
Have a nice day
Some notes on track lengths in the yard area with this configuration:
MYL - 152 cm yard lead (engine + 8 cars + caboose)
MY1 - Arrival/Departure - 61 cm between yard ladder and crossover, siding (A/D) length 165 cm (need 147 cm for 1 engine, 8 cars and a caboose - ie about 1 engine length left over)
MY2 - 189 cm - 13 carsMY3 - 164 cm - 11 carsMY4 - 139 cm - 9 cars MC - 114 cm (minus 35 cm for engine+1car moving to T4) - 79 cm - 5 cars (industry)
T1 - 90 cm - 6 cars/cabooses, or 4 enginesT2 - 117 cm - 8 cars/cabooses or 5 enginesT3 - 140 cm - 10 cars/cabooses or 7 enginesT4 - 157 cm - 11 cars (industry ?)T5/T6 dropped
Gotta go crash into bed - I have a full day tomorrow.
steinjr wrote: Hi Dave -- I have to take a moment to digest the stuff you wrote and see if I understand exactly what you propose. In the meantime - you had a few questions I can answer right off the bat. What I have is a design proposal for a H0 model railroad, not something that has been built yet. 1960s, widwestern USA - 40 foot cars, short diesel switchers and road switchers. Freelanced, but vaguely based on Minnesota Transfer railway, which operated a terminal and interchange railroad in the Twin Cities Minneapolis/Saint Paul in Minnesota. Does this mean your road can be in a heavily built up area? If so you can get away with double slips and other actual RR methods to get a quart into an expensive pint pot... you will want your scenery to reflect confined space (due to high land values). Squash things up... but sideways... to make length appear to stretch out.... you can still get weird angles... they result from the RR having to twist between properties... which may be shaped by waterways...Another thing... the earlier the area was built up the more confined it would tend to be (even by US standards). early buildings and tracks fitted early stock and vice versa... later stuff has to fit in.I don't know Minneapolis/St Paul but I would picture it as similar to Chicago...? You might take a look at some of the Chicago web sites for squeezed in tracks and street running.How about taking a street track off of T5 to serve an industry? (worked by the switcher). So the design certainly _can_ be changed. You can see a description of it which shows how the rest of the layout is, what lengths of spurs and tracks etc at the Layout Design SIG wiki web page for layout critiques at URL: http://ldsig.org/wiki/index.php/Minnesota_Transfer_Railway_-_HO_-_Stein_RypernI will take a look [I've looked... The question there is about layout design and not operation... as operating staff much of my career I look at a "form first" approach to layout design as empty/flawed. To me you have to have some idea what you want to do with track and then to work on some knowledge of how it is supposed to be done and how it really is done. --- I have known situations in which the layout and rule book would have ended in a complete tie up... but railway men who knew what they were doing got the job done safely and fast. _____ incidentlay somewhere among my pile of stuff I have C19 Norwegian bits... i'll see if I can find them]. As for your specific comments on switches & tracks etc - I will have to print them out and try to draw them in to see how they would work for the model.that's the way to go Would you mind if I use some of your comments on the LDSIG web page ? You are free to use it there so long as it remains my copyright and you credit the source :-) Smile, Stein who is not a professional railroader, but comes from a family that has had close family members on the railroad since my great grandpa signed on Norwegian Railroads back in 1885 :-)I love this bit of information...'cos I can boast :-) My Great Great Grandfather was a Driver on the London and Croydon... circa 1840s!
I have to take a moment to digest the stuff you wrote and see if I understand exactly what you propose. In the meantime - you had a few questions I can answer right off the bat.
What I have is a design proposal for a H0 model railroad, not something that has been built yet. 1960s, widwestern USA - 40 foot cars, short diesel switchers and road switchers. Freelanced, but vaguely based on Minnesota Transfer railway, which operated a terminal and interchange railroad in the Twin Cities Minneapolis/Saint Paul in Minnesota.
Does this mean your road can be in a heavily built up area? If so you can get away with double slips and other actual RR methods to get a quart into an expensive pint pot... you will want your scenery to reflect confined space (due to high land values). Squash things up... but sideways... to make length appear to stretch out.... you can still get weird angles... they result from the RR having to twist between properties... which may be shaped by waterways...
Another thing... the earlier the area was built up the more confined it would tend to be (even by US standards). early buildings and tracks fitted early stock and vice versa... later stuff has to fit in.
I don't know Minneapolis/St Paul but I would picture it as similar to Chicago...? You might take a look at some of the Chicago web sites for squeezed in tracks and street running.
How about taking a street track off of T5 to serve an industry? (worked by the switcher).
So the design certainly _can_ be changed. You can see a description of it which shows how the rest of the layout is, what lengths of spurs and tracks etc at the Layout Design SIG wiki web page for layout critiques at URL:
http://ldsig.org/wiki/index.php/Minnesota_Transfer_Railway_-_HO_-_Stein_Rypern
I will take a look [I've looked... The question there is about layout design and not operation... as operating staff much of my career I look at a "form first" approach to layout design as empty/flawed. To me you have to have some idea what you want to do with track and then to work on some knowledge of how it is supposed to be done and how it really is done. --- I have known situations in which the layout and rule book would have ended in a complete tie up... but railway men who knew what they were doing got the job done safely and fast. _____ incidentlay somewhere among my pile of stuff I have C19 Norwegian bits... i'll see if I can find them].
As for your specific comments on switches & tracks etc - I will have to print them out and try to draw them in to see how they would work for the model.
that's the way to go
Would you mind if I use some of your comments on the LDSIG web page ?
You are free to use it there so long as it remains my copyright and you credit the source :-)
Smile, Stein who is not a professional railroader, but comes from a family that has had close family members on the railroad since my great grandpa signed on Norwegian Railroads back in 1885 :-)
I love this bit of information...'cos I can boast :-) My Great Great Grandfather was a Driver on the London and Croydon... circa 1840s!
While you do need to look at the track plan to get good ops you really must take the whole wider context of lines and where trains are running to/from. You also need those steps of thinking of what the RR would provide... including what would be there from earlier periods... which might not always best suite what today's use wants.
Again... kick out some things to get fractions of space that open up the whole and let you look at a railway scene rather than a stack of model trains. Part of what you must think is "theatre"... not cinema or even TV... you have a small stage...
Let me know what you work out
PS You don't have to get an exact understanding of what I'm up to... what i would like you to find is what makes a good RR picture for you thatb you can work in what feels like a good RR way for you.
PPS toe to toe Y points of very low numbers can be a good replacement for double slips. also, in some places, you already appear to be using 3 way switches. In a Main track these would tend to be in speed restricted areas but off Main they are useful.
steinjr wrote: How would you handle the engine and caboose on a train arriving from the right? Just pull the train into the yard lead, letting the yard switcher pick off the caboose and then having the road engine back the cars into MY1, before cutting the road engine off and sending it to get refueled ? Or some other way ?
How would you handle the engine and caboose on a train arriving from the right? Just pull the train into the yard lead, letting the yard switcher pick off the caboose and then having the road engine back the cars into MY1, before cutting the road engine off and sending it to get refueled ? Or some other way ?
Why pay for a switcher and crew and then have the train engine and crew do the work?
This assumes leaving your layout as drawn.
If I may rip the plan to bits and rebuild it? ...some of these ideas may work.
You should note that I'm not working this out with any specific knowledge of what scale you are in, how long your cars are etc. It's up to you to see what you like and what will give you something you are happy with.
Also note that I'm making no effort to come up with an equivalent of MY1-4 that has equal length roads. Real yards commonly have both equal length roads and different length roads... sometimes both in different areas of the same facility.
I'm going to scrap T1 and at least one of the crossovers between T4 and T5/6. T1 you haven't a job for and it's probably too short to be useful. the 2nd crossover isn't functional and takes away usable track length. To run round you currently have the parallel ladders.
Okay, next thing to get rid of is one of the ladders. We've already saved a switch by getting rid of T1. Next thing to look at is maybe using one double slip - where you figure it will be most useful - OR NOT and stick with plain RH an LH switches... BUT you might consider at least one Y and/or at some point use a LH instead of an RH switch or vice versa. This will trhow everything out of the straight line... which will help imensely by destroying the geometric boredom of the present design (as sketched). Operationally you will need to take more care propelling round wiggles. I've already suggested how to combine the two ladders. This will gain you some space for the MY and T tracks.
With T1 gone you could angle T2 and T3 south and gain a bit of length and more visual variation... in fact T4 and T5 could also turn south if you chose.
If you can shove the West end of the complex back around the approach curve.
Assuming that you have managed to do that, even if only for a foot or so...
Do as I suggested and move the crossovers between the Main and MYL/ML1 at least a full train length (loco, 8 cars and caboose) apart... preferably a bit more... at least one car... the loop will then not always look like a stuffed turkey.
You now have a passing loop for overtakes and meets.
There is no reason that this has to be on the North Side of the Main.
You also have a triangular area in the NW corner in which T2 to T5 can fan out - and possible become a bit longer... even if only by 1/2 a car ... again so that everything gains an illusion of "space" and doesn't look stuffed full.
OR
You could look at pushing the main at least Northwards to track T3 (if not T5) BUT keep the east end wher it is. The Main will now angle across the whole layout. This will probably lose you some car length in MY1-4 and MC but I'm not at all bothered about that. A good looking layout in which you ca see your cars will keep it's appeal and interest far longer than a toast rack of parralel tracks in which all you see most of the time is the roofs of cars.
In fact MC could go and T6 could be extended to provide the access. If you combine this with swinging MY1-4 northwards at their (or some of their) east ends you may regain some length... and it will open out and look much better.
Okay... so now we have gained some space at the west end between the facia and either the Main or the loop depending on which you choose to put to the south.
You can use this space for scenery or put the loco facility in there.
I would dump the RIP track idea... hard to model convincingly, cars stand on RIP tracks (possibly jacked up to switch out a truck) and , to be honest... it's being greedy and wanting jam on both sides of your bread. It will just squeeze in too much... DUMP IT!
It's probably time to let you look at that and then we might look at ops later if you come back with a modified track plan.
Hope that this is useful.
Have fun!
PS Don't forget that earlier I suggested thatb you leave a spur at at least one end of the loop to put caboses in - if not do other things as well as the cabooses - This applies whether the loop is north or south of the main... if it is south of the main it just adds operational moves to get cabooses on'off trains going into/out of the yard.
From an Ops point of view always recall that track time can be booked to do the moves that have to be done more cheaply than extra switches can be installed and maintained to allow cutting out moves.
For you another Peco switch is a few $ for the RR another switch is a few THOUSAND $ ... and the thing weighs TONS... I know we were shifting bits of a new one around a couple of weeks ago... because of the reach needed we had to use a 90 ton crane (think of the cost of that)... and even then it was working right on the limit of its reach.
In fact doing it the RR way instead of the modellers way of thinking "It would be great if i could get through that way" makes life much more interesting.
Something else you might do (if you can/haven't already) is use No6 (or equivalent) switches into the MY tracks and No4 switches into the short T tracks. You wa
steinjr wrote: el-capitan wrote: if MY1 and MY2 could be changed to have a turnout on the far right side and both were able to handle an entire train this design would work much better.I know what you mean. I've tried quite a few configurations to make that happen. The curse is that I have a fairly small room (6 1/2 x 11 1/2 feet), and all designs I have been able to come up with yet for a double ended yard (or at least one or two double ended A/D-track) makes the yard too overpowering for the rest of the layout if I try to make the A/D track double ended.Some other designs I've tried:
el-capitan wrote: if MY1 and MY2 could be changed to have a turnout on the far right side and both were able to handle an entire train this design would work much better.
if MY1 and MY2 could be changed to have a turnout on the far right side and both were able to handle an entire train this design would work much better.
I know what you mean. I've tried quite a few configurations to make that happen. The curse is that I have a fairly small room (6 1/2 x 11 1/2 feet), and all designs I have been able to come up with yet for a double ended yard (or at least one or two double ended A/D-track) makes the yard too overpowering for the rest of the layout if I try to make the A/D track double ended.
Some other designs I've tried:
Looks like you're still planning and haven't built.
Glad that you are aware that you have an awful lot of track packed in and very little room for scenery to set the trains against.
If you pack in parallel roads all you will see of most cars is their roofs.
If you wrap around the end - or half wrap around the end... try to ensure that where most coupling/uncoupling occurs will be straight track... this will save you a lot of distress later.
Do take a look at my posts
Phase 4
Reasons for a switcher...
Hope this helps.
More later when I've had a sleep.
Moving the turnouts from the mainline to the A/D tracks as far apart as possible
Problem is that I can't get the A/D tracks long enough for it to make more than a cosmetic difference.
My original concept for the yard was something like this:
Alas, when I use real Peco turnouts and acceptable curve radii instead of something roughly sketched out with a pencil on a piece of paper, you might end up with something like:
While the layout immediately above could be tightened up quite a bit, the main drawback is that the yard does seem to get a wee bit overwhelming relative to the rest of the layout :-)
Double ended yard
Track lengths get too short too have a double ended yard along the long wall and still being able to curve in an acceptable way to join the rest of the layout at either end
Wrapping around the left wall (avoids having too many switches in front of door, avoids chimney in upper right corner)
Long A/D track:
And so on and so forth - you could say that I have considered a few options. But I want to have a somewhat balanced layout in terms of what the yard would fit, the industries would fit and staging would fit.
With the comprimize I've landed on, I have a pretty crowded layout - a lot of tracks, very little place for scenery, but I also have:
Anyways - I do understand what you are saying - your main problems with the single ended type of A/D track is that you don't like backing up trains in the yard, and you don't like tying up the yard lead with arriving/departing trains.
I am with you on that one. I agree. I do understand (I hope) how it _ought_ to have been. I just don't have the space to do it in the best possible way, so I will just have to make do with doing the best I can with what I have :-)
steinjr wrote:
Phase 3...
Still dealing with an EB...
If you keep your switches from the Main as you've drawn them you do not need to trap your train engine by running a facing move into MY1-4. You just run past the connections (dropping the cab before them if you want)... then the switcher comes out, hooks on the back and drags everything (except maybe the train engine) back into MYL. You can then dispose of the train engine as you require and the switcher can get on with sorting the train out.
It would be normal for a switcher to drag rather than the train engine to shove as drags derail less often than shoves.
Something else you might do is the same basic move to get the train back into MYL to allow a following train to pass or an oppsoing train to meet and pass. This would tend to not use the switcher. You might also achieve the same end by running the train facing straight into MY1-4.
[Incidentally - in case you don't know - when you approach a switch and you are faced with a desicion about which way to go the switch is said to be "Facing" and the move is a "facing move". The other way round, where you can only get to one place, the switch is said to be "Trailing" and the move a "trailing move". Whether a switch is facing or trailing depend entirely on the direction from which you are approaching it. Where lines have an identified normal direction of travel a switch will be either facing or trailing to the NORMAL direction of travel...BUT it will still be either trailing or facing for movements AGAINST the NORMAL direction of travel].
If you spread the crossovers as I've suggested you don't need the switcher. The train engine can run facing into the loop MYL-MY1, run round, drag the train back clear of the diagonal(s) and start to work the train into the roads as appropriate.
If MYL retains a dead end spur this may be used for the drill moves. Otherwise you will need to use the Main. Whether you use the main or provide space on MYL depends on the (past or present) frequency of traffic on the Main. The dead end (DE) (extended) MYL does not have to be all on the modelled layout. If it is planned as a dead end it can run into you storage alongsde the main with no connections to the storage tracks... or it could have some sort of connection(s) if you want. The same applies at the other end with MY1. Out of sight you could even split either or both roads - to give a seperate caboose spur clear of the drill track. (You could also say that MY1 has another industry spur off the far end out-of-sight...)
It could be that in busier days MYL had the long DE spur but that due to track deterioration this is now embargoed (except for a short length kept up for cabs) and switching is now done from the Main.
If this is just a plan and not something you have already built I can suggest some more ways of adjusting the layout.
Just becasue you don't need a switcher doesn't mean that you mustn't have one... licence could allow you this expensive (for such a small yard) luxury.
steinjr wrote: say you have a small classification yard where all the tracks (including the A/D track) are single ended (not at all uncommon in a small model railroad where space is limited),... Here is what my classification yard and engine terminal looks like.
say you have a small classification yard where all the tracks (including the A/D track) are single ended (not at all uncommon in a small model railroad where space is limited),
...
Here is what my classification yard and engine terminal looks like.
I've been wondering whether this is a theoretical layout or the layout you have?
In the first case my answers may be useful to you, in the second they may be useful for some modificatons or to others.
As far as the questions of "How would you...? go... the answer is "I wouldn't" - because I wouldn't set out a layout like this and I don't think the RR would either... there are too many ways of getting trapped in a high cost layout -- high cost because of those paralel ladders that don't really achieve much in RR terms. -- In a cramped city environment a RR might have one diagonal track with double slips (puzzle swiches). Elsewhere they would spread things out -- relocate some of the roads (as I'm about to suggest) or use a single diagonal road and feed MY2 from MY1 - leaving space for the switch to T1. Then the switch for MY3 would also feed MY4 while T3 switch would feed T2 as well. Hopefully you can see that this will merge the two ladders while retaining the same number of roads.
I don't see the point of the two crossovers between T5 and T6... there does not appear to be sufficient length for them to achieve anything.
One element of this plan is that it makes the common modellers mistake of providing switches to get everywhere/do everything in one step. Switches are expensive bits of track and require maintenance. RR frequently do without some and double the use/moves through the ones they do put in. (Switches are also the places things tend to fall off more often -unless the track is really bad). Switches need constantly lining and relining for moves and the Engineer has to constantly watch that they are set right - mostly in both directions of travel. They also tend to need indicators -which are more cost and more maintenance... so by cutting out several switches in one diagonal the engineer has fewer to look at overall (although the same number on each run through the diagonal) and you can cut out the indicators for the switches no longer in the diagonal... which,again, gives him less to look at and makes life easier.
First off (to keep things simple) let's assume that MYL is at the West end and MY1 at the East end.
Let's also assume that you have shoved the crossovers between the main and MYL-MY1 as far apart as space will allow OR as far apart as your longest NORMAL train requires - whichever is shorter.
MY1 does not need to be an arrival track... keeping it exclusively to this purpose would be a waste of track space.
Eastbound trains can run into any road MY1 to MC inclusive provided there is space and a switcher or other loco available to do things with the train... bearing in mind that if it has a caboose the train EITHER needs to shove back and dump it at MYL or the other loco has to get rid of it somewhere appropriate.
That reminds me... assuming that those crossovers have moved... they need not be crossovers... they could be just switches out of the main... BUT... if you keep them as crossovers you retain the (probably) dead end spurs at the East and West ends of the layout... somewhere for cabooses to be shoved out of the way and picked up with least moves for any out-going train. There is no need for T5... and the RR would not want either all the messing about to get cabs in there or to have them potentially trapped in the depths of the yard --n so that is one road we can get rid of or use for other things.
If you are bringing an EB train in and shoving the loco into the dead end so that you need a switcher to sort the train out you have a choice... The switcher can sit at MYL while the train arrives and then switch the cab out to MY1 OR it can sit toward MY1 (maybe right down in the dead end). The incoming EB then drops its cab between the crossovers before moving into any of the roads MY2-4 and the switcher shoves it into MYL before beginning work on the train. Which you do will probably depend on whether the cab is next due out on an EB or a WB... This is part of planning ahead.
I'm going to post this and start over so as not to lose this...
Fast answer before I go out to play with the big trains for the night.
I will try to come back with more later.
steinjr wrote: El Capitan wrote: "Your track plan as well as the procedures that you described for incoming trains is almost exactly like mine. I really see no other way to bring in a train with this yard designed how it is.""When I first planned for this yard, operation wasn't even a consideration. Now that I am thinking operation, truth be told, I will never build a yard like this again."Why not ? I mean - obviously it is not even close to being a _great_ yard for flat classification of a lot of traffic. If I had had the space to spare, I obviously would have gone for a double ended yard with more tracks and longer tracks.But what makes it so bad that you would never build one again ? The need to back up for some moves ? Something else ?Smile,Stein
El Capitan wrote: "Your track plan as well as the procedures that you described for incoming trains is almost exactly like mine. I really see no other way to bring in a train with this yard designed how it is."
"When I first planned for this yard, operation wasn't even a consideration. Now that I am thinking operation, truth be told, I will never build a yard like this again."
Why not ?
I mean - obviously it is not even close to being a _great_ yard for flat classification of a lot of traffic. If I had had the space to spare, I obviously would have gone for a double ended yard with more tracks and longer tracks.
But what makes it so bad that you would never build one again ? The need to back up for some moves ? Something else ?
While the overall plan is just like mine, the legths may me different. Keep that in mind as I explain.
Train arriving from left:
The switch from the main line to MYL is at the far left on my layout so right off the bat an incoming train ties up the yard lead. Whatever the yard switcher is doing when a train comes in he must stop and attend to the arriving train. When the train pulls into MY1 the engine is stuck until the yard switcher attends to the train. Ideally, I would want the incoming train to stop on an arrival track, engine disconnects and immediately goes for service. The train can then be broken down whenever the yard switcher gets to it. MY1 should be a runthrough track with a switch at the far right. I realize that this is not always possible as it was not in my yard.
Trains arriving from right:
I don't beleive that backing a long train into MY1 with road power is prototypical (please don't argue this, just my oppinion and will not change). This is solved the same way as above.
I also need separate arrival and departure tracks that are run-through tracks on both ends. What I really hate about this yard layout is trains departing to the right. Currently I make up the train in MY3. When it is ready I move the engine from the refueling to the far end of MY1 then use the switcher to place the train on the end of the loco. The train then needs to back up before it can get onto the main. Throw in a well timed arriving train and the whole layout is F***ed for 30 minutes.
Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
steinjr wrote: Thank you for your advice. Now, if we can get back to my question about how to use a yard - say you have a small classification yard where all the tracks (including the A/D track) are single ended (not at all uncommon in a small model railroad where space is limited), how would you handle an arriving train ? Someone mentioned leaving an escape track to cut off an arriving engine. Here is what my classification yard and engine terminal looks like. The mainline is the heavy line on bottow of drawing, MY1 is the arrival track and MYL is the yard lead. There isn't enough space to add an escape from MY1 down to the mainline again - ie to make the A/D track a double ended siding branching off the mainline.Tracks MY2-MY4 are classification tracks, MYC is an industry track - which also have enough space at the left end to allow an engine and a single car (e.g a caboose). Tracks T2 and T3 are refueling/engine ready tracks. T4 has a couple of RIP spots at the left end. T5 is for cabooses. T6 (rightmost end of T5) is 4 spots for car storage.How would you handle the engine and caboose on a train arriving from the left ? Just pull the train into MY1, and letting the road engine stay trapped until first the caboose and then the cars have been removed by a yard switcher ? Or some other way ? How would you handle the engine and caboose on a train arriving from the right? Just pull the train into the yard lead, letting the yard switcher pick off the caboose and then having the road engine back the cars into MY1, before cutting the road engine off and sending it to get refueled ? Or some other way ?
Thank you for your advice.
Now, if we can get back to my question about how to use a yard - say you have a small classification yard where all the tracks (including the A/D track) are single ended (not at all uncommon in a small model railroad where space is limited), how would you handle an arriving train ?
Someone mentioned leaving an escape track to cut off an arriving engine. Here is what my classification yard and engine terminal looks like.
The mainline is the heavy line on bottow of drawing, MY1 is the arrival track and MYL is the yard lead. There isn't enough space to add an escape from MY1 down to the mainline again - ie to make the A/D track a double ended siding branching off the mainline.
Tracks MY2-MY4 are classification tracks, MYC is an industry track - which also have enough space at the left end to allow an engine and a single car (e.g a caboose).
Tracks T2 and T3 are refueling/engine ready tracks. T4 has a couple of RIP spots at the left end. T5 is for cabooses. T6 (rightmost end of T5) is 4 spots for car storage.
How would you handle the engine and caboose on a train arriving from the left ? Just pull the train into MY1, and letting the road engine stay trapped until first the caboose and then the cars have been removed by a yard switcher ? Or some other way ?
Your track plan as well as the procedures that you described for incoming trains is almost exactly like mine. I really see no other way to bring in a train with this yard designed how it is.
When I first planned for this yard, operation wasn't even a consideration. Now that I am thinking operation, truth be told, I will never build a yard like this again.
Stein, I like your transfer RR concept and Am familiar with the road you have chosen (to see a similar road that operates on a smaller scale check out the LST&T RR(Lake Superior Terminal & Transfer RR)
I agree with Dave Husmann its quite busy and while it appears functional for the space you have, youve gone a bit overboard on function considering the # of operatos you will have. 1 operator can get by with Much less and still run a prototypical operation (perhaps not that particular road & yard but in your space you will not make that anyways)
I believe you can have your minitaure transportation system and still find more balance in making this aesteticly pleasing and by doing so gain Far more overall enjoyment from your project.
Had you said ...I will have 4 operators and be running using a fast clock I would have said your going to have some Pretty hairy nailbiting sessions
With just you operating and only 1 slow circling train to avoid on the mainline i see the possibility of this getting old fairly quickly (and the far more dangerous item) your young son losing interest almost overnight.
I know it is difficult with a small area to strike the right balance between form & function.......Perhaps looking at a couple of smaller operations that have a similar type of operation may give you a few more idea's.
Consider a second lower level with through trackage for your backstage trains rather than the 2 stub end as a more practical setup with the ability to Fiddle from the inside of your Pit for changing cars................For modeling purposes one of those corners would be nice to see some in street trackage with those nice tight radius's (remember the trackage down around TheBookman ?? ) Old cobblestone street sections can still be seen (at least the last time I was down there)
Visual appeal, variety of industry and a workable compromise of prototypical practices will make this a more interesting RR in the end and may help to keep your sons interest, and If that is not a big factor in your decision making perhaps it should be!! :)
My Opinion, worth Price Charged ;)
Tileguy asked (primarily to Larry, Dave and Nick): "So using your expertise and the consideration that we can only afford the space for 1 functional operations Yard, How would YOU set up your's (keeping things Generic) for satisfying operation and Why?"
How about taking one concrete example and seeing how you would operate it ? I am not a professional railroader, but this is how I have designed the yards on my very small layout in a tiny room (6 1/2 foot by 11 1/2 foot):
I have a _small_ classification yard along the upper wall - four tracks (MY1-MY4 in the track schematic), of which the one closest to the mainline (MY1) is intended primarily as an A/D track. The A/D track has a capacity of 11 40' cars (or engine, caboose and 8 40' cars, which is the max train length I have designed the layout for). The other three tracks (MY2 - MY4) have capacities of 11, 10 and 8 40' cars.
And I have a _tiny_ industrial/outlying "yard" along the lower wall, basically one storage track (R2) next to the industry track (R3/R4) and a little room for a "yard lead" that doesn't foul the mainline. I can also use R1 for temporary storage for a caboose or a few cars while pulling cars from the industries down there - at the cost of blocking traffic from south staging.
And I have a few service/support tracks (labelled T1-T6 on the track schematic) near the main yard - T1 is a track for deliveries to the engine terminal (oil, sand etc), T2 and T3 is refueling/ready track, T4 has a few RIP spots at the left end, T5 is for cabooses and T6 is for temporary storage.
I've tried to keep things as flexible as possible, given the tiny room I have available. My plan is to operate this layout with one person (me :-), max two - letting one of my small kids run round and round on the main line while I do some switching.
And yes - I do know it is horribly overloaded with tracks, leaving very little room for scenery - it is a reasonably conscious tradeoff between tracks and scenery. This is all the space I have available now and is likely to have available in the foreseeable future.
I plan to run transfer runs from the yard along the upper wall to/from northern staging and to/from southern staging - where north staging and south staging representing yards belonging to interchanging railroads. Train lengths for transfer runs one engine, 8 40' cars and caboose.
I also plan to run two local switching jobs - one to the north (R1, R2, R3/4 and X1/X2) and one to the south (W1/W2 and F1/F2).
Transfer jobs would be maximum size one engine, 8 40' cars and caboose, and locals switching jobs would be one engine, 5 40' cars and caboose. Try to disregard the very short trains and cramped space - just imagine that each car represents maybe 5 cars in the real world - say 20-25 car local switching jobs and 40-car transfer jobs to other yards belonging to other railroads.
I am curious about whether this layout workable in a at least _somewhat_ prototypical manner.
For instance - if I have a local with one diesel switcher engine, 5 cars and a caboose coming out of the yard along the upper wall bound for the industries in the lower left corner, runing counterclockwise along the mainline - how would the professionals here handle pickups and setouts in the industrial area down in the lower lefthand corner - say picking up two cars from R3, one from X1, and setting out two new cars for R3, one for X1 and two for R4 ?
How would you handle an inbound transfer job of 1 engine, 8 cars and a caboose from North Staging track 1 (NS1) to the yard along the upper wall - running clockwise around the mainline to pull off the main into the yard ladder, with 4 cars destined for SS1, 3 cars destined for local industries to the north and 1 car destined for local industries to the south, plus an engine and a caboose ?
Dang it, Larry beat me to the post.
Anyway, Dave...if the spur is equipped with a derail, the derail is usually the division of responsibility. If there is no derail, I think the clearance point with the main is the commonly accepted point. Perhaps S. Hadid could offer some clarification here.
Having said that, the railroad will use any place in a pinch to stick a car. Especially, if you have to set a Bad Order out line of road.
As for track maintenance, the customer may contract with the railroad or an outside firm like Hulcher or Herzog. The same if the customer needs a temporary spur.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
Hey! I can agree with Larry!
A lot of the time RR can use the main as the drill track. they will also simply shove a cabooose out of the way or park it on the main. If they don't have other traffic running through to get "In the Clear" from they have no need to build a track/spend the money for extra switches and track.
REMEMBER! Every extra track is cost... of the track and the switch... and all the maintenance.
This applied far more in the earlier periods when relative cost was higher, track occupancy was lower, train speeds were lower and the competiotion wa a covered wagon hauled by horses or oxen or a mule train... so it mattered less if a train was delayed.
You need to be able to get everything in clear when you have high intensity traffic. this applies on busy lines and more so where you have passenger, especially commute services, sharing the track.
When high density and commute combine - maybe plus express services - it becomes worth the RR's while to go beyond 2 track and put in a third track... either with all the switching connections off the third track OR the connections on an originl track and the mains moved over to utilise the new track.
Larry and I are probably referring to similar facilities (Storage in Transit/Outlaying). They preform similar functions. Basically, road trains drop and pick up cars handled by a local crew.
Reading the posts, it seems that community has become restricted in its views of a proper "yard" by focusing on the elements that make up a classic classification yard. I've worked at plenty of SIT/Outlaying yards that have no separate switching lead, no dedicated arrival/departure tracks, and service facilities.
The road trains set off on whatever track is clear, and pick up from where ever the local crew put the pick up. The locomotives are either taken to the area service center once a week, or serviced at the SIT by the mobile service truck. Often the industrial running track, that links the customers together, is used as the switching lead. Sometimes, a passing siding doubles as the lead. I worked one place that used the main - remember rule 93, Yard Limits - as the lead.
Once you stop thinking every "proper" yard needs elements A, B and C; the possiblities in yard design greatly increase.
Guys,A lot of yards would use the main line as the switch lead aka yard lead,drill track.
The Benson yard here in Bucyrus is one such yard..The Marion switch lead is also the CSX/NS interchange track.The CSX uses the main as needed while switching the former Erie yard.
No offense Guys,but there is tons of BS floating around on small yard designs and using a main line as a switch lead..I suppose volumes could be written on what modelers don't know about railroads,operation and why a given yard is design the way it is..
As far as caboose tracks that would depend on the type of yard..In a small city yard a caboose could be spotted on any out of the way track..Maybe the freight house lead,maybe a old icing platform lead,on the team track lead etc..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"