Thanks, Wyatt. Sorry, I initially missed that passenger station on the left side.
Is this a basement layout, an attic layout ? I'm just curious where you get so much space for not only the layout itself but also the aisles and walkways around it. In my case, I have a fairly large basement with a 42' x 25' L-shaped layout, but I would be hard pressed to build a 24' x 24' layout because of the various obstacles like staircase, furnace and water heater, etc. My basement is 34' x 60' but a 24'x 24' layout wouldn't be possible. Again, just curious.
Rich
Alton Junction
richhotrain Thanks, Wyatt. Sorry, I initially missed that passenger station on the left side. Is this a basement layout, an attic layout ? I'm just curious where you get so much space for not only the layout itself but also the aisles and walkways around it. In my case, I have a fairly large basement with a 42' x 25' L-shaped layout, but I would be hard pressed to build a 24' x 24' layout because of the various obstacles like staircase, furnace and water heater, etc. My basement is 34' x 60' but a 24'x 24' layout wouldn't be possible. Again, just curious. Rich
You raise a good point and ask a good question Rich. From the beginning I have wanted to understand the bigger picture here, and better understand how the layout would be viewed and operated.
As for basements, some are arranged better than others as it relates to building layouts.
My new basement has all the nearly all the utilities in one corner, leaving a pretty wide open space. My stair situation is not typical. The stairs enter from the attached garage, so they do not take up any floor space. There is a boiler (small and modern), a gas water heater, and the well pump tank. Also two electric panels in a space by the entry that I cannot really use anyway. So, out of about 1600 sq ft, over 1400 is wide open except for a few columns.
I like the revised plan, but like you would like to understand the whole room dynamic.
Sheldon
Rich,
My layout is located in the left hand side of my insulated garage/shop. After reading the posts, if you don't mind me asking what do you think of my plan, no hold backs please...
Thanks again Rich for responding to my post
Sheldon,
My layout is located in the left hand corner of my insulated garage / shop.
Thanks for commenting on my post and track plan Sheldon.
Howdy. A very comprehensive plan.
Do you really need a double track main on both sides of the yard? Could you lose the double track main along the AD tracks? Through freight trains would use the other mains through the passenger terminal. The only reason I can see the freight mains being really useful is to do block swapping where a train sets out just a block of cars and picks up a block of cars instead of terminating or originating.
Are you really going to use all those auxillary tracks in the back beyond the yard? Are you really going to use the space allocated to 4 tracks and a car shop enough to make it valuable? Having a RIP track means that one class track has to be allocated to put the B/O cars in while switching. With 3 A/D tracks and only 7 class tracks, will you have room for that?
One consideration is how much of the class yard will be used to support just the yard itself. If you add up all the car shop/RIP, supply, coal, sand, ash, commissary, etc, you have almost a full class track of just that stuff. This assumes that the ice dock and stock tracks will be handled as solid blocks through the AD tracks and not as loose cars through the class yard.
That isn't a problem until you figure how many cars you are going to be handling as straight classification. How many trains/cuts are you goingto be terminating or originating in a session? Are the cars you are classifying going out on locals or is it more reblocking trains?
If its locals, the cars come in on through freights, are classified and then leave later on several locals that spend time working industries, then later the locals bring different cars back and they are classified and then put on outbound through freights.
If its reblocking, the cars come in shotgunned (mixed) on through freights, the yard classifies them for different destinations and they leave out on through freights.
Either option is valid, the local operation has more churn and more switching. Just different ways of considering the operation.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Wyatt M Rich, My layout is located in the left hand side of my insulated garage/shop. After reading the posts, if you don't mind me asking what do you think of my plan, no hold backs please... Thanks again Rich for responding to my post
I do wonder about accessibility, so a fuller track plan would be helpful to understand your overall vision for this layout.
While I appreciate Dave's reasoning for eliminating the freight double mainline, personally I would keep it. Since this is planned to be a multi-operator layout, the more mainlines, the merrier.
Hi Dave,
Thank you very much for your detailed input and suggestions and you have a very impressive layout, thank you for sharing that.
With this being my 1st large operational layout I don't totally understand all that you suggested, looks my more research is needed on my part.
I know there is no perfect model railroad and everyone has an opinion, but with the all input and suggestions from modelers herein I'm confident that I should be able to revise my plan enough to have a decent operational layout. Can't thank you and everyone enough who has contributed.
Thanks again Dave...
Hi Rich,
Thanks for your response and liking my proposed track plan.
It looks like you and I share a few things in common, engine servicing facilities and double mainlines. My overall vision for my layout is to have a decent multi operator operational layout with yard opertions being my number one goal. With that being said, I know I need to have the balance of my layout able to support the size and operations of my yard. My plan was to develope an operational yard plan and then contract out with an experienced individual and/or company to design the balance of my layout.
Thank again for responding to my post Rich
Wyatt M My overall vision for my layout is to have a decent multi operator operational layout with yard operations being my number one goal. With that being said, I know I need to have the balance of my layout able to support the size and operations of my yard. My plan was to develop an operational yard plan and then contract out with an experienced individual and/or company to design the balance of my layout.
My overall vision for my layout is to have a decent multi operator operational layout with yard operations being my number one goal. With that being said, I know I need to have the balance of my layout able to support the size and operations of my yard. My plan was to develop an operational yard plan and then contract out with an experienced individual and/or company to design the balance of my layout.
So, I wonder if it will really be necessary to contract out the design of the balance of your layout.
One other thought, be sure to plan for reversing the direction of your trains for maximum flexibility.
You’ve received a lot of well-intentioned and knowledgeable advice. I’ll only add the caveat that investing a lot of time now in a detailed yard design might be putting the cart before the horse (in my humble opinion).
Without knowing how the rest of the layout will be arranged, operated, and (importantly) accessed, the current yard design could be much larger in scope than can be justified by the trains you wish to run. Conversely, if the layout is to basically be just an extensive yard, one might need a tremendous amount of staging to create the number of train movements that would justify the large investment in track, turnouts, and switch motors for the yard proposed. And that doesn't even consider the amount of rolling stock.
One of the keys to effective layout design is balance: between yard and road, between visible track and staging capacity, et al. Without knowing the theme, era, concept, and purpose for the rest of the layout, I personally find it hard to judge whether a yard design is appropriate or useful.
Good luck with your layout.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Wyatt MWith this being my 1st large operational layout I don't totally understand all that you suggested, looks my more research is needed on my part.
My comments are mostly aimed at aking questions to spur thinking about how the yard will work. As I said, its a very complete yard. A yard is a "tool". You have to consider what you want to do with it.
There are many different answers and you can adapt a yard to do many different things. But sometimes things work out better than others.
My yard had a main, a running track (used as an A/D track) one double ended track and 4 stub ended tracks.
That was too restrictive so I revised it to have 2 double ended tracks and 3 stub tracks.
The yard was still congested. About 1/3-1/2 the cars interchanged to the B&O and the inbound through freights had to go by the B&O connection before they got to the yard, so I changed the operation to have the through freights deliver to the B&O before they got to the yard. That reduced the car handling in the yard by about 1/4 overall, greatly improving fluidity.
The yard ran a classification, lead job and 2 industry jobs, but they spent more time getting in each other's way, so I consolidated the two industry jobs (which also meant I could cut back on some of the work, reducing the number of cars through the yard).
Originally the 2 double ended tracks were used as alternate A/D tracks and building outbound trains. However that made the lead job very hectic since it had to switch all the inbounds, build all the outbounds and build the industry switcher cuts. I revised the operation to make the two double ended tracks the class tracks for the inbound industry cars. Then I could put the industry job on the opposite end of the yard from the lead job and it could switch out its own industry spotters as it needed to. The 3 stub class tracks broke out northward, and since this was the southern terminus of the branch, all the other originating trains departed NWD, so I just switch the inbound cuts from industry into the 3 NWD class tracks and depart the NWD trains out of the class tracks.
The only future option I haven't pulled the trigger on is having the industry job switch the inbound through freights, since virtually all their cars would be going to the industry job's class tracks. Haven't needed to do that yet, but its an option if things bog down in the future.
The whole point of this long boring story is that its ok if you don't have it all figured out at the beginning and its ok if you have to change things after you start operating things. The key is just to think about it and be willing to tweak things.
dehusman The whole point of this long boring story is that its ok if you don't have it all figured out at the beginning and its ok if you have to change things after you start operating things. The key is just to think about it and be willing to tweak things.
An interesting layout plan and a lot of good responsive comments.
I'd be okay if the entire room was filled with nothing but a single layout design element: a scale model of Bailey Yard in Nebraska. Throat-to-throat, nothing but yard. A perfectly good way to approach this hobby.
The one recent comment I would address is the idea of adding a second level. I'd vote against. In my case, the upper level is a little too high, and the lower level is a little too low. I have 18 inches of separation, and I would not change that. The space taken up by the helix is not a problem. Building the helix was not a problem. I just think a single level can offer plenty of space to play with.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
Thanks for taking the time to draw in and submit my layout design balance and for the suggestions of adding in reverse loops, I totally forgot about those.
Thanks for responding to my post
Hi Robett,
Thanks for responding to my post. As far as adding a 2nd level I've been on the fence about that for a while and other modelers I spoke with pretty much said what you did, pass on the 2nd level.
Thanks again for your comments and suggestions Robert
Hi Cuyama,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. Your suggestions make a lot of sense and I appreciate everyone's contributions to my post.
Hi Wyatt,
I have spent a few minutes studying your revised plan and I can't see anything wrong with it. In fact, I think it looks great! However, I do not claim to be an expert by any means. I probably have just enough knowledge to be dangerous. People like Byron (cuyama) will have much more expertise to offer.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Call me old fashioned, but I would still like to see a drawing that clearly defines benchwork edges and room walls.
I like the revised version based on the goals Wyatt has explained.
I agree with Byron about a balanced approach, but I would not presume to tell Wyatt what his interests should be.
Personally I would simplify the yard some, but that's my choice. Does it really need three arrival/departure tracks? A regular yard track can perform that function. The whole RIP track thing would get scaled down, as would the coach yard.
I like switching the yard, I'm currently designing a new layout, the yard will be 25' long. But it will not have all the separate functions/tracks that Wyatt has included.
I would also shift the balance of passenger yard tracks in favor of more passenger station tracks.
In history, there have been some large thru terminals with large coach yards. But a much greater percentage of thru passenger terminals have had minimal coach yards as only a limited number of trains originate or terminate at such terminals. Or, the coach yards for some major thru terminals, like those in Baltimore, are/were some distance from the terminal itself.
But I also like mainline running, and have 1500 sq to develop a reasonable mainline run either side of the yard, and room for hidden staging to feed the mainline and the yard. So again, I am cautious about offering too much advice which would be colored by my views and goals.
One of my primary goals is relatively long trains, 35 to 50 cars, and staging for 25 to 30 such trains. Because my goals include all aspects of operation, as well as good display running value and room for scenic development, A mainline run as short as what it appears Wyatt may be proposing would not work for me.
In that space I would have a different set of goals - or build a bigger space......
Thanks for contributing to my post and I'm sure your just being modest and know more then what your letting on.
Thanks again...
I Sheldon,
Thanks for suggestions and opinions and good luck with your layout.
Wyatt M I Sheldon, Thanks for suggestions and opinions and good luck with your layout.
Wyatt, thank you, and you are most welcome. I do like the overall concept of your yard, and have from the beginning.
I too have tried to concentrate the yard and terminal trackage to give the "big railroad" feel to that part of the layout, leaving most of the rest of the layout to be more rural in nature.
One other feature I included - I have two industrial areas fed directly from the yard without crossing or entering the mainline. Two industrial "belt lines" as it were, feeding two independant "Industrial Switching Layouts" imbeded in the larger layout.
I wish my drawings were a little farther along, but they are hand drawn and not scanned or digitized yet.
Somewhere on this forum is a thread which outlines my whole layout concept, I will try to find it and bump it to the top, you may find it useful, or at least interesting. My thread is in the general discussion forum.