Having discoved that designing a yard is one of those tasks that seems to be daunting for more people than just me, I decided to just monkey around and make up a yard for what would be the Ultimate Dream Layout (tm) for myself.
Basically, I'm just looking for critiques here. I have no space to build anything this large at present, but I'd like to know I am at least getting the concepts right.
Warning, this picture is very large, both in resolution and in file size.
Tonight, I don't want to micro-analyze your plan. Nevertheless, I'll say the yard has little resemblance of prototype yards I am familiar. I'd like to see examples of the real world resembling this plan to prove me wrong. My mind is open and still ready to learn and adapt.
Mark
Some good information sources on freight yard design:
Craig Bisgeier's "Ten commandments of yard design" (Web page):
John Armstrong's "Freigh Yards" (Downloadable PDF from Kalmbach)
Andy Sperandeo's "Model Railroaders Guide Guide to Freight Yards" (Book from Kalmbach)
The PDF will cost you about $9, the book around $20 - both are worth it, IMO.
Smile, Stein
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
I would suggest Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong. Every model railroader should have this book.
Enjoy
Paul
Simplify, simplify, simplify.
You are making it way more complicated that it needs to be and using up so much space trying to make it "flexible' that you are actually reducing its utility.
That whole line a of double slip switches through the middle of the engine facility. ??????
Make it as basic as you can then add features.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
SpaceMouse wrote:I'm really curious. What is the function of the runaround in the yard, the one that parallels the ladder? Lots of people put them there, but I can't for the life of me figure out why.
Chip,
I suspect the reason people put them there is that they have gotten frustrated trying to operate their yard without them! A runaround may not be prototypical - I'll take your word on that - although Armstrong's generic diagrams of prototype yards often show them. But they're sure handy in our selectively-compressed MR world. No doubt there are alternative arrangements, and these may suit prototype yards better. But sometimes you just have to get the yard loco to the other end of a cut, and on a layout, that runaround is in a convenient place to do it.
Walleye wrote: SpaceMouse wrote:I'm really curious. What is the function of the runaround in the yard, the one that parallels the ladder? Lots of people put them there, but I can't for the life of me figure out why.Chip,I suspect the reason people put them there is that they have gotten frustrated trying to operate their yard without them! A runaround may not be prototypical - I'll take your word on that - although Armstrong's generic diagrams of prototype yards often show them. But they're sure handy in our selectively-compressed MR world. No doubt there are alternative arrangements, and these may suit prototype yards better. But sometimes you just have to get the yard loco to the other end of a cut, and on a layout, that runaround is in a convenient place to do it.
If that were the case, I would not question them, but when there are A/D tracks where the engine can escape, I cannot conceive of a reason why an engine would be behind the cars it is sorting.
If you can think of a situation, I love to learn about it.
It comes in handy if you have some sort of trailing point switch in the yard.
If you don't like it, then make it the scale track. 8-)
There are many more "opportunities" in that design. Having a double ended track is merely a consumption of a extra switch or two.
If correctly laid out, they are efficient for getting from one end of the yard to another and going to different parts of the yard complex without interfering with ongoing switching activity. Thus, they are especially useful for double-ended yards and are also handy for providing access to service areas (locomotive, car repair, icing, etc.). When studying prototype yards, pay particular attention as to how the different elements are arranged. Keep those principles in mind when designing your own yard.
Hudson wrote:Like other folks have said you see that a lot on Armstrong plans. What hasn't been mentioned though is a great many of his yards usually incorporate a passenger station of sorts as well. That runaround allows for an additional parallel movement (passenger train) that doesn't necessarily interfere with the trimmer.
Particularly at large population centers, railroads prefer to have a passenger depot near the population center which is often not adjacent to a freight yard. If one has the space, one should consider not co-locating the yard and the station. If one has the luxury of space for a coach yard and express and mail facilities, those should usually be located not too distant from from the passenger depot.
The arrangement of the engine terminal lead and yard leads is over complicated. You don't need a diamond and it would just make operating the Yard More difficult. I would fix it by flipping the A/D Yard Ladder and adding a double-slip like this.
In this case I see the value of an extra track to access the car shops. So why not have the runaround. As a runaround I don't see the use. Unless of course you can have two switchers working the model and one yard switcher traps the other.
The trailing point, passenger, and double end, do not apply, but then again I wasn't referring to this layout so they are all valid answers.
But I see runarounds on stub yards all the time in layout designs without any of those scenarios. So I was just wondering if I was missing something.
markpierce wrote: Hudson wrote:Like other folks have said you see that a lot on Armstrong plans. What hasn't been mentioned though is a great many of his yards usually incorporate a passenger station of sorts as well. That runaround allows for an additional parallel movement (passenger train) that doesn't necessarily interfere with the trimmer.Particularly at large population centers, railroads prefer to have a passenger depot near the population center which is often not adjacent to a freight yard. If one has the space, one should consider not co-locating the yard and the station. If one has the luxury of space for a coach yard and express and mail facilities, those should usually be located not too distant from from the passenger depot.Mark
Yup!
SpaceMouse wrote: Walleye wrote: SpaceMouse wrote:I'm really curious. What is the function of the runaround in the yard, the one that parallels the ladder? Lots of people put them there, but I can't for the life of me figure out why.Chip,I suspect the reason people put them there is that they have gotten frustrated trying to operate their yard without them! A runaround may not be prototypical - I'll take your word on that - although Armstrong's generic diagrams of prototype yards often show them. But they're sure handy in our selectively-compressed MR world. No doubt there are alternative arrangements, and these may suit prototype yards better. But sometimes you just have to get the yard loco to the other end of a cut, and on a layout, that runaround is in a convenient place to do it. If that were the case, I would not question them, but when there are A/D tracks where the engine can escape, I cannot conceive of a reason why an engine would be behind the cars it is sorting. If you can think of a situation, I love to learn about it.
Mmm - I can think of a couple of possible situations:
If you have trains departing in both directions from the yard, and you want tack on the caboose to the rest of its train as the last car added to the train, you might want your switcher to be on one side of eastbound cabooses and on the other side of westbound cabooses.
Also, if you e.g have classification tracks branching out e.g east from the ladder and engine service tracks and a caboose track going in the opposite direction from the runaround/ throughfare (a common trick in model railroad yards - it save width at the expense of length - see figure below), then it is kinda practical that engines going to and from the engine service tracks can do so using the runaround/throughfare track, without interupting too badly classification happening on the yard ladder.
Stein,
Both you and the OP already have dobule ended caboose tracks. On your layout, you have the runaround, but it is also your access to service.
SpaceMouse wrote: Stein,Both you and the OP already have dobule ended caboose tracks. On your layout, you have the runaround, but it is also your access to service.
One of my posts confused "runaround" with "through track." I was speaking of a through track. The following from the Layout Design website explains a runaround track in the yard as follows:
Somewhere off the lead, the ladder track or an exterior yard body track, be sure to provide a short siding or set of facing crossovers to an adjacent track, creating a run-around. a run-around is one of the most useful trackage arrangements in the yard, allowing the yard switcher get around to the other end of a car or caboose. If planned properly it doesn't even have to take up any extra space. A run-around is necessary because certain switching actions become difficult, or impossible, without it. For instance, it becomes very difficult for a switcher to tack a caboose onto the back of a freight train departing in the direction opposite the orientation of the yard. And not only is having the engineer of a freight train back his whole train up to pick up a caboose highly unprototypical, it's a dangerous practice to follow with easily-tipped coal or wood-fired stoves in the caboose.
The run-around should be long enough to allow the switcher to run completely around one of your longest cars (a passenger car, or auto-rack). More length is better, though over 3 regular car lengths is probably more length than necessary. More than one run-around track located in different places is even better yet. Close proximity to the base of the lead is an important consideration.
Run-arounds are also highly useful on smaller layouts, particularly if there are one or more facing point turnouts on local sidings that must be served by the yard switcher. Often the yard crew may switch a local industry like this, unsuitable to be served by a regular local, during quiet periods in the main yard.
Of course, if the caboose track is double-ended, there would be less need for runaround track. On the other hand, access to other tracks like fuel supply, car repair or other tracks with switches pointing opposite of the ladder tracks would make a runaround useful. It depends on the specific track arrangements of the yard.
IRONROOSTER wrote: I would suggest Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong. Every model railroader should have this book. EnjoyPaul
DITTO!!! DITTO!!! DITTO!!!
This should be required reading for everyone who is planning to build a layout. I was luck enough to stumble across early in my hobby days and it has been invaluable to me in building both my previous layout as well as the current one. If you were to only buy one how-to book, this would be the one. It is the bible of layout design. It is many decades old but I have yet to see a better one come out since.
Jsut to make further pains, I've seen olde rlayouts with humps in them. So how do we work in a hump?
-Morgan
Flashwave wrote: Jsut to make further pains, I've seen olde rlayouts with humps in them. So how do we work in a hump?
If you are smart, you don't.
A hump yard is used for high capacity classification. If your layout has 500-1000 cars on it then a hump might be useful. If you layout is small there is no need for a hump other than a novelty. It requires a huge step in complexity of design, control, information systems, footprint, etc. Unless you just GOTTA have one (and be careful what you wish for) you are way better off with a flat switching yard.
dehusman wrote: Flashwave wrote: Jsut to make further pains, I've seen olde rlayouts with humps in them. So how do we work in a hump?If you are smart, you don't.A hump yard is used for high capacity classification. If your layout has 500-1000 cars on it then a hump might be useful. If you layout is small there is no need for a hump other than a novelty. It requires a huge step in complexity of design, control, information systems, footprint, etc. Unless you just GOTTA have one (and be careful what you wish for) you are way better off with a flat switching yard. Dave H.
Isn't that the whole point of this? The "Dream layout"? I've seen at least one article, it was black and white, nopt real long, focused on a guy who ran trains and not scenery. Titled something about "It only happens when guests come over" or something.
Flashwave wrote:Isn't that the whole point of this? The "Dream layout"?
Have at it big boy.
Just be careful what you wish for.
Unless you are very clever and willing to devote the inordinate time needed to make it work, that humpyard will turn into a nightmare on your dream layout. The instances of successful model humpyards must be extremely small. In 45 years I may have heard of about one or two that were purported to work, more or less. Just having cars rolling down a grade won't work unless it is steep and you are willing for the cars to crash into each other. You'll need something(blowing air?) to slow down too-fast cars and speed up too-slow cars as well as having consistency of rolling characteristics among cars. Also, the smaller the scale, the more difficult the task because of the reduced mass of the models. Good luck.
markpierce wrote: Unless you are very clever and willing to devote the inordinate time needed to make it work, that humpyard will turn into a nightmare on your dream layout. The instances of successful model humpyards must be extremely small. In 45 years I may have heard of about one or two that were purported to work, more or less. Just having cars rolling down a grade won't work unless it is steep and you are willing for the cars to crash into each other. You'll need something(blowing air?) to slow down too-fast cars and speed up too-slow cars as well as having consistency of rolling characteristics among cars. Also, the smaller the scale, the more difficult the task because of the reduced mass of the models. Good luck.Mark
weights in cars+magnets.
Fine I'm sorry I asked. and took up space in the thread.
Flashwave wrote: Fine I'm sorry I asked. and took up space in the thread.
No apologies are necessary. Maybe someone will make a workable model hump yard and teach us a lesson.
Doesn't work.
Simply not enough mass for it to work as in real life.
I've played around with a hump idea on the floor with some plywood and books just to see how it would work. I think I could probably make a small one work relatively well with Lionel but the smaller the scale got, the less effective it was. I definitely wouldn't try one on my n-scale layout.
I don't think it's a bad thing for a dream layout. It's just something that needs some special attention to work well. It's not impossible. Someone needs to be the first to figure it all out. It's only impossible until someone does it!