I am building the next yard siding to increase the total to 2. I laid out the new switch and track to see how much I will need, how long I can build the sidings and and how many cars I can park on each siding. I started out with the sidings parallel to the mainline but discovered it will not give me enough length on which to park the amount of cars I have. It has been changed to go at an angle to maximize the length of the sidings to allow me to park 4 to 5 cars on each siding and still allow room for the yard locomotive to couple to the cars to pull them out and park them in the yard. Note one of the cars is just the body, that is because it is having some repair work done on the frame. At least one more siding will be needed to park the 2 remaining cars plus additional cars in the yard. After the third siding is added I should have room for 2 possibly 3 more.
I have one immediate observation and suggestion: GET RID OF THE "S" TURNS!! You will get additional car space and remove an obvious opportunity for derailments by putting a 6" section of straight track off the diverging rails at the mainline switch (A), then placing a LEFT-HAND turnout (B) to enter the first parallel yard track and continue the yard lead for additional Left-hand switches (C & D), with a 3 - 6" between each turnout, for track spaciing (assuming HO scale). The 6" straight off the main will almost assure that no normal cars will be subject to the "S" turn derailing during backing movements into the yard.. Also, do you see the additional capacity generated by this alteration.?? Best wishes for sucessful MRing. JWH
RetGM I have one immediate observation and suggestion: GET RID OF THE "S" TURNS!! You will get additional car space and remove an obvious opportunity for derailments by putting a 6" section of straight track off the diverging rails at the mainline switch (A), then placing a LEFT-HAND turnout (B) to enter the first parallel yard track and continue the yard lead for additional Left-hand switches (C & D), with a 3 - 6" between each turnout, for track spaciing (assuming HO scale). The 6" straight off the main will almost assure that no normal cars will be subject to the "S" turn derailing during backing movements into the yard.. Also, do you see the additional capacity generated by this alteration.?? Best wishes for sucessful MRing. JWH
Are you saying at the first turnout, the one connected to the mainline, remove the first connected curve section and replace it with a straight piece of 6". And to that connect the second turnout, but a left hand switch, not a right? And to the second switch is the 2 long straight sections of sidings?
The reason for the long lead into the yard sidings is I will be operating the yard loco at the same time I am running the mainline loco and I want to avoid fouling the switch connected to the mainline. If I can accomplish this with straight sections I will.
I just redid the mock up. Coming off of the first switch, the connected to the main is a short 1/3rd curve, then a straight section of 6", then the second switch. This long lead is so I can pull the yard loco off of the second switch, but stay off of the main while the mainline train is running at the same time.
This does not gain me any additional length on the first siding, I still have room for only 4 cars and the loco. What it does do is move the sidings closer to the main, which probably gains me more room to add more yard sidings if needed and I can see how not having the "S" curve at the yard entrance will potentially prevent derailment.
But why a left hand vs. a right hand switches, switch B, C, D, etc., after entering the yard? Right now I do have one left hand switch on the other side being used as the entrance to a parking spur. Someone mentioned changing it to a right hand to gain more room. I could swap them out and right now is the time to do so before I start purchasing more switches that I will not use or will not need.
So again, why left hand switches vs. right after coming off of the right hand switch into the yard?
Sux,
Why not park the engine on one of the yard tracks? Then you could make both 9" longer by getting rid of that two short pieces of curved track. When switching without fouling the main is involved, not just parking, you do not need space for just an engine between the yardtracks and the main. Every switching move made is by an engine and a couple of cars, so you'll need space for lets say en engine and two cars, about 3x7=21"; almost 2 feet. probably even a bit more to get enough clearance
On a small layout like yours the mainline manifest will be back that soon, no switching at all is possible when you don't have a long enough yardlead. Already in a previous thread by you this was explained thoroughly by a couple of posters.
Paul
SUX V R40 Rider Are you saying at the first turnout, the one connected to the mainline, remove the first connected curve section and replace it with a straight piece of 6". And to that connect the second turnout, but a left hand switch, not a right? And to the second switch is the 2 long straight sections of sidings?
SUX, I think what RetGM had in mind was to connect a 6" piece of straight track to the divergent track of the RH turnout coming off the main line, then a LH turnout connected to the other end of that 6" piece of straight track. From there, he did intend to suggest adding one or more additional LH turnouts to form a ladder of yard tracks running parallel to the main line.
But, I tend to agree with you that it may not really add that much more additional space to park cars.
If I recall correctly from your prior thread on Help Free a Trapped Locomotive, you plan to back the cars into the yard in order to free the yard loco to escape. That would explain your concern for not fouling the main line with the yard loco.
A thought that comes to mind is whether it would be feasible to start the entry into the yard from the bottom of the main line as opposed to the lower left side of the main line. If a RH turnout could be used in place of the single section of straight track at the bottom of the main line, the "yard lead" would then curve up the lower left side paralllel to the main line and then the yard ladder would begin with a RH turnout with a series of LH turnouts forming the yard ladder. That configuration would give you the needed space to store more cars.
If that idea is not feasible because of the lack of space to curve that yard lead inside the main line, then a more radical approach might be to widen your layout by one foot so that there would be space to curve that yard lead.
Just a thought.
Rich
Alton Junction
Follow Paulus' suggestion. If you don't have the extra turnout, put a 9" straight piece there where the turnout would go for the lead and engine service turnout, you can swap it out later. In the meantime this gives you some space to park the loco before it fouls the main, and also gets rid of the S curve, which WILL cause you headaches.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
With that basement, you could have a lot bigger layout.
Dean
30 years 1:1 Canadian Pacific.....now switching in HO
SUX, you are correct in the interpretation of my original reply. The reason for the right /left turnouts is to keep the yard tracks "in reach" along side your main. You do not need the 1/3 18 " radius curved track abutting the switch: it is intended to complete the 30 degree arc of a regular 18"radius curved section, so as to make an easy 180 degree turn for a passing siding at one end of your oval. You could use all right hand turnouts, but that would place the yard tracks far end sorta out of reach. Plus, having the yard parallel to the main will allow you to connect the first yard track back to the main at the far end, giving you a run-around track to get your engine(s) on the right side of a west-bound train in order to yard it without trapping the loco. (You can use two of the 10 degree curved sections and an additional 1 &1/2 " of straight track to form the last yard track beyond your last yard turnout.) Noting Rich's reply: you could install a left hand turnout "backwards" to give you a switching lead inside your main. this would be in lieu of the 6" straight piece next to the switch off the main. It's amazing what sleeping on a problem will do! Best wishes....JWH
Just a few more comments after your 26 JAN FEEDBACK: The advantage of a left turnout "yard ladder" is that all of your yard Atlas switch machines will be outside the yard, not in the way as is your posted pictures. Also, as others have suggested, you can park the loco(s) on the third track, straight off the 2nd switch, or even use that as a lead to your engine house. After looking at your blog, I used Atlas RTS to lay out the proposals, including an inside reverse left-hand turnout to provide a switching lead, and reconnecting the first siding to the main for a run-around/arrival track, and it all fits!! Looking at your Blog, I notice the passing siding/run-around with an escape turnout . That turnout, as you suggested could be used for the first yard throat, and be replaced with the right-hand turnout, so as to have a straight exit from the siding, eliminating the "S" curve, and providing an acceptable curve leading back to the main. With the purchase of only one or two additional L/H turnouts, you shouls have a smoothly operating layout. Again, best wishes for happy MRing...JWH (yeah, most of my experience has been on 12" to the foot scale)
I am confused as to why anyone is offering to help when I did not ask any questions. I was just trying to merely show what I have done so far, not ask for help.
I have made changes that will be indicated in my next reply. Thanks for the advice but I know how I am going to build this layout. Please don't offer help unless I ask a question.
RetGM Just a few more comments after your 26 JAN FEEDBACK: The advantage of a left turnout "yard ladder" is that all of your yard Atlas switch machines will be outside the yard, not in the way as is your posted pictures. Also, as others have suggested, you can park the loco(s) on the third track, straight off the 2nd switch, or even use that as a lead to your engine house. After looking at your blog, I used Atlas RTS to lay out the proposals, including an inside reverse left-hand turnout to provide a switching lead, and reconnecting the first siding to the main for a run-around/arrival track, and it all fits!! Looking at your Blog, I notice the passing siding/run-around with an escape turnout . That turnout, as you suggested could be used for the first yard throat, and be replaced with the right-hand turnout, so as to have a straight exit from the siding, eliminating the "S" curve, and providing an acceptable curve leading back to the main. With the purchase of only one or two additional L/H turnouts, you shouls have a smoothly operating layout. Again, best wishes for happy MRing...JWH (yeah, most of my experience has been on 12" to the foot scale)
From what you're describing with using LH turnouts instead of RH, it would put the yard sidings truly parallel to the mine line and with one another. Doing this shortens the length of the sidings. I need to be able to fit a minimum of 4 cars and the loco. on a siding where the front of the loco. is not parked on the turnout. Putting the sidings parallel to the mainline will make the sidings too short.
Therefore I have built this, with two sidings for now:
Please note the reason for the long lead into the yard. This will allow me to switch the yard locomotive to the different sidings at the same time the mainline train is running. This is how this part of the layout WILL BE built, it is not open to change.
In the first siding I have the yard locomotive, 4 cars and the caboose for a total of 6 pieces to this one train. Heck it could be run around the mainline as a complete train. This is why the sidings are NOT parallel to the mainline and why they ARE NOT going to be.
Note on the second siding there is the locomotive and 4 cars. Also note the distance between the front of the loco and the end of the switch. I AM NOT going to park the loco on the switch.
What I am going to consider doing, because of what appears to be an issue with clearance for the additional turnouts that have yet to be purchased and added is use a left hand turnout after the one right hand. This will put the switch machine on the outside and should still allow the sidings to be long enough and parallel to one another allowing for at least 4 cars and the locomotive to be parked on them. I used the left hand turnout from the parking spur to build a mock up and it appears it MIGHT work. If it doesn't the way I expect it to I'll figure it out and only ask for help here IF I need it.
Yes I know the wires are on top of the layout. I have not drilled the holes needed to run the wires under the deck to the power console. I also know I will have to cut and trim the roadbed. Which by now I am getting very good at doing.
SUX: You are confused that people are trying to help you?
You have asked a lot of questions and a lot of people have responded with what they hoped would be helpful answers, including me.
None of us are trying to force you to do anything that you don't want to do. All of us are trying to help you. Your paranoia is absolutely unjustified, and I think if you don't retract that statement you find that very few of us, if any, will be willing to follow your layout progress in the future.
We are engaged in a dialog here. By posting something it is assumed that you would appreciate feedback. If you don't want any more feedback then please say so clearly and we will leave you alone! I think you may already have done that but I am hoping that you don't really want to cut us all off. Your layout has a lot of potential and you have clearly given it a lot of thought. I think most of us would like to stay involved.
We are talking with you, not dictating to you. Personally I was enjoying the conversation, and the progress in your layout.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
SUX V R40 Rider I am confused as to why anyone is offering to help when I did not ask any questions. I was just trying to merely show what I have done so far, not ask for help. I am getting the feeling other are trying to convince me to create and build MY layout in the same style they built theirs. A while back when I asked some questions about something I was told, by more than one model railroader in these forums, that this is my layout and so it is only my rules that I should follow, not anyone else. So why is it when I do not ask for help or advice people are telling me to build my layout in their style? I find this kind of offensive. That said I have one at least one more reply stating what I AM GOING TO DO with MY layout. I am not asking for help on this. If you want to comment that is fine, but don't answer a question intended to help unless help is asked for.
I am getting the feeling other are trying to convince me to create and build MY layout in the same style they built theirs. A while back when I asked some questions about something I was told, by more than one model railroader in these forums, that this is my layout and so it is only my rules that I should follow, not anyone else.
So why is it when I do not ask for help or advice people are telling me to build my layout in their style? I find this kind of offensive.
That said I have one at least one more reply stating what I AM GOING TO DO with MY layout. I am not asking for help on this.
If you want to comment that is fine, but don't answer a question intended to help unless help is asked for.
WOW !
I can say little more other than to echo hon30critter's comments.
You say you are offended, but as someone who has commented on your threads and offered advice, some of which you have followed, I am astounded at your statements.
If you just want to post photos and make comments about your work, fine.
But, in turn, I would urge others not to comment at all. Make it a thread so one sided that it only contains your posts, nothing else. And I say that, respectfully, because that is obviously what you want.
But where does that leave you?
You know, from your own comments, that your track work could be improved. Others have merely commented on how it could be done in response to your implied call for help and advice.
I agree with hon20critter that a retraction of those comments is in order. Otherwise, why should we even bother to look at your threads and your photos?
SUX: I think your overreaction to the helpful comments made just... well, SUX.
Sux,Since I been doing things my way for 55 years I see no problem with your track as it is now nor was I all that concerned about the "S" curved you had since you will be running at slow switching speeds.
Of course if you start buying long freight cars and long 6 axle locomotives then you will run into problems with such tight radius switches.
Know and understand a lot of so called "experts" has come forth over the years and has muddled the water with their "expert advice"and the very basics of the hobby has been long forgotten especially how forgiving our models truly are.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Brakie,
(not for SUX)
You seem to hijack a thread again. My concern was about a wish from SUX. I might be wrong of course, but I thought Sux wanted to be able to have one train orbiting around over his oval and at the very same time doing some switching moves with a second engine. IMHO SUX's plan is not up to that. He wil be able to run just his switcher from one yardtrack to the other, but is this really performing feasable switching moves? You are the expert, being a brakeman for many years; are you the muddler as well?
Paulus Jas Brakie, (not for SUX) You seem to hijack a thread again. My concern was about a wish from SUX. I might be wrong of course, but I thought Sux wanted to be able to have one train orbiting around over his oval and at the very same time doing some switching moves with a second engine. IMHO SUX's plan is not up to that. He wil be able to run just his switcher from one yardtrack to the other, but is this really performing feasable switching moves? You are the expert, being a brakeman for many years; are you the muddler as well? Paul
Paul, I agree with you. Brakie is a respected member of the forum, but encouraging bad behavior is not a good thing.
He wil be able to run just his switcher from one yardtrack to the other, but is this really performing feasable switching moves? You are the expert, being a brakeman for many years; are you the muddler as well?
-----------------------
Paul,A small two track yard would not warrant a lead in fact the main line would be the lead..What many layout planers fail to understand not every yard is used for classification since there is several types of yards.That 2 track yard would be classified as a storage yard for local industry.My few HO loop layouts had a 2-3 track yard and was operated as a branch.My N Scale 36" x80" HCD layout had a 8 track yard and was used for classification.
-------------------------------------------
but encouraging bad behavior is not a good thing.
---------------------------------------------
Paul,I would hardly call 55 years of doing things my way "bad experience" especially since the things I did worked and worked quite well..
Can you prove that track plan won't work as designed?
My experience building small HO loop layouts taught me it will.
BTW.The biggest HO loop layout I ever built was a 4x8 footer..I used a combination of snap(sectional) and flex track with zero problems..The smallest was a 4x4 footer with a 2 track yard-all sectional track.
Getting back to the focus of the thread, which is SUX's LAYOUT, I think that SUX has made some great progress since he started the layout.
SUX, since you expressed a desire to switch the yard, it's no wonder that RetGM suggested adding a switch to create a true yard lead. in addition, his suggestion to use left-hand tornouts would not necessarily make the tracks parallel to the mains. He was suggesting having the turnout of the main, a slight right-hand curve, the switch for the lead, and then a right-hand turnout followed by several left-hand turnouts to give you plenty of yard capacity. Even if you want the yard configuration to remain the same, I would (tenetively) suggest that you angle the yard tracks more (remove the 1/3 turn after the mainline switch) to increase your yard track length. If you were to remove the short stright section as well, the gap could be filled with an Atlas left-hand switch to make your switching lead. From looking at the pictures, I can tell that the total length would be about the same. The diagram posted by Paulus Jas is close, but the yard would end up further to the back. If it does turn out to be too far forwards, just add a curved section to swing it towards the back.
In addition, that "industrial track" along the back could just be another yard track and give you another 3 or 4 cars in your yard.
Please understand that everyone is trying to show you possible ways in which you could make the layout more fun for you to operate. Your layout is greatly improving and I can't wait to see how your larger one progresses once you start construction.
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
Hi Brakie:
BRAKIECan you prove that track plan won't work as designed?
easily done:
BRAKIEA small two track yard would not warrant a lead in fact the main line would be the lead
with the mainline as yard lead, orbiting around by a second train is impossible. This was the original question: how to make operation by two trains possible! One road engine doing laps on the main, at the very same time the switcher performing its duties.
-------------------------
I must have missed that part..
In that case there is 3 things I would do.
1.Swing the yard track closer to the main to gain room.I would also consider 2 of the yard tracks curving along the main tracks.
2.Add another yard switch to gain car capacity.
3.Add the switch lead as suggested.
----------------------------
Seeing I've only built a small handful of small HO loop layouts I would follow my policy of a two track yard that serves a industrial branch or model a small shortline which I might fore go the yard for 2 industries-I favor 2 industries on each side.I would add a interchange track..
Curving the yard tracks would cause coupling issues and make it more difficult for the switcher to perform its duties. Angling the yard takes up space, but you gain in track length. In addition, you can add an indistry (a short industry) in front of the yard. If you angle the yard towards the back left corner, you'll have plenty of room.
Just something to consider.
Curving the yard tracks would cause coupling issues and make it more difficult for the switcher to perform its duties.
---------------------------
You are correct with your observation-I been there/done that.
However..
Experience taught me not to uncouple or couple on the curves just use the curves and the short track beyond for car storage and use a magnet and and just push the cars around the curve but,keep the first car of the cut on the straight section of track before the curve a 1/4 or 1/2 a car will suffice just as long as the coupler is on straight track.