With apologies to Byron Henderson... I will ask an 'unanswerable' question. I need a little help with the design of my small HO classification yard. Any thoughts or ideas/suggestions are very much appreciated!
Had some 'professional help' designing the yard (see pic below) and I don't think it is what I wanted. Specifically:
1. Wondering if 2 A/D tracks and 3 classification tracks will work?
2. Do I need a runaround for the switcher?
3. Why two double slip switches? Is this necessary or can I use #5s?
4. Where do I put engine servicing facilities?
A few basics:
1. This is HO scale and one square = 12 inches on the diagram below. Yard turnouts are currently #6s.
2. I model QGRY from Montreal to Quebec City modern day so equipment will be GP 38/40s and SD 40s with some CP SD-60s. Most freight cards will be 50' newsprint boxcars.
3. The yard will take up about the middle 10-12 feet of a 30' layout with industries on either side.
4. I am a pretty new modeller and am designing a railfanning layout for continuous running but want to grow into ops, so hope to have a useful small yard that will 'work'.
Thanks!
I can't help on the details as this is way past my smallish layout experience. But it is really nifty and if we ever move I'll sure consider something like this if I have the space.
On the double slips, if memory serves there was a thread a couple months ago where one of the experienced folks swore he would never use them again. You might want to find the thread. Might at least ensure you determine the most reliable brand.
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
well you have 4 yard tracks that are stub ended, and one them (near the "Ex 2" mark) is a reverse move stub. Stub ended can hold more cars, true, but as a realistic matter the only way to reach into the reverse move stub is to leave that last stub track mostly or entirely empty, so it almost becomes a moot point in terms of useful yard space. I'd be tempted to connect more of the stub ended to your main, and rethink the "why" behind the reverse move stub ended track, or connect it to the main too.
One way to test out a yard track plan is to lay it out on a fairly large sheet of paper or cardstock, and then make up small blocks of cardstock that represent freight cars (multi colors perhaps), with a pointed end one representing a locomotive, and actually "play" at switching and yarding and making up trains. Using the "sticky" end of post it notes to create these pretend cars and locomotives can make the effort a little less annoying. I think you'd quickly grasp just what it would be like to actually have this yard as-built without committing to it. If built to a "scale" you could also test just what your yard capacity would be per track, with due regard to the fouling points of the turnouts. Sometimes you learn you've purchased and installed a $20 Peco turnout so that you can store two cars -- a real eye opener of a "for this I spent $20?" moment.
I even see some published track plans where I have to wonder if the person who created it ever tested just what the car capacity is for the tracks that are SO easy to draw with pencil -- similarly, track plans that look SO spacious when the tracks are represented by a mere line that become so clogged looking when it becomes two rails connected by ties!
Dave Nelson
trafficdesign1. Wondering if 2 A/D tracks and 3 classification tracks will work?
The size of the yard and other design factors depend greatly on how the facility will be used. As it stands, your yard plan introduces some potential operational difficulties. I'll place the caveat up front that I'm not familiar with your specific prototype and am speaking in general terms.
One, yards this small rarely have dedicated A/D tracks. There were some articles many years back in some publications suggesting the use of such tracks in small yards, and now I see lots of modelers trying to use these ideas in yards far too small for them to be realistic. Dedicated A/D tracks make sense for some large classification yards, but for a small one like yours the prototype would be likely to have all the tracks available for interchangeable use, with trains able to come and go from any track.
You have room to put a full ladder (or two ladders side by side if needed) on both ends. This would allow trains to arrive or depart from any track going either direction. That keeps you from having to pull from the stub tracks to the double-ended ones to depart to the left in the plan.
You have various double-ended tracks, so there would appear to be some runarounds built in already.
Those aren't necessary. Unless your prototype had them, I'd avoid double slips. I've operated model yards featuring double slips, and find them to be very unfriendly to operators. Many people have difficulty sighting a route through a double slip so they introduce frustration and invite derailments due to incorrectly thrown points.
It looks to me like you have sufficient space to use normal crossovers to get in and out of the right side of the yard. They will look more realistic for most prototype situations and your operators will thank you. Over where your plan show "EX2" you can get by with one crossover to get from the yard to the main, and locate it to the right of the ladder so a train can get to and from any track. What you have right now as "A/D" tracks can connect to the regular ladder as in a typical prototype yard.
Where you have those spur looking tracks at the bottom left would be a great spot. While you're at it, eliminate the switchback into the stub track adjacent to the right hand ladder or make it double ended (making a switchback move into it would be inefficient and the railroad wouldn't normally do that if they could gain access from someplace else without such a move), and connect the switchback stub track at the very bottom to the right side ladder so you can use it as a thoroughfare/runner track to access the engine facility.
Here's a smaller yard on my layout showing a similar arrangement to what you could end up with. Note that trans can access any track through the ladder at each end. There a plain crossover on both ends between the siding and main. The engine service track connects to the far end of the thoroughfare/runner where the fascia starts to curve to the right.
Rob Spangler
peahrens On the double slips, if memory serves there was a thread a couple months ago where one of the experienced folks swore he would never use them again. You might want to find the thread. Might at least ensure you determine the most reliable brand.
That might have been me that you were thinking of, but if it was, I swore off double crossovers, not double slips.
I very much like double slips for two reasons (1) they are space savers and (2) they minimize S-curve configurations.
But, as someone already mentioned, double slips are tough to get right on movements. It is very easy to throw the two sets of point rails the wrong way.
Rich
Alton Junction
One A/D track should be sufficient but it could be extended to include a drill track.
I view a runaround track for a yard switcher as indispensible.
trafficdesignWith apologies to Byron Henderson... I will ask an 'unanswerable' question.
Since you are apparently referring to my blog post on yard discussions in forums, I'll point out that we have the same problem I mentioned there: not enough context to know if this is an appropriate design for your layout or not.
Having said that, the two double-slips are something that likely would never appear in a freight yard of this scope on the real railroad. Note that one simple crossover just to the right of the segment of the track plan that you showed would accomplish the same thing, leaving simple turnouts in the two double-slip locations.
Note also that if you will truly never have anything larger than 60’ cars, a yard made up of #5s (~26” radius equivalent) would probably suffice, rather than the #6s. Or if there may be a few auto racks or something similar, a mix of #6s for the "s-curve" locations, but the ladder built on a steeper angle with #5s in the rest of the ladder.
The switchbacked industry (I assume) tracks reached by the turnouts labeled “C” and “D” limit the length of your primary yard. Once you allow for clearance from adjacent tracks, the yard tracks might not be long enough for your desired operations, but it’s not possible to know without seeing the rest of the track plan, knowing your plans for staging and operating scheme, etc.
Sharing the full track plan and other information might help others help you more effectively.
Best of luck with your layout.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Thanks Rob! Great ideas/feedback... I have a couple of questions...
wp8thsub You have room to put a full ladder (or two ladders side by side if needed) on both ends. This would allow trains to arrive or depart from any track going either direction.
You have room to put a full ladder (or two ladders side by side if needed) on both ends. This would allow trains to arrive or depart from any track going either direction.
Wouldn't this seriously cut into the length of my classification tracks (especially if I add a ladder onto the left side)? I am hoping to run 10 car trains and figure I need 7 foot tracks for the 10 cars + 2 locos.
wp8thsub
Agreed but I was hoping to use the bottom left of the layout for a small industrial switching area with a few industries. Would some loco servicing work to the right of the right-hand side ladder?
As a general rule, I would prefer to have the main line on the aisle side and the yard to the rear of the shelf for two reasons. First off is a John Armstrong recommendation that you keep the parked train to the rear so you can watch the train on the main line go by. Secondly, you end up with longer yard tracks - especially when you have stub tracks that can go into the layout corner.
I believe the double slips are there to allow access to any yard track from either the main line or the yard lead (assuming that the 2 parallel tracks are main and yard lead). To provide that access with standard turnouts would require more real estate if you want to avoid the S curves as mentioned earlier. The operational difficulties can be overcome by the use of routes if DCC is part of the plan.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
carl425As a general rule, I would prefer to have the main line on the aisle side and the yard to the rear of the shelf for two reasons.
In my operating experience, often the opposite is true. Reaching into the yard for uncoupling and other tasks is easier if the main line is to the rear.
Note that John Armstrong (as great a thinker as he was, make no mistake) had virtually no experience in what we think of as “modern” model railroad operation. Most operating layouts don't "park" trains in the yards. The cars in the yards are there to be worked.
Bottom line, I don't think a hard-and-fast rule for the location of the main is that important. But that is just my opinion based on my experience.
cuyama carl425 As a general rule, I would prefer to have the main line on the aisle side and the yard to the rear of the shelf for two reasons. In my operating experience, often the opposite is true. Reaching into the yard for uncoupling and other tasks is easier if the main line is to the rear. Note that John Armstrong (as great a thinker as he was, make no mistake) had virtually no experience in what we think of as “modern” model railroad operation. Most operating layouts don't "park" trains in the yards. The cars in the yards are there to be worked.
carl425 As a general rule, I would prefer to have the main line on the aisle side and the yard to the rear of the shelf for two reasons.
Note, too, that on John Armstrong's Canandaugua Southern the main line passes to the rear of the yard tracks at Cattaraugus.
To the original question. A yard this size would probably serve a restricted industrial district with a single dedicated switcher, very possibly based at a larger yard with engine terminal some distance away. It might have some servicing facilities in that space below the 'double slips that shouldn't be', or it might not have any facilities at all. If there's a road adjacent to a track where a loco can pause for a few minutes without tying things in a knot the local petroleum products dealer could use a bobtail tank truck to refuel same, just like servicing a home heating system.
In days gone by, I railfanned a yard which had a dedicated local switcher (a butt-ugly 2-8-0) and just swapped cuts with through freights. The only servicing facilities were a couple of water cranes at the spots where the local freight 2-8-2s would have to hold for clear signals. If the 2-8-0 needed a drink it just ran over to the crane that serviced the UP departure track, swung the outlet over the tender (which was on the yard lead/thoroughfare track) and filled up.
There was a turntable at the far end of the yard, used once a day so the 2-8-0 could run to its home engine shed smokebox first. That engine shed was 31 kilometers up the line. The daily round trip wasn't wasted - the 2-8-0 pulled a full train in each direction.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
cuyamaSince you are apparently referring to my blog post on yard discussions in forums, I'll point out that we have the same problem I mentioned there: not enough context to know if this is an appropriate design for your layout or not.
Yes! I was referring to the post (as an aside really enjoy your posts) and do realize that I am light on details. This is not meant to be evasive but I don't know the answers to a lot of the questions that you pose due to my inexperience in OPS. For example, no idea as to the number of trains, etc.

I am building a layout that I hope I will 'grow into' as I become more experienced in OPS. I am trying to balance the fear of making a mistake at this point with the desire to get it built. Don't want to overthink, but...
cuyamaSharing the full track plan and other information might help others help you more effectively.
My vision is to create a continuous run HO scale layout that will be fun to build and fun to operate. I am looking for detailed scenery as that is my favourite part. I have two young sons aged 6 and 8 who will be running trains with me. I have chosen a prototype to keep me focused and ‘honest’ but I don’t want to become a slave to it. There will be headless horsemen, haunted houses and ghost trains. It’s my railroad…my rules. I am a beginner with basic experience so I want to grow and learn. Ops sessions are not important to me now but want to plan for future growth as I see them being more important in the future.I have chosen QGRY from Montreal to Quebec City. I’d like to create a fantasy layout roughly based on this prototype. I will be modeling current day freight operations and have decided to set the time of the layout as mid-October. Industries (see layout plan attached)1. Paper Mill (inputs chemicals and recycled paper pulp)2. Quarry3. Cement Quebec (limestone from Quarry)4. Port of Trois Rivieres (Grain and Intermodal?) Would like a number of end users to create customers for the above. ie.1. Printer for paper from the paper mill2. Aggregate or cement distributor3. Brewery or bakery for grain from PortInterchanges With CN and CP if possible
trafficdesign wp8thsub You have room to put a full ladder (or two ladders side by side if needed) on both ends. This would allow trains to arrive or depart from any track going either direction.
trafficdesignI am light on details. This is not meant to be evasive but I don't know the answers to a lot of the questions that you pose due to my inexperience in OPS. For example, no idea as to the number of trains, etc.
It's a chicken-and-egg situation, unfortunately. It will be a challenge to design a layout to support operating desires that are as yet unknown. Others may have more time than I have at the moment to offer suggestions, but in the space and overall arrangement that you have, there are certainly better choices for a yard configuration.
There are also a number of basic issues with the yard that most would consider problems, such as the double slips. I see also the second set of tracks nearby on the track plan that looks like a yard. If you can describe how you plan to use that in relation to the yard you first posted about, others may be able to offer some tips.
It can be difficult to design a layout from scratch without some background in best practices. Even if you don’t follow them all, it’s often helpful to know which well-accepted practices you are following and which you are eschewing – and why. John Armstrong’s Track Planning for Realistic Operation is a great resource.
It’s your layout, of course, but note that the current thinking is generally not to have the producers and customers for goods located on the same visible layout. Instead (and like the real railroad), either the source or destination of shipments are located “off the layout” in staging. It is not an absolute that operating layouts must have staging, but it’s something at least to know about and think about.
As you note, in real life the QGRY connects with at least the CN and CP (and perhaps other smaller railroads of which I am not aware), so those mainline connections (where cars are interchanged) are the source for a lot of the traffic that is then delivered to customers on the QGRY itself (and vice-versa).
That would probably be a place that I would begin – thinking about how to suggest those connections and then look at how your trains pick up cars at those interchanges, deliver them to customers, and then later send them back to the CP and CN. That basic car movement gives your layout a reason to exist as an operating railroad and the rest flows from there.
But that is a process that takes time, and not everyone wants to spend that time (which is perfectly fine – there are lots of ways to enjoy the hobby). So if you just want to build something and start moving cars around without worrying about the prototypical foundation, you might start with a more functional yard design (one with fewer idiosyncrasies) and work out from there. Rob Spangler’s simple and efficient yard is a good example to study, as are the examples Armstrong offers in Track Planning for Realistic Operation.
Best of luck.
Your yard is a good design in my opinion. It looks like the engine facility is to the left, at least that is where I would put it. (Those four dead end tracks.) If I would change anything, it would be to connect the engine facility to the yard by extending the facility track near the edge to the yard ladder. You could also take one of the AD tracks and make it a yard track. My present layout has one AD track and it works well. As for operations and a crew, there would one yard operator assigned. Not everyone would use the yard. Thats what the AD track is for. The yard guy makes up the train on the AD track and the train's engineer picks it up on the AD track. An incoming train arrives on the AD track and is turned over to the yard guy.
It is also a good thing that you are thinking about operations at this point. If your layout was not designed with operations in mind, chances are you would have a hard time converting to them later. With that in mind, you should also be thiniking about a couple of staging tracks where you can hold a couple of complete trains. A smal interchange yard (one or two tracks) would also be an asset.
The following yard is about as minimal as you can get.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
Kind of looks like mine. Main and passing siding in the back, caboose and engine service to the right." target="">
wrumbel Kind of looks like mine. Main and passing siding in the back, caboose and engine service to the right.
Kind of looks like mine. Main and passing siding in the back, caboose and engine service to the right.
Looks interesting. Can't seem to access the image though. Would you mind reposting a larger or hi-res image as I'd like to see the details of how you contstruced your yard ladders.
I'll Try to post again. I had trouble getting the picture to post. This is first post of image since new format here.
Wayne
wrumbel I'll Try to post again. I had trouble getting the picture to post. This is first post of image since new format here. Wayne
Got it. Thanks. It is amazing how similar the concepts are. Is this built and do you have any photos? If so, How does the yard work for you? Are you happy with it? Specifically, what is your average train car length and does the yard 'operate' well?
Just a couple of comments to supplement the good observations already made:
• As noted, double slips save space which is why I used one at the throat of my yard. It is a #6 by Walthers/Shnohara and works very well. One does have to pay attention to correctly throwing the points to achieve the proper route, but 99+% of the time I am the sole operator and usually-not always!-get it right. Any error is easy to correct, again, if one pays attention!
• That reverse stub might be intended by the designer to either be a caboose track or a stub for the yard switcher, not an industrial spur.
Dante
Yes this was built in 2008. The lower left is hidden storage with the longest track at 8ft. I can pull the whole train into the A/D track, remove engine and send to service area, then move switcher to move into yard and remove the caboose and move to caboose track. I've been doing some switching but not ops yet. The yard seems to work for what I had in mine; trains from one way or the other; set out cars or pick up cars; sort and send arrivals to industries in main town or to mine.
wp8thsub You can wrap the ladder around the corner using alternate arrangements like a so called "pinwheel" or whatever if needed. Your plan suggests you could extend the tracks without losing much capacity, if any.
You can wrap the ladder around the corner using alternate arrangements like a so called "pinwheel" or whatever if needed. Your plan suggests you could extend the tracks without losing much capacity, if any.
Rob, I'd like to explore this a bit more... your idea has stimulate much thinking! Given the track plan below; would I have room to start the yard ladder on the right hand curve using a pinwheel ladder and end it by the hard stop?
I am trying to figure out if it is a more productve use of space to have the yard where it currently resides in the middle of the layout or to start it on the right curve and end it where indicated. This translates into approx. 12 horizontal feet not including the downward curve.
My goal is to have a small, functional yard that works to sort trains of 10 cars and 2 locos (approx. 7-8 feet long).
Scale is HO, Code 83 Peco track and #5 turnouts. One square = 12 inches. Total length of the layout is just over 30 feet long.
Any ideas of where to locate the yard is very much appreciated.
If you go back to my post from several days ago and look at the hidden storage area you'll see I have both a pinwheel and straight ladder. the straight ladder was made because it became part of my continuous run, it's all #6 Atlas. The pinwheel starts with a #6 and the rest are Atlas #4 which most people say is a #4.5 close to your Peco #5. I've since added another #4 to the straight leg of the #6. This is being used to store my RDC for now but that is going to lead into another storage yard in the closest which is on the other side of the wall. I only mention this because of the pinwheel straight ladder so you can see the difference in track length.
I've lost 25 pounds over the past 2 years. The biggest reason I wanted to do this? I could no longer fit into the space between my carfloat and the rest of my layout. I had outgrown my own aisles.
So, "Does this yard make me look fat?" No, not anymore.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
trafficdesignGiven the track plan below; would I have room to start the yard ladder on the right hand curve using a pinwheel ladder and end it by the hard stop?
I think you'd have room to start farther to the right. I'd suggest keeping the rest of the yard approximately where it is and make all the treacks double-ended. If you move one of the ladders, make sure you still have room for a switching lead that's long enough.
I am trying to figure out if it is a more productve use of space to have the yard where it currently resides in the middle of the layout or to start it on the right curve and end it where indicated.
You'll never regret leaving yourself more capacity. You say you want to run 10 car trains. In the process of cars coming and going, it's likely that you'll end up with more cars for a given block showing up at times than your maximum train length, and if you design the yard to handle only trains of that length you're setting yourself up for gridlock.
wp8thsub I think you'd have room to start farther to the right. I'd suggest keeping the rest of the yard approximately where it is and make all the treacks double-ended.
I think you'd have room to start farther to the right. I'd suggest keeping the rest of the yard approximately where it is and make all the treacks double-ended.
I agree however here's the thing… I am trying to fit in a river with some bridges. This is not vanity or just for scenery but actually exists on my Proto type. It's a design element that I really want to keep. My choice is to leave it where it is right now OR to start the yard with the pinwheel ladder to the right and move the river scene over to the middle of the layout. If I move it to the middle of the layout then I lose 3 feet off of the left side of the yard.
I know that this hobby is all about making compromises and I know that you can't have it all so my question is what'a better a big yard or the River scene. That's what I'm struggling with now. It was my hope that the pinwheel ladder to the right would save enough spot space that I could fit entire yard in before the line indicated where it needs to end.