Trainman24 wrote:I have a 12'x20' ft. layout and after I built the table i forgot to put in room staging yard. I can fit a SMALL staging yard, 3 to 4 tracks..............................but no room for a helix. I can add a small incline to make it work, but it might have some problems. Will that be big enough??? Any comments will be appreciated!!! Thanks
I have slightly less room than you and I have figgered out multi-level shelf modules. I could have hidden staging but went against that idea to keep everything visible and scenicked. But there are tricks to make staging possible even if its not hidden. An interchange track can serve exactly the same thing, I have Walther's Car Float which I will use as an excuse to bring cars on/off the layout. I will have no serious "traditional" yard but will have a freight terminal that generates plenty of freight traffic (Chicago early fifties South Water Street area)
So there's plenty of tricks out there without a staging yard needed.
Your need for staging will be driven by your operating plan, your rolling stock roster and your sense of what is (or isn't) right.
In my case, working with the prototype's timetable, I designed (and am building) my staging first. To make the timetable work, I have to be able to store and retrieve 16 freights (9 with catenary motors, 7 with steam locos) and eight assorted through passenger consists, plus five EMU cars that mix and match to cover 43 weekday schedule slots! Add in that most have to be turned (hello, hidden reversing loops!) and provision to attach cassette 'car ferries' to one hidden yard lead and the end result is that the netherworld is more extensive and more complex than the visible track will ever be.
I don't recall which of the Allegheny coal protolancers said that you will find that you need 2n plus 1 staging tracks, n being the number you thought would be adequate. In my previous modeling, I found that to be true.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Do you need staging? Almost without exception! Where would your railroad traffic come from and go to without staging? I can think of some scenarios (like industrial tram railroads) when it isn't necessary, but that would be exceptional.
Mark
Staging tracks do not have to be the huge long yards that you see on some Ntrak modular layouts. Even a few "interchange" tracks that disappear behind a building or hill or backdrop can provide an opportunity to move off-road cars onto the layout and send other cars off into the rest of the rail network in a realistic manner. You would stock/restock these tracks between sessions. Anything to avoid the monotony of running the same cars over and over.
Depending on your prototype, one very compact version of staging can be a car float. A simple block of wood shaped a bit and painted can look roughly like a float and would not have to take up too much room to give you 9 or more cars worth of staging -- plus unloading it in an accurate manner, trying to keep the float balanced, can itself be a way to spend enjoyable time. There is a short chapter by Mike Ziegler in Walthers' Waterfront book about how to do this.
Dave Nelson
Staging is an essential part of prototypical operations, for it represents the "off stage" areas of your railroad. A staging yard with sufficient capacity is a must, but in lieu of sufficient capacity, any staging will do.
On my layout, which is under construction, lower level staging is actually a fiddle yard, it being the one area on the layout where someone will actually build trains using the "Oklahoma Hook" (one's hand), placing them into the appropriate tracks by locomotive power. The tracks represent specific locations, even though they coexist in the same area on the layout, i.e., two tracks represent Bayshore Yard in San Francisco; another two tracks represent Mission Bay Yard in San Francisco; two tracks represent Newhall Street in San Jose and another track represents College Park in San Jose. A final staging track is used for San Francisco to Los Gatos Commutes. All staging tracks are in the same immediate area on the layout. In pinch times, some tracks may do double duty; for example, Mission Bay may also double as the 3rd and Townsend passenger depot between freights.
Your situation seems doable. Keep the actual staging tracks, from fouling point to end of track perfectly level. You can build it behind anything that covers it, such as aforementioned buildings, trees or a false backdrop. A grade to or from the tracks shouldn't be an issue if the incline is reasonable. Also look below your layout for staging opportunities. Building a gentle grade down can also give you room beneath the layout for extensive staging. Visible staging is another option, placing the tracks on a shelf above the layout.
I know of one local layout where two railroads share staging tracks. Anything is possible and there really shouldn't be any hard and fast rules; but staging (or fiddle yards) are essential no matter the capacity for prototypical operation..
If you are operating, then any staging multiplies by a large factor your operating abilities.
The rule of thumb for the most part is the more the better. If you ask people who built layouts what their mistakes were, the #1 most common answer is inadequate staging.
You are still early enough in the process to rethink and get as much staging as you can. There are tricks as others have pointed out.
It might not hurt to read my article:
What is staging and why do I need it?
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Yes you need staging if you are going to operate. I used a 2' x 6' peice and pivoted one end. It swings to line up with the in/out bound track. I got 8 tracks on it and all are full lenght, no switches that really eat up space. Works so far. This is a common thing on English display layouts. Thats where I got the idea.
Dave
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
riogrande5761 wrote:The Rio Grande doesn't lend itself much to switching as a RR anyway.
Say what?
Oh, must be one of those railfan prototypes that just run around the mountains and don't bother delivering freight. Must have done well at it to buy the Southern Pacific.
SpaceMouse wrote: riogrande5761 wrote:The Rio Grande doesn't lend itself much to switching as a RR anyway.Say what?Oh, must be one of those railfan prototypes that just run around the mountains and don't bother delivering freight. Must have done well at it to buy the Southern Pacific.
I was talking about your typical industrial switching that people like on model railroads. Many, including Jim Eager, have stated plainly that the Rio Grande doesn't lend itself to modeling industrial switching operations. It didn't run "around the mountains" and not bothering to deliver freight. Duh, it ran Thru the Rockies, not around them!
Trainman24 wrote:I can fit a SMALL staging yard, Thanks
There are a lot of cool ways to add staging that take up little space. My own 3x5 "test" layout has a drop leaf staging track. Other solutions include removable cassettes, horizontal elevators where the train is lifted up to a staging yard, sector plates to reduce yard throat size, a cart that can be hooked to the railroad during operations, etc. The lack of a need for scenery makes for a lot of options.
Give it some thought and you may find more space then you thought you had available..
Good luck!
Chris
selector wrote:It really depends on how you "drive" your layout, and how much driving you do. If you keep everything on the layout, and have lots of everything, well...four tracks is probably rock bottom in terms of efficacy for staging. Then again, what is the true capacity of those four tracks? Will they be double-ended, as in drive-through? If stub, they'll really be limited in their utility. Just ask me.
Thats all I have are 3 stub tracks about 7' in length and believe me they're worth their weight in gold!
Heres an old picture but it gives you the general idea....
riogrande5761 wrote: The Rio Grande doesn't lend itself much to switching as a RR anyway.
riogrande5761 wrote:I was talking about your typical industrial switching that people like on model railroads. Many, including Jim Eager, have stated plainly that the Rio Grande doesn't lend itself to modeling industrial switching operations. It didn't run "around the mountains" and not bothering to deliver freight. Duh, it ran Thru the Rockies, not around them!
Former DRGW employee Mike McLaughlin wrote an interesting article about some of the DRGW's local freight switching operations in Layout Design News #6, August 1991 (published by the Layout Design SIG). Focusing on industrial urban switching in Salt Lake City and Ogden, UT, Mike showed some very intricate and intensive trackage in these areas. To quote Mike from the article, "Note the extensive industrial trackage, tight curves, crossings, street running, two railroads serving the same industry, etc."
These would be fine subjects for an industrial switching layout, although it's certainly true that the more commonly held notion of the DRGW is based on its mainline. Whether modeling mainlines or industrial switching areas, staging of some sort helps suggest that the visible scene connects in some way with the rest of the world. This adds realism, in my opinion.
ByronModel RR Blog
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyama wrote: riogrande5761 wrote: The Rio Grande doesn't lend itself much to switching as a RR anyway. riogrande5761 wrote:I was talking about your typical industrial switching that people like on model railroads. Many, including Jim Eager, have stated plainly that the Rio Grande doesn't lend itself to modeling industrial switching operations. It didn't run "around the mountains" and not bothering to deliver freight. Duh, it ran Thru the Rockies, not around them! Former DRGW employee Mike McLaughlin wrote an interesting article about some of the DRGW's local freight switching operations in Layout Design News #6, August 1991 (published by the Layout Design SIG). Focusing on industrial urban switching in Salt Lake City and Ogden, UT, Mike showed some very intricate and intensive trackage in these areas. To quote Mike from the article, "Note the extensive industrial trackage, tight curves, crossings, street running, two railroads serving the same industry, etc."These would be fine subjects for an industrial switching layout, although it's certainly true that the more commonly held notion of the DRGW is based on its mainline. Whether modeling mainlines or industrial switching areas, staging of some sort helps suggest that the visible scene connects in some way with the rest of the world. This adds realism, in my opinion.ByronModel RR Blog
Byron, I'll pass your info along to the Rio Grande Yahoo Groups email list as soon as it stops bouncing emails. It will be interesting to see what comments it generates. Thanks.
As for the Rio Grande "proper", not so much connected industrial trackage, I think that is what Jim Eager meant about there not being a lot of "online" switching opportunities relative to most other major railroads.
Do you NEED staging. No. Model railroads have been built for years without them. Do staging yards add to the operational capability of a layout. Absolutely. Hidden staging yards represent the rest of the world, beyond the visible portion of the layout. They give your trains a place to go to and arrive from. They give a layout purpose and enhance the feeling that the railroad extends beyond the basement.
Switching layouts don't require storage since most of the operations revolve around moving cars from yards to industries and vice versa. A staging yard allows trains to bring cars to the visible yard and move them out again. However, in a given operating session, that is not a move that is required. It can easily be imagined that the cars in a visible yard at the start of a session have been brought in from off the layout without actually simulating that move.
Likewise, on a roundy-round, point-to-point, point-to-loop, or out-and-back layout, trains can be made up in a visible yard, run around the layout setting out and picking up cars from industrial spurs and then return to the same yard or a second visible yard. Again, the imagination prop can be a substitute for the cars being brought into the yard from points beyond the layout.
Staging yards allow the movement of trains from points beyond the layout to be executed rather than simply imagined. If you have the space for one or more staging yards, they are certainly worth it. A single staging yard can represent any number of other destinations or points of origination. If you have room for more than one staging area, so much the better. However, if space is at a premium, there is no reason you can't forgo this aspect of layout design and still have a lot of fun running your layout.
jecorbett wrote: Do you NEED staging. No. Model railroads have been built for years without them. Do staging yards add to the operational capability of a layout. Absolutely. Hidden staging yards represent the rest of the world, beyond the visible portion of the layout. They give your trains a place to go to and arrive from. They give a layout purpose and enhance the feeling that the railroad extends beyond the basement. Switching layouts don't require storage since most of the operations revolve around moving cars from yards to industries and vice versa. A staging yard allows trains to bring cars to the visible yard and move them out again. However, in a given operating session, that is not a move that is required. It can easily be imagined that the cars in a visible yard at the start of a session have been brought in from off the layout without actually simulating that move. Likewise, on a roundy-round, point-to-point, point-to-loop, or out-and-back layout, trains can be made up in a visible yard, run around the layout setting out and picking up cars from industrial spurs and then return to the same yard or a second visible yard. Again, the imagination prop can be a substitute for the cars being brought into the yard from points beyond the layout. Staging yards allow the movement of trains from points beyond the layout to be executed rather than simply imagined. If you have the space for one or more staging yards, they are certainly worth it. A single staging yard can represent any number of other destinations or points of origination. If you have room for more than one staging area, so much the better. However, if space is at a premium, there is no reason you can't forgo this aspect of layout design and still have a lot of fun running your layout.
Well said. I agree completely.
The two layouts I have built thus far are as follows:
First layout: 16x19' hollow L. Track plan was essentially a 3 track tear drop loop to another 3 track tear drop loop with radii 28, 30.5 and 33-inches and storage capacity 13-15 feet trains. The run between the loops included a single track mainline with one passing track 15' long and a yard with about 8 tracks or so. This was my modest first effort in a garage and build in sections so it could be moved. Then end loops could allow me to store 2 trains in staged tracks and one track open to pass/return a train the other direction.
2nd layout: 14x 19' folded dogbone. Track plan had a large long yard along one long wall with the 10 track staging underneath (18 to 24 capacity). It was essentially a large circle between the yard and the staging track with single track mainline and one 18 foot long passing track. This was a bit more of a decent sized railfanning layout but did include a coal mine and some switching in the yard with industry. (Grande Junction Colorado). The layout mainline was almost complete when I had to move out of the house. :(
jecorbett wrote: Do you NEED staging. No. Model railroads have been built for years without them. Do staging yards add to the operational capability of a layout. Absolutely. Hidden staging yards represent the rest of the world, beyond the visible portion of the layout. They give your trains a place to go to and arrive from. They give a layout purpose and enhance the feeling that the railroad extends beyond the basement. Snippage
Snippage
Excellent post.
I have four staging yards on my 12 x 16 GER and just can't imagine running a model railroad, Vs just running trains, without staging yards. Mine are 8 track single ended yard, a double track double connected yard and two single track yards.
Cheers
Roger T.
Home of the late Great Eastern Railway see: - http://www.greateasternrailway.com
For more photos of the late GER see: - http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l99/rogertra/Great_Eastern/
I'm going to be presenting the no staging yard point of view and going against conventional wisdom for this post. The example to use is my father's HO layout, which while still under construction was designed without staging for the following reasons:
1.) There is a fair sized yard on the layout. Trains will be made up there, assigned power, run through the layout (24' x 24') which includes them being out of sight from the yard, so imagination can tell us the train coming into the yard is a different train then left and can be broken down upon arrival. Think of it as a point to point with the yard being in two seperate places and it helps.
2.) Less rolling stock needed. Since it's all either in the yard waiting to go, at an industry, or currently in movement, rather than sitting in staging, less equipment is needed to fill layout needs.
3.) Solo operator, or at most two to three. Plain and simple, there's enough to do with what's on the layout. Now if you have a large crew, then staging makes more sense. With the small group...one to run the yard, one to run the "through train/fast freight/whatever you call it that's mainly just traveling over the layout" and one to run the local.
There are a few negatives I can think of doing it this way. With no staging.
1.) Rolling stock variety. Might be a small issue, but not too bad in my mind or my father's (who was the one that came to me and said, "why so much staging? That seems complicated") Even then, simply change cars between operating sessions.
2.) When not in operation yard is full. Ok, so not exactly prototypical that way since "stored" cars aren't generating money but...I don't think this is a big deal, plus surely even prototype yards get backed up from time to time right? It thins out pretty fast.
3.) Passenger trains. This is the big one for me. The only solution I can think of in a non-staging scheme is to leave them where they end the previous session.
Just some thoughts from the other side.
-Matt
Do I need a staging yard? HOO BOY, do I need a staging yard!! I've got one medium sized yard on my Yuba River Sub, but it doesn't do the job for the long freights that I tend to run. I DESPERATELY need an 'off-set' staging yard for making up and breaking up trains so that I'm not in the present position of 'roundy-roundy' running, with the same eastbound train suddenly appearing westbound about ten minutes later. It's a forthcoming project, and thankfully I have room on the other side of the garage for one. It's simply a matter of 'negotiation' with myself as to how I'll get the trains to it .
I wouldn't say that every model railroad 'needs' a staging yard, but in my case, I'm still kicking myself because one wasn't in the original plan when I built the layout some seven years ago. Same for a turntable. Right now my main yard at Deer Creek is also supposedly the spot where "Valley" power is turned over to heavier "Mountain" power and vice-versa, but without a turntable, I have to use an 0-5-0 to do the turnaround. Not terribly bright, right?
Hopefully, this summer I can cure both little problems.
But yes, I DO need a staging yard. A BIG one, LOL!
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
If you can read this... thank a teacher. If you are reading this in english... thank a veteran
When in doubt. grab a hammer.
If it moves and isn't supposed to, get a hammer
If it doesn't move and is supposed to, get a hammer
If it's broken, get a hammer
If it can't be fixed with a hammer... DUCK TAPE!
Do you have to have staging to operate? Well, nope. Not required. John Allen had no staging yard(s) and he was very serious about operation.
Whether you need (or just want) staging depends a lot on how you're planning to run trains.
For the railfans that like to put a train in orbit and then watch it run what's needed is a place to store trains (or cuts of cars). A yard works ok for this purpose, especially if it has double ended tracks. A staging area is just moving that yard out of (readily) viewable areas so a yard packed full of cars doesn't impinge on one's sense of reality.
For the industrial switcher staging can be a good thing but still not required. My friend Len has an industrial switching layout in a 2 car garage with a moderate sized yard. Trains come out of the yard and head off to the various industrial districts to do their thing then return to the yard. He has lots of cross pollenating industries on his layout (industries get commodities coming from other industries). This means that a yard crew breaks down and classifies the cars returning with each train. Cars headed for another industry get put in a train going that way. Cars headed 'off-layout' are imagined to have made the transition and the destination fairy comes around and re-bills those cars. If Len had staging the off-layout cars could actually head off layout. In effect his yard functions as a combination of staging and a 'fiddle yard' (where consists and cars get fiddled by ugly out-of-scale giants).
For the mainline railroad things are a bit different. Especially for lines with bridge traffic. My BC&SJ falls into this category. There are currently three staging areas on the BC&SJ, Pocatello (east), Salem (west), and Deschutes (north). Trains are either 'bridge' traffic running from staging area to staging area, online traffic running from staging area to the South Jackson yard (or vice versa), or local traffic running from the yard to industries needing service. Staging provides a delineated area from trains to come from and go to that is not part of the modeled world. That separation can make a big difference.
To keep up a level of background traffic the Pocatello and Salem yards have 5 tracks each. An alternative would be active staging (such as used by Lee Nicholas on his Utah Colorado Western ucwrr.com ) where a mole operator dynamically builds trains during a session rather than needing to prebuild them. This has the advantage of needing less rolling stock and smaller staging yards, but the equipment gets handled a lot more - not good for those $30 intermountain and red caboose cars). I couldn't see how to incorporate a mole so I'm making do with static staging.
When fully built the BCSJ operations are geared toward driving a large yard. The flow of traffic to and from this yard implies that the layout needs to have high bandwidth - that is there need to be lots of places for cars to come from and go to. Some of these places are online, some are offline (staging). Without the large staging areas ops would get a bit sleepy.
Even with the current, truncated (incomplete) version of the Bear Creek the two main staging areas tend to be jammed full of cars.
The current (truncated) trackplan of the BC&SJ.
I think it was Tony the K who suggested that to size a staging area you should figure out how many tracks you think you'll need, then double it and add 1 more!
This picture shows Pocatello staging with a fair amount of stuff in it. Above it on the upper deck is Salem staging.
The double and + 1 number is overkill for many layouts. In particular if you model a branch line and only will run a single (or a few) trains staging isn't necessary. For example, try modeling a junction with another railroad and track running to some major industry (major enough to justify have track run to it). It passes some other industries on the way. Operation is collect the interchange cars from the junction then run out and back switching as you go. A small passenger train (or railbus) might also operate. No staging is necessary. Is this only for small layouts? Not necessarily, it depends on how you define 'small'. If small is defined by the number of car spots needing switching then a layout could be a 2000 sqft monster and still have only sleepy branchline operation. There's just a lot more track and scenery between those industries!
I chose to include a fair amount of staging in my design because I wanted a constant parade of traffic across the layout interfering with locals getting their jobs done and making life difficult at the yards where the switcher needs to take time off from car-baning (classification) to swap blocks with passing haulers. But I also know that I'm going to need a not inconsiderable crew (lotsa guys) to run this sucker. That was a deliberate decision because I really like the part of the hobby where there is a crew of guys bumping elbows and trading rude comments (or sometimes nice ones) about each others operational habits.
If you do have staging yards it's a good idea to make them at least somewhat visible. Tucking staging under the main deck with 5" of overhead clearance might sometimes seem necessary but it's nearly impossible to see trains moving on the rear tracks let alone rerail something on the ties back there and even worse, needing to do track repair in there. Provide lighting for subterranean staging areas. And if they are really hidden a closed ciruit tv system may be a life saver. But in general, if you have to do more than bend over a little to see 'em moving under the layout, in my opionion it's time for a redesign.
There are other types of staging too besides having a conventional staging yard.
The question of whether or not to have staging comes down to is what are you trying to do with your layout. It's hard to simulate mainline operation without staging! But other styles of layout don't need it. However, almost all layouts can benefit from staging but many don't absolutely require it.
The best time to decide whether to have staging or not is as the operating plan is being developed which should be happening in tandem with the track plan. Trying to retrofit staging into a plan can be a nasty business.
Regards,
Charlie Comstock
Raised on the Erie Lackawanna Mainline- Supt. of the Black River Transfer & Terminal R.R.
why do car numbers have to be used? why just go:
1 car of coal
5 tankers of ...
2 flatbeds of steel
exc. exc.
only reason it should go by car numbers is reefers of perishalbes. Or load the cars as they are assembled on a train?