teen steam fan wrote: why do car numbers have to be used?. --snip-- only reason it should go by car numbers is reefers of perishalbes. Or load the cars as they are assembled on a train?
why do car numbers have to be used?. --snip--
only reason it should go by car numbers is reefers of perishalbes. Or load the cars as they are assembled on a train?
If the object is to model the business of railroading, the CONTENTS of each car are important. It wouldn't be a clever idea to have a carload of red fuming nitric acid adjacent to a carload of hydrazine. (If you want to know why, google Titan II explosion.) The only way to operate accurately is with car cards and waybills, and the thing that ties the system together is the uniqueness of each car number - especially when the yard contains a dozen identical boxcars with a dozen different loads, some just as incompatible as the example above.
Cars are not loaded as they are placed in a train. They are loaded by shippers (and unloaded by receivers) and only transported from loading point to unloading point by the railroad.
Of course, if prototype operation isn't your thing, you don't have to do this - but please bear in mind that other people DO.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with LOTS of staging)
Staging is good for one other reason than operation: Simple car storage. Consider that in HO one car, is half a foot long minimum. Consider the idea that you may be building cars for many years. 20 cars is ten feet, 100 cars is 50 feet etc. If you keep the same layout over many years, you can easily fill up all of your storage space with cars...
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
Capt. Grimek wrote:Just a thought:I think it's very important here to make your pro or con points by saying how large your layouts are.If you are indeed only one operator or maybe two, it can make a big difference on whether or notstaging is a given or a druther for you or for a new builder to decide if it's essential for the minimum space the have available to build.I know ideally, we'd all love LOTS of staging whether hidden or not but...I know when I read the above posts, my first thought was "But how big is their layout"?Do you think that's valid?
I am in the process of building a very large layout (46x26). One thing I have learned already is no matter how much space you have, it is not enough. Model railroad real estate is precious and staging yards requires devoting a good percentage of that real estate to it. Larger layouts will probably require more staging capacity although not necessarily proportionally. There are a number of tricks which can reduce the amount of space needed for staging. One way is by stacking staging yards on top of each other or put the staging yard beneath the visible portion. This does raise issues with the grade required to bring the trains to the visible portion and as a previous poster pointed out, if you use just the minimum clearance for the lower staging yard, you can have problems with access and visibility. Another trick is to put the staging yard behind a viewblock such as a hill or row of buildings. By doing so, the staging yard will share the length with a visible portion of the layout and only require some additional width.
Without staging, the modeler must imagine that the trains have arrived in his visible yard at some time before the operating session began and departing trains will leave after the session. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Imagination is a prerequisite for this hobby. A staging yard allows the modeler to actually make those incoming and outgoing movements rather than imagining they have happened. It also allows arrival and departures to occur during the operating session. This greatly increases then number of trains that can be run during a giving session. Simply put staging yards increase the operating capacity of a layout at the cost of some real estate. For me that's a good trade off but everyone's situation is different. Staging might actually be more important on smaller layouts since it can greatly increase the number and variety of trains that can be run.
I model the Kansas City Southern (Kansas City area and south in 1981. The KCS Knoche Yard a..k.a. Joint Agency Terminal is the northern terminus of the Kansas City Southern and is shared with the Milwaukee and serves as the southern terminus for the Milwaukee. My layout will model a condensed version of this yard. The KCS and MILW lines out of Kansas Citer were primarily bridge lines with not much switching. I will make up both KCS and MILW trains in Kansas City and send them out over the line to staging.
I am constructing a large layout using modular (domino) sections. It will take years to complete the layout so I have constructed two four track (1' x 16') modular staging yards which are at each end of the layout. As I add on to the layout I just move the staging yards.
I will also have several small staging yards to represent some of the lines (ATSF, BN, CNW, ICG, KCT, MKT, MP, NW, SSW, UP) which interchange with the KCS in Kansas City. These yards will be variable in assignment. If a friend comes over to operate and is a UP fan, then one of these yards will be the UP and bring cars on the layout to interchange with the KCS/MILW.
I also like to just watch trains roll. In between operating sessions I can pull a train out of staging; run it arround the layout; and park it in staging; without disrupting the set-up for an operating session.
Do you have to have a staging yard? NO, but I believe they enhance layout operations.
Jim, Modeling the Kansas City Southern Lines in HO scale.
My staging yard has 12 tracks. It serves for two destinations.
Wolfgang
Pueblo & Salt Lake RR
Come to us http://www.westportterminal.de my videos my blog
Having some sort of staging will add infinitely to your interest in running trains whether you're a train order and time table guy or a roundy rounder. Just having the ability to swap one train for another makes it more fun to watch your trains go.
As was described earlier, if you are modeling any kind of through operations, staging makes it possible to run a more complete schedule of trains. I have an 8 track staging yard, and once I got it hooked into the main line, I was able to do far more with my layout, and increase the "play" value infinitely. Between it and the "live" yard I have, plus a couple of sidings on the layout proper, at any given moment I can call upon any one of over a dozen trains that are ready to roll.
Having a staging yard is also good for stimulating the economy, since you'll have to buy many, many more freight cars!
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Layout, 3 decks, size 28' by 33'. Because of the area of the Santa Fe I am modeling, I use 5 staging yards. First is Oklahoma City south and north. 8 tracks. Also have two yards, Nowers and Flynn yards, both visible and working. Arkansas City staging 7 tracks. Arkansas City and Oklahoma City stagings are in a "mole hole" area but different levels, trains are removed and added for both yards in the "hole".
Third staging is Waynoka Okla, a visible 8 track staging area. Fourth is the Oklahoma Northern staging at Cherokee, 3 tracks (freelance regional). Fifth is Tulsa Cherokee Yard on BN, 6 tracks. This yard is also reachable from the "mole hole" area.
In addition, the UP (ex CRIP) at Oklahoma City has a stub end hidden siding for staging. The BN at Oklahoma City also has a hidden siding for staging.
About it.
My last layout had basically one-track "staging". I run by myself, so at the end of an operating "session" I would prepare the next sessions train, like a wayfreight, and set it on the one track which went from an off-layout fiddle/storage area to the mainline. The train would eventually go thru a reverse loop, and head back to staging where it would be manually broken down and a new train made up. The layout before that had something similar, but it was on the layout itself - basically a long siding parallel to the mainline, and within easy reach of my storage tracks.
Since my new layout is going to have more trackage and will be able to run two trains at a time(and because I have more space now), I'm planning on maybe a 4-5 car staging track with storage underneath it.
Capt. Grimek wrote:I know when I read the above posts, my first thought was "But how big is their layout"?Do you think that's valid?
Not really, in my experience. I've designed layouts as small as 1X6 in N scale that had staging (the car float and interchange track) ...
... and as large as about 25'X40' in HO that had none. This was a railfanning/display type of layout and while I think that staging would have helped it a lot, the owner didn't agree. He had zero interest in operations and wanted all his prized trains sitting around out in the open for all to see. (In my view, having some secluded staging, even on a railfan-style layout, is nice to vary the consists people see.)So it's not size at all, IMHO, it's one's intentions for the layout. If you enjoy imagining your layout as interconnected with the rest of the world, staging helps. If you are interested in a variety of cars and engines on the layout at various times, staging helps. If you want to be able to use your visible yards for the extra fun and interest of making-up and breaking-down trains rather than being forever clogged as storage, staging helps.
ByronModel RR Blog
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
why do car numbers have to be used? why just go:
1 car of coal
5 tankers of ...
2 flatbeds of steel
exc. exc.
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!
Raised on the Erie Lackawanna Mainline- Supt. of the Black River Transfer & Terminal R.R.
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
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!
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
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
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
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/
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.
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. :(
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
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
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!
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.
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.
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....
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
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.
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.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
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
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?
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..
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