Layout Design fro a 24'x24' space -> Yard questions, fiddle board and SCARM files attached

Rob,

Two comments:

1.  About your fiddle yard - the key element you are missing is an Arrival / Departure track with a runaround track outside of your fiddle yard area.  However, I would also think that 3 car yard tracks are going to be just too short for real fun.  Review the 10 Commandments of Railroad Yards attachment.

2.  Generally about your plan - mainlines seem to run through too many switches.  The more trains moving at any speed have to go through switches, the more likely derailments will occur, lessening your fun quotient.

Wish I had your space.

Chuck

Chuck,

Thank you for your review.  I do not think I can follow the commandments listed for yards.  On review of that document, I have realized that yard size is driven by train length.  Take a look at the attached SCARM file and picture.  For a 10 car train with locomotive and caboose, I would need a linear distance of close to 39 feet, assuming that my yard lead is as long as the longest yard leg.  In this example the longest yard leg is approximately 12 cars long.  The given here is that the average car length is 40 feet with a scale length of 12 inches coupler to coupler.

Any suggestions?

PRR1950 posted:

Rob,

Two comments:

1.  About your fiddle yard - the key element you are missing is an Arrival / Departure track with a runaround track outside of your fiddle yard area.  However, I would also think that 3 car yard tracks are going to be just too short for real fun.  Review the 10 Commandments of Railroad Yards attachment.

2.  Generally about your plan - mainlines seem to run through too many switches.  The more trains moving at any speed have to go through switches, the more likely derailments will occur, lessening your fun quotient.

Wish I had your space.

Chuck

Hi I built my yard based exactly to this blue print.If you expand my pic you can see the print.I just wanted to make a comment on the "thou shalt not foul the main line" If you want to build a 25-35 car consist you are going to consume a catastrophic amount of real estate to fit a go around and a yard lead long enough to make this possible.Also if you are running scale you are going to need O-72 curves and switches.Just my 2 cents.Nick

I agree that the 3 car tracks are too short and would severely limit operations.    I would advise stub ending and getting them much longer.    I also wonder if it might be possible to make a long yard lead parallel the mainline on the main table to get the length you want.     It would mean connecting the yard to the main table to work it, but would give a lot of flexibility.    You could build a separate addon lead for standalone operation.

Rob,

In the real world, yard size and train length are both governed by real estate available and economic costs.  For us, it's all about how we fit what we want into a given space and still have fun.  Ten cars and a caboose should only be about 120" long (unless you're using large, modern equipment) and even an engine at an additional 24" long would still make the lead / arrival / departure track only 14' long.  That should cut your length to only about 28', and you can cut it more by choosing to run shorter trains.

We all have to make adjustments to get the result we are looking to achieve.

Good luck,

Chuck

Thanks all for you review and comments.

So after whining about Chuck's advice, I gave it some thought and developed this track plan:

With longer sidings in the yard, a dedicated arrival/departure track, auxiliary tracks and a mainline with 5 turnoutss, two for reversing loops, one for the A/D track and one to allow a continuous loop.  Still concerned about space for scenery.  

Here is the tparts list for those w/o SCRAM:

No.	Image	Number	Name	Scale	Producer	Pcs.	Note
1		010	010	O	Ross Custom Switches	1
2		015	015	O	Ross Custom Switches	1
3		072	O72	O	Ross Custom Switches	10
4		088	O88	O	Ross Custom Switches	14
5		092	O92	O	Ross Custom Switches	2
6		102	Flex/Wood	O	GarGraves	36	Covered by 19 pcs. full-length Flex/Wood (102)
7		102S‑24	24.8" p	O	GarGraves	2
8		103	RH O‑100	O	GarGraves	2
9		104	LH O‑100	O	GarGraves	1
10		105	RH O‑100	O	GarGraves	1
11		106	LH O‑100	O	GarGraves	1
12		113	RH O‑42	O	GarGraves	1
13		114	LH O‑42	O	GarGraves	3
14		157	Wye 11°	O	Ross Custom Switches	2
15		200	RH #4	O	Ross Custom Switches	9
16		201	LH #4	O	Ross Custom Switches	7
17		GG C42T	O‑42 TR	O	GarGraves	3	O-42 Transition curve
18		GG TR143/4	O‑72 TR	O	GarGraves	2	O-72 Transition curve
19		WT‑101‑24	24.8" w	O	GarGraves	2
20		WT‑101‑37	37" w	O	GarGraves	8	Including 4 cuttings from whole tracks
21		WT‑101‑6	6.2" w	O	GarGraves	1
22		WT‑102‑12	12.4" w	O	GarGraves	11
23		WT‑102‑24	24.8" w	O	GarGraves	6	Including 2 cuttings from whole tracks
24		WT‑102‑37	37" w	O	GarGraves	41	Including 5 cuttings from whole tracks
25		WT‑102‑6	6.2" w	O	GarGraves	6
26		WT‑42‑102	O‑42" w	O	GarGraves	1
27		WT‑54‑102	O‑54" w	O	GarGraves	4
28		WT‑72‑101	O‑72" w	O	GarGraves	19
29		WT‑72‑102	O‑72" w	O	GarGraves	5
Total:						202

SCRAM file is attached and licensed for non commercial use under the Creative Commons license.

Rob

I don't see that you put in a separate lead as you say.

If you want operations, my suggestion is forget the revering loops, make your operational plan basically point to point.    If you want continuous running, include a connection to allow that, but deemphasize or hide it.   

For operational variety, a great industry is an interchange with another RR.    This can be a single track running off into or behind the scenery.     Your RR can set off a string of any kind of car there and pick up any kind of car. 

Now to expand that in a logical sense, have two interchanges with your yard logically in between with some industries included a long the line.    Then your RR can pickup from one interchange and haul cars to the other and also work industries on line.    The mainline trains might run from interchange to interchange and set out and pick up local cars at the yard.    A local or two could originate at the yard and work the industries visible on the layout.

Please consider the following:

Now, without the reversing loops the trains will always move from one direction.  By adding the reversing loops I get some operational variety as well as some topological variations:

Hi Rob,

I'm wondering if you have given any consideration to a two level layout?  The only reason I would suggest this is you have already dedicated the real estate for the reverse loop, or seem inclined to, which is essentially the same as required for a helix.  Normally a helix is a big trade off that often isn't worth it, trading running length over two levels for square footage.  You could then set aside more area, and length, for yard trackage including leads.  The yard level might not even go all the way around the room, instead having trains head out to the main, then reversing on one of the loops, and returning to the yard.  The layout would then have a point to point element to it, except the two "points" happen to be the same yard.

Just thinking out loud here.  There could be any number of constraints that would make this impractical, but there is some opportunity also.

Jim

Rob,

I love your creativity and space utilization.  However, I think your "Arrival / Departure" track should be considered the siding on the opposite side of your "Switcher pocket."  From there, you can drill your arrivals into the yard or set out your departures for the next run.  With modeling license, it's perfectly OK to run past the yard before reaching the A/D track itself.  If you accept this advice, please consider lengthening that siding.

Now, let's talk about the plan and your access space.  Your first plan seemed to indicate this will be built in a garage.  How much space will you have between the outside edges of the plan and the walls?  I ask this because any track issues that arise (after construction) in the northwest (reversing loops) and southeast corners will be very problematic to correct.  In model railroading, Murphy's law says the most inconvenient locations will always give you the biggest headaches.  So, unless you are building in a 26' x 26' space, please consider access hatches in those corners.

Finally, if you choose, or need, to provide access hatches, consider carefully the height you choose to build your benchwork.

Chuck

Jim,

Thought about a helix first as shown here:

SCARM file attached as Classification Yard 3

Deleted it as I was not sure the added complexity yielded sufficient play value to justify it.

May end up adding it back in.

Thanks for the review and comments.

Chuck,

In execution, your suggestion: "I think your "Arrival / Departure" track should be considered the siding on the opposite side of your "Switcher pocket."", is how I envision operations.  The arriving freight drops the consist on the labled A/D track and escapes out to the mainline or progresses to the engine servicing aux. tracks.  The switch engine pulls the consist off the A/D track into the yard tail and positions the cars into the yard based on disposition.

As to access for maintenance; I haven't gotten that far yet in my design thinking.  Lets look to the yard "cassette" for an initial inspiration.  I am thinking of side mounted tracks on the bench work, similar to the draw sliders on a Snap on or Mac tool box. or sum similar roller and trace arrangement to allow the yard cassette to easily side in and out of the bench work  and reliably index into position for play. 

Now perhaps somewhat morbidly, I am trying to take into account that this layout will need to be eventually deconstructed in event of my incapacitation. (I recently did the Executor this for my Mother's estate and my wife is the Trustee on her Father's this has really impacted our thinking about what we do to our kids).  So if I crack the nut on the engineering for the Yard cassette, I am thinking of a modular build with a similar mechanism for full depth by 4 foot wide sections in and out of the layout.  However this of course creates a series of electrical and scenery complications with no appreciable increase in play value.

Thanks for the review.

Rob

Rob, I like the second track plan you posted.  The one with the perspective drawing.  Your design allows for alot of prototypical operation from what I can see.  The helix eliminates the rounds-roundy running so many of us seem to have.  Not that I'm knocking it.  I'm one for just sitting back and watching trains go on their own merry way at times.