Yard design dilemma... Final solution reached,THANKS!

Elliot,

 

Unless you really want that short by-pass, why don't you just use a double-slip where the first yard track intersects the ladder and allow the extension to follow the curve to the "east" leg of the wye?  This might also allow you to disconnect the "east" leg of the wye from the mains.  This also gives you a somewhat longer yard lead.

 

Chuck

Thanks Chuck. So if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that I just have a parallel track next to the east leg of the wye. That would come off the "north" exit of the double slip. I guess if I did that, I would still use the switch to tie the two tracks back together, but it would be about 15' around the corner. I might be able to get two tracks through that opening in the backdrop. It's not that hard to enlarge it.

 

Actually, the east leg will see very little traffic under any circumstances, so it is really no problem to tie back in with that short bypass. It adds a switch, but saves a bunch of track. Back in that corner space may be at a premium.

 

I'm about ready to order that double slip. The more I think about it, it would solve all my problems. It would take out the wiggle, lengthen the yard tracks and give me a lead which would keep the main clear.

Plan B!

Thanks Doug, but here's plan C with the double slip:



Mine is option 1, Chuck's is option 2.

Go with Plan C you won't be sorry

With option 2, long yard lead = happy Elliot, you know you want to

Well, the double slip is ordered, so now I have more time to ponder plan C options 1 & 2. Option 1 is much less work and less material. Option 2 is a little more elegant and doesn't have trains going back and forth over as many switches.

 

That's where I'm at right now.

Who are you kidding Elliot, go all in

I agree with Matt on all points, plan C-2. Additionally, your point of less traffic over switches is valid. The more track the merrier.

C-2 .... option 1 doesnt really help anything cuz its too short

Right Jon, the fact that he is debating in his mid is like me trying to decide if im going to take my next breath. While I can decide all I want I know what im going to do

Gee, and I was going to try and keep it simple for a change and go with option 1. I figure it's going to take:

• Seven more sections of Gargraves, six of which will have to be hand bent curves, and all hard to reach.
• All the pre-drilling for track screws and wire drilling associated with all that track.
• All the extra feeders, bus wires and connectors. 
• The better part of a day's work to do all that, not including the wiring.
• Finally, I'm not even sure if there's space for this, as this has to run behind the hump. There must be 4 tracks back there, 2 mains, the hump and the wall track plus embankments.

Thanks guys, I think you've managed to talk me out of option 2.

If the outstanding argument for C-1 is less work and material, then I think that fully expresses it's value. LOS's assessment of C-1 is absolutely correct...Why bother? There, done. That's three votes for C-2. Next problem.

Actually, the length isn't really the issue as long as I stay off the mains, and both 1 & 2 accomplish that.

 

The track coming off the east leg of the wye is only going to be used as a reverse loop and is not part of normal running. It also serves as a connection between the arrival area and the engine service area, basically a bypass for engines to get around the hump. So, if on occasion, I need to use it as a lead, it won't really interfere with traffic.

Here is a design I used   It save a lot of space and gives longer yard tracks  I used one lead track that had two ladder leads over a crossover

 

I doubt it, we all know that yard lead is going in because a yard just isn't a yard without a good yard lead. You nobody has talked you out of anything and you know it. I like how the guy who was preaching to me and many others about the need for a good yard lead is thinking he is not going to put one in.

Length of a yard lead always matters...the longer the better.

Length always matters

A little extra work at this point is nothing compared to what you've done so far. Go big or go home!

You told me you plan on running short trains, so you could actually stage/park a train there on option 2.

Gee, 7-more pieces of Gargraves. that might bring the project total up to 1507 pieces.

But guys, its going to take him all day to lay 7 pieces of track. He must be a union track layer

elliot..... a long yard lead no fouling of main 7 additional track sections... and then with the shear size of your layout in length and you say not sure if it will fit.

 

I find humor in that statement only because the size of your layout and yet space is still a factor!

 

and yet I can relate with a modest 7'x19' layout.

 

like all the others plan c is the better choice.

 

you will not be disappointed in the double slip they work wonders in there footprint.

 

and a few hours laying track beats shoveling snow any day!!

 

StPaul

Thanks for all the input guys.

 

I know most of you wanted a dedicated yard lead, but the more I thought about it, the more obvious it became. Why do I need two tracks when the traffic warrants only one? This may actually be real railroad logic.



It's the double slip that is the key to the whole thing. That 2' piece of track, coming off the north leg of the double slip and tying into the wye, keeps all the activity off the main. That's really all I ever wanted.