Working on a small room sized layout. So far I’ve got a small yard designed for one end of the layout. Before I filled in the rest of the layout I figured I’d ask for feedback on what I have done so far.
Whats there is labeled and pretty self explanatory. For the rest of the layout I plan on having staging and one major industry on the peninsula (likely a tire plant) and possibly another industry (paper mill?) or group of industries in the lower right corner. I plan on running at least two switch jobs each session, one each for the tire plant and the as of yet undetermined indutry. The yard crew will handle switching of the yard industries.
Thoughts? Obvious flaws you see already in the plan?
Very short trains. The runaround is about 30-36" long so that’s about 4-5 cars in HO.
I would tie the switch lead back into the main and consider reversing the crossover between the main and the lead. You might want to reverse that crossover and then put a right hand crossover between the main and the lead as soon as you get out of the curves. The way it is right now ALL trains have to originate or terminate, every car goes in or out of the yard through the runaround next to the main. Very limiting.
If most of what you are going to have are switchers, why do you need a turntable. Unless you are going to run road steam engines or single unit F units on road trains, you don’t need a turntable. All your switchers should face to the left and they would just stay that way.
Are the shortest yard tracks long enough to hold a meaningful amount of cars? I ask that because unless it would be devoted to being a caboose track (but even then is it enough?) my experience is that a yardmaster (often, me) just tends not to even want to bother with a super short yard track that holds just a couple of cars.
While the yard plan is the classic fanned out concept, I would explore the compound yard lead idea that John Armstrong explores in his Track Planning for Realistic Operation. It is a little complex to explain here but Armstrong has ideas for how to pack more car storage in the same space, at the cost it is true of “elegant” appearance. When you mark off the fouling points and assume you don’t want to park cars or engines on the turnouts themselves, it can be surprising how few cars can actually be crammed into a multi track yard that is short. How many guys built a yard track and only then discover how many cars it can hold - that should be known and tested in advance because there are alternatives to turnout size and placement that need to be worked out at the planning stage.
When space is really tight, don’t downplay the possibility of a fiddle yard where human hands do the work rather than switch engines. That can eliminate run around or escape tracks. Indeed you can then have yard tracks that are not connected to the main at all! An Atlas re-railer or two can eliminate turnouts in a fiddle yeard. Just a thought,
As to the turntable, and returning again to my British style fiddle yard suggestion, the end of that yard looks like a possible place for either cassettes to move engines to other tracks, or a small sector plate of the kind Ian Rice has advocated in Model Railroad Planning…
Here’s a comparison I did of a compound ladder vs a “standard” ladder. The poster I drew it for was using #4 turnouts, but the same concept can be applied to higher frog numbers. Compound ladder is on the left.
In addition to the previous comments, I would suggest flipping the ladder so that all turnouts are visible from and can be accesed easily from the aisle. As it is now, depending on your layout height, cars on the longer body tracks will obscure the view to the turnouts in the back. Also, if you’re using ground throws, you’d have to reach over cars and tracks to move the points of turnouts in the back.
It’s also good to establish a purpose for the yard, which will be the basis for its configuration and how it is worked. I’m guessing this yard’s purpose is the terminus of an industrial branch line, since it’s stub-ended and there’s a turntable for the return trip of engines taking cars to and from this industrial area. Is this what you intend?
My planned operating scheme will feature two trains from staging (staging to be located on peninsula) each day representing transfer runs from a larger nearby yard. The yard crew will handle switching of the frieght house, team track, and the as of yet undetermined industry next to them. The planned tire plant on the peninsula will be served by two switch tuns a day and the industry in the lower right corner will have one to two switch runs per day.
The yard classification tracks in the current configuration have the following lengths from shortest to longest: 38.5", 47.5", 56", and 65". I really don’t plan on running very long trains, but the compound yard design looks neat, I’ll probably mess around with reconfiguring the yard when I get home from work tonight. If I were to keep the current lengths the shortest track would probably be used for cars going to be switched to the local industries.
With two trains from staging and at least two switch jobs I really wanted to model an engine terminal. At the moment I’d probably be operating the layout alone, but if I were to ever operate in a group I think it’d add some operational interest.
All that being said the runaround at the base of the yard is a problem; I’ll play with the ideas you guys gave me and some others and see if I can make it work a bit better.
Well, the operational interest comes more from your operations plan than from adding more tracks to your track plan.
So - the yard you are making seems to be intended as a help for a switching crew to switch local industries - i.e. it is more of a small industrial support yard (a place to store a few inbound and outbound cars while switching an industrial district), not a bigger classification yard, where the emphasis is on efficient classification.
That also means that a RIP track and engine service tracks would be overkill. Engine service and car repairs would most likely be done at the big yard “over yonder” (ie in staging).
Where and when is this yard (and layout) supposedly located? Are you thinking a steam engi
Wow, thanks for the well thought out reply, really appreciated. One question though, the benchwork in the yard area is not over three feet wide, its exactly three feet wide. Not trying to split hairs here, just not sure if it makes a difference or not. Is three feet still too wide?
My layout concept is loosely based on Eau Claire, WI circa 1950. Besides having a passenger station (was a stop on the CNW’s ‘400’ train) Eau Claire had a small yard, freight (:)) house, team track, large tire plant, paper mill, and another industrial district. The small yard and all industries were serviced by one engine and engine service was taken care of at the main yard in Altoona, a short distance to the east.
I guess I was trying to stretch out the concept too much; ie add more jobs than really needed. I see what you’re getting at and will hit the drawing board again. The second plan you linked is very close to the idea I had in my head.
About 2 feet (24 inches) is a recommended maximum for how deep into a scene you would want to reach, when the scene is at a reasonable height (ie about chest height). Less if you have structures up front that you don’t want to crush or displace with your elbows.
If you have your layout below waist level (and you are tall and thin and numble), you can reach further (up to about 36"), but the view will be more like a helicopter pilot view of the scene (looking down on the scene, instead of you looking into the scene), which will pretty mess up your chances of making e.g. background flats look good.
I’d try to keep all tracks within 20-24" from the aisle, if at all possible.
The really hard part is to figure out what to not include. That usually includes some hard choices.
Byron Henderson came up with an illuminating phrase about
Had a look at the 1931 Sanborn maps of Eau Claire. Two scenes that looks promising for compressive selection/selective compression is the CMStP & P (I think it says) tracks at the confluence of Eau Claire River and the Chippewa River (?), and the Soo Line tracks just South of Eau Claire River, near Gibson Street.
The Chippewa River yard (my label for it - I have no clue what it really was called) is a small pass-through industry support yard with a couple of double ended sidings and industries off the sidings again, while the Gibson Street yard (again - my label) seems to be a stub ended small Freight house yard with a couple of industries off the tracks.
Chippewa River location, western half:
Chippewa River location, eastern half:
Gibson road location:
I think the Chippewa River type Yard looks most promising for your space - can be modelled as a slimmer profile for a shelf layout, maybe something like this:
Here you got about 11-12 cars spots at the three industries (you can also spot cars on two tracks for the freight house, or use the second track from the freight house as an overflow storage track for inbound or outbound cars).
Again, thank you very much for your sound advice and help. One quick question though, where are you accessing the digital sanborn maps? I was aware of there existance before but always had problems getting them online. Just now I looked at my local library’s site and even though some maps should be free it doesn’t seem to be working properly (of course). I wouldn’t mind paying a small fee to access these as they of course are very usefull.
The two yards you found are the Soo Line’s yard and the Milwaukee Road’s yard (known at the time as the St. Paul road). Both these railroads crossed the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Omaha (Omaha Road, part of the C&NW system) just east of the yard I was trying to represent. Please understand I’m not nitpicking here; it was never my intent to model exact track arrangements in this space anyway-though if it could be worked out that would be a bonus.
‘Someday’ when I have a whole basement to use Eau Claire will just be one end of my much larger layout depicting the Omaha Road in western Wisconsin. For now my space (and modeling ability) limits what I can model.
Of course! I should have remembered that, but for some reason it totally slipped my mind. Thanks!
Oh - finally found the Omaha Road yard - a little to the north of the Milwaukee Road yard I had found .- map squares 37, 39, 40 and 41 in the 1931-1950 map collection for Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
Not a problem at all - I just enjoyed looking at the maps for Eau Claire and trying to find a yard that would fit into 2 x 9 feet around the corner.
You obviously can do a similar thing with the Omaha Road yard in Eau Claire.
[quote]
‘Someday’ when I have a whole basement to use Eau Claire will just be one end of my much larger layout depicting the Omaha Road in western Wisconsin. For now my space (and
Oh, these maps are just FANTASTIC. I’ve been trying to figure out for quite some time how I was going to manage to model the track arrangments in the US Rubber plant, and here its all laid out! Heck, the buildings are even labeled so I can figure out what went where as far as cars go.
Okay, here is another revised plan. There are some things I like about this plan and some things not so much. I have some idea for revisions but figured I’d put the plan up first and see what else you guys had to say. If I’ve repeated any mistakes I’m sorry, I’ve been doing between 2 and 4 am local time, perhaps not the best idea but there it is.
Some highlights:
3 track staging yard has siding lengths of 57", 48", and 42"
Main yard tracks are about 51", 56", 50", and 65"
Yard Lead is 68" from Crossover A to Crossover C without obstructing Crossover B or yard switches
Tire Plant tracks hold plenty of cars
So, what I like about the plan (and feel free to tell me if/why I shouldn’t like these things :)): plenty of room in staging. I’ve decided the staged transfer runs will not have engines on them; rather the yard switcher will run to staging to grab them. This is actually prototypical as the real Eau Claire yard switcher had to go to Altoona to pick up/drop off cars. The yard tracks are also sufficient, I think, for the intended traffic. I narrowed the yard shelf significantly and this let me extend the peninsula, giving more room to model the US Rubber tire factory. I also like my track arrangement on the peninsula; it let me capture the essence of the tire factory’s trackage and also model some signaturre structures in the plant (particularily the power house).
Now, what I DON’T like. The tracks on the right shelf are too close to the wall; there’s not enough room to model scenery to hide the shelf/wall joint. The only way I can really fix thi
Here is the picture (instead of the thumbnail) - bit easier to read.
I’ll have a closer look and maybe offer some comments a little later, right now I am heading for the gym for a workout.
Oh - one immediate reaction - have your staging tracks branch out along the bottom (either curved or straight turnouts), so you get far longer staging tracks.
you are on the right track, but I have some questions.
The aisle along the staging tracks is just one foot wide, to shallow for emergencies. Do you have open space beyond the staging tracks or just a wall? Should the aisle be widened up?
Did you consider lower level staging reached by a drop-in, in front of the door?
I do have some ideas, but they are pretty much related to the answers on the questions above. So before going to the drawing board…
I have some remarks and questions on the yard design as well, a picture can illustrate it much better, so you just have to wait.
The first thing I see is that the team track is served by a switchback. Switchbacks are not necessarily bad things, they just come with some baggage you should be aware of. They do exist on the prototype where circumstances dictate - CN’s trackage for GM Pontiac Assembly in Pontiac MI is one example I know of, but in that case the tail track for the switchback is dedicated, there is no rail served industry on it. So in your case, to work the team track, you may need to pull the freight house cars first. This could either be a switching challenge or an annoyance (or both). Byron Henderson has a good writeup of switchbacks on his website. It looks like you’ve got plenty of trackage for a crossing or another crossover to eliminate the issue if you want to.
The track diagrams are close but not exact. The sanborn maps were concerned with insurance, they really didn’t care whether there were two or three tracks or where the switches were, just general arrangements. So take the track arrangements as a suggestion, not gospel.
Also if there are multiple years of maps, look at the other years. You can see how the names of the businesses changed and sometimes other maps have more detail. Since the sanborn maps were commercial fire insurance related if there wasn’t a fire threat to commercial property, it might not be shown on the map. Similarly railroads are self insured so they didn’t spend much time cataloging rail buildings since they weren’t going to be insured.
