In that case consider the layout I am in the process of building. (Okay, I just put in the track lighting). Here’s the plan.
Like this if I connect the loop, my layout is point-to-point with a non-prototypical loop. That means I can send a train from Train City to Rock Ridge and back over and over and maybe switch a few cars. Here and there.
But if I add staging like so–connecting the loop with staging tracks…
…I have created a situation where the Rock Ridge and Train City is is part of a much larger railroad that extends both east and west beyond it. Like the drawing in the article:
So how does it work. There are four staging tracks and a through track in staging. Since 1885 trains are small and I am running only 6 car trains, I can fit 10 trains in staging, 5 facing clock-wise and 5 facing counter-clockwise. The counter-clockwise trains will be coming via Sacramento. The clockwise trains will be coming via Virginia City.
The first train to leave staging is a through train from Sacramento to Salt Lake City carrying vegetables in refers. It stops in Train City to top off its ice before climbing over Donner Pass to Virginia City. It continues without stopping through Rock Ridge and “stage off” into the tail end of the track it
One layout concept that the Old Dog thought about for a while, then rejected was to model one station on a secondary mainline. The ideal was that the way freight would have to switch the station while dodging the superior trains. Another thought was to maybe model a mechanical interlocking tower like maybe BK tower on the old Erie.
Clearly, such a layout would require the ability to “shoot” a good number of trains at the operator in rapid succession which of course would require some sort of staging.
A couple thoughts;
Most trains go through town without changing consist. They can be thought of as actors playing roles on a stage.
Eastbound and westbound trains (especially passenger) of the same kind look about the same. To miniumize the number of actors, it is desirible for the actors to be able to enter the stage from either side.
For maximum flexibility, it is desirible that the actors be able to enter the stage in any order.
And of course there is the restriction that an actor go only play one role at a time.
To meet the above requires a loop to loop set up seems to be the best choice. However, instead of locating the stage between the loops as is usually done, place the stage on one the the loops. Place the double ended staging tracks in the other loop. Operate the staging tracks as one way trackage. That will allow any actor to enter the stage from either direction.
Adding a cutoff on the stage loop to form an oval could allow some addition staging on the backstage side to hold actors such as the “loaded coal drag” and “empty coal drag” which are limited to one direction.
Some single ended staging could be added for trains that rarely appear, say the wreck train.
The off stage loop could probably be located under the stage loop and conected to it with a hilex. In fact, one could have multiple staging loops. Such a layout could probably be fit in a sing
BTW CHip if you make the ladder a diamond ladder you could make all the staging tracks the same length, then you wouldn’t have “the track for short trains” and the “track for long trains” Worst it would do would be push the loop down a slight bit.
If the diamond works you won’t have to cheat. ANd is the staging yard at the higher elevation? I’m guessing it is based on how the restof the plan worked out. If there’s enough clearance you could set the through track back under the edge of the staging tracks to lessen the incursion into the laundry area. I’m thinking an L shaped bracket hanging from the structure under the staging area to support the single track. Just have to make each one slightly longer to build in the downgrade. Build the staging ‘thin’ with something less than 1x4 L girders plus risers and you should have plenty of room. Say 2" foam, run the front edge of the support structure 2-3" back from the edge of the foam and hang the L brackets from there. The 2-3" of foam overhanging the wood will be plenty sturdy, it won’t sag. And would be supported along the entire length of the run anyway by the front edge of the benchwork.
An observation, passenger trains are usually shorter then freights, hence the difference in track length might be a non-problem and actually save space.
In the Old Dog’s mind, a first class named limited passenger train would require at least eight cars; RPO, baggage, two Pullmans, diner, two Pullmans, and observation car. To the Dog, the train would need four cars of passengers to provide adequate patronage for the dinner. With 80’ foot cars, that would be about eight feet plus the engine, say a 4-6-0.
Assuming the freight should be at least one and one-half times as long, that’s twelve feet or 24 40’ cars plus an engine, say 2-8-0, and a caboose.
In the 1885 period, the trains would be shorter, but the same concept would apply.
I’m planning 2 passenger runs–one, the Daylight consisting of four cars, and a local, wich is just an RPO and a combine. These are all (I know) 34’ Overtons.
I have 5 various 50 ft Overland cars that may make their way onto the layout when it become important enough to strip and paint them to RRRR colors.
