I’m reposting after my MR account was hacked earlier this month, sorry if this caused anyone elses account to incur any problems.
Thanks in advance…
Welcome back!
Ed
Hello All,
That’s a lot of track in a small space.
Hope this helps.
As I told you before when you had it posted, I think it is a very good yard/terminal design.
It has similarities to mine:
I would be intersted to know how much additional space you have and how you plan to use it.
Sheldon
I have several problems with it.
The yard is buried back in the layout with means anybody switching will have to reach, see over the engine facilities or RIP track to the switching lead. Very inconvenient and risks knocking stuff over.
I personally have issues with devoting huge swaths of layout to RIP tracks and engine facilities. RIP tracks are switched once, maybe twice a day. In my experience very few people actually “operate” an engine facility. Other than a ready track for engines and turning a engine during a session, most cases they are purely a scenic thing to display equipment or a detailed scene.
If you do have a hostler there may be issues with them trying to work the engine facilites at the same time the yard job is working the left end of the yard. Two bodies competing for the same floor space.
Also consider that you can’t depart out of the bowl of the yard. EVERYTHING has to go thru the R&D tracks. That makes them the chokepoint. I much prefer a crossover scheme where you can depart out of any track in the yard, that gives way more flexibility to the yardmaster, especially if he is running a lot of short locals.
As far as your questions, I prefer the large square under the track magnets, just marj the location with a tie painted yellow or white.
Switch control, I prefer manual in a yard, but reach issues could be a problem, with all the stuff between the yard and aisle. Powered switches would require a large footprint for a control panel.
Otherwise its a very complete yard and generally, should be very workable.
[(-D] You are exactly right about that Dave.
My engine facility only will exist as a show-place for my brass locomotives. I will probably take one out for a run every once in a while.
-Kevin
You obviously studied it a little hard than I did. But I do seem to remember something from the old posts about access to both sides? I could be wrong, but I think the fine prints says “36” aisle" behind the yard.
Yes th
I have the secrect code! I will use my powers to post a link to the ATLANTIC CENTRAL Track Plan for Sheldon.
-Kevin
I think that the OPs track plan is a solid one, but in my opinion it is too cluttered. It is a spaghetti bowl, albeit an organized one. That being said, if you (the OP) really like this type of operations, I would say go for it. But I would definitely thin out some trackage. Again, just my opinion, others will have different ones.
Thank you Kevin.
Hi JDawg,
I think the OP should keep his track plan intact. Suggesting that it is an ‘organized spaghetti bowl’ is a somewhat contradictory statement IMHO (no offense intended JDawg). My understanding of spaghetti bowls is that they are neither organized nor well thought out. I agree with others who have said that it is a well designed plan. I think that simplifying it would be counterproductive. The OP wanted a complex plan and that is what he has, and apparently the plan will work. I think it would be fun to operate on.
[2c]
Dave
I could not agree more. I have an entire 7’ x 11’ peninsula devoted to an engine servicing facility. It holds a 9-stall roundhouse, 130’ turntable, a coaling tower and two back shops.
IMHO, it looks great but, for all practical purposes, it is a static diorama. I am seriously considering removing it altogether and replacing it with something more functional.
Rich
There is a 36 inch wide aisle on the backside of the yard “accessible by a door”, what ever that means.
Its going to take a another person to operate that side of the yard. Since the other shelves of the layout are against the wall, I don’t see an easy way for the person in the middle to get to the backside of the yard.
There is probably a way to cut out some of the railroad maintenance functional tracks and narrow the yard by 6 to 8 inches, making it an easier reach from the pit.
Sorry by the contradictory statement. I just meant that there is a lot of trackage. In my opinion, it’s too much track. Again, that’s just my opinion. I comple agree that the layout would be a blast to operate on. I just really feel there is too much track for the given space. No offense taken HOn30, the OP asked for helpful suggestions, and that is what we each offered, though on different sides of the operations isle.
I will agree that engine terminals are only useful if they are “planned” into the operating scheme, and generally only for layouts operated by multiple crews, not so much for lone wolf operations.
My plan for my engine facilities is pretty minimal, separate steam and diesel areas to store extra power, add to the scene, but most importantly to facilitate power change operations on thru trains.
That will be the whole deal for some trains, come out of staging, run around the first half of the layout, pull in the yard, get new power, continue on thru the rest of the layout, return to staging.
Other trains may also set out, or pick up blocks of cars as well as getting a power change.
So I need just enough engine terminal to park four or five diesel lash ups and eight to ten steam locos on ready tracks.
If I was
I’d think about that a bit before you take that step, Rich.
I agree that diesel-era layouts may not have much need for an elaborate engine terminal. But a steam era layout is a different animal.
In the prototype world, steam locos were maintenance nightmares. Steamers would generally go only a few hundred miles before requiring some work, so locos were swapped out on trains pretty frequently. That means a lot of terminal activity even in a smallish facility.
On my own layout the Casper engine terminal is the only one for a couple hundred “miles” in either direction (just as in real life). So with very few exceptions, every train passing through Casper requires an engine change. Something like that makes the terminal an integral part of yard operations, and not just a scenic element.
Od course our models don’t need all that maintenance, but it’s about simulating the prototype.
If you’re going to “operate” your layout, that should include the engine facilities, too.
I expect the roundhouse and environs to be quite busy on the subject layout.
Ed
Hi there. I zoomed in the image and I saw some of the fine print. I see that there are plans for loops in there - sorry if I missed that in the previous post. It might be useful to post the entire plan to have an overall view. As is, it appears to be a huge locomotive facility and yard - something that someone would build to store a lot of rolling stock. However, because of the multiple returning tracks and loops, there would in fact be not too much room for storage.
Simon
Yeah, I think that is my problem with my engine servicing facility. I am a lone wolf. “Operating” an engine servicing facility does not become a high priority when trying to operate two yards, a coach yard and a freight yard on my layout, plus working sidings for a bunch of large freight houses.
Rich
Therein lies my problem. I keep going back and forth, thinking about whether to keep the engine servicing facility or abandon it with something more functional, whatever that might be.
Rich