Staging, how much is enough?

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

I am convinced now that I will need staging on my layout if I am going to do any operations. The only question is How Much? Well, that is not the only question. How do you measure how much staging you have? As a percentage of the track length? In relation to the number of cars that will fit on your sidings? Linear feet?

Can a yard serve as a staging area if there is no place on the layout to conceal any?

Handling “Off West” and “Off East” (or north south whatever fits) is self explanatory on a point to point layout but how is it handled on a roundy roundy arrangement?

2

How much “Staging” is enough? I think that all depends. How much rolling stock do you need to store in a staging area? How many trains do you want to be able to pull out from there in an operating session? One of the big questions for you would be, how much space can you devote to the staging yard? I guess we would need to know more about the size, make up, and intent of your layout to be able to give a useful answer.

For your second question, There are many excellent layouts that do not have a “staging” area at all except for the space in whatever yards they have. I think it is more of a personal choice than any absolute need. That said, I plan on having a large enough hidden staging in my new section to hold about 5 trains of 10 to 15 cars out of sight (depending on how much space my final plan will be able to allow) to be brought onto the layout from “somewhere else” (all those other roads…).

On my layout, I have no roundy, rounds but rather Point to loop and loop to loop, piont to point and stuff like that. Lots of reverse loops as well as terminals where a train can end (or I will when and if it is ever done). If you can’t reverse the train, I guess you will be a “Big Wheel” (Blessed are they that run around in circles for they shall be known as “Big Wheels”.)

3

Figuring out how much staging you need depends on all sorts of factors. Are you a lone wolf modeler? How many operators will your layout area support? What’s your prototype (if any)? What’s your budget like? How much space do you have?

I had it pretty easy when it came to figuring out staging needs for my layout. Since I’m modeling a specific prototype (NKP’s Peoria division in 1950), I did my research. The time table shows a total daily train schedule of two passenger, five second class freights, and four third class freights. I was also lucky enough to find over 2000 form 19’s for one tower on the line, for a five year period, which showed me which manifest trains ran as multiple sections, how many were regularly cancelled, and how many special movements there were on the line. From all that data, I was able to predict that I would need at least six westbound and eight eastbound staging tracks. I upped that to eight and ten, just for luck.

Adding staging to a layout isn’t all that difficult, IF you think around the problem enough. If you’ve got a small room and a 4x8, add a removeable 1x6x6’ whouch will hold three tracks. If you’ve got a larger, existing layout, and you don’t think you can find any room to squeeze in a staging yard, look under the layout (it’s not that hard to add a short ramp down to a lower level staging area. Cutting on extra engines to lug it out of a steep grade just adds to the operations). If you’re designing a new layout, start thinking about staging before you start benchwork.

As for using an existing yard as “staging”, I wouldn’t recommend it. Yards aren’t built on eal railroads to store cars; they’re there to shuffle cars into new trains and get them on their way. If you clog up a large portion of your yard with staged trains, it will just cut down on the number of trains you can sort in the yard, and make it a pain to operate in. Of course, if you feel staging will be more beneficial to your layout than a yard (which tend not to get used on mos

4

Unfortunately, there is no set answer for this. Joe Fugate once set up some mathematical realtionships between different types of trackage, but they really only represent averages and I have found different layouts to require quite different quantities of staging.

The amount of staging depends on the kinds of work each train will do on the layout and how many freight cars you wi***o move on and off the layout in each “session” (representing movements to and from “somewhere else”). Then add in “overhead” through movements of train, if any, passenger trains, unit trains that won’t switch on the visible layout, etc.

So the actual number and length of tracks depends a quite a bit on how active your railroad will be, how many operators, what kinds of commodities, etc.

So personally I think it is most helpful to think of staging in terms of car lengths and train lengths relative to the work going on in the rest of the session.

If that’s the only way, I suppose so. But it defeats the purpose a bit to have the trains sitting there in plain view for the entire session, then magically become active at some point.

For a pure switching or terminal style layout, it’s less problematic. It’s reasonable to imagine the yard as a place were unseen through trains drop-off and pick-up cars "overnight’ (between sessions).

Visible classification yards full of stationary trains with steam engines attached are not too realistic, based on typical prototype practices in the steam era. For more modern eras, it’s not as bad, since diesel engines are sometimes left standing in yards at the heads of trains.

The bigger prob

5

Orsonroy, I agree with everything you posted except this last, and it may just be my experiences have been different. On the operating layouts with which I am familiar, the yards are very well-used and are one of the most popular jobs for operators.

I think as we are both suggesting, using up visible yard tracks for staging should be a last resort.

Regards,

Byron

6

I like the idea of a temporary off-layout extension to use a staging. Most of the time, you’re not running ops, and you don’t need it. I would think that a small layout could get by with 2 staging tracks - one for build-up and one for break-down. This assumes that someone has the job of “stage manager” and is always available to break down an exiting train and make up a new one, or the rate is slow enough that he can share other jobs between staged events.

7

Thanks Ray

I was looking more for a rule of thumb rather than any specific number for my layout. 5 trains 10 to 15 cars each is a good start. It rings a bell from some other threads.

We want trains that just pass through in addition to fodder for switching. I imagine that the length of the trains would very some with the era being modeled.

Any other suggestions?

8

I believe that Tony Koester recommended the following formula for figuring out how much staging a given layout needs:

2X+1

Where X= the number of staging tracks you THINK you need.[;)]

Cheers,
George

9

2X+1 , where X is what you think you need, would be nice, but most of us have to settle for something less. I do agree, however, that more is better.

The standard gauge part of my layout is a folded dogbone, which is essentially a roundy-round. The back part of it is concealed under a long narrow gauge branch that runs atop it, partially as a double deck. Yeah, I know, probably something I won’t do again, since it’s against the wall and all access is from the front or underneath, but it actually works and has been remarkably trouble-free, thanks to close attention to design and construction.

The part of the standard gauge main that is hidden has three sidings. Thus, I can hold up to three trains, for two in one direction and one in the other. The plan is basically to run a freight in both directions, plus a passenger train. There is a reverse loop available to turn the passenger train, allowing it to work both directions.

I also have an empties-in/loads-out arrangement that is double-tracked. I can leave a loaded and an unloaded coal train there.

So I have a total of five staging tracks. I can still run anything around the mainline. I can make-up and run a local, independent of the staging. And I can bring the other trains “on-stage” as desired.

Only half the roundy-round dogbone is visible, which makes it look like the single track main it is supposed to be. I’d like to have a separate staging yard, even beyond the staging I’ve built-in already, but it would take some major remodeling and giving up living space (you mean some people actually do NOT devote every bit of square footage to trains? ;>) I want for other uses. Even then, I would only be able to run trains in and out.

This leads to how I considered my own needs in measuring capacity during the design phase, which you may want to consider when estimating your needs. If you have hidden staging, or even staging that is moderately inconvenient to access, then you should thin

10

No stagin at all. It’s fakery.

11

[banghead]

12

It was either Linn Westcott or John Armstrong who once wrote that, when you think you have enough hidden staging in your track plan, add more if you can. You’ll thank yourself later.

That being said, I planned mine out based on the operating scheme I was trying to implement. I tried to figure out how many trains I would schedule to move in and out of staging, and based my number of staging tracks on that. Now that the staging is complete and I’m starting on the non-staging tracks, I’m getting worried that I have too few staging tracks anyway…

13

On my PRR Philadelphia corridor layout that has a six track main just like the PRR I am planning on 12 tracks at either end since the staging is a loop and the three westbound tracks return as the three eastbound tracks so that is four storage tracks for each main. BUT having an open track is required if I just want to run a train otherwise it would be blocked when it reaches the return loop.

14

A common number that’s thrown around by the operations guys is that a yard is considered “full” when the tracks are approximately 50% filled. Once you get above that it’s much harder to operate the yard.

Someone said that if X is the number of sidings you have, then you need X + 1. I disagree completely. The TRUE answer is more like 2X.

Don’t discount the value of passing sidings on your layout. They can give you more space for “stashing” a made-up train and help to unload your yard some.

Mark in Utah

Mark in Utah

15

There are some good thoughts above. Another way of looking at it is:

Count up how many cars and engines you can use on the layout at one time. Count up how many cars and engines you have now. The difference is how much staging you need now. Add to that 10 times the number of cars and engines you bought last year - that’s how much more staging you need for the future.

Enjoy
Paul

16

Its all fakery. It’s supposed to be! Thats what modeling is!

17

To each his or her own, of course, but I think it’s less than optimal to use valuable staging tracks for storage on an operating layout. In my mind, better those cars should go in drawers or storage cases nearby so that the staging tracks may be reserved for trains moving on- or off the layout during an op session. Then you can just swap things in- and out of storage between sesisons for variety, if desired.

Not a criticism at all, just a suggestion that there is a difference between storage and staging on an operating layout.

On another note, many layouts are drowning in cars and engines. And many of those cars and engines are no longer appropriate for the era, theme, or concept that has develped on the layout over time. Better those locos and cars should go to a farm in the country where they can gambol and play with other rolling stock.

I’ve certainly had this happen myself. My layout concept changed over time, but I still have a signficant percentage of cars and engines for the old concept that just don’t fit any longer. I’m moving them out (on eBay or whatever) to generate funds for track and lumber purchases and free up storage space. Plans change, concepts evolve. But if our roster doesn’t, we’ve probably got more to store than we will really use. And back to the topic, I think it’s a lost opportunity if we store these unneeded items in the staging tracks.

regards,

Byron

18

I agree with both Mark and Byron. I’m an outsider on the subject because I am one of those goofballs who built an otherwise perfectly good layout sans either passing tracks, yard, or staging…and you know what that means.

Still, unless one is modeling a large yard, and has off-site staging, there is really only room for so much on the tracks. I guess it depends on the ‘weight’ you give to the functions of running trains and operating trains; if you are heaviliy into scenery and vistas, staging will be somewhat less important. If into big hubs, switching, and industries over a substantial layout, then staging would be necessary to afford scheduling with several operators.

My ideal, though, is that the layout should afford some ‘pleasantry’ in vistas and sweeping curves, but still have a place to park and to classify cars. For me, next time, it will be a visible yard, substantial though it may have to be.

19

It also depends on what TYPE of operations you are doing… Are you runing mainline trains from one yard to the next?? Or are you running local switching freights? Or Both??

Jeff

20

It seems based on how many trains you want to run and how long each will be. If you dont have a set number of trains etc. it makes sense to base it on how many cars and engines you have.
Best of Luck