I have a 12’x20’ ft. layout and after I built the table i forgot to put in room staging yard. I can fit a SMALL staging yard, 3 to 4 tracks…but no room for a helix. I can add a small incline to make it work, but it might have some problems. Will that be big enough??? Any comments will be appreciated!!!
Thanks
3 or 4 tracks is better then nothing. you don’t need a staging yard but it is good for storing equipment. doyou plan on “operating” your layout or just running trains? with your setup you could have 3 trains ready to go with 1 track for the running train.
It really depends on how you “drive” your layout, and how much driving you do. If you keep everything on the layout, and have lots of everything, well…four tracks is probably rock bottom in terms of efficacy for staging. Then again, what is the true capacity of those four tracks? Will they be double-ended, as in drive-through? If stub, they’ll really be limited in their utility. Just ask me.
Well, I’m going to operate, not just run trains. But thanks for the info!!! How about running it behind some of the buildings???
running it behind buildings would work. just make sure you have access to the tracks and turnouts.
I just added a small staging yard ( 2 tracks ) but it is perfect for my needs on my 2 1/2 x 10 foot layout . It has improved operations 100 fold . I love it .
I have slightly less room than you and I have figgered out multi-level shelf modules. I could have hidden staging but went against that idea to keep everything visible and scenicked. But there are tricks to make staging possible even if its not hidden. An interchange track can serve exactly the same thing, I have Walther’s Car Float which I will use as an excuse to bring cars on/off the layout. I will have no serious “traditional” yard but will have a freight terminal that generates plenty of freight traffic (Chicago early fifties South Water Street area)
So there’s plenty of tricks out there without a staging yard needed.
Your need for staging will be driven by your operating plan, your rolling stock roster and your sense of what is (or isn’t) right.
In my case, working with the prototype’s timetable, I designed (and am building) my staging first. To make the timetable work, I have to be able to store and retrieve 16 freights (9 with catenary motors, 7 with steam locos) and eight assorted through passenger consists, plus five EMU cars that mix and match to cover 43 weekday schedule slots! Add in that most have to be turned (hello, hidden reversing loops!) and provision to attach cassette ‘car ferries’ to one hidden yard lead and the end result is that the netherworld is more extensive and more complex than the visible track will ever be.
I don’t recall which of the Allegheny coal protolancers said that you will find that you need 2n plus 1 staging tracks, n being the number you thought would be adequate. In my previous modeling, I found that to be true.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Do you need staging? Almost without exception! Where would your railroad traffic come from and go to without staging? I can think of some scenarios (like industrial tram railroads) when it isn’t necessary, but that would be exceptional.
Mark
Staging tracks do not have to be the huge long yards that you see on some Ntrak modular layouts. Even a few “interchange” tracks that disappear behind a building or hill or backdrop can provide an opportunity to move off-road cars onto the layout and send other cars off into the rest of the rail network in a realistic manner. You would stock/restock these tracks between sessions. Anything to avoid the monotony of running the same cars over and over.
Depending on your prototype, one very compact version of staging can be a car float. A simple block of wood shaped a bit and painted can look roughly like a float and would not have to take up too much room to give you 9 or more cars worth of staging – plus unloading it in an accurate manner, trying to keep the float balanced, can itself be a way to spend enjoyable time. There is a short chapter by Mike Ziegler in Walthers’ Waterfront book about how to do this.
Dave Nelson
Staging is an essential part of prototypical operations, for it represents the “off stage” areas of your railroad. A staging yard with sufficient capacity is a must, but in lieu of sufficient capacity, any staging will do.
On my layout, which is under construction, lower level staging is actually a fiddle yard, it being the one area on the layout where someone will actually build trains using the “Oklahoma Hook” (one’s hand), placing them into the appropriate tracks by locomotive power. The tracks represent specific locations, even though they coexist in the same area on the layout, i.e., two tracks represent Bayshore Yard in San Francisco; another two tracks represent Mission Bay Yard in San Francisco; two tracks represent Newhall Street in San Jose and another track represents College Park in San Jose. A final staging track is used for San Francisco to Los Gatos Commutes. All staging tracks are in the same immediate area on the layout. In pinch times, some tracks may do double duty; for example, Mission Bay may also double as the 3rd and Townsend passenger depot between freights.
Your situation seems doable. Keep the actual staging tracks, from fouling point to end of track perfectly level. You can build it behind anything that covers it, such as aforementioned buildings, trees or a false backdrop. A grade to or from the tracks shouldn’t be an issue if the incline is reasonable. Also look below your layout for staging opportunities. Building a gentle grade down can also give you room beneath the layout for extensive staging. Visible staging is another option, placing the tracks on a shelf above the layout.
I know of one local layout where two railroads share staging tracks. Anything is possible and there really shouldn’t be any hard and fast rules; but staging (or fiddle yards) are essential no matter the capacity for prototypical operation…
If you are operating, then any staging multiplies by a large factor your operating abilities.
The rule of thumb for the most part is the more the better. If you ask people who built layouts what their mistakes were, the #1 most common answer is inadequate staging.
You are still early enough in the process to rethink and get as much staging as you can. There are tricks as others have pointed out.
It might not hurt to read my article:
Yes you need staging if you are going to operate. I used a 2’ x 6’ peice and pivoted one end. It swings to line up with the in/out bound track. I got 8 tracks on it and all are full lenght, no switches that really eat up space. Works so far. This is a common thing on English display layouts. Thats where I got the idea.
Dave
I have no staging. I have plans for expanding my layout, which may or may not happen, and the most important single component of the expansion will be staging. I really wish I’d known enough to design in staging from the beginning, but, well, the hobby is a learning process.
Still no replacement layout for the one my (now ex-wife) made me tear down. It had a 10 track staging yard with tracks ranging from 18-24’ in length. The layout was primarily a railfaining layout with a little switching operation in the main yard and a coal mine. The Rio Grande doesn’t lend itself much to switching as a RR anyway.
Say what?[?][alien]
Oh, must be one of those railfan prototypes that just run around the mountains and don’t bother delivering freight. Must have done well at it to buy the Southern Pacific.
Time for an edumacation! Rio Grande was a “bridge line” which picked up/dropped of freight in Pueblo from the Rock Island/Missouri Pacific/Santa Fe or in Denver from the CB&Q or later BN - on the east and delivered it/picked it up, from the Western Pacific/SP on the west end. As for industry, there was a small amount - coal being the biggest from coal mines on the Craig Branch in Colorado, and mines in Utah. Other minerals were shipped in lessor volumes, and potash, portland cement, sheet rock, and from the south end of the RR over La Veta pass, vegetables etc. This all from memory. If anyone needs more detailed info, I have reference literature at home.
I was talking about your typical industrial switching that people like on model railroads. Many, including Jim Eager, have stated plainly that the Rio Grande doesn’t lend itself to modeling industrial switching operations. It didn’t run “around the mountains” and not bothering to deliver freight. Duh, it ran Thru the Rockies, not around them!
There are a lot of cool ways to add staging that take up little space. My own 3x5 “test” layout has a drop leaf staging track. Other solutions include removable cassettes, horizontal elevators where the train is lifted up to a staging yard, sector plates to reduce yard throat size, a cart that can be hooked to the railroad during operations, etc. The lack of a need for scenery makes for a lot of options.
Give it some thought and you may find more space then you thought you had available…
Good luck!
Chris
Thats all I have are 3 stub tracks about 7’ in length and believe me they’re worth their weight in gold!
Heres an old picture but it gives you the general idea…
Former DRGW employee Mike McLaughlin wrote an interesting article about some of the DRGW’s local freight switching operations in Layout Design News #6, August 1991 (published by the Layout Design SIG). Focusing on industrial urban switching in Salt Lake City and Ogden, UT, Mike showed some very intricate and intensive trackage in these areas. To quote Mike from the article, “Note the extensive industrial trackage, tight curves, crossings, street running, two railroads serving the same industry, etc.”
These would be fine subjects for an industrial switching layout, although it’s certainly true that the more commonly held notion of the DRGW is based on its mainline. Whether modeling mainlines or industrial switching areas, staging of some sort helps suggest that the visible scene connects in some way with the rest of the world. This adds realism, in my opinion.
Byron
Model RR Blog