I’ve been laying track since late Dec 06 and now it is time to start laying track for the yard area. I would like your views before cork/track goes down in that area. Is there anyting here I will regret later?
1) Layout looking from the DOOR in the PDF - yard area in question along far right wall
I have tried to label as much as possible. The grid spacing is 12 inches and not 24" as indicated.
2) PDF format of layout with yard at #1 - new link below.
Some basics:
Can operate point-to-point or as continous loop by dropping the Colorado bridge in.
Era 1952 so will limit to 40 or 50 foot rolling stock w/some 72 foot passenger. Hey, it’s the Katy !
Staging next to DOOR with interchange between MoPAC and Katy at Elgin.
First of all I think your layout looks great! Very clean looking room etc!
The yard design is done well. Your yard lead looks like it is long enough and the yard flows nicely and you can switch cars in the yard without fouling the main.
The only thing I noticed is one piece of redundant trackage. There is a run-around track that parallels your classification ladder. Most folks plan that in to serve as a caboose track, but you already have made allowances for one.
The track I am talking about in case I’m not being clear enough is the second track in from the layout edge directly above/left to the number 1 in the pink circle on your diagram.
I would remove it as you have lots of runaround tracks in the yard. By taking it out, you can now take your classification ladder and slide it to the right thus making your classification tracks almost 12" longer.
Alternatively, you could keep it in and call it a RIP track (repair-in-place) track and then essentially have created another industry to switch.
Good call Dustin. That addresses one of the two comments I was going to make. Both of them being short yard tracks. Both where Dustin mentions and in staging. You have room out toward your door. I would extend staging as far as you can (but don’t extend the whole shelf, just enough for the tracks you have. As it is your layout already over-powers your staging anything you gain back will be appreciated later.
In addition to the 12" Dustin got you on the ladder track, I would extend them all the way to where you have the yard limit sign. You do need all the room you can get on those ladders.
A small point, but given the large size of your engine facility area, you might provide a resupply (coal, fuel, sand) track and get a little more ops out of the area.
I feel that your inspection pit, leading to the turntable at centre, is too far away from the adjacent track, thus forcing it to curve too much to meet the turntable. If you can squash all that track downward toward the ones south of them, your approach to the TT needn’t possibly preclude its use by larger steamers. Just a thought.
I am unsure if this is what you are asking…your photo above seems to suggest you are interested in feedback about what it closest to the camera. So, I have not looked at any other parts of your layout…very elegant in the picture, by the way. Nice work!
The MP didn’t go to Elgin, they interchanged at Taylor and Waco (well actually the IGN, International Great Northern did). The MP crossed the MKT at Taylor and had trackage rights over the MKT from Taylor to Waco (and then to Ft Worth). Just for your information, you can say the interchange was anyplace you want.
They actually crosses the SP at Elgin.
Also the MP had a yard at Taylor, but not the MKT, the MKT had yards at Smithville and Bellmead (Waco). They didn’t even have a siding at Taylor, just an interlocking and interchange track with the MP.
You might want to consider making Taylor “Bellmead” and Elgin “Taylor” and then you have everything in the right spot.
I would lose the caboose track and make that the left hand lead of the yard. Actually you could put a short curve coming out of the left yard switch, then atart the left hand ladder over there with a series of right hand switches. That would let you tie the departure track into Arrival #2 to the left of the scissors crossover. use the runaround on the switch liead as the caboose track and extend the yard tracks a foot or two to the right.
I don’t understand what the roundhouse is doing at Smithville? There is not yard there to require a roundhouse. it looks like what you are doing is just putting one there as a display case for your engine collections. Thats a large chunk of your layout’s square footage you have devoted to a display case.
At Smithville there was a junction where the lines from Ft Worth split into the line from Houston and the line from San Antonio. If you could figure out a way to incorporate a return loop at Smithville you could simulate that with a train going around counterclockwise would be going to San Antonio (in) or from Houston (out) and a train going counterclockwise would be going to Houston (in) or from San Antonio (out).
Thanks Dustin. The layout is in my garage. This is what I was looking for. I’ve been looking at that yard design for several months and it never dawned on me.
Good point about extending the yard tracks to the limit sign - done. On staging, right again. Here is a picture of the area and I have easily another 24", so I will extend that out to match the plan update above. 24 inches at approximately 6" per car puts another 4 cars on each track. [:)]
SpaceMouse, I do not understand your comment:
Which engine facility are you speaking of … the small one in the Taylor yard … or ?
That reminds me. Give credit where credit is due. My yard lead is as long as it is because of a tip I received back in fall of 2005 on that very yard plan from a certain Mr Mouse. [tup]
The one by the TT. You have multiple tracks and a large roundhouse implying lots of traffic. If you had another track in that area to park tankers and gondolas for the sand, coal and fuel, it’s another desitnation on the layout.
Selector, thanks for the input and comments. That area, as you can tell from this picture has no cork yet. I’m not sure yet but I think the coaling tower strattles two tracks with a third on one side of it … one track for getting coal in … one for dumping directly underneath … and the last on one side to service locos on the outside track.
I tightened up that trackage a bit in the new plan above.
Dave, your knowledge is impecable [tup]. I’ve taken a bit of artistic license here. Googling the Taylor area shows a track connecting the MP yard running east-west (now UP) with the old MKT running north-south. I’ve made this so for 1952.
Agreed. MKT crosses SP in Elgin. Again, I take a liberty for now. I love some of the SP locos etc. and even have some of the rolling stock.
I began the yard with the intention of it being MoPAC. But, after a trip down HWY 95 and visiting Smithville, I fell in love with the Katy. [;)]
Not a bad idea. I’ll have to muse over that for a little. Thanks for the input.
That’s the general idea, but I think you might have to do some juggling to make it work out. Ideally, you would have one track that sides up the fuel, sand, and coal. Or two tracks–the one you have now for sand and another between the coal and fuel.
If you think about it, it makes more sense to have the coal and fuel on two separate outside tracks and the sand in between, as both fuel types need sand.
I just re-reviewed your plan with the changes and it looks really good. The increased staging looks good too. I think overall this plan is ready to finish!
Keep posting as you go… you have a really nicely laid out plan here.
The design of the plan is two laps around the room with a shared portion of the route (La Grange to Elgin). The entire Smithville portion is a large reverse loop, plus the MP/MKT interchange track is another reversing track.
The operational limitation is that if you are going around the loop, once you get your train on the Colorado River bridge, you have to walk around the peninsula to join it again, which will be a concern if walkaround operation is desired.
With the reverse tracks (both the interchange and Smithville loop) both oriented to turn a counterclockwise train, there is no way to turn a train back without backing through the interchange track or around the loop. Every time you bring a train through Smithville you turn it with no way to run it back to Smithville. If the purpose of the roundhouse is to turn steam engines, then with this track arrangement once you run a train in either direction through Smithville you have no route to get it back to Smithville and no way to turn the engine at Taylor. The only way to get a train back to Smithville is to 0-5-0 the engines.
One way to fix that would be to make a 4’ difference in height between La Grange and Smithville, bring the main at La Grange toward the rear of the benchwork, putting more of the curve there and make the Colorado river bridge more straight across the aisle than at an angle. After crossing the aisle the main would go under the main lines and curve around to connect near the right siding switch at Smithville. That way a MKT train would make the circuit Taylor-La Grange-Smithville-Elgin-Lost Pines-Taylor. That way every train could get to both Taylor and Smithville. Having a grade coming out of the Colorado river valley is entirely prototypical.
You could put a switch in right off the left end of the Colorado River Bridge and make the MP connection. That would keep the MP loop. I would put a siding in there with one switch by the Colo
