But I don't think it would need to be replaced outright. A good yard is a golden asset. That layout could certainly become one end of a larger, more prototypical pike.
I would have liked to do something more in line with prototypical receiving, classification, and outbound yardwork. There's not room to do everything, though
Actually, those things your design would be very good at. You would likely only be able to run one train while you did it, as you would have to use the inside main line as your switching lead. But that yard is very workable. By switching lead, if you're unfamiliar, I mean a track you drag cars onto out of the yard, and from which you shove cars back into the yard and onto a different track. A loop of switching lead surrounding the yard isn't exactly realistic, of course. But it does have the advantage of effectively being infinitely long in both directions. It will work, and you'll be able to leave one train running around (on the outer main line) while you work your yard. A hump yard would be more prototypical, given your modern time period. But model trains just don't roll well enough to hump. You wind up having to drag them down the hill with some trick like moving under'ground' magnets.
Welcome to Trainboard, and sure looks like fun waiting to happen. I too will be following your build. Best wishes and ask away when the spirit moves you. Lots of experienced folks around willing to help
Thanks much and I respect years of knowledge and experience. Most of the fun here is the learning. No worries about the advice on practicality. I have seen over-ambitious intentions and general ignorance in many spheres so can appreciate any feelings that that applies to me and this plan. I stated my objectives upfront -- and that I was worried about a 4' stretch, and still am. That will have to be addressed. This could very well need to be modified to fit space although I can see having room to do more than this 4x22 plan. I had already worried about the need for more prototypical receiving, classification, and outbound yardwork. There's not room to do everything, though, as you all know better than I. I do like to see a long train, as I suspect many newbies do. That is the primary objective to me now, with the secondary one accommodating more operational problems later as the excitement of roundy-rounds dissipates. I have been reading quite a lot but it's one thing to read about railroad operations and another to live it in a career or to have years of model railroading operational experience. That's why I solicit and appreciate the layout feedback, thanks much! I also suspect the investment in critiquing a possible, rather than specific, plan has little utility for many, understandably so. I feel like the space I'll have will be large enough to accommodate many of the concepts I'm feeling my way through, and hopefully more, so I do highly value the process of thinking through topics that are pretty new to me and time isn't wasted on this, at least from my perspective. As to clutter, I am willing to accept it if it's useful allowing interesting operations (again, my first plan probably had many faults on that front) as opposed to towns, cities, and such. The spur on the right may be constrained but could open to a new section entirely. On hoarding, when career and other activities prevent a serious effort sometimes the easy path for a long term hobby objective is procurement of its components. Maybe hoarding but I hope to enjoy the rolling stock someday. Apart from accessibility of a 4x22 plan, which I will address as space is known, I am hoping this modification is moving in a better direction. I hate the traverse of the outbound over the receiving but maybe can solve this later. Thanks again, Lynn
I was thinking along those lines, too. It isn't a bad thing to think that far ahead, especially when that spur introduces the only major variation in the landscape. It's a good idea, but that spur ties in on the backside. So, if that were to be turned into an extended main line, trains wind up spiraling in to the yard. Suppose you were to want to make that yard the end of a longer point-to-loop layout in the future. You would then want to eliminate the back half of the loop, and extend the track along the edge of the yard into a main line. You would want to keep part of the loop as a switching lead. The switching lead going the other direction would be alongside the main line. If you want to keep the mainline at the front of the layout, with the yard behind, you'd want the main to curve back in toward the back wall, as the rest of the benchwork would probably not be as deep as the yard. Unless you extend the main off to the left only, or this benchwork winds up in the corner of the room, that raised siding on the right could get in the way. In any case, if you eliminate the back half of the loop, then that makes it difficult to keep that siding connected. Part of the end loop curve could also wind up as part of a wye, though with a turntable and roundhouse, you might not need a wye. At this point, all of this might be overthinking the thing. As JimJ pointed out, you could be perfectly happy with your 'roundy-round' for thirty years before any of the rest of this comes up. I personally like the layout. So, if no expansion plans solidify for you right away, my advice is don't worry about it. If you make a little more work for yourself later by not thinking far enough ahead today, well, that's better than compromising your design now, only to find out that you have to move before you expand, and your new space requires that you have to expand in a totally different way from the way you planned today. As for the 4' dimension, a 20" minimum radius in N scale is actually pretty darned nice. I'm old-school enough to know for a fact that a 22" minimum mainline radius can be lived with in HO scale. It ain't pretty, but guys have survived using it over the years, when they had to. As for the auxiliary receiving and departure yards on the backside, that might be overdoing things just a bit. They are awfully removed from the classification area, and running around inside the main line from one part of the yard to the other makes your main line look like it never escapes from the yard at all. Seven yard tracks and a double-track main is a lot of yard for one operator. You could use that first yard track for receiving and still have a lot of storage. I'd be more concerned with lengthening the yard tracks you have by moving the ladder track on the 'east' end as far east as possible, possibly eliminating a couple of those 'caboose tracks' shown in purple next to the MOW section in your original diagram. If you think about it, I think you might like that better than commuting three or five cars at a time over half the length of your main line at switcher speeds. Do you really need three receiving tracks for a two track main line? The layout as you show it in the first post of the thread works pretty well. It could be tinkered with, lengthening the yard tracks just a bit as I mentioned above (every inch is wonderful when it comes to yard length). But greed can completely ruin a good design. My advice is don't let greed lead you to a yard that's hard to work. You wouldn't be the first to suffer that fate. But you're better off not being the next to suffer that fate. I assume you've heard the acronym K.I.S.S. We all go through what you're doing--we shove in more than our space allows, keep what's important, and pare down the rest. You're definitely ready for the paring knife now. You're right, no model railroad can do it all. Repeat after me: No model railroad needs to do it all. Instead of trying to create separate yard areas around back where they're hard to reach, try this: Make the first yard track or two better for receiving by having trains enter them as soon as they come out of the curve and onto the straight. Let locomotives pull right down to the end of the yard track, and put in crossovers down in those dead ends to allow the locomotives to escape by switching over to the next track. Lengthen the yard tracks by moving the MOW area north, and making the ladders at both ends out of double-slips, so you can have dead ends off both directions. That way you increase capacity in the yard you have, rather than increasing capacity by sticking more little yards hither and yon. Yards with multiple sections are fine for clubs, and for real railroads, where you have lots of real estate and lots of crews to work them. But in my experience, a happy yardmaster has one yard with as much room as possible within it. My suggestion for a 'receiving yard' is this: Move the 'east' ladder east so the very first switch past the double crossover leads to it. Make that first switch a double-slip and extend that first yard track down to a dead end, as on the 'west' end. Incoming trains pull onto that first track, and the locomotives go down into that dead end, uncouple, pull clear and exit. Then recoup your seventh storage track by moving the tower across to the north side of the double-slip shown in red, and adding an eighth track where the tower used to be. You can only receive one train at a time, but isn't that enough? My suggestion for a 'departure yard' is this: Put the train you received away, then use the receiving track as your departure track. Make room for the locomotives by locating the hind end of the train you're making up down in the dead end.
I too will only have a point to point MRR.. Same statement and sentiment; No roundy rounds for me either...M
All very helpful commentary, thanks very much. I'm taking it in and will study operations a lot more before fiddling with the plan further. I usually like KISS but in a model railroad I guess I'm not so averse top packing activities in the space. Some of that may be from the aesthetics of just seeing lots of rolling stock and despite any reality of practical operations, I'll admit. One thing, I don't mind so much the loop-de-loop appearance of mains, receiving, classification, and departures as in my mind they are separate. I understand the realism of point-to-point but can't get away from a desire to see long trains (to me, say 40-50 cars) on a main line that may make several rounds, albeit before coming into the same yard they left. The depth problem, which even I can see with a tape measure in front of me, might be mitigated if space allows for a U-shaped layout around a room/basement so that components can be separated some and strung out. Tradeoffs...
I suggest that you give further thought about vertical grade transitions. These are where your layout transitions from level track to a rising or falling grade, and such grade transitions in your track are tricky to install without them becoming a cause for derailments. The flyover that you added in your revision looks like it would require such grade transitions. It also looks like the two curves in the upper right corner (which then merge into a curved turnout) are among the sharpest curves you have in your entire layout. If the intent of these two tracks on the far right is to serve as a link to a future layout extension, that would cause these tracks to become part of a main line. In this case, I would want the radius of the curves in the upper right to be larger, and it appears you have the room to do this.
I see the spur to the right wouldn't work as a mainline the way it is. On the grades, I could reduce elevations some. I was just trying to give a bit of transition/contour while staying under, or not much over, 2%. The far right spur elevation can be reduced as it could be substantially reworked. I don't think any flyovers on the rail side are necessary as I used crossing tracks where the departure crosses the NE-to-SW diagonal and the across three receiving tracks. I guess that may seem pretty dumb to have the departure track to cross the three receiving (recognizing that other important suggestions might change this element altogether), but if this design feature holds I was thinking that the departure track is long enough to stage what I consider a lengthy train before the crossover point at the southernmost receiving track, so I accepted that as a necessity.
It's not "will I ?" I already have, for many years. I'm reporting, yes, for me point to point gives me the realism I'm lookin' for. I just dismantled my HO point to point MRR due to relocating. I in no way mean in this thread that the OP is wrong in any way ..I love everyone who loves trains; so much so that if some train buff's jollies was holding a Lionel 0 scale, 3 rail ABBA consist of SantaFe War Bonnets in the bath tub, he's at least a member of our club; another train nut ! My words to to the OP are meant as an alternative if, IF he or she were now or later on into what I personally feel is the way to go with layouts..But I sit in no judgement whatsoever of this new member's way of getting his trains up and running..I say welcome aboard Tboard and the hobby of MRRing ..................................... PS. My ID is: Mark in L. A. = MarkinLA ...not Marklin !! Never took to those model trains with the studs serving as the middle rail since I first set eyes on them in the late 1950s......But to be politically correct I wish it known, I respect someone else's love for them...
Thanks to both of you! And others who chimed in. It all pushes me to a better plan. I've since found some excellent sources on yard design. You might ask why I didn't find those before posing a plan. Fair question and I don't have a good answer. Only a poor answer I'm sometimes impetuous. But putting a plan up for critique, and hearing views, has gone a long way towards alerting me to my ignorance. I have a much better idea of layout needs in light of my original objectives (and I've geeked out on a new plan, but I'll reserve that for critique when the actual space available is known, and owned, rather than further bothering you all on a hypothetical). And while my mind settles more on the physical layout, I'm beginning to push forward on wiring challenges, electrofrogs, control, block occupancy, signaling and the like. Given the many vendors (including do-it-yourself sellers of PCBs) it's a steep learning and much fun. I am settling on current sensing block occupancy as IR seems a little too finicky for me and I may want to run at night occasionally, which rules out optical. I'll extend the ECoS with ESU components as they do what's needed and I take comfort in their theoretical compatibility. So getting a few hundred surface mount resistors on rolling stock can help keep me busy until the space is known and I turn my attention to final plan stages. Signaling will be 2-blocks ahead mainly on the mains. NJI turnout position indicator lights on most of the yard that's not tying to a main. My big area of confusion now is combining circuit breakers with the ESU ECoS/Boosters. I guess that's another thread, though. Thanks again!
Thanks for nice responces toward us. But Im concerned as to your circuit breaker concerns. Frankly, I don't know what you're getting at, but it seems like you are getting involved with things, well, technical things, for no need. Here is what I and most do to have a MRR up and running: After settling on a track plan and benchwork is built, trackage is laid in with or without (usually in yards) cork or such supporting these tracks. If you are going DCC (digital command control where all engines have decoders in them ) we then weed out where there will be reverse loops (electronically due to a track configuration). We wire these correctly (see "reverse loop" wiring in this forum or in MRRing books in library or online). When these areas are wired correctly all will run fine if trackage has been installed correctly. This then is essentially all you need to be concerned with. Circuit breakers are built into the command center you decided on (Mine is NCE using their "PowerCab" and daisy chained walk-around panels). If there is a short anywhere in the system (say, a nail laying across both rails or uncovered wires touching each other, the system shuts down in a millisecond.. NOW, if you are remaining analog (no sound in locos, no independence of locos, no auto [polarity] reversers) you will have to buy a power pack (such as an MRC Tech ll )and wire it to the rails. BUT you are going to have to create 'blocks' (gapped train-length sections of trackage) and employ toggle switches on a control panel to turn these gapped sections off and on.. This is then the only way you can maintain independence of locos...(find/see advice/instructions on analog MRRing ). My personal advice is that you go DCC where no rail gaps are needed and locos have authentic sound coming out, whistle blows, bell rings, lights on and off, etc. With DCC you can even have a head on collision, thus forcing the engineer to be very alert .. Hope I haven't insulted your intelligence, but digital MRRing is really the way to go now..NCE PowerCab is about $150.. and engines are more expensive. I'd rather have a more costly digital, w/sound loco and 4 cars than an older style analog, 30 car train, loco having no sound nor independence from other locos on the road...But either way is OK as far as owning and running model trains..That's up to you.. Though this is a long paragraph, it is essentially describing the simplest ways of getting a RR up and running......'fun' is the operative word...Mark
I'm strictly old school. I actually like doing the power dispatching, and operate strictly on block control. But you seem to have an appetite for the technology, so I'll leave you in more capable hands so far as DCC. It certainly does have its advantages, and like anything else, as it solves the old-school headaches it creates a set of new-school headaches. It's been a fun conversation so far. I'd love to see where your planning goes once you know what space you have to work with!
Yes, I have an ESU ECoS that I'm learning on a small door-sized track. I am referring to various threads that point out DCC command stations are designed to protect the station/boosters from shorts and are not designed to protect decoders. Many, from what I gather, combine PSX or other circuit breakers with the command stations/boosters in the power districts. But for some reason that presents problems with the ESU components. I can't say more until I research it further. Thanks, Lynn
My real concern is the depth.Provide access hatches in the scenery against any wall or MURPHY is going to win. The overall scheme? Hey it's your railroad! Height of the benchwork is going to come into play, do an honest mockup and see how far you can really reach. Reaching over trees? My experience is the effective range of my arm isn't as much as I think.
Right, I definitely will be shooting for 2.75' along two walls in the redesign, with a few 3.5' points at the loop ends (but generally a max reach of 3' (I'm 6-2 so can do that, if the bench height is reasonable).
Don't forget that you have to reach *over* things like scenery, trees and structures as well as *across* the layout. That will reduce your comfortable reach.
