Staging and small layouts - some thoughts

Before I begin my discussion of layout design issues in a small layout, I would like to define (roughly) what staging is for new people to the hobby. When one watches a play, the actor may say he is leaving, to go catch a train, and walk off stage. Of course, we the audiance are to believe he is going to catch a train, when in reality, we know he or she is standing somewhere behind the main stage in an area we can't see. However, as part of the production, we the audiance are quite willing to believe he or she is going to catch a train.

Staging is the same thing, but what can be confusing is that staging may look like a yard, and this is where the confusion arises. Staging is an area where we place trains waiting for their turn in the theatre production of operations on a layout. So #1 Via comes out of staging onto the main layout area, where it travels to its destination. In the staging area, you may have different trains with different purposes, with different destinations, all waiting their turn in the railroad "theatre" we create.

There are several kinds of staging. Linear staging is trains lined up, one behind the other, waiting their turn to come out onto the layout. There is stub ended staging (probably the most popular) usually at either end of the layout, where trains sit side by side, much like a yard, waiting their turn to come out. There is loop staging (usually reversing loops) with staging set up at the end of the loops. This arrangement is popular as you can re-use a train in one operating session, as you can send it back east, after it arrived from the west.

But what got my attention was a discussion I was involved in around staging and small layouts. A layout is considered by many to be the most effective and fun when it has a purpose. In other words, when there is "purpose" to a layout, other than running around looking great, the layout is more "alive." Other than "died in the wool" dioramists, most of us want to run our railways as a "game" of sorts, to add interest and purpose to the hard work we have put into our modeling efforts.

There is a problem with staging. Staging requires a large amount of room to be effective and this can eat up valuable space in a smaller layout. Remember the primary purpose of staging is to add purpose to the layout. Trains are coming and going from all parts of the country with various tasks, such as hot freight, and way freight; and these we leave in staging until their turn arrives in the schedule.

Modeler's tend to copy what other modeler's do, especially if they are newer to the hobby. But, copying staging on a small layout may not be the most effective use of space in small confines. I realize there are many plans out there that add staging to a 4 by 8 layout thus legitimatizing staging in a small area. But there are other alternatives.

Recall I said that adding "purpose" to the layout brings your modeling efforts to life. So if you can add purpose to your layout, without eating up a lot of space, then your layout might be more effectively used in terms of interesting operations.

Many feel that a branch line or switching layout may be more applicable to smaller areas; you can operate shorter trains with smaller engines prototypically and still be faithful to the layout. A branch line is off a mainline in class one railroads and can be quite busy with interchange traffic, switching etc. And needless to say, a switching layout can be very busy. The benefits of both philosophies is that you can run shorter trains with smaller engines, taking advantage of shorter radius track and still look "proper." An interchange track can be set up to connect to the outside world. So in Vancouver, BNSF interchanges with CN and CP in the port of Vancouver area. So one interchange track can service several railroads, as well as the railroad dominating the layout.

So deciding to stage a smaller layout is not a "given;" you have choice. And chosing not to stage a smaller layout, doesn't mean you have restricted operationaly interest. In fact, using the staging area instead as part of the branch line or switching layout, will expand the purpose of the small layout, and give it lots of operational possibilities.

[ 26 November 2001: Message edited by: rsn48 ]</p>

 

Your right about using staging on a small layout may not be the best use of space, in Europe for example, many modelers who don't have room for a large staging area, (for that matter, they don't have room for a large layout either), use what is called a fiddle yard, this is of course done using the 0-5-0 switcher, which of course is one's hand being used to do the switching, ie. pick up the car and move it to another track, this could be the answer to the dilemma for many modelers here in the US who don't have any room for even a swithching layout......

 

Hi,

What about visual staging?
I have a trackplan in a 14' by 3' area in N-scale with visual staging and I think if it is not perfect it is usable.
Just don't know how to post the trackplan here.

Paul

 

I am assuming by "visual" staging, you mean the same thing as "visable" staging, using that term in North America. Visable staging is an interesting discussion into itself.

There are those( and I am not one of them) that feel all staging should not be visible. They argue that we can't see behind and beside the stage when we go to a play, to keep the "theatre" believable, so why should we see staging, to keep it believable - Andy Sperandeo is representative of this thinking.

Others feel that visable staging can be a visual asset to the layout. By making the staging area look like a yard, the lay out becomes "bigger" and we gain more visual interesting space - David Burrow is representative of this thinking. My own opinion is that if visual staging can add to the "WOW" factor of your layout, why not.

However, my initial point at the beginning of this thread, is that there are alternatives to having an operational interesting small layout, without the struggle of using a great percentage of it for staging. My comments are intended for the small layout only.

You will find all kinds of plans to add a staging area to a 4 by 8, but instead, why not have that area represent and industry, or port, or another town, rather than "wasting" it on staging track. With an interchange track, you can bring on different rail lines. One interchange track in Vancouver, British Columbia serves CN and BNSF in the Ports area, which also links to a CP yard for wheat unit and intermodal goodies. So one track links three railroads together - you can do that on a layout.

 

Great topic!! Earlier this year Model railroader ran an article on staging that really caught my eye. Basically it was an arround the room layout with staging behind the backdrop on all 4 walls. There were 2 or 3 entrances to the staging area, and it also served as a break in oval. This type of staging would take up the least space IMO, than the traditional staging yard, or loop. Has anyone tried this one yet? I might give it a go on the next layout.........Mike

 

You guy might be dealing more with the theory of staging right now and less with the practical, but this seems to be exactly what I'm looking for.

I'm building a 4'6" x 8' layout. The 4'6" is an attempt to widen those radi as much as possible. My current plan for staging is to start on one side with 3 or 4 tracks and then spiral up to the seniced portion. I would like to have 6"s of space to have room for access to staging.

Starting with a 52" diameter (26" radius) and and adding 48" for the straight in between the curves I got approximately 212".
With this I figure I can have 12" of 1% grade and then 200" of 3% grade and this should put me approximately 6" above my staging by the time I get back around the layout. I would really apreciate any feedback. Keep in mind most of my calculations are done on scratch paper and a calculator late in the evening and are pretty rough.

Since this is a small layout I figure trains will be short so most engines should not have to much trouble on the grade.

If this is more specific that you wanted your discussion to get, let me know. Either way, thanks for your time.

 

I thought I might also add that I worked in a professional theatre for several years as a carpenter and electrician. I don't feel strongly either way regarding staging but I thought my experience in theatre might help with the analogy. (By the way, if you ever need lumber, find a theatre. Most of a set is torn down and thrown away after each play. We just threw hundreds of dollars of great lumber away every six weeks.)

As far as actors go, they are in the way except on stage. When 'off stage' they are either kept in the green room or corraled into holding areas. Backstage the stagehands are keeping everything in line getting ready for the next scene. Almost like switchers getting the next train ready. Like the dispatcher, the stage manager is in control of were everyone is during a play, and woe to he who is in the wrong place (also like a dispatcher).

If your main goal is to put on a 'show' then you might not want the crack varnish sitting in plain view to distract attention. Actors don't usually wait in view of the audience. In model railroading, most of the backstage (switching)work is part of the performance. Most people use an 0-5-0 for setting up staging, so the theatre analogy sorta breaks down there. I think visable staging is fine. It's a great way to display and it keeps handling time down. Ultimately, it comes down to how each person enjoys the hobby.

 

Before you write off visible staging, take a look for examples of this in the prototype. As I design my new layout, I was constantly looking for examples of prototype staging.

In Esperanza, California, the BNSF has triple tracks through the canyon, but usually only one track is free for running through. The other two tracks are lined up with freights waiting to get into LA or the harbor. Along the tracks are little white signs that say, "Engine Stop #2" etc. These trains are lined up with less than 100 feet from pilot to EOT. I played with a track plan that took a train out of staging, around on the through track and back into the line at Engine Stop #5.

In Cajon Pass, at the Summit is an area with parking lot lights and chain link fencing (to prevent cargo theft), where brakes are checked before the decent down the pass. This area is in the top right of this photo.



The current plans for my layout include this area as well as hidden staging. The layout is only 30" by 180" and will use a lot of theatrical staging for effect: facia boards, lighting, etc. Since i'm modeling Cajon Pass, I even found sage scented candles that can be burned on show days!

 

JPB,
There was an article in MR around two years ago that had a helix under a 4 by 8 layout . this helix was used for staging (linear staging). I am always reminding people that beneath there layout is a great place to install staging but you have to pay attention to the type of benchwork you are using to allow for layout underneath.

If I had a couple of million, I would be modeling in HO or S with a large layout in a basement, preferably a 30 by 50 foot layout. However given my champagne tastes on a beer budget, I am modeling in N scale in a "study" that is about 7 foot by 13 foot using the double decker approach. Some of the staging will be hidden, most of what I put under the layout (under the first deck - so that in reality it will be a triple decker). The staging deck will be as close as I can get and still be able to handle stock fairly easily, so about 8 inches seperation. This staging area probably won't be sceniced, if it is, it will be only the tracks in front that are visually obvious. And, this scenicing will be one of the last things I do.

On the upper deck, there will be visible staging which will resemble a yard. This will expand the apparent size of the layout, which is in a small area.

Compromise is often the name of the game in layout design. What we want, what we need, and what we can have, often are at odds with each other. I would prefer to have hidden staging yards that are easily accessible, but I don't have that option. I think designing an effective small to medium layout is much more challenging, than creating a large layout, where there is room to do much of what you want to do. So in smaller layouts, compromise is often the name of the game. If you opt for staging, then you reduce the "size" of useable, visual layout.

If you remove staging and instead turn that part of the layout into industry, or a branchline, of an interchange area, lets say with intermodal; then you open up the layout, but slightly reduce operations. If you have visual staging, then you can cheat and use that area as a "yard" as well. I have seen this done effectively, but then you lose it believability.

If one is going to compromise, in my humble opinion, what we leave out, or modify for our use becomes acceptable, if we do a good job of modeling. If some one comes in to see your layout and the say "WOW!", then you have been effective as a modeler and layout designer. This "WOW" factor is true whether you have spaggetti tracks, or small radius, or visible staging, or no staging, or slightly too steep a grade, or some incongruencies in your era. If we can pull people into our world, and they enjoy it, forgiveness comes easily.

 

Do you remember what issue the artical was in? I'm missing several blocks of MR issues from the late 90s.

I agree about the compromise. One of my favorite layout is George Sellios' F & S M. I have to keep reminding myself that I don't have the space he does. In my head I'm going to have mainline, branchline, and intercity traction all in 4x8. What a mess it would be if I tried that. This is my first layout too. I don't have to do everything this time. In fact, I try to look at this as more of a learning opportunity.

For this layout, staging will be more for storage than anything else. I don't have a reverse loop in the plan right now. As for benchwork, I plan to have the staging on the bench work then cover it with foam board. The sub road bed will probably be plywood supported with 1x4 risers.

What is the maximum grade on your layout? How much trouble did you have in getting the trains up to higher levels. I think that staging, especially hidden, and grades are closely related since so often staging is underneath.

 

Opps! Anyway, you must be talking about the "surround staging" layout in the Model Railroad Planning 2001 issue.

A very good staging concept for an "around the walls" type layout where there's basically two loops, the inner loop being the visable layout, and the outer loop being the staging area hidden by a low backdrop so staging is hidden but accessable.

I'm thinking about doing an HO layout in my 10 by 12 foot area using this concept. Although more track is alloted to staging than the layout itself, long trains can be stored and can be reused in an operating session. Even in a small area like mine, 30+ car trains can be stored.

 

I looked at your layout. It feels unbalanced to me, with everything primarily happening on the one long side (yard) and very little on the other side (the country side). You appear to like yards, but I will comment anyways and leave it up to you to pick and choose.

Imagine your layout with out a large yard but instead with much more industry and stub ended yard lines where switching is predominant. Imagine this scattered around your layout, instead of one concentration at the top. I think this concept would expand the "feel" of your layout as you ran it.

Right now, it feels like the yard is everything. A train is made up, runs around the layout and back into the yard. Now imagine this happening for many hundreds of times, it could get boring. Now with expanded operations around your layout, a train would leave point A, stop at B and pick something up or drop something off, then on to C, etc. This idea would also be more effective for passenger trains, which I see you are a fan of.

I think if you get rid of your yard, you will have a more interesting layout, BUT, I also know many love their yards, so this suggestion might be a tad drastic.

You could have a second deck underneath that is only about 8 inches down from the top and about 8 inches wide. You have lots of room to have a gentle grade (2%) and have it come up. This would give you gobs of space for staging. With a 2 percent grade, you would need around 32 feet of track heading up, which would be easy to do under your layout.

I wouldn't make the staging that deep as you want to take into consideration reach and visual accessability.

 

Thats the one Dave, looks like a great idea to me.....Mike

 

My question of surround staging is this - and you should note it is purely hypothetical as I have never seen it in person: can a person see and reach the staging to change up the trains, etc, with all the tasks that staging usually fullfils? Visually, how easy will it be to see the trains? Speaking from the arm chair, it seems to me that surround staging could create as many problems as it solved.

 

I meant to post this in above and forgot too. This is a lead to the helix linear staging under a 4 by 8 layout (care of Rob's diligence). It is in Model Railroader, P.90 in an article called the "Union Terminal Ry" by Don Mitchell, October 97.

[ 05 January 2002: Message edited by: rsn48 ]

 

The backdrops that I'm going to make on my proposed "surround staging" layout will be just high enough so that I won't see the trains at a normal viewing position but low enough so I could crouch over to clean tracks,rerail cars, etc. Most of my trains will be unit coals,grain,and intermodal, so I won't have the need to reach over and switch cars too often in staging. I'll probably just reuse the trains since it is a double ended staging yard and use my imagination. Maybe swap some locos around to make the appearance of a fresh train coming into the layout.

Surround staging may not be the ultimate in staging, but for a fairly small "around the walls" type layout(my area is only 10 by 12 feet) I thing it's a good staging solution. On my old track plan I was going to make one of the four sides of the layout for staging and the other three sides for the layout but with this approach, all four sides can now be used for the layout(and staging for that matter). The major downfall I see is that I'll be sinking in more money in staging tracks than the layout tracks but I guess that's one of the compromises that I'll deal with.

 

Put your staging tracks in last, as you will be able to run your layout in the meantime. That way, the majority of your initial efforts are allowing operations to happen, adding staging at the end, enhances operations. By then you might have other ideas as well.