Hello everyone, I've come over from the narrow gauge forum to ask a question about my yard here: does it make sense? Here's the design, featuring +/- 1900 Colorado narrow gauge in Nn3: I hope it's all self-explanatory, if not, please do ask. Unfortunately I'm quite ignorant on how railroads work. I'm trying to mend this with several books and online sources, but some help from more knowledgeable people would be much appreciated
Overall a very good plan w/ alot of operations. The only real problem is the yard lead requires the operator to make alot of unnessary movements RR wise. (Read you'll get real tired of it real fast!) It would be better to connect the lead directly to the mainline. You could have the engine track lead cross the yard lead at grade. Also what is the purpose of the shorty 3 track "yard"? Seems like you could add a 5th yard track & still have the same car capacity overall. As configured the 4th yard track has to be left open just to work the shorty yard.
Hello Andy, thank you for your reply! I'm not sure I understand your comment on the lead. As I see it, there is an Arrival/Departure track off the main where all freight trains go. This is directly connected to one switch, going to A. engine facilities and B. the lead. So, after the engines have cleared, the switcher can just ride up and down from the yard to the arrival track, no? Excuse me if I'm being thick, it's all new to me. The 3-track 'yard' is for storing items like a snow plough, wrecker, or other seldom-used equipment. I had seen the problem with the bottom main yard track needing to be cleared if any of the auxiliary tracks are to be reached, but didn't think it important enough. It does look like there is room for a more practical way though, so I'll look into that. Thanks!
I feel the yard lead, or at least as you have labelled it, is problematic. It's tail is far too short, the part ending at lower left in your diagramme. Also, the caboose track...should it not be double ended? Requires lots of shunting to get at a particular caboose if that is where they are to be stored. Otherwise, I like it! It flows nicely in a general way, and offer the user a lot of possibilites.
Have been designing layouts since the late 70s, looked at numerous RR maps, worked w/ RR civil engineers & been a conductor. do know a little about RRs. Have attached a VERY rough sketch of your layout w/ some of my ideas. Don't be offended. One of those civil engineers told me if it's on paper the lines can be treated as wet noodles! As configured you A/D track is really a siding off the main. The A/D extension isn't prototypical as the engines would occupy the siding anyway. Hopefully you can see where I've placed the yard & engine leads and that some of the other changes make sense. Forgot the caboose track but you should be able to fin a spot. Hopefully close to the yard office or you'll have alot of cranky conductors! Strongly recommend you join the LGSIG Yahoo Group and post your plan there to get even more opinions of your yard design. ldsig : Layout Design SIG Discussion Group BTW is this yard part of a larger layout?
The yard is overly complicated and very inefficient. It will take several runarounds and "saws' to negoiate the switchbacks to get in or out of the yard. The crossover in the middle of the "AD track" is totally unecessary and just complicates things. You really only have 2 class tracks, since one appears to be for the house/team track and the other is a lead for the short tracks. That only leaves the two tracks in the middle. The little short tracks in the front should be rearranged to make a couple 3 or 4 car tracks rather than so many 2-3 car tracks. Minor point, in a yard as small as this, they would call the double ended track 'siding" not an "A/D" track Modelers get carried away and want to make every yard no matter how small a division point. Are you sure Nn3 engines can handle very many cars up an 8% grade??
In line with Andy’s thoughts railroad yards have a purpose and are designed with that in mind. The goal is to handle as many cars as efficiently as possible in the space provided. You will find that there are a limited number of “correct” ways of accomplishing this task and all of those are variations on tried and true principles. You will find it easier to understand the principles of a good yard design and then design your yard instead of designing your yard and then trying to make it work like a real yard.:tb-cool: The mainline can be used as the yard lead and arrival / departure track if traffic is low; otherwise you will want to work off of a siding. All classification tracks and siding (A/D track) should be accessible from the yard lead. Your drill track (yard lead) should be as long as your longest yard track so that the switcher can pull in or out the entire length of cars. You will want at least two classification tracks; one for east and one for west bound trains. If possible allow trains to arrive and depart without fouling the yard switcher movements. Double ended yards allow for traffic from both directions and are more realistic. Use staging tracks for storing trains. Yards are intended to handle the rerouting of cars (not storage). This short overview is intended to give you an idea of the principles and in itself will not be sufficient to design a yard from. Andy’s modifications to your plan is a first step toward designing a good yard. Try to understand what he is accomplishing with his design changes and ask more questions. I know you have read various materials; however look closely at already designed yards and study how they function. This will give you a visual and an opportunity to perform some mock up operations. Attached is the final track plan and sub-division point yard of the BCVRR for reference. Enjoy, Jerry
As I am just moving into HOn3, I am following this thread. Could you please post a clearer/larger re-draw of this yard? Also I would like to know if this plan is part of a larger layout.
I'm not offended, this is exactly the sort of feedback I'm after. I am sort of disappointed in receiving replies as 'Modelers get carried away and want to make every yard no matter how small a division point', or: 'You will find it easier to understand the principles of a good yard design and then design your yard instead of designing your yard and then trying to make it work like a real yard'. I only half know what a division point is, let alone wanting one, and I really did try to follow the '10 yard design commandments'. So, before I come to my current design, I'd like to share some of my thinking that went in to the original design. Long story, bear with me please (or skip straight to my current plan at the end). I'll start by explaining the scene: the blue main is the Colorado Central. The green line is a fictional main line, which connects to the CC at the modelled location. The town itself generates some traffic by the mine (with a 2 car max ride due to the grade), ore dock, warehouse, industry, and stock chutes. It's all tiny. The big traffic is on the CC and that's mostly through freight. There's also some passenger service. So, what traffic there is would be small in volume, but diverse and with 3 possible destinations, and that's what the yard should be able to handle. First thing I tried to do is copy the yard layout shown here. That's also why I called the main line siding an 'A/D-track', as that is how it's shown there. For lack of space, I made the silly 'A/D extension'. My reasoning: train enters from left, should stay off the main. Engines need to go to the service area anyway, so until the switcher has pulled the train to the lead, the engines (on a double headed train) can sit on the extension where they're not in anyone's way. At this point, a train has max. 5 cars, which is also the max for all the spurs (except 1, not on purpose) and the lead, all fine and dandy I thought. Next, I added the caboose track. For lack of space, single ended. I also don't quite see how a double ended spur would help much. The mentioned site says: 'If there's no run-around it can be very difficult to tack a caboose onto the back of a departing freight train.' However, in my scenario, the switcher can't even get to the back of a train departing to the left, because the train will be there, blocking its path, and for a train to the right it doesn't need to be a double ended spur. The second reason for making the caboose track double ended would be, I think, to more easily reach the caboose at the back, should that be the one you need. I won't be storing that many cabooses though, 3 perhaps, and the move requires a runaround to work and a lot of space. Temporarily getting the first 2 cabooses out of the way doesn't seem much more work to me. Then I needed a runaround. On the mentioned website this is built into the lead. I didn't have the space, so made a second connection from the lead to the ladder and bottom spur. The lead might now appear shorter, but as the switcher will only be using it for one purpose at a time, it's still a 5-car-capacity lead. The lower spur did suffer, as it's now practically unsuitable for other than very temporary storage. To compensate I added the small 3-car spur above the ladder. Next, I wanted to spice things up a bit. Mentioned website recommends some auxiliary tracks, so I made some off the bottom ladder spur, which was now more of a lead anyway. I then wanted to add some inefficiency, on purpose, because I think an ideal yard wouldn't be very exciting. There has to be some screw-up potential. So, I added the warehouse, stock chutes, ore dock, and industry spur. To avoid the switcher having to go back and forth, I made the crossover between A/D and main. (Don't see how someone called that totally unnecessary? With it, lead to ore dock takes 1 move, without it: 3). I think I've covered the whole thing now. I think the design is basically functional, but apparently it isn't, I just don't entirely see how. The basics as I see them are there: an A/D (or siding as you say), a lead, and spurs, all with the same capacity, all neatly trailing point. There's a lot of stuff and complication added on, but this shouldn't hinder general use of the basics as far as I see it. Now then, to my current plan. I've tried to do the things you said, though I don't fully understand what's going on in the left side of Andy's sketch. It isn't complete yet. I didn't want to go through all the effort, just to be told I got the basics all wrong again . And the xTrkCad-file if you like: link. Again: blue is the CC main, green the fictional main, purple the mining track with a 2-car max. The yard is not part of a larger layout, but it will be possible to extend the layout later on (in the direction of the green line). As you can hopefully see, I've only drawn the basics: main line siding, lead, yard ladder, double ended caboose track (though I don't see the point), and engine service track. I still need a general-purpose runaround (could perhaps be the caboose track, which would then become a single-ended spur somewhere else?) The ore dock, stock chutes, warehouse spur and industry spur have to be added. The auxiliary tracks can probably fit above the engine service tracks. For the ore dock and stock chutes, I still see a crossover as the most convenient, but perhaps you know a better way that will fit. I just can't find the room for the second turnout on the right, as sketched by Andy. Fire away if you will! And monumental thanks to everyone who read the entire post. (I did also subscribe to the SIG Yahoo group, and will post there when I know I've got the basics right.)
This of course assumes that this is a good yard plan. I personally think it is a terrible plan for a small layout and in 30 years of prototype experience and 45 years of modeling experience have never seen a prototype yard designed that way. It is a terribly convoluted and complicated way to organize a yard.
One other thing, go to Google Books and search for Droege's book on freight terminal design. It was written in the 1912 so should be the "cutting edge" of railroad design for the narrow gauge era. http://books.google.com/books?id=2p...rontcover&dq=droege&cd=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Since you're treating the Ten Commandments as THE word in track planning, send your plan to the author via his email link and see what he says. He'll probably tell you the same things we're trying to tell you here. Think you've taken his top yard design too literally when the bottom one is more true to the prototype. And 999 out of 1000 times the yard lead (AKA drill track) is tied to a siding or mainline. Also your new plan leaves no room for a roundhouse which would be present at any division point, especially in the steam era. There's no good reason to have an 8% grade to the mine. It would be 4% or less if you didn't have it cross over the mainline.
My comment(s) were meant to be helpful and not disappointing.:tb-sad: I have designed what I think would be a starting point to build upon and tweak to your liking. I did not add in any of the extras such as engine / tender service areas. The general idea provides two double ended A/D tracks, four stub end classification tracks, runaround track, caboose track and turn table lead. The optional crossover to the main allows the switcher to work cars off the main.:tb-cool: Hope this helps. Jerry
Like this version of the yard better. But made a few changes to hopefully make things flow better. The 2 arrows on each end are to indicate a shift to allow for the mine as was in his original plan.
I seem to be making enemies instead of friends here.... not my intention! I'll test the equipment first of course, if it can't do the 8% (though I'm fairly sure it can), I'll change it. What would you present as a good basic small yard design? Thanks, I will! It's the only word I know... I did, no response. Landscape and location of the mine would be the reason... Not meant negatively towards any of you, it's just more difficult to understand than I'd like, especially when the LDSIG-recommended commandments I've been working from are said to be terrible. I will study this very carefully, thanks!
Mattun reply: Since everything is still on paper this isn't "cast in concrete". Putting a river between the mainline & the mine would give you a good reason for the switchback being < 8%.
A good small yard? http://users.iafrica.com/c/ca/caroper/tutorial/advanced.htm You can eliminate the switchback and make its tail track into another yard track. http://users.iafrica.com/c/ca/caroper/tutorial/challenge.htm An explanation of the yard, minus the engine terminal. (Ignore the section on the Timesaver; that is not a yard, and many modellers will lament its continued use as a switching area.) Seeing this design for the first time was almost a transcendent experience. It shattered my preconceptions as much as the "Ten Commandments of Yard Design". That one showed that a yard ladder could slant the opposite way you expect, and a whole yard could be a switchback - and it could work. The "absolute beginner" layout introduced me to the idea of putting the engine terminal between the body tracks and A/D track(s). That's the place it gets in the way least, operationally. Together, these sites show the importance of drawing the distinction between A/D and body tracks. I'd realized that distinction a long time ago, but still felt compelled to draw them adjacent.
This is a great concept in yard design!:thumbs_up::thumbs_up: This is a highly efficient design for switching out locos on the siding (A/D track). Larger layouts could easily incorporate loco services. Not a practical design for modeling double ended yards. One thing I would like to see is the ability to couple up a locomotive to consist(s) in the stub end yard and pull out onto the mainline. This could be easily added to a larger layout. Jerry
