Thank you Triplex! Very good info, I'm almost doing a little dance . Now, in your first link, the author mentions he added some improvements to the original as explained in the second link: "The yard has been expanded to include a turntable, locomotive inbound and outbound tracks, and both sanding and fueling facilities. In addition, the "Yard Lead" and the "Arrival/Departure" track are separate from the passing siding, which will greatly improve flexibility, and ease congestion on the main line." As a small test for myself, I've tried to name these improvements on the layout: What I coloured red is the new passing siding, blue still the A/D-track, and green the loco inbound and outbound tracks. Did I do well? If so, I think stuff is finally dawning on me.
Yes, you've got it!:thumbs_up: This would be a great design for your intended yard. If you can fit in another crossover ahead of the yard ladder then trains could arrive / depart directly from the stub end tracks. A crossover on the tail end of two stub end tracks would allow for engine escape. Just food for thought as all of these suggestions cost more money and real estate. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.:tb-cool: Jerry
Thanks for your suggestions! Just to make sure I understand you, your ideas would amount to the connections I've here drawn in pink, correct?
Yard Looks like you could add 1-2 yard tracks & extend the run around track to the last yard track. No need for the Xover on the first two yard tracks if you have the longer run around. You could even add a 3rd run around there for your cabooses. You could also use that spur off to the left for a R.I.P. track. And there's no need for that spur off the left end of the yard now. You could also extend your blue siding into the orange siding so you can use it while switching the yard w/o fouling the mainline. Port? Great way to incorporate the classic John Allen's TimeSaver! John Allen's Gorre and Daphetid Railroad - The TimeSaver
Just to clarify, I'm pretty sure the ten recommendations were not what was being critiqued. The implementation of them in your first designs was flawed, no offense meant. The mistake many newcomers to layout design make is to not understand how the yard must fit in with the rest of the layout and the flow of traffic. Even the best-designed yard dropped into the wrong place and connected in the wrong way in a different layout will often not be a good choice. It is hard to say without seeing the rest of the layout to which this section is to be attached, but on a real railroad (or an efficient model) the yard would probably be connected quite differently. It seems to me that one could also make much better use of the overall length of this section to make the flow of cars to-and-from the yard and industries more efficient. When designing a layout, one of the things many experienced designers consider is, "where are these cars coming from, and where do they go?" Those conceptual ideas might lead one to consider adding staging and/or interchange so that there was a reason for car movement. But again, with only this section viewed out of context, it may be harder to offer helpful suggestions.
I'd really say that magenta crossover isn't necessary. That's the whole point of distinguishing A/D from body tracks. A/D tracks should be double-ended, and this one is. Notice that the body tracks are a switchback off the lead. This is perfectly fine. Trains are never going to be heading directly into the body tracks, so engine escape crossovers aren't needed. Those are for purely single-ended yards only. It took me a long time to realize that double-ended body tracks offer little advantage. With a single yard switcher working from one end, you can switch all the body tracks without a ladder on the other end. Remember, an efficient yard can be switched with very few runarounds. The only use I can see for a fully double-ended yard is on a large layout with a yard big enough and busy enough to warrant two full-time switch engines (and operators). In that case, it's best for them to work from opposite ends so they don't get in each other's way. Yes, real yards are generally double-ended. But what I'm talking about here is modelling, space and operating ease. Representing reality is another matter.
Matt, the pink lines are correct; however not mandatory (read below). I admire how quickly you are learning! My suggestions are just that and nothing more. They are intended to give you all the pieces and allow you to make up your own mind. You may also want to consider Andy's recommendations on the additional yard tracks, run around, caboose track and tying into the orange siding. Your next concern may deal with the amount of real estate required to make these additions. This would give you a highly functional yard; however it may end up with the yard dominating the layout. If that does not bother you then by all means go for it. Andy, my suggestion for the crossover on the two stub end tracks would allow an engine to escape after pulling in head first. Of course this would only work if you use my other suggestion to add a crossover to connect the yard ladder to the main. Neither of these are mandatory and would depend on how one intends to use the yard. I hope I'm making sense here. Triplex, double ended yards offer a high degree of flexibility to arriving / departing trains and save unnecessary switcher moves to the siding (A/D track). I'm not disagreeing with your pretense, only soliciting possibilities for Mattun. Jerry
I have revised my first design trying to stay with your original track plan (until you tell us otherwise) using the concept of placing the turntable between the A/D track and stub end tracks. The CAD program shows the track sections used, angles produced by the basic turnouts required without sacrificing any length of the stub end tracks. You can design in the extras once you get this to fit into your overall track plan. Play with this on your CAD software and you will see what works and what doesn’t very quickly. It will give you answers and more than likely generate more questions. We will be here to help.:tb-wink: Jerry
Suggest the Xover be moved left of the run around and yard leads so that the mainline can be reached w/o doing switchback type moves. Then that track to the left becomes a drill track. Or just tie that track into the mainline.
Try not to be overwhelmed by all of our ideas. It just dawned on me :tb-ooh: why not allow the locos access to and from the turntable and service tracks (not yet drawn in) without fouling the yard lead. Again this is just something else to consider. Jerry
If you MOVE the crossover then a train pulling in or out of the siding (A/D track) will foul the yard lead. I would rather ADD another crossover at the point you are referring to or a turnout from the main that connects with the tail end of the yard lead. As Triplex pointed out "Notice that the body tracks are a switchback off the lead. This is perfectly fine. Trains are never going to be heading directly into the body tracks, so engine escape crossovers aren't needed.". Maybe I'm not catching what you mean, sorry.:tb-sad: Jerry
A lot depends on how this area fits in with the rest of the layout (if there _is_ a rest of the layout). If this is a low-density branch or shortline, you might only be dealing with one or two trains per "day". In that case, you might not worry about fouling the yard lead briefly ... or even bother with a yard lead at all. While many of the refinements folks are proposing might be very useful in a busy yard, they might not be necessary in the Original Poster's case. And if this is meant to suggest a lonely outpost, too much trackwork complexity might detract from the concept. Hard to know without more information on the theme, concept, and the way this section relates to other locations and elements, IMHO.
Hopefully a picture is worth a thousand words. Also can you shift the plan as indicated by the arrows to give him room for his switchback to the mine?
Here are all but one of the changes you asked for Andy. Still trying to understand the need to delete the original righthand crossover from main to siding. Jerry
Wow, you guys are sure putting in a lot of work for little old me. Much appreciated! It may take a while before I post an updated plan. I've a lot to tinker with, and unfortunately cannot spend all my time CAD-drawing . I also acquired Armstrong's book on realistic operation which I hope will be a good read. Just to clarify some things up and provide more insight in the layout as a whole: What I intend to model is a fictional line along a fictional branch of Clear Creek, period: late 19th century. This line connects to the Colorado Central. The first and perhaps only bit of this that I will build is the connection between these two lines, as featured in my original plan. This bit will be modelled in scale Nn3, in a space approximately 8'2" by 2'3", though I can extend the length up to about 13' (I'd rather keep it nearer 8' though, don't want to bite off too much in one go). Later expansion is a very real possibility. Possibly modelling the entire green line, with one more through town and the end terminal, but it could also be just an area of scenic mainline track with the odd industry on the side. I chose this theme because I like the 'narrow gauge story' and scenic setting. I also want to have fun with operation though, so that has to be accommodated somehow. This is why I chose to model a connection with another railroad. Interesting operation is to come more from diverse traffic in really small (1 car) quantities than from long trains. Grades on the line prevent very long trains anyhow. The basic reason for the railroad(s) to be there is so they can carry ore. I imagine trains on the Colorado Central consisting of mainly through freights carrying ore, with the odd car destined for my fictional line tacked on, carrying supplies, sheep, oil, or whatnot. The fictional line would carry whatever the towns (2 or 3) along the line produce and require, along with a steady supply of ore. There will also be daily passenger traffic. So, in short, it's not a very busy line, but there are three destinations to sort cars for, and a tangle of mines and industries to fuss about with. The actual location of the modelled town would be cramped, as it's in a canyon, using the space created by the two forks of the creek. I'm not overly fussy about realism, as I have everything else to learn as well, but if it's not believable, I won't build it. Everything is still on paper and can be changed. That is, everything, except that I want to model narrow gauge in N-scale. So, the worst thing you can tell me is that narrow gauge does not provide interesting operation .
Sorry that the "brainstorming" got under your skin. It may seem like the blind leading the blind to a professional such as you. I'll try harder to contain my enthusiasm in the future. Jerry
Thanks for the additional insight Matt with regard to your layout plans. Are you still interested in engine services and a turntable? Obviously you can scale up or down anything we lay out on the CAD designs or just use bits and pieces. Have fun designing. It's my favorite part of the hobby.:tb-biggrin: Jerry
Thanks for the additional design parameters Mattun. Using Iron Horse's grid it looks like his design fits in your 2.5' X 8' space. In N scale the siding works out to be about 1100' +/- (7' N scale). That length doesn't seem to warrant two Xovers in the middle (about every 500'). Don't know what they cost in N scale but they are $40 +/- in HO. So see my cut & paste of his plan (there is a real need for a CAD program "for the complete idiot" ). Here's some questions you should be thinking about. 1) Are you going to have more than one train running at the same time? 2) Are you going to be the only operator? 3) Are you going to have Ops sessions w/ other operators? 4) Are you going to have DCC? There are probably other questions that others can add for your consideration.
