My yard could use improvements. I wouldn't know how to do any better so feel free to contribute. Picture of the layout Atlas RTS 8.0 file
Andrew: You could easily double the capacity of your main yard by re-positioning the entrance to the yard to the left of your proposed wooden trestle. A simple ladder yard will fulfill your yard requirements. Have fun....
I just happened to be drawing a layout similar to yours. It is nowhere finished only a preliminary drawing, but you might get some ideas from what I’m doing.
Well, I fiddled with it a bit but I can't seam to improve the yard very much. Im not sure what you mean by the left of the bridge. I got to see.. Im visual. Anyway I don't want to put tracks to the top-left area because I want that to be an untamed forrest. I won't have too much rolling stocks so I won't need a big yard. Im looking to park a train in there, escape the loco and park it in it's shed (at the bottom of plan) then pull out a switcher critter to do the yarding duties. Do you think this version is better? I am admittedly not very good at designing yards.:tb-sad: yards 2.0
I liked the original plan better. You talk about running trains but the longest one you can store is 3 feet. I think if you eliminated the cross overs in the yard and moved the curve of the "yard throat" to the left about 18"s you would significantly improve storage.
Here's what I came up with, either way you will need your yard lead to be the track I pointed out or a different lead - unless you don't mind switching to the mainline or short-switching on the shorter leads. In this case, the A/D tracks are about the same length as the switching lead so you can pull the whole train out and put it away.
Sweet. About twice the effective storage using one less turnout. I re-created your yard in RTS. I'll name it appropriately if I end up building it. No worries, I won't mind being forced to use the main. I take it as switching puzzles. Kind of.
Yes, I like Harron's design as well. It would allow for 3 trains 3 to 4 feet long to be semi staged without their locos which will be handy in the engine terminal.
It's already done it in RTS . Thanks you, anyway. Would you like to name it? Otherwise it'll simply be 'Harron Yard'.
Virgule and Harron: Here are some minor variations to consider for the Harron Yard. They do not alter Harron's efficient design of the yard, just provide some tweaks that might make operations a little more reliable, increase future operating possibilities, and provide one extra place to spot cars. 1. An optional lead to the Arrival-Departure tracks. Although the current plan is for there to be only one operator on the layout, by adding the 2nd lead, you leave yourself open to the possibility that you will share your layout with someone else in the future. This is certainly an idea that could be planned for the future, but put on the back burner for now, and added easily when the need arises. If/When the Arr-Dep Lead is added, the tracks to the Engine facilities, additional engine shop/paint shop/motor shop buildings, fuel/sand unloading spots, and any other buildings to the east of the lead would all come off of the Arr-Dep Lead. A materials yard track could be located to the west of the Yard Lead, either to the south or north of the overpass. I personally would select a spot north of the overpass so I could minimize how many times I'd have to pull onto/over the Arr-Dep Lead. The materials yard track turnout would be positioned so that a car could be spotted in the materials yard with a single pull from the Arr-Dep tracks or the classification tracks followed by a push directly into the materials yard (no uncoupling/run-around/re-coupling needed). 2. A little extra length to the Yard Lead. I know you said using the main for switching the yard wasn't a big issue for you, but this option is available if you ever want to change your mind. If the extra yard lead length is accessed through the curved portion of a left hand turnout and the optional Arr-Dep lead is accessed by the curved portion of a right hand turnout, then you would not have any S-curves to contend with, no matter what combinations of closed or thrown turnouts are needed to move trains through this area of the layout, so reliability would be improved a little bit. Sometimes a single operator may want to let one train orbit on the main with little or no attention while he uses a second loco in the yard to set up a second train. The extra length of yard lead allows you to stay off the main for all switching movements. 3. A modified turnout placement to (slightly) improve reliability. I've had more derailments pushing cars through the curved portion of turnouts than through the straight portion, and more derailments when going through 2 consecutive curved portions than going through a curved portion followed by going through a straight portion. This alternate arrangement lets you get to the tracks by going through the curved portion of the turnouts slightly fewer times. I think there may also be a very slight increase in the total number of cars that can be stored in the yard, too, but that prediction should be field tested for accuracy. The length of the classification tracks will be more uniform (not as much difference between the longest tracks and the shortest tracks). [I prefer less difference between long and short tracks when I'm classifying cars, but your preferences may be different, so the more uniform lengths of classification yard tracks provided by this arrangement may not be an advantage from your perspective.] 4. Making the 2nd track the Arr-Dep track and putting the engine escape at the end of the 2nd track instead of the 1st. If the engine escape is on the front track, the end of the 2nd track will not have much utility crowded between the 1st and 3rd tracks and the loops of the mainline tracks. Flipping the engine escape crossover from right handed to left handed let's you use the end of the first/front track for an industry or something while still using the rest of that front track as a running track. Some other comments/observations. If you decide to include the Arr-Dep Lead, you may want to slide the turnouts that lead from the Yard Lead to the Arr-Dep track about 6 to 12 inches closer to the overpass. If you use #8 turnouts instead of #6s, you will be able to make the slide without introducing any S-curves. This will let you have an Arr-Dep track that is as long as your longest classification yard track. If you make the engine escape crossover with a right hand turnout in the front (running) track and a left hand turnout in the 2nd (Arr-Dep) track, you will gain a few more inches of Arr-Dep track length, plus you will eliminate the S-curve formed by the crossover, thus improving reliability a little bit. The downside of this arrangement is that it moves away from the type of track arrangements you will see in 1:1 rail yards. Some people feel the closer match to the prototype is worth more than the small improvement in reliability. It's your layout... This option will also help you avoid running so many tracks parallel to the front of the layout. Introducing a very gentle curve to all the yard tracks will also reduce the Track-Parallel-to-the-Fascia issue and will let you make subtle shifts in the buildings behind the yard so their lines are also not parallel with the fascia or backdrop.
Dave it never ceases to amaze me how you come up with something to cover virtually every modeler's criteria when contemplating re-design. 1 - Solid operational suggestion regarding the additional yard lead. Depending on what he wants to do it could be incorporated, though may be slightly more difficult with my yard design. One additional benefit you didn't mention is the ability to depart a train that would head in the counter-clockwise direction while still switching the yard. 2 - Another good suggestion, could be added to any variation of the plan. 3 - As you mention, it's slight. I didn't like the standard ladder configurations I was coming up with so I decided to pinwheel it and like what I saw. Properly weighted cars, careful trackwork, and steady speeds are what is needed to make it work (good idea for any railroad regardless). 4 - Sure if you want to put an industry in the yard. Currently the longest track is the primary A/D track (the industry switch is planned to be blocked by road trains), with enough room for two engines over the crossover. Reversing this crossover shortens the long A/D track (changing the plan shortens it even more). The stub on the second A/D track is a great place to store a caboose or two to start the makeup of the next outbound train - or you could make it a rip track that the carmen can access to make repairs to bad-order cars. Lastly the parallel to the table edge is not really an issue, more a visual thing. Some people don't like the look of everything parallel, some do. Up to the modeler ultimately to decide what they like. I left it as-is since his original plans were parallel.
Alright guys:thumbs_up::thumbs_up::thumbs_up: I plan to use Atlas code 55 #5 as turnouts. I know they're tight-ish. #7 if I can squeeze them in... I fear I can't fit better ones. Pushing cars won't go too well. I still prefer Harron's design because it use the least turnouts. Im afraid ppuinn's design would feel overcrowd a bit. I added more crossovers to Harron's one. Note I used #7s for the "chain" and #5 for crossovers. I have that now: Still tinkering edit: note to self: maybe I should look at Peco's lineup? If only they had a software like Atlas offer..
Atlas code 55 is fine - but again that's a modeler's preference. Note you don't need crossovers on every set of yard tracks - only on one. That pair of tracks is where you pull trains in, run around the train with the road power and take it to the house. Then the switcher pulls the train off that track and begins switching it out to the rest of the tracks. Having all those extra crossovers is a waste of money.
I do not agree with the cross overs in each pair of yard tracks. Operational or not they just seem to take up a lot of room for a layout that will emphasize running and scenery. Ideally most train make up will be done by locomotive. Realistically most is done by "GHA" aka Giant Hand Action. The need for the cross overs just does not exist. Note: this is opinion and you may very well strongly disagree.
Your efficient plan is perfect for a single operator. I offerred the Arr-Dep lead as an option if Virgule ever has guests visit. Amen! ...which is why I suggested pulling the turnouts from the yard lead to the Arr-Dep tracks closer to the overpass. Oooh! I like it! Yep. I was looking for someplace close to the yard for the RIP Track and initially put it off to the left sort of behind the deepest track, but didn't like the reach. When I looked for someplace closer to the front, the short section at the end of the 2nd track didn't offer much space to put in RIP track details so I flipped the crossover. If Cabeese are stored there on an unaltered Track 2, the RIP track could be inserted off the slanted siding that leads to the (team track??). I agree 100% with you on leaving the final decision to the modeler...but I try to get as many ideas out there for early consideration as possible because--way too many times--I've learned of newer/better options within days (and even minutes) of completing the last stages of some construction project. I suppose I'm just trying to rid the world of 1 or 2 "Doh!" moments. LOL!
