Yard as a Layout

[MasonJar]

Re: Yard + Industry

This arrangement happens for the reasons stated above, and it appears that generally speaking the older the yard the more likely it is. The example I posted above of Orangeville fits this. Not an overly large yard (scales out to 25 feet or so) because it was established in the mid- to late-1800s by the Toronto Grey & Bruce (subsequently taken over by Canadian Pacific Railway). Industries were "encouraged" to locate nearby to maximize profit for the railway in two ways - 1) they owned the land, and therefore profited, and 2) they minimized cost by not having to build lines out to their customers.

Another example of this is Paul Dolkos' Woodsriver yard on his former B&M layout.

Modern day yards may be huge, and have minimal industries co-located (or one giant one, like an intermodal terminal), but dial back the clock, and there are lots of possibilities. COnversely, if it must be just a yard, turn the clock forward...


Andrew

[steinjr]

Here is my humble attempt (from some old discussion in some web forum) at rendering Paul Dolkos' Woodsriver Yard in XtrkCad:



The yard is on a peninsula - both the yard lead and the double track main continues around the corner at upper right. There are crossovers between the two mains somewhere - possibly right outside this area depicted.

Paul commented on his own layout that he regretted sticking the engine terminal between the yard and the industries - it made the reach to the industries too long for comfort.

Smile,
Stein

[Mike Kieran]

I would have moved the engine terminal to the area between the wye and the lead to the engine terminal so that I could have the industrial lead closer to the aisle.

Unfortunately, most of us only have the space for a short line or branch line yard. I find more fun in these yards because you can have a mainline freight or two drop off and pick up cars, have a yard job break down and build trains for the local branch(s), maybe have the yard job work a few freight customers as well as run a local or two out of the yard. maybe even have a few passenger trains arrive and depart.

[briansommers]

I'm thinking of this as well.. I only have a 24" x 20' area.. but still I think it would lots of fun, even if I have to take the "train" off with my own hands.. you could do DCC with sound and have many different engine types..

[steinjr]

I would have moved the engine terminal to the area between the wye and the lead to the engine terminal so that I could have the industrial lead closer to the aisle.

Me too - I was just documenting (roughly) how it looked on Paul Dolkos's layout.

This is a version I drew up for Andrew for a modular layout:



Smile,
Stein

[Brakie]

Stein,One thing I would add is double ended inbound tracks.The way it stands now the inbound locomotives is trapped till the yard engine removes the train.

I wonder why the yard lead doubles as a engine service area lead?


IMHO Mr. Dolkos yard is lacking good YDEs for smooth yard operation.

[steinjr]

Stein,One thing I would add is double ended inbound tracks.The way it stands now the inbound locomotives is trapped till the yard engine removes the train.

Either that, or trains going into the yard use the wye (and not shown crossovers between the two mainlines), and then back into the A/D tracks. Either way it works just fine. The yard is on a peninsula.

I wonder why the yard lead doubles as a engine service area lead?

Mostly to make something looking and functioning roughly similar to the desired original design fit within the assigned space - 30" deep sections for the yard, two 24" deep and 4 foot long sections for the mainline and wye.

IMHO Mr. Dolkos yard is lacking good YDEs for smooth yard operation.

And yet, his yard operated well with a crew for many years. His yard still exists (as part of someone else's layout), while Dolkos is busy building a layout based on Baltimore (if I remember correctly).

While you have no layout at all, and I have two partially completed layouts without ballast, scenery, completed buildings etc.

Sometimes "good enough now" beats "maybe perfect some day" :-)

Smile,
Stein

[Brakie]

Sometimes "good enough now" beats "maybe perfect some day"

Smile,
Stein
-----------------------
Amen!

I do have 2 nice plans and the bench work is built.

One requires 6 switches the other requires 4.

So,things are moving along how be it at a snail's pace.

Why so slow?

I suspect I won't be building any more layouts after this one and I want to do it right the first time and not rush to get it done and then find out I'm not happy with the operation and need to rip it out and redo the fool thing..
BTW.One plan is HO and the other N..I can go either way.
------------------------
I still think that yard lacks some serious YDEs.

[MasonJar]

Thanks to Stein for the drawing/track plan

I agree that an engine escape would make the yard smoother to operate, but plenty of stub-ended terminuses (termini?) had a wye in place for the entire train to turn before backing in, so I am good with that.

The only other changes I might make are

1) to swap the industry lead and the engine facilities for smoother/straighter track, and ease of access to the industry turnout, and

2) perhaps even put the industry buildings themselves between their track and the yard, so that the industries can be switched from the opposite side of the peninsula. That would require losing the backdrop, but I have always liked the free-mo style better anyway

This plan reminds me very much of the Orangeville yard (although that was double ended) and many other smaller, southern Ontario terminals on the CNR and CPR.


Andrew

[Brakie]

I agree that an engine escape would make the yard smoother to operate, but plenty of stub-ended terminuses (termini?) had a wye in place for the entire train to turn before backing in, so I am good with that.
-------------------------------------------
I can picture backing a 8,000- 12,000' train around a wye and into a yard-that would be a high risk move.

Now the Erie/E-L did back out of the Marion yard in order to reach the Dayton Branch and trains off the Dayton Branched backed into the Marion yard but,these was short trains.

[steinjr]

plenty of stub-ended terminuses (termini?) had a wye in place for the entire train to turn before backing in, so I am good with that.
-------------------------------------------
I can picture backing a 8,000- 12,000' train around a wye and into a yard-that would be a high risk move.

I am pretty sure that the model trains that will be using this yard will probably be significantly shorter than 8000 scale feet (i.e. about 200 40-foot cars or about 90 89' cars) - the A/D tracks are good for about nine 40-foot cars, a caboose and an engine ...

Smile,
Stein

[Brakie]

plenty of stub-ended terminuses (termini?) had a wye in place for the entire train to turn before backing in, so I am good with that.
-------------------------------------------
I can picture backing a 8,000- 12,000' train around a wye and into a yard-that would be a high risk move.

I am pretty sure that the model trains that will be using this yard will probably be significantly shorter than 8000 scale feet (i.e. about 200 40-foot cars or about 90 89' cars) - the A/D tracks are good for about nine 40-foot cars, a caboose and an engine ...

Smile,
Stein

That was prototype not model.
------------------------------------

the A/D tracks are good for about nine 40-foot cars, a caboose and an engine ...

----------------------------------
That's around 396' plus locomotive -a very short train for such a big old yard.

[steinjr]

That was prototype not model.

Of course it was. Which is why I used the phrase "scale feet".

I am a fan at looking at the real railroads for inspiration for model railroads. But I am also at all times aware of the fact that when I draw up a track plan for a model railroad, I am not actually working on a real railroad - I am working on a enormously over-simplified model of a few cherry-picked aspects of a complex reality, and my model will have to be designed within parameters a real railroad doesn't have to think about (like arm reach across several tracks from the aisles).

Track planning for a model railroad is about compromise. About balance. About understanding when to apply selective compression and when to use compressive selections. About imagination. About deciding what you want to emphasize for a specific design, and what you are willing to trade away.

If we are going to discuss the pros and cons of some specific design, and come with suggestions for how to improve it, then let us try to be aware of the fact that while the real railroads serve as our inspiration, what we have to deal with is still a model railroad.

8 000 -12 000 scale foot trains are not very relevant for most model railroads, since most of us will never have the space for a layout big enough to sensibly run (as in having staging, yards, sidings etc big enough to handle the train) 100-200 car trains.

That's around 396' plus locomotive -a very short train for such a big old yard.

Not really. It is not a very big yard - body track capacity (at about 75% full) is about thirty-five or so 40-foot cars. Or about four times the size of a "large" (for this yard) incoming train. If the yard instead of seven single ended 400 foot tracks had had three double ended 800 foot tracks, you likely would not have called it a "such a big old yard". It is a pretty dinky little yard.

The defining characteristic about Woodsriver (realistic or not) is the wye, the two single ended A/D tracks, and that traffic to the industries and engine terminal has to go via the yard lead - which has to be taken into account when switching that yard, and it gives the yard it's personality, for good or bad.

Of course, if you want to, you can very easily build or break down trains about twice the size of the A/D track - by using both A/D tracks for that one train. Or you can stop a larger train on the main, back a smaller cut of cars into the yard, leave them there, grab another cut of outbound cars, pull back onto the main, add the rest of your train and head on.

Or you can connect the upper end of the yard switching lead back to the main somewhere off the edge of the uppermost mainline module shown, so you can take trains directly into or out of any of the body tracks (loco first or loco pushing cars ahead of it). Of course, in that case any yard switcher will have to duck out of the way while you are arriving or departing over the switching lead.

Or you could sacrifice 20-30% of the length of arriving trains (which already are very short) in order to get an engine escape, if you feel an engine escape is necessary for your enjoyment of the layout:





I am not very tempted to do the last thing - to me the engine escape is not worth what it would cost.

FWIW, I agree that the placement of the engine terminal and the local industries tends to overload the design. In Dolkos' original design, he choose to emphasize the engine terminal at the cost of making the industries too hard to reach. So the industries over time got less use.

One possible option would be to drop the local industries, and just focus on doing the engine terminal. Another is to relocate the engine terminal - maybe to one of the two 2x4 foot mainline sections. Or a third would be to make yard section wider and switch the industries from the other side of the table - maybe change the table from a 30" deep section to a double set of 2 foot deep sections, forming a 4 foot deep table when assembled, if there will be space to walk around it.

Possibly more alternatives I don't see at the present time. It all boils down to what the goals of the design is. Which I don't actually know at the present time - I was just asked if Woodsriver could be crammed into a setup consisting of two 2x4 foot sections for the mainline and a 30" deep sectional table for the yard.

Feel free to suggest changes and improvements for Andrew's club yard, if you see things that could be improved.

Grin,
Stein

[steinjr]

1) to swap the industry lead and the engine facilities for smoother/straighter track, and ease of access to the industry turnout, and

2) perhaps even put the industry buildings themselves between their track and the yard, so that the industries can be switched from the opposite side of the peninsula. That would require losing the backdrop, but I have always liked the free-mo style better anyway

Hi Andrew --

Guess I didn't respond to this post. I can see making the peninsula wider and access it from both sides, if you have the space to walk around it - maybe making the peninsula from a double row of sections - say two 20-24" deep sections behind each other.

If you want to swap the turnout to the engine terminal and the turnout to the industry, you have to make the yard switching lead continue into another mainline section on the north end (or connect it back to the main). As drawn, there is just room for an engine and three cars between the end of the yard switching lead and the turnout to the industries.

Btw - the original poster seems to have decamped, either for good, or just for Easter (last logged in visit for jpage was April 1st). Hope we didn't scare him away by having a mildly spirited discussion. In the end, no matter what any of the rest of us think about a design or an idea, the only person it has to satisfy is the the person who wants to build the layout.

Grin,
Stein

[paulus_jas]

hi gentlemen,

to me most plans are inspiring. And yes...my mind is drifting away, why not add this and change that, or leave out another part.
Without taking the whole space into account, without clearly knowing operational idea's critics are often to easily given.

While Brakie is still dreaming about his last and perfect to be (very small) layout Paul Dolkos made a wonderful start on his new huge industrial and warehouse switching layout. Model Railroad Planning and MR magazine both covered his awesome Baltimore based new layout.

On this Easter monday I admire Stein's patience and way of dealing with responses. I would prefer drawings or trackplans of other posters above sometimes easily given remarks. Lately I tried to draw Stein's new switching layout for myself, not just copy/paste his drawing. Only then I found out how cleverly he has used some subtle curves. The very same applies to the use of the space. If looking back at Paul Dolkos's "old" layout it is a miracle how many convincing scenes he was able to get in.

Looking forward to seeing more drawings on here, chapeau Stein,
enjoy Easter monday
Paul