Yard as a Layout

[Brakie]

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.
------------------------------
Paul,Once started the layout can be up and running in 8 hours-including buildings.

How many can say that?

As far as perfect-first layout to match prototype track arrangements in a industrial park instead of another switching layout suffering from hidden time saver track overkill..

I did what some said couldn't be done in my space-1'x10'.

Apparently they overlooked several things.



Track Atlas C55 and #5 switches.

Designed based on railroadin' and railfanning experiences backed with Goggle and Bing maps industrial park research for wider variation of track designs..

[Brakie]

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.

And there lays the trap many fall into-WWTPD works wonders-if one has a understanding of railroads and how they thought while designing their yards and some of the leading layout design "experts" falls into that trap..

Backing a train into a yard would be done as a last resort and in tight areas and then if the yard was actually needed..

Looking at our yards they don't need a yardmaster or engine service area because they're not big enough for a terminal but,falls in line with a smaller outlaying yard found in smaller towns/cities that has a local working out of it.Marion,Ohio is a prime example of yards found on most layouts-you can look in vain for a engine house even though NS and CSX has locomotives station there..

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.

A two or three track yard would suffice for that many cars and the railroad would use doubled ended yard tracks for accessibility and that exactly how I would have built that yard.

Believability has always been a major factor in my layout designs following my experiences while working as a brakeman,railfanning and my years studying the railroad plant in general.

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.

In this case less would be better instead of cramming a lot of track in a small area.I would keep the industries,drop the engine service area and at least 2 of the yard tracks.Now if I really wanted a engine service area I would place it inside of the wye out of the way and keep it simple with 2 or 3 tracks.

To gain track length I would angle the yard tracks off the wye and double end the yard tracks.

[Mike Kieran]

I like Stein's design. The Woods River Yard LDE was meant as an outlying terminal to serve the paper mill and a few local industries. How much traffic actually went in and out of the yard, 5 trains per day? Stein's layout is a great fit for the small yard that it was meant to be.

If I had a room in which to build a layout, I would have a small yard at the most for my short line. It would be a track with a runaround sandwiched by a stub ended track on either side like the yard at Juniper Point on The Branford Steam Railroad.

[Brakie]

The Woods River Yard LDE was meant as an outlying terminal to serve the paper mill and a few local industries.

Even at that there would be no need for a engine terminal or a large yard since the yard would be used for holding cars for the mill.

How much traffic actually went in and out of the yard, 5 trains per day?

Sounds like 3 trains to many-there could be a AM and PM turn to switch the mill.

For me it would be more about believability more then anything.

[Mike Kieran]

I understand what you mean Larry, but Woods River Yard also served a passenger station/ terminus - hence the engine facility. The yard fits into what Paul Dolkos needed for the area. I would not have gone with that design, but I think that Stein's modifications to the plan improved the overall design.

[Brakie]

but I think that Stein's modifications to the plan improved the overall design.

I agree Stein did improve the overall design but,IMHO still on the crowded side and can be improved.

As far as a Passenger operation I would use a RDC or a Doodlebug instead of a passenger engine with 2-3 cars or maybe add a combine to the AM mill turn since that's what most railroads would do.

You see operating a engine house/engine service area adds to the overhead and that's a no-no if the road wishes to make money.

Even if I was modeling the 20s or 30s that would be a end terminal for the mill turn and a combine should suffice for any passengers.Of course a water tank would be needed-a coal tower if the distance from the home terminal warrants one.

[steinjr]

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.

A two or three track yard would suffice for that many cars and the railroad would use doubled ended yard tracks for accessibility and that exactly how I would have built that yard.

Mmm - it would be interesting to see your suggestion.

Here are the parameters:
- H0 scale
- Two or three tracks, double ended, engine escape
- Yard must fit on a peninsula 30" wide and 9 feet long - aslant if you so wish.
- Yard should hold up to 45 cars (35 cars at 75% full)

Show me how you would do it in the prototypical way, Brakie.

Because I would have trouble finding room for 45 cars on a 9 foot long double ended three track yard - I could do maybe 26-28 if I didn't try to keep the engine escape open:



Smile,
Stein

[Brakie]

Stein,Are you sure you want to see how the railroad would have done that yard?

[steinjr]

Stein,Are you sure you want to see how the railroad would have done that yard?

Sure, why not? If you make at least a minimal effort at actually producing a practical H0 scale track plan that fits within the stated constraints, instead of just going on about what 1:1 scale yards would look like.

Smile,
Stein

[paulus_jas]

I did what some said couldn't be done in my space-1'x10'.

Apparently they overlooked several things.



Track Atlas C55 and #5 switches.
.
Designed based on railroadin' and railfanning experiences backed with Goggle and Bing maps industrial park research for wider variation of track designs..

Hi brakie: sounds nice , though the plan you posted was for HO. Then it is impossible, indeed i was among the non-believers. Let me believe you did not mention the scale in your original posting.
BTW I still find it weird to talk about Paul Dolkos' layout without looking at the plan as a whole, without being clear about Paul's operating vision. If i learned one lesson in model railroad track planning, a 1:1 rendering of a plan from a real railroad is impossible or at least a terrible waste of space. A design should be prototypical enough. Opinions about what is enough will be different for each individual of course.
Paul

[Brakie]

Paul,You wasn't the one I had in mind..Another fella on a N Scale forum said it would be impossible to do that layout in a 1'x10' area in N..

I think that N Scale layout worked out be be around 14' in HO.My son and I laid the HO version out on his garage floor. It was 16" x 14'.I laid out a chopped down venison of that layout on my 1'x10 board.

Then I worked my magic and came up with two workable HO plans for my board.

That's the hold up- N Scale with better operation and lots of industrial scenery or HO with limited operation and scenery.
----------------------
Anyway,I'm a firm believer less is better then wall to wall track especially on 30" wide layouts.

I also like to see modelers think outside of the layout design book by looking at the way the prototype does things-its always with rhyme and reason even though at first glance it may appear haphazard...

I have studied the rationalization of the railroad plant for years and some times I think its a curse more then a modeling aid but,there was lessons learned.

Of course 9 1/2 years as a brakeman taught me many valuable lessons in operation, industrial track and outlaying yard designs.

That's one reason it took me a long time to design a modern (1996) workable and fully believable ISL.

I could have rush through the process and had a layout up and running months ago but,lessons learned from my previous ISL taught me those rushed layouts lasted less then a year before they was ripped out and rebuilt.

I decided at my age this one better last for several years because I won't be building another-its time to enjoy my investment in cars and locomotives while I can.

[radivil]

That track plan tickles one of my "I won the lottery" fantasies: a large N scale passenger terminal.

It has a lot in common with the tracks north of Washington Union Station. A stub end passenger station would satisfy the "yard as a layout" idea.

[steinjr]

Brakie --

My brother has worked on "the railroad" over here for almost twice as long as you worked as a brakeman. His wife, my sister-in-law has also worked on "the railroad" for well over over a decade. Her mom and dad were life long railroaders before retiring. Three of my cousins are long time railroaders. Three of my dad's brothers worked on "the railroad" for 30 years. Before that my grandpa and his brother worked on "the railroad", and my great grandpa worked on "the railroad". "The railroad" in all cases being the same railroad company - the Norwegian State Railroads. But operating conditions of course were pretty different at the time my great grandpa signed on with the railroad, compared with what they are now.

The relatives who works or worked on the railroad knew their jobs. My brother e.g. has worked as a conductor, worked traffic management and worked as a hump yard tower operator. He knows quite a bit about how to do safe switching on a 1:1 scale railroads. Quite a bit about procedures for moving passenger trains safely over the road. Quite a bit about dispatching trains under rush hour conditions. Quite a bit about hump yard operations.

But my brother knows nothing about track planning for model railroads. Or about track planning for real railroads, for that matter - his training and experience is in operations, not in infrastructure planning.

What he knows how to do is to take whatever infrastructure he finds (much of which sadly is not optimized for current operations, as construction, at least on "our" railroad, tend to lag operations by years - moving and laying track usually costs far more than adjusting operating practices), and use this infrastructure to get his job done, trying to balance working safety with getting the job done reasonably fast and efficiently.

Having operated on real railroads gives you experience with how operations were done at those railroads at those time and at those places, and what track configurations made the job easier and what track configurations made the job harder.

By all means continue to point out how a yard or an industry could be switched in a different way on a model railroad. Or describe how places you have seen were laid out, and how you used those tracks to do your job. Or point out bottlenecks in plans. First hand experiences are very valuable.

But designing model railroad track plans under various constraints is a pretty different discipline than being a crew member operating a 1:1 scale train, and takes a different skill set. Some people are good at both things, some are good at the one or the other, and some will never get the hang of either discipline.

Getting back to that track plan of the Woodsriver yard.

I have not made any claim that this yard is especially realistic. Dolkos has not (as far as I know) made any claims that the yard it is very prototypical.

I have not made the claim that nine car trains are typical for a busy yard.

I have not made the claim that one should have engine terminals for every piddling little yard, even though I know many model railroaders like to have engine terminals - as taking an engine to be serviced or taking an engine from the ready track to the train adds play value to an operating session, and it gives a place to display extra locomotives (most of us have more locomotives than we strictly need).

I have not made the claim that single ended yards are more prototypical than double ended yards.

And so on and so forth.

What I have tried to convey is that from a model railroad track planning viewpoint, it makes little sense to pretty much always go "but that's not how it looked when I worked on the railroad".

Yes - I know that. It is not news. But sadly, saying so repeatedly does not change the brutal reality of how much space is available for a given model railroad. Or remove the need to deal with compromises and trade-offs.

To decide e.g. whether it is most important to each of us, for a specific design whether a yard is double ended or whether it can hold more cars.

Or to decide whether we are willing to back a short train into or out of a yard and thus get longer A/D tracks, or whether we insist that trains must always go into yards locomotive first, using the escape track for the engine.

Stuff like that is not about operating 1:1 scale railroading - it is about track planning for model railroads.

Smile,
Stein

[paulus_jas]

hi gentlemen,

a few remarks about Paul Dolkos's layout.
Before me is Model Railroad Planning 1998 magazine.
1) a crossover is part of the plan at the end of the arrival tracks, so engines were able to escape as long as one track was kept empty and trains were pretty short (4 ft, not counting the engine).
2)the yard was not built on a peninsula but against a wall, next to a window.
3)the yard was not just used for a mill or local industries, but was used as a classification yard as well; at least local trains were built in that little yard.
4)even if on pics all engines are diesels, some remnants from steamers like a coal dock and watertower still can be found.

And before i forget:
Brakie,
the words you are using might be rough sometimes, no problem to me. But claiming stuff could be done much better, or much more prototypically, and not providing the appropriate drawing sets you apart.
BTW, you are supposed to be a moderator on here, what does that mean?

Paul

[Brakie]

And before i forget:
Brakie,
the words you are using might be rough sometimes, no problem to me. But claiming stuff could be done much better, or much more prototypically, and not providing the appropriate drawing sets you apart.
BTW, you are supposed to be a moderator on here, what does that mean?

Paulpaulus_jas
----------------------
First I need not to produce anything as far as a layout discussion goes no more then you or anybody else when it comes to voicing a opinion or thoughts-negative or positive since that is what a discussion is all about.

As far as being a moderator that doesn't mean I can't voice a opinion or my thoughts as long as they are civil and I fully believe my comments has been civil.

As far as using rough words that's just me and its never personal.