Help me choose a yard layout

[Wheels70]

I posted the first draft of my track plan a few days ago and have gotten some great feedback to improve it. Now I think I am close to finishing it, but there is one important element left. I have come up with three variations on my yard and need help deciding which will be best both appearance-wise and operationally.

Here is the whole layout:

And here are the three yard variations with my own thoughts below:

A -- Less track means more scenicking potential but less capacity. Capacity of straight tracks is 12-15 cars. Access to caboose track at far right is via runaround, which complicates switching. Crossover between bottom two tracks (at 7'). "Escape crossover" in yard allows trains to pull straight in, loco backs out. Biggest like: scenicking potential. Biggest dislike: limited capacity.

B -- More track means less scenicking but more capacity. Capacity of straight tracks is 28-32 cars. Direct access to caboose/locomotive tracks at bottom-right. Crossover between bottom two tracks (at 7'). "Escape crossovers" in yard allow trains to pull straight in, loco backs out. Multiple yard leads may complicate switching. Biggest like: capacity. Biggest dislike: track complexity.

C -- More track means less scenicking but more capacity. Capacity of straight tracks is 26-28 cars. Access to caboose/loco and RIP tracks via long straight track at bottom. Simpler trackwork than "B". No "escape crossovers" but they could be added easily. No crossover between bottom two tracks. Biggest like: clean trackwork. Biggest dislike: limited scenicking potential.

If you've made it this far, I'm asking for help in deciding which of these yards (possibly with modifications) to go with. What have I overlooked or neglected to consider? What do you like/dislike?

Thomas

 

[Rico]

No pics coming thru at my end.

 

[Wheels70]

No pics coming thru at my end.

Fixed, I think.

 

[Burlington Bob]

If I were building this layout, I would opt for option C with added loco escapes, similar to what you have in B.

 

[IronBeltKen]

I would go the option C - it gives you the greatest capacity with the least complex trackwork. Those crossovers in plan B won't do you much good anyhow because you can't pull a very long train in there, plus they'll be inaccessible if you have to spot any cars over them. Not only that, but they'd be another potential source of derailments.

If you want variety of operations on a 5x9, it's hard to avoid crowded trackwork - it's simply a tradeoff like we all have to make sometimes.

 

[steinjr]

Option C is the sensible one. Options A and B are seemingly drawn by someone who thinks yards has to have lots of crossovers to _look_ sufficiently "railroady"

Smile,
Stein

 

[QRR Fan]

I would go the option C - it gives you the greatest capacity with the least complex trackwork. Those crossovers in plan B won't do you much good anyhow because you can't pull a very long train in there, plus they'll be inaccessible if you have to spot any cars over them. Not only that, but they'd be another potential source of derailments.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Rico]

Looks like "C" is the choice I'd go with as well.
But I'd have a switch off the last track to that spur next to it.
MOW, cabeese, or locos could be stored or run by on it.

 

[Burlington Bob]

I would go with C, with a crossover at the 7' location as in the original. Also, I would provide a short passing siding at the area of the turnouts located inside the reversing loop to facilitate switching turnouts that face both directions. Kind of hard to do a dutch drop on a model RR. Or maybe I'm missing something. It wouldn't be the first time!

 

[cuyama]

I could be wrong, but I think you may find that some of these are not as usable as you hope because of the issues of clearance between curved tracks and around the crossovers.

While 2" track-to-track would be OK for straight tracks, where sharply-curved tracks are adjacent they need more like 2 1/2" between track centers to allow cars to clear. You may find that shoving mixed length of cars into these tight curves and cramped ladders might be less reliable than you hoped.

Also, some of the turnouts seem very close to one another -- perhaps closer than they could actually be placed. But that's based on a quick look.

In a layout shape like this, it's often advisable to place a yard along the long edge or across the center to provide more length without the tight turns into the yard.

Good luck.

 

[cajon]

I could be wrong, but I think you may find that some of these are not as usable as you hope because of the issues of clearance between curved tracks and around the crossovers.

The curves on the yard tracks shouldn't be a problem as only one train at a time would be working the yard anyway. And since coupling/uncoupling on curves is such a pain, just do it on straight track. And of course my vote would be for C.

 

[cuyama]

The curves on the yard tracks shouldn't be a problem as only one train at a time would be working the yard anyway.

My point was that with adequate track-to-track spacing, much more of the length would usable. With a pinwheel ladder (and adequate track-to-track spacing), it might even be possible to have more usable length with fewer turnouts, but I didn't try it.

It's not about multiple trains working the yard, it's about where tracks must be left clear to allow adjacent tracks to be worked.

 

[Doughless]

I agree with some of the things already mentioned, especially how the crossovers and curves really shrink the usability of the yard. In order to actually use the crossovers, a good portion of the tracks need to be empty. And, since it is difficult to couple cars on curves, you can really only store cars on the straight part of the yard tracks, which wastes a lot of track and space.

I agree with Cuyama who suggests the yard s/b straight tracks heading into the corner. Problem is, with as much track as you have all over the layout, you really don't have room for as many usable yard tracks as you probably want.

 

[Wheels70]

Thanks to everyone for their comments! I ought to have said something before, but I was always just on the verge of posting the new version and then realizing it would be improved by just a couple of minor changes.... I'm sure some of you know the story .

But here it is finally, the latest revision of the H&W Railroad. If you're still following this thread I'd like to know what you think. I hope I've addressed old concerns without bringing up too many new ones.

Thomas

 

[Rico]

Looking good! I like the possibility for a loads in mt's out scenario in the rural area.
One thing I would change tho...
I'd take out the crossover on yard tracks 1 and 2 and place it on the main under the word Urban.
This will increase the capacity on those two tracks and provide a way to run around cars for facing switches in the industrial area.

 

[cajon]

Suggest you operate trains on this plan on paper to see if it will really work. Hopefully you'll see you need sidings on the main & not off to the side. And your yard has 6 tracks but there's only 3 tracks worth of space for cars.

 

[Wheels70]

Thanks Rico. I also like the possibility for loads-in-empties-out, both in the rural and industrial areas, it's been part of my vision from the start .

As for that facing switch, I do have a runaround in the industrial area to handle that. I'm not entirely happy about it though; it may have to come out.

And yeah, the yard crossovers could be removed -- but I happen to like them, so they are probably going to stay.

Thomas

 

[Doughless]

I would replace the curved yard with a two or three straight-track yard along the bottom. The curved yard won't work well, as others have mentioned.

Since the NE corner of the layout would be liberated from a non functional yard, I would extend the loops all way to the NE and adjust the tunnels and viewblock to compensate.

And I would remove the connecting track on the north side that connects the reverse loop track with the other main. Seems like you could elevate the reverse loop more if it were eliminated. It also doesn't make much sense to have it from a railroad operation perspective, but I won't get into that here.

I would put in a crossover along the main under the word urban as suggested above.