Track plan ideas
- Thread starter glefebvre
- Start date
ModelRailroadForums.com is a free Model Railroad Discussion Forum and photo gallery. We cover all scales and sizes of model railroads. Online since 2002, it's one of the oldest and largest model railroad forums on the web. Whether you're a master model railroader or just getting started, you'll find something of interest here.
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)
Cjcrescent
Master Mechanic
Ironhorseman,
I have to "side" with Michael on yard size. By your logic,"A good yard usually has 1 classification track for each major destination. The destination can be another town, a large industry, or the "next yard". So If a layout has 6 towns (switching areas) the max a yard would need is 6 classification tracks.", on my layout, if I were to have a classification track for each major town, I would need a yard that was 12 tracks wide. Adding in the separate major industries that aren't a part of these towns, I would need 5 additional tracks. Instead, I have a yard that is only 7 tracks wide. I wish I could make it bigger.
In this yard, I setup trains such as 4 turns, 5 locals, 5 trains to staging, 4 mine runs, 4 passenger trains. Receiving train wise, 4 turns, 5 staging, 4 mine trains, 4 passenger, and 2 interchange trains. While this may seem like a lot, spread out over the timetable, its not. I haven't even considered adding thru trains yet.
The "small" layout should only have a small yard, simply because you don't want to get the layout overwhelmed by the yard, but if you don't have a area big enough to be able to sort the cars to other destinations, operations on the layout can become stale very soon. I also doubt that many modelers have the will to restrict themselves to a small number or types of cars and locomotives.
Prototype railroads built large yards for a reason, and that reason was to make sure that cars got sorted into the correct trains, for destinations that extend beyond the next town, or industry. While a shortline or branchline rr may be able to get by with a siding, or just 2-3 tracks in the yard, when you get to mainline, interchange and branchline trains coming into a yard, and going out of that yard, the bigger the yard, the better.
I have to "side" with Michael on yard size. By your logic,"A good yard usually has 1 classification track for each major destination. The destination can be another town, a large industry, or the "next yard". So If a layout has 6 towns (switching areas) the max a yard would need is 6 classification tracks.", on my layout, if I were to have a classification track for each major town, I would need a yard that was 12 tracks wide. Adding in the separate major industries that aren't a part of these towns, I would need 5 additional tracks. Instead, I have a yard that is only 7 tracks wide. I wish I could make it bigger.
In this yard, I setup trains such as 4 turns, 5 locals, 5 trains to staging, 4 mine runs, 4 passenger trains. Receiving train wise, 4 turns, 5 staging, 4 mine trains, 4 passenger, and 2 interchange trains. While this may seem like a lot, spread out over the timetable, its not. I haven't even considered adding thru trains yet.
The "small" layout should only have a small yard, simply because you don't want to get the layout overwhelmed by the yard, but if you don't have a area big enough to be able to sort the cars to other destinations, operations on the layout can become stale very soon. I also doubt that many modelers have the will to restrict themselves to a small number or types of cars and locomotives.
Prototype railroads built large yards for a reason, and that reason was to make sure that cars got sorted into the correct trains, for destinations that extend beyond the next town, or industry. While a shortline or branchline rr may be able to get by with a siding, or just 2-3 tracks in the yard, when you get to mainline, interchange and branchline trains coming into a yard, and going out of that yard, the bigger the yard, the better.
So, to summarise 
A model railroad yard or yards, should be designed and sized to support the operation of the layout.
For those of us for whom realistic operation is an important goal, planning the operations is a key prerequisite to track planning.
Some people really enjoy classifying yards. To them I say, "It's your layout, do what you want to do."
John Armstrong's book on track planning for realistic operation is an excellent primer. IIRC (I haven't seen either of my copies in several years) one of his first pieces of advice is to determine your 'Givens and Druthers,' prioritize that list, doodle, and make compromises based on your list.
While doing that doesn't always result in a layout that provides satisfaction for a lifetime, not doing it virtually guarantees that it won't.
Just my $0.02. Your mileage may vary.
A model railroad yard or yards, should be designed and sized to support the operation of the layout.
For those of us for whom realistic operation is an important goal, planning the operations is a key prerequisite to track planning.
Some people really enjoy classifying yards. To them I say, "It's your layout, do what you want to do."
John Armstrong's book on track planning for realistic operation is an excellent primer. IIRC (I haven't seen either of my copies in several years) one of his first pieces of advice is to determine your 'Givens and Druthers,' prioritize that list, doodle, and make compromises based on your list.
While doing that doesn't always result in a layout that provides satisfaction for a lifetime, not doing it virtually guarantees that it won't.
Just my $0.02. Your mileage may vary.
This is all very interesting and helpful. I've got John Armstrong's book and am reading it. So it looks like I should think about the layouts and if there is any other industries that can be added that would add some life to the layouts and make them more interesting. Thanks all for you input on this, it is very much appreciated.
Iron Horseman
Well-Known Member
Yup that is what I was thinking. We should have started another thread for that discussion.
Good point. Mum's the word.
otiscnj
Well-Known Member
Based on my experience, the left most layout will teach you some things, but won't last long term. Middle plan mixes things up a bit, but is still pretty conventional. Third plan I like, as if done properly, it has some decent scenic potential, as either an example of an 'alternate climbing route,' for heavy trains, or as 2 distinct railroads, going in the same general direction. Only concern with the 3rd one is access aisle space, + still not sold on the lower 'industrial, or yard,' area.
Iron Horseman
Well-Known Member
There are many examples of this in the prototype world. I'm thinking of the Lehigh Valley. They had two main lines one they considered the "passenger" main and the other the "freight" main. The freight was longer but more gentile grades.
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)