Hopefully Final Track Plan, 10 month anniversary (all comments welcomed)

[GrandpaCoyote]

Hello Gang,

Well today is our 10th month anniversary of starting out on a track and layout plan and what a long strange trip it’s been.

The OL and I started out knowing nothing about Model railroading or real life railroads and nothing much about our chosen line, location and setting. We started with a simple idea ‘The ATSF line sometimes in the 1950’s where it runs along sections of Route 66’, it seemed pretty simple and so off we set.

Along the way we left behind the idea of converting our garage to a train room because of expense and switched instead to using a spare bedroom which meant scraping the track plans we’d started for that space (four refined versions) and starting up a whole new one.

The move to a smaller space brought about a period of refinement – Just what was the right place to model in the space given that met our original idea? That meant learning as much about Route 66 and the ATSF as we could; along the way things narrowed and narrowed and we ended up with: 1954 late spring to early summer in northern Arizona, along the line between Pinta and Holbrook Arizona and a big change – a fictional town depicting as many of the elements we wanted as we could.

So we set out with a new set of design ideas for the new space. At first the idea of a small point to point was explored but many problems presented themselves. Concerns we had no idea of slowly surfaced, things like staging, passing sidings switchbacks, runarounds, yard designs – sometimes the lists of things to learn seemed endless but John Armstrong and Frank Ellison’s books were always close by and then came Ian Rice and many others.

Through it all there also was the single greatest and most invaluable aid – wonderful, giving, patient sagely members of the forums. From Trains.com to the Gauge, modelrailroadforums.com, and good folks along the way: Texas Zephyr, Leighant, SpaceMouse, Ereimer, Masonjar, Fred Wright, 60103, Joe Fugate, Byron Henderson and many, many more who I apologize to for not naming here. Without all of you all this would have come to nothing.

So now ten months, 5 major redesigns and 14 total plans later I’ve come back to feeling that I am potentially finished yet again so I come back again to my friends, mentors and ministers to show where I am and hear what comments, criticism and advice you can offer.

So here is to ten months and good pals! :D


Here is the basic information with track plan picture below. As always any and all comments criticisms, advice or questions are welcomed and wanted.

Track Plan Info:

Scale: HO
Name: Route 66 Railway.
Locale: Northern Arizona alongside route 66. (In the fictional town of Gila, AZ)
Period: 1954, late spring to early summer.
Layout Height: Starting at 50".
Track: Code 83.
Turnouts: #6 on Mainline and inside Staging, #5 on industry spurs, #6 ½ curved leading to Staging, #7 ½ curved on Corner Crossovers, # 2 ½ wye on Wye and Industry spur.
Curve Radii: 28" outside mainline, 26" inside mainline, some curves much broader in other areas- broadest curve in plan 6’ 2”.
Outer Loop: Eastbound Traffic, Right handed (clockwise) running.
Inner Loop: Westbound Traffic, Left handed (counter-clockwise) running.
Industries: A - Scrap Yard, B – Fuel Oil Supplier, C - Shipping Warehouse, D – Bolt and Screw Factory, E – Station, F - Concrete Plant, G – Oil Field/Oil Tanks,
H – Freight House/Team Track, I - Stock pens, J – Agricultural Co Op, K – Gravel Company.
Points of Interest: A to C–2 to 13 Town of Gila, J-12 Blue Moon Drive In, G-2 E-2 Ranches.

3435
(click for a larger version of view at http://mysite.verizon.net/coyote97/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/BedPlan10.jpg)

Peace.
Coyote


P.S. I apologize for the length of this post. I just had a lot to say for a change. ;)

[jbaakko]

I dunno what to say, I got so lost in reading that... Good luck!

[GandyDancer]

I don't know that you need the crossovers on the tracks in the closet. For the most part you will be backing a whole train in or out of storage anyway, so I don't know if they add anything operationally, just take up storage space. Perhaps a compromise would be to keep one and eliminate one?

[SpaceMouse]

I see Gandy's point, but I can also see the desire for a runaround so that you don't have to pick-up your engines. But unless you are running two engines back to back, you'll have to spin the engine anyway.

That same type of runaround is needed for you industries so that you can switch them from either direction.

[NZRMac]

Any chance of making the track to staging into a wye? You could turn whole trains and come out of staging and go either direction.


Ah-ha just been reading your post over the tracks!! I see your removing the doors on the closet, so you will have room for the Wye into staging. A turnout in the outer loop top right into the staging track.


Ken.

[GandyDancer]

Any chance of making the track to staging into a wye? You could turn whole trains and come out of staging and go either direction.
You know, I was just going to post again and say that you've worked so long and hard on this it is time to build, learn, and change later. BUT I think NZRMac has got a point here! If indeed you are removing the closet door perminantly and not just for construction. Put a wye turnout on the main and another left hand on the lead to the stagging yard and you could come and go from either direction.

[grande man]

Hum, I love the theme, but think you need more staging to really have fun with it. Could the closet doors be removed and an opposing staging yard be added along the wall outside of the closet? With building fronts, the yard could be used as visable staging in the form of a town.

[SpaceMouse]

I like G-man's idea and you have room. In fact, you have room for a couple more tracks inside the closet as is. At home, I have 4 staging tracks in 10 inches.

(Does no one else see the need for runarounds for his switching areas?)

[HaggisKennedy]

Like where? He has runarounds in the yard, that would be where I'd do my runarounds if I needed to. Just by looking at the plan quickly, I can mentally sketch out an operational plan to switch almost all the industries going in either direction on the main..... The basic train would either be a local or a turn, using the yard in the closet as the endpoint.

In fact, a part of my layout is similar to how Grandpa has the upper half of his layout set up. The main difference is that I have a siding with a runaround off the main to stuff cars into.

Kennedy

[SpaceMouse]

The top part of the plan is what I'm talking about. Yes, he has a runaround in staging, but the nearest runaround to the top area is off to the right (in a different scene) and you cannot get to the switching area without two extra moves.

I think a runaround is needed in the main switching area at the top.

[GrandpaCoyote]

I dunno what to say, I got so lost in reading that... Good luck!

I apologize I did go on a bit. The OL says I'm a master at "holding court". ;)
Thanks for the well wishes I think it's going to be fun.

Peace.
Coyote

[GrandpaCoyote]

I don't know that you need the crossovers on the tracks in the closet. For the most part you will be backing a whole train in or out of storage anyway, so I don't know if they add anything operationally, just take up storage space. Perhaps a compromise would be to keep one and eliminate one?

GD,
Thanks for the advice, it was helpful. I've done a redesign on the staging and I'll be posting it at the bottom of the thread, I kept the two crossovers for running around but expanded a bit and added in one staging track without any fouling from a crossover.

Looking forward to hearing what you think.

Peace.
Coyote

[GrandpaCoyote]

I see Gandy's point, but I can also see the desire for a runaround so that you don't have to pick-up your engines. But unless you are running two engines back to back, you'll have to spin the engine anyway.

That same type of runaround is needed for you industries so that you can switch them from either direction.


Chip,

Great point, as always. I just responded to Gandy and mentioned to him that I did a redesign on the staging and I also added in a crossover on the main that I think might help with what you have mentioned. I'll be posting the changes at the end of my replies today. Take a look and let me know what you think buddy; looking forward to the feedback. This round of advice has been excellent. Thank you.

Peace.
Coyote

[GrandpaCoyote]

Any chance of making the track to staging into a wye? You could turn whole trains and come out of staging and go either direction.


Ah-ha just been reading your post over the tracks!! I see your removing the doors on the closet, so you will have room for the Wye into staging. A turnout in the outer loop top right into the staging track.


Ken.


Ken,

You are spot on! I have to tell you that when I get advice from you guys I always sit down and seriously consider it but sometimes if its just one piece of advice from one fellow and I can't wrap my head around it I might put it in my "personal preference" box to take out and look at later, but this time I've had half a dozen folks suggest adding a wye into the staging and when I first read the suggestion the little light when on and I wondered how I'd missed that. :confused: Thank you for pointing it out, I have now added a wye into the staging and I'll post the new plan at the end of my replies today.

Looking forward to hearing back from you and thanks again.

Peace.
Coyote

[GrandpaCoyote]

Hum, I love the theme, but think you need more staging to really have fun with it. Could the closet doors be removed and an opposing staging yard be added along the wall outside of the closet? With building fronts, the yard could be used as visable staging in the form of a town.

Grande,

Thanks for the advice. I see your point that more staging is a must; however I'm not sure that I am following what you’re suggesting? If I put more staging outside the closet then I'll be blocking one door at least totally and eating up a fair amount of people clearance between the edge of the main loop area and the outer closet wall. Maybe you could explain it again to me?
That being said your suggestion did make me realize certain things - The space I was using width wise for staging in the closet was pointless as it only left me 1 foot of clearance between inner closet wall and staging benchwork edge. Now that is just silly of me I ain't gonna fit in that space anyway and I know I have at least 24" of easy reach on my arm... So I expanded the staging benchwork to 18" wide and redid the staging, which allowed me another staging track and increased my over all staging track lengths slightly.

I'm posting the changes at the end of my replies today and I'm interested to hear what you think of it.

Looking forward to talking more with you on it.

Peace.
Coyote

[GrandpaCoyote]

Hey Gang,

Well here we go again! :) Great round of advice gang it was full of food for thought.

I added a Wye set up from the Main into the staging so now trains can leave the staging heading in both directions, switched the direction of the crossover at F-13 and added a crossover at B-9 - this should enable trains to exit and enter either loop from staging onto the proper loop (inner or outer) and still be facing the correct directions for east bound or west bound traffic as well as allow trains to cross over to exit back out into staging from either loop - flipped the facing of the Concrete Plant at F so that I could extend out some track for the B-9 crossover, brought the closet staging benchwork out to 18", traded the #6 turnouts in the staging for #5 and reorganized the staging into a simple ladder giving me one more staging track, shifted the left hand most crossover in the staging tracks over giving me one staging track clear of any crossovers and making the smallest staging track a good place to run around and move engines (I hope/think?) and finally I highlighted the liftout/pullout section that leads into the main area in yellow (no duck unders for me).

Well gang I think that is all the info this round. Tell me what you think, can't wait to hear back from you all.

And again and as always: Thank You -ALL- for your time, support and sagely advice.


Track Plan Info:

Scale: HO
Name: Route 66 Railway.
Locale: Northern Arizona alongside route 66. (In the fictional town of Gila, AZ)
Period: 1954, late spring to early summer.
Layout Height: Starting at 50".
Track: Code 83.
Turnouts: #6 on Mainline and inside Staging, #5 on industry spurs, #6 ½ curved leading to Staging, #7 ½ curved on Corner Crossovers, # 2 ½ wye on Wye and Industry spur.
Curve Radii: 28" outside mainline, 26" inside mainline, some curves much broader in other areas- broadest curve in plan 6’ 2”.
Outer Loop: Eastbound Traffic, Right handed (clockwise) running.
Inner Loop: Westbound Traffic, Left handed (counter-clockwise) running.
Industries: A - Scrap Yard, B – Fuel Oil Supplier, C - Shipping Warehouse, D – Bolt and Screw Factory, E – Station, F - Concrete Plant, G – Oil Field/Oil Tanks,
H – Freight House/Team Track, I - Stock pens, J – Agricultural Co Op, K – Gravel Company.
Points of Interest: A to C–2 to 13 Town of Gila, J-12 Blue Moon Drive In, G-2 E-2 Ranches.

3465
(click for a larger version or view at http://mysite.verizon.net/coyote97/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/BedPlan10b.jpg)

Peace.
Coyote

[grande man]

Grande,

If I put more staging outside the closet then I'll be blocking one door at least totally and eating up a fair amount of people clearance between the edge of the main loop area and the outer closet wall. Maybe you could explain it again to me?




Coyote

I was thinking that the intent was to duck under into the center of the layout for operating and viewing and that the space between the closet wall and layout was mainly for door clearance. In looking at your plan again, I see what you mean though, there's only 2 1/2 feet to work with even if you wanted to lay track in that space. Even so, if you did view from the center area like I was thinking, you could extend you mainline another 2 1/2 feet to the closet wall (double main times 2 sides = 10 extra feet of mainline action!), put a backdrop all the way around the layout (save the doors), and get that feeling that you're "in" the little world your going to create. You'd also have alot more space "inside" the operators area. That's what we did on our layout and it works well unless you get alot of visitors at once.

Here's a crazy question for you. Is there any possibility of going thru a wall into an adjoining room for staging space? You could fit a good bit on a 12" shelf in the next room, but it would require a "yard" operator there or some form of train detection. Just a thought... You can always tell the wife "it's just sheetrock".;)

I'd like to say again, I LOVE the theme. But then, I'm a little nuts about western railroading (and the ATSF)... ;)

[SpaceMouse]

IF you went with a pinwheel configuration for you staging yard you could increase both the number of tracks and the length. (See Armstrong)

[GandyDancer]

Well all things considered this layout isn't really that big such that the train will be able to remain in one "scene" at all times. Besides a bigger issue I think we have all mostly forgotten in the last ten months as the true main reason for the layout is to show off Grandpa Coyote's SuperChief which is bigger than ANY of the scenes and will probably consume two of the storage tracks all by its lonesome.

[SpaceMouse]

On a similar note, I'd like to see Diablo Canyon built on the wall with the window, even if it means losing an industry. It would make the layout on a scenic level. GC, post that picture you have of it, please.

[HaggisKennedy]

The top part of the plan is what I'm talking about. Yes, he has a runaround in staging, but the nearest runaround to the top area is off to the right (in a different scene) and you cannot get to the switching area without two extra moves.

I think a runaround is needed in the main switching area at the top.

Yes, well, that would make it easy, but what's the fun in that? It's not always that easy with the prototype either. :)

From what you just said, I surmise you're talking about trains heading in a counter-clockwise direction. It will not be easy to do any switching from that direction. Yep, that's true. There are prototypes out there that wouldn't even try to do that; they'd drop off the cars at the next yard/siding for the return trip to switch. I do that on one part of my layout; it's a facing point spur to a small power plant. I need to put one-two cars of coal there. I don't even stop there going that way; since that job is a turn, I switch those cars on the way back. If it wasn't a turn job, but a one-way local, I would drop the cars at a small yard for the other way local to switch. In Grandpa's case, I'd drop the cars into that siding down by building "H" and have the clockwise job switch the industries. That job will jam all the outbound cars into the staging yard for the counterclockwise job to pick up.

The other option would be for the counterclockwise job to put all the switching cars into the staging yard for somebody else to work. In this manner, that job will do the pickup of outbound cars I mentioned in the last line of the previous paragraph.

Still, it's a good point, and it's Grandpa's call what he wants to do. Is it extra moves? Sure. But, there's ways around it, just like the prototype. The crews will piss and moan about it, but they'll do that anyway. :D

Kennedy

[HaggisKennedy]

I've always like the idea that trains exiting from staging can go in either direction. But, I'd resist using that new Wye as a way to switch Industries A-D from the counterclockwise direction. Mainly because once you do that, you'll have to back up on the main to continue direction. Or, go into staging to switch directions.

I say this from the standpoint that in my mind, the staging in the closet is also being used as a 'Yard'. Your trains go in and out of there to pick up and drop off cars. That may not be what you originally had in mind when you drew that up, but it's a consideration.

:D

Kennedy

[GrandpaCoyote]

I was thinking that the intent was to duck under into the center of the layout for operating and viewing and that the space between the closet wall and layout was mainly for door clearance. In looking at your plan again, I see what you mean though, there's only 2 1/2 feet to work with even if you wanted to lay track in that space. Even so, if you did view from the center area like I was thinking, you could extend you mainline another 2 1/2 feet to the closet wall (double main times 2 sides = 10 extra feet of mainline action!), put a backdrop all the way around the layout (save the doors), and get that feeling that you're "in" the little world your going to create. You'd also have alot more space "inside" the operators area. That's what we did on our layout and it works well unless you get alot of visitors at once.

Grande,

Thanks for the explanation I understand much more clearly now, takes a bit to prime the pump these days. :rolleyes:

An oval filling the whole room is great idea and one I played with some time back except I ran into a few walls: I couldn’t figure out how to make an effective lift out/pullout section at the arch of a curve (which is where it'd end up being I fear), with that being such a necessarily thick section of benchwork and more importantly the OL has strange ideas that she wants to still be able to use the shelves in the closet, so that would require at least one other lift out/ pull out section... what are these women thinking! :confused: Use a closet??? :eek: But I'm kidding of course my OL is a great lady and loves the hobby, so what baby wants baby gets. So I nixed the idea of a larger Oval early on even though it is a good idea.

Here's a crazy question for you. Is there any possibility of going thru a wall into an adjoining room for staging space? You could fit a good bit on a 12" shelf in the next room, but it would require a "yard" operator there or some form of train detection. Just a thought... You can always tell the wife "it's just sheetrock".;)

That, I fear, is an impossibility. To the north I have an outside wall... *looks around shiftily* If I breach the outer wall of the house I won't need a doghouse, I'll need a lawyer and then a contractor, and not necessarily in that order. :D To the south (inside the closet) I am bound by a wall into the living room and right along a major electrical junction for the house, so that one is out. To the east and west the spare bedroom is sandwiched between the Bathroom and Master Bedroom Bathroom *imagines visions of himself in a Three Stooges plumbing situation* so that one is out also. I got the space easily enough but it's hemmed in, it's as if ... she knew...

As for the "it's just sheetrock" maneuver... let me tell you - don't marry East Texas rural girls - They know better!! ;)

I'd like to say again, I LOVE the theme. But then, I'm a little nuts about western railroading (and the ATSF)... ;)

Thank you Grande I'm happily nuts in the same way. I'm looking forward to getting my hands in on this.

Peace.
Coyote

[GrandpaCoyote]

IF you went with a pinwheel configuration for you staging yard you could increase both the number of tracks and the length. (See Armstrong)


Chip,

Indeed, working on it today. Thanks for the advice, almost have it fit in and inside my clearances. I'll post it up later hopefully.

Thanks for the good advice, it is always helpful. :)

Peace.
Coyote

[GrandpaCoyote]

Well all things considered this layout isn't really that big such that the train will be able to remain in one "scene" at all times. Besides a bigger issue I think we have all mostly forgotten in the last ten months as the true main reason for the layout is to show off Grandpa Coyote's SuperChief which is bigger than ANY of the scenes and will probably consume two of the storage tracks all by its lonesome.


Gandy,

Very true! And I swear I'll run the Super Chief on the layout even if it hare-lips the governor! However I did happen to find some scaled down consists for the Super Chief for modeling purposes and I may use one of them to save some space. I include them below for the gang’s edification and amusement.

3467
(click to see larger version)

Peace.
Coyote

[GrandpaCoyote]

On a similar note, I'd like to see Diablo Canyon built on the wall with the window, even if it means losing an industry. It would make the layout on a scenic level. GC, post that picture you have of it, please.


So let it be written, So let it be done!

3468 3469

3471 3470


The only problem is that Canyon Diablo is about 70 miles west of the area im using now. But I am planing to put in a crossing over the Little Colorado River for some of the same feel.

Peace.
Coyote

[GrandpaCoyote]

I've always like the idea that trains exiting from staging can go in either direction. But, I'd resist using that new Wye as a way to switch Industries A-D from the counterclockwise direction. Mainly because once you do that, you'll have to back up on the main to continue direction. Or, go into staging to switch directions.

I say this from the standpoint that in my mind, the staging in the closet is also being used as a 'Yard'. Your trains go in and out of there to pick up and drop off cars. That may not be what you originally had in mind when you drew that up, but it's a consideration.

:D

Kennedy

Kennedy,

I am in total agreement with you on this one. The Wye off the main to staging should, in my opinion, just be used to get trains on and off the layout with the correct directional orientation and not used to help switch industries per se.

Peace.
Coyote

[GrandpaCoyote]

Lots of folks have suggested that I change the staging in the closet to more of a pinwheel set up... SpaceMouse being head cheerleader for this improvement! Go Chip! :D

So I went back and rearranged turnouts to get closer to a pinwheel set up, took a bit to get it all to fit and still be inside my clearance preferences but got it done and gathered a lot more track space for doing it.

Here it is:

3473
(click for a larger version)

Thanks to all those that suggested it, it was a fine idea.

Peace.
Coyote

[SpaceMouse]

I really admire the way you respond to every on that gives you a suggestion.

I can't for the life of me imagine why you want the runarounds in staging. Unless your trains are Mu's back-to-back, you have to hand turn your engines anyway and it limits the space in your staging to keep the lanes clear. Since with switch machines it's about $60-100 investment to put them in, I suggest you hold off and see if you really need/want them. They can always be cut in later very easily. (I've been cutting in turnouts at our club for several weeks now.)

[GrandpaCoyote]

The only problem is that Canyon Diablo is about 70 miles west of the area im using now. But I am planing to put in a crossing over the Little Colorado River for some of the same feel.

Peace.
Coyote

Chip,

I completely misspoke on this one I have no idea why I said the Little Colorado River I meant to say Dead Wash -sorry for any confusion on that one. I must have been in outer space there.

Peace.
Coyote

[GrandpaCoyote]

I really admire the way you respond to every on that gives you a suggestion.

I can't for the life of me imagine why you want the runarounds in staging. Unless your trains are Mu's back-to-back, you have to hand turn your engines anyway and it limits the space in your staging to keep the lanes clear. Since with switch machines it's about $60-100 investment to put them in, I suggest you hold off and see if you really need/want them. They can always be cut in later very easily. (I've been cutting in turnouts at our club for several weeks now.)


Chip,

Thank you sir, it's just the way I was brought up. If all of you can take time from your lives to offer me good advice for nothing the very least I can do is take the time from mine to respond back. :)

You make some good points about the runarounds. My basic idea was that by having them there I could back engines out over them, turn them on the Wye and then shuttle them back in to be at the front of the back of trains they had previously been at the front end of... However you do have a good point on the money and I may put this into the wait and see box as you have suggested.

Thanks as always.

Peace.
Coyote

[HaggisKennedy]

I can't for the life of me imagine why you want the runarounds in staging. Unless your trains are Mu's back-to-back, you have to hand turn your engines anyway and it limits the space in your staging to keep the lanes clear.

Because having runarounds in staging means that staging can be used as a yard as well. With this capability, you have more operational opportunities than with straight staging that can't do anything else.

A few weeks ago, I saw an NS Dash9 running long hood forward, pulling about 15-20 freight cars. The yard where it came from has no turning facilities, and this loco was MU'd elephant style to another widecab. That's the way they went into the yard in the first place.

My guess is that this train was going to pick up more cars at a much bigger yard south of here, where they'll add a loco to the front that will face the right direction. But, for this short (maybe 15mi or so) move, Long Hood Forward can be done.

With a runaround in staging, you can do this. Which gives you at least one more operation opportunity. The Wye that Grandpa put in will enhance that. This is different than my previous comment about using the Wye to help switching because the train is exiting the yard.

Kennedy

[SpaceMouse]

Because having runarounds in staging means that staging can be used as a yard as well. With this capability, you have more operational opportunities than with straight staging that can't do anything else.

A few weeks ago, I saw an NS Dash9 running long hood forward, pulling about 15-20 freight cars. The yard where it came from has no turning facilities, and this loco was MU'd elephant style to another widecab. That's the way they went into the yard in the first place.

My guess is that this train was going to pick up more cars at a much bigger yard south of here, where they'll add a loco to the front that will face the right direction. But, for this short (maybe 15mi or so) move, Long Hood Forward can be done.

With a runaround in staging, you can do this. Which gives you at least one more operation opportunity. The Wye that Grandpa put in will enhance that. This is different than my previous comment about using the Wye to help switching because the train is exiting the yard.

Kennedy

Point taken.

[cuyama]

You also need to consider that with the "escape" crossovers at the end of the staging yard, one will need to keep parts of one or more tracks clear to provide a way for the engines to excape, signficantly reducing the staging capacity. GC had the same challenge in some of his early versions with crossovers in the too-short visible yard on the wye.

IMHO, it would be best to forego the crossovers in the staging yard for the increase in useable length and simplicity. With good trackwork, one should be able to back the trains out for restaging. If that degree of reliability is not achieved, re-staging can be a matter of pulling off the train with another engine to allow the headed-in engine to escape.

Regards,

Byron

[HaggisKennedy]

Because having runarounds in staging means that staging can be used as a yard as well. With this capability, you have more operational opportunities than with straight staging that can't do anything else.


I look at staging mainly as a yard. There's no such thing as staging in the real world, so I take the position that there should not be a strict defiinition of staging for our layouts. For us, staging is meant to show 'the rest of the world' from our layout. Which is fine. True prototype staging should be 'single track' if your layout is single track, double if double. You could add a passing siding if you want.

Since many of us decide to put in a yard-like staging area (like Grandpa did), I believe we should use that as a yard. You can use that as 'the end of your subdivision'. If you consider using your staging yard as a yard, like I have in this case, that opens up many more operating possibilites.

The fact that it's being used also as a true yard doesn't mean you can't do the 0-5-0 train building which is what many folks think of when they talk about staging. You have that one track that's supposedly attached to the rest of the world, so you can put together trains there. If your staging is 'the end of the world', that's even more reason to treat it as a yard. It's prototypical.

On my layout, I have a small yard that services the switching part of the layout. It's also supposed to represent the connection to the real world. That's the way I set it up. The locals and turns who provide cars to the switching part of the layout drop the cars into this small yard. The switch job switches industries, it uses the switching siding to shuffle up to 18 cars, as well as the yard itself when the siding isn't long enough.

If it's a turn, that train takes away all the cars that need to be taken away in that direction. If it's a one-way local, then a local going the other way will pick them up. That's where the 'rest of the world' incoming train comes in. I build it on the main, with the power just short of the siding switch, the go in, pull all the cars out, hook back up, air test, off we go! Prototypically correct.

Grandpa can do this with what he's ginned up in the staging closet. That just gives you one more train you can run!

Kennedy

[HaggisKennedy]

You also need to consider that with the "escape" crossovers at the end of the staging yard, one will need to keep parts of one or more tracks clear to provide a way for the engines to excape, signficantly reducing the staging capacity. GC had the same challenge in some of his early versions with crossovers in the too-short visible yard on the wye.

I had this problem when I was building the trackwork to the switching part of my layout. The minimun requirement was to be able to store 9 40/50' equivalent cars, plus two GP38-2s. The latter meant that the runaround 'tail' had to be 18" long, to clear the switch so the power can leave. So, the farthest switch in the stub siding had to be at least 18" from the bumper. I made it about 20-22". Train had to clear the near switch so the power could escape. That sometimes meant that the cut of cars to drop off had to be cut further to fit.

But, I got it to work, and from an operational standpoint, it's somewhat of a challenge. Especially for the switch job when they have to switch 9 cars in and 8 cars out, and your siding only has room for 11 cars max (once the power is out, you don't need the tail any longer).

Kennedy

[GrandpaCoyote]

You also need to consider that with the "escape" crossovers at the end of the staging yard, one will need to keep parts of one or more tracks clear to provide a way for the engines to excape, signficantly reducing the staging capacity. GC had the same challenge in some of his early versions with crossovers in the too-short visible yard on the wye.

IMHO, it would be best to forego the crossovers in the staging yard for the increase in useable length and simplicity. With good trackwork, one should be able to back the trains out for restaging. If that degree of reliability is not achieved, re-staging can be a matter of pulling off the train with another engine to allow the headed-in engine to escape.

Regards,

Byron

Byron,

Yes, I see Kennedy's point, and it was where my mind was going when I put the crossovers in. That being said however, Chip, Texas Zephyr, Russ Bellinis, and you have also made some fine points and arguments.

All things being equal I think I'm going go with Chip' suggestion and pull the crossovers from the plan, build it without them, get a feel for it and then after a little hands on experience if I think they would add, just cut them in to the already existing track work.

Since this will be a staging area, in a closet no less, I think that this is the best way to go. It would require no fiddling with or messing up of scenery or structure placements etc, so in this case I believe I'm going to with the lesser of two evils and see how it works out.

Thank you for your advice it is always illuminating and edifying.

Peace.
Coyote

[GrandpaCoyote]

Because having runarounds in staging means that staging can be used as a yard as well. With this capability, you have more operational opportunities than with straight staging that can't do anything else.

A few weeks ago, I saw an NS Dash9 running long hood forward, pulling about 15-20 freight cars. The yard where it came from has no turning facilities, and this loco was MU'd elephant style to another widecab. That's the way they went into the yard in the first place.

My guess is that this train was going to pick up more cars at a much bigger yard south of here, where they'll add a loco to the front that will face the right direction. But, for this short (maybe 15mi or so) move, Long Hood Forward can be done.

With a runaround in staging, you can do this. Which gives you at least one more operation opportunity. The Wye that Grandpa put in will enhance that. This is different than my previous comment about using the Wye to help switching because the train is exiting the yard.

Kennedy

Kennedy,

That sir is a more fully formed example of the tiny spark of an idea I had in my head when I placed the crossovers on the staging. :) Thank you posting this.

Peace.
Coyote

[SpaceMouse]

Coyote, perhaps this would be a good time to put your plan to Joe Fugate's operational formula. I tried it and found some very interesting things out about my layout.

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=66815

[GrandpaCoyote]

Coyote, perhaps this would be a good time to put your plan to Joe Fugate's operational formula. I tried it and found some very interesting things out about my layout.

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=66815

Chip,
Great idea! Here are my stats side by side with Joe’s.


HO SP Siskiyou Line (Joe Fugate)............................Route 66 Railway (GrandpaCoyote)

Room Area (sq ft): 810..............................................1 90
Layout Area (sq ft): 689 (85%).....................................92 (c.47%)
Number Turnouts: 122............................................... ..33
Total Track (ft/cars): 1078/2156.................................161/322
Mainline Track (cars): 706..........................................153
Passing Track (cars): 338............................................13
Storage Track (cars): 516............................................43
Staging Track (cars): 336.............................................58
Service Track (cars): 18................................................ 0
Connecting Track (cars): 242.......................................266
Passing Sidings: 10................................................ ........2
Passing Train Length (cars): 44/33/12............................7/6/5
Staging Tracks: 11................................................ ........5
Staging Train Length (cars): 43/30/10.........................12/11/10
Maximum Cars: 816............................................... .......85
Cars Moved: 500............................................... .........158
Trains: 16.7.............................................. ................26.3
Dispatching Threshold: 22 car trains...........................6 car trains


Thanks for the suggestion.

Peace.
Coyote

[SpaceMouse]

What did you learn from it?

I question three of your stats: The "connecting track" "cars moved" and "trains". The connecting track doesn't matter too much in the analysis, but I can see it taking 26 trains for one operating session. I think the error is in the "cars moved" category. While Joe moves about 60% of his capacity, you move double your capacity.

[GrandpaCoyote]

What did you learn from it?

I question three of your stats: The "connecting track" "cars moved" and "trains". The connecting track doesn't matter too much in the analysis, but I can see it taking 26 trains for one operating session. I think the error is in the "cars moved" category. While Joe moves about 60% of his capacity, you move double your capacity.


:eek: :confused: :eek:

Chip,

Now this is a perfect example of why I shouldn't do math when I'm still groggy.
You are absolutely correct. I somehow went backwards on computing "connecting track" which of course then threw off "cars moved" which then in turn threw off "trains".
I have no idea how I made such an obvious mistake but thanks for catching it. I include the corrected numbers below.

HO SP Siskiyou Line (Joe Fugate)............................Route 66 Railway (GrandpaCoyote)

Room Area (sq ft): 810..............................................1 90
Layout Area (sq ft): 689 (85%).....................................92 (48%)
Number Turnouts: 122............................................... ..34
Total Track (ft/cars): 1078/2156.................................161'/322
Mainline Track (cars): 706..........................................153
Passing Track (cars): 338............................................13
Storage Track (cars): 516............................................43
Staging Track (cars): 336............................................58
Service Track (cars): 18...............................................0
Connecting Track (cars): 242........................................53
Passing Sidings: 10................................................ .......2
Passing Train Length (cars): 44/33/12............................7/6/5
Staging Tracks: 11................................................ ........5
Staging Train Length (cars): 43/30/10.........................12/11/10
Maximum Cars: 816............................................... .......86
Cars Moved: 500............................................... ..........72
Trains: 16.7.............................................. ................12.1
Dispatching Threshold: 22 car trains...........................5 car trains


As for what I have learned from this? Well first off I wish I had more passing track that would be the one major thing I'd alter if I could. Currently I can move about 83-84% of my capacity - so that isn't so bad - but I can realistically only move it at around 5 cars at a time which is terrible. How ever I'm wondering if with a double main -some going west and some going east is going to affect this number either positively or negatively or not at all.

Thanks for catching my error SM, I appreciate it!

Peace.
Coyote

oh and P.S. A happy Father's Day to you and all the rest of us dads; hope it is a good one.

[GrandpaCoyote]

It's me again Margaret... :D

Hi Gang,

First let me say thanks to you one and all that have taken the time and effort to look at my plans and offer me your advice. You are all great pals one and all and it means a lot to me. *thumbs up*

Here then is the current plan in toto with all the current changes and revisions.

Track Plan Info


Scale: HO
Name: Route 66 Railway.
Locale: Northern Arizona, AT&SF Mainline alongside Route 66 between Pinta and Holbrook AZ. (Set in the fictional town of Gila, AZ)
Period: 1954, late spring to early summer.
Prototype: Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad Company
Layout Height: Starting at 50".
Track: Code 83.
Total # of Turnouts: 34
Turnouts: #2 ½ wye on Cattle Wye and Industry spur, #5 on Industry Spurs, #6 on Mainline, #6 ½ curved leading to Staging and into left arm of Staging pinwheel ladder, #7 curved on right arm of Staging pinwheel ladder, #7 ½ curved on Corner Crossovers.
Curve Radii: 28" outside mainline, 26" inside mainline, some curves much broader in other areas- broadest curve in plan 6’ 2”.
Outer Loop: Eastbound Traffic, Right handed (clockwise) running.
Inner Loop: Westbound Traffic, Left handed (counter-clockwise) running.
Industries: A - Scrap Yard, B – Fuel Oil Supplier, C - Shipping Warehouse, D – Bolt and Screw Factory, E – Station, F - Concrete Plant, G – Oil Field/Oil Tanks, H – Freight House/Team Track, I - Stock pens, J – Agricultural Co Op, K – Gravel Company, L - Carpentry Company.
Points of Interest: A to C–2 to 13 Town of Gila, J-12 Blue Moon Drive In, G-2 E-2 Ranches.
N.B.: Lift out/Pullout area to inner area is highlighted in Yellow on the plan below.


3478
(Click for a larger version or view at http://mysite.verizon.net/coyote97/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/BedPlan12.jpg )


Thanks in advance for your time, comments, critiques and suggestions.

Peace.
Coyote

[cuyama]

GC, I think one of the dangers of using Joe's (or any other formulae) is that they tend to have been devised with a particular type of layout in mind.

In your case, with a double mainline and multiple crossovers, in one important sense the mainlines are almost all also passing track. On the prototype, double track was used to increase the capacity (the "dispatching threshold" in Joe's metrics). The same would be true for your layout.

I've worked with a lot of different concepts, styles and eras of layouts. Some would be in sync with Joe's metrics and some widely variant. What makes them work or not work as layouts is a deeper understanding of the balance and interaction of staging, sidings, industry tracks, distances between elements, human factors (aisle width, control scheme, dispatching method, etc.), train scheduling, job roles duplicated, etc., etc., etc.

IMHO, there's a lot more diversity than one set of ratios can capture.

Regards,

Byron

[SpaceMouse]

:) Time to build:D

[GrandpaCoyote]

GC, I think one of the dangers of using Joe's (or any other formulae) is that they tend to have been devised with a particular type of layout in mind.

In your case, with a double mainline and multiple crossovers, in one important sense the mainlines are almost all also passing track. On the prototype, double track was used to increase the capacity (the "dispatching threshold" in Joe's metrics). The same would be true for your layout.

I've worked with a lot of different concepts, styles and eras of layouts. Some would be in sync with Joe's metrics and some widely variant. What makes them work or not work as layouts is a deeper understanding of the balance and interaction of staging, sidings, industry tracks, distances between elements, human factors (aisle width, control scheme, dispatching method, etc.), train scheduling, job roles duplicated, etc., etc., etc.

IMHO, there's a lot more diversity than one set of ratios can capture.

Regards,

Byron

Byron,

I agree with you completely. For me however, as someone who is still very much a green horn, any sort of exercise of this sort aids me in starting to perceive the components of that deeper understanding you speak of. As an example - it was these sets of formula that brought my attention to my utter lack of passing sidings. For me in the end it’s just a tool one of many, and between us I can use all the tools I can get a hold of. ;)

That all being said I have looked over Roy F. Dohn's formulas (the one that were the basis for Mr. Fugate’s formulae) in the June 1968 issue of Model Railroader, I found his to me much more complex and to consider various elements not in Mr. Fugate’s, such as potential double main line and east and west bound traffic. The basic problem with them for me is they are simple a bit too complicated for me to easily do and thus did not prove to be a useful learning tool.

In the end though I do agree with you, your point is finely made and truthful. Any hobby that has such multiple levels of complexity and individuality as our will can never be embraced by one set of formulas. But they can serve as good learning and contemplation tools, in my opinion, if your mind is in the right space when you use them and don't look to them as an end all and be all.

Thanks as always for your insight and contributions, they are always good to read.

Peace.
Coyote

[HaggisKennedy]

Yep! Time to start building!

Kennedy

[SpaceMouse]

GC, I think one of the dangers of using Joe's (or any other formulae) is that they tend to have been devised with a particular type of layout in mind.

In your case, with a double mainline and multiple crossovers, in one important sense the mainlines are almost all also passing track. On the prototype, double track was used to increase the capacity (the "dispatching threshold" in Joe's metrics). The same would be true for your layout.

I've worked with a lot of different concepts, styles and eras of layouts. Some would be in sync with Joe's metrics and some widely variant. What makes them work or not work as layouts is a deeper understanding of the balance and interaction of staging, sidings, industry tracks, distances between elements, human factors (aisle width, control scheme, dispatching method, etc.), train scheduling, job roles duplicated, etc., etc., etc.

IMHO, there's a lot more diversity than one set of ratios can capture.

Regards,

Byron

Byron,

You are right, of course. Anytime that you use a metric you make assumtions that that metric indeed is a measure of what it is you are looking at. If you build to a metric, you are limiting your scope.

That said, Joe's metric can be a learning tool and expose weaknesses in layouts particularly if you have operations in mind. It certainly doesn't hurt to look at a design through that lens to see what pops up. For instance, if you have a vision of running long trains, Joe's metric might show you how long a train you can expect to run in an operating situation.

The only danger is if you take what you find too seriously and move away from your vision--your druthers.

[GrandpaCoyote]

Yep! Time to start building!

Kennedy

Kennedy,

Sure looks like it. :D

Thank you again for all your advice and help in this sir.

Peace.
Coyote

[Rico]

To the lumber yard with ye!

[GrandpaCoyote]

To the lumber yard with ye!

Rico,

Soon sir, very soon indeed. :) The workmen are laying then new flooring in the train room behind me as I type this. :D

Peace.
Coyote

[grande man]

I doubt this would fit, but check out this revision. Maybe you could increase the length of the two staging tracks by the closet doors by moving a turnout. Would another curved unit on the entry fit??? You'd have to move some things around, but the staging would be much more effective. With your current design, longer trains will only fit on certain tracks.

http://pic15.picturetrail.com/VOL615/3680850/7880080/158421781.jpg

[GrandpaCoyote]

I doubt this would fit, but check out this revision. Maybe you could increase the length of the two staging tracks by the closet doors by moving a turnout. Would another curved unit on the entry fit??? You'd have to move some things around, but the staging would be much more effective. With your current design, longer trains will only fit on certain tracks.

http://pic15.picturetrail.com/VOL615/3680850/7880080/158421781.jpg


Grande,

I played around it last night and couldn't get it to work. Now if only there was a curved three-way we'd be cooking with gas! :) Thanks though for putting the idea forward. I do see the point of it, just not sure I have the skills to get those tracks longer. :o

Peace.
Coyote

[GrandpaCoyote]

Hi again Gang,

Here is the plan as of last night with changes made to lengthen the lift out/ pull out section to protect the track work on it. The lift out / pull out area is highlighted in yellow on the plan.

3493

Thought some of you all might also like to see where the line is in real life and what its elevation is.

The Fictional town of Gila lies between Coronado Junction and Adamana:
3492

Here is the elevation map:
3494

Thought you all might enjoy that.
Have a great weekend and thanks as always for taking the time to look my stuff over.

Peace.
Coyote