Parallel?

This may not be what you had in mind but I was thinking of having staging be parallel with my main yard. This way there would be less difficult construction and diificult to reach areas for repairs. Also, with more trains in plain sight the layout would seem more significant. The entrance for staging would be separate from the main yard to give some feeling of separation. I know the idea is less than ideal, but this hobby is full of compromises.

The layouts I have run where the run from staging to the main yard was short on one end was no big deal.

" a classification yard right

Staging is car or train storage so it should go where it's easy to access and still fit the operational goals or scheme of the layout. If that spot is near a yard then it's a good place for staging. It's easier to make these kinds of choices when one has a prototype railroad to copy , then the big decisions(towns, tererrain, traffic,etc.)are already made and the smaller ones( benchwork configuration, scenic compression, etc.)are left....DaveB 

Dave is right

Another vote for lopsided

I am almost positive that I read this recommendation somewhere from a prominent author a long time ago as well (somebody with "ops chops"...sorry can't remember the reference), but I also find that having the classification yard next to staging seems to work out well. I think the argument was along the lines of you want to have a good mainline run for through trains in addition to the local work you would also do. By putting the classification yard in the middle, you have two so-so runs. When it's at one end, you can have a nice run in one direction.

One might then be inclined to think that the short-side run is then useless. But, in practice, it still works. The short direction can easily serve a variety of traffic such as transfer jobs, or long or peddler virtual runs the "other" direction. It ends up being a handy tool to help traffic flowing out of the classification yard without flooding your trackage to the long direction.

Another practical side-effect: if you have an operating crew with a wide range of experience levels, you can use the classification-to-staging runs (and staging-to-classification) to let the inexperienced operators get their feet wet.

I am not operating yet, but it is how my track plan is configured. If it turns out to be wrong, I'll just get depressed and take up coin collecting 

 "When it's at one end, you

another option is double ended staging connected to both ends of a layout then the runs can be both long and short . The staging yard on my current layout represents both Stockton and Sacramento serving the CCT,the SP,the ATSF,and the WP  depending on what I'm doing at the time.....DaveB

Maximize mainline run

Echoing what others said, I tend to favor the idea of maximizing the mainline run to/from a yard. Therefore in my trackplans i try to place the yard next or near one end of the layout. This usually means that staging is very near.

Depending on the situation, staging and yard could be almost in the same spot or very close by. Having one end of the railroad as a terminal can result in this (yard & staging on the same spot). The other end can be pure staging for example...

I am modeling a branch...

Workflow

Modern yards, like North Platte, can have up to a dozen ladders, so there is nothing visually wrong with a short distance between storage and a classification yard, either side by side or end to end. The smaller Grand Island yard a few miles east has two double ended ladders that are tucked efficiently into each other. The first move for a job may be just from storage to the class yard arrival track. Through trains can get a new crew at storage and head on out the main.

pqe

Layout LDEs for the lower level

Thanks everyone for your replies.

To put this into context, here's my layout space with proposed lower level LDEs:

Newbridge and Bramshott are populated areas, each LDE is about 15 ft. long (my max. train length will be 7 ft.). Lower staging is most likely going to be stub-ended, although I wanted to add a transfer table at the end of the stubs to let locomotives come back to the front without using the 0-5-0 switcher.

I wish I could do a double-ended staging connecting to both ends, just not sure how would that be made here.

Also, I'm on the fence about using a helix (it takes 20 sq. ft. of real-estate), and have been contemplating a gradual climb around the walls and a turn back cure in the LDE #5, just so I could keep the walk-in/walk-about concept. Although, trains would be going through the same scene twice in that case...

Proximity

It all depends on what you are trying to model.

Having a staging yard immediately next to a "division point" yard (serially) where all trains stop and work is not any problem prototypically or scenically  (if the staging is hidden) but does have a small problem from an operator standpoint, in that somebody has to move teh train the short distance from staging to the visible yard and vice versa.  From a prototype perspective a "division point" yard would be a crew change, so having teh inbound crew move the train can feel "wrong".

Having a staging yard next to a classification yard (parallel) is also not a problem visually because most large yards (especially modern ones) sub yards, a recieving yard, a classification yard and a departure yard.  So having a large yard with train length cuts of cars sitting in it is not unusual. 

I have (or will have) both of those situations (sort of) on my layout.  One the south end, at Wilmington there are interchange tracks for both the B&O and PRR that are essentially staging yards.  Switch engines will move cuts of cars from the interchange tracks to the classification yard where they will be switched into outbound trains.  On the north end, at Birdsboro the branch joins the "main line" of the P&R.  All the freight rain schedules I have found for anything approaching my era terminate at Birdsboro and do not go into Reading, the major hub.  Passenger schedules do go into Reading.  The engine terminal on the north end of my branch was at Birdsboro.  Based on the information I have, I will terminate the freight trains at Birdsboro and put the cars in a yard (staging), presumably to be picked up by "main line" freights going between Philadelphia and Reading.  The main line freights would in turn set out cuts of cars (staging) for the branch.  The yard engine will block out the cuts to run trains on the branch.  I will end up with essentially the class yard parallel to the staging yard.

The other alternative is to put the yard in the middle with staging on each end.   That gives two shorter runs on each end.  It also lets you run shorter locals in both directions.  Model railroaders love turns and that makes local turns easier to facilitate.  A lot of it depends on how you percieve of the flow of trains and what you are modeling, on how much you can imagine the "rest" of the operation.  If you put the class yard at one end, then you have to imagine everything on the the staging end, if you put the class yard in the middle you can 'see" both ends, but have to imagine the endpoints on both ends.  For a lot of people its easier to conceptualize a yard and the 50-75  miles on either side of it than to model a yard and just model the the 100-150 miles to the nextcrew change on one side.  Neither way is wrong, just different perspectives.

Transfer vs TT

I would suggest a engine/engine consist long manual turn table.  A piece of wood with a screw in the center and flex track on it.  It takes no more length than a transfer table AND allows you to turn power if you need to.  It's not that hard to build.  I have one on the end of my staging yard and a buddy has one on the end of his.  mine is "deluxe", it has contacts underneath to automatically change the polarity of the rails, his is "basic', he has two alligator clips on leads that you clip to the rail ends while moving the engine on or off.

Move LDEs to the middle level

I guess I could just put a motorized 90' Turntable from Walthers (that kit version and add a motor to it), just to make it more hands-off.

As I do not model off of a prototype, it's all left to imagination. My railroad does not have to be perfect, operations wise, rather somwhat believable and to make (some) sense overall.

Looking at my LDE plan from the previous page, I just had a thought that I could put the staging on the longest wall, where the classification yard is now. Then the rest of the lower level would become the Lockport branch, terminating in a sea port where the lower staging was supposed to be.

All of the LDEs except lower staging would then be moved to the middle level and be accessible via the helix. That still puts the staging and classification yard next to each other, just divided by a helix run.

The Yard Master would then be able to handle the staging below, while the staging itself could be doubled, and also provide a loop-back for auto-restaging.

Here’s one for the gradual climb!

Transfers and Division Points

I agree with Dave that the style of operation you desire will have a big influence on what to do here. I prefer the local so a train that comes through and exchanges cars could have literally no scenery (in the case of crossing) on either side of this connection and the entire sceniced portion devoted to the local or branch. 

A staging adjacent to the main yard might also be an opportunity to model a terminal rather than a division point. Trains made up to go to staging would be sent to and from the visible yard as transfer runs. This was common. 

Some staging yards are also actively “fiddled” and having it near a visible yard allows for easy communication between the yard masters.  A turntable in the hidden staging is a bonus where a balloon track cannot be fit. Also check out Armstrong’s “inverted loop” as a way to turn trains or engines. 

My own layout has the mainline connect to the branch at a point just outside of staging. Trains come from staging to drop off and pick up cars, or connect with the local passenger train, and return to staging. Mainline trains do not travel on the branch. It works for me but family and friends don’t really understand. Why would you hide the train? A future layout may allow trains to travel to and from a connected staging with the connection to the branch somewhere in the middle. This would allow two (or more) locals going both northbound and southbound as Dave pointed out. 

Salt River Valley staging yard/crew change point

I have been working over the same situation with the Salt River Valley staging yard/crew change point on my layout.

Working the GS&M yard in La Grange, I do not care if the SRVY Staging is around the corner or 300 miles away.  I just want a place to send my out bounds to and receive inbound trains from.

As an operator running a main line train it would be nice to run over 20', 60' or 100' from the SRVY Staging to La Grange.  On the other hand as an operator a 3' or 6' turn might not be that fun.

I did some work then changed the plan and operating scheme.  Now the SRVY no longer feeds into La Grange but will pass by La Grange then feed into the ATSF Division end point yard a little over 100' away.  Cars that will be heading to La Grange for classification will come from the ATSF Division end point yard on a GS&M transfer train. This is about 40' feet back over the same tracks but in the other direction.

Some people might say why not drop off the cars for the GS&M at La Grange?  The ATSF train passes by that yard?  The question to them.  Why would the ATSF stop at a yard that they do not own to drop off cars?  Rather than complete the run to ATSF Division end point yard and have those car switched out by the ATSF yard crew. Then have the Local railroad GS&M handle those cars transferred to La Grange on the GS&M?

To be honest putting the staging yard at one end of the layout next to the classification yard, I do not see it as an issue.  Build a bridge, Tunnel, small town etc. to separate the 2 yards. The purpose of staging yards is to hold trains arriving or departing the layout.  Let the actual modeled yards where those staging trains arrive determine you run lengths etc.

Open Staging

One more thought would be to look at Dave Barrow's open staging yard. There is nothing wrong with this approach either and give the crew a place to stop or start rather than from some nebulas location "beyond the basement".

Through trains vs others

The angle I have been thinking from with regards to the staging yard adjacent to the classification yard was concerning through trains and the ones destined for my railroad.

An operator who is running a through train does not care where my yard is as they are not stopping there. And even if they were, they would be dropping off, or picking some cars up, and continuing to exit of my railroad at the other staging yard.

Yet those trains destined for my railroad would end up with a very short run (around the bend, or maybe up the helix - boring) and terminate in the yard, which basically begs a question why even have such trains on the roster.

I like AzBaja's reasoning to rework his operations and send the train to ATSF Division yard, lengthening the run while at the same time adhering to the prototypical "usage rights" that the GS&M did not give/sell to the ATSF for La Grange yard.

Although that means to me that any goods coming to and leaving GS&M will require use of another carrier. ATSF and others will have to pick and drop-off cars at their respective interchange yards with GS&M, that are destined for GS&M or outside.

Actually that seems very plausible for a smaller railroad, and creates quite a plethora of new jobs to be completed (send a loco to ATSF interchange for drop-off / pick-up, come back to La Grange; next job would be to block the new cars and assemble a local; next job send the local off to industries on GS&M for drop-off / pick-up, etc).

Yet, would there be any GS&M trains leaving La Grange to either of the stagings then?

Regarding a gradual climb *with* a shorter helix, it does not really resolve much for me. The issue (in my head) is the use of space for a helix, and even a 2-3 loop one would still require the same footprint as 7-8 loop one.

It seems the choice I have for a gradual climb is either to forfeit the walk-in design and put a swing-gate (bridging 3 levels) so that the climb continues preserving "trueness" of the railroad routes. Or, give up going through scenes only ones, and let trains come back on an elevated track hugging the walls, while losing directionality.

Re: Through trains vs others

Here are some suggested changes that may be a bit radical for your desires, but which have worked in similar situations:

Flip the LDE2/3 peninsula end to end and connect it to LDE5.  The result will be a continuous spiral instead of a center prong.  Then the route will be class yard, LDE4, 1/2 of LDE5, LDE3, LDE2, 1/2 of LDE5, and lower staging.

If desired, grades or even a helix could be added at the end of lower staging and connected back to the helix at the class yard.  With a little more modification, there would seem to be the possibility to add a vertically separated branch line above lower staging.

Open staging assumes enough

Open staging assumes enough space; if space is very limited, then not so easy.

I'm presently designing a layout in a 15x33.5' space and going to got with what Nick suggested.  Both actually.

I"m putting staging below my yard.  The layout is being built for both point to point and continuous operation.  At each end of the run there will be a reverse loop.  In space where the reverse loops I am thinking about a helix as well.  The layout will run from a yard above the helix and gradually loose eleveation until it goes underneath.

http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/32897

The benchwork is already in place

Err donm ... the layout space is real and the benchwork is already in place, so I can't really backtrack on my shape choice.

A "G" shape might have worked for what you are suggesting, but my SO did not want the space to be closed up like a "G", so we compromised.

Here is what I have been thinking today regarding LDEs, all 3 levels:

Basically, lower level is reserved for staging and the Lockport branchline, leading down to the coast (Lockport is an imaginary seaport). Obviously trains will bypass staging on their way to Lockport from the middle level classification yard.

Middle level now has the classification yard next to the helix. LDE 9-11 should start the ascent, although they would still contain a few industries on the way.

Upper level is narrower and starts in the lower right corner. A drawback is that the operator needs to go back inside the main space once they reach LDE 11. Although they could just follow the train half way to LDE 10 (tip of the tear) and then proceed back to the end of that aisle waiting for their train at LDE 12. Any other suggestions about this are welcome of course.

The upper level has Highpoint as a populated area, although its location is not set in stone. Actually none are except maybe for Newbridge as it hosts the classification yard. LDE 14 has a lift-out bridge which is necessary to access the electrical panel in the upper right corner. I'm not sure whether LDE 15 should have anything industrial since it's above the classification yard and might create congestion in that area, not sure. After that back to the helix and down to the staging.

Trains can actually ascend from the staging and go the other way, helix, LDE 15 and backward route. This way I don't need to build two stub staging yards and could potentially have continous running through the entire layout, if desired.

Boring Jobs

Welcome to my world! LOL!

If running a train to and from staging is boring then:

1) eliiminate the space and train by simply staging incoming cars before the session or;

2) automate the through train to come to the yard and stop for the yardmaster to pull cars and attach outbound cars before letting it continue.

Of course, running the through train from staging to staging could be fun for the "mole" job to get out of the dark onto the mainline for a few minutes!

Would there be any GS&M trains leaving La Grange to either

No,  The GS&M is a brdige line between the ATSF and the SP.    No reason to have any GS&M traffic leave the layout.  At some point I can add a "Local" train that mioght go to staging, but that would a hope to another local town.

Through trains

I thought that staging to staging runs are for through trains and operators who want an easy job?

These through trains might stop to pick some cars up or drop them off at some yard/interchange but generally they are just passing through, no?

Through trains

A through train can certainly run as you suggest. From an operation standpoint it could also be a train coming to a division point where a crew change happens. The caboose or head end power might get swapped out or an engine added for “the grade” and dropped at the top. It adds time and interest to operations. Having staging right next to your yard allows the “new” crew to board and run to the end of the division where it might get another crew or go to staging (again). Where the through train arrives from staging, travels the visible portion of the division and comes to the yard, it may actually terminate at that point to get broken down and rebuilt for a new train. This might continue the into staging or return back where it came as a new number. 

I am beginning to like the idea of visible staging as we discuss this as it provides a beginning and end. The train may or may not drop cars en route. Like you said, it could be an easy job for someone if the train has priority. If not then it might have to watch the signals or timetable to progress through the division, taking sidings and waiting in the hole now and then. Not always that easy for a newbie.