Staging

General observations on staging tracks:

• Simpler is better
• Fewer switches is better
• Longer tracks are better
• Double ended tracks are better
• Not having to make "saw" moves (train has to shove to get in or out of a stating track) is way better.

I would come off the left side with a ladder and try to get 6 or 7 long tracks against the front/bottom, then do a few long stub end tracks across the back.

first, I hope this is all completely out in the open

More info

I appreciate the input. I am going to try to simplify some.  A few more bits of info.

The staging is completely accessible.  It is along one wall of my modelling room.  However, because of it not being in the layout room, I want to make sure whatever I do that it is not necessary to back a train through the wall into the layout room blind in order to get a train out of staging.  That means any long storage tracks need to connect somewhere other than right by the two access points to the layout.

The short tracks amount to silliness I guess, trying to fit in as many spots as possible.  Probably more trouble than it is worth, and definitely would have eaten up a lot of turnouts. Next draft I will avoid that.

Next draft should post later tonight.

Thanks,

-Ed

Second Draft

Here is a new draft of the staging design.  The idea of the ladder along the left side seems to be a big plus. 

This design will hold about 135 cars with lots of room for running around on 4 of the tracks, or 165 but runarounds become longer.  The storage tracks on the right are all long enough to hold several cars, but short enough that they can be pulled out and shoved down the long diagonal via use of the track at the top.

My max train length on the layout is likely to be 17 cars, with most at 10 or less.  This gives me several tracks to stage 10 car trains and multiple spots to build up a 17 to 20 car train while running around the front.

Most trains will enter the layout via Exeter, but for trains entering the other way, I can stage them at the right end trcks and pull out easily without a push.

Anything I am missing or other improvements?

Thanks,

-Ed

Compound ladder

I would suggest that you get a left and right hand switch of the type you are going to use, photocopy them and make a bunch of copies, then cut them out and play with arranging them in different ways.  Try putting a left hand switch, then putting two more left hand switches in a row each connected to the diverging leg of the previous switch.  Using some of those tricks may gain you an extra several cars in each track.

S Curves

Ed,

Reworked the left ladder using MS Paint to get rid of the S-curves on the left end and make the flow more natural.  Gives you just a bit longer track as well.

Lose the Stubs

Lose the stub tracks, and reverse the ladder beside the stub tracks for longer double ended tracks. The stub tracks and switchback to reach them is a bad design for a staging yard, it's fine for a switching yard where you want to classify cars and build trains. With double ended tracks and leads off both sides of the main continuous run connection, you will have much more flexibility in operation of  the staging yard, while still able to build different trains within the staging yard.

If you want longer switching leads, add another track beside the main continuous run connection track, and design it to have a crossover track at each end for staging yard access. The fewer switches on the main track, the better since they are the cause of most derailment issues. With the separate leads on each end of the yard beyond the crossover switches, it would be possible to build trains in staging, (even if the switch engine pokes out of staging) while still running other trains past the staging yard on the main track.

Great Input - 3 More Drafts

The input is really helping me continue to refine this. Here are my next 3 drafts.

Draft 3 takes Dave's input about the S curves, but leaves the rest as in the second draft:

I then played around with a ladder on the right to be able to try to reverse the long ladder, and eliminated the bunch of stubs on the right as Moe suggested. But I couldn't see a way to fully reverse the ladder due to the angle of entry from Exeter while increasing average staging track length.  So I somewhat split the difference.   Here is my draft 4:

The 90 degree angle in from Exeter makes it a bit different from the left side, but it did succeed in lengthening the staging tracks, so I can have somewhat longer trains staged.  But I don't like losing all the stubs, because i am inclined even in staging to build up trains by running them, not with my hands - especially since I am in N scale. So here is Draft 5 that adds back some stubs on the right starting from draft 4 to provide some classification room as well:

One thing I didn't talk about is what operations will be like on the layout as it relates to the staging.  Most trains will entering heading to the right out of staging entering the layout at Exeter headed to pretty much all points on the layout. 

There will be a smaller number of trains that exit the staging left in two scenarios:

    1) As if entering from Manchester heading for Portsmouth.

    2) Heading along the back of the layout to effectively "enter" the layout at North Conway.

There will be more of a balance of trains exiting the layout from either end during operations.  But between operating sessions it will be the most convenient for trains to exit the layout for re-staging from the left end of staging regardless of whether being staged to enter the layout via Exeter, Manchester, or North Conway. I don't know if this list of how trains will flow impacts which of the above is best.   My leaning now is Draft 5 (last one in this comment.).

Any more thoughts?

Thanks,

-Ed

One more tweak

Ok - still playing.  I tweaked Draft 5 and came up with this Draft 6

I like the way the outer 3 tracks now match up at the left and right ends.

-Ed

Crossovers?

One more thought.  I am wondering if I will wish I had crossovers between the sets of three tracks that come off the left ladder.  And if adding them, I am not sure if I would want them at both ends or in the center somewhere.  Here is a cut of Draft 6 with crossovers added.

Would adding crossovers solve situations I would be likely to encounter, or just needlessly over-complicate things and waste turnouts without much if any gain?

-Ed

Trying to get running at Rockingham (Yup a former NHer)

Ed, Which turnouts and how are you planning to control the turnouts in the staging yard? If you are planning to manually flip the turnouts and uncouple cars, you will probably need more finger space for the stub tracks and right ladder track turnouts. This is especially true for N scale turnouts and couplers. I would place some turnouts, track and cars on the yard to test the spacing and access. You may also find that the yard track spacing is too close, and you will be able to assess how much lighting you will in those areas.

Otherwise the general layout of Draft 6 looks workable.

Single Main track in and out

I don't see a reason for the crossovers.

If this staging yard was serving multiple independent main tracks and there was a need to route a train from one main's staging area to another then the crossovers would be needed. However all storage tracks lead to a single main on either end of the staging yard.

The design appears to maximize the storage of trains in the space available and all trains can be routed to/from every track.

Eugene

Last plan

I like the last plan better.  I wouldn't add the crossovers, since all the tracks are double ended they aren't necessary.  The short stub tracks might be good for storing spare engines to be swapped out every so often.

What number are those turnouts?

They look like #2 , How will all this fit when drawn with a #5 or #6? .....DaveB

Looks like #6 Without crossovers

The two turnouts on the far left side of staging are Peco medium left.  The rest, which will be low speed anyway, are all Peco ST5's, which I have a lot of left over from my prior layout before the move in 2017.  I have eliminated most use of ST5s from the layout itself with the exception of a very small number of yard tracks in Dover and Exeter.  But I don't want to toss them so I figured staging was the best place for them.  One of the things I love about XTrakCAD is the use of the manufacturer specific turnouts.

Looks like I am tentatively going for #6 without the extra crossovers.  I came to realize after posting that even if I did think I needed them, they wouldn't add value in the positions shown.  I am going to stick without them.

All of the staging turnouts will be manually thrown.  If I had included the crossovers, that would, indeed, have been a problem for those since they might be sandwiched between cars.  But since I won;t add the crossovers, all other turnouts will be able to be flicked easy enough.

Thanks for all the input, everyone!.

Time to run the very outer track.  Everything else I have plenty of opportunity to continue to revise.  But I wanted to get the outer track run before my grandson arrives in 10 days so the continuous running will be possible.

-Ed

Draft 6

HI, Ed, your draft 6 looks to have the best of everything except the outer track bypassing the yard switches. The crossover switches I previously mentioned would have only been between the yard leads and the outer main continuous run connection track. The only reason for that would be to prevent the bypassing train from traversing some of the staging track switches, but your 6th draft looks like it will otherwise accomplish your staging needs.Jim

"The two turnouts on the far

  Are they drawn to scale? The frog angles look incredibly sharp. A number 5 should be about 11.4 degrees....DaveB 

Crossovers

I think it's been answered above, but definitely adds nothing. Really only need to have one way in/out of any track in staging. It's just a parking lot.

Peco ST5

They are drawn by XTrakCAD.  However, as I understand it reading more the Peco ST5 is not a #5.  However, I have not had issues with them at slow speed and like I said I have lots of them. I placed a few on the staging in the positions expected and the angles line up exactly as XTrakCAD drew them.

-Ed

 "However, as I understand it

Hi Ed, I looked them up and they are 9 inch radius , unspecified frog angle. They'll make your yard tracks more widely spaced than a normal turnout but looks like you have plenty of width for an N scale yard....DaveB 

PECO ST5, live

Dear Dave,

FWIW, some rather-butchered PECO ST5s in active service...
(any jiggling thru the turnouts is due to my hamfisted kitbashing,
the ST5s "fresh out of packet" are smooth and reliable...)

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

'Try this in your CAD

' Try this in your CAD program. You have too many of the diagonal stub tracks and a couple of them look too short to hold a 40' box car on it's own. If your gonna have the track there it needs to be able to hold something. The only reason I see using these stub tracks is to store either an engine or caboose or both. 

Is this HO scale? I believe it is. What is the max length of your rolling stock? Your main plan from the earlier post looked to have quite a few tight curves. What is your min radius? If your modeling early 19th century you will be OK for the most part if your sticking with short cars, but not so sure if your in the transition and start getting into longer 89' cars. 

N Scale

@Neil, this is N scale, and most of the cars are 50' or less.  But I just tried your suggestion and it definitely increases my storage capacity. Before those stubs would have held a total of about 16 cars.  Changing it the way you suggest bumps that up to 22 or 23.

Thanks,

-Ed

While you are at it... controlling turnouts

Are these going to be hand-throw, or on machines?  Since there are so many turnouts, you may need to consider the following issues. (Or you may make a few powered, and others manual... lower cost that way)

If they'll be on machines, how do you intend to select routes...   LCC,  paired throws,  diode matrix... these are things to consider as soon as practical (like, as your track  design is getting tidied up.)   Also... slow motion machines... have an option of going to servos.

Layout Command Control offers a few more options... and I don't know all of them.. just about them... Arduino control or DCC based controls are options. 

(I'd need to read up on JMRI, LCC and arduino, as I'm only familiar with DC powered throws)

Oh.. from my track-laying experience... see if your turnouts are available as scrap pieces.. I got brass track to tear apart.  With those, I found ways to shorten the 'out-of-the-box' turnout and squeezed a few more into a confined space... not quite to my liking, but railroads often have less real-estate than desired... thus I had my excuse!  They are also far more real than photocopies and CAD plans...

Best of everything for your enjoyment and sharing with the next generation!

After looking over your layout, I must say a point-to-point on all that could be lots of fun for a young 'un!