As an operator,  We never

As an operator,  We never have enough yards.  People love to run the yards classifying and building trains.  No one wants to work in staging.   Well would you rather stand around bulding a train in a staging yard in some dark corner or run a yard and be the center of attention on the railroad?   So just call staging a yard, make it run like a yard and everyone is happy.

Depends on What You Are Modeling

I suspect yards became prevalent in model railroad design so cars could be stored on the layout. And it's railroady and prototypical. I am not personally a fan of modeling classification yards, for the reasons noted in the post. 

If you are modeling a terminal or division point, you're gonna have a yard. Maybe more than one. If you do something like Chuck Hitchcock's Argentine industrial district, or similar, it's one big yard. 

My current thinking for layout design is that if the layout concept doesn't require a yard, then I won't include it, and take care of classification in staging. 

Depends

Depends on what you are modeling.

Depends what your focus is.

The counter argument could be why do you need industrial areas?  Yards switch cars 24x7, industrial areas get switched maybe once a day.  Every train (except unit trains) begins and/or ends it life in a yard, you could cut out the "main line" and just model the yard.

Like everything, it depends

  on what kind of layout you want and what prototypeor freelance scheme you are trying to follow.  I could happily design and build a layout with no yard or a layout that is all yard.My current layout has a 4 track yard( thru main plus three side tracks) which is enough for the operations I need to support with it......DaveB

I have two major yards on my railroad...........................

..............which is exactly what I wanted.

Neither is at the extreme ends of the railroad.  Both have logical reasons for being placed where they are in terms of prototype operation.

My large classification yard sits geographically south of Spokane by appx. 10 miles.  When my sessions are fully staffed, I keep three people busy classifying eastward and westward trains, and switching the industries within yard limits.

I have a sub-yard (which used to be my large yard prior to layout expansion) that is responsible for originating two locals (one westward, one eastward), and switching all of the local industries within yard limits (there are quite a few).  The road jobs set out and pick up at this yard.  Depending on traffic, we can call extras for points west or east.  This yard is appx. 60 miles east / southeast of Spokane, following the same right of way as the real life Milwaukee Road (which does not exist west of Terry MT in my world). 

Never had any complaints from anybody about doing a yard job since they bid on jobs at the start of the session.  We use a deck of cards to determine seniority for the session.  The last person to dispatch gets super seniority (first pick), and they usually pick one of the local jobs.  Depending on how well traffic flows, when they finish their local job, they go on a road job to finish up the evening. 

All trains needed in staging are made up prior to the start of the session, so nobody needs to work a staging job.  That is my job between sessions. 

Regards,

GNNPNUT

As an operator,  We never

That definition of staging seems off to me.  I don’t know why I would be building a train in staging during an operating session.  To me, the acting of having trains pre made and readied to run in pre determined order is different from receiving a train, breaking it down, and building new ones.

Neither is at the extreme

Active Staging

My staging yard complex functions much like a flat switching yard.  Most trains are broken down, with the cars being sorted based on the next waybill destination.  The staging operator assembles new trains using blocking instructions.

This staging process has benefits including:

• Reducing staging time between sessions.  By the end of a given op session, the staging operator has all of the trains built to start the next session.
• Reducing car and locomotive needs.  Since staging can recycle cars and locos during a session, fewer pieces of equipment are required.  The benefits include both reduced space needed for staging (since every train doesn't have to use a dedicated track), and less cost.
• Flexibility.  Since staging goes on during the session, changes can be implemented in real time to address issues that may arise (adjusting the number of trains, creating extras, changing how many cars are heading to a particular destination to avoid creating bottlenecks, reducing train length to allow for extra pickups, etc.).

There's no reason such a staging operation couldn't be scenicked as AzBaja suggested, or incorporated visually into the rest of the layout.

Depends on what kind of ops you like

Very interesting discussion!

Thanks to the OP for picking the topic up.

I am wondering the following:

I have a layout that models only a local freight from A to B serving industries along the line (and the equivalent B to A).

The prototype had yards in points A and B where the said local trains were made/broken up.

If one modeled one of these yards, then i suppose one would make up the local freight train using cars that have been manually placed (staged) to storage tracks, that represent destinations C,D,E. If the layout does not model any of these extra trains, then the yard is there for the sake of yard switching only right? In other words, it is similar in concept to a fiddle yard (active staging)?

I hope I am making sense with this...

  In your experience are

I haven't had a chance to really build and operate a proper medium sized model RR yet, but am in the process of building a layout.  I have designed in a yard because I want the operating "fun" of learning it.  My room doesn't have a lot of space for a big yard but what I am planning will be modest in size and somewhat proto-lance Grand Junction.  GJ did have a hump yard, which I wan't be modeling.  But I do want to model the intermodel hub for TOFC traffic, and a number of industries to switch.

Everyone has to decide for themselves if a yard is a waste or not.

For "First Mile/Last Mile" layouts, yes...

Dear MRHers,

Have to say my gut instinct was to scream "Yes!" at my laptop screen,...
...but then I took a beat, and asked "what makes me say that?"

- I prefer "First Mile/Last Mile" local switching (Role/Op P.o.V. = strictly "local train crew")
- I tend to build layout in smaller spaces
(where fully-modelled yards and associated yard-throats are space eaters, and space is what I really don't have)
- I tend to vibe with the old sawby "...if you can't model it, represent it with staging/subterfuge..."
(90+% of the operational effects, only 10% of the pain, and far less wasted layout space)
- I'm not afraid of having "the lights go up on our op session with the train either just-rolling-in, or having-just-arrived on-location"
(Think theatre or a decent movie "...in fair Verona, where we lay our scene...",
or more simply "Once upon a time, in an < insert prototype switching location here>  not-too-far-away...")

- and I'm _really_ not-afraid of "quick plonk on track in switchlist order" setting up the inbound train on the "clip-on staging plank" with loco mid-train and a Shove-Platform on-the-tail, as the prototype train consist would "appear onstage" at this modelled prototype location...
(CSX local Y223, running the MJ Lead to Zeeland Lumber and Vanden-Bosch, Zeeland MI,
http://railroadfan.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=32898
/>
or MILW/SOO running accross ex Milw bridge Z-4 onto Goose Island to Big Bay Lumber,
I'm looking straight at you two...)...

...or whatever equally modelgenic switching location/operation might come across my desk...
(Ballard Terminal/BNSF Shishole Yard, Meeker Southern, Oregon City, Violet Alley, CSX "The Chocolate" Mansfield MA, etc etc etc...)

...but I guess that just where my brain went...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

This is definitely a matter

This is definitely a matter of personal taste and choice.  If you like yard switching, obviously a yard is not a waste.  If you're into over-the-road running, a yard might indeed be a waste.  It's your railroad, build what you like.

From a strictly-functional standpoint, yards can make or break an operating session.  For a session using a fast clock, because model railroad switching occurs at essentially "real" time, the yard can get behind quickly.  However, if the road crews start using prototype practices (brake tests, setting/releasing retainers, etc), that slow down road operations, that difference drops.  Adding another crew to the yard (if space permits) can help, too, as can slowing the clock ratio (I use 2:1).

On my layout a poor operator in the main classification yard can bring the session to its knees, but by teaming an experienced (and good!) Yardmaster with a yard crew, regardless of their experience level, things keep moving nicely.  Personally, I have included two yards -- one is a block-swap and helper yard, the other is the main classification yard.   Both are in or near Scranton, and the interaction of the two yards and transfer runs between them add a lot to an operating session.

For example, power and cabooses are serviced at the Scranton City Yard, while Taylor Yard, located several miles down the Bloomsburg Branch, is the main classification yard.  Crews of trains originating at Scranton report to City Yard to pick up their power and caboose, then run caboose-light down the Branch (about 40 feet) to Taylor Yard, where they pick up their train.  They then return to Scranton and enter the mainline.  Through trains set out and pick up in City Yard, and those cars are moved to Taylor for classification by the transfer runs.

So having these two yards allowed me to add quite a bit of interest to operating a through train, and keeps three operators busy switching and running transfer runs.

"Neither is at the extreme". 

Once again, depends on what you are interested in and what you are trying to model.

If you put one big yard in the middle, what you are typically modeling is a "division" point yard.  That has many aspects that can be plusses or minuses, depending on what you want.

It does let you work trains in both directions, but that means you have to work trains in both directions, that means more trains work the yard and there is more potential for delay and congestion.

If you model the full yard you do get the full range of activities, but then you have to devote the space to support the full range of activities.

If you put the yard in the middle, you do get to operate trains on both sides of the yard.  If its a major class yard then that means its probably a crew change, which means by rights, you should change operators, or reclear the trains as they pass through the yard.  That means more train order/track warrant type activity.  

If you put the yard in the middle you can operate locals on either side of the yard, but since you are only modeling a portion of the run on either side, so the through freight crews won't get a sense of a "trip".

If you put the yard in the middle then you need staging on both ends and the yard in the middle.  That can result in more yards required.

If you put the yard on the end, that end you may not need to do the detail class switching for both directions.  You may be able to use the yard as both an "arrival" yard and staging at the same time.  The down side is that the yard may not follow the full processing of a car through the yard.

If you put the yard on the end, then the trains get a longer run and can have more of a sense of going someplace, there are more opportunities for over the road activities.  The down side is you only get the route on one side of the yard.

Neither way is right, but the choice can affect how the layout operates and the whole "feel" of the layout.

A yard only layout

A yard only layout is a very intriguing idea.  Each time I’ve had the opportunity to start a new layout (yeah, let’s call it opportunity) I’ve considered modelling the Ayer, MA yard and the immediate vicinity.  Lots of operating interest.  But it would also require a lot of staging, rolling stock, and engines to get a decent representation of the activity that happens there.  So far I haven’t done it.  Maybe someday.

One of the things that keeps me from doing it is a feeling that one of the things I enjoy abuot yard operation on other people’s larger layouts is the intereaction with the dispatcher and other train crews.  If all you’re modelling is the yard, you don’t have that (sure, you could simulate it, but that’s not nearly as satisfying).

Yard only layout

Quite a while back I watched a YouTube video from a fellow that did just that.

The main part of his layout was the yard, where he sorted cars into a local train, and trains that interchanged with 3 other railroads.

All of those trains just went off to staging.  He didn't say what he did in staging.  I'm guessing the interchange trains had different cars with different destinations swapped in.  Probably the same for the locals.

He enjoyed the work in the yard of sorting the cars into the various destination trains, so that's what he modeled.

GS

  "I hope I am making sense

Yes.  the yard gets served between operating sessions by an off scene train( fiddled by hand). They take the outbound cars and leave inbound cars for your on scene trains to work. If you use waybills they'd leave them too....DaveB

Industry yard in the middle

I'm liking the idea of a small yard in the middle for basing locals out of.  Fewer tracks, smaller throat, shorter lead, but it still has a lot of 'yardy' functions of the big ones.

Since it's not a division yard, trains can pass by with no stopping or recrew.  It doesn't east mainline space either - just place the main behind the yard and keep going.

Some trains can stop and work the yard, setting out and picking up cars.  That mixes things up with road trains if they have to wait on the one in the yard to clear the main.

You would still have space for an engine or two to kick cars and sort for locals, but it's not grinding your RR to a halt either by having to sort every train on the layout.

If you're modeling something in real life that is only a handful of tracks, it's much easier to believably compress.  Maybe I'll come up with a few examples later.

Wrong

 Then you are the failure as the owner of the layout if that happens.  You are trying to stuff 50 pounds of (Fill in the Blank) into a 10 pound bag.  This has nothing to do with the yard or not haveing a yard it all rest on the shoulders of you as the layout owner not planning correctly.

Stuck in the middle with you

Pine Bluff, AR on the MP.

Here are some other ZTS maps of interesting industry support yards.

Browder TX, west of Dallas on the former TP, plenty of industry:

Beaumont, TX (mp 461) on the form BSL&W, Gulf Coast Lines, MP, industry, trackage rights, interchange with 3 railroads (SP, ATSF, KCS), a port and a drawbridge in the area:

 And the modern replacement for Beaumont, Amelia Yard: (mp 452)

An industry support yard on a heavy traffic branch, Market St Yard (MK Yard) on the MP Baytown Sub, the branch has 136 main track switches in 36 miles, there were 12 traveling switch engines and 2 locals each way daily:

If you want a yard at the junction of a branch, here's Gurdon, AR:

 And lastly if you like tank cars and covered hoppers and Methyl Ethyl Nasty, here's Taft, LA :

Yards on layouts

To answer the question in one word, no.  Yards are not a waste of space.  On both the prototype and model, yards are required anytime cars need to be sorted, rearranged, or put on a different train.  That's true even on switching or industrial layouts, and it's true on layouts with absolutely no switching.  Yards come in all shapes and sizes, but the four primary types that modelers use most often are:

• Staging yards
• Classification yards
• Interchange yards
• Industry yards

Staging yards can be as simple as a single cassette track at the end of a micro layout or as complex as dozens of tracks connected to multiple entry points on several mainlines.  A cut of cars is pulled out from this track and a new set of cars is put away.  Staging yards serve as storage in-between running sessions AND represent a connection to the outside world.  It doesn't matter if an entire division is being modeled, or an industrial spur, most layouts designed for operation require a train to enter and exit the layout.

Classification yards are used to make-up and break-down entire trains.  They are necessary because freight cars have different destinations, and so they may be attached to several trains in it's journey across the country.  On a model train layout, classification yards are needed anytime a freight train is pulling cars that need to be put in a different train or dropped off for a local switching operation to handle.  Here in Montana, there are classification yards at Billions-Laurel, Helena, and Missoula for MRL.  Almost every local freight is made up and broken down at these yards.

Interchange yards are needed anytime two railroads meet.  Because of trackage rights, locomotives from one railroad can't simply start running on the tracks of a rival, at least not without written permission or leasing the track.  Continuing with MRL as an example, there are interchange yards at Sandpoint ID, Laurel, and Huntley.  BNSF and UP have an interchange at Silver Bow.

Industry yards are needed anytime a local freight has to spot cars and add/subtract cars from its train.  A switching layout needs to have a place to sort cars, even if it's just a runaround track or an empty spur.  Most towns with rail-served customers will have an industrial yard, some industries will have their own yard as well.  The only time an industrial yard isn't needed is if there is one or two rail-served customers that require only a couple tracks.  In those instances, a local freight will use the main line or branch line as the sorting track.

Appropriately placed, well designed yards are never a waste of space on a train layout.  But the key there is matching the yard design to it's purpose.  A simple interchange yard won't suffice if a operators need to sort out 20 trains during an operating session.  Putting in a 16 track classification yard for two single car industries is equally ridiculous.

I thought about not having a yard.

I could model a few more industries without a yard. Or in my era a proper freight house/ terminal scene like the Reading had in Lancaster.   The industries could all be switched from locals. I like to sort cars though and I would rather do that on scene. Building a local train, switching industries and bringing the train back to the yard for sorting into northbound and southbound traffic is fun to me. So I have a small yard. Bridge traffic passes through and a few  through trains set off cars and pick up cars in my version of Lancaster yard. 
 

My layout is around the walls of average sized bedroom, so active staging/ fiddling would be the same as a yard but trains would probably be shorter. And I wouldn’t have a good spot to do the fiddling/staging.
I didn’t build a proper yard on the first version of the Lancaster Central and I regretted it. I did have active staging which sort of made up for the lack of a yard.
Not having a yard is a lot cheaper per foot of layout unless you are modeling an insane amount of industries packed into the space.

Wanting a properly designed yard was the main motivation for me to build the current layout. My previous Nscale layout had a yard where I followed most of the 10 commandments of yard design from the layout design SIG. It worked great and I had fun. In HO LC V1 had a 2 track industry that I eventually remodeled into a 3 track yard. It never really worked well and didn’t have its own runaround track. Through trains running ‘ northbound’ didn’t have a place to interchange cars with the ‘yard’ except a 6 car long passing siding. ‘Southbound’ trains emptied or filled 1 of the 3 ‘yard’ tracks.  
 

My current yard doesn’t have a separate lead but otherwise follows most of the recommendations. It is still small, it holds about 20 cars, but operates smoothly. 

Interchange vs. Run Through

Well, not really.  An interchange can be as simple as a switch and one connecting track.  As far as number of interchanges, that's probably the most common.  On or maybe two tracks connecting the two railroads.  Granted you could call two tracks a yard.  However as far as volume goes, traditionally the yard to yard interchanges in terminals is was the highest volume and then in the 1980's and later the run through interchange probably caught up to or surpassed the yard to yard interchange in car volume.

For example in Salt Lake City we interchanged with the DRGW and Ogden we interchanged with the SP and didn't have specific "interchange yards", we just interchanged to tracks in the respective railroads' class yards.

That kinda defeats the whole purpose of trackage rights, to allow trains to operate on another railroad.  Pretty much, then a trackage rights train shows up at a junction the other road has to take it in line with the traffic.  The vast majority of locations trains exit or enter trackage rights have no yard, its just a connecting switch or the main track.

Plus trackage rights are NOT interchange.  A trackage rights train is not interchanged, the cars and locomotives are not taken into the host railroad's accounts, the trackage rights train remains the train of the tenant road just like it never left its own rails.  Since many junctions are around populated areas and many populated areas may have yards there may be a yard at a place where a train enters or leaves trackage rights, but its not there because of the trackage rights and then don't hold trains there per se.

Trackage rights are through a contract, but its not a lease, an individual train doesn't need "written permission" other than whatever train orders, track warrants or track bulletins any train operating on that line uses.  

For more on trackage rights, here is a link to the clinic I presented to the Op Sig on trackage rights:  

Those types of yards are more common with the non-run through, non-trackage rights type situations where a shotgunned cut is delivered to the receiving road and the receiving road has to switch it out for whatever destinations it has.  Generally that type of interchange is called a "yard to yard" interchange.

Hauling Ore

I recognize that I have a rather large layout, so this may be one of those “well, yeah, but the rest of us don’t…” responses, but the Missabe would be ill-represented without its major yards, Proctor (for my half of the railroad) or Two Harbors, if the Iron Range division is your preference.

Proctor servers as the incoming and weighing point for loads, the classification of ore by grade and content, the makeup of Hill Ore jobs to the dock and the makeup of north bound empties to replenish the mines.  The various mixed freight locals originate from here as well, and interchange transfers occur here as well with other roads.  A lot happens here. Two of my regular operators love working the yard exclusively.

It is not an end point in the flow, but a transition of ore loads and empties.  That the yard was prominent to the real railroad was evidenced by two roundhouses and turntables, a full backshop, a full car repair shop, and a yard stretching for 2.2 miles.

I couldn’t ignore this yard!