Staging and operations
Comments in italics interspersed.
Even though I do not like the compound ladders, they have SIGNIFICANTLY increased my storage space. I now have 11 tracks that are all at least 18 feet long. Each track is 216 inches long x 11 tracks equals a total of 2,376 inches of storage. I have no idea what the average car length will be but I estimate this staging yard will now easily hold 250 -280 cars.
Staging yards - the purpose is staging, switch configuration or appearance is irrelevant; if the yard is buried, switch function and reliability is paramount. Whatever gets the job done; ideally, figure out what the job is first, then design the staging. If you're running varied length trains, varied length staging can work. in the extreme, if they're all the same length trains, but the tracks vary, you'll be governed by your shortest track.
There are three separate leads into the staging yard. Two leads split into 4 tracks each. The lead in the middle splits into three tracks.
Might be great, might be terrible. Depends on what you're going to do with the three separate sub-yards you've created. For example, restaging trains for the next session might be a pain, if you have to move whole cuts of cars from one subyard to another via the main layout. But if the three subyards can be assigned different purposes, and their sizes are appropriate for those needs, you might be good to go. For this reason, I've always preferred one large staging yard, where I can assign tracks for different purposes as my knowledge of the layout needs improve.
What do I need to think about regarding staging? Can I simulate two or three different destinations with the different leads? Should one of the track groupings be preserved for passenger/commuter traffic only?
Purpose, purpose, purpose. Design the layout to do something, make the staging fit the layout's needs. Designing the staging, then operating as the staging yard dictates, will probably disappoint.
Each of the two main levels has a folded dogbone (out and back concept). That means that I could run from Staging yard A to Staging yard B or C.
Okay. So you've got track plans - have they been built? Can we see them (if they're already published in another space here at MRH, just point us at them). Do you have a "schematic" of the layout, or just a trackplan? Did you have some idea of how you were going to operate, or not? That was a problem for me. I built a 600 sq. ft. layout before I thought about how it should run. Bad mistake.
The plan, WAY DOWN THE ROAD... Is to connect two major metropolitan areas. So, there will be another hidden staging, albeit not nearly as big on the top level for those trains that leave Metropolitan area A and traverses the entire layout to Metropolitan area B. The other two staging yards could be smaller urban areas or even interchanges.
Ahh. I'm beginning to see your plan of operation. But, if trains run A-B, B-A, you'll be limited by the smaller of the two yards(A); to utilize the larger yard(B), you'll need to add traffic that runs from B to an on-layout destination, and returns to B. That traffic of course doesn't need to be passenger, it can be freight that is specific to that end of the layout; something like a paper mill would allow a high volume of closed cars (boxcars bringing pulp, taking paper; tank cars of chemicals; hoppers of kaolin for fine paper). All of these don't require load changeouts, etc. so they're convenient.
The other two staging yards - my preference would be interchanges (call them C, D). You can run any mix of cars you want through interchanges, and they can additionally run in various patterns. E.g. C-D, C-B, C-A, and reverse, all with or without being switched in yards or visiting on-layout industries. Gives you a lot of "play value".
Any thoughts regarding operations?
A track plan would be needed to allow more detail.
Blair
