I'm having trouble with my yard design. I'd appreciate some input on these two designs. The bottom yard is the one in question.
or
or
Yard quandry
- Thread starter Pitchwife
- Start date
Looks to me like they both will work. The lower one looks more realistic with the yard tracks straight as long as there is enough room for the ladder tracks. It's one thing to plan them but another when it comes to the actual track laying. The lower one also has more realistic tracks leading to the roundhouse with good loco servicing space.
I second that, the bottom's the better of the two...now, will I get over the pure lust for that kinda space that's taken over me head....
Thanks Robin & Shaygetz. That was what I thought. :thumb: :thumb: It is actually an adaptation of an earlier version, before I started trying to cram too much into it. 
Just wanted someone else to confirm my thoughts. 
It'll be easier to wire for DC as well, another plus, 
Just wanted someone else to confirm my thoughts. It'll be easier to wire for DC as well, another plus, 
If you are planning to use Kadee/MT couplings, the straight tracks will be easier to put uncouplers in.
If you are using hand switch machines, the top one has more switches close to the edge of the table.
If you are using hand switch machines, the top one has more switches close to the edge of the table.
Pitchwife said:
I grew up near Camden Yards in Baltimore. There's even a nice yard nearby where I live now. While I do want to model babbling brooks and rolling countryside, no future layout of mine would be complete without an open yard, humming with in/out traffic. A closer look at a yard shows a lot of detail that's overlooked, too. The one pictured at the bottom just looks right to me, I can just picture it done in C70 rail sunk up to the web in muck and oil, relay boxes and old brake shoes everywhere, frieght cars every whichaway, an old Baldwin AS616 burblin' out its last daze as a yard goat, and a six pack of SD40-2s throttlin' up out bound for wherever OooOoooooo das nissshhhe :thumb:
Clark,
I have a couple of questions. I am assuming this to be N-scale, so let me know if that is incorrect. I am also assuming that this is going to be placed against the wall with access inside the "U," rather than an island layout.
I don't see any dimensions. Just make sure that you can reach the back of the layout easily. That means that anything over about 30" deep will be hard to reach.
The lower layout design will be easier to wire since the two reverse loops will be easier to isolate. (In the turntable and on the upper pennisula)
Maybe a point to point layout would fit your needs better, keep the track closer to the front edge of the layout, and also make it more suitable for inclusion in a modular group should you decide to do that.
I have a couple of questions. I am assuming this to be N-scale, so let me know if that is incorrect. I am also assuming that this is going to be placed against the wall with access inside the "U," rather than an island layout.
I don't see any dimensions. Just make sure that you can reach the back of the layout easily. That means that anything over about 30" deep will be hard to reach.
The lower layout design will be easier to wire since the two reverse loops will be easier to isolate. (In the turntable and on the upper pennisula)
Maybe a point to point layout would fit your needs better, keep the track closer to the front edge of the layout, and also make it more suitable for inclusion in a modular group should you decide to do that.
Hi upguy
I knew there was something I left out. This should help clarify things.
You are correct about the access. Only the right hand wall will be open, but it will be open the entire 9 feet. The depth at the base of the U is 36". There wasn't a way that I could come up with that would make it any shallower and still fit in the things I wanted to include in that area. The biggest problem was the loading docks in front of the right hand pair of buildings. They are a warehouse and a freight transfer co so I needed to leave enough room for a 40' semi to back in to load/unload and still maintain a passable road in front.
I knew there was something I left out. This should help clarify things.
You are correct about the access. Only the right hand wall will be open, but it will be open the entire 9 feet. The depth at the base of the U is 36". There wasn't a way that I could come up with that would make it any shallower and still fit in the things I wanted to include in that area. The biggest problem was the loading docks in front of the right hand pair of buildings. They are a warehouse and a freight transfer co so I needed to leave enough room for a 40' semi to back in to load/unload and still maintain a passable road in front.
Qoute {It'll be easier to wire for DC as well, another plus,
}
It would be even easier to wire it for DCC.
It would be even easier to wire it for DCC.
It looks like there are some problems with access to the far corners--the back wall may be 36" deep (which is pretty deep--try reaching something 3' away without smushing anything in between you and the thing) but keep in mind that the corners will be less accessible--the upper corner 38" deep isn't much worse, but reaching anything behind the roundhouse will require just over 5 feet of reach! I assume that the little indentation in the corner is to make room for something structural in the room--it is not big enough to be an access hole.
Two suggestions:
First, consider putting the UP/BNSF in center foreground on a lower level, and having the tracks behind them on a higher level (there is plenty of space for elevation on either side) so you can run the foreground tracks in a tunnel UNDER the interchange yard in the center. That would allow you to narrow that back section to 2 feet or less.
Second, if you are willing to give up the loop that goes directly around the roundhouse, you could shove the track of the yard inward (to form more of a "teardrop" shape) a foot or so, reducing the potential reach to an only slightly arm-twisting three feet or so.
Two suggestions:
First, consider putting the UP/BNSF in center foreground on a lower level, and having the tracks behind them on a higher level (there is plenty of space for elevation on either side) so you can run the foreground tracks in a tunnel UNDER the interchange yard in the center. That would allow you to narrow that back section to 2 feet or less.
Second, if you are willing to give up the loop that goes directly around the roundhouse, you could shove the track of the yard inward (to form more of a "teardrop" shape) a foot or so, reducing the potential reach to an only slightly arm-twisting three feet or so.
Thanks jetrock. You have some valid points that need to be addressed. The first and most inflexable item that I have to take into consideration is that I'm confined to a wheelchair which really limits my ability to reach over long distances. Doing some work with the local club really drove that home.
Re the loop behing the roundhouse, I had put that in as part of the runaround track so that the switcher would have access to both sides of the yard. If you have another way to accomplish that I am all ears.
I am currently working on a method to do more or less what you are suggesting. Two things I am considering is 1, the use of swingdown gates that would allow a full circuit of the room (as per attachment) and thus reduce the need to bunch everything up like it is now. and 2, the use of dropdown shelves as described by Train Clown in the thread 13 year old needs help page 4 entry 55. These would be kept in place until access to the back areas would be needed. (need to start a thread thanking TC for the idea)
I'm also considering starting all over from scratch. A lot of work, but less than tearing out something already built. Thanks for the input. Every new suggestion helps.
Re the loop behing the roundhouse, I had put that in as part of the runaround track so that the switcher would have access to both sides of the yard. If you have another way to accomplish that I am all ears.
I am currently working on a method to do more or less what you are suggesting. Two things I am considering is 1, the use of swingdown gates that would allow a full circuit of the room (as per attachment) and thus reduce the need to bunch everything up like it is now. and 2, the use of dropdown shelves as described by Train Clown in the thread 13 year old needs help page 4 entry 55. These would be kept in place until access to the back areas would be needed. (need to start a thread thanking TC for the idea)I'm also considering starting all over from scratch.
A lot of work, but less than tearing out something already built. Thanks for the input. Every new suggestion helps.