Questions re Layout Design for Yards

[BCR 570]

With the completion of my mainline, I am now looking ahead to designing and laying out the yards for Chetwynd and Dawson Creek.  The actual layout of track will be driven by the prototpye and my desire to match it as closely as possible within the available space, but I wanted to throw out a few questions for those more experienced than I with layout design and operation.

Chetwynd Yard will have five tracks adjacent to the mainline with a ladder at each end.  The length of the two ladders may dictate that I don't get all five tracks.  Dawson Creek will have four tracks adjacent to the mainline with a ladder at each end.  All of the yard ladders will be the conventional layout ie. no compound yard ladders.  I am using Atlas Code 55 track.  My era is 1977 and freight cars to be operated within yard limits will include 85'-0" and 89'-4" trailer flatcars.

My Questions

1.  Any advantage to using #5 vs #7 turnouts?  They are the same length (although the #5s can be shortened) but the $5s have a wider angle of diversion.

2.  Ideal track spacing for parallel yard tracks for spotting cars, etc.?  The #5s yield a parallel track spacing of 1 1/4" joined together in a ladder; #7s offer 1 1/8".

 Any advice, experience or thoughts appreciated,

Tim

[Ed Kapuscinski]

1. Don't use the #5s. They're not as reliable, and if you have space, the 7s will look better too.
2. It depends on how you're going to be using the yards. Will you need finger access? Will you be using coupler picks, etc... How high are they?

[amato1969]

This is a pretty good article/primer:
http://www.housatonicrr.com/yard_des.html

See also the Layout Design SIG publication yard issue LDJ-7:
http://www.ldsig.org/publications/journal

  Frank

[MichaelWinicki]

My yard is mostly Atlas #5's and my experience with them has been excellent for the most part.

To make my yard even more compact" I shortened the lead track of each turnout.

No issues with derailments or whatever...

The yard has been in operation since 2009 and I've switched thousands of cars in & out.

[basementcalling]

With the completion of my mainline, I am now looking ahead to designing and laying out the yards for Chetwynd and Dawson Creek.  The actual layout of track will be driven by the prototpye and my desire to match it as closely as possible within the available space, but I wanted to throw out a few questions for those more experienced than I with layout design and operation.

Chetwynd Yard will have five tracks adjacent to the mainline with a ladder at each end.  The length of the two ladders may dictate that I don't get all five tracks.  Dawson Creek will have four tracks adjacent to the mainline with a ladder at each end.  All of the yard ladders will be the conventional layout ie. no compound yard ladders.  I am using Atlas Code 55 track.  My era is 1977 and freight cars to be operated within yard limits will include 85'-0" and 89'-4" trailer flatcars.

My Questions

1.  Any advantage to using #5 vs #7 turnouts?  They are the same length (although the #5s can be shortened) but the $5s have a wider angle of diversion.

2.  Ideal track spacing for parallel yard tracks for spotting cars, etc.?  The #5s yield a parallel track spacing of 1 1/4" joined together in a ladder; #7s offer 1 1/8".

 Any advice, experience or thoughts appreciated,

Tim

I thought your whole layout was handlaid code 40 & 55 track?

You could do #7s on a #5 angle. First turnout is a #5, the the remaining ones in the ladder are 7s. You will need a short gentle curve after the diverging route to bring the yard tracks back parallel with the main, but this is a trick to get a bit more length into the yard tracks while still using the larger turnout #s for most places.

[davefoxx]

Resigned to a HCD layout, I have Atlas Code 55 #7 and #5 turnouts.  I have no problems with my #5s that a few swipes of a file didn't fix.  This, of course is true for the #7s, too.  My layout being limited in size, I was left with no alternative but to use #5s on the mainline in places.  So, I'm blasting through them at track speed.  They have been very reliable, and the layout has been operational for more than four years.  I would not hesitate to use #5s for future yards, because, as pointed out upthread, they can be trimmed to save space.

DFF

[BCR751]

Tim,

Interesting you should bring this up at this time.  I've just started laying track in my Chetwynd yard and found that the plan I made a long time ago won't work.   Back to the drawing board.

Doug

[chrismears]

In terms of turnouts: bigger the better. In my opinion, if you're planning on switching longer cuts of cars (volume) I have always believed we need to create a straight a line to shove them through as possible. #7's win here if the space isn't an issue. I'd rather sacrifice a bit of length on a siding to gain a more fluid reach into the siding.

On track spacing: It might be worthwhile to just take a few lengths of track and lay them loose on the benchwork in the yard's location and then load them with cars to test different track spacing distances and then how comfortable you found it when coupling or uncoupling, re-railing cars, reading car numbers, and those sorts of typical yard activities. Start with the 1-1/8" spacing and then spread them further apart and repeat the test.

One further thought on track spacing is viewing angle and the way it changes based on the height of the benchwork but a quick look at the plans on your website show Chetwynd at 42" from the floor so this shouldn't be an issue.

Hope this helps. Congratulations on completing the mainline.


/chris