Coach Yard

[eric220]

It seems I can't stop making modifications to my track plan.  This time, I decided make some changes to Penn Station River City, starting by simplifying the throat tracks (I don't think I really need to be able to get a route to any two tracks simultaneously).  My new arrangement completely eliminates the double-slip switches, and drastically reduces the overall number of switches, and the length of the throat.  I did this partly to simplify the trackwork, and partly to make room for a coach yard.  I want to have a place to store my passenger fleet, and to be able to assemble different passenger trains without buying all the cars for all of them, or using the freight yard.  I've got an idea of how I could arrange things, but I wanted to see if anyone else had any thoughts.  What I want to include, in descending order of priority is:

• Storage/staging tracks for passenger equipment not in use.
• A/D tracks.
• Storage/staging/loading tracks for head-end equipment. (The stub track above the platforms is under the post office.)
• Storage for up to 6 locomotives.
• A small shop (I'm thinking something like a double to triple length Walther's Car Shops).
  
• Space to add a small MU yard, if Con-Cor decides to release mP54's in N Scale.

Here are some photos of the old and current arrangement of the mains and throat.  I've also included a thumbnail to a higher-res version of the latest plan.  The platforms at River City are 10 feet long, and that is my maximum train length.  Everything to the left of where the platforms end will be underneath River City.  Also, everything after the 90+ degree turn at the right edge is in an alcove and not terribly accessible for operating.  Any ideas?

Old:


New:


High-res:


Edit: Added loco storage to wants.

[Hyperion]

I gotta say that I don't know squat about passenger operations, so there's not much I can truly contribute, but personally, when I do think of passenger operations I probably think of uber-complex yard throats more than anything else.  It just adds to the overall hustle-and-bustle feel to the whole thing.   In that manner, your "New" configuration is... well, boring.  Maybe it's better, maybe it allows some other feature that's necessary I don't  know, maybe its' even more realistic, but it just loses the feel.  You wouldn't even have to tell me that's a passenger terminal or have graphics on it or anything, you can just see the track layout and know.  Not so much on the 2nd one, where it looks like most any large industry siding.

[eric220]

when I do think of passenger operations I probably think of uber-complex yard throats more than anything else.  It just adds to the overall hustle-and-bustle feel to the whole thing.   In that manner, your "New" configuration is... well, boring.

You raise a good point. It's a tradeoff between aesthetics/operation and reliability/cost. Maybe I'll go back and tweak it again.

[Iain]

I also like the old better.

[eric220]

OK, I think I got a little more of the flavor, but I still managed to reduce from 6 double slips down to 4.  A little more simple, and still shorter.





So any thoughts on the coach yard?

[seusscaboose]

Eric

have you seen this?
http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/licity/licity.htm

there are a few high res scan's there that i am using for reference.

i wouldn't sacrafice the length if possible.  You always want "MORE" and "ROOM TO GROW"

EP

p.s. the double slips might prove tricky, however if Washington DC can do it, you can.
http://www.railroadsignals.us/dc/cpl4a.jpg

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Eric, I think you're getting there, actually. Think about how it's going to work. Are you just going to visually stage already made up trains there, or are you actually going to have a crew there to work them?

I think a hybrid approach there might be warranted. I wouldn't worry about the double routes, but I would definitely include the more operations oriented stuff (like the servicing tracks). If you're going to have these trains being serviced though, you're probably going to need a real coach yard too, not just the platform tracks like you have.

Have you ever read the article in MRP 1997 about working passenger trains at Chuck Hitchcock's Argentine KS depot? It's worth finding and reading if you can.

[cv_acr]

I don't see the last one really working. It's not efficient at all. The crossovers don't really serve any purpose since only one can be used at a time the way they're arranged.

The throat for a major passenger station will typically be designed so that:

a) a train can get in or out of any platform track
b) to allow the most movements possible.

Right now, you can get to any track _without_ using the crossovers anyway, but using the crossovers instantly prevents you from allowing a second train to move in or out at the same time.

[MichaelWinicki]

I understand what Eric is doing and appreciate the goal of KISS.

Between the cost and maintenance issues of dealing with all that extra trackage, I'd consider deep-sixing as much of that complex trackage as what I could– IF it's not going to hinder the operations as is being envisioned.

As far as accessibility goes, if it's not within a reasonable arm... Reasonable being you aren't put into an uncomfortable position trying to reach something towards the back, i.e. uncomfortable position = breaking stuff up front, then I'd change the design. 

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Get Diana to help...
...she knows more than you think.
...trust US on this.....

BTW, really nice work on the basement...!!

Islander

What???

Anyway, back to the issue, Eric, have you thought about working through a scenario like I did on my Canton planning thread, where I went through all the actions the crews do for the station? You can obviously leave out the embellishments I included, but I think it might be a good way to work through what you really want or need there.

[Bob Bufkin]

Eric

The one thing I don't like is that you can't run a train from the left hand side into any track.  You would have to back your train into the facility from the right hand switch.  I like what you have but you need a way for trains from both direction to enter.

[eric220]

Eric, I think you're getting there, actually. Think about how it's going to work. Are you just going to visually stage already made up trains there, or are you actually going to have a crew there to work them?

I think a hybrid approach there might be warranted. I wouldn't worry about the double routes, but I would definitely include the more operations oriented stuff (like the servicing tracks). If you're going to have these trains being serviced though, you're probably going to need a real coach yard too, not just the platform tracks like you have.

LOL, I have to laugh a little.  The "real coach yard" is exactly what I'm looking for input on, with my priorities listed above.  I'll happily take constructive criticism on the throat arrangement, but I'm generally pleased with it.  The platform tracks that are shown will be used for staging full trains or for operational station stops. What I'm really looking for is ideas for a new yard that's not depicted.  As I said in my original post, I've laid out one arrangement, but I took it out because I want to see if anyone else has any better ideas starting form a clean slate.

have you seen this?
http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/licity/licity.htm

I had not seen that one in particular, but Sunnyside was the first thing I went looking for when searching for prototype inspiration.  Really, it's to big and complex for me to use as a model, so I went looking for a yard that I'm more familiar with: 30th St!  I found a really nice diagram of the yards (although now I can't remember where I downloaded it from), and I've been using that.

Edit: Found it!
http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=62454&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

p.s. the double slips might prove tricky, however if Washington DC can do it, you can.
http://www.railroadsignals.us/dc/cpl4a.jpg

The reason that I'm wary of them is that I've already got one double slip in Altoona, and it's by far the most problematic turnout that I have.  I know that part of it is my own fault (I tweaked it during installation), but I'm a little hesitant to trust them underneath the full Pennsylvania Limited consist backing in.

The one thing I don't like is that you can't run a train from the left hand side into any track.  You would have to back your train into the facility from the right hand switch.  I like what you have but you need a way for trains from both direction to enter.

That is correct, this is a stub-end terminal, and any terminating trains will back in, leaving the head end equipment toward the front.  All trains will either have to back in or out.  It's not optimal, but it is prototypical, and it saves the space, complexity, and cost of building a second throat.  My single revised and compacted throat is over four feet long.

As far as accessibility goes, if it's not within a reasonable arm... Reasonable being you aren't put into an uncomfortable position trying to reach something towards the back, i.e. uncomfortable position = breaking stuff up front, then I'd change the design.  

I acknowledge that the ends of the platform tracks are pretty far back there.  That's one reason that I tried to design it for back-in operation.  That leaves the head end equipment and locomotives (the only things that should be cut off without taking the whole train to the yard) within 24 inches of the facia.  I know that I'm asking for trouble by having those tracks so deep into that corner, but I'm willing to roll the dice on this one.

I don't see the last one really working. It's not efficient at all. The crossovers don't really serve any purpose since only one can be used at a time the way they're arranged.

The throat for a major passenger station will typically be designed so that:

a) a train can get in or out of any platform track
b) to allow the most movements possible.

Right now, you can get to any track _without_ using the crossovers anyway, but using the crossovers instantly prevents you from allowing a second train to move in or out at the same time.

I'm not really sure I understand.  To clarify, the "crossovers" depicted in line with the platform tracks are double slip switches.  This arrangement should allow movement from or to any two platform tracks simultaneously, which was my original goal.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Ok Eric, time to do your homework. Go get that MRP 97 and read the article. It basically explains a lot of what "work" is done on passenger trains. That's the primer for figuring out which specific actions you want to include, from which you can then determine what track and track arrangement you're going to need.

[conrail98]

MRP 2010 had an article on passenger operations as well,

Phil

[Brakie]

First your looking good for a major passenger terminal.

Are you going to add tracks for clean out/servicing,commissary,Pullman,US Post office receiving building and coach yard which will enhance operation?