No Bad Yards?
Many years ago, before I met my lovely wife, I dated a very nice lady who
had a very ill-behaved dog. Routinely, this canine cretin chewed shoes, destroyed furniture, and marked his territory in a
most unsavory and unwelcome manner. With each offense, the owner (my girlfriend) often quoted the famous dog expert Barbara
Woodhouse, saying, "Remember, there are no bad dogs." Pardon me, but I think Mrs. Woodhouse would have met her match with
this noncompliant Kerberos.
This came to mind recently as I was reflecting on my experience with a number
of model yards. Some of these I've been involved with from a design standpoint, others in developing operations plans, and
still others as a consultant or operator. And although there are a few egregious examples of truly bad yard design out there,
in many cases, it's not a bad yard so much as it is a case of expectations that don't match the modeled yards' physical and
operational constraints and capacity.
One of the yards I considered is relatively large. A three-person crew plus
a tower operator are needed to make it work well. This yard originates and terminates multiple trains and performs block swaps
to- and from many through trains each session. In order to keep traffic flowing smoothly elsewhere on the heavily-trafficked
layout, substantial classification and blocking work is needed in the yard. The tasks are extensively documented and while
a good crew can make it look easy, novice or visiting crews sometimes find it a struggle to keep up. As this yard goes, so
goes the rest of the layout because it's an important interaction point for nearly every train in the session.
Another of the yards is fairly compact (although tracks were added after sessions
began based on operational needs). It's more of a mainline yard and originates only a couple of short locals that require
limited blocking each session. Even though the documentation is still being perfected, the yard runs well with visiting crews
of two. Because of the way the prototype for this yard worked, there are virtually no through freights -- and the long-distance
freights that originate or terminate here have very simple blocking. So the performance of this yard is rarely an impact on
the rest of the layout.
The third yard I considered is small and single-ended. There's no yard lead
to speak of and only a single crossover. It functions as an interchange yard between a Class 1 railroad represented by staging
and a local terminal railroad that is the focus of the layout. There's no dedicated yard operator, instead the local crews
handle their own yard work. Because the terminal railroad's work is somewhat independent of the arrivals and departures of
the Class 1 to- and from staging, this yard never creates an operating challenge.
Are any of these bad yards? No, of course not. The throughput of each is very
different -- but the expectations for each are vastly different as well. The expectations of owner and crew determine satisfaction,
not the yard layout itself. A problem I have seen over and over arises when the design of the yard is completed before a rough
operational plan has been developed. As the owner begins to become more involved in ops, the demands on the yard grow to support
the types of trains and desired interaction. The result is often a bottlenecked layout, stressed-out yard crews, and a lot
less fun. Whether "bad yard" or "unreasonable owner", the results are the same.
How to avoid these problems? If you’re still in the design phase, a
deep understanding of the operational expectations and requirements for the yard are important. This will let you design the
yard appropriately. Or if that's not possible because of space, access, or other constraints, you may scale back the work
required in the yard to a level that will lead to success and satisfaction.
If the yard's already built and showing signs of bad behavior, consider working
through my eleven "Serving Suggestions" for better yard operations. Often there are ways to mitigate yard limitations through pre-staging, moving work elsewhere,
and thoughtful op session design.
Layout builders should also be wary of published plans that may not include
well thought-out yard configurations. The original owner or designer may have had very different operational goals and expectations
than you do. So think carefully about how the various yard activities will take place, perhaps simulating ops over the trackplan
with paper counters.
A model yard that duplicates some portion of a prototype yard also may not
work well on the layout because of differences in relative train density, traffic flows, etc. If you're copying a prototype
yard, investigate to be sure that it was operated in the same way you intend to operate the model or take care to include
features (such as a key extra crossover, engine escape, or lead) to insure that it will work well as a layout.
Do you have a bad yard? Want to be sure that you'll have a good one? Maybe
we should work together for the most engaging configuration offering long-term satisfaction. Contact me and let's get started.
