Does anyone know of any good HO scale dual-gauge track plans? I’m looking to include narrow gauge operations on my next layout
I dont know of any specific dual gauge plans, but any standard HO track plan could be laid with dual gauge track. Just keep in mind the turnouts and track are quite pricey. Shinohara and I believe Micro Engineering offer dual gauge flex track in code 70 and 55 and turnouts come from Shinohara. We relaid one of the yards and part of the mainline at the local club with dual gauge track. Many prototypes had areas of dual gauge including East Broad Top in Pennsylvania, and the D&RGW in Colorado. Or you can make up your own freelance set up or industrail system. All just depends on what you want for locomotives and where you want to model. Mike
Parts of this plan have a bit too much track for my liking, but overall I think it might be along the lines of what you’re looking for: http://books.google.com/books?id=hubQI-Ojsi0C&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=to+hardscrabble+the+hard+way&source=bl&ots=-WjKjdCsN-&sig=I1FFuceTaAAcd5pcMSjuVokJEok&hl=en&ei=4fBiTeUYidqAB6D1yOoC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=to%20hardscrabble%20the%20hard%20way&f=false
The january 2010 MR had a dual gauge track plan. The era was 1900, and the size was 13’-2" by 23’-10". The railroad was called Fiddletown & Great Divide RR. I looked, and you can find a copy of this plan in the track plan data base on this website. Just type in the railroad name in the search box.
Yes, this trackplan has hooke me too. If I were to start new, … [:)]
And this plan depended on Armstrong’s Pueblo & Salt Lake RR. “To Hardscrabble, the hard way.” from Jan 1962!
Wolfgang
thank you all so much for the feedback! I have given the fiddletown and great divide a thorough look over, and while it is very intriguing, the standard gauge trackage does seem lacking. I am hoping for the layout to be primarily standard gauge, with narrow gauge being the minority. my main goals for the narrow gauge will mainly be for mixed train and mining purposes, interacting with the standard gauge on one end of its route
I daresay you can design your own plan fairly easily with the guidance you have laid out.
One method would be to take a published plan that has a main line with an attached branch. Build the branch in narrow gauge instead of standard gauge.
Another approach would be to design the standard gauge main first, leaving plenty of room for the narrow gauge. Add in the narrow gauge, with the interchange and departure point from your standard gauge town of choice. Build a very simple terminal at the far end for the narrow gauge.
Usually, due to time, $$, and interest constraints, most dual gauge layouts heavily favor standard or narrow gauge, with the other gauge having almost a token presence. In light of your guidance, you would want to decide whether you really want:
- dual gauge trackage at the interchange point? Dual gauge track at the interchange was not the norm, unless both railroads were owned by the same entity. More commonly, the interchange was two parallel tracks, one of each gauge, where freight could be transferred by hand. Many times there would be a platform to transfer boxcar loads across, but gondola loads were typically just shoveled. Only if there was sufficient traffic of a specific commodity would there be raised tracks and some sort of gravity loading. However, many modelers want to build dual gauge track, and it is certainly eye-catching.
- turntable or wye at the far end of the narrow gauge? Lack of turning facilities means your narrow gauge locos never get turned - which is entirely prototypical in some cases. Lack of turning facilities again
thank you for the advice, Fred. I do intend on having dual gauge track and turning facilities on my layout. to be a little more specific, I am basing the narrow gauge section loosly on the ET&WNC, a fairly local road for me, and the ng portion will be inhabited by at least 2 train and trooper ET&WNC 4-6-0s. this being said, the track arraingement, operations, and scenery will be freelanced, with the ng serving at least three major locations, with its major terminus located at the interchange point. while the fiddletown and great divide plan interests me,there just isn’t enough switching involved to keep my interest. perhaps adding spurs for things like stockyards and logging operations would remedy this.
I don’t knock your narrow gauge plans. But with 3 major locations, locomotive turning at both ends, and a fair amount of switching, it’s hardly a minority operation in my eyes. As you described, I would see 2 operators being kept busy for an evening on the narrow gauge. For the standard gauge to be primary, you are looking at an operational crew of perhaps 5?
The other issue that comes into play is that narrow gauge has traditionally taken quite a bit more time to build a similar size layout when compared to standard gauge - for a variety of reasons ranging from some track usually being handlaid to a higher standard of detail to time to tweak locomotives into running well. Going the Blackstone/Micro-Trains route for rolling stock can reduce the extra time, but these ain’t Tweestie prototype, either.
Doing a loop, some switching at the interchange point, and some staging in one gauge plus a full-fledged layout in the other gauge tends to be the limit for time, $$, and space resources for most of us. I applaud your ambition to do more.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
thanks for the input, Fred. I have given the whole concept a little more thought and have determined that the ng will only be staffed by 1 4-6-0, the basic idea being that the line runs from the standard gauge interchange, perhaps along a dual gauge main line, (depending on how everything is laid out, this will only be for the purpose of getting the narrow gauge to the terminus as efficiently as possible) the ng will then cross a covered bridge before arriving at the end of the line, which will be laid out similarly to great divide on the F&GD, only with spurs serving a freight house, stockyard, oil dealer, and only one mine. the entire line will be run with a single mixed train operated once in a session. the standard gauge interchange will feature a fuel company served by both roads, a freight house for transferring goods from ng to sg, a cattle transfer, ore dock, and dual gauge feuling facilities. while it may seem that I have everything planned out, this is only the basic idea and the real challenge will be creating a track plan to accomodate all of this
On the narrow gauge section one could do dual gauge. Not for standard gauge locomotives but for standard gauge cars. This was done in the real world to keep shipping costs down. I’m building a layout based in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Some narrow gauge lines did this. Margrete Fielders book "RAILROADS of the BLACK HILLS has some great photos of coupler (link & pin) location on locomotives. But a idler flat car set the same way would work also. I just took a quick look at a flat car and measured, Kadee #58 couplers, because of there size would work. Just my [2c].
It’s also possible to have two different track gauges on opposite sides of a platform or freight shed, and not a millimeter of dual gauge track.
Three examples, from my modeling place and era:
- Kiso Forest Railway - 762mm gauge, transloaded logs to the Japan National Railways at Agematsu. The Kiso had extensive facilities, including an overhead timber crane and a turntable.
- Kurobe Gorge Railway - 762mm gauge at Unazuka. Originally built to carry cargo for the hydroelectric development of the Kurobe Gorge, also carries lots of sightseers.
- Nameless industrial operation seen from a train window - 600mm gauge, interchanged liquid cargo (oil? chemicals?) from ‘standard’ to narrow gauge tank cars, sacked ? from narrow gauge gons through a freight shed to ‘standard’ gauge box car. Motive power was a tiny 0-4-0T named Kurohime (Black Queen.) The ‘interchange’ consisted of an enclosed freight platform with a pump shelter on one end and an appropriately-gauged spur down each side.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
The softbound book The Dinky, C&NW Narrow Gauge in Wisconsin (Marsh Lake Productions, 1993) has the track plans for the narrow gauges terminuses in Wisconsin that might inspire. The terminus at Fennimore connected the n.g. line with its standard-gauge parent. It had five dual-gauge turnout, and one narrow gauge turnout serving a turntable and three-stall enginehouse. The layout for the standard gauge only showed three standard-gauge turnouts, but there must have been at least two or three more at the far end of town. The terminus at Woodman connected with the CM&StP. The only dual gauge was a crossing. There were only three narrow-gauge turnouts (two for a run-around track and one leading to the enginehouse). Four standard-gauge turnouts are shown, but there was at least one more. The towns’ entire schematics could fit in a moderate amount of space.
Dual-gauge trackage is very interesting-looking, but as mentioned before, it almost always occurred when the standard and narrow gauge lines had common ownership. Even then, there may not be any as at Owenyo, CA on the Southern Pacific Railroad. As with the Dinkey at Fennimore and the SP at Mina, Nevada, there was a short distance of dual-gauge outside of the town/yard until the common-owned standard and narrow gauge lines separated. The interchanges were often a bit distant from the junction consisting of one turnout. This provides the opportunity for more dual gauge, so avoid having the two gauges separate/join at the interchange.
once again, thank you all for the input. the plan is slowly progressing, and I have determined that the fuel company at the interchange point will be served by dual gauge track. also, the turning facilities and engine shed will be dual gauge. a dual gauge main line would only be neccesary because the ng and sg enter the yard from the same direction,the two lines separating after the next station on the sg line, which will be served by both roads.