I am interested in building this track plan, as we have downsized our home and want to replace my 20x12 layout which I needed to scrap [:'(]
I was primarily wondering if anyone had suggestions on which turnouts to use - I would plan on using code 83 track and it will be DCC, smaller 4 axle diesel locos.
http://mrr.trains.com/How%20To/Track%20Plan%20Database/2011/01/Rio%20Grande%20Southern.aspx
Thanks for any suggestions.
Tubejack - Welcome to trains.com! [C):-)]
Dan Sylvester’s RGS is a neat layout, but it is HOn3 narrow gauge and uses sharper curves than most standard gauge HO equipment will handle.
Also, as he discussed in the Layout Design SIG’s Layout Design Journal #41 , his turnouts are handlaid-to-fit with tight curves through the frog. There’s really no commercial turnout that is equivalent. I think some of the curves through these turnouts are down to about an equivalent of a 13" radius.
You’ll probably need a larger space (5X10 or so) to build this layout successfully in HO standard gauge unless you are willing to use very small equipment. Even with that, it might be tough to get that plan to fit with any commercial turnouts except for super-sharp “toy train” style components.
If your new space can accommodate 5 foot wide benchwork, it’s certainly easier to build an island-style layout in HO standard gauge than restricting oneself to a 4-foot wide unadulterated plywood “sacred sheet”.
Best of luck.
Byron
Yeah, getting the turnouts to fit will be an issue. But it could be done in SG if the theme is mining, logging or something else that uses short equipment. But it will be the case that a 40’ is going to be considered long with radii like 13".
Note also that narrow gauge equipment is a little shorter than standard gauge, so increasing the overhead clearances for standard gauge will increase the grades slightly, which are already really steep at 4% on the main and 8%(!) on the branch.
I think the short stretch of 8% is for a delivery track to a typical RGS style coal dock, such as at Rico, Vance Junction, etc. These facilities had steep approach tracks.
That’s a good point, Rob. The rest of the layout (in narrow gauge, at least) is 4% or a little less.
Thank you to all who responded with your thoughtful insights. I can see where I was shortsighted in thinking it might be doable in Code 83. I think I’ll go back to my original decision to build the current MRR Virginian Ry. Nice project, and it does offer expandability options should future space allow.
I am inpressed with this track plan. If ever I had to reduce my layout to a 4’ x 8’ I would seriously consider this track plan. I made a copy and filed this track plan for future consideration.
It is obvious that by lowering the elevation of the track the inclines can be reduced. This would be very easy if the layout base was foam board, lowering the track would be very easy. I would simple use risers.
As I run steam, If i had this track plan my largest engines would be a 4-6-0 and I would have one another, a 4-4-0 for the mainline. For the mine I would have either a shay or climax.
I’m sorry, maybe I am dense, but how would you “lower the elevation” of the track and keep adequate clearances for standard gauge?
The lower-level staging tracks are only 4" railhead-to-railhead directly below the visible mainline as drawn. That’s already barely adequate for hand room and maintenance with narrow-gauge equipment, let alone standard gauge. And if you plan to use foam board instead of plywood, it would be impossible to have staging tracks only 4" below the visible tracks. Lowering the staging tracks further would seem to increase the grade, not reduce it.
On the visible level, you can’t “lower the elevation” of the tracks in Telluride without impinging on the staging tracks below.
And it doesn’t seem like you could significantly lower the elevation of the bridge over Telluride (especially in standard gauge) – at least if you plan to use any sort of a realistic bridge model.
But maybe I’m just not understanding your suggestion.