I am building my first layout and want to have code 83 HO track for some of the layout and code 70 HOn3 for the logging portion of the layout. I have collected engines and rolling stock in both gauges.
how can I set this up? Do I have two independent rail lines on one layout? is there a way to combine the two types of track? any suggestions?
i am looking at using atlas code 83 with brown ties, and walthers shinohara code 70 track for the logging. are these good tracks to use? thanks.
paul
Atlas track is good, i’ve never used Walthers/Shinohara track before though, so i can’t tell you how well it works. Others seem to praise it a lot though.
as for having both guages in the same area - you will either need to run two lines (one narrow guage, one standard) or buy dual guage track (it has a third rail so you can run narrow guage on the same RoW as the standard guage). I don’t remember where to get said dual-guage track though.
Typically in such a setup you have two independent rail lines on one layout: Dual-gauge track is typically used at the points where a narrow gauge and standard gauge railroad have to share the same track, but generally the two ran separately. Having both on the same layout can mean some interesting operation questions.
Narrow gauge was often used for industrial railroads serving logging or mining operations–the layout could represent the interchange between the tiny narrow gauge line and the local common-carrier railroad. For a logging railroad, the sawmill is a logical point. The narrow gauge brings in raw logs, and the standard gauge line takes out finished lumber.
Basically, the two would be completely separate, even if owned by the same corporate entity. Dual-gauge track is only used where:
Both lines used common facilities, like freight houses/platforms or engine servicing trackage and plant. Incidentally, dual-gauge turntables have four rails, to keep the weight centered over the bridge center bearing.
There was a need to have standard gauge and narrow gauge cars meet end to end to transfer cargo or to swap trucks. (Mount Union on the East Broad Top - the narrow gauge lifted standard gauge cars off their trucks with an overhead crane, rolled narrow gauge trucks under them and saved the need for moving lading to narrow gauge cars.)
Where both lines have to use the same bridge, tunnel or other restricted right of way.
Long stretches of dual gauge did exist, and gave rise to some strange situations. In the last days of D&RGW operation of what is now the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railway (Antonito, CO to Chama, NM) the narrow gauge actually terminated at Alamosa. From Alamosa to Antonito was a sixteen mile (as the Chevy flies) stretch of three rail dual gauge track. The Grande upgraded the standard gauge rails, but not the third rail, so the outside-frame 2-8-2 narrow gauge locos traveled in a tilted position. The counterweights on the low side only cleared the (unused by them) standard gauge rail by about 3/8 inch! (Think of laying one code seventy rail between the rails of your code 83 flex, gauged 10.5mm.)
My narrow gauge logger operates entirely separate from the ‘standard’ gauge, transferring logs with an overhead crane. This is exactly in accordance with the practice of my prototypes. In 1964, both the Kiso Forest Railway and the JNR had extensive facilities at their interchange point, Agematsu. There wasn’t a millimeter of dual gauge track.
If you absolutely, positively have to have dual gauge track, Shinohara makes it in code 70 flex, listed in the Walthers catalog.
The major theme of my small layout is the interchange between narrow and standard gauge (HOn3 and HO).
In the early days of narrow gauge (1870s), labor was cheap, and direct interchange between railroads - even if both were standard gauge - was not all that common. Unloading a car into the next railroad’s car was accepted practice. As time went on, labor became relatively more expensive, and the inherent inefficiency of unloading/loading cars became an obstacle to be overcome. This, along with other inefficiencies and problems of common-carrier narrow gauge caused most of them to die out or get standard-gauged by about 1910 - the Colorado lines, East Broad Top, and Alaska’s WP&Y being the primary exceptions.
The WP&Y had no standard gauge to interchange with. East Broad Top was particularly innovative at devising schemes to transfer loads - the coal dumping trestles and overhead cranes for truck substitution are examples. The Colorado lines benefitted from a “critical mass” of narrow gauge track - a big enough network to be sustaining even with the inefficiency.
Modeling a transfer/interchange site depends on the era and prototype. The most common and simplest would have been parallel tracks - one narrow gauge, one standard - with a wood platform in between. Perhaps a shelter for some freight if rain was frequent, and a crane of some type to assist with the loading/unloading. I would imagine that both lines would adjust the elevation of their tracks if practical so the “standard” box car door would be at platform height.
Note if you do model such a relatively simple setup, don’t build it parallel to the aisle. Doing so will make it difficult to see/enjoy the contrast between narrow and standard gauge equipment and track. Instead set it up so you have 3/4 view or possibly an end-on view of your facility.
yours in fun with narrow gauge
Fred W
Another dual gauge track plan is in the May 1971 “Shays!” issue of Model Railroader. The article is titled “Dual–gauge transfer terminal.” It has a minimal amount of dual gauge track, which can be ordered through B&K. Their kits are very easy to install. I built a variation of the plan and added a bit more dual gauge by running it to the warehouse track.
The Old Dog would suggest two seperate lines with maybe a short length on dual guage track along a freight shed. The narrow guage could enter from one end and the standard guage from the other avoiding the need for dual guage turnouts.
Have fun
Dual gauge turnouts are neat looking. You should have at least a couple, and this would be an easy task: installing a B&K turnout kit is within the capabilities of 98% of modelers if they are willing to spend an hour of their time. There is another outfit, I think in Reno, NV, which make ready-to-lay custom dual gauge turnouts, but I prefer the ruggedness of B&Ks.
If the Old Dog remembers correctly, there are something like 27 different varities of dual guage turnouts when all possible combinations are considered. In addition, some transitions may be needed if one must change from a North to South rail common configuration to get the narrow guage track beside a platform. If you want to be able to turn narrow guage engines on a turn table, a three to four rail transition is needed. If someone likes track work, dual guage could be fun.
And there is no reason to limit yourself to dual gage. Mixing On2, On30, On36, On42 and standard O guage could produce some interesting trackwork. Mixing in traction, (trolley and interurban) and steam railroad track could get more interesting. How about a ‘grand union’ trolley junction with appropriate cut offs for steam railroad equipment. Maybe a single ended traction terminal. Throw in steam railroad spurs to local industries. Add a working trolley wire overhead. That could keep one busy for years.
But someone would have to really enjoy track work. How about a four guage double slip switch? That would be a challenge!
Have fun
I would think the prototype would avoid dual gauge track on either side of a loading platform when possible. Car door heights and widths don’t match, creating headaches for the laborers having to do the load transfers. Most desirable would be one track of each gauge on either side of the platform, with the track grade adjusted to put the platform at the correct loading height. Likewise, track spacing would be adjusted (or the platform adjusted) to bring the platform close to the door. No that the ideal was always available, but minmizing costs was!
From what I have seen in photos, dual gauge was more common in yards. Idler cars were employed so either gauge locomotives could switch either gauge cars in the yard.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
On the dual gauge layout I built based on the mentioned article, the narrow gauge crossed the standard gauge. here were two dual gauge crossings – narrow gauge crossing the standard gauge mainline and passing/rund-around track. I added dual gauge (requiring two dual gauge turnouts and a third rail on one of the crossings) on the standard gauge side of the warehouse siding because the same track served an overhead crane (looked like EBT’s), and my rationale was that this would allow the narrow gauge locomotive to adjust the placement of the standard gauge car under the overhead crane. Of course there was narrow gauge serving the “other sides” of the crane and warehouse. The narrow gauge crossed the standard gauge in order to serve the freight house, a third transfer point.
At least one narrow gauge railroad (the Arcata & Mad River) had a stretch of dual-gauge track, and the narrow-gauge locomotives were set up with three coupler pockets on either end of the engine–in order to connect correctly with narrow gauge cars, or standard gauge cars on the short length of dual-gauge interchange track. The offset coupler pockets allowed the little engines to line up properly with the standard gauge cars no matter way the locomotive was facing.