# Design for Layout (c 332) - Narrow gauge or no?



## Shay Logger (Apr 21, 2015)

Have a nice space for a garden railroad out in the front yard. It is an area about 40 feet long that slopes upward about 2 feet. The area is mostly about 8 feet wide - with about a 12 foot wide section at the part which is highest - also there is a small pond.

Originally we were going to lay down a loop of track on the ground. Then we decided to make a figure 8, then we decided to install a ladder type roadbed (i bought enough to make about 85 feet of roadbed).

So far the engines we have are Bachmann G Shay, Heisler, and Aristo-craft PCC trolley.

The new plan is to have a big loop of track that will be raised a couple of feet off the ground - and have landscape in-filled under about 1/2 of the roadbed. I would like too incorporate a small logging operation - and also a small mine along some part of the route.

HERE IS WHERE I AM TORN:

I can make the layout steep and interesting with narrow turns and a lot of landscaped features - this would be great as a narrow gauge type rr, but from my limited understanding, any curves smaller than 8 ft could cause problems with longer engines - such as deisels and such if we get those later. So basically, we could run our engines - or only narrow gauge type engines i think.

Alternately, we could make wide, more prototypical sweeping cures and just make everything more straight, less steep, less curved, etc.

Which do you think I should do?

I believe I read that these engines can handle pretty steep grade - if I opt to make a narrow gauge looking rr, what is the max recommended grade?

If I make a layout with larger loops and less curves - from my understanding, 3.5 degrees is about the maximum grade - is that right?


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Do an outer oval with the biggest curves you can manage and inside make your twisty logger. The Shay/Heisler and short cars will scramble over it easily and your main liners will cruise majestically! 
I try to limit my grades to 2% on the mainline and 3-4 % on branch lines with short locals. Concern for parts keeps me on the safe side.
John


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Absolutely you should make "wide, more prototypical sweeping curves and just make everything more straight, less steep, less curved, etc."...

because what you are considering to be "wide, more prototypical sweeping curves" are actually MUCH tighter than prototypical "tight narrow gauge" curves!  I can explain it better with a drawing:










Go as wide as you possibly can..
8-foot diameter and 12-foot diameter is still *really really tight* for pretty much anything..
then, after you have made your curves as wide as you possibly can, decide if you want your 
railroad to be more "narrow gauge style" or "standard gauge style"..
the curves are too tight either way! 
but most locomotives and cars you will want to run will at least work..

Scot


----------



## Joe Johnson (Jan 2, 2008)

Also remember that
- The tighter the curve the greater the drag
- The higher the grade the greater the drag
- Tighter grades plus higher grades are additive.


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

I'd make the main loop as broad curved and near flat as possible. Not necessarily all straights between corners though. I dislike boxed-in track designs in box like spaces. Real railroads meander along the contour, especially narrow gauge rather conform to geometric shapes.
Then have another section which is a little more curvy and graded which might pass over the main loop. It could be a branch up to a logging camp so trains can be reassembled for the return journey or make it's own upper loop or continue on and back down to join up with the main loop again. Depends on your space. 
You could run trains continuously with less wear and concern and also have something more challenging for the geared locos with some required switching in the yards.

Andrew


----------



## Mike Toney (Feb 25, 2009)

I also vote for the largest radius curves you can manage, I am constrained by R1 curves(starter set radius) and it restricts what I can run. Although most equipment from my prefered brand(LGB) will manage it, larger models look and out of place. Even some of LGB's most popular engines such as the Mogul will bind in those curves putting idler gear life at risk. Geared engines like the Shays wont care to much about the steeper grades, slipping out before any gear damage. Just keep trains short. On my small layout I keep trains behind my LGB Mogul short, usualy 3-5 cars including the caboose. My main engine is a LGB 2095 Austrian BoBo diesel, kind of a narrow gauge European box cab. So it just snakes thru the tight curves. You are wise considering the fact that you might want to run big diesels in the future. I knew I would never be able to do this in my alloted space in the yard and went with a prototype that could manage the track that I could use. Soon the Mogul will have a new home as its for sale, to finance more Euro equipment. Good luck on your project, love to see some pics as you get started. Mike


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

I would suggest one of two options. 1: Decide what's the largest piece of rolling stock you'd like to run and plan around that, or 2: plan your layout according to the terrain you have to work with to maximize the best possible layout and if getting that best most interesting layout means using R1 or R2 curves then so be it and you build your roster around that minimum curvature.

I would look at Ray Dunakin's hillside layout, he built one of the best layouts ever on an "impossible" slope.


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

I generally agree with Vic's comment..build what fits your alotted space..plan trains that fit with-in that design..

I see far too many come thru here that want big equipment ..while saying they can run a 8 ft diameter curve..
Thats a 16" radius in HO btw. What can you run on that in HO.. big power and long cars!?

Dreaming is great. . But the need to be realistic and practical is important.. yet not heeded..

I'm building realistic "prototype curves", measured in degrees. These run from just over 4° min on the mailine to larger curves in the 3° ranges, with some still larger yet.
I'm talking 90 ft circles minimum, up to 120 ft and larger circles on the mainline..

Seems with your space... an oval pleasing placed around the perimeter.. with a branch leading and climbing over..wrapped in and out.. up to a logged area.. with a switchback to a mine elsewhere could make a very interesting and attractive.. highly functional layout..
Go Narrow Gauge! [email protected]@ .... leave diesels out.. or on display.. you don't have any yet!!

Dirk
DMS Ry.


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

Like so many things in life, our thoughts change as we go. When I first got into G, I thought I would be staying with smaller locos while modeling mid 40s to mid 60s range. RS3, being the biggest locos. So, 8 foot diameter curves seemed plenty big and the 4 foot dia switches seemed adaquit.. But then some railroad painted a Dash 9 type loco in the Red, Black and white paint scheme I loved. So now I have a Dash 9. And what locos are in my dreams? A LGB Sumpter Valley Mallet and a Aristo Craft Mallet. So now with the room to build my outdoor layout, I'm thinking 20 foot curves. So, my advice is to use the largest dia curves you have room for and remember, that a loco that requires 8 foot curves does not like 4 foot switches. I found this out the hard way.


----------



## Shay Logger (Apr 21, 2015)

Thanks so much - this is all great advice. I had my sons over this weekend and we like the idea of a large diameter, level loop - with access to a higher area that will be steeper and tighter turns, with a logging area on one side and a mining area on the other.

There is a 4 foot pond on the far right area of the layout - this are is the highest area, and the 40 foot train area slopes upward toward this. 

At first we thought this kind of was a disadvantage, but now we like the idea because we want to alter the pond fountain into a higher backed waterfall, and then add a second pond pump 40 feet away at the lowest part of the layout and run a hose up to the pond waterfall and add a second water feature to have a meandering river traversing this 40 foot area then disappearing into a fake culvert at a stand of ferns. The track will be fairly level at the pond area - and there will be access for dumping logs in there, and then as the track goes toward the lower part of the yard, it will be level - and at the lowest area of the yard, raised up about 2 feet above the ground to match the high portion near the pond. I will check out Ray Dunakin's layout - thanks for the recommendation.

We will build up landscaped areas mostly with drought resistant plants (live in southern California), dirt, and granite outcroppings. I kind of am not good at landscaping but I have an artistic eye - generally, and I have been looking at some great pics and videos of a desert, or southwest kind of terrain. Then we will have a trestle over a little canyon, bridges over the stream, and perhaps a cement viaduct (my dad is a mason).

Also, my kids want to run an asphalt roadway throughout the layout so they can use scale rc cars on there also.

I am liking this plan! 

Next to start cutting the parts for the raised roadbed!


----------

