Having moved from Colorado to a farm in North Carolina, I finally had a space for the "dream model railroad" in a 40 ft by 50 ft shop building. Detailed plans for an N scale 1950's Southern Pacific in LA themed layout in one third of the space were developed. With plans complete, I just couldn't get motivated to begin. A combination of "it's too big of a task" and a nagging thought that N scale was too small for aging eyes resulted in no action.
Last week I traveled with my wife to purchase a John Deere seed drill from a farmer in Athens, Georgia. On the way back I was looking for side roads to avoid road construction on I-85 through South Carolina. I happened to take SC 11 up to Walhalla, SC. From Walhalla, I took SC 28 towards Highlands, NC with a jog through Rabun County, GA. Shortly after leaving Walhalla, I saw signs for Stumphouse Tunnel. The seeds for a new model railroad were planted.
Stumphouse tunnel was a planned 5,863 ft tunnel on the Blue Ridge Railroad of South Carolina. Construction began in 1856, but only 1,617 ft were completed before the project was abandoned. Two other shorter tunnels north of Stumphouse tunnel were completed, but couldn't be connected without Stumphouse tunnel.
The Blue Ridge Railroad of South Carolina was to be a 195 mile route from Anderson SC to Knoxville, TN. It never got past Walhalla. In 1880, the line to Walhalla was acquired by the Columbia and Greenville Railroad, and by the Southern in 1901. The Southern renamed the line the Blue Ridge Railway and leased it to the subsidiary Carolina and Northwestern Railway in 1951, and it was eventually merged into the Southern and eventually became part of today's Norfolk Southern. The NS branch to Walhalla serves a large industrial park.
Had the original line to Knoxville, TN been completed in the 1880's, it's likely that the Clinchfield Railroad may never have been built, and the Blue Ridge Railroad would have become the main route between the Southeast and the Ohio River Valley via Knoxville to Cincinnati.
The premise of the new model railroad is that the line was completed. The model railroad will be set in the late roaring 1920's using 2-8-0 consolidations and 4-6-0 ten-wheelers as the big power. It will only include the portion of the line from Walhalla (you have to love that name - it was settled by German immigrants) to Highlands, NC through Raybun Gap.
Now for the controversial part. I'm going to build the layout as an island layout patterned after John Armstrong's first published track plan, the Convolutions & Western in the July 1952 issue of Model Railroader. The plan has the potential to be the proverbial “plate of spaghetti”, but John Armstrong’s narrative explains and mitigates that. All of my previous layout plans have been “sincere one time through the scene” plans based on specific prototype locations. But for some reasons, the Convolutions & Western track plan has always been one of my favorites, and I gone back to it many times in the past. It holds a magnetic attraction to me for some odd reason.
Are you still planning on N scale? Even with 1/3 of 2000 square feet it seems to me you should be able to avoid a helix to covered staging - lots easier to just eat up a little more of the room and have your staging at the same level as the layout only hidden behind a view block. For some a helix is a necessary evil, for you I suspect it's just evil.
What else has to fit in the shop?
If the size of the project is a mental barrier to getting going, then maybe the best thing would be to just start with a shelf along one or two walls, maybe with a temporary loop back at either end for twice-through-the-scene continuous running. You could start with that and grow it to dream-layout-size over time.
Wow, you’ve really done a lot of planning! If you could post your trackplan that would be very helpful if your looking for some feedback.
From what you’ve said it sound like your going with the more unconventional Island and spaghetti bowl configuration. Not really my first choice by I think it sounds like you like you choice, so go with it!
The one imedant problem I see is that you chose to use 18” radius curves. That’s really tight! If you could try to widen that to 22” or even 24” that would really help you run a bigger variety of trains, and have them look better. Again a picture would help us see how plausible that is.
Otherwise it seams like a pretty solid idea!
Regards, Isaac
I model my railroad and you model yours! I model my way and you model yours!
It’s great that you’ve found a prototype inspiration that motivates you. And everyone should feel free to build to their personal preferences, of course. In your enviable space, many arrangements of benchwork and track would fit.
That said, some cautions/comments, should you choose to consider them. Armstrong’s original plan incorporates grades nearly everywhere. But a quick look suggests that (as often was the case) he did not allow for transitions from level-to-grade and back again. This would have the effect of making the grades steeper than shown. If you are building in a bit more space, you may be able to ameliorate that somewhat. Very tight multi-turn helixes have been troublesome for many. Railhead-to-railhead clearances are quite tight in spots.
My sense also is that the plan will look much more crowded than the perspective drawing in the magazine suggests. There’s been a lot of layout design thought and evolution in the intervening 67 years, even in Armstrong’s own designs.
In my experience, there are intermediate alternatives between once-through a scene and a steeply graded spaghetti bowl. Those track arrangements might offer more potential sites for towns, improve clearances and access, and present a better appearance in the finished product. It seems that you have enough space to explore some of those alternatives to a mountain monolith.
Whatever you choose, best of luck with your layout.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
jpg Are you still planning on N scale? What else has to fit in the shop? If the size of the project is a mental barrier to getting going, then maybe the best thing would be to just start with a shelf along one or two walls, maybe with a temporary loop back at either end for twice-through-the-scene continuous running. You could start with that and grow it to dream-layout-size over time.
Are you still planning on N scale?
cuyama That said, some cautions/comments, should you choose to consider them. Armstrong’s original plan incorporates grades nearly everywhere. But a quick look suggests that (as often was the case) he did not allow for transitions from level-to-grade and back again. This would have the effect of making the grades steeper than shown. My sense also is that the plan will look much more crowded than the perspective drawing in the magazine suggests. Byron
That said, some cautions/comments, should you choose to consider them. Armstrong’s original plan incorporates grades nearly everywhere. But a quick look suggests that (as often was the case) he did not allow for transitions from level-to-grade and back again. This would have the effect of making the grades steeper than shown.
My sense also is that the plan will look much more crowded than the perspective drawing in the magazine suggests.
Thanks for the comments Byron. I have the same concerns. That's why I've put the plan in 3rd PlanIt to check grades and clearances. Allowing for the transitions results in some grades close to 4%. The Prototype did it with 5%+ on Saluda in a very similar situation. With 1920's equipment of five to six freight cars and no more than three "shorty" passenger cars, I don't see 4% as a problem - that's what the helpers are for.
Your comment on the perspective sketch in the drawing is spot-on. The buildings in the sketch would be more like N scale. Again, that's where 3rd PlanIt helps to visualize "real" buildings and slopes. I've left space on the left for a small town Railroad Avenue. They'll be only railroad related structures elsewhere other than the sawmill.
Ray
SPSOT fan From what you’ve said it sound like your going with the more unconventional Island and spaghetti bowl configuration. The one imedant problem I see is that you chose to use 18” radius curves. That’s really tight! If you could try to widen that to 22” or even 24” that would really help you run a bigger variety of trains, and have them look better.
From what you’ve said it sound like your going with the more unconventional Island and spaghetti bowl configuration.
The one imedant problem I see is that you chose to use 18” radius curves. That’s really tight! If you could try to widen that to 22” or even 24” that would really help you run a bigger variety of trains, and have them look better.
I had though about opening up the plan to be an around the walls design, but I like the crossover track on the C&W that goes tthrough the gap. I'd lose that in an around the wall scheme. And again, I've been drawn to the plan for decades.
I don't see 18" radius as a problem for 1920s era equipment. I have no desire to run large steam locomotives or diesels on the layout. There have been countless debates about minumum radius on the forum. The only problems I see are when folks want to run modern equipment on such tight curves. If I was planning a modern, or even transition era, layout I'd use 30" radius as rock bottom minimum. All of my N scale plans used 19" minimums which is comparable to 34" in HO.
FWIW, more space is better than less. IMO, the gator et al isnt going to miss an extra 12 inches of width you give to a roll away layout. Go for the 24 inch radius. The Consolidation will look a lot better, not to mention the grades will likley be more manageable.
Love the back story and the history.
I'm a modern modeler and am always interested in branch lines that could be used as a basis for a layout. This branch line is still in use, although Google views show a number of industries that appear to have been demolished. But freelancers can always use modelers license to rewrite history into a robust economy for Walhalla that needs more traffic for those industries.
Sorry for the short hijack. Back to the roaring 20's........
- Douglas
A couple of last thoughts. Note that the friction of tight curves adds substantially to the nominal grade (the rule-of-thumb is 32/R to calculate this additional effective). So for 18” radius curves, the additional added effective grade is 32/18 or 1.8%. That turns 4% into 5.8% – pretty stout!
I also had a client who built a large island layout of about the size you are describing on casters, despite my concerns. He found that the inertia of the large table was such that pushing or pulling it to start the casters rolling was enough to derail some HO cars each time – and of course this was most problematic in staging below the visible layout. Eventually he just stopped moving it.
Good luck with your layout.