This is the prototype http://www.railroad-line.com/forum/data/visman48/2013128111031_DSC_0298rs.JPG

Sadly the new 2-6-2 uses the chassis off the HO Porter so the wheel-spacing is wrong, valve gear is missing, and the cylinders are completely wrong. A shame as the body is quite good.

Basically, this is On30 on the cheap.

Nice.

Look at what the math says.

Take a 6' person in both scales. I'll use metric because it's much easier to calculate.

6' = 1.8 metres or 1800 millimetres.
So,
1800 over 22.5 = 80 mm.
1800 over 20.3 = 88.6 mm.

On average you can see that any 1.22.5 figure is going to be significantly shorter than it's 1.20.3 equivalent.

But given most large scale RRs operate in a garden setting full of 1.1 scale scenery the majority of modellers probably wouldn't be bothered by the difference between 1.22.5 and 1.20.3 figures.

I suggest you don't get bogged down by trying to make the 1'x4' work for you. Look at what happens if you make it 9" wide at one end and 15" wide at the other. Or if you keep the ends at 12" but allow the front edge to curve out to 15".

That might sound trivial but immediately you'll gain a bit of width in places and width means flexibility. It also stops it looking like a plank of wood.

Consider height. You like mining stuff, so what about an ore tipple with a feeder line. Or maybe a coal tipple. Varied heights give a lot more visual interest, plus with either of those you have switching moves to make.

Now, assuming this is a fixed structure, say along a wall, and the maximum fixed length is 4' because any longer gets in the way of other things, what about a couple of short temporary extensions for when you want to operate. These need only be the width of a single track and no more than 18" long, but one at either end, or both ends, gives your train somewhere to go to once it's finished it's switching moves. At the end of operating, you just take the extensions off and put them under the layout out of the way.

Think of every element in your plan in terms of what happens there versus how much space it takes up. For example, an engine house makes a great model but it takes up a lot of space and nothing much happens there except at the start and end of each operating session. A water tank, on the other hand, takes up a lot less space and can be used several times each operating session.

In a small space the eye is really going to be focused on things so make those things as good as they can be. For example, rather than thinking densely wooded areas, which you can't do in a space this small, think one or at most two really great trees. Even a small tree at this scale will be over 12" tall but if it's a well-modelled tree it'll hold the eye better than loads of cheap bottle-brush trees.

Think creatively. You want water on your model. But there's no space for a river. Not really any space for a creek. But next to a water tank or any place locos usually stand for a while, there'll be leaks and leaks mean puddles. A puddle might not sound much, but it's water and it'll reflect like water.

Lastly, look to learn from this. I doubt operating this layout will hold your attention for long, but what will hold your attention is learning new skills.   

The ideal 'large' scale for this would be 16mm = 1 foot, running on 32mm or O gauge track. Rare as this combination might be in the US, it has good trade support in the UK.
https://www.accucraft.uk.com/products/wd-baldwin-live-steam-4-6-0t/
http://www.track-shack.com/acatalog/Roundhouse-WD-Alco-2-6-2T-live-steam-locomotive-Roundhouse-WD-Alco.html

First step, imo, is to look at lots of different kinds of railroads to see which appeals in terms of era, equipment and operation. There's a huge choice out there.

Once you've the kind of railroad you like, or even found a specific prototype, figure out the key parts of it you would like to include and can plausibly model, given the space and your skills, then see about arranging them into a satisfying whole. If the layout is based in reality, or is a plausible version of reality, it will ultimately be more satisfying because your structures and operation will have a purpose to them.

I'd also suggest that if you must have a continuous run then don't make it such a major part of the plan. Point to point is much more interesting operationally but you can always fit in a continuous run by joining two spurs from opposite sides of the board together. That way you get the best of both.

Hi Fred.

You're half right. The Totternoe is indeed a model of an 18" gauge railway in O scale (1:43) on N gauge (9mm) track. That's based on the steam loco which was an 18" gauge design. You'll note the 9mm track gauge is actually too narrow and 10.5 mm gauge would be a lot closer. Unfortunately there's no trade support for 10.5 mm gauge in the UK.

The second model represents 1'11 and one half " gauge as that's what Lyn (of the Lynton & Barnstaple Railway) was built to. Again, that's a bit of a fudge as the accurate gauge would be close to 8mm.

Narrow-gauge modelling is full of these compromises.

I like the design philosophy of the Totternoe Railway but there's a slight, but very understandable, confusion over its scale and gauge. OO9 (double oh 9) is OO scale (1:76) running on N gauge (9mm) track representing railway gauges from around 2' to 2'6" gauge.

O9 (oh 9) is British O scale (1:43) running on N gauge (9mm) track representing railways of around 1' to 1'6" gauge. Although rarer than railways of 2' and above gauge, 18" (as it was commonly known) was popular in engineering works and in ordnance depots. There were also a few railways that used equipment passed down from ordance depots, including this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Hutton_Light_Railway.

A few items of 18" gauge still survive, including Gwen which was exported to the US back in the 1960s and now lives in California.

Some very nice work there.

Quote from: rogertra on August 08, 2013, 08:12:45 PM
May I ask why you want to model a rack railway?  Is it for the challenge, which is good?

Operation will be pretty dull.

Push the one car train uphill with engine on the down hill side (They always were and still are)

Come back down hill with one car train with the engine on the down hill side.

No running around the train, nothing.

Unless you are modelling Europe where some narrow gauge railways had adhesion as well as rack sections and the boilers were only slightly raked, if at all.  They ran passenger and freight trains but the inclines were not as steep as Mount Washington, for example.  At a guess say 15% to 20% grades.

Yeah, so dull:   Kitson-Meyer of the Trans-Andean railway between Chile and Argentina. The inclined cylinders drove the cog.

Hope Bachmann forgives the link but as they will never be making rack locos they should be tolerant!
HO scale. 9mm gauge. Site is German Language but we can all read pictures.http://shop.ferro-train.com/ferrotrainshop/Category/100004/3.aspx

The need for 15" curves is predicated on this being an oval or 'roundy-roundy' design. There is absolutely no reason why this need be so. In fact, it's really a lot better if it isn't a roundy-roundy because real railroads actually went somewhere.

Consider this map of one of the most famous mining RRs in the US, the Gilpin Tramway.

Then do some maths and consider how much real estate your layout covers, add in some (probably a lot) of compression, and see what you come up with.
Depending on the length you have, you might have a switchback at one end rather than a 15" radius. You might, in the depth you have, get a switchback at both ends as the RR climbs. Add in an ore chute or mine, a water tank, a siding for trains to pass and you have operations to perform.
Small staging yards at each end deal with the 'rest' of the railroad and will allow you to work trains in a realistic manner. There are some excellent compact designs for staging yards out there. The cassette system might work well for a line with few locos and cars.
You also get to see the whole layout from one side and have a lot of depth to the scene allowing space for really impressive scenic work.

You'll also, and this is important, have the kind of layout most people don't have because most people unwittingly design their model railroads to look like other model railroads.

True. But in O gauge it might be possible and at 1:20 it would definitely be possible.

I wonder what it smells like?

This is gauge 1, 1:32 scale. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMvj2k0nl1E not just steam from the stack but working cylinder drain cocks as well, Truly epic. German prototype.

There's this, though.


http://www.ehattons.com/42906/Heljan_266208_Beyer_Garratt_2_6_0_0_6_2_47996_BR_early_emblems_on_cabsides_numbers_on_tanks_1/StockDetail.aspx
£199

and these http://www.beyergarrattlocos.co.uk/model.html