Crossing SG track with NG track

[Dave Cooper]

There is already an interchange station (split-level) between SG and NG for passengers, but, no real facility for interchange of goods.

Hence, the thought is to use the canal wharf at the bottom of the rope-worked incline for interchange of goods. (I'm really looking to extend the operational scope of the diorama here which is currently very limited !).

Yes, it is a bit of a 'fad' really, but, also a technical challenge to see if I could make it work. Probably, non-prototypical. You never know I may find a way of getting a bit of dual gauge back to the fiddle yard - now that would open it up a bit...

[B.Meldon]

By far the easiest way to have dual gauge track is with two facing sidings, the standard gauge coming from one way, the narrow gauge from the other. No points or crossings are needed and with DC you can use the common return system so even with a shared rail no switching is needed and both narrow and standard gauge can be used at the same time.
I have one of these on my layout.
However, the layout was planned with this and the other dual gauge section in mind from the start it was not just fitted in after.

[Dave Cooper]

I think I may chance standing on a high stool and taking an 'aerial' shot of the existing lines - SG and NG.

Possibilities could spring from this ! We could then reference the same things with some confidence...

At the moment, without going full or, partial, dual-gauge, I think we have to cross the SG line somewhere. I'll place some buildings on to aid understanding. Photo to follow.
Dave 

[Dave Cooper]

Chickened-out and used the floor instead. Access to the wharf at 'ground level' is via the bridge /viaduct thingy. Diorama board size is 4 foot by 15". All ideas welcome...

[Hobby]

Another way to do a photo showing the track layout is to lean it against a wall! I've suggested that for people who don't want to do a track plan for their News article but it's fallen on deaf ears so far! (Like the shoe!!) :)

Looking at the space available I'd be tempted to leave it be. The station layout is the same, I think, as the Leek and Manifold station at Waterhouses where the two platforms back onto each other. The Goods faculties are a few yards down the track... So there's an excuse for a second board!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterhouses_railway_station_(Staffordshire)

[Dave Cooper]

Hmm, yes, that old Hush Puppy needs retiring now !

I think I'll award myself "0" out of 10 for layout planning though....the initial idea was to see how I got on with the different gauges, scales etc., and build a few kits. A fiddle yard extension to the 'west' connecting to both lines would add quite a bit of operational scope I feel.

Can't help wondering about that dual-gauge thing though...

[Tom Haythornthwaite]

Lovely!  And challenging.

Whatever technical solution you choose, aren't the standard gauge points going to be smack-dab in the way of the approaching narrow gauge track? 

[Hobby]

Replace with a double slip and the narrow gauge going through it... Now that would be a challenge!

[engerth399]

Nice Carpet!!

[Dave Cooper]

Yikes, - a mixed gauge double-slip ! Oh, that would be nice Father Christmas...

One thought is to run the NG through the shed and onto the SG siding alongside the roadway. This would have to be 'fed' from the fiddle yard though. Is that allowed ?????

I inherited the carpet when an errant log rolled out of the fire and made a small burnt offering.

[B.Meldon]

I am sorry to say this, but I think you may need to start again and plan your next layout around the features you want it to include rather than trying to fit extra things in on your original plan.
Others may think differently, but I think you will be wasting your time and effort to try and put extra features on this layout.
You would also be able to replace that N gauge track, that to me will always look wrong with 009 track.
If you want a goods interchange and canal side wharf with both NG and SG tracks than as I mentioned above plan the track, so they are end on sidings with no need for any crossings.
When it comes to all layouts, not ust 009 pre-planning is vital. It is better to spend several days planning than weeks trying to sort out problems later.

[Dave Cooper]

Point taken Brian (no pun intended !). This has been quite a learning experience for me as a first attempt. I do fancy tackling some home-built trackwork in future, so, that could be my chance to improve....

By the way, I bought a pack of "Gaugemaster" spoked wheelsets the other day. I was thinking of standardising all my rolling stock using these - good idea or not ?

Regards,
Dave 

[Peter Boulter]

I would agree with Brian, trying add extra features into an existing layout is not usually going to end well.

Time spent in planning a layout is never wasted, which is something I learnt from my 00 layout where having built the baseboards I just slapped the track down without any real overall plan which years later resulted in operating problems and a growing dissatisfaction with the layout (it still exists in the loft as a model of a post-Beeching closed line!)

Before I even started building the baseboards for my 009 layout I spent a couple of months thinking about what I wanted the layout to look like, both in terms of track plan and the scenery the line would run through, this approach has paid dividends as I have a layout that I enjoy both running and working on.

[JulienW]

Looking at the photo / track plan I think I'm inclined to agree with Brian.

Whilst there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that layout as it stands Dave, with what is already there it's going to be difficult to fit in the additional features you are after without essentially stripping off what is there already, and from that respect it may be better to start again with with a blank sheet of paper - I use graph paper for the initial work up, then lining wallpaper for a full size drawing.

As things stand to get NG to the loco shed I think you'd want an NG spur off the 'lower' of the 2 track just after the point on the bridge. This line would then swing over to join the SG platform line as dual gauge (3 rail) which could then be used as a headshunt for the loco to get into the shed, wither with all the SG from the head shunt to the shed replaced with 3 rail dual gauge or with the NG dividing from the 'SG platform road', roughly where the hut next to the coal staves are, running through the end of the staves to cross the coal siding at an angle and then running alongside the 2 SG points to rejoin the SG just outside the shed.

Perhaps a simpler answer is to abandon thoughts of a shared loco shed, and for dual gauge interest have an the same NG spur just after the NG point on the bridge but have that line crossing the SG platform line (rather than joining it) and having the NG interchange line in the SG yard between the 2 SG tracks - but it would mean loosing most (if not all) of the coal yard.

The complication comes when you think about which way the goods are being transferred and what is being moved across and the need to get the relative levels of SG and NG right.

Heavy minerals (coal, quarried stone) would most likely be shifted by men with shovels.  As the floor of SG mineral wagons would be higher than that of the NG ones if both were on the same ground level then shovelling from SG to NG is helped by gravity, but if the transfer is from NG to SG then they will not want to be shovelling uphill so the NG siding would most likely be raised to help with moving the loads (or raised up enough so the NG wagons can be tipped into the SG ones). For things in sacks, boxes, barrels (containers of some sort) then having the floors of the NG & SG vehicles at the same height helps as these things can be carried (by hand, by barrow or rolled) from one to the other.

The problem may be that with the dual gauge crossing needing to be on the level there may not be enough length to get the 2 gauges at the right heights for the transfer.

[B.Meldon]

.................. I do fancy tackling some home-built trackwork in future, so, that could be my chance to improve......

Regards,
Dave

I would recommend against hand built points, the Peco 12 inch and 18 inch radius 009 points are good products these days.
In my experiance it is a lot easier to plan a layout around these than it is to build your own. You will also find the Peco points are more reliable and robust than hand made track. The plane track is another matter as it is a lot easier to do, but the problem here is you will not find copper-clad sleapers that are the same thickness as the webbbing on the peco points, so again perhaps using the Peco 009 track is the best way forward.