Potential Virginian/C&O Coal Layout

I am a fellow operator of things C&O, N&W and Virginian. I am looking forward to seeing your progress on this!

Greg P

www.youtube.com/trainbros89

To be honest, it's difficult to answer your question without some idea of your overall room size and any impediments within the room (plumbing, electrical fixtures, closets needing access, windows, etc.).  It would also help if we knew whether you were planning a lift-up/swing-out piece for the walk-in area and whether or not your walk-in area was going to be cut out of a large table top or be a larger area in the center of an around-the-wall concept layout.

Finally with O72 curves, your two narrow ends are only going to have about 3 to 3.5 feet of straight track, and, if you wanted to double track your mainline, you would need minimum of O81 on the outside (with O72 as minimum inside), further shortening your straight run there.  On the other hand, if you went with single track mainline, you could put a couple of mines, one on a corner, into some corners.  Perhaps treat your railroad as a "mine branch" with a mainline connection at a yard in a valley along a 16 foot side, and from that connection, your branch rises into the mountains to serve as many mines as you choose to build.  Meanwhile, your mainline trains enter tunnels at both ends of the branch yard connection and stay hidden (storage) until the next connection (drop-off and/or pick-up) needs to be made.  Heck, you could even run a short passenger train in each direction in and out of storage.

Chuck

Thank you @PRR1950 To answer your questions there are no impediments in the space. I purposely chose that part of the room because it was unimpeded. Its a bonus room so no plumbing, fixtures, posts etc. which I'm thrilled about. It's a blank canvas at the moment so would be open to design ideas with a large table top or around the walls. A lift out bridge would be fine, anything but a duck under.

I really like the mine branch idea with the yard along a 16 foot side. It doesn't sound like the O-72 is going to work great in the space, I think I could go down to O-60 or O-54 and maybe use FM Trainmasters or smaller steam if its going to improve operations of the layout. 

Could you maybe explain the tunnels a little more. Would there be storage behind the tunnels? Also, like the passenger train Idea but would need a mainline and then another line going into the mountains to switch the mines?

OK, essentially I am envisioning an all mountain railroad built on an around-the-wall platform with no width wider than 3'.   The mountain scenery would rise from the front of each piece to the "wall" at the back with the sole exception of your branch-mainline junction yard.  From your branch junction yard, your mainline trains enter tunnels at each end (after departing the yard area) and stay under the mountains in storage (on the other 16' side) until their next scheduled appearance at the junction yard.  Of course, the mainlines would have to be at the back of the train platforms because they will remain on the primary level, but you would be able to make your yard area at least 6-tracks wide allowing for 3 different trains (including some passenger) to run in each direction.

Your branch, on the other hand starts to rise up into the mountains (fully or partially visible as you choose) to service the coal mine(s).  Here, you can wind the track back and forth between the front and back of the train platform as the trains rise to the mine locations on the mountains, and you might even have 2 or 3 different levels of mines.

There are only two issues with this idea that I can't provide suggestions on how to fix by thought.  First, at your last mine (branch end), you will need a small yard and small turntable (or wye, which is easily possible in a corner) to turn the road engine.  And, silly me, I just realized that you will need some way to turn and service the branch engines at the junction yard!  Second, rather than run your mainline trains in pure (mostly hidden) circles, you may desire to include reverse loop storage to add more direction variety.  In any event, you would be free to run large, heavy engines on your mainlines (where your passenger trains might also run) and then use smaller engines (and tighter radii curves) to reach your mines.

I hope this makes more sense.  To flesh it out before you build, I would recommend acquiring either the SCARM or the AnyRail track planning programs.  They are both Windows-based programs and are free to use up to a limited number of track pieces, and many members here can give you more advice once they see how you implement your ideas.

@PRR1950 thank you very much for taking the time to put together your ideas for me. I like the sound of it all just have to figure out turning the loco around but a wye or turntable works, think I prefer a turntable. I like the sound of 6 tracks wide and being able to run in each direction as well. I purchased AnyRail, now have to start to putting together the ideas you mentioned. 

Large 0 scale engines, modest space, semi prototype function; a frequent request in my experience.

In reality each requested component fights the others.  To even pull off a somewhat passing effort it is my opinion that at least one of the trio requests needs to change.

Resign yourself to small 0 scale engines, short trains,  tight curves hidden from view.

You can have double the design space if you switch to HO.  (Half 0).  You stated space has similar square footage of a standard single car garage.

Circle running including, folded dog bones, dual track main, elevated loop(s), subway.

Just my experienced opinion after building many layouts in different scales for clients over the years.  Shop now closed.

@Fireball RR   Fireball  - check out my Twin Pines RR layout. It fits into a 10x13 space. Only the outer loop has 072 plus diameter curves. The rest is minimum 042 (except in a couple of yard areas where only freight cars are backed in.

No way you can get a walk in with 072 curves - you need a minimum of 18 feet - and you will have large inaccessible areas at either end. You would need pop ups in the middle of the curves.

@Tom Tee is a guru when it comes to railroading. The only addition I would make is:  there is a huge difference in space requirements for 2 rail scale and 3 rail high rail. Because of compromises made with the build of high rail engines, this version of O gauge requires 1/2 the track space of 2 rail. This is where the discussion sometimes goes off the rails - I have the new MTH Big Boy which can run on my "tiny" layout through the 072 diameter curves.  However this engine overhangs the track by several inches going thru the curves so it really does not "look good" in so doing. To me I really like the performance and look of the engine, so while I do not care for the overhang, I choose to ignore it. I have sold off nearly all my semi-scale equipment preferring scale engines and freight cars - because I thought they did not "look right" on my tiny layout. Contradiction? - maybe - go figure, I'll have to just shrug my shoulders on this one - I like what I like. You get to do what you like and looks right to you, no one else's opinion really matters.

Other observations:

Your space is 3 feet wider than mine in perspective - I would love the extra room but it really would not let me do a whole lot different except add a double main line. The extra 3 feet does allow you to change elevation a little more and keep grades no more than 3%

I tried working in mountains, I just did not think they looked right so pushed them into the backgrounds. 

Try to work in 3 to 6 inches of space between track edge and walls - more being better. It gives you room to put in details.  I had to remove my background mountain because the BigBoy crashed into it going around a curve.  Just a 3 inch long section is a problem by no more than 1/2 inch in thickness, so I have to do some surgery on the mountain.

I would not give up on the big curves - personal preference - I gave up a walk in (045 Atlas curves) for the 072 curves because they were more important. I substituted swing outs and lift outs to get into my interior space.  I prefer to run outside the layout - i don't like spinning around like a top watching the trains run around in a circle from inside - I get dizzy.  Grandkids on the other hand love it - standing in the middle dancing around.

The things you learn by doing. Happy RailRoading!

Thank you for the reality check @Tom Tee These are the things I need to hear. As I was playing around in AnyRail yesterday it became quickly apparent that I have to adjust my expectations a bit as broad curves did not work well with the walk in but I'm fine following @PRR1950 thoughts on an around the walls setup with a lift out bridge. Based on your experience is 0-54 curves with Berkshires a possibility or would you do O42-48 and utilize Geeps/TrainMasters/RSD-7's within that 16x10 space?

Thank you for your feedback and ideas @ScoutingDad definitely gives me a lot to think about. Love how much you packed into the Twin Pines RR. Semi realism and operations are important to me so fighting to fit in O-72 curves and then still have the overhang with something like a Y6B doesn't appeal to me at all. I like your idea of the double main and having it connect so its multiple loops that lengthens the layout.

I'm in HO now and built a nice switching layout in 12X8' but there just is no excitement around it. I work on it because I feel like I have to because I started it. O Gauge keeps calling out to me for the heft, smoke and sounds of the locos along with the ability to super detail people, buildings, cars within the larger scale. Before I moved I had a 19X13 foot O layout and loved working on it. Trying to find a way to get back to that place even if its in 16X10.   

I model both the C&O and Virginian. If you are trying to use scale, prototypical steam locos for a coal mining layout you probably don't have enough space. The C&O mostly used 2-6-6-2's for mine shifters. Lionel's mallet is an excellent example of a C&O class H-5 and I believe it will do O54 curves. I have one and its an excellent runner and a good value. The Virginian used 2-8-8-2's and 2-10-10-2's for mine shifters. Lionel and MTH made Y-3 2-8-8-2's (obtained from the Santa Fe which they obtained from the N&W) that are fairly prototypical. 3rd Rail made the 2-10-10-2 which is hard to find and expensive. Of course both of these type engines require O72 curves.

Using diesels will allow you to go with tighter curves and switches. For the C&O GP7's and 9's ruled as mine shifters with some RSD5's, 7's, and 12's also used. Unusual engines included TR2's (NW2 cow and calf), TR4's (SW7 cow and calf), and TR3's (NW2 cow and 2 calfs).

The Virginian pretty much used Trainmasters for mine switchers.

I agree with Tom Tee's comment that you may be better off with HO to get more bang out of your available space.

Ken