Gorre and Daphetid Layout

[AJPiskel]

Greetings,

After many many years away from the hobby, the bug has seemingly bit again.

I have always dreamed of doing a model of John Allen's Gorre and Daphetid Railroad. The one published in 101 Track plans

Now I see that EZ track is available and can take some of the work out of track laying.

My question; would it be possible to build that layout in a 4 x 8 space using EZ track?

Thanks for any advice.

Andy

[Len]

In a word, no.



The original G&D, above, was built using hand laid track and turnouts, with curve radii down to 14" on the left end near Daphetid. There's no good way to duplicate that with EZ-Track.

Len

[the Bach-man]

Dear Len,
A few years ago I did just that, building a layout for the raffle at the Amherst Train Show in West Springfield, Massachusetts.  As I recall it wasn't an exact match, but very close.  If you have room for a 5x9 you should come pretty close.
Have fun!
the Bach-man

[AJPiskel]

So it would seem that 5 x 9 would work better, than 4 x 8 ?

If I may ask what radius did you use on the layout?

Andy

[jward]

it can be done in HO on a 4x8 using 18r minimum but adding a few more inches around the edges would give the plan some breathing room.

[Len]

Actually, the plan from '101 Track Plans' I posted is modified slightly from the original. As Doc says, the original used hand layed track and switches, while the modified version uses flex-track and commercial #4 switches with the 'tails' trimmed off just beyond the points. It still only uses 14", 15", and 16" radius curves, with the only 18" curves being on the branch to Daphetid. Remeber, the original only used small cars, with 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 locos that had been modified a bit to handle the sharp curves.

If you expand the layout to 18" minimum curves, it will definately take more space than the original.

Len

[jward]

I have drawn this in anyrail using 18r curves, #5 switches and 3% grades and it does work but it's very tight. widening the table width to 4'3" or 4'6" would make a better fit.

[Desertdweller]

According to the cover story in the Jan. 1969 MRR, the G&D consisted of a mainline of 18" radius (I think) with a branchline of maybe 15" radius.  Not all equipment could use the branch.  Locos up to 2-6-6-2 were used on the main.

The railroad was expanded many times, but all versions included the previous ones.  No Diesels were allowed.

This was one of the greatest model railroads of all time.

[James in FL]

This was one of the greatest model railroads of all time.

A twice around Roundy round? Really?

With no purpose, other than to rail fan the train?

Crude engine service facility, with no yard?

This was one of the greatest model railroads of all time.

We have to agree to disagree.
While it may have been the greatest of its time, certainly nowhere near the greatest of all time.
Not even a contender.

Sorry, I'm just not a John Allen groupie.

[AJPiskel]

Thanks to all who have posted.
There are some good points in all of them.

This will be an ambitious task, as I try and negotiate real estate from the Mrs.

I believe while in deliberation some model building will take place first.

I am open to any and all suggestions that anyone may have.

Thanks again.

Andy

[Len]

According to the cover story in the Jan. 1969 MRR, the G&D consisted of a mainline of 18" radius (I think) with a branchline of maybe 15" radius.  Not all equipment could use the branch.  Locos up to 2-6-6-2 were used on the main.

The railroad was expanded many times, but all versions included the previous ones.  No Diesels were allowed.

This was one of the greatest model railroads of all time.

18" Radius sounds like G&D #2 (there were three), which was considerably larger than the original.

James in FL - The G&D being described as, "The greatest railroad of all time.", is probably in reference to G&D #3, which filled a specially excavated basement. As can be seen here:



Scenery went from floor to ceiling in a roughly 28 x 23 space. The general track plan for G&D #3, which included narrow gage, traction, and incorporated G&D #1 and parts of G&D #2 as noted towards the center:



Len

[rogertra]

This was one of the greatest model railroads of all time.

A twice around Roundy round? Really?

With no purpose, other than to rail fan the train?

Crude engine service facility, with no yard?

This was one of the greatest model railroads of all time.

We have to agree to disagree.
While it may have been the greatest of its time, certainly nowhere near the greatest of all time.
Not even a contender.

Sorry, I'm just not a John Allen groupie.

You mean there's two of us?   

Excellent modelling, I'll give him that but the greatest model railroad of all time?  I don't think so.

Cheers

Roger T.

[jward]

This was one of the greatest model railroads of all time.

I am in total agreement with you on this one, john allen was years ahead of his time on many things including prototypical operation.

the modern obsession with straight track along all 4 walls of a room leaves me bored. mountain railroads, like the g&d, should wind around the natural obstacles.

[rogertra]

....the modern obsession with straight track along all 4 walls of a room leaves me bored. mountain railroads, like the g&d, should wind around the natural obstacles.

Just because a layout runs around the perimeter of a room doesn't mean that the track has to be straight along the walls, nor does it preclude adding scenic obstacles of any type.
My around-the-room (with ten corners) layout has some straight-ish track where it passes through the towns, but the rest of it is on curves and grades (mostly occurring in the same places).  I have one tunnel (not especially prototypical for my modelled locale, but a concession to operational considerations and space restrictions), along with five good-sized bridges and a ¾ mile (HO) 2.5% grade laid out on two reverse horseshoe curves.

In a room big enough to accommodate a 5'x9' table with access from all sides, you could have an around-the-room layout with curves of 30" radii  (or greater), longer runs, reach-in access to all of it, and the option of point-to-point or continuous running.
If a layout like that were boring, I'd be inclined to attribute it to the imagination (or lack thereof) of the builder.

Wayne  

I agree 100%.  

My first Great Eastern Railway was around the walls and a peninsula in a 12 x 16 foot room. and was built for prototype operation.  No continuous run as that doesn't interest me but hidden staging yards, three of them, to branch terminal operation.   Yes, I admit, there was a plan to extend one staging track to permit continuous running for when I had non-railroad guests and that would have been via an unprototypical steep 4% or so hidden grade but that never happened.

Why, in 12 x 16 foot room would I want to build a 5 x 9 foot table top with practically zero prototype operating possibilities?

Yes, I know some people like to run trains on a continuous loop and just railfan their trains and if that's what they like, more power to them but why not do that around the walls of a room rather than on a tabletop?

But to say an around the room is boring is more to do with the design of the railroad than it is to do with the around the walls concept.  Unless you just want to railfan.



Cheers


Roger T.

[jward]

dr wayne,
your layout is beautiful. the way I see it you are doing things right. I agree around the walls doesn't have to be boring. john allen's final layout, the big one whose plan is posted elsewhere in this thread, is proof of that. what the plan doesn't show, but photos do, is the overall effect. for one thing, it was impossible to view the entire layout from any one point. another trick used was cosmetic curves of varying radii, to make it look like the railroad was carved out of the mountains as practical as possible. short tunnels, bridges and various rock outcrops also added to the effect. i am not a fan of large minimum radii on a layout. the larger the radius the less you can do in a given space. 24r will handle anything i'd want to run, 30r would be the absolute maximum for minimum radius for me.

roger,
it is possible that you are not as familiar with john allen's work as you think you are, john was an ardent proponent of prototypical operation as is well documented by various sources including the kalmbach book. it is also well documented that he never took rivet counting too seriously. it is possible to count rivets to the point that the overall effect of what you are trying to create is lost. i have seen layouts where a freight station is accurate to prototype down to the last detail, yet the facility is almost as large as the town it supposedly serves. in the same vein, it is also possible to focus on the rulebook to the point where all the trains ever do is sit around waiting for track authority, with endless paperwork to be completed (train orders, waybills, etc)....... definitely not my idea of fun.

give me a working, well designed railroad. one where i have a simple way of determining which cars i need to pickup, which to setout, and which stay put for a future train. give me enough track to work with so i don't have to constantly bother the dispatcher in order to place and pull my cars. been there done that on the real ones, it is not fun sitting in a siding at 3am trying not to nod off waiting for a train at least 2 hours away.