Scale?

G scale is actually a number of scales running on the same gauge track.  Are you thinking 1:29, or maybe 1:32, which seem to be the scales used for standard guage on G track?

Either way it’s a pretty small space - 8.5 feet in 1:29 is the equivalent of 34” in HO, 8.5 feet in 1:32 is the equivalent of 38” in HO.  I think that’s probably inglenook territory.  You may get some good ideas looking at HO inglenook plans.

Western Maryland Ry?

They had a car float operation at Baltimore so you might be able to come up with something using a GE 44 tonner and a float bridge. It would be a lot easier in a smaller scale though....DaveB

G Scale Western Maryland

With such a large scale of model and a relatively constrained area to limit operations, try looking into the Western Maryland's history around the Port of Baltimore.  Specifically, the carfloat operations with the Western Maryland Navy from Port Covington to other sections of the harbor area.  The Western Maryland had a pair of GE 44 ton locomotives used in this service. This area of W.M. territory has all sorts of modeling potential with the bonus being the railcars being moved would be far more varied than if a coal branch were chosen as the focal point.

Very limited

This is really a small layout for operating/switching.  But using a Piko 0-6-0T, 5-6 freight cars and 1 (possibly 2) turnouts you can fit in a little bit of railroad.  You can probably fit in a small WM station and a few other small buildings.

Good luck

Paul

Space

I think you will be quickly frustrated with the lack of space. This comes from a guy in 1/29. 8' is barely long enough for 3 or 4 cars.  Even a tight #4 turnout takes up 2' of room to pass cars beside each other.

My staging yard is 16' long by 2' and I squeezed 4 tracks in and at max capacity I can get 14-16 cars depending on if they are all 40' or 50'.

Now if you are modeling Gn15 that space would be plenty big for a small layout.

@ Joe

I'm not sure where you are finding 12" cars in 1/29? A 40' boxcar measures almost 18" from coupler to coupler?

@ Craig

 I plan to use the Bachmann 1/20 20 foot cars. While not explicitly 1/29, they are certainly small enough to fit in with 1/29. They measure 30' long in 1/29 (not including couplers). I'd probably change out some of the details to make them closer to scale and more modern.

Being wood cars, the era would have to be in the 50's or earlier.

Layout space

The depth of your proposed layout isn't much of an issue.  3ft is plenty of space in that dimension.  However, if there is any way you can expand the length of the layout, then I highly recommend it.  Even then, the challenge you are up against is making a large scale fit in a space that would be challenging even to someone modeling on HO scale.

Essentially, this is going to be a micro layout and you'll have to think out of the box to make it work.

My recommendation would be avoid using any turnouts.  Focus instead on using a selector plate.  It's not very prototypical, but the device can be hidden behind a building or off to the side in a "backstage" area.

It's completely possible to build a large scale railroad in 8 feet of space, but it's far from what I would consider ideal. If you're trying to model the Western Maryland in the 1950's, I'd recommend going with HO or N scale and building something that has more potential for operations.  Save those 20ft Bachmann cars for a garden railroad or a temporary setup on the patio.

@Joe

I would suggest using a Heartland Mack for your power and using the small LGB 4 wheel rolling stock to keep things short enough to make it work.  I looked once at the Timesaver in LS and found I needed nearly 16 feet to make that work in LS using my suggested power and rolling stock. Part of the issue was that the original Timesaver in HO used at least one 'Y', which cannot be had in a 4 foot diameter (for those not indoctrinated, LS refers to curves in terms of diameter, not radius). This lengthens the layout requiring two switches in stead.

And for operational reliability using a 4 wheel locomotive, I recommend going to onboard battery power and R/C to avoid the 'dead frog' in the tight switches. At the very best operation will be jerky going over switches with track power.

Ginglenook

Dear MRHers,

For those wondering what a Heartland Mack style G-scale inglenook might look like,
check out the "Small Layout Scrapbook #38" from the late Carl Arendt
https://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-38-june-2005/
/> (scroll 2/3 of the way down...)

Happy Modellling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS I disagree that some form of DeadRail implementation is "the only way" to achieve reliable, smooth, slow operation of such a layout, unless one really wishes to add "electronics science experiment" to the challenges of this particular layout-build...

  "I disagree that some form

Yeah with so little track to build it should be no problem keeping it bullet proof. One can always add wipers or supplemental power pickup sliders to a balky engine. I can't see anyone wanting to do much operations on such a tiny layout anyway. It seems more an exercise in distallation down to nothing....DaveB

I threw this together just

I threw this together just for fun in 3rd planit, it's made from the LGB track library pieces. The black squares are 'bumper tracks'. There could be more track, but I left room for some structure flats. I haven't verified track center distances are adequate since I expect it's not even the right scale, but I thought it would show that you can do something in that amount of space. 

Graphite

One word, Graphite....

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr 

Sorry, but no...

Hi all, 

If the choice of scale has been made and there is a hard limit on the amount of space available, then 

is just plain wrong. That attitude is "big layout" design thinking and it cannot be applied to smaller and micro layouts.

Any model railroad beats no model railroad, even a small one.

If that's all the space there is, then that's all the space that there is available. Wishing for more space before you build is a recipe for build failure and will lead to no layout at all. 

With "very small" layouts you just have to get very creative about how you use your space - every last fraction of an inch of it. The level of creativity required to design and operate a small layout in a very limited amount of modelling real estate goes up rapidly when you go to big scale model railroading in a confined defined space.   

  "That attitude is "big

No, it's just the physics of the situation. A 3 foot by 8.5 foot space is plenty of room for a nice layout if one picks the right scale and scenes to model. Compare what could be accomplished in this space in N scale or even HO scale and you should see the difference. .....DaveB 

If the scale is fixed in the original post

Hi Dave, all,

If the scale is stated and fixed as stated in the original post, then, yes, you can suggest a scale change, but the decision still rests with the original post. 

Should JoeL change his mind and go to a different scale other than G, then the possibility options available change. But until JoeL changes to a different scale, we have got what we have got.

Now how do you make that space work best for the given stated prototype options listed? Wishing for a scale change to include more track does not help JoeL make the most of his available space using his existing G scale equipment indoors.

Let's try to stay with the original question and if/how we can make it work?  

A question for or the WM fans

Hi all, 

A question for the Western Maryland fans - Was there a workshop/car builder/car repairer either on or close to the WM property that used a traverser to swap stuff between tracks in the shop area? 

A question for JoeL

Hi Joe,

you've mentioned that your cars are about 12" long. How long is your locomotive(s)? 

A locomotive + 1 car + clearance sets your minimum head shunt length.

Answer for Oztrainz

Hello Oztrainz,

My loco should be about 13" long or shorter.

Headshunt length

Thanks Joe,

That kind of sets the minimum headshunt length as no less than 25" to clear the blades of the turnout leading to the headshunt(s) (yes we can have more than one).

In the real world you have far more room for clearances. For small layouts, the wheels of the last bogie for the vehicles in the headshunt only have to just clear the turnout blades.  

It's not strictly prototypical, but it works when every inch of layout track has to work for its presence on the layout,

1' x 3' plan to G scale??

I recently found a neat little HO plan that I thought could be adapted to my space.    What do you all think??

I don’t know the length of G gauge turnouts.

That would probably work. Especially if you can use the extension space as the lead (what was referred to as the head shunt track earlier). You would be able to shift the left turnout farther and possibly get another car length or two in the runaround track. If there is any space left over I would try to extend the tracks on the right because as drawn they hold 1 car each. 

Access to the that same left turnout is possibly blocked by the structures as the plan is drawn. I have that situation on my layout. I  plan on using a wire from turnout to inside the building  and possibly installing a ground throw to get around the access issue.