I want to start with a small point to point layout, based on an HO layout I found. Namely, HO- 18, but I haven't been able to find this layout in N scale. Does anyone know how I would go about converting this layout to N-Scale?
Hi, is it this Atlas Plan?: It is done in HO on a 7x4 table. Could be done well on a 5x3 table in N-scale. Finding out al the pieces of track is your work. Using flextrack would make it pretty straight forward. BTW if this is your choice I would rethink it. Paul
HI, I'm do not know anything about the track plan, but the way I see it you have 3 options: Take all of the HO measurements and multiply them by 0.545 (this is the ratio between HO and N). An 18 inch radius in HO will become a 9.81 in N Take all of the HO measurements and multiply them by 0.75. An 18 inch radius in HO will become a 12 in N Just use the HO measurements and don't shrink the layout, just make some adjustments like track spacing for parallel tracks and road widths. See the ratio in option 1. If the track plan has aisles then shrinking the design can lead to problems. Reducing a 30 inch aisle by 25% will make it 22.5 inch and a tight fit. If it was me {and it has been} I would go with option 3. I have tried option 1 and... Hope this helps Gary
Since HO is 1:87.1 & N scale is 1:160, Ho is about twice as big as N. If your layout plan has dimensions on it, divide them by 2. So 4'x8' in HO is 2'x4' in N.
Hi again, i would not listen to Cajon. N-scale is not twice as small as HO. When buying track you will find out the differences the hard way later. It simply won't fit. More important however N-scale is used because some problems in HO can be avoided, like to tight radii and to severe grades. Option 2 of Gary probably is the best, that way you divide the assets of N-scale in two parts. Gentler curves and grades are one, the other is more railroading. A last remark: every N-scale layout looks smaller then you would expect. The distance from your eyes to the tracks remain the very same regardless of scale. But in scale feet the difference is huge. Another reason not to go with the twice that small idea. Paul
Yes. It will get a person "in the ball park" as the saying goes. Then plans can easily be massaged from that point- Benchwork size, track, etc. N scale is 54.4% of HO (or 54.375% if we must...) So track radius is just barely more than half. Nine inches works just fine.
hi andy problem is you can't buy 9" R-curves, the other arguments aside. If the equipment is up to those very tight radii is to be seen as well. You did divide by two...........you could have been a bit more modest here. Paul
You can buy 9" curves! It's called Peco Setrack, and the radius for the N scale curve is 9". I found, though, that some locomotives just fall off because it's too tight, and I went to Kato Unitrack at 9 3/4". I've not had anything fall off THAT radius! [[yet]] Regards, Pete Davies
Hi there, No, the rule in planning books is to simply cut all measurements in half. I've done this with several layouts without issue. Just be aware that it doesn't divide perfectly, so a siding that may have held six cars in HO may only hold five and a half in N, which means you'll only have enough space for 5, since you can't do much with the half. Just make sure you check your radii. I wouldn't recommend going under 9", as anything larger will have a good ammount of trouble on it. Best of luck with your layout, Alex
Why not post the area you have to work with, then ask for suggestions for layouts that will work well in that area. Loops are initially fun as in your chosen plan, but they quickly become stale unless you have work for the trains to do.
Hi pepley a few issues: *the run between the two terminals is very short. *the stations do have almost no switching possibilities. *the tracks in the stations are very short, partly due to those crossings. *the common turntable makes the use of stations on different levels impossible. In that space far more interesting plans are possible. The current Model Railroader project railroad is a nice exemple. If the two stations were connected back to back as well, you would be able to run your layout in point-to-point style and using the connection also in roundy-round fashion. All rectangle or table top plans need access from at least 3 sides and thus are space hogs. Paul
Paulus, What you say makes since. I think I will keep looking. I need to spend a little time looking at some other layouts, before jumping into this. Thanks.
You can always build a small simple switching area that can be used in a larger layout at a latter date, or a small not so simple layout. Look at the Mt Coffin and Kalama http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine...-Coffin-amp-Kalama-RR-23-quot-x41-quot-layout This is a great example of a small railroad that appears much bigger than it is. It also has nice operational opertunities also
I used to have a 4x12' HO scale layout that I dismantled in 2006. I adapted it into a 4x8' N scale layout. It had the same basic mainline scheme (folded dogbone), and some compression (the long straightaway sections were shortened to fit in an 8' space) but I kept the 18" minimum curve radius. Now I can run almost any N scale loco/rolling stock on my layout. In HO, I severely limited.
Yeah, while it would be theoretically to halve the layout size and use Peco setrack, I'd use a 3x5 and 11" radius curves. Lots fewer derailments that way, and you can make it from a sheet of 4x4 plywood and have the Lowe's/Home Steepo guys cut it for you. Easy peasy.
