Proposed N Scale

For a long time (5 years) I had a HO Scale layout in my "train room" that I was constantly working on. Just prior to xmas last year I built my wife a small 18" X 22" under the tree N Scale oval. Since then, I have built a "full size N Scale" and have now torn up my HO scale layout in preparation for a new N Scale Layout in the "Train Room".

Before I post the "plan" it is important to know and understand that I am not all that big on realism when it comes to track plans or operations etc, so many (MANY) people will probably look at the plan and shake their heads in utter disgust as it is anything but realistic and that is okay by me.



My interest is in having as much track work as practicle without taking away from the opportunities for realistic sceneries through out the layout. While I naturally love the trains, it is the build and the forming of the scenery that generates my interest in a layout. This plan allows me to run 4 trains without me having any "needed" input BUT also lets me "play" as well.

As said, a lot of people will probably look at this plan and pick out a multitude of perceived "errors" as it is not representative of reality. Anyway, this is what I intend to build.

The layout will be DCC (obviously I think) and will comprise of about 170' of Peco flex Track, a dozen turnouts that will (eventually) be operated using DCC Concept switch machines.

The bench work will be the open grid/cookie cutter method for better access to wiring and to the tunnels in the event that something "nasty" occurs in them. The sub road bed will comprise around 4 different elevations with a maximum grade of 3% and an average of 2.5%. My minimum radius is going to be 14".

 

I do understand where you are coming from when it comes to what many in the hobby perceive as acceptable. I do have exception to your minimum radius of 14" and would go to 16", even better 18'. I am looking at it from a reliability standpoint. My 16" minimum is based on a Kato 4-6-4 running without climbing the rails.
I do like the separate mainlines so you can run two regional railroads together. ie.. SP and SF. Do you have scenes of interest from the prototype or a model you have seen. Having a guide for inspiration posted near the layout helps keep the focus.

 

jhn_plsn,

Thanks and in short, nope - this is going to be completely fictional so whatever is created will be applicable to the layout but not to any actual area or road name.

As for the 14" radius. One of the reasons I departed from HO was due to the limitations I had with space compared to what I wanted to achieve from a layout. N Scale minimum radius has always been stated as 9.75" with a recommended radius of 12" for the majority of engines. I have an N Scale in one of my sheds and most of the radii on that are 14" or less. I run Kato GEVO ES4400AC engines along with around 12 - 15 cars without an issue on that layout and that is with completely loose laid track and no bridges.

While some of the "experts" say the "bigger the better", my opinion is to keep the radius in line with the scale so as to have a more interesting track plan with more options for a plan. Sure I could increase my radius to 20" or 22" in some areas but that to me defeats the purpose of N Scale.

Basically, while I take your point, 14" is more than what is generally recommended for N Scale and has worked very well for me in the past.

 

BoxcabE50,

Thank you and I do agree with you. Actually, I thought I followed the "bench work" a little too much as well in parts but also thought that was the only way I could get decent longer runs.

 

I'm afraid I too will have to sacrifice appearance to gain a larger yard and longer mainline. I also must break the doctrines of minimum radius as mentioned above. I just don't have the space to do more, so must compromise with 11" and 12-1/2" curves or exit the hobby. I mostly run 40' and 50' equipment with 1st and 2nd Gen diesels, and experience with my current (and aging) road indicates that I'll be fine.

 

Hardcoaler,

For what this is worth, my N Scale Shed layout had a 12" radius continuous curve, actually it was a "little smaller than that around 11.75", and I ran Kato GEVO ES4400AC Engines, Kato Gunderson Double Stack Intermodel Cars, Kato Autoracks and Kato Amtrak GE P42 Genesis Engines and Superliner Cars without an issue. Perhaps it was the quality of the engines and rolling stock but that being said, I wasn't running my trains at 90 MPH either. I slowed them down to probably a scaled 40 or 45 MPH there abouts, but that is about the scaled speed I run my trains anyway.

The only thing I did notice was a "little" bit of overhang with the Intermodal and units but not so much that it detracted from the train or the curve.

I don't know why so many people seem so preoccupied and concerned with radii though. So long as the equipment that is being run is being run on the minimum recommended radius, there shouldn't be a problem what so ever. My philosophy, and it hasn't let mine down yet, is if the minimum radius recommended is 12" then I make my minimum curves a little larger than that. In my case, and situation, the radius becomes 14".

I maybe wrong and am open to being corrected here but, I don't think I have seen any engine or piece of rolling stock where the minimum recommended radius is more than 12" and that, give or take, equates to around a minimum radius of 22" in HO Scale. As said, I may be wrong and if I am then please lest me know.

 

Hardcoaler,

Thought you might be interested in this:



That is one of my Kato GEVO ES4400AC engines on my wife's under the tree layout. The radius on that layout is 8 1/2". I ran the train for about half an hour and it would have kept going had I left it. So much for a minimum 12" radius for that engine and yep - I thoroughly enjoyed watching some thing that (technically) shouldn't be happening

 

That's an amazing sight and there's no binding or slowdown on the curves whatsoever. Come to think of it, my N Scale road shown below as built in 1980 had tight curves and steep grades, and I never had trouble with things. Well laid track helps to overcome. This was a fun apartment-sized pike, engineered to fit in the back of my Honda.

 

wombat457, your track diagram seems to have its sharpest curves in the double track near the upper right, and it is surrounded by "ess" or reverse curves. So that might be potential trouble area for you, and it might be worth trying to lessen the curve radius there - maybe make that curve less deep and sharp?

 

CarlH,

The schematic is possibly a little misleading to be honest. The section of track you are referencing has a radius of 15" due to being an "S" configuration.

Having an "S" section does have the potential for problems which is why I will (most likely) add a small straight section between each change of direction. The only thing that may lessen, or perhaps remove entirely, the possibility of problems occurring is the radius, so the change of direction wont be sharp, and each curve will run through a full 90 degrees prior to a change of direction. Either way, that is something to look at during the physical laying of the track. I should also mention that I never fix my track work to the bench work before I "dry run" a train over it. That may sound counter productive but is helpful when it comes to curves and grades.

Hardcoaler,

I see in your photo that you have a "Turnout/Switch/Points" control panel for showing which way the (aforementioned) are pointing. That is something that I would like to have for my layout at some point as well. Did you build that panel? If so, how in heck do you do it?

 

Have been busy the past week or so but have also been working on the track plan to make it more interesting and more of a challenge. This is what I have come up with and hope it will be the final plan:



I have added a bit more track by way of passing tracks/sidings as well as more turnouts. The added turnout will (hopefully) allow me to move any train from any track to any other track and; therefore, allow me the option of being more interactive with the layout if I want to be. I think it will also offer more interest in the event that more people than just I run trains.

 

Hi Wombat!

The track plan looks very nice and "flowing"! A points that might interest you concerning the "green" passing siding: I would try to relocate this if possible to a spot where it does not go through a tunnel. Usually passing sidings are outside tunnels. The left side of the layout is a good candidate for this. You could start it as the mainline exits the left-side tunnel and end it in the middle of the layout (going counterclockwise).

I hope this helps and i am looking forward to seeing more of this.
Yannis

 

Yannis,

Thanks mate for your input but I am already at my minimum radius for the "inside track" on that side of the layout. If I were to change the siding (you refer to) to where you suggest, the radius would drop down to 12 - 12.5" and that is a little less than what I am looking for.

Also, in the "real world" sidings might not be in tunnels but that is the luxury of the hobby - the real doesn't have to apply

 

Well, have been looking at the plan and came to the conclusion that it was "boringly rigid". As such, one further change to it. Not to the track itself, just the way the same track runs:



Also placed my proposed scenery, although that too will most likely change as things progress.

 

RickB,

Okay, I see what you mean ... good idea, thanks. Something like this:



If that doesn't look right, feel free to play with it. I am anything but proficient when it comes to putting in track for industry. I keep wanting to make sure that when the engine goes into a siding, it can get back out again and that is where I run into trouble.

 

One last alteration to the Track Plan ... this WILL be the last:

 

One or two small updates to the track plan as follows:





This (fingers crossed) will be the layout as built and includes two (2) towns with the main town being to the left and a smaller town to the right. There will be a track side transfer station in the top right corner. All other scenery shown is for "show only".

Now I am getting excited and anxious about this build. I have just received the Micro Trains undecorated sleeper, 5 Car Set and the Bachmann K4 Pacific engine. Pictures later today.

These Micro Train cars are "huge", averaging 6.5" in length, will take 39" of track (including the K4) and look brilliant. Well worth the money spent for them.

The Bachmann K4 Pacific also looks first class. I honestly hope this runs as "good" as it looks as it is a beautiful, very detailed engine.

 

Looks like you are going to have a couple of really tough grades there . Might limit the amount of cars on two of the trains .