first i wanna thanks jasonboche for being so nice and posting my layout plan. secondly, the plan in N scale on a standard door (30 X 72). minimum radius is 11'' the track starting at the yard and leading to the bridge are on a grade culminating at 3 inches above ground level on the last bridge on left. the track then start to downgrade inside the hill. the loop going from the spur to the yard is partially hidden too by going into the hill. the long straight at the bottom is on a 2.5% grade all the way to the loop where the grade is reduced to about 2% i plan on going dcc eventually but until i can afford it i will go with dc. i might use flex track on the long straights especially the long one at the bottom , the spur and the top straight. turnout would be atlas custom line with underground atlas switch machine
I wish my layout didn't have track so near the edge of the benchwork. It's very easy for a derailed loco or piece of rolling stock to swan dive clean off the layout to the floor. I do note that you only have one turnout near the edge, which reduces the risks a bit. I have four. Nonetheless, you might want to consider a thin, say 2" high, fence of clear plexiglass along the borders. I know I will be doing so eventually. Regards,
thanks for the advice, i might just try that, it also cuts down on little hands trying to pick up the little choo choo
Plexi is definitely a must if there is anyone/anything in the room other than you. My old plexi shield was about 1 1/2 feet high. It kept my cats from jumping in. I am now in the middle of building a new layout and the shield has yet to be installed. Last week, my wife put the cats in my trainroom because we were having company. "Oh don't worry, they won't bother it," she says. By the time I checked on them, all four cats were on the layout. One had thrown up on the n scale upper layout. Another had wedged itself in between the benchwork between the upper n scale and lower O scale layouts. She had also picked up all of the logs from a log car and one-by-one dropped them behind the layout so I had to crawl underneath to retrieve them. It seems funny now, but then.... Jacob
You need some dogs my friend. They'll keep all them pesky cat critters away. However, when I was in college I had a 4x8 HO layout in the makings that just sat directly on the floor in the corner of our extra room. One night when I went to work on the layout I found that not only had my black lab decided to help me with scenery by leaving a natural lake on the layout, she had also apparently decided that a mountain was necessary and proceeded to leave one for me constructed of recycled dog food. Bad dog. [ 05. January 2004, 15:10: Message edited by: Hoss ]
A section of track for reversing your engines direction would be a nice addition.With DCC this can be automated.Remeber though,for automated reversing,all wheel pick up is a requirement on your Locos.Keep this in mind for your new equipment aquisitions Dept. Reversing circuits runaround 45.00 to automate. There are kits for turning some loco's into all wheel pickup.Also, tenders on steamers can be wired for power pickup. Being able to turn your engine gives you the advantage of being able to run meets etc. You would want to also add a passing track in the lower section of the layout also. this will give you the ability to run 2 trains at a time.
i like the idea of a siding there. i'm not sure though about a reversing section, do you mean a revering loop? and if so, where the heck would it fit?
Reverse loop: add two turnouts to form a crossover on the upper two tracks about a foot and a half from right end of the plan. Yard tracks: the plan shows a couple of spurs coming off the lower diagonal track just across the track from the engine terminal. Makes them look a little crowded to me and perhaps shorter than desired. If two spurs were added off the track on the top of the plan, paralleling the single spur there, there would be three fairly long parallel tracks going under the upper level bridge, which would make a pretty decent yard for this small a plan, both in appearance and operation. Scratchbuilding or kitbashing one section of bridge to entend the bridge onto the beginning of the upper level overpass would allow the yard tracks to be placed a little more towards the left end of the layout. Any possible place for staging on this plan? I imagine this layout being viewed and operated primarily from the side that appears at the top of the plan drawing. Perhaps the back of the upper level loop (bottom on the plan view) could be hidden and one or even two single-ended spurs could be cut in. You couldn't run a train into a hidden track and then out again without backing. But a train could be placed before an operating session ready to come out, then it could be operated from staging to the yard and then the same or another train be run TO hidden staging. Tileguy mentioned adding a passing track so two trains could be run. But remember, to run two trains in opposite directions around a circuit requires at least TWO passing tracks. Otherwise one train has the stay in the siding while the other train runs all the way around the layout and stops, then the first train must stay in the siding while the second train runs all the way around. Kenneth L. Anthony, Corpus Christi
This is my revision of the layout plan in this thread. I added crossovers to create a reverse loop at the upper level and at the low end. Since the low end has the turntable and engine terminal, that seemed the logical place to include yard tracks. Also, a spur was added near the turntable to provide a place where cars of coal can be spotted for a coaling tower. If the railroad uses diesel or oil-fired steamers, the same spur could be used for fuel oil delivery. At the upper loop, I squeezed in one layover staging track. [ 11. January 2004, 05:33: Message edited by: Kenneth L. Anthony ]
I like it, not much in the way of staging, or sidings etc.. Been trying to use that RTS myself to play, but video card conflict wont allow flexy track. Did you use RTS to make that? Very similar to what Im lookin for but mine is a little bigger. thanks Bruce.
Ranchero, I'm surprized nobody mentioned this, but a standard door is 30x80, not 30x72. Don't rob yourself of space if you don't need to. Also, if you have the space, you could go 36x80 using a larger door designed for handicapped access for a nominal increase in cost.
I was curious, in Ho scale there is alot of talk of operations and I've always associated that with sidings, switching, industries and what not. I don't see that as much in N. Since I am new to these forums it's possible that I've simply yet to stumble onto such a conversation. But many of the layouts I see that are smaller have a lot of track but only a few little sidings here and there. Is it more difficult to do switching with N scale due to the smaller size? Again I'm new here so it just may be that I've not discovered that aspect of N scale yet.
Thanks for the plexiglass advice - noted. Kenneth: look how you influenced my track plan: South Pacific Lines . Many thanks.
Sometimes, its just a space issue, trying to get a long train running, or some decent layout size, then you just dont have much left.... Different layouts for different reasons, some are designed to just run, others to do everything... Its harder in HO with the bigger size (dont know why it looks so big nowdays!), but interesting point.
I was wondering if the smaller size of the engines and turnouts caused a problem due to their small size. I've heard some problems with older engines and newer atlas track that could cause a problem. I love switching and operations and would have a layout that allowed for plenty of it. (Still need at least one oval of track cause there is just something cool about watching and listening to the trains going 'round) I would hate to get into the scale to find out that it's just to much of pain with uncoupling and stuff.
The operations between HO and N are no different....except in N they don't take nearly as much space.
