Planning a new layout. Previous N scale has only been a module and little pizza layout in the living room. I have decided to commandeer a odd corner in a basement room and make a shelf layout with a running loop in the corner (because sometimes I just like to watch the trains.) Modeling 90's railroading mostly small branch line diesel stuff but in looking at the space the area I'm modeling also has a mainline run with Amtrak and back then Conrail running on it. In HO I wouldn't have tried running bigger locos and passenger cars, but in N it looks more feasible. The questions is should I try to make the loop as big a radius as possible (something between 11 and 15" ) or leave it tighter and just have a point to point mainline. and more room for track-age and scenery? Or put another way would a few Amfleet coaches and a F40PH or AEM-7 or maybe a SD45 look silly going around a 12" radius?
Most of those 80-85 foot cars are best on the 15 inch and above as far as operation and the manufacture probably has a stated minimum radius listed somewhere. I know that MTs heavyweights are for 17 inch or above. The truck mounted coupler versions are much better on a tighter radius that the body mounted cars.
The direct answer to your question is yes, the only exception is the F40PH is short enough not to look too out of place....... on a 12" radius
Thanks. I might keep branch locomotives on the loop then and keep it at 11"R. I'd rather not make the shelf deeper then I have too. I will keep the main line but run it point to point from one end of the layout to the other which should give me a decent run with a couple passenger stations. Plus I know on some runs in the NE corridor Amtrak did push pull so that can be semi prototypical.
The vast majority of N-scale diesels and passenger cars will run on 9 3/4" radius track. It may look a little odd but most will do it. The Kato Amfleet cars will run on 9 3/4" but 12" would be better. Also, most smaller steam will run on 9 3/4" as well.
I have run a bunch of new and old rolling stock on 9.75", 11", and larger radius turns. There are many types of rolling stock that will run on 9.75" radius curves - in particular, 8-wheel GP, F-unit, and switcher diesels, and shorter freight cars. But I want to encourage you to do 11" instead - it is so much less limiting and troublesome than 9.75" curves. At the very least, limit any 9.75" curves to certain places in the yard or on "non-main" lines. Be aware that any place where a body-mounted coupler connects to a truck-mounted coupler is a potential problem. Many modern locos use body-mounted couplers. I modified a few freight cars to have a body-mounted coupler on one end and a truck-mounted coupler on the other, to serve as an adapter car when pulling strings of freight cars having truck-mounted couplers behind such a loco. As others have noted above, full length passenger cars (80-85 feet) are a much bigger problem. The AEM-7 loco on the other hand was about 51 feet long, and will look fine by itself. Whether or not the 80-85 foot long passenger cars operate ok on your tighter curves, they will look odd. If you want to do it anyway for fun, that's all good, but just be aware the appearance will be off.
Wide curves are the best curves and less overhang makes for a much better looking passenger train. If BarstowRick.com was up and running you'd find some information shared there not only by myself but other modelers. My son in-law says they are working on it and hope to get it back up and running this year.
I think a realistic minimum of 12 inches for any modern 4000+ HP six axle diesels, cars over 50 feet, or 8 coupled steam is what everyone should strive for, and up to 15-16 inches if you can manage it. A larger radius will simply look and operate MUCH better.
Took a look at the space last night again and noodled in Auto cad this morning. 11" radius for the loop track is doable. I also remembered I have a amtrak car in a box I bought at an estate sale. I put it on my little pizza with 9.75" sectional track and it ran OK but didn't look so good. I think I will run 4 axle diesels on the loop track and keep the main line as a point to point with a couple 15" curves. This might be a bit easier if I do find a decent AEM-7 in N scale and decide to run Catenary not to have to make all the tight curves.
There is a difference between having all the cars stay on the rails and having them look good. If you want to have staged trains run through with long cars and then turn at the ends to run back through the other way, why not hide the turning loops so you won't have to see the unrealistic looking angles between cars and their associated overhangs? The loops could be behind a backdrop or under another layer of track. Just be sure you have some way to access those loops that is commensurate with your age/agility.
Well stated Maletrain. I'll have some 11" radius curves on my road, but they'll be hidden (and accessible). I have a Kato Unitrack temporary test oval on the floor and am quite pleased with the reliability I'm seeing. I think a lot of us must strike a compromise on curvature.
Yeah the rear of the loops will be hidden by urban scenery, so I may use them still for some larger trains, it's more a matter of trying to push the loop bigger with a resulting loss of some other aspects of the layout. I think I would prefer they stay at 11 and have more room for some other things.
The loops don't have to be the same radius all the way around. You could use a section or more of larger radius curve where it is still visible to get a bit of a start on the turn, then go to the small radius where the loop is hidden. This has 2 advantages: (1) it gives a longer visible run for the mainline, and (2) it provides some easement going into the curves. If you haven't already, I urge you to look into easements. They avoid the abrupt change from straight to curve. Real railroads use them because they have a large affect on how it feels to ride in the trains, minimizing the jerk to the side as the track starts to curve, plus other advantages for equipment that are too complex to explain, here. Model railroads look better with easements because they make the model look more like the real thing, rather than a toy made with track sections. In addition, easements on model railroads are helpful in running longish cars around tightish curves, because they actually reduce the amount of car end mismatch at the place where it would otherwise be maximum (going into a curve from a straight section). Realistic easements require flex track and are complex to lay out. Modeling them realistically is the subject of several articles. However, even when using sectional track, much of the visual effect and nearly all of the operational effect can be achieved by starting tightish curves with a section of less-tight curvature. For instance, when I am using Kato track sections of 15" or 13-3/4" or even 12-1/2", I start (and end) each curve with one 15° section of 19" radius. For your plan, the use of even the 15" sections might still help with the 11" curves. For the operational benefits, the length of the easement needs to be at least about as long as your longest cars. Longer is better, but with decreasing additional benefit.
I was reading about about easements last night. The article mentioned bending the flex track to the radius desired then offsetting 1/8" from the straight track to allow for a small easement. Never tried one myself before my old 4x8 HO was planned using sectional track (built with a combination flex and sectional) and N scale pizza is all sectional.
Yes, easements provide a big benefit. And you might be surprised to find they don't necessarily demand a lot of extra room. If you run 15" radius all the way around a curve, you need two and a half feet of width, while 11-and-a-fraction fits a semi-circle into two feet. But if all the semi-circle is 11-and-a-fraction except the first curved track in and the last curved track out, you improve smooth operation quite a bit, but only widen the diameter of the circle by only an inch or so.
On my N scale layout the minimum radius for the mainline is an 18" radius and I push out to 24" whenever possible. On my sidings and in my yards 15" radius is the minimum. I think I said earlier the wider curves are the best curves and that would be true on any scale railroad. Why 9 3/4 inch radius curves became the standard for N Scale is beyond me. Unless you consider space utilization. If you take your HO scale layout where you built with 15", 18" and 22" radius curves and convert that over to N scale. I promise you will be amazed with the results. That's the guideline I used to build my N Scale layout. Like it a lot.
The most logical reason that the 9.75 inch radius came into being was space requirements in countries outside of the US where homes were generally smaller and thus the layouts were more space constricted. Arnold one of the earlier manufacturers of N is generally credited with the 9.75 R. track along with the Rapido coupler and their sales where primarily in Europe during the early years. There were even tighter stuff like 7.75 R. turnouts and I have some that are still in operation that are European manufactured. The Japanese are probably next with some tight radius stuff again because of limited space in housing. Peco has 9 inch radius turnouts which I use.
Over the years as I've watched things progress in a most interesting pattern. The reasons why and the end product have proven to be toy like but I still bit (hook line and sinker) and ended up with my own version of N Scale. No reason why you can't do the same. Make it yours.
Well, yes--by our standards. Even your luxurious curves are toy-like by U.S. prototype standards. But equipment is more compact and curves are tighter in Europe, in Japan, and indeed, in the whole world as compared to the U.S. and Canada. And I'm not talking about inside homes. I'm talking about the actual railroads.
Even here in America you can still find old roadbeds of standard and narrow gauge that had tight radius curves. And...yes...my curves on my layout are still tight when compared to the 1:1 foot scale. Sigh!
