Hello to everyone! Just joined, and first post (hope I got it in the right spot!)...the time has come that after 15-years of a table top oval layout, that I finally have the space to setup a nice n-scale layout in my new home office. So my daughter, son, and I have been playing around in RailModller, and we are currently on version 19 of our thoughts/design...but we are to the point that we feel we need some expect advise on the layout design. The bench top for the layout, is a L-shape, 144"x132" and 36" deep. We are using Kato Unitrack, since we have plenty of it, and we really like the looks and ease of it. (in the design, you will see gaps, but we are using the expandable Unitrack pieces there.) So we are attaching the v19 of our design, and outside of the trestle bridges going over a pond scene that we will cut out of the base foam, the layout is flat. Since where we live in Indiana is flat. We are using the 1960-1970's era for NKP and N&W, since my grandfather was an engineer for both railroads. Any and all feedback is welcomed (good or bad) on the layout, and overall approach we have started. Thank you to all in advance, for any feedback or comments. Scott PS...the kids named the railroad FH&A RR (Frankfort, Hillisburg, and Alhambra Railroad), those are the locations my grandfather lived, when he was a engineer.
Looks good to me. My only suggestion would be to think about making it 32" wide so it would be easier to reach the back of the layout when a derailment occurs (and they ALWAYS happen in the back of the layout, never in the front). Other than that, start building!
Great point on the 32" versus 36". I will see what I can do with the layout, and repost the updates design. Thank you very much for your input! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Actually, 30" is generally accepted as maximum depth for a reach-in layout. (If you can access the layout from all sides, no problem.) I'm using 30" HCDs on my layout, and personal experience tells me it's the maximum width I'd want. In fact, I would have gone narrower if I could have, and often wish I would have. I'm 6-foot-1, so shorter people (your kids, perhaps) would likely be more comfortable with narrower benchwork. Whatever you choose, have fun! Jim
if at all possible, IMHO, the 36" HCD is the way to go so as to be able to use kato 15/16.3" radius track. keep in mind what radius will best serve your needs. fwiw respectfully Gary
That is the problem I am having, with moving from 36" to 32", or even 30"...the radius. We are looking if we can rearranged office in a way, the would allow space walk around the "back" OS the layout. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Here are a few quick thoughts.... Depends how high off the floor the layout will be..as to whether you can reach the back of it. I suggest doing a 'mock up' of a small section. Maybe just using a cardboard box that is 36 inches deep at the planned layout height. I have always used 36 in deep layouts. As Gary said...you will need the 36 to be able to use the larger radii curves. The only 'stretch' may be that upper left corner. But I have never had a problem reaching a corner. One other thing I see is LOTS of rerailer/street crossing sections. With Unitrack...personally I dont use them. The stuff is just that reliable ! If you do have a loco or car 'jump' the track...just reach over and set it back on...OR...Use a Unitrack rerailer ramp ;-)
You would only need the 36" depth on the two ends of the layout so that you can make the 180 degree turns. Think of it as a a funny looking dogbone
Everyone, great feedback and ideas. Thank you...even more important, the kids are loving the feedback. Good times. So tomorrow we will try the mock setup, and see how we get along on bench height, and depth...see how it goes. On the "dogbone" idea, my son is on it, and doing a v21. We will see what that turns out like. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As far as the depth, I would mock it up and if you are comfortable with 36" keep it otherwise make it smaller. Regardless, I would simplify the back side. Maybe have some staging tracks back there but not any real switching.
From an aesthetics standpoint, all the track runs as parallel as possible with the front fascia. This is not good from an artistic/design standpoint. Try angling it a bit here and there for a much improved look. All the straights are arrow straight too, and while some of that is okay, throwing in "photogenic" curves of very large radii (100"+) is very good for "looks", but you really can't do it with Kato Unitrack (one of its many limitations). Sort of along the same vein, your front fascia doesn't have to be straight...it can be curved, with rounded corners and a much more "organic" look to it. With proper benchwork, it's easy to do, and not often seen on "tabletop" layouts, which it appears yours is going to be. Cheerio! Bob Gilmore
In addition to that, consider putting a "short" industry or two and possibly a station between the mainline and the front fascia. It's residual "oval thinking" to have all the non mainline activity on the inside of a layout rather than taking the more interesting route of having the mainline "slalom" through industries and scenery.
As someone who grew up with the NKP (Parents- office- and grandfather - conductor, who worked there their whole lives) and worked there as a fireman in the mid sixties and thus worked for both the NKP and N&W, that railroad was as straight as an arrow from Belleview Ohio to Frankfort Indiana. I also understand the reasoning of making the tracks not parallel with the fascia, however the NKP did not slalom like we do on ski slopes here in Colorado. Yet the concept put forth of "slaloming" the fascia could work very well and allow some scenery between the tracks and the facia at various location along the fascia. In addition, there is a group called the Nickel Plate Technical and Historical Society (nkpths.org) that has a tremendous amount of information, including track plans for $10, and many very knowledgeable modelers. It might be worth an on line visit and perhaps a membership. There are emails nearly every day with discussions form this group, NICKELPLATEROADmodeler@yahoogroups.com and NKP@yahoogroups.com that focuses on the history of the railroad. By the way, I am focused on operations and am building a 2 level layout with a 3 level oval helix to go from level to level and have about 8 scale miles of mainline. Enjoy the NKP, I made many runs to Frankfort for Lima.
So I combined a lot of the input and ideas, and here is the updated version the kids and I came up with. We also did the spot checks on the 36" depth, and the bench height, and we are good at 36" depth. My son can reach all but the back of the "L", and I can reach it without any issues. As for the little girl...she wants to "drive" and decorate the buildings and other parts that are going in the scenery. Hopefully this version looks a lot better overall. Agree...I was (probably still am), stuck in the "oval thinking." It is all I have ever had, and am excited to alter the layout for make more sense of becoming a "real layout" than just track. It is our first...hopefully more to come as we grown on this one.
That is awesome...My grandfather ran from Peoria to Frankfort, and Frankfort to Lima! I have been on NKP Tech and History site many times, and love the information there. I have many pictures that I have submitted, and my NKP inventory of "what is or was" out there in n-scale comes from their great listings. For those I could not find in n-scale, I found an incredible guy in Florida, that will take and strip "likes" from other road names, and paint/decal them in NKP for me, from the pictures. One of the structures we are building for this layout, is the still standing NKP painted/named, calling tower in the Frankfort yards.
The last version will be better looking than the first. I had a layout that was around the walls 3 feet deep and had success. The key is how tall you are and what length your arms are. I am 6' and got by just fine, some of the guys in our club are shorter and have troubles on the long reach. It is a slight reach to get to the back, but I found the extra space really helped the overall layout operation. Bruce Stikkers
Listen, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. I think it's wonderful you're going to build this with your kids, and I hope you all have a lot of fun. But 36" depth is quite a reach, if you'll pardon the pun. The only thing I can assume is you're planning a very low layout height, in which case I can see where you might be able to reach in 36". But keep in mind you have to do more than REACH that deep, you have to be able to WORK back there. Try re-railing a car that's 3 feet away. Try cleaning track that's 3 feet away. Try ballasting track that's 3 feet away. I'm not trying to be argumentative, and to prove it I'm just going to keep my mouth shut from here on out. I would just hate to see you and your kids get started on something and then eventually hit an obstacle that saps your enthusiasm for the layout. Good luck! And remember, progress pictures are always welcome! Jim
While I understand where you are coming from...one has to realize a few things. Track is NOT laid 36 inches back on 36 inch benchwork. Normally one leaves about 2 inches from any edge. That already brings tracks to only 34 from the front. Along with that...look how many guys have layouts that are 48+ inches up from the floor. Most use some kind of step stool assistance to reach things on the whole layout even when everything is done. Then...there is the fact the OP is using Unitrack. The possiblity of derailments is a whole lot less likely with Unitrack then any other track...even at turnouts. I wouldnt compromise layout depth and larger curves for the fear of derailments or scenery work. JMO YMMV.
Just an afterthought... Why is there such animosity towards layouts that are less then 48 from the floor ? Every time someone says their layout is way up there...I get visions of them looking like Kilroy when they are watching trains go by..>LOL
